Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Glenn County Ruling Supports GCID drilling wells
Glenn County Judge rules in favor of Glenn Colusa Irrigation District's seven large production wells designed to tap into the Lower Tuscan aquifer in Butte County at the deepest point. Local activists from Butte Environmental Council challenged the GCID project's exemption from environmental review and were denied by this ruling.
Press Release:
For Immediate Release August 13, 2008
Butte Environmental Council • 116 W. Second St., Suite 3 • Chico, CA 95928 • 530/891-6424 • fax 530/891-6426 Contact: Barbara Vlamis
"GLENN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT SUPPORTS INSTALLATION OF GROUND WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
Regional Ground Water at Risk
Chico, CA – Butte Environmental Council’s challenge of Glenn Colusa Irrigation District’s (GCID) project that GCID claimed was exempt from environmental review was denied today. Despite the project’s connection to myriad regional planning documents (see below) and GCID’s own local plans, Judge Byrd ruled that installing seven production wells into the deep portions of the aquifer underlying Butte, Glenn, and Tehama counties was just a monitoring research project. BEC alleged that the seven wells project is part of a concerted and expanding effort to install infrastructure into the Tuscan ground water so that it may, as stated in numerous planning documents and contracts, become integrated into the state and federal water supply. This project, installing seven production wells, will extract a volume of ground water that exceeds the current utilization by the city of Chico in one year, creating the likelihood of a significant adverse environmental impact without the benefit of mitigation.
“BEC is disappointed in the ruling,” stated Barbara Vlamis, BEC’s Executive Director. “It is clear that the judge believed that the seven wells project was an isolated project without environmental impacts, but BEC still views it quite differently,” she continued. During the hearing, Judge Byrd found that GCID’s monitoring project in the Sacramento Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan was isolated from their Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Water Management Program that includes “the installation of up to ten new district-owned production groundwater wells” for ground water production and the Stony Creek Fan Partnership Conjunctive Management Program to name just two more planned projects. BEC’s litigation merely sought to have GCID analyze the impacts from their recently completed, current, and known future projects so that the public could review the projects comprehensively, comment, and see what safeguards existed to protect other ground water users and the environment as required in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Judge Byrd’s ruling allows GCID to claim an exemption from CEQA and to defer analysis to a later date.
GCID’s projects are using public money to expand its role in water management and marketing. As mentioned above, the current project is part of a much larger set of plans to “integrate” ground water into the state and federal water supplies. GCID has been pursuing these plans for many years. While speculators are allowed to propose projects in California, the law requires that they analyze the potential impacts and mitigate them through the CEQA. The federal contract that is funding part of this project is also seeking to,”…describe and compare the performance of three alternative ways of furnishing a substitute surface water supply to the current Lower Tuscan Formation groundwater users to eliminate the risks to them of more aggressive pumping from the Formation and to optimize conjunctive management of the Sacramento Valley water resources.” This would include over 87% of Butte County’s population. “BEC maintains that all these projects are related, could cause serious environmental and life-altering impacts, and that they should be reviewed comprehensively under CEQA,” concluded Vlamis. BEC is evaluating its options for future action.
Plans that GCID is party to:
Sacramento Valley Water Management Agreement (Phase 8, October 2001).
Estimating the Potential for In Lieu Conjunctive Water Management in the Central Valley of California (2002).
Regional Integration of the Lower Tuscan Formation Using Conjunctive Water Management in the Sacramento Valley Regional Integration of the Lower Tuscan Groundwater Formation into the Sacramento Valley Surface Water System Through Conjunctive Water Management (June 2005).
Sacramento Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (2006)."
more info & contacts @;
http://www.becnet.org/
For Immediate Release August 13, 2008
Butte Environmental Council • 116 W. Second St., Suite 3 • Chico, CA 95928 • 530/891-6424 • fax 530/891-6426 Contact: Barbara Vlamis
"GLENN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT SUPPORTS INSTALLATION OF GROUND WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
Regional Ground Water at Risk
Chico, CA – Butte Environmental Council’s challenge of Glenn Colusa Irrigation District’s (GCID) project that GCID claimed was exempt from environmental review was denied today. Despite the project’s connection to myriad regional planning documents (see below) and GCID’s own local plans, Judge Byrd ruled that installing seven production wells into the deep portions of the aquifer underlying Butte, Glenn, and Tehama counties was just a monitoring research project. BEC alleged that the seven wells project is part of a concerted and expanding effort to install infrastructure into the Tuscan ground water so that it may, as stated in numerous planning documents and contracts, become integrated into the state and federal water supply. This project, installing seven production wells, will extract a volume of ground water that exceeds the current utilization by the city of Chico in one year, creating the likelihood of a significant adverse environmental impact without the benefit of mitigation.
