Ogallala what?

[ApatheticNoMore]

I 'm posting this just because it's new info for me, stuff I've never heard of before (I'm not sure what rock I've been living under all my life :)). So maybe you'll also find it interesting.

I read this (rather alarmist, hyperbolic) article (and you know how unreliable some British newspapers can be)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/8359076/US-farmers-fear-the-return-of-the-Dust-Bowl.html

But it was just alarmist enough to stir enough interest to google for things more reliable.

Apparently:
- About 27 percent of the irrigated land in the United States overlies the Ogallala aquifer system, which yields about 30 percent of the nation's ground water used for irrigation. It supports nearly one-fifth of the wheat, corn, cotton, and cattle produced in the United States. It lies under parts of: Wyoming, South Dakota, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas.
- This land is naturally semi-arid and is being irrigated from this aquifer. It is not relying just on rainfall harvest for irrigation
- This aquifer is being depleted, less rain replenishes it than is being pumped out
- It is estimated to last from several decades to 60 years before it is depleted (on the plus side at least most of us will be dead then ;))
- This is also happening to groundwater all over the world

Who knew? I mean I understand water politics, but I thought they were mostly confined in the U.S. to California and it's pumping of the Colorado river. I didn't' know they were much more widespread than this. So CA is not the only dry agricultural climate requiring unsustainable water. I've seen the aqueducts which stretch this state, I've never looked (or even knew to look) for signs of the Ogallala from a plane.

So we're pumping out an aquifer at much higher rate than the rate of replenishment and we wonder if that's sustainable :|(. Now water doesn't just disappear, it comes down again as rain, goes into the oceans etc.. So in theory it could be replaceable, but if it goes into the oceans etc. it then requires desalinization I suppose (and then transport depending on where it is going I guess)? Plus of course water is also being polluted including even this aquifer (from farming etc..). Peak EVERYTHING .....

sources:
http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Oc-Po/Ogallala-Aquifer.html#ixzz1FzCd9f2T
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer
http://www.uswaternews.com/archives/arcsupply/3scisay2.html

[loosechickens]

yep, it's true......we are like spendthrifts squandering inherited capital, our natural resources that we have been squandering without regard for sustainability for most of our history.

there is a piper to be paid, and worries about water are probably more serious than worries about oil. We can, and have done without oil in the relatively recent past, but life MUST have water.

[ApatheticNoMore]

To me the shocking part is not only is current food production relying on non-renewable petroleum (the green revolution etc.) formed in the Jurrassic (?) Most of us probably already know that. But it is also relying on non-renewing water of which "much of the water is probably paleowater, dating back to the last ice age and probably earlier".

It's like discovering a not very well hidden room in house, only to discover another more hidden room within that hidden room :). It is like ... wait a second ... how deep does this go? We are CURRENTLY feeding ourselves by reliance on non-renewable resources (and not just one resource!) formed MILLIONS and MILLIONS of years ago. How far into over-reach is that?

[SRP]

And that's how we manage to sustain an otherwise unsusutainable MONSTER population on this pretty little planet.

[Zigzagman]

The water wars are just beginning in Central Texas. Many have fought hard to try and move toward sustainability of our water supply for years. Instead of economic development being based upon the natural resources available in an area (read water) it seems to be working just the opposite. The building, housing, commercial development is approved and built then the pursuit of water begins.

It is a totally political exercise in Texas because of our "rule of capture". This rule, which was adopted in 1904, gives each landowner the right to capture an unlimited amount of groundwater by tapping into the underlying aquifer. The landowner is not liable for injury to another adjacent landowner caused by excessive or harmful pumping, other than from subsidence, as long as the effect was not intentional. By relying on this rule, our historical approach has been to exercise little control of groundwater pumping. The rule of capture may have been adequate when neighboring landowners were withdrawing similar and limited amounts of water. However, with the threat of largescale withdrawals of groundwater (up to 500K acre-feet per year) for export to neighboring areas (San Marcos, New Braunfels, San Antonio, etc) via pipeine, in some cases up to 250 miles, usually means that the local "Groundwater Districts" are overruled at the State level (legislature) as necessary for economic growth. Of course eminent domain is used to acquire land for the pipeline, etc.

Think about this. Semi-arid Central Texas has the largest water park in the nation (Schlitterbahn), a Sea World, Riverwalk (not supplied for the most part by a river) and almost continuous development along the I-35 corridor which is over the Edwards Ocquifer.

IMHO, development should only happen when the natural resources of the area support it. Not when some politician can be bought and we need to end this "rule of capture". It creates an attitude of "If I don;t do it (sell water rights) then somebody else will". In Texas, like most other places, people will sell Grandma for a buck.

Peace

[janharker]

Sprinkler systems in a semi-arid area make no sense. I watched them go round and round when I lived in Kansas. And when you fly over in a plane and see those round green circles, you should weep. And in the end, we'll pay for it.

I've always said that if you want to invest in something, find an ethical-minded water company in Canada. Because they have the water. And when we use up what we've got, Canada will be the provider while the ice melts.

[bae]

We are relying for our agricultural productivity on the destruction of topsoil that took millennia to accumulate, on fossil groundwater, and on non-renewable petrochemicals. Good luck with that, over time...

[freein05]

Water, oil, topsoil, coal when will people realize these are non-renewable. I find it so sad that some day in the future it will be realized when it is too late.

[bae]

Well, water in general is a renewable resource, it's that whole "water cycle" business. But when you are pumping it out from aquifers faster than the recharge rate, you've got problems. Topsoil is renewable too, but the time involved can be rather lengthy.

I suppose even coal and oil are "renewable", if you are patient enough.

The key is to look at the overall system, consumption rates, production rates, amount of side-effects that can be handled by the ecosystem without unacceptably negative consequences, and so on.

Conservation of energy/mass, and the laws of thermodynamics are pretty harsh taskmasters.

[puglogic]

Indeed, bae.

I love this "pretty little planet" but fear that we (as a species) do not have the intestinal fortitude to make sustainable choices. Yet.

We talk about the Ogallala Aquifer a lot here in CO. Not much action, lots of arguing. The decades to come will be very interesting indeed.

[freein05]

bae said "Conservation of energy/mass, and the laws of thermodynamics are pretty harsh taskmasters." This is so true and you are correct in correcting my statement on non -renewable's.

You being a conservative/libertarian and I being a liberal/progressive agree I think on the need for conservation and most of all population control. Without conservation and population control the earth and man are headed for a disaster and it may not be too far off.

[cgelsie]

So, will this part of the USA have the same sort of problems that South Africa seems to be having as aquifers are deleted? Sinkholes and subsequent issues with forced moving of citizens to safer areas.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12087076

I remember sinkholes being one of the worries of a co-worker 5 or 6 years ago when he and his wife moved back to South Africa to take care of their parents. He used to get quite frustrated with how casually most Canadians treat water.

[Gardenarian]

Thanks for sharing this - it was news to me as well!

[creaker]

So, will this part of the USA have the same sort of problems that South Africa seems to be having as aquifers are deleted? Sinkholes and subsequent issues with forced moving of citizens to safer areas.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12087076

I remember sinkholes being one of the worries of a co-worker 5 or 6 years ago when he and his wife moved back to South Africa to take care of their parents. He used to get quite frustrated with how casually most Canadians treat water.


Salt water intrusion and compaction are other issues. And there's not much that can be done to correct these after they happen.