Wichita hasn’t faced the water restrictions this summer that Salina has, or that are permanent in many cities in Colorado. But as Raymond Hull of Wichita noted in a Reader Views letter Friday, that day could come unless Wichitans change their water-hogging ways. Conserve water by fixing leaky faucets and toilets, not letting the water run while you shave or brush your teeth, and not over-watering your lawn (healthy lawns need only about an inch of water a week). As Hull wrote: “Our underground water supply will not last forever. We must conserve it or we will lose it.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- Phantom on Open thread 11/24
- sursum on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- KSGolfnut on Whose ‘unchecked spending’?
- outlander on Open thread 11/24
70 Comments
No. Waste water so those chicano guys selling water bottles on the highways can really make a killing!
Reported on radio news this morning: “Flow of the Arkansas River in Hutchinson is lowest ever recorded.” Here in Wichita, the Arkansas River looks like its about to dry up. Out in western Kansas, the Arkansas River has been dry for several years. At Dodge City, I was told the river bed of the Arkansas River is used by off-road vehicles.
Of course, Colorado retains most of the water flow from the Rocky Mountains in the John Martin Reservoir (I think that’s correct name) for irrigation purposes.
Wichita gets its water from Cheney Lake fed by the north branch of the Ninnescah River which starts out in Stafford County and also water wells located near Halstead. But water levels in both are also endangered.
All removal of water from Kansas rivers and wells should be inventoried and reviewed as to importance .. immediately.
The new ethanol alternative energy industry promoted by all candidates for Kansas governor is suspect because of the amount of water needed for ethanol production as well as for growing the corn which also requires irrigation.
In the not to distant future, water will become more valuable than oil in Kansas and many other states.
This thread is not getting much play. That’s too bad. This is a very important issue. I don’t think anyone can argue against the importance and thus appropriate conservation of water. Thus I will not be likely to get going an attention grabbing fight. I will watch for takers!
Jwink and some of the others on this forum had the opportunity to attend the 2nd bloggers “meet up” which I helped organize. It took place in Wichita Watson park. I’ve been going to that little park for 40 years. The sandpit lake in that park has changed as I’ve grown. At first I thought it was just me. Things from our youth lose “size” as we grow. But in recent years I’ve realized it was not that I was growing. It was the lake that was shrinking. It has dropped my guess some 8 feet. This former sandpit sits on the Arkansas river. So the drop in this lake is indicative of a drop in the water table it’s digging exposed. This is disquieting. It is not difficult to imagine a future where the river is little more than a dusty ditch here as it is out west.
There are good ideas as to the conservation of water. No doubt more will be posted. For myself I’ll throw a few less buckets of it on some posters who are already all wet! Do my part!
There are those who decry agricultural subsidies. But it is probably long past time to consider more of them. 20 years ago when I flew over Western Kansas, I saw a mostly brown landscape dotted with postage stamp looking squares of green. Most of these squares surrounded a lush green circle…..the telltale of irrigation and a sign of crops being grown not truly suited to the landscape. It’s time that changed. Perhaps a “farming” of water. Grow more area appropriate crops or let the land go fallow to “recharge” with water.
Oh dear, if we adopt water conservation measures we might become like those liberal cities on the Coasts. We can’t offer partial rebates for those who purchase water conserving appliances because the terrorists will win. We certainly can’t have a surcharge on water consumption for commercial purposes because September 11th changed everything. The only solution is to get rid of the estate tax because that’s what Jesus would want.
GOOD COMMENTS J.R. I wish KFG would comment on the water situation which I know she is concerned about. The point I wish to make is that Wichita is not safe from this spreading water deficit. Wichita’s drinking water basically comes from the west where water tables are rapidly dropping. In my opinion, this drop will be hastened by the development of many new ethanol manufacturing plants proposed across Kansas and of course the drought itself.
The Wichita EAGLE recently ran a guest editorial written by a young lady graduate student with the Land Institute in Salina. Simply put, the Land Institute measures energy-in vs energy-out on agricultural lands. Her editorial was titled “Biofuel No Silver Bullet.” Its too long to repeat verbatim here but I wish Ms. Julia Olmstead would weigh in on this WE Blog with her comments.
