Sustainability of Prince William County and the Rural Crescent

In the recent Prince William County local elections the candidates ran and were elected on schools, roads and jobs. Those are the immediate concerns of residents, but our elected officials need to look to the future and worry about the sustainability of Prince William County. We need to meet the ever tightening requirements under the Virginia Watershed Implementation Plan for the mandated Chesapeake Bay TMDL and we need to make sure that our water resources are not impaired. Preserving the Rural Crescent is essential to sustainable development of Prince William County. The first half of sustainable development is the redevelopment of Brownfields along the Route 1 corridor rather than Greenfield development in rural areas where there is no existing infrastructure. Redevelopment along Route 1 would help Prince William County to improve storm water management (and score nutrient reduction points under the Watershed Implementation Plan) as well as revitalize these older areas of the county. This redevelopment would take place without significantly increasing pavement and impervious surfaces. The second portion of sustainable development is to ensure adequate water for our county now and in the future.

Our geology and climate determines our water resources. The geological regions of Virginia are (from east to west) the Coastal Plain, the Piedmont, the Blue Ridge, the Valley and Ridge and the (Cumberland) Plateau. The Coastal Plain of Virginia is composed mostly of unconsolidated geologic deposits and extends from the Atlantic coast to the “fall zone” a geological line that runs north-south through Fairfax, Fredericksburg, Richmond, and Petersburg, to a large extent along Route 95. At its widest portion the Coastal Plain is over 100 miles wide.

Coastal Plain deposits consist of alternating layers of unconsolidated sand, gravel, silt, shell strata and clay and slopes generally southeast. There are two groundwater systems, an unconfined aquifer and a lower artesian aquifer both flow in the general direction of the topography slope towards the ocean. In the 1990’s it was estimated that approximately half of Virginia’s groundwater use was in this region. The principal recharge area for these aquifers is the land around the fall zone where the aquifers outcrop, unfortunately that area was paved and covered along with the development of Route 95. The Costal Plain’s artesian aquifer has an enormous groundwater storage capacity and Virginia remains a relatively wet location, but pumping (possibly over pumping) has lowered the artesian pressure allowing some salt water intrusion near the coast and development and building in the recharge zone has impacted the availability of water. It is projected with little more population growth that during drought years Fairfax and the Norfolk-Virginia Beach area will have inadequate water.

The Piedmont is bordered by the “fall zone” on the east and the Blue Ridge Mountains on the west. The Piedmont is the largest geological region in Virginia and has a diverse geology largely dominated by igneous and metamorphic rocks, with some areas of sedimentary rocks. The area has limited overburden and the fractures and fault lines formed in the rocks store and transmit groundwater. The size and number of water bearing fractures decrease with depth so significant supplies of water are generally located in the first few hundred feet. There is a wide variation in groundwater quality and yield ranging from under 1 gallon to over 50 gallons a minute. The largest yields are obtained where fracture and fault system are extensive. In other areas of the Piedmont, disintegration of the granite bedrock forms a zone of granular material with slow recharge and relatively high and annoying amounts of iron and sulfur. While providing very productive wells the fractures and faults offer a natural route of transport for any contaminant so that the most water rich areas that supply Bull Run and the Occoquan are the most susceptible to contamination.

Prince William traverses both the coastal plane and the Piedmont. The Rural Crescent in Prince William County is contained within the Piedmont region of the county within the water rich fracture and fault system and its waters feed the surface waters of the eastern portion of the county. The Rural Crescent should remain an urban growth boundary for the county not to preserve our agricultural heritage and sense of place, but to preserve our water. While I strongly support redevelopment of areas with preexisting infrastructure (Brownfield redevelopment) which would allow Prince William County to improve storm water management as well as revitalize older areas of the county and preserve the Greenfields areas in my general support of sustainable development; my strong support for preserving the Rural Crescent is about protecting the groundwater from depletion and contamination.

The Rural Crescent in Prince William County aligns roughly with the Mesozoic basin aquifer of the Culpeper groundwater basin, one of the more important watersheds in Virginia. My home and much of the Prince William County Rural Crescent is located within the northeast quadrant and eastern quadrant of the Culpeper basin and consists of sandstone, siltstone, and conglomerate of Late Triassic age; with the fault and fracture system that produces water rich wells and the easy transport routes for contaminants into the groundwater supply.

The Culpeper basin is part of a much larger Piedmont Geologic Province and has only begun to be studied thanks to the careful groundwater measurements taken by Loudoun County as excessive development of the western part of the county began to impact water supplies. Each groundwater system or basin is unique and must be understood and managed individually. Groundwater quantity and quality in our region impacts not only groundwater wells, but stream flow and recharge to the surface water. In short all the drinking water in Prince William County. Groundwater recharges at various rates from precipitation and other sources of infiltration. The recharge is not spread evenly across the land. Pave over the land, change surface flow and infiltration and groundwater recharge could be reduced.

