Prince William Health District Offers Essential Services to Well Owners

Last week I went down to Woodbridge to meet with Marcus Haynes, who is an Environmental Health Specialist with the Prince William Health District and the “water and well guy” for the county.  The Prince William Health District is a branch office of the Virginia Department of Health that administers the health related laws throughout the state. Marcus is part of a six person team located in Building 5 at the Prince William County Complex in Woodbridge that administers the health laws and regulations relating to private water supplies and sewage systems, water well construction regulations, and septic and alternative on-site sewage system construction and operation regulations. In addition, the PW Health District provides help and guidance for private well and traditional and alternative septic systems.

Marcus has been with the PW Health District since 1977, starting on the job the day Prince William County first implemented county wide well construction regulations. Those regulations were very progressive for their time and quite similar to the current sate wide regulation implemented in 1992 and still in effect today. Through experience, additional training and certification, Marcuse has an almost encyclopedic knowledge about the groundwater in our county and water wells in general. He knows the fracture density and thus groundwater availability in all of the county and thus knows where well yields are a problem. In years past he worked in conjunction with the US Geological Survey to develop their study of the extent of chlorinated solvent contamination in the Culpeper groundwater basin in Prince William County from the historic operations of IBM Corp.  

  

From 1970 to 1975, IBM used chlorinated solvents to degrease electrical components at its plant in Manassas, Virginia. Spills and poor disposal and containment practices contaminated the groundwater. The PW Health District was instrumental in identifying that the contamination had reached the (now abandoned) public supply wells and private wells serving about 32,000 people. Ultimately, IBM's funded the study of the groundwater (1), installed monitoring wells and under RCRA (federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) removed the contaminated soil and contained and/ or eliminated the contaminated groundwater. IBM connected homes with contaminated wells to Prince William County's water supply system which obtained other sources for water supply. It is hoped that these days pollution problems of this magnitude will be prevented by the modern web of environmental and health regulations, but it was with the help of the PW Health District that the problem was identified.

The mission of the PW Health District has remained consistent over the years; to protect the Public Health and the water resources of the Commonwealth. However the understanding of the interconnection of surface water, groundwater, and the increase in population and the density within the county of on-site private water and sewage treatment systems has changed the emphasis and nature of their work. There was a time when the homeowner was more directly involved in the construction of their water wells and septic/ on-site sewage systems and Marcus and the Environmental Health team did all certifications and dealt with the homeowner directly. These days many of these steps have been outsourced to the private sector while staff addresses problems, VPDES permit system and critical issues. Though each well requires a permit, the homeowner can have the well driller act as their agent and site visit, inspections and sampling can also be performed by the private sector. In subdivisions like mine, the well and water systems were built by four different subcontractors and the coordination depended on the interest, knowledge and skill of the project foreman. The homeowner is removed from the process until there is a problem and then lacking any background or knowledge the homeowner does not know where to turn. If you have a problem with a private water or waste system, call the PW Health District. If you have a concerns or want background information you might call me at the Virginia Master Well Owners Network for information.

Marcus would like to see the homeowner’s relationship with the PW Health District begin before the even purchasing a home. Information on all private wells drilled in the county after 1977 are in their files. The PW Health District has detailed files on over 20,000 wells. Before buying a home with a well you should have the well drillers log in hand. The “Water Well Completion Report” can tell you the age of the well, the depth of the well and casing, the approximate water zones and the yield at completion. These are the most basic facts needed to evaluate a well and water system.   The best place for all homeowners with private drinking wells to start is to call or email the PW Health District and request a copy of the “Water Well Completion Report” and ask if there is other information in the file. You should also take a look at the brochure “TenTips for Managing Your Private Well Water Supply.” Prince William Office of Internet Technology is working to computerize the Environmental Health Records in the GIS system, but for now you will have to call and ask them to email (or fax) you the information. Marcus’ phone number is (703) 792-6343 and his email is Marcus.Haynes@vdh.virginia.gov. (He is pretty responsive to routine requests, but water well problems move to the top of the pack and get fast turnaround. I have waited on hold while he has scanned and emailed me a copy of the “Water Well Completion Report” for a VAMWON client in stationed in Afghanistan with a water well in the county that had stopped working.)

