How Does Groundwater Pumping Affect Streamflow?
www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=3458&from=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+usgs%2FWater+(Newsroom+-+Water+Releases)#.UKecVYXbaWU
Released: 11/16/2012
New USGS Report Describes Processes and Misconceptions Concerning the Effects of Groundwater Pumping on Streamflow
Groundwater provides drinking water for millions of Americans and is the primary source of water to irrigate cropland in many of the nations most productive agricultural settings. Although the benefits of groundwater development are many, groundwater pumping can reduce the flow of water in connected streams and rivers—a process called streamflow depletion by wells. The USGS has released a new report that summarizes the body of knowledge on streamflow depletion, highlights common misconceptions, and presents new concepts to help water managers and others understand the effects of groundwater pumping on surface water.
“Groundwater discharge is a critical part of flow in most streams–and the more we pump below the ground, the more we deplete water flowing down the stream,” said USGS Director Marcia McNutt. “When viewed over the long term, it is one big zero-sum game.”
Groundwater and surface-water systems are connected, and groundwater discharge is often a substantial component of the total flow of a stream. In many areas of the country, pumping wells capture groundwater that would otherwise discharge to connected streams, rivers, and other surface-water bodies. Groundwater pumping can also draw streamflow into connected aquifers where pumping rates are relatively large or where the locations of pumping are relatively close to a stream.
“Streamflow depletion caused by pumping is an important water-resource management issue across the nation because of the adverse effects that reduced flows can have on aquatic ecosystems, the availability of surface water, and the quality and aesthetic value of streams and rivers,” said Paul Barlow, USGS hydrologist and author on the report. “Managing the effects of streamflow depletion by wells is challenging, particularly because of the significant time delays that often occur between when pumping begins and when the effects of that pumping are realized in nearby streams. This report will help managers understand the many factors that control the timing, rates, and locations of streamflow depletion caused by pumping.”
Major conclusions from the report:
• Individual wells may have little effect on streamflow depletion, but small effects of many wells pumping within a basin can combine to produce substantial effects on streamflow and aquatic habitats.
• Basinwide groundwater development typically occurs over a period of several decades, and the resulting cumulative effects on streamflow depletion may not be fully realized for years.
• Streamflow depletion continues for some time after pumping stops because it takes time for a groundwater system to recover from the previous pumping stress. In some aquifers, maximum rates of streamflow depletion may occur long after pumping stops, and full recovery of the groundwater system may take decades to centuries.
• Streamflow depletion can affect water quality in the stream or in the aquifer. For example, in many areas, groundwater discharge cools stream temperatures in the summer and warms stream temperatures in the winter, providing a suitable year-round habitat for fish. Reductions in groundwater discharge to streams caused by pumping can degrade habitat by warming stream temperatures during the summer and cooling stream temperatures during the winter.
• The major factors that affect the timing of streamflow depletion are the distance from the well to the stream and the properties and geologic structure of the aquifer.
• Sustainable rates of groundwater pumping near streams do not depend on the rates at which groundwater systems are naturally replenished (or recharged), but on the total flow rates of the streams and the amount of reduced streamflow that a community or regulatory authority is willing to accept.
“Conjunctive management of groundwater and surface-water resources is critical in New Mexico, where our limited surface-water supplies can be impacted by new uses that are predominantly dependent on groundwater pumping,” said Mike Johnson, Chief of the Hydrology Bureau in the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer. “This new USGS publication consolidates our understanding of the connection between aquifers and streams and provides a clear, thorough and up-to-date explanation of the tools and techniques used to evaluate streamflow depletion by wells. This report will be very useful to New Mexico’s water managers in guiding technical analysis, dispelling common misconceptions, and explaining these complex concepts to decision makers and the public.”
The report, which is a product of the USGS Groundwater Resources Program, is titled “Streamflow Depletion by Wells—Understanding and Managing the Effects of Groundwater Pumping on Streamflow” and is available in print and online. [ http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1376/ ]
The Groundwater Resources Program provides objective scientific information and develops the interdisciplinary understanding necessary to assess and quantify the availability of the nation’s groundwater resources. The Program has been instrumental in documenting groundwater declines and in developing groundwater-flow models for use in sustainably managing withdrawals. The research and understanding developed through this program can provide water-resource managers with the tools and information needed to manage this important natural resource.
Contact Information:
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey
Office of Communications and Publishing
12201 Sunrise Valley Dr, MS 119
Reston, VA 20192
Paul Barlow
Phone: 508-490-5070
pbarlow@usgs.gov
Kara Capelli
Phone: 571-420-9408
kcapelli@usgs.gov
Study examines ownership, control of land with Marcellus Shale gas
live.psu.edu/story/60426#nw69
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — Ownership of the land in Pennsylvania counties with the most Marcellus Shale natural-gas drilling activity is concentrated among relatively few residents and people living outside the counties, according to a study by researchers in Penn State’s College of Agricultural Sciences.