Water shortages are as close as the outlying areas of Wichita… Goddard and other cities around Wichita are very dry. Goddard is on a voluntary water restriction which seems to be effective for now but the city is growing by leaps and bounds. This wont last long.
The city of Goddard has spent the past couple of years (4 i think) drilling test wells looking for more water around West Wichita. So far the city has struck out more than the Royals!
Derby ran into the same problem therefor they had to start buying water from Wichita. From what I understand the same thing is going to happen to Andover.
I think that Water should be controlled by Regional Water Boards or districts. All of the water from everywhere would be controlled and distributed FAIRLY among all of the municipalities and agriculture.
This way places Goddard, Garden Plaine, Wichita and other Western Sedgwick county cities could pool their resources to provide for their citizens.
Oh, and i think EVERYONE should be held accountable for how much and/or what they use their water for. There is no reason to be watering your yard for two hours every day like some people I know… I think places like Golf Courses and land users should be required to water the grass with surface water that they must retain themselves from surface water.
I said we would have more good ideas and I see that is true.
Jwink kfg has the grand opening of her new restaurant this weekend and so we will not likely be seeing her. I think she has waited for a thread like this for a long time. We may need to carry it til she gets to it. I know she has much passion on the subject and if anyone can get it attention she can!
Property taxes in and around Wichita are a big issue. How about a property tax credit for xeri scaping? (For the casual reader, that is the planiting of plants and grasses more suited to the environment.)
We need a scientist like Ben on this one too.
I wanted to say that before I throw kind of a wild one out there.
What about the possibility of water condensers? Wichita has a frequently high humidity. Would it be possible or economical to help replenish the aquifer with moisture collected from the air? IF so, would this affect the environment? (Gotta be sure from the start that a solution for one problem does not cause another.)
Condensers would be far too energy intensive. I think what we need to be doing is many-fold: quit watering so much (lawns go dormant, not dead if the right grass is used); use grey water for golf courses etc. One nice thing about not watering so much is I don’t have to mow so much. Use mulching mowers – especially when hot/dry. Again – they are easier. Plant drought-resistamt vegetation.
Like with energy – it will take numerous things to solve this.
Looking at City actions: we go to great lengths to channelize streams to get rid of water when it rains. Chris Carrier calls this “improvements”. As a person trained in geomorphology I call it STUPID. We should be mimicking nature – build numerous small detention/retention ponds to contain water and eith release slowly or allow to percolate into the aquifer.
Instead of engineers we should have natural scientists doing this sort of planning.
I wonder if their would be a way to modify the “big ditch” to accomplish something like that. It’s goal was diversion of water around the city and it has succeeded brilliantly in that. I wonder if it could not be modified to do as you suggested Ben.
To go along with Ben, Start trapping more water north of the city along the areas where the cities pumps are now, creating large, man made marsh lands along the creeks. Nature will take over from there but if we can create large, open, flooded areas, we can return large amounts of water to the aquifer. We could even put “gray water” into these marshes and allow mother nature do what she does best, clean water!
To go along with that JR, build more dams along the river to let the water “pool” more like it does downtown to keep the river full. that will help put more water under the city. Possibly build the same type of dams along the ditch keeping water retained during the dry season and lowered in the wet season to allow water to pass freely.
We can also pull “emergency” water from the river in the event of greater droubt. Use river water to water the parks, etc…
Yes, JR, it could be done. However the engineers don’t like the idea. And, as we all know, the engineers know best. After all, look at how wonderful a job they did in New Orleans with their decision to LOWER the city by several feet and remove the protective marshes by channelizing the Mississippi River.
Just a thought — if we take too much water out of the natural flow of the Arkansas River, cities south of Wichita might object such as Tulsa or even the state of Oklahoma.
As a Kansas history buff, I recall comments (in books) by early pioneers of a couple years around 1859 when not a drop of rain fell in northeast Kansas. Yet I also recall mention of several great floods in the 1800’s, one in 1844 when the Kansas River valley was said to have flooded from ridge to ridge.