When a well is drilled the only water sampling that takes place is for a coliform bacteria test. There are many chemicals and naturally occurring contaminants that could make water unpalatable or unhealthy. Before buying a home you need to perform a more extensive testing of the water. For this you can sample and test using a private certified laboratory or you can have the Health District sample your water for you. The Health District charges $80-85 for the first chemical or contaminant and $20 for each additional contaminant. The Virginia Household Water Quality Program recommends that water be analyzed for: iron, manganese, nitrate, lead, arsenic, fluoride, sulfate, pH, total dissolved solids, hardness, sodium, copper, total coliform bacteria and E. Coli bacteria (if coliform is present) and any industrial or agricultural chemicals that may be of concern at the particular location. That can add up to quite a bill, but a home is probably the most expensive purchase you will ever make- verify the quality of the water.

Marcus also recommends that before buying a home with a private well you verify the capacity and the condition of the well. His rule of thumb is 5 gallons/minute is a safe yield to supply on-demand water for a typical household, but homes can have much lower yielding wells and still provide adequate water at least sometimes. Be aware that over time the yield of a well falls and what was an adequate well 20 years ago may not be now. Groundwater enters a well through fractures in the bedrock and overtime debris, particles, and minerals clog up the fractures and the well production falls. Marcus said that the drop in water recharge rate could be 40-50% or more over 20-30 years. A low yielding well might have a functional life of only 25 years. So, if you are buying a home with an older well having a well driller perform an accurate assessment of the well’s capacity would be important. A well recharge can be estimated by running water from the pump and measuring the top of the water level in the well. If it does not change, then the well recharges faster than the pump rate. If the level is falling then the each foot in a typical 6 inch cased well represents about 1.5 gallons.  A more accurate rate to determine the recharge rate is to use a compressor to blow all the water (and deposits at the bottom of the well) out of the well and time how long it takes the well column to recharge. The well driller can also examine the condition of the casing, wiring, pump and the well components in the house. 

A private well owner is responsible for their water supply. The PW Health District is a treasure, providing incredible expertise and valuable services for well and septic system owners throughout the county. 

(1)    Nelms, D.L., and Richardson, D.L., 1990, Geohydrology and the occurrence of volatile-organic compounds in ground water, Culpeper basin of Prince William County, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report. This report funded by IBM is still a fabulous resource to understanding the groundwater in Prince William County. 

Emerging Contaminants in Your Drinking Water

Chemicals are everywhere, they exist in pharmaceuticals, household products, personal care products, plastics, pesticides, industrial chemicals, human and animal waste; they are in short, all around us. These chemicals include organics, inorganic, polymers, complex reaction products, and biological materials. The technology used for chemical analysis has advanced to the point that it is possible to detect and quantify nearly any compound known to human kind down to less than a nanogram per liter or parts per trillion (1/1,000,000,000,000). This enhanced analytical ability has allowed scientists to discover that trace levels of pharmaceuticals, potential endocrine disrupting compounds (EDC) and other emerging contaminants exist in much of our surface water and is appearing in some groundwater and persists in the water through conventional and some advanced treatments to also appear in our finished drinking water. The list above have all been found by testing performed by Fairfax Water.

All water on earth is part of the hydraulic cycle and is reused over the course of time. These traces of chemicals have managed to slip through the earth’s natural filtration and some of them through treatment systems to be identified in finished drinking water at extremely low levels. Finished and source water (as well as food and beverages) have been found to have low levels of these emerging chemicals, but whether this low level of exposure can cause any health effects or developments effects is unknown. Some of the emerging chemicals are or maybe endocrine disruptors, a class of chemicals that can mimic, block, or otherwise alter animal hormone responses. Endocrine disruptos can sometimes affect reproduction, development, and behavior, this is actually, how some pest control treatments are designed to work. A diverse group of chemicals called endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) come from a variety of sources. These chemical have diverse molecular structures. BPA is just one of these chemicals. These chemicals become of great concern when they are discovered to be potential human endocrine disruptors as DDT, dioxin, PCBs and the drug DES were found to be in the past. Traces of endocrine disrupting chemicals are seemingly found in every part of our world, including dust, soil, water, air, food, manufactured products, wildlife, and even ourselves.