The majority of residents in these counties together own little of the total land area and, therefore, have relatively little “voice” in the critical leasing decisions that affect whether and how Marcellus Shale drilling will occur in the counties, noted the lead investigator Timothy Kelsey, professor of agricultural economics.
Together, half of the resident landowners in these counties control only about 1 percent of the land area, and renters have no “voice” at all, the study suggests. Rather it is the top 10 percent of resident landowners, plus outside landowners (both public and private), who are able to make the major leasing decisions that affect communities.
“In some counties, such as Sullivan, Tioga and Lycoming, nonresidents have more voice about what occurs than do county residents, because more than half of the land is owned by those outside the county,” Kelsey said.
“Our analysis indicates that a majority of lease and royalty income from Marcellus Shale development will go to a relatively small share of the resident population in these counties, with much of the remainder going to others outside the counties.”
The study, “Marcellus Shale: Land Ownership, Local Voice, and the Distribution of Lease and Royalty Dollars,” was done by Penn State’s Center For Economic and Community Development, which is housed in the College of the Agricultural Sciences.
Co-authored by Alex Metcalf, a post-doctoral scholar in forest resources, and Rodrigo Salcedo, a doctoral candidate in agricultural, environmental, and regional economics, the research was entirely funded by the University.
Penn State researchers felt it was important to look at the ownership of the land within 11 Pennsylvania counties with Marcellus natural-gas development activity because land ownership determines who has a voice in decisions about the activity and for the distribution of lease and royalty dollars, Kelsey explained.
“Much of the public debate about Marcellus Shale development revolves around differing views of fairness and equity,” he said. “These discussions often focus on the environmental, health, and other risks, the proper role for local government regulation and oversight of industry activities, and the ability of individual owners to use their resources as they believe is appropriate.”
The study was not intended to evaluate or make judgments about Act 13 of 2012 — the state law that allows counties to decide whether to allow Marcellus drilling and to impose an impact fee on wells — or the current distribution of control and income, Kelsey stressed.
“Rather, we believe that understanding land-ownership patterns helps to clarify the economic implications of Marcellus Shale development and the context for the concerns some are expressing about the need for more local government control over that development.” he said.
To examine likely mineral-rights ownership, researchers collected publicly available geographic information system, or GIS, landownership data from 11 county planning offices. Counties included in the study are Bradford, Butler, Clearfield, Fayette, Greene, Lycoming, Sullivan, Tioga, Washington, Westmoreland and Wyoming.
The 11 counties include nine of the top 10 Marcellus counties in Pennsylvania; the sole missing top-10 county was Susquehanna, for which GIS information was unavailable. Together, the 11 counties account for 79 percent of all Pennsylvania Marcellus wells through 2011.
Because surface land owners in Pennsylvania do not necessarily own the mineral rights under their land, and because up to a fifth of the land in the counties in question is publicly owned (state forest and state game lands), researchers supplemented the GIS data with U.S. Census data, mailing address records and physical inspections of property records.
The county resident land ownership included a mix of individuals, families, local businesses, farmers, hunting camps, land trusts and others.
Kelsey said the research is important because it documents that many of the residents in the counties with much drilling activity don’t have a voice in Marcellus development, despite having to deal with considerable disruption and change in their communities.
“They are encountering rising rents and housing prices, housing shortages, significant increases in traffic and road congestion, changing demands for local government services, increased conflict, concerns about environmental consequences, student turnover in public schools, and changes in the landscape,” he said.
“The decisions by nonresident owners and by the relatively small share of residents who own the majority of land thus can have profound implications for the quality of life for everyone else in the community.”
E.P.A. Official Seeks to Block West Virginia Mine
E.P.A. Official Seeks to Block West Virginia Mine
By JOHN M. BRODER
Published: October 15, 2010
WASHINGTON — A top federal regulator has recommended revoking the permit for one of the nation’s largest planned mountaintop removal mining projects, saying it would be devastating to miles of West Virginia streams and the plant and animal life they support.
In a report submitted last month and made public on Friday, Shawn M. Garvin, the Environmental Protection Agency’s regional administrator for the Mid-Atlantic, said that Arch Coal’s proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine in Logan County should be stopped because it “would likely have unacceptable adverse effects on wildlife.”
In 2007, the Bush administration approved the project, which would involve dynamiting the tops off mountains over 2,278 acres to get at the coal beneath while dumping the resulting rubble, known as spoil, into nearby valleys and streams. The Obama administration announced last year that it would review the decision, prompting the mine owner, Arch Coal, based in St. Louis, to sue.
In its review, the E.P.A. found that the project would bury more than seven miles of the Pigeonroost Branch and Oldhouse Branch streams under 110 million cubic yards of spoil, killing everything in them and sending downstream a flood of contaminants, toxic substances and life-choking algae.
Kim Link, a spokeswoman for Arch Coal, said in a statement that the company intended to “vigorously” challenge the recommendation.