“BEC is disappointed in the ruling,” stated Barbara Vlamis, BEC’s Executive Director. “It is clear that the judge believed that the seven wells project was an isolated project without environmental impacts, but BEC still views it quite differently,” she continued. During the hearing, Judge Byrd found that GCID’s monitoring project in the Sacramento Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan was isolated from their Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Water Management Program that includes “the installation of up to ten new district-owned production groundwater wells” for ground water production and the Stony Creek Fan Partnership Conjunctive Management Program to name just two more planned projects. BEC’s litigation merely sought to have GCID analyze the impacts from their recently completed, current, and known future projects so that the public could review the projects comprehensively, comment, and see what safeguards existed to protect other ground water users and the environment as required in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Judge Byrd’s ruling allows GCID to claim an exemption from CEQA and to defer analysis to a later date.
GCID’s projects are using public money to expand its role in water management and marketing. As mentioned above, the current project is part of a much larger set of plans to “integrate” ground water into the state and federal water supplies. GCID has been pursuing these plans for many years. While speculators are allowed to propose projects in California, the law requires that they analyze the potential impacts and mitigate them through the CEQA. The federal contract that is funding part of this project is also seeking to,”…describe and compare the performance of three alternative ways of furnishing a substitute surface water supply to the current Lower Tuscan Formation groundwater users to eliminate the risks to them of more aggressive pumping from the Formation and to optimize conjunctive management of the Sacramento Valley water resources.” This would include over 87% of Butte County’s population. “BEC maintains that all these projects are related, could cause serious environmental and life-altering impacts, and that they should be reviewed comprehensively under CEQA,” concluded Vlamis. BEC is evaluating its options for future action.
Plans that GCID is party to:
Sacramento Valley Water Management Agreement (Phase 8, October 2001).
Estimating the Potential for In Lieu Conjunctive Water Management in the Central Valley of California (2002).
Regional Integration of the Lower Tuscan Formation Using Conjunctive Water Management in the Sacramento Valley Regional Integration of the Lower Tuscan Groundwater Formation into the Sacramento Valley Surface Water System Through Conjunctive Water Management (June 2005).
Sacramento Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (2006)."
more info & contacts @;
http://www.becnet.org/
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Groundwater Ecology of Tuscan Aquifer, Effects of GCID "Test" Wells
The recent decision by the Glenn County courts in favor of the GCID
drilling wells is disturbing to people concerned about the long term well
being (no pun intended) of the groundwater ecosystem of the Lower Tuscan aquifer and the surrounding region’s water supply. There are several factors ignored by this court decision, including the long term effects of drill well disturbance on the groundwater ecosystem. Other separate yet related risks of long term aquifer extraction from the deepest regions of the aquifer include subsiding of land and possible cavern collapse during times of overdraft. This report will focus on the effects of the drilling wells on the groundwater ecosystem and the value of a functional groundwater ecosystem.
Once the GCID drilling wells are installed, there is a good chance that
the Tuscan aquifer’s water will be removed on a regular basis, and
increasing probability that the topic of water export will be reintroduced
to the discussion. To claim that the GCID wells are only for testing is
misleading, there would be no need to test drill the deepest sections of
the Tuscan aquifer if a need for water export did not exist. Whatever the motives of the GCID architects, certain new information about aquifer ecosystems indicates that even installing drilling wells for “tests” in the deepest region of the Lower Tuscan aquifer could have certain negative side effects that would be difficult to reverse.
One major concern coming from the Butte Basin Water User’s Association (BBWUA) is an overdraft of the aquifer. The CA Dept. of Water Resources define overdraft as “Continuation of present water management practices would probably result in significant, adverse overdraft related environmental, social or economic impact.” (Mahoney, 5).
Overdrafts are measured by declining water tables during times of normal water supply, land subsidence with compacting clay soils reducing aquifer’s storage capacity in the future, seawater intrusion, and migrations of water of an unusable quality into existing groundwater
supplies (Mahoney, 5). Often times once these conditions are met to
recognize an overdraft, the original conditions of the aquifer to
pre-overdraft conditions will be nearly impossible to attain over several
years.