 Findings in the Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in December 2009 and updated in 2012 indicate widespread exposure to some commonly used industrial chemicals. This exposure may have existed for decades but our ability to identify parts per trillion has allowed us to become aware of the ubiquitous exposure. The CDC measured 212 chemicals in the blood and/or urine of the participants. The samples were collected from participants in CDC's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), which is an ongoing survey that samples the U.S. population every two years. Each two year sample consists of about 2,400 people. What the report found was widespread exposure to some chemicals throughout the population tested. The implications of this ubiquitous exposure are unknown, but of concern. The detection of a chemical in a person’s blood or urine does not mean that it will cause health effects or disease. The guiding principal of toxicology is that there is a relationship between a toxic reaction (the response) and the amount of poison received (the dose). An important assumption in this relationship is that there is almost always a dose below which no response occurs or can be measured. So if the concentration of the contaminant was low enough there would be no toxic reaction, but that principal is being tested with endocrine disruption and advances in analysis.

The occurrence of intersex fish in the Potomac River, and in other areas of the US resulted in Congressional hearings in the fall or 2006 to inquire about the “State of the Science on EDCs in the Environment,” as well as the US EPA’s activities associated with EDCs. The hearings resulted in a White Paper; “AQUATIC LIFE CRITERIA FOR CONTAMINANTS OF EMERGING CONCERN” and validation of analytical methods. In 2009, a final list of 67 chemicals and the schedule for issuing Test Orders for Tier 1 screening was issued. EDSP Tier 1 screening requires a battery of assays tests to identify chemicals that have the potential to interact with the estrogen, androgen, or thyroid hormonal pathways. The battery consists of 11 assays that have been developed and validated by the Office of Chemical Safety Pollution and Prevention. EPA intends to evaluate the results of the Tier 1 screening assays to determine whether or not a chemical has the potential to interact with the estrogen, androgen or thyroid hormonal pathways and to assess the need for Tier 2 testing. The work proceeds slowly.

 Meanwhile, water utilities are left not knowing how to address findings of emerging contaminants in their source and finished drinking water. A study conducted by the Water Research Foundation concluded that using a combination of ozone and granular activated carbon in addition to coagulation, sedimentation, filtration and disinfection is effective in removing some of the broad categories of EDCs, personal care products and pharmaceuticals found in drinking water. The American Water Works Association Research Foundation developed an Acceptable Daily Intake level for many of the emerging contaminants that are being found in drinking water supplies. An Acceptable Daily Intake level or ADI is a measure of the amount of a specific substance in food or drinking water that can be ingested orally over a lifetime without an appreciable health risk. Unfortunately, the reference doses ADI levels were the historic levels established by the EPA based on non-endocrine toxicity and cancer risk. These screening levels were not developed to determine whether certain substances may have an effect in humans on estrogen, androgenic or thyroid-related pathways, but were developed to protect populations from acute toxicity or cancer.

 In addition to finding intersexed fish in the Potomac, researchers have found male amphibians with ovaries and female frogs with male genitalia and frogs with six legs and other mutations. The endocrine system of fish bears some similarity to the human endocrine system, but we do not live our lives in the waters of the Potomac. Two million people rely on the Washington Aqueduct for their drinking water and millions of people in other parts of the country drink source water with similar observed occurrences of endocrine disruption. The impact on human life and the ecosystem of these emerging contaminants is not known, but according to Dr. Robert Lawrence of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and other scientists there is the potential to for humans to develop premature breast cancer, have problems with reproduction, and develop congenital anomalies of the male genitalia. Some believe these kinds of impacts are happening at a broad and low level in society so that the occurrence is not alarming to the general public or easily noted without detailed statistics, other scientists can find no measurable risk. We can no longer live in the happy world where we believed that our water was contaminant free. In truth, we do not know these trace chemicals are hazardous and how pure water (and food) needs to be. More research is needed on these emerging contaminants. Resources are limited and we need to make wise use of our economic and natural resources that is impossible without information.