There are limits to the amount of groundwater available for extraction from the aquifer. The amount of groundwater removed from an aquifer needs to be sustainable and should ideally match the recharge rate. Increasing the direct demand by pumping to supply water to commercial or industrial users or reducing the recharge rate by diverting surface flow and adding pavement and roads will result in changes in the local or regional hydraulic balance- a reduction in discharge to surface water at some other location, an increase in recharge from surface water, or a loss of storage in the aquifer by falling water table or some combination of these effects.

Our freshwater resources need to be managed as a whole. The utilization of groundwater resources in an unsustainable manner can result in impacts to the entire region, including the decrease in water level and aquifer storage, reductions in stream flow and lake levels, loss of wetland and riparian ecosystems, land subsidence, saltwater intrusion and changes in groundwater quality. Our future and our children’s future is our water. We can’t allow it to be destroyed by those who only see short term gain.

Water and Food

In much of the world food prices are rising. The effects of the current price spikes have not been significant in the United States where food represents about 10% of the income of a typical family and where the volatility in food and energy are accepted or at least tolerated. In the United States processing and advertising costs of foods often outweigh the cost of food ingredients themselves.

Food prices are being driven up in part by an increase in oil prices, affecting both fuel and fertilizer costs. But the primary cause is water. The recent droughts and flooding have both impacted food production. Russia has been hit with the worst drought in a half century. Australia has suffered years of drought only to be hit by torrential flooding so that the lack of water has been replaced by too much water. India’s falling water table and water shortages have been well documented in the world news. Even U.S. grain forecasts have been reduced due to adverse weather.

In countries where most residents purchase only basic foodstuffs and where food costs require a much larger percentage of household income, the cost of food has effectively skyrocketed. When food represents 50% of household income, a 10% increase cannot be absorbed. The outcry in India over the price of onions recently illustrated this. India’s food production regions are reportedly sitting atop groundwater aquifers that are being depleted. Irrigation accounts for 84% of India’s total water use. The population continues to grow, industrial demand for water grows and the demand for more water intensive food is growing. Generally, higher value crops such as sugar and vegetables are more water-intensive than cereals, and meat and dairy are even more water-intensive. So as populations move up the economic ladder beyond subsistence the demand for irrigation water explodes.

Overall, approximately 60% of all the world's freshwater withdrawals go to irrigation. Large-scale farming could not provide food for the world's large populations without the irrigation of crop fields by water from rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and ground water wells. Without irrigation, crops could never be grown in the arid and semi-arid lands of California, the Middle East, or India where irrigation consumes a much larger share of fresh water.

The majority of irrigated acres in the United States is in the west were where annual precipitation is less than 20 inches and is insufficient to support crops without supplemental water. In the western United States water used for irrigation exceeds 75% of the water supply. The system of water rights that developed in the west assured for generations the allocation of water to agriculture. The water rights system as conceived and administered in the western states was not designed to conserve water. It was developed in a time when population was still sparse, water supplies were believed to be plentiful and development and growth were to be encouraged. The system was designed to protect the water and work necessary to build farms in the west. This management scheme has resulted in non sustainable use of groundwater and unsustainable agricultural practices.

When agricultural land is irrigated, the water balance in nature is altered. Water is withdrawn from a river, spring, or groundwater and added to agricultural fields. The environmental impact of an irrigation system is dependent on the nature of the water source, the quality of water, the method of delivery and the local geology and climate. Withdrawing ground water beyond the recharge rate may cause the land to subside as happened in the Central Valley of California. In many parts of the world where water is often plentiful slash and burn agriculture is practiced and the land cultivated until it is exhausted then abandoned, more forest cut down and the climate impacted by the massive loss of trees. Irrigation of lands can destroy them.

Aquifers and the land may become saline. All water contains dissolved salts that attached to the water molecules as it washed over the land or percolated in the ground. Rain also contains some salts. The salts are generally at very low concentrations in “fresh” water’ however, evaporation of water from dry earth leaves much of the salts behind. Over time the salts concentrate. This problem has become acute in the Central Valley of California, in China’s North Plain, in Soviet Central Asia (the –istans), parts of the Middle East and the Colorado River Basin. These are all semi-arid areas where irrigation is the basis of agriculture that has used flooded irrigation for generations. Land is being irrigated before planting to reduce the salt levels. At least 20% of all irrigated lands are salt-affected, with some estimates being as high as 50%.