The BBWUA was founded as local communities got together with the intent to protect their groundwater for the future. During this time Senate Bill AB 3030 CA Groundwater Management Act was passed in 1992 to ensure that agencies were allowed to impose fees and assessments for management based on amount of groundwater extracted from basin (Mahoney, 17). The BBWUA was formed under this law to protect the groundwater from the boundaries as far north as Singer Creek, east to the Chico Monocline and the Feather and
Yuba Rivers, south to Marysville Buttes and Sacramento River, and west to the Sacramento River (Mahoney, 22). This is not in the exact same water management district as the Lower Tuscan aquifer, though it shows an example of how important the protection of their aquifer water is. During 1994, two years after the group’s founding, the Butte Basin region under their protection was documented as providing the state’s water bank with 65% of their water (Mahoney, 22).
When compared to the practices of water users in other regions like West Texas and Kansas, the long term value of water is reflected in the
management policies of each group differently. In both West Texas and
Kansas, the aquifers are managed for depletion, not sustainability
(Mahoney, 53). There is little chance for new careers in farming in
regions where the aquifer is managed for depletion, as farms will go dry
and be rendered unusable once the aquifer is completely depleted. It
became clear that the Butte Basin management style was different as they managed their aquifer to include the use of future generations (Mahoney, 50). Another suggestion was to keep upland recharge areas free from development so that rainwater could infiltrate the groundwater without being lost to runoff from impermeable surfaces (Mahoney, 55).
Unfortunately the latest ruling by the Glenn County judge in favor of
massive groundwater extraction projects seems to follow the examples of West Texas and Kansas by focusing on testing for water export and
depletion management. Local water users already have their medium sized wells intact, and would risk losing these sources if even deeper wells were installed by GCID to extract additional quantities from the Tuscan formation. According to the studies, groundwater management decisions are more effective if decentralized and locally based (Mahoney, 5). The recent GCID decision may be from a local Glenn County judge, though the original idea of GCID wells for export are anything but local. State demand on local water districts always favors the largest agribusiness corporations to benefit from water exports without considering the long term effects of these choices on the local community and the ecosystem.
Another relevant topic includes recent evidence of a complex groundwater ecosystem inhabited by mostly microbial and other small endemic organisms that occupy the soil pore spaces in varied levels of groundwater environment. While each groundwater ecosystem is different according to the substrate and other geochemical conditions of the soil substrate, generalizations of species naming and classification are usually according to height and distance from surface water to deepest groundwater.
There are generally four general categories of groundwater inhabitants;
Hypogean organisms with ocular regression, lack of pigmentation, long,
thin body shape and lower metabolism that inhabit the mixed boundary
between the surface water and the beginning of moving water below soil
surface. The stygoxenes inhabit caves and/or alluvial sediments, close to the surface and maintain requirements for oxygen. The stygophiles are more common in groundwater and show three subcategories; occasional hyporheos with larvae of benthos dwelling adult insects, amphibites with larvae in the deep hyporheic zone for one year, and adults that can live in terrestrial environments with interstitial stage development, and permanent hyporheos that spend their entire life cycle in groundwater and/or benthic habitats. Finally there are two subcategories of stygobites found in both alluvial and karst groundwater; the ubiquitous stygobites that sometimes come close to surface water, and the pheatobite stygobite that is restricted to deep groundwater strata of the alluvial aquifer (Gibert, Stanford, et. al., 10-13).
There are several conditions that can effect the ability of the
groundwater species fauna to perform their activities of consuming
detritus and other food items that could accumulate and pollute the
groundwater if left unconsumed. The groundwater food web is heterotrophic, depending on biomass and detritus to filter down from the surface (Gibert, Stanford, 15). Without a healthy groundwater ecosystem, the water would become clogged with detritus. Degradation of groundwater requires a long time before detection. Eutrophication, clogging of interstices, altered productivity, and loss of ecosystem resiliency are all results of groundwater degradation (Gibert, Stanford, 18).
Another risk to groundwater supplies is from excessive nitrates used in
commercial fertilizer to infiltrate into the lower levels of groundwater.
Especially if there is a deeper draw on the lower levels of groundwater,
this would allow the nitrates to penetrate into the deepest reaches of the
aquifer. The bacteria that reduce nitrate are usually heterotrophic, and
nitrate is usually low unless there is pollution from fertilizers (Gounot,
200).
The standard of an unpolluted aquifer has a limited nitrogen cycle, as
most bacteria found in groundwater can reduce nitrate when organic carbon and nitrate are present, and even in polluted aquifers they can carry out degradation of organic compounds and denitrification (Gounot, 205).