“If the E.P.A. proceeds with its unlawful veto of the Spruce permit — as it appears determined to do — West Virginia’s economy and future tax base will suffer a serious blow,” Ms. Link said. She said the company planned to spend $250 million on the project, creating 250 jobs and tens of millions of dollars in tax revenues in a struggling region
“Beyond that, every business in the nation would be put on notice that any lawfully issued permit — Clean Water Act 404 or otherwise — can be revoked at any time according to the whims of the federal government,” she said, referring to the federal law under which the original permit was granted. “Clearly, such a development would have a chilling impact on future investment and job creation.”
The E.P.A. said the construction of waste ponds as well as other discharges from the Spruce No. 1 mining operation would spread pollutants beyond the boundaries of the mine itself, causing further damage to wildlife and the environment.
Arch Coal had proposed to construct new streams to replace the buried rivers, but the E.P.A. said they could not reproduce the numbers and variety of fish and plant life supported by the indigenous streams.
An E.P.A. spokesman said that Mr. Garvin’s recommendation was a step in a long process and that the agency’s Office of Water and the E.P.A. administrator, Lisa P. Jackson, would review his report and thousands of public comments before making the final decision, likely before the end of the year.
The Sierra Club applauded the E.P.A. for “staring down Big Coal and industry lobbyists.”
“This mother of all mountaintop removal coal mines would destroy thousands of acres of land, bury seven miles of streams and end a way of life for too many Appalachian families,” the Sierra Club’s executive director, Michael Brune, said in a statement.
Proposal would allow holdout landowners to be forced to lease below-ground gas rights.
http://www.timesleader.com/news/Polling_for_gas_drilling_not_popular__especially_before_election_10-03-2010.html
Posted: October 4
Updated: Today at 12:20 AM
Polling for gas drilling not popular, especially before election
Proposal would allow holdout landowners to be forced to lease below-ground gas rights.
MARC LEVY Associated Press Writer
HARRISBURG — Pooling isn’t popular.
If you haven’t heard of it, it’s an obscure provision that was at the top of the list of changes to Pennsylvania law being sought this year by companies unearthing natural gas from the rich Marcellus Shale formation that sits below much of the state.
But senator after senator in Harrisburg has voiced opposition to the concept, which, simply put, could be used to force holdout landowners to lease their below-ground gas rights under certain conditions.
Landowners would be paid for the methane sucked from beneath their turf, and no well would be drilled on their land — but they’d be unable to say “No” to a drilling company.
Opponents call it tantamount to government taking property rights to benefit private companies, and say industry representatives could wield it as a weapon to limit a landowner’s ability to negotiate a better lease.
Senate President Joe Scarnati, a key industry ally, said he’ll continue to try to develop a provision that satisfies the concerns of his fellow senators. But he acknowledged that concern regarding taking property rights is a major hurdle.
Citizens “take it seriously and I think that it’s maybe a toss-up — take their property or take their guns,” Scarnati, R-Jefferson, said. “But I’ve got to tell you, you’re treading on some thin ice when you try to take either. So we’re very sensitive to that and we’re going to certainly do the commonwealth right in whatever the final product is.”
Scarnati had hoped to put a pooling provision into a wider bill addressing Marcellus Shale issues, including an extraction tax sought by House Democrats since shortly after the drilling boom began two years ago. However, pooling is likely to be punted into next year.
The Senate’s last scheduled voting day this year is Oct. 14 and no pooling proposal has received a public hearing or even a lengthy floor debate.
The issue is thorny enough, even if legislators were not facing an election in four weeks.
An industry spokesman said Friday that he hadn’t given up on the provision.
“The ongoing negotiations on taxation and modernizations to the statutory framework for our industry will likely ebb and flow over the next two weeks,” said David Spigelmyer, vice chairman of the industry group, Marcellus Shale, and the director of governmental relations for Oklahoma City-based Chesapeake Energy Corp.
Meters required for all wells
http://www.tnonline.com/node/128288
Meters required for all wells in Nesquehoning, PA
Reported on Thursday, August 26, 2010
By CAROL ZICKLER TN Correspondent tneditor@tnonline.com
“Tom Merman asked David Hawk, who serves as the borough’s Water Authority chairman, about putting meters on all of the wells in town that don’t have meters on them. Hawk answered that it is up to council as to whether they want to enforce the ordinance. There is an ordinance that all wells have meters attached. Later in the meeting it was discussed that each homeowner who does not have a meter must get one and have it installed. They will have 30 days from time of accepting the meter to have it installed.”
Who owns groundwater in the aquifer?
http://www.mysanantonio.com/livinggreensa/84668452.html
Web Posted: 02/18/2010 12:00 CST
Who owns groundwater in the aquifer?
By Colin McDonald – Express-News
AUSTIN — The ownership and control of groundwater pumping rights in Texas is now in the hands of the state Supreme Court.
On Wednesday, the nine justices heard arguments in a case that pits the right of a landowner near Von Ormy to pump from the Edwards Aquifer against the government’s authority to regulate the use of ground and surface water.
For more than a decade, the Edwards Aquifer Authority has argued that in order for it to regulate pumping, landowners cannot own the water in the Edwards Aquifer.
It was first time the state’s highest court considered that argument.