To address these problems, more controlled types of irrigation have been developed and more salt tolerant crops need to be exploited. Micro-irrigation also known as drip irrigation has gained attention during recent years because of its potential to increase yields and decrease water, fertilizer, and labor requirements if managed properly. Drip irrigation systems can apply water and fertilizer directly to individual plants or trees, reducing the wetted area by wetting only a fraction of the soil surface; water is applied directly to the root zone.

In drip irrigation, water is run through pipes (with holes in them) either buried or lying slightly above the ground next to the crops. Water slowly drips onto the crop roots and stems. Unlike spray irrigation, very little is lost to evaporation reducing water waste. Subsurface drip irrigation is the slow frequent application of water below the surface to the root area of the pants. The goal is to maintain constant moisture content in the soil at the optimal plant growth level. This requires monitoring soil moisture and weather instead of a set irrigation schedule and in this way reduce net water use by 30%.

The costs involved in drip irrigation can be substantial, not just the $800-$2,000 for the tubing, filters and pumps, but also the irrigation infrastructure that would allow controlled constant delivery of filtered water. On demand water availability for irrigation may be an insurmountable hurdle within the current water allocation system. In addition, a University of California study concluded that a salt balance must be maintained in the root zone, irrigation without improved management practices cannot be sustained in the San Joaquin Valley. In addition, sensible choices will have to be made about water allocation, crop choices, and water pricing. Our political systems and human nature have not excelled in the past at sensible.

The Last Water Grab in California

When lawmakers in California approved the $11-billion water bond package that will appear on this November's ballot, the state was in its third year of drought. The winter storms came late this year, but nonetheless, covered the Sierra in snow. The state's biggest reservoir, Lake Shasta, is nearly full. After the wet season, statewide precipitation was at 115% of average for the year, reservoir storage was at 95% and runoff at 80%. By standard measures, California's three-year drought should be over, but water problems in California are not. Californian politicians have debated for decades how to modernize and expand their water system, which depends on aqueducts, reservoirs and pipelines, some dating from the early 20th century. To gain momentum and have the legislature act took three years of drought and court-ordered supply restrictions impacting the $36 billion-a-year agriculture industry.
Southern California with the largest population centers has an extremely limited natural supply of water. Generations ago water rights were obtained and after diverting all the water from the Owens Valley to LA it began importing water from other sources and recycling all the water it could, but it is far from enough to quench the thirst of Southern California. About half the water used in Southern California comes from the Colorado River Basin and from Northern California through the San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta. The remainder is from regional sources and water recycled from waste water treatment plants. The Colorado River Basin, a significant water source for Southern California, remains stuck in a long-term drought. Environmental restrictions on pumping water from Northern California will continue to reduce exports to the south.
The bond package which will appear on the fall’s ballot includes the establishment of a Delta Stewardship Council to advance the co-equal goals of ecosystem restoration and water supply reliability. Californians just love words with “co” in it, co-equal, co-workers, co-operation… Council members have been selected and the organization is up and running. Delta governance institutions such as the Delta Conservancy, the Delta Protection Commission and the California Water Commission will be created or updated to protect their particular economic interests when allocating water to ecosystem restoration and economic strategy of the framework. The bond measures also require the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to establish a schedule for the monitoring of groundwater basins. And finally, the bills require the development of agricultural water management plans and require urban water agencies to reduce statewide per capita water consumption 20 % by 2020. What we are talking about here is controlling groundwater and rationing water for individual use. The allocation of the water will determine wealth and power.
In an arid environment, like much of California, water is often diverted from streams and transported, sometimes great distances, to farms, cities, and towns. Developing surface water supplies requires two intensive expensive efforts. The first is to plan, build, and maintain a surface water transport project. This entails building diversion structures, a distribution system, and storage reservoirs. The second is administrating and maintaining the system, including developing information about and monitoring the physical setting and enforcing agreements and allocations. Managing water allocations in California is very much managing the economy of the state. As water demand raises past supply the regulatory scheme or the state economies are doomed to failure. We are incapable of designing the right economy to allocate scarce resources to over time. What is right for today is not adoptive to the future. Central planning and allocation are too rigid to adopt. California’s economy is doomed. The limitations of the water supply will facilitate the central control of the economy. In the past, private wells have allowed a certain freedom of action, but that time is coming to an end.
Typically, groundwater supplies about 30 percent of California’s urban and agricultural uses. In dry years, groundwater use increases to about 40 percent statewide and 60% or more in some regions. The current water bond measures proposes a method to monitor and regulate the water basins that are the groundwater reserves in California. In adopting groundwater codes, most western states extended the prior appropriation doctrine to cover groundwater. Unfortunately, hydrology determines the long term success of prior appropriation as a groundwater management scheme and politics cannot control hydrology. California currently has a total of 27 local ordinances under which local governments attempt to regulate groundwater, but there appears to be no plan for developing a sustainable water budget for the state. In the past there has been limited monitoring of groundwater levels and use so that a accurate water budget could not be developed and the state has had no methods to prevent the mining of the groundwater. The current series of bills do not address developing a water budget for the state that is sustainable and an allocation that will assure the future of California, but simply a transfer of the wealth that the water represents to whomever the politicians choose.