However, in the deepest reaches of the aquifer, these heterotrophic
bacteria may be unable to reduce nitrate due to unavailability of oxygen, this could be one of the consequences of the deeper GCID wells sucking the nitrate plumes to deeper levels of the aquifer where oxygen supplies are scarce. The soluble nitrates could also be drawn deeper than the particulate carbon would travel through smaller pore spaces, limiting the activities of the bacterial denitrification. In addition, older water in deeper aquifers may contain higher levels of salt and heavy metal concentrates and is colonized by resistant microbes that evolved to inhabit this niche (Gounot, 201). The presence of these metal resistant microbes may limit space available to the nitrate reducing bacteria.
Scientists now recognize that groundwater biota can be indicators of
groundwater quality (Job, Simmons, 525). The hyporheic zones of surface and groundwater exchange need to be included in monitoring of riparian water quality (Job, Simmons, 526). According to the Water Encyclopedia website, “The hyporheic zone is defined as a subsurface volume of sediment and porous space adjacent to a stream through which stream water readily exchanges. Although the hyporheic zone physically is defined by the hydrology of a stream and its surrounding environment, it has a strong influence on stream ecology, stream biogeochemical cycling, and stream-water temperatures. Thus, the hyporheic zone is an important component of stream ecosystems.” (waterencyclopedia.com)
Within the hyporheic zones is the entryway to the groundwater ecosystem, and the balance of groundwater depends on the homeostasis of the hyporheic zone. The homeostasis mechanisms within the groundwater ecosystem are highly evolved based upon the biophysical constants of the subterranean environment. To determine the fate of pollutants, the adverse impacts on the groundwater biota can be measured. Since the hyporeic zones are subject to frequent changes, the biota has some degree of resiliency. However, there is a limited ability of the groundwater ecosystem inhabitants to moderate stress from pollution (Job, Simmons, 534).
Taking into consideration the location of the drilling wells near the
hyporeic zones of the Sacramento River and other streams, the risks of
subsidence and aquifer collapse are also placing these entryway regions in jeopardy.
Returning to the deep aquifers, the bacteria there are noticed by their
unique biochemical markers and viable cell counts. They are considered to be autochthonous to the region they inhabit. There is a morphological and physiological difference between the autochthonous groundwater bacteria and the surface bacteria introduced by drilling fluids (Gounot, 195.) The microflora found in aquifers is less diverse than the surface soil microflora, though the diversity of aquifer microflora does not decrease with increasing depth (Gounot, 195). The autochthonous microbes of the aquifer must be chemotrophic as no oxygen is available for energy needs (Gounot, 197).
When looking at groundwater recharge from streams and rivers, certain
patterns occur when comparing the riparian water level to the piezometric surface. According to the “Lifewater.ca” website, the piezometric surface is defined as “The water level surface that can be defined from the mapping of water level elevations in wells tapping into a confined aquifer.” (Lifewater.ca website).
The stream can either remove water from an aquifer when the stream’s
waterline is below the piezometric surface or add water to the groundwater if the waterline is above the piezometric surface (Crueze des Chatelliers, et. al. 178). If the river has narrow banks, the water flows swiftly, causing channels to become more incised. The more incised a stream channel becomes; the greater the amount of erosion will occur. Erosion and degradation that occurs upstream will result in redeposition and aggradation of sediment further downstream. This is called hydraulic tilting of longitudinal profile. Some of this erosion is natural result of physical and chemical weathering of parent material further upstream, though the channelization and incision of stream channels in the middle sections is a result of human activity. The increased incision of streams can also effect groundwater by lowering the stream’s waterline to below the piezometric surface and drain the groundwater to an even lower surface. If the groundwater is drained during low-water periods, the surface waters supply the groundwater in raised reaches (Crueze des Chatelliers, 179). The incision of the stream channel concentrates the flow in a narrow floodplain, limits submersion of the floodplain and contributes indirectly to the reduction of recharge phase of the groundwater from a flooded surface (Crueze des Chatelliers, 179).
What this variation in aquifer recharge and drainage shows is that the
level of the stream and river is crucial to the top level of the
piezometric surface in confined aquifers, and this would also include
effects on unconfined aquifers. Here again the risk of land subsidence
would effect both the level of the stream waterline and the piezometric
surface, taking from deep wells and overdrafting could lower the levels of both water surfaces relative to one another’s present elevation. The
effects of streambank incision are already bad enough; we don’t need the additional effects of subsidence from GCID deepwater wells lowering the stream and aquifer simultaneously.