Fracking in Ohio

The U.S. Forest Service has withdrawn more than 3,200 acres of forest land from a federal oil and gas lease sale scheduled for Wednesday, December 7, 2011. The acreage in Athens, Gallia, and Perry counties was to be included in a broader sale of leases for 20,949 acres of federal land in Ohio, Mississippi and Louisiana. This land was to be auctioned for Hydraulic Fracturing. The Buckeye Forest Council, an environmental coalition, opposed the sale stating that the environmental statement was outdated because it did not mention hydraulic fracturing. In addition, they feel that Ohio does not have the regulatory framework to deal safely with fracking. The auction plan is on hold pending the review of the environmental impact statement which could take up to six months and lead to required revisions in the 2006 environmental impact statement which could delay the auction further. The 3,200 acres currently have nearly 1,300 shallow gas wells.

Our ability to recover natural gas buried a mile or more beneath the earth has increased. Advances in horizontal drilling which allows a vertically drilled well to turn and run thousands of feet laterally through the earth combined with advances in hydraulic fracking, the pumping of millions of gallons of water and laced with thousands of gallons of chemicals into shale at high pressure have increased our ability to recover natural gas from shale. Hydraulic fracking is a technology that was unknown 60 years ago. Until recently there was no economically feasible way to extract this gas.

Thought industry executives say fracking has been widely used for decades without problems, hydraulic fracturing has changed, the type of hydraulic fracturing the industry executives are talking about is coal bed formation fracturing. The volume of water needed for hydraulic fracturing varies by site and type of formation. Fifty thousand to 350,000 gallons of water may be required to fracture one well in a coal bed formation while two to five million gallons of water may be necessary to fracture one horizontal well in a shale formation. Water used for fracturing fluids is acquired from surface water or groundwater in the local area. Wastewaters from the hydraulic fracturing process must be disposed of and several ways have been used. Several of the techniques tried have been to dispose of the water underground using injection wells, discharged to surface waters after treatment in a waste water treatment plant designed to remove only solids and biological contaminants, or applied to land surfaces where it can seep into the water table.

The millions of gallons of water used for fracking shale contain up to 15,000 gallons of chemical additives. The chemicals serve to increases the viscosity of the water to a gel-like consistency so that it can carry the propping agent (typically sand) into the fractures to hold them open so that the gas can flow. Determining the proper methods for the safe disposal of the large quantities of this fracking fluid that may also contain contaminants from the geological formation including brines, heavy metals, radionuclides and organic contaminants is essential. The deep well injection of the waste in Texas is believed by scientists to have triggered the earthquakes near the Dallas airport. The impact of so much waste water on our water resources must be measured and monitored. Finally, care must be taken to avoid degradation of watersheds and streams from the industry itself as large quantities of heavy equipment and supplies are moved on rural roads and placed on concrete pads.

There are many possible routes to contamination from fracking. Errors in natural gas well construction or spills during injection can occur and lead to drinking water contamination. Drinking water wells contaminated by methane and potassium chloride have been reported. In Pennsylvania, flammable levels of methane in drinking water wells and potassium chloride levels high enough to salinize a drinking water aquifer have been reported in the vicinity of some gas wells. Fracking fluids can spill before they are injected and fluids recovered from fracturing can contaminate surface waters. The EPA estimates that 15-80% of the volume of fracking fluids injected will be recovered. The amount of fluid recovered depends on the site geology. Additionally, drilling into the subsurface through the water table can create pathways for fracking fluids or natural gas to find its way into water supplies and wells, if grouting isn’t properly done and the gas well properly constructed. The horizontal sections of the wells are not cased in cement and, introduce a potential point where fracking fluids can reach the outside of the grouting during flowback.

Hydraulic fracturing should continue slowly. A limited number of wells should be installed with careful monitoring of local and regional groundwater supplies as well as verification of proper well construction and wastewater recycling. Limiting fracking to a small area of the federal and state forest lands would allow the development of experience, knowledge and data, and could ensure careful restoration of the area. Instead of leaving unwary homeowners to the “land men” and their leases written entirely to favor and protect the drilling and gas companies, allow the state governments to develop standard language for the gas leases and the federal government to collect real time data in a secluded area away from residential impact.