Running on Empty III

The winter rains have brought a reprieve from the recent water crisis in California, but this is not a solution. The federal government has upped the water allocation from the federal pipes and canals to the Central Valley to 45% of the “total allocation” from the previous 5%. As politicians who lobbied the Department of the Interior to raise the allocations and boost irrigation supplies take credit for the increase brought by the winter rains in this election year, addressing the underlying problem is pushed down the road. California will issue $11 billon in bond money they do not have to repair the San Joaquin- Sacramento Delta, water projects and build dams to try and magically increase the supply of water. Dams will not solve the problem of not enough water to meet demand, but may add to the growing insolvency of the state. Including interest payments, the bonds will cost $24 billion out of the general fund over 30 years. The general fund has a current deficit of $19 billion this year. If the legislature feels all these provisions are necessary then they should directly raise water rates to pay for the costs.

California local water agencies have invested in water recycling, conservation, groundwater storage and other strategies to stretch supplies, but the demand for cheap water exceeds supply as evidenced by the groundwater usage. Year round agriculture has been made possible by the ample supply of water used for irrigation. The limit to California’s agricultural bounty is water availability. Water available is a combination of surface water diversions and groundwater pumping. In 2006 before the beginning of the last drought, California used almost 31 billion gallons of water a day for irrigation. This is 351 gallons of water a day for each agricultural dollar earned each year and represents 80% of the water used in the state each year. Buried in the water bond legislation contains a provision that would require most California communities to reduce their per capita water use 20% by 2020. That is a little like China agreeing to reduce their carbon intensity. The total water used will grow with the population, but there will be no growth in the water supply for the state and if climate projects are at all true, then there will be less water.

While a portion of irrigated water is recharged to groundwater and surface water, some is lost; the real problem is that there is inadequate water flow in the state to support this level of irrigation. Period. When California reduces the irrigation allocations, the agricultural use of groundwater increases. Many agricultural operations do not have adequate ground water flow to make up the shortage, resulting in loss of jobs and crops. The operations with available groundwater utilize it without regard for the recharge rate and ultimate impact on California’s future. When you withdraw the groundwater from fine-grained compressible confining beds of sediments and do not replace it, the land subsides. The incredibly fertile Central Valley was identified by the research efforts of Joseph Poland as the location of maximum subsidence in the United States. Once the land subsides, it looses its water holding capacity and will never recover as an aquifer. Groundwater mining in the Central Valley had slowed in the past few decades, at least until the recent water crisis.

California’s climate is dominated by the Pacific storm track. The mountain ranges cause precipitation to fall mostly on the western slopes. These storms also leave tremendous accumulations of snow in the Sierra Nevada during a wet winter. While the average annual precipitation in California is about 23inches (DWR 1998), the range of annual rainfall varies greatly from more than 140 inches in the northwestern part of the State to less than 4 inches in the southeastern part of the State. Snowmelt and rain fall in the mountains and flow into creeks, streams, and rivers. As these flows make their way into the valleys, much of the water percolates into the ground. The vast majority of California’s accessible groundwater is stored in alluvial groundwater basins. Though the health of the groundwater basins is neither tracked nor known, it is believed that California may be using the groundwater at an unsustainable rate.

California’s water allocations exceed supply in practically every year of recent record. Climatic variability produces both droughts and flooding. California has dealt with the limitations resulting from its natural hydrology by developing an intricate system of reservoirs, canals, and pipelines under federal, State and local projects to essentially move the water from the northwest to the south. However, a significant portion of California’s water supply need is always met by groundwater. Typically, groundwater supplies about 30 percent of California’s urban and agricultural uses. In dry years, groundwater use increases to about 40 percent statewide and 60% or more in some regions. Mining of the groundwater beyond the recharge rate is impairing California’s future. California does not have enough water available annually to keep up this usage level and the largest user of water in the state is agriculture. In order to continue to supply water to the rest of the state, California needs to reduce the agricultural water usage in the state.