If we imagine the groundwater ecosystem biota as a living mesh of filter
feeders, then the frequency of seasonal stream and river flooding in the
aquifer recharge areas of the floodplain could be seen as a benefit. The
benefits of flooding occur on three scales; micro, meso and macro. The
macroscale benefits are when the aquifer pore spaces and hydrologic
geomorphology of catchments determine unique aquifer properties. The
mesoscale benefits include enrichment of energetic resources and
modification of organic carbon based matter stored in pore spaces,
dispersal of nutrients and allochthonous fauna into the aquifer,
restroration of groundwater habitats and populations, and the extirpation of autochthonous species. The microscale benefits are found in the spatial scale of pores, fissure and channel over the annual hydrological cycle with changes in water velocity, grain size, temperature and energy resources (Gibert, Stanford, 18-19). We are reminded that although the deepest groundwater is covered and protected by impermeable rock, once damaged this region of the aquifer is subject to long recovery times (Gibert, Stanford, 27).
What the GCID deep water wells are planning on doing is breaking through this protective rock with their “test” drills, come what may. The test will be experienced by the groundwater biota’s ability to adapt to an
infinite variety of changes. If the GCID test well drills disrupt the
groundwater ecosystem beyond their ability to cope, then the next test
will be for the people of Butte County to cope with a polluted aquifer.
References;
“Determining Acceptable Groundwater Management Within Butte Basin Water
User’s Association: User’s Perspective” CSU Thesis By Ann C. Mahoney 1996;
GB 54.5 M34
“Groundwater Ecology” edited by Janine Gilbert, Dan Danielpol, Jack
Stanford Published by Academic Press, 1994 San Diego
Groundwater Ecology book link;
http://www.nhbs.com/groundwater_ecology_tefno_16515.html
All articles below found in “Groundwater Ecology”
Article #1;
“Geomorphology of Alluvial Groundwater Ecosystems “ by M. Crueze des
Chatelliers, D. Poinsart & J.P. Bravard
Article #2;
“Ecological Basis for Management of Groundwater in the U.S.: Statutes,
Regulations and a Strategic Plan” by C.A. Job & J.J. Simons
Article #3;
“Basic Attributes of Groundwater Ecosystems & Prospects for Research” By
J. Gibert, J.A. Stanford, M.J. Dole-Olivier, & J.V. Ward
Article #4;
“Microbial Ecology of Groundwaters” by A.M. Gounot
Definitions;
Autochthonous - au•toch•tho•nous (ô-tkth-ns) also au•toch•tho•nal (-th-nl)
or au•toch•thon•ic (ôtk-thnk)
adj.
1. Originating where found; indigenous: autochthonous rocks; an
autochthonous people; autochthonous folktales. See Synonyms at native.
2. Biology Originating or formed in the place where found: an
autochthonous blood clot.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/autochthonous
hypogean - hy•po•ge•al (hp-jl) also hy•po•ge•an (-n) or hy•po•ge•ous (-s)
adj.
1. Located under the earth's surface; underground.
2. Botany Of or relating to seed germination in which the cotyledons
remain below the surface of the ground.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Hypogean
hyporheic zone - “The hyporheic zone is defined as a subsurface volume of sediment and porous space adjacent to a stream through which stream water readily exchanges. Although the hyporheic zone physically is defined by the hydrology of a stream and its surrounding environment, it has a strong influence on stream ecology, stream biogeochemical cycling, and stream-water temperatures. Thus, the hyporheic zone is an important component of stream ecosystems.”
http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/St-Ts/Stream-Hyporheic-Zone-of-a.html
PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE - The water level surface that can be defined from the mapping of water level elevations in wells tapping into a confined aquifer.
http://www.lifewater.ca/Appendix_A.htm
other related info;
http://www.dwaf.gov.za/events/WaterWeek/2005/Documents/WaterWheelJan05c.pdf
The recent decision by the Glenn County courts in favor of the GCID
drilling wells is disturbing to people concerned about the long term well
being (no pun intended) of the groundwater ecosystem of the Lower Tuscan aquifer and the surrounding region’s water supply. There are several factors ignored by this court decision, including the long term effects of drill well disturbance on the groundwater ecosystem. Other separate yet related risks of long term aquifer extraction from the deepest regions of the aquifer include subsiding of land and possible cavern collapse during times of overdraft. This report will focus on the effects of the drilling wells on the groundwater ecosystem and the value of a functional groundwater ecosystem.
Once the GCID drilling wells are installed, there is a good chance that
the Tuscan aquifer’s water will be removed on a regular basis, and
increasing probability that the topic of water export will be reintroduced
to the discussion. To claim that the GCID wells are only for testing is
misleading, there would be no need to test drill the deepest sections of
the Tuscan aquifer if a need for water export did not exist. Whatever the motives of the GCID architects, certain new information about aquifer ecosystems indicates that even installing drilling wells for “tests” in the deepest region of the Lower Tuscan aquifer could have certain negative side effects that would be difficult to reverse.