Currently, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is studying the impact of hydraulic fracturing on water resources, but they are only focusing on the potential to directly pollute the drinking aquifer, not looking at potential changes in the groundwater hydrology. The geological impact of Hydraulic Fracturing should be examined by the U.S. Geological Survey. No one has ever looked at what the long term implications are for the hydraulic balance when fracking occurs. The removal of millions of gallons of water, the fracturing of the geological formations, and the injection of contaminants even at low concentrations into the subsurface could cause significant changes in groundwater flow and quality.

The current regulatory framework concerning hydraulic fracturing has a number of gaps that need to be addressed before unlimited fracking takes place. There were several recommendations made in the report of the Shale Gas Subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board. The report had a rational approach to regulation recommending disclosure, testing, evaluation and modification of regulation and practices based on the information and data obtained. It assumes information and data will be gathered and analyzed. That is not yet being done. The data needs to be collected on a state level and provided to the US Geological Survey and US EPA to consolidate on a national level.

In the past decade the advances in drilling and fracking technology have been adapted to exploit gas in the Barnett shale in the Fort Worth Basin in Texas and applied to a series of major shale gas deposits that could not have been viable without the advances in drilling and fracking. The Fayetteville shale, the Haynesville shale, the Marcellus shale reserves all in the United States and the Horn River shale reserves in Canada are now accessible. At the current rate of natural gas consumption North America is reported to have a 100-year supply of proven, producible reserves and even with expanded use of natural gas, there is more than a generation of currently accessible reserves. We need to treat both the earth and its resources with respect.

In truth we have no viable option to hydrocarbon fuel. When the oil and gas is gone it will be a poorer future without airplanes, freighters and trucks. Sailing ships will not transport raw materials and finished goods around the earth. Solar and wind power will produce unreliable power supplies and mankind will adapt (not happily) or discover new sources of fuel. Before that future world arrives, the shale gas and oil sands and whatever else is discovered will be exploited. There is no urgency, but you cannot permanently stop that trend. These deposits will become more valuable over time as the world becomes more desperate for energy. Now is the time to carefully develop and study the methods to exploit these resources without destroying or further damaging the earth.

Give the US Geological Survey the Well Data

It has long been known that natural gas was trapped in the tiny pore spaces that comprise shale rock, but that knowledge was useless. Until recently there was no economically feasible way to extract this gas. However, in the past decade our ability to recover natural gas buried a mile or more beneath the earth in these shale deposits has increased. Advances in horizontal drilling which allows a vertical well to turn and run thousands of feet laterally through the earth combined with advances in hydraulic fracking, the pumping of millions of gallons of water laced with proprietary chemicals into shale at high pressure to release the natural gas stored in the pore spaces have increased our ability to recover natural gas from that shale. This combined with the increase in the price of natural gas has spurred the race to develop wells to exploit the natural gas from a series of major shale gas deposits in North America that could not have been viable without these advances in drilling and fracking. The Fayetteville shale, the Haynesville shale, the Marcellus shale reserves all in the United States and the Horn River shale in Canada are now accessible. At the current rate of natural gas consumption North America is reported to have a 100-year supply (at the current rate of use) of proven, producible reserves.

Natural gas is now seen as an abundant domestic energy resource. When it burns, natural gas emits the lowest amount of carbon dioxide per calorie of any fossil fuel and burns cleanly because of this natural gas could be the “bridge fuel” in the long-term transition away from fossil fuels to renewable energy or whatever the future and science will discover. In the 1990’s natural gas, sold for $2 per million BTUs after peaking in 2005 natural gas is now about $4 per million BTUs, making the extraction of shale gas viable and profitable. The U.S. uses natural gas to produce 21 % of its electricity. Coal is used to product 48 % of electricity in the United States and is still much cheaper than natural gas for generating electricity, but new regulations by the EPA on carbon emissions could decrease that financial advantage because coal burns dirtier than natural gas. Recent ambitious plans to convert the nation to renewable energy: build nuclear plants and solar and wind farms, were made under the assumption that natural gas prices would average $7 to $9 per million BTUs. At that level, electricity prices would have been high enough to make wind and nuclear power look affordable. Now, with natural gas at $4 per million BTUs and more gas reserves announced each year, many of these projects suddenly look too expensive. Shale sourced natural gas could profoundly change the future of our nation and world we live in; however we need to remember that the gas still is a limited resource and be cautious about what other impacts fracking might have on our other resources especially the hydraulic balance.