More Thoughts on Groundwater Management in Virginia

In its most recent session the General Assembly of Virginia passed senate bill 569 which creates a State Water Supply Plan Advisory Committee as an advisors to assist the Department of Environmental Quality in developing and implementing the state water resources plan. The committee will meet twice a year and be composed of citizen representatives of most of the water stakeholders. The committee is not compensated and will consist of citizen members representing industrial and municipal water users; public and private water providers; agricultural, conservation, and environmental organizations; state and federal agencies; and university faculty with expertise in water resources-related issues.
Who on this committee will represent me. I am one of the 1,000,000 Virginians dependent on a private well. I am a landowner and a stakeholder in any resource allocation plan because I own my water resources. I do not think that the State Water Control Board can adequately develop a state water resources plan; without the input of the citizens of Virginia any water plan will impact sustainability of our way of life, property value, personal freedom and economic opportunity. There is no life without water. The beauty of Virginia the quality of our environment is dependent on water. The Director of the Department of Environmental Quality needs to consider the citizen in planning of water supply and water resources planning in Virginia.

Though the focus of the concern has been the two groundwater management areas, one on the Eastern Shore and another covering the James-York Peninsula and Southside Virginia, Fairfax County is vulnerable to running out of water in the next drought. Our freshwater resources need to be managed as a whole. The utilization of groundwater resources in an unsustainable manner can result in impacts to the entire region, including the decrease in water level and aquifer storage, reductions in stream flow and lake levels, loss of wetland and riparian ecosystems, land subsidence, saltwater intrusion and changes in groundwater quality. Each groundwater system or basin is unique and must be managed individually, and the data necessary to understand and manage water resources must be gathered locally over time to track and respond to changes in groundwater quantity and quality as well as stream flow. All groundwater is not equal and there a consequences of withdrawing water from an aquifer beyond its recharge rate.

I personally sit on the northeastern most portion of the Culpeper Basin. Fairfax county is only a couple of miles away and when they run out of water, I fear they will look to Prince William and I recall that Los Angeles destroyed the Owens Valley when it took the water rights to the entire Owens River. Owens Lake and the surrounding area became a desert dust bowl. The water and its wealth were taken elsewhere.

Thoughts on Groundwater Management in Virginia

The Department of Environmental Quality regulates ground water withdrawals of 1,000 gallons a day or more in designated ground water management areas. Virginia has used a ground water flow model developed over thirty years ago to evaluate the impact of groundwater withdrawals on the aquifers in its attempts to manage groundwater withdrawals. Virginia has recently admitted that this model over predicts impacts in some locations and under predicts impacts in others. Over the past thirty years scientific understanding of hydraulics and the coastal aquifer system in particular has expanded exponentially, including the discovery of the Chesapeake Bay impact crater, the presence of land subsidence, and discover of inter aquifer impact. The groundwater model reflects none of these features.

Virginia DEQ has initiated an effort to merge the various sources of historical and new well information into one statewide database that can be used for regional analysis of groundwater aquifer systems. Though I tend to distrust all long term modeling efforts for their simplifications and straight line projections; however, water planning ten and twenty years out is a standard practice in the US west and other water critical areas of the world and should continue in Virginia. Water supply projections a decade or two out is a much simpler model than say climate projections, but still are impacted by non-correlated variables and limited knowledge of groundwater recharge and reserves that would make it difficult to accurately projects water demand and availability. Nonetheless to avoid the over use of a critical resource we need to manage it.

In 1992 the State Water Control Board established two groundwater management areas, one on the Eastern Shore and another covering the James-York Peninsula and Southside Virginia. It has been observed from monitoring data that artesian groundwater levels of the Northern Neck have been declining at a rate of 1.2 to 3.0 feet per year. It is likely that groundwater levels will continue to fall and several citizen’s groups have pressured the State Water Control Board to extend the Eastern Virginia Ground Water Management Area to the portion of the Coastal Plain aquifer system that underlies the Northern Neck and Middle Peninsula. Groundwater and surface water supply are not fully understood, but are limited by nature. Groundwater can only be withdrawn indefinitely at sustainable levels without irreparably damaging our water supply. The question is not should we manage our groundwater use, but how. A Regulatory Advisory Panel (RAP) was created to discuss the Notices of Intended Regulatory Action (NOIRA) to expand the Eastern Virginia Ground Water Management Area. The last meeting of the RAP will be on April 1, 2010. I look forward to reading their report.

Virginia’s water supply must be sustainable. Excessive groundwater pumping can result in reduced river flows, lower lake levels, reduced discharge to wetlands and springs and saltwater infiltration and subsidence. Overuse of groundwater can impact drinking water supplies, riparian areas and critical aquatic habitats. (See California for how to mismanage water resources.) Groundwater sustainability is achieved when recharge rate equals the pumping rate. The recharge rate is impacted by precipitation and ground surface coverage. Though we can have some impact on the recharge rate by protecting areas like the Fall Line and decisions about waste disposal we cannot directly control precipitation which is the major source of recharge in Virginia.