One major concern coming from the Butte Basin Water User’s Association (BBWUA) is an overdraft of the aquifer. The CA Dept. of Water Resources define overdraft as “Continuation of present water management practices would probably result in significant, adverse overdraft related environmental, social or economic impact.” (Mahoney, 5).
Overdrafts are measured by declining water tables during times of normal water supply, land subsidence with compacting clay soils reducing aquifer’s storage capacity in the future, seawater intrusion, and migrations of water of an unusable quality into existing groundwater
supplies (Mahoney, 5). Often times once these conditions are met to
recognize an overdraft, the original conditions of the aquifer to
pre-overdraft conditions will be nearly impossible to attain over several
years.
The BBWUA was founded as local communities got together with the intent to protect their groundwater for the future. During this time Senate Bill AB 3030 CA Groundwater Management Act was passed in 1992 to ensure that agencies were allowed to impose fees and assessments for management based on amount of groundwater extracted from basin (Mahoney, 17). The BBWUA was formed under this law to protect the groundwater from the boundaries as far north as Singer Creek, east to the Chico Monocline and the Feather and
Yuba Rivers, south to Marysville Buttes and Sacramento River, and west to the Sacramento River (Mahoney, 22). This is not in the exact same water management district as the Lower Tuscan aquifer, though it shows an example of how important the protection of their aquifer water is. During 1994, two years after the group’s founding, the Butte Basin region under their protection was documented as providing the state’s water bank with 65% of their water (Mahoney, 22).
When compared to the practices of water users in other regions like West Texas and Kansas, the long term value of water is reflected in the
management policies of each group differently. In both West Texas and
Kansas, the aquifers are managed for depletion, not sustainability
(Mahoney, 53). There is little chance for new careers in farming in
regions where the aquifer is managed for depletion, as farms will go dry
and be rendered unusable once the aquifer is completely depleted. It
became clear that the Butte Basin management style was different as they managed their aquifer to include the use of future generations (Mahoney, 50). Another suggestion was to keep upland recharge areas free from development so that rainwater could infiltrate the groundwater without being lost to runoff from impermeable surfaces (Mahoney, 55).
Unfortunately the latest ruling by the Glenn County judge in favor of
massive groundwater extraction projects seems to follow the examples of West Texas and Kansas by focusing on testing for water export and
depletion management. Local water users already have their medium sized wells intact, and would risk losing these sources if even deeper wells were installed by GCID to extract additional quantities from the Tuscan formation. According to the studies, groundwater management decisions are more effective if decentralized and locally based (Mahoney, 5). The recent GCID decision may be from a local Glenn County judge, though the original idea of GCID wells for export are anything but local. State demand on local water districts always favors the largest agribusiness corporations to benefit from water exports without considering the long term effects of these choices on the local community and the ecosystem.
Another relevant topic includes recent evidence of a complex groundwater ecosystem inhabited by mostly microbial and other small endemic organisms that occupy the soil pore spaces in varied levels of groundwater environment. While each groundwater ecosystem is different according to the substrate and other geochemical conditions of the soil substrate, generalizations of species naming and classification are usually according to height and distance from surface water to deepest groundwater.
There are generally four general categories of groundwater inhabitants;
Hypogean organisms with ocular regression, lack of pigmentation, long,
thin body shape and lower metabolism that inhabit the mixed boundary
between the surface water and the beginning of moving water below soil
surface. The stygoxenes inhabit caves and/or alluvial sediments, close to the surface and maintain requirements for oxygen. The stygophiles are more common in groundwater and show three subcategories; occasional hyporheos with larvae of benthos dwelling adult insects, amphibites with larvae in the deep hyporheic zone for one year, and adults that can live in terrestrial environments with interstitial stage development, and permanent hyporheos that spend their entire life cycle in groundwater and/or benthic habitats. Finally there are two subcategories of stygobites found in both alluvial and karst groundwater; the ubiquitous stygobites that sometimes come close to surface water, and the pheatobite stygobite that is restricted to deep groundwater strata of the alluvial aquifer (Gibert, Stanford, et. al., 10-13).
There are several conditions that can effect the ability of the
groundwater species fauna to perform their activities of consuming
detritus and other food items that could accumulate and pollute the
groundwater if left unconsumed. The groundwater food web is heterotrophic, depending on biomass and detritus to filter down from the surface (Gibert, Stanford, 15). Without a healthy groundwater ecosystem, the water would become clogged with detritus. Degradation of groundwater requires a long time before detection. Eutrophication, clogging of interstices, altered productivity, and loss of ecosystem resiliency are all results of groundwater degradation (Gibert, Stanford, 18).
