News Focus
News Focus
icon url

DesertDrifter

12/02/12 12:47 AM

#194502 RE: F6 #194501

well, the huge rift valley i live in has about 3000 foot deep sediment (rift valleys are not common features in the U.S. but this is one) because as the fault block mountains pulled apart, the gap was filled in with sediment from the erosion of the uplifting mountains. (the sediment accumulated because there is no outlet to the valley and thus no transport out.)

So that means the aquifer is relatively level in the sediment zone (the sediment zone, because of being rich and level, is where the agriculture is) and it has been drawing down pretty uniformly. They use a few feet per year, depending on which crops are being irrigated.

There are a few bubbles in the level of the water where the water is shallower, but they are mostly hot springs... there is so much hot water here that i know several ranchers who irrigate with hot water, after letting it sit in impoundments to cool. The geothermal resource is mostly ignored here... the hospital and the school is heated with it, but curiously, one can buy land with hot water on it relatively inexpensively. The U.S. Geological Survey has drilled several geothermal test wells, and where they drilled on selected sites, most all of them came up as power generation grade... the problem is there are no transmission lines capable of carrying the power out, which would really be spendy to construct.. Perhaps some day hydrogen electrolysis will make it viable to use the energy efficiently, or if power demand got high enough, someone would invest in transmission lines out.

To answer your question more directly, there is likely 2000 feet or so of fossil water. The problem is that the deeper one goes, the spendier it gets. But the 1/2 cent per kilowatt hour makes the break even point quite a bit deeper than where they are now. Dry holes are very rare, unless one is drilling near the edge of the valley and hit a bedrock seam.
icon url

DesertDrifter

12/02/12 1:12 AM

#194503 RE: F6 #194501

it's not like folks haven't been able to see what's been happening -- . . .

I have to expand on that. The ranchers are fully aware of it, but generally figure they can deal with it, so far. A very high percentage of them are 4th and 5th generation ranchers... the feeling is that if a challenge comes up, they will figure out a way to cope... such as changing crops.

The soil conservation service had a program where if the ranchers turned in their water-inefficient irrigation wheel lines, they would give them $30,000 pivot sytems that use less water. But the result was that they then grew crops that need more water.

A few years ago, an eldery couple moved here from Carmel (southern california coast, clint eastwood country) and started a monthly newspaper that has taken ground water conservation as their cause. They pretty much have been silenced, as it is pretty hard to tell a cowboy that he can't use his well water. And being objective, i can't really think of a credible reason why not. Drinking water here is mostly derived from fresh mountain stream water, and most of us tucked up next to the mountains have our own wells that are recharged from those streams.

The use of fossil water in a basin with no outlet is a diminishing resource, to be sure.... but to me it is no more alarming than pumping fossil oil out of the ground.