Our laws and regulations do not reflect a coherent concept of what water is about. Though laws create some tools for managing water on the state and county level the tools are being used in various ways and the result is a disorganized approach to each element of zoning and permitting that do not reflect a coherent concept of water management. We need a clearer concept of what we need to do to have sustainable water and then develop the legislative framework for a water budget that will allow for periodic droughts. There are many ways to approach this problem. A top down permit system is one method. Like most Virginians I abhor central control. Live Free or Die. However, there are other methods to achieve water sustainability. A market based system with tradable permits would allow optimal economic development, but may have undesirable social consequences. A combination of approaches needs to be worked out. The first step is to determine who owns the water rights in Virginia. Do water rights belong to the land?

Irrigation and Sustainability in Water Use

"Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own need is sustainable." (World Commission of Environment and Development, 1987)

Irrigation has the potential to increase farm yields dramatically. Irrigated land is far more productive than the same lands fed only by rainfall. However, irrigation can also impact the condition of natural resources (riparian zones, wetlands, etc), while impacting the balance of surface and ground water. Not all irrigation is bad nor is it good. Irrigation like all agricultural practices must be preformed sustainability and often it is not.

In 1996 it was estimated that developed countries, irrigate on average 10% of their agricultural area, and countries in development irrigated 23% of their agricultural land, and that combined they irrigated 18% of the total agricultural area. Chronic water scarcity is away of life in large parts of Africa and the Middle East, the northern part of China, parts of India and Mexico, the western part of the USA, north-east Brazil, and in the former Soviet Union and the Central Asian republics. China, India, the United States and Pakistan have the largest quantity of land in irrigation; however, the United States with the largest total area of cultivated land has only about 9-10% of that land in irrigation. (FAO AGROSTAT Database 1998)

In 1900 the world’s population was 1.6 billion; by 1950 it had increased to 2.5 billion and 6.1 billion by the year 2000. Despite a general decline in human fertility rates world wide, world population is still growing. It is projected that world population will reach more than 7.5 billion by 2050. This alone will increase demand for food and place enormous pressure on the environment. The increased need for water to support the growing population is becoming urgent, and environmental degradation related to water usage is serious.

Fresh water (not locked in ice caps) represents less than 2% of all water on earth. Agriculture is the major user of freshwater, with a world’s average of 71% of the water use. In agriculture water is used for irrigation, and small quantities for watering animals. There are large regional variations in water use. In Africa 88% of fresh water is used for agriculture and less than 50% in Europe. The USGS estimates that 40% of fresh water in the United States is used for irrigation. There are huge variations in water use across the country. In California it is estimated that 80% of fresh water is used for irrigation that is approximately 30,700 million gallons a day for irrigation. In Virginia, in the far wetter southeast, agriculture uses only 1.5% of the annual fresh water used annually, which translates to 21 million gallon a day for irrigation. The differences between the states is the climate, California is semi arid and requires irrigation on almost all crop land, but can produce several crops a year. It rains in Virginia, but the growing season is confined to the warmer half of the year.

What the above data tells us is that California needs to get more agricultural value out of their water usage. They are producing more than three time the revenue per agricultural acre but it is requiring 123 times the water for each dollar of revenue. California is mining their water. They are using more water than is renewably available. Water is a resource that needs to be valued. The nominal price of water in California does not reflect its value and scarcity, nor does it reflect the amortized cost for mining this resource. They are misallocating this resource. The price of the food produced does not reflect to costs to produce it.

The large and growing proportion of the population living in urban areas will put considerable pressure for continued transfers of water out of agriculture to supply growing urban centers in California and the rest of the world. Other competing uses include hydroelectricity, protection of aquatic ecosystems (e.g., restoration of Delta estuary), and recreation will put severe pressure on fresh water supplies. It is important that our farming practices as well as all of man’s activities have the smallest impact on the natural balance; we can only do this by valuing and allocating our resources appropriately.

Groundwater Management in Virginia

The Virginia Ground Water Management Act of 1992 mandates the regulation of large groundwater withdrawals in certain portions of the Commonwealth to prevent adverse impacts due to over utilization of the resource. There are currently two proposed changes to the regulations. It has been proposed to expand the Eastern Virginia Ground Water Management Area to include the Counties of Caroline, King and Queen, Gloucester, Mathews, Middlesex, Essex, King George, Westmoreland, Richmond, Lancaster and Northumberland; parts of Spotsylvania, Stafford, Prince William, Fairfax and Arlington Counties; and the City of Alexandria. This would expand groundwater withdrawals beyond the confines of the Tidewater, west of the fall zone, into another groundwater basin. Currently, this Ground Water Management Area includes every county and city south of the York River and its tributaries and east of I 95, except Gloucester, Mathews, Middlesex Counties. The proposed expansion would bring these three counties on the edge of the Chesapeake Bay, and the corresponding area north of the York and its tributaries, into the regulated area. The boundaries of the Eastern Shore Ground Water Management Area would remain unchanged.