Though there has been tremendous concern for the potential direct adverse impact that fracking may have on drinking water, geologists and engineers believe that there is little risk that the fracking “water,” a mix chemicals and water, will somehow infiltrate groundwater reserves though a fissure created by the fracking. It is believed though not documented and tested that the intervening layers of rock would prevent a fissure from extending thousands of feet to the water table. There are other risks in how we build wells and fracture the shale. Documented contamination to drinking water wells due to seepage of fracking water into drinking water wells through improperly sealed or abandoned drilling wells can be controlled to some extent by recommendations made in the report of the Shale Gas Subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board. The report had a rational approach to regulation recommending disclosure, testing, evaluation and modification of regulation and practices based on the information and data obtained. It assumes information and data will be gathered and analyzed. That is not being done.

Though the energy companies are beginning to gather baseline data for drinking water wells in the areas being fracked, the data collection is not ongoing nor broad enough. The data that is being collected is not adding to the base of knowledge, but rather I suspect to demonstrate that stray gas was a pre-existing condition of the drinking water wells. What is needed is an ongoing monitoring and data collection of the potential impacts to our water supply from hydraulic fracking. Drilling requires large amounts of water to create a circulating mud that cools the bit and carries the rock cuttings out of the borehole. After drilling, the shale formation is then stimulated by hydraulic fracking, using up to 3 million gallons of water. Data needs to be gathered on the impact to water resources of supplying water for the construction of thousands of wells per year. For gas to flow out of the shale, nearly all of the water injected into the well during fracking must be recovered and disposed of. Though less than 0.5% by volume, the proprietary chemicals are 15,000 gallons in the waste from the typical 3 million gallon hydro fracking job. The chemicals serve to increases the viscosity of the water to a gel-like consistency so that it can carry the propping agent (typically sand) into the fractures to hold them open so that the gas can flow. Determining the proper methods for the safe disposal of the large quantities of this fracking fluid that may also contain contaminants from the geological formation including brines, heavy metals, radionuclides and organic contaminants and monitoring the impact from this disposal must also be done. The impact of so much waste water on our water resources must be measured and monitored. Finally, care must be taken to avoid degradation of watersheds and streams from the industry itself as large quantities of heavy equipment and supplies are moved on rural roads and placed on concrete pads. The watersheds must be monitored. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2009/3032/pdf/FS2009-3032.pdf

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) collects, monitors, analyzes, and provides scientific understanding about natural resource conditions, issues, and problems. The USGS employs 10,000 scientists, technicians, and support staff that serve the Nation by providing reliable scientific information to describe and understand the Earth; minimize loss of life and property from natural disasters; manage water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; and enhance and protect our quality of life. The USGS is an amazing national resource that we have failed to fully utilize in the understanding of the impacts of hydraulic fracking. The USGS should determine the parameters that need to be monitored for a base line and on an ongoing or periodic basis and industry should provide that data in a usable format to the USGS. For once let’s develop a resource carefully and correctly without scaring the earth or damaging our water supply. We’ve lost our margin for error.

California Groundwater in 2011

In 1995, the Pacific Institute published a report that summarized the condition of the water supply in California stating that “California’s current water use is unsustainable. In many areas, ground water is being used at a rate that exceeds the rate of natural replenishment…” In their 2005 the Pacific Institute published another report. Pointing out that water demand and use continued to exceed sustainable supply. Mining of groundwater unconstrained by environmental or ecological limits will doom California.

In addition to NGOs the State of California has routinely prepared water scenarios and projections as part of long-term water planning. The California Water Plan, a regular analysis published by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) is the major guide book for water planning within the state. The latest version of the Plan was released for public review in January 2009 and stated: “We must adapt and evolve California’s water systems more quickly and effectively to keep pace with ever changing conditions now and in the future. Population is growing while available water supplies are static and even decreasing.”