Another risk to groundwater supplies is from excessive nitrates used in
commercial fertilizer to infiltrate into the lower levels of groundwater.
Especially if there is a deeper draw on the lower levels of groundwater,
this would allow the nitrates to penetrate into the deepest reaches of the
aquifer. The bacteria that reduce nitrate are usually heterotrophic, and
nitrate is usually low unless there is pollution from fertilizers (Gounot,
200).
The standard of an unpolluted aquifer has a limited nitrogen cycle, as
most bacteria found in groundwater can reduce nitrate when organic carbon and nitrate are present, and even in polluted aquifers they can carry out degradation of organic compounds and denitrification (Gounot, 205).
However, in the deepest reaches of the aquifer, these heterotrophic
bacteria may be unable to reduce nitrate due to unavailability of oxygen, this could be one of the consequences of the deeper GCID wells sucking the nitrate plumes to deeper levels of the aquifer where oxygen supplies are scarce. The soluble nitrates could also be drawn deeper than the particulate carbon would travel through smaller pore spaces, limiting the activities of the bacterial denitrification. In addition, older water in deeper aquifers may contain higher levels of salt and heavy metal concentrates and is colonized by resistant microbes that evolved to inhabit this niche (Gounot, 201). The presence of these metal resistant microbes may limit space available to the nitrate reducing bacteria.
Scientists now recognize that groundwater biota can be indicators of
groundwater quality (Job, Simmons, 525). The hyporheic zones of surface and groundwater exchange need to be included in monitoring of riparian water quality (Job, Simmons, 526). According to the Water Encyclopedia website, “The hyporheic zone is defined as a subsurface volume of sediment and porous space adjacent to a stream through which stream water readily exchanges. Although the hyporheic zone physically is defined by the hydrology of a stream and its surrounding environment, it has a strong influence on stream ecology, stream biogeochemical cycling, and stream-water temperatures. Thus, the hyporheic zone is an important component of stream ecosystems.” (waterencyclopedia.com)
Within the hyporheic zones is the entryway to the groundwater ecosystem, and the balance of groundwater depends on the homeostasis of the hyporheic zone. The homeostasis mechanisms within the groundwater ecosystem are highly evolved based upon the biophysical constants of the subterranean environment. To determine the fate of pollutants, the adverse impacts on the groundwater biota can be measured. Since the hyporeic zones are subject to frequent changes, the biota has some degree of resiliency. However, there is a limited ability of the groundwater ecosystem inhabitants to moderate stress from pollution (Job, Simmons, 534).
Taking into consideration the location of the drilling wells near the
hyporeic zones of the Sacramento River and other streams, the risks of
subsidence and aquifer collapse are also placing these entryway regions in jeopardy.
Returning to the deep aquifers, the bacteria there are noticed by their
unique biochemical markers and viable cell counts. They are considered to be autochthonous to the region they inhabit. There is a morphological and physiological difference between the autochthonous groundwater bacteria and the surface bacteria introduced by drilling fluids (Gounot, 195.) The microflora found in aquifers is less diverse than the surface soil microflora, though the diversity of aquifer microflora does not decrease with increasing depth (Gounot, 195). The autochthonous microbes of the aquifer must be chemotrophic as no oxygen is available for energy needs (Gounot, 197).
When looking at groundwater recharge from streams and rivers, certain
patterns occur when comparing the riparian water level to the piezometric surface. According to the “Lifewater.ca” website, the piezometric surface is defined as “The water level surface that can be defined from the mapping of water level elevations in wells tapping into a confined aquifer.” (Lifewater.ca website).
The stream can either remove water from an aquifer when the stream’s
waterline is below the piezometric surface or add water to the groundwater if the waterline is above the piezometric surface (Crueze des Chatelliers, et. al. 178). If the river has narrow banks, the water flows swiftly, causing channels to become more incised. The more incised a stream channel becomes; the greater the amount of erosion will occur. Erosion and degradation that occurs upstream will result in redeposition and aggradation of sediment further downstream. This is called hydraulic tilting of longitudinal profile. Some of this erosion is natural result of physical and chemical weathering of parent material further upstream, though the channelization and incision of stream channels in the middle sections is a result of human activity. The increased incision of streams can also effect groundwater by lowering the stream’s waterline to below the piezometric surface and drain the groundwater to an even lower surface. If the groundwater is drained during low-water periods, the surface waters supply the groundwater in raised reaches (Crueze des Chatelliers, 179). The incision of the stream channel concentrates the flow in a narrow floodplain, limits submersion of the floodplain and contributes indirectly to the reduction of recharge phase of the groundwater from a flooded surface (Crueze des Chatelliers, 179).