Ground water levels in the Tidewater region of Virginia’s coastal plain are continuing to decline. Impacts from groundwater withdrawals are propagating along the fall zone into the coastal plain and have the potential to interfere with wells in these areas. However, you cannot manage the several groundwater basins as if they were a single basin, but you cannot ignore the interrelation between the basins. The smallest of examples in this area is Bull Run which feeds the Occoquan Reservoir originates in the Piedmont. The coastal plain has been the area of the most intense growth and the area was forecast by Virginia Tech to have inadequate reserves to meet the next drought if not addressed. Given current ground water declines, the entire coastal plain aquifer system must be managed to maintain a sustainable future supply of ground water. Virginia is blessed with what appears to be rich resources of water, but they are not infinite. Surprisingly little hard data on the groundwater has been collected. As a much wiser man than I pointed out, without data there can be no understanding of our resources and our planet. What level of withdrawal does the Agency propose to allow in each basin?

The second proposed change is a little frightening because it both ambiguous and seemingly ambitious in its reach: the Board and DEQ propose “to consider amending the Ground Water Withdrawal Regulation, 9 VAC 25 610 to address the increasing demand on limited groundwater resources, changes to the administrative review process, and regulatory changes necessitated by new information on the coastal plain aquifer system.” Virginia is estimated to use 188 million gallons of groundwater each day to supply public water systems, industry, agriculture, commercial operations and mining. This excludes over 40 million gallons a day that supplies private domestic well in the state including my well. While applaud the agency’s proactive stance, to take action to manage and maintain our water resources before crisis strikes, I wonder how can the DEQ even propose regulations on diverse geology, demand and groundwater basins and do so without data. Though the goal is laudable, what methods are they proposing to manage, control, protect and allocate a resource that is not well understood? The agencies’ reasons for proposing this action echo and elaborate on their explanation of reasons for proposing to expand the Ground Water Management Area, but that is not enough.
Even more ominous, the Board is preparing “to address for which users and for what purposes this finite resource should be allocated” and “to address what constitutes an adequate margin of safety and what technical criteria are defensible for determining whether or not to issue a permit and for what amounts.” All of this appears to signal a readiness and desire to control the most valuable resource in the commonwealth of Virginia. Without water there can be no life, no economy. More importantly, the Agency seems to have determined that allocation of water resources will be performed by government with a strategy or manner of its choosing. The agency proposes to allocate the most valuable resource in the commonwealth of Virginia without answering the question of How should water be allocated. The Agency is determined to proceed to avoid ground water declines. Before the Agency proceeds to manage the groundwater use for Virginia, the people must determine how this resource should be managed.

California, What Are You Doing?

California’s natural hydrology is too limited to support growth in population, industry, and agriculture and possibly the current level of water use. Not only is California relative arid, but subject to, seasonal and climatic variability that threaten a reliable water supply. Approximately 70 percent of the State’s average annual rain and snow melt runoff occurs north of Sacramento, while about 75 percent of the State’s urban and agricultural water needs are to the south. Most of the State’s precipitation falls between October and April with half of it occurring December through February in average years. Yet, the peak demand for this water occurs in the summer months. Climatic variability includes dramatic deviations from average supply conditions by way of either droughts or flooding. California has dealt with the limitations resulting from its natural hydrology by developing an intricate system of reservoirs, canals, and pipelines under federal, State and local projects.

However, a significant portion of California’s water supply needs is also met by groundwater. Typically, groundwater supplies about 30 percent of California’s urban and agricultural uses. In dry years, groundwater use increases to about 40 percent statewide and 60% or more in some regions. California is mining its groundwater, using it at a rate higher than can be recharged. The groundwater in California may be a relic of the last ice age and is not being replaced or likely to be replaced under the current climate conditions.

For more than a half a century the Central Valley of California has been one of the most productive agriculture regions of the world. This has been made possible by the ample supply of water used for irrigation. On less than 1% of the total farmland in the U.S. the Central Valley produces 8% of the agricultural output (as measured by value). In 2002 this translated to $17 billion in crop value. This is all made possible by a combination of surface water diversions and groundwater pumping. Approximately one sixth of the irrigated land in the United States is in the Central Valley (Bureau of Reclamation, 1994) and approximately one eighth of all groundwater pumped in the United States is pumped in the Central Valley. It is possible that this irrigated agricultural model is not sustainable. California's current budget crisis have brought to the forefront the idea that federal taxes on the citizens of California support a disproportionate amount of the federal budget (an argument for smaller government). When will California realize that they have spent a sizable amount of their non-renewable water subsidizing the ranch landowners and cost of food in America.

