Water continuity

Well, I have not done too well with my twice a week postings but I will do better. Vic mentioned in email a few weeks ago water continuity and if there is water continuity how should we approach it from an industry standpoint.

For myself the short answer would be yes, there is water continuity. I think that is a fairly easy conclusion to come to. We all know water flows through the ground as well as on the surface and is interconnected to some degree.

That being said, if tomorrow I start pumping even a big number like 50,000 gallons of water from my stock well daily will some scientist be able to measure a flow reduction in the Columbia river at Portland at some point because of that withdrawal? Yeah Right!

I am also not totally convinced that there is continuity between separate ground water aquifers. I certainly can be open to that idea but I am not totally convinced at this time.

When it comes to this discussion and really ANY discussion about water there is one point that rarely is mentioned and I think is very important. That is the fact that water can be "used" without being "lost". We hear all the doom and gloom stories about water all the time but we never hear that usage does not mean disappearance!

Lets just for arguments sake take my own home ranch. It is in a low valley with lots of ground water that is a result of the irrigation project. The level of flow across this place as far as surface water varies to some degree depending more on time of year than anything else. I would guess the amount of groundwater movement would vary to some degree as well. I know the groundwater LEVEL (which is very high in this particular area) does vary because I can see the level in one of my shallow stockwater wells. Sometimes at this well the water level is as high as 2 feet below the surface and sometimes it is 4-6 feet below the surface. This not only fluctuates depending on time of year, but also depending on where and when and at what level I am irrigating other parts of the same property. I also know that the amount of water entering my property as ground water varies depending on uses of my closest "upstream" neighbors.For example some of my upstream neighbors have converted rill (furrow) irrigation to sprinkler irrigation. This has lowered the surface water level to some degree, the ground water level has not be noticeably affected.

Now lets just do a simple exercise based on my home place. I am going to throw out some numbers for the sake of argument. I don't know what the REAL numbers are but that is not as important because it is a percentage of use of whatever the real number is. Lets just say on my east border ( upstream) between surface and groundwater 1000 gpm ENTERS the place ( I base this mostly on pump capacities and from knowledge of the flow or lack of flow from past experience. Some of it as groundwater, some as surface water. So in a perfect world of continuity there should be 1000 gpm flowing OUT of the west end of my place if none of the water is used right, less if some of the water is used. However during the summer months two pumps apply around 650 gpm total as irrigation water to the same property. There are also around 130 cow-calf/pairs that drink from the surface water each day for much of the year. At 20gallons per pair per day, that is another 2600 gallons of total water consumed each day roughly. You would add to this surface water evaporation which is some level but would be minuscule in the total discussion. So with this information many would say if there is 1000 gpm entering the place but some is being used, then there would be less than 500 gpm leaving the place. However that is completely WRONG. I can easily see the surface water flow in the ditch at entry to the place and at exit anytime during the year. From a practical standpoint I see very little difference in the "out" flow whether I am irrigating , watering cows or not irrigating and watering cows. If i am not irrigating then yes the ditch runs a bit higher through the entire length of the property. If I am irrigating there are parts of the ditch running lower but at the out end it is about the SAME as any other time of the year. If continuity is real the water I apply as irrigation is to some degree leaving the property as ground water as well.

This makes sense because that water applied through irrigation is USED but it is NOT LOST. So is the water that the cows drink. Yes the cows "use" the water but between urination and manure moisture the volume returned is basically the same as the amount removed or used.

Oh I know I get too long winded but I feel it is an important point. I can buy into water continuity but I also want credit for the water that is used but not LOST in anyway through the system. All up and down any drainage there are water "uses" and yes they affect flow in parts of the system at certain times for different reasons. To say that the total out flow of the Columbia river at the Pacific being different at any perceptible level depending on my irrigation, stockwater uses or non use is RIDICULOUS. Its not like the water was loaded into a truck and shipped to some other drainage in some other country. One way or another that water flows DOWN the drainage in time to later return as rain and snowfall in a constant cycle. There is as much total water today as there will be tomorrow as there was last century on this planet. That is a FACT.

So in summary I can "buy" into water continuity. However with withdrawals from all uses in the Columbia drainage at such a low percentage of the total, and all of that water eventually being returned in some way, shape or form to the system, I really can't buy into the doom and gloom of PERCEIVED problems that continuity would be used as a basis to determine remedies those perceived problems.

Besides, we all know global warming is melting the icecaps and all the people living on the coast are going to die in the coming cataclysmic sea level rise. Shouldn't we be finding a way to reduce the amount of water entering the ocean to try and remedy this coming tragedy? wink wink