What this variation in aquifer recharge and drainage shows is that the
level of the stream and river is crucial to the top level of the
piezometric surface in confined aquifers, and this would also include
effects on unconfined aquifers. Here again the risk of land subsidence
would effect both the level of the stream waterline and the piezometric
surface, taking from deep wells and overdrafting could lower the levels of both water surfaces relative to one another’s present elevation. The
effects of streambank incision are already bad enough; we don’t need the additional effects of subsidence from GCID deepwater wells lowering the stream and aquifer simultaneously.
If we imagine the groundwater ecosystem biota as a living mesh of filter
feeders, then the frequency of seasonal stream and river flooding in the
aquifer recharge areas of the floodplain could be seen as a benefit. The
benefits of flooding occur on three scales; micro, meso and macro. The
macroscale benefits are when the aquifer pore spaces and hydrologic
geomorphology of catchments determine unique aquifer properties. The
mesoscale benefits include enrichment of energetic resources and
modification of organic carbon based matter stored in pore spaces,
dispersal of nutrients and allochthonous fauna into the aquifer,
restroration of groundwater habitats and populations, and the extirpation of autochthonous species. The microscale benefits are found in the spatial scale of pores, fissure and channel over the annual hydrological cycle with changes in water velocity, grain size, temperature and energy resources (Gibert, Stanford, 18-19). We are reminded that although the deepest groundwater is covered and protected by impermeable rock, once damaged this region of the aquifer is subject to long recovery times (Gibert, Stanford, 27).
What the GCID deep water wells are planning on doing is breaking through this protective rock with their “test” drills, come what may. The test will be experienced by the groundwater biota’s ability to adapt to an
infinite variety of changes. If the GCID test well drills disrupt the
groundwater ecosystem beyond their ability to cope, then the next test
will be for the people of Butte County to cope with a polluted aquifer.
References;
“Determining Acceptable Groundwater Management Within Butte Basin Water
User’s Association: User’s Perspective” CSU Thesis By Ann C. Mahoney 1996;
GB 54.5 M34
“Groundwater Ecology” edited by Janine Gilbert, Dan Danielpol, Jack
Stanford Published by Academic Press, 1994 San Diego
Groundwater Ecology book link;
http://www.nhbs.com/groundwater_ecology_tefno_16515.html
All articles below found in “Groundwater Ecology”
Article #1;
“Geomorphology of Alluvial Groundwater Ecosystems “ by M. Crueze des
Chatelliers, D. Poinsart & J.P. Bravard
Article #2;
“Ecological Basis for Management of Groundwater in the U.S.: Statutes,
Regulations and a Strategic Plan” by C.A. Job & J.J. Simons
Article #3;
“Basic Attributes of Groundwater Ecosystems & Prospects for Research” By
J. Gibert, J.A. Stanford, M.J. Dole-Olivier, & J.V. Ward
Article #4;
“Microbial Ecology of Groundwaters” by A.M. Gounot
Definitions;
Autochthonous - au•toch•tho•nous (ô-tkth-ns) also au•toch•tho•nal (-th-nl)
or au•toch•thon•ic (ôtk-thnk)
adj.
1. Originating where found; indigenous: autochthonous rocks; an
autochthonous people; autochthonous folktales. See Synonyms at native.
2. Biology Originating or formed in the place where found: an
autochthonous blood clot.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/autochthonous
hypogean - hy•po•ge•al (hp-jl) also hy•po•ge•an (-n) or hy•po•ge•ous (-s)
adj.
1. Located under the earth's surface; underground.
2. Botany Of or relating to seed germination in which the cotyledons
remain below the surface of the ground.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Hypogean
hyporheic zone - “The hyporheic zone is defined as a subsurface volume of sediment and porous space adjacent to a stream through which stream water readily exchanges. Although the hyporheic zone physically is defined by the hydrology of a stream and its surrounding environment, it has a strong influence on stream ecology, stream biogeochemical cycling, and stream-water temperatures. Thus, the hyporheic zone is an important component of stream ecosystems.”
http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/St-Ts/Stream-Hyporheic-Zone-of-a.html
PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE - The water level surface that can be defined from the mapping of water level elevations in wells tapping into a confined aquifer.
http://www.lifewater.ca/Appendix_A.htm
other related info;
http://www.dwaf.gov.za/events/WaterWeek/2005/Documents/WaterWheelJan05c.pdf
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$115.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network