When you withdraw the groundwater from fine-grained compressible confining beds of sediments and do not replace it, the land subsides. The incredibly fertile Central Valley was identified by the research efforts of Joseph Poland as the location of maximum subsidence in the United States. Once the land subsides, it looses its water holding capacity and will never recover as an aquifer. Groundwater mining in the Central Valley has slowed, at least until the recent water crisis. In 2007 the USGS estimated the rate of groundwater mining to be only 300 cubic feet per second. This change is due to the surface water agricultural deliveries of 13,000 cubic feet per second while groundwater irrigation deliveries are now (or at least were) at 5,900 cubic feet per second.Nonetheless, the clock is running. California’s non renewable water resource has been subsidizing the food budgets of America. California has been using up their water to produce cheap food for America and make ranch owners (the term for the mega farmers in California) richer. California is squandering its future and making decisions that almost certainly will require desalinization to support the population unless they recognize the true cost of water and make realistic decisions on its allocation.

Water Sustainability

Without water there can be no life. Water is our most valuable resource and how we manage its use or allow its abuse may determine the fate of mankind. The earth's total water supply is vast, estimated to be about 333 million cubic miles of water, over 96 % of which is saltwater. Fresh water represents only 4% of the total water of the earth. Over two thirds of the freshwater on earth (68%), is locked up in ice and glaciers, about 30% of freshwater is in the ground as groundwater, and thus, surface-water sources (such as rivers) only represent about 2% of the fresh water and 1/10,000th of 1% of total water, yet rivers are the source of most of the water people use. The interaction between surface water and groundwater is complex, site specific and not fully understood.

According to the US Geological Survey about 26 % of the freshwater used in the United States in 2000 came from ground-water sources; the other 74 % came from surface water. Groundwater is an important natural resource, especially in those parts of the country that don't have ample surface-water sources, such as the arid West. Groundwater is a renewable resource, but not in the way that sun light is. Groundwater recharges at various rates from precipitation and other sources of infiltration. The US Geological Survey estimated that the nation receives about a trillion gallons of recharge to the groundwater aquifers each day. (USGS circular 415). The recharge is not spread evenly across the nation or even where the water is needed.

There are costs and limits to the amount of groundwater available for extraction from the aquifer. Wells need to be drilled, pumps installed and operated and water moved through a delivery system. These represent the direct expenses of groundwater pumping. There are indirect costs. The amount of groundwater removed from an aquifer needs to be sustainable and should ideally match the recharge rate. Water captured by pumping a well will result in changes in the local or regional hydraulic balance- a reduction in discharge to surface water at some other location, an increase in recharge from surface water, or a loss of storage in the aquifer by falling water table or some combination of these effects. Changing the recharge rate by diverting water from the system can change the entire water balance and ecology of a region. Pulling large quantities of groundwater from one well rather than a series of smaller geographically spaced wells will have a much larger impact on the groundwater basin.

Groundwater availability and recharge rates vary locally and regionally and can be impacted by man. Over pumping of groundwater that results in compaction of the soils and subsidence which is permanent loss of water storage capacity in the region. Over pumping of groundwater in costal regions can lower groundwater tables or in a confined artesian system result in salt water intrusion. Development often is characterized by pavement and building that prevents the infiltration of precipitation that occurred before development. In some areas of the country (and world), groundwater currently being pumped entered the aquifer a millennia ago when the climate in that area was wetter. That water is not being replaced under these climate conditions and may ultimately be used up. Centralized wastewater systems further compound the problem by collecting the used groundwater, treating it and releasing the water into a stream or to the ocean in costal areas. Decentralized, managed and density controlled alternative onsite sewage systems may be a better solution for maintaining the groundwater resource, or as is done in areas of Florida and Long Island land application of the treated water from waste water systems.

Our freshwater resources need to be managed as a whole. The utilization of groundwater resources in an unsustainable manner can result in impacts to the entire region, including the decrease in water level and aquifer storage, reductions in stream flow and lake levels, loss of wetland and riparian ecosystems, land subsidence, saltwater intrusion and changes in groundwater quality. Each groundwater system or basin is unique and must be managed individually, and the data necessary to understand and manage water resources must be gathered locally over time to track and respond to changes in groundwater quantity and quality as well as stream flow. All groundwater is not equal and there a consequences of withdrawing water from an aquifer beyond its recharge rate. Water is critical to life and we need to manage this most valuable resource before our cities and western states run out.