In August 2009 the Environmental Water Caucus published California Water Solutions Now under a grant from the Goldman Institute pulling together a unified view and list of recommendations from a diverse group of stakeholders. The report points out that California’s state water agencies cannot report on how much water is actually being used, where it is being used, where it is being diverted to, how much is being diverted, or how many diversions are illegal. Where it does have such data, the State Water Board estimates that the number of illegal diversions may be over 40 % of the number of active permits and licenses, which also fails to comply with the law in many cases.

No one has publically questioned the conclusions of these studies, yet life went on as before with unsustainable water use in the Central Valley where massive surface-water diversions cannot meet all the agricultural and urban water demand and the groundwater has continued to be used to meet the deficit. California lacks the political will to balance their water budget, and nature is an unforgiving banker. Whenever you pump water from a well it has to be balanced by a loss of water from storage in the groundwater aquifer. Groundwater is recharged from rain and sources of surface infiltration. If too much water is pumped, water tables can drop in unconfined aquifers, water pressure fall in confined aquifers, surface water and ecology could be impacted and in some locations with fine grained soils compaction and subsidence can take place. Some of the storage capacity of the groundwater basins has been permanently destroyed.

According to U.S. Department of Commerce, California’s GDP (gross domestic product) was slightly more than $1.8 trillion in 2007. GDP is the value of all goods and services produced in California. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, the total value of the agricultural output from the state’s farms and ranches was $36.6 billion in 2007, up from $31.8 billion the year before. This means that crop, meat and dairy sales account for about 2% of the state economy. However, when you count all the secondary economic impacts: wine making and sales, chesse making, olive oil production, juice making, food processing and packing this number grows to 7.9% of the California economy.In terms of national agricultural output, $36.6 billion in revenue represents 12.8% of the U.S. total. The state accounted for 17.6 % of crops, and 7 % of the U.S. revenue for livestock and livestock products. California produces about half of U.S. grown fruits, nuts, and vegetables. Several of these crops are currently produced only in California and California agriculture is entirely dependent on irrigation. Over 75% of all surface water is diverted to agriculture. California does not have adequate water to meet the demands of the agricultural sector. California feeds much of the nation.

The U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Groundwater Resources Program is conducting large-scale multiyear regional studies of groundwater availability in the United States. The USGS has found that the volume of groundwater stored in the earth is decreasing in many regions of the United States especially California. The extent of groundwater level declines across the United States has not been monitored before now. Our demands on the groundwater have increased and our understanding of groundwater has improved. It is now very clear we are running a groundwater deficit.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1323/pdf/Circular1323_book_508.pdf

In general the Sacramento Valley receives more precipitation than the San Joaquin Valley, which includes the San Joaquin and Tulare Groundwater Basins, and despite the surface water diversions from the Sacramento Valley they are using less groundwater than the drier San Joaquin Valley and the groundwater level as reported by the USGS Central Valley Ground Waster Study has remained fairly stable in the past few decades, falling less than 10 million acre feet of groundwater storage near the end of drought periods and making up that loss and more after wet periods. The Tulare Groundwater Basin at the southern most portion of the San Joaquin Valley has seen a loss of 70 million acre feet of groundwater storage since 1962. Half of this loss, about 35 million acre feet has taken place since 1985.

In the early 1960s, groundwater pumping caused water levels to decline to historic lows on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, which resulted in large amounts of surface subsidence. In the late 1960s, the surface-water delivery system began to route water from the wetter Sacramento Valley and Delta regions to the drier, more heavily pumped San Joaquin Valley. The surface-water delivery system was fully functional by the early 1970s, and there was some groundwater-level recovery in the northern and western parts of the San Joaquin Valley where subsidence was limited. The Tulare Groundwater Basin, the hottest and driest part of the Central Valley, has continued to have declines in groundwater levels and accompanying depletion of groundwater storage. The limits of the water not the Sacramento budget problems might be the limiting factor in California’s future.