Of course, in more recent history, the drouth of the mid-1930’s produced the Kansas dust storms. During that time, in 1936, my parents lived in Satanta, Kansas, possibly ground zero for dust storms.
Incidentally, my mother recalled the local Satanta cafe served lots of cabbage for some reason, maybe it thrived in dry, dusty soil.
There was also the great Kansas River flood of 1951 that topped the warehouses in the west bottoms industrial district of Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas … prior to construction of Kemper Arena down there.
I always wondered if Wichita flooded in 1951 or were those rains confined to northern Kansas and the Kansas River valley?
Does anyone have access to a chart of floods and drouths in Kansas over the past 200 years to see if a discernable pattern/cycle exists? Now that would be interesting.
What’s that saying? Something like … the only thing constant is change. I think they no longer serve cabbage in Satanta!
“if we take too much water out of the natural flow of the Arkansas River, cities south of Wichita might object such as Tulsa or even the state of Oklahoma. ”
Thats exactally whats happening to us with CO taking a majority of the water out of the Ark River.
I think Craig Minor at WSU would have that history.
As to your other question Oklahome would have the same causes of action against KS as we had against CO and NE.
Of course, I am waiting for people down river to note that channelizing upriver exacerbates flooding below.
Ben,
Why is it people down river haven’t figured this out yet?
Good question Tony. Kind of like why the people downstream on the Calfskin (Dells, Hidden Lakes) haven’t figured out the impact of upstream floodplain fill. Or whi Wichita cannot see the impact that increasing the load on Dry Creek in Goddard from the “wall” (Kellogg project deviding Goddard) will have on Cowskin/Calfskin downstream.
Well Jwink the concerns for those downstream on the Ark. are valid. As is noted above, efforts to divert off water here would likely result in legal action just as Kansas has taken against Colorado.
But there ARE opportunities to capture above normal river flow. This is what the “big ditch” was designed for.
Imagine as Tony posted areas of wetlands or small holding lakes to allow overflow of the Ark. to be captured long enough to filter into the aquifer. As far as I know, the land adjacent to the “big ditch” is largely undeveloped.
No JR, the Big Ditch was NOT designed to capture above normal water flow – quite the opposite. It is designed to move it as fast as possible toward Ark City and on downstream. That is the engineers way – chanellize it and forget it. It is left to natural scientists like myself to try to get that changed.
Over the years I have spoken to City Council about the folly of their channelization. “Today we are here spending millions to get rid of water when it rains. Tomorrow we will be here spending millions trying to find water when it doesn’t rain.” WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?
It has been observed that disrupted streams both flood and dry out more than non-disrupted. That is why I advocate mimicking nature in our water management practices – both control flooding and preserve the water to maintain low flow. Unfortunately the engineers “know best” (sic)
OOPS
I meant to say capture and divert. BAD mistake my part. The whole point of the “big ditch” was to get water AWAY from the city. If it can be used to keep water safely near the city it should. Sorry the flub.
I wonder about parking lots. Are there strong but permeable alternatives to asphalt or concrete? If not they should be researched.
Consider a bunch of concrete “cinder blocks” laid on the side and cemented together. Fill the empty space with gravel. Overlay with a permeable geotextile surface.
J.R. and Ben: A problem with the “Big Ditch” is the built-up banks are made of gravel/sand and can’t withstand continuous running water for very long. I guess as long as the water flow remains below the normal surrounding land, just like in a river, the running water would be retained adequately. I wonder if the sandy built-up dikes along the big ditch have ever been tested with a high flow of storm water?
I do remember looking at an old topographical map of the area that later became the Big Ditch. There was a creek or drainage thread through there. So, apparently this thread was widened and the levees built alongside to create the Big Ditch.
Somebody needs to be credited with seeing this potential some years ago which I presume was in the 1960’s?
It does seem like a resource for holding water or recharging underground acquifers. Or even re-routing railroads around Wichita.
Interesting thread here.
On the water supply aspect of the discussion, according to the water department, 40% of the city’s water comes from the Equus Beds and 60% from Cheney. The city has embarked on a $400 million program to “recharge” the Equus Beds in order to flip the ratios and become less dependent upon Cheney.
You can find more out about the city’s water supply be going to the council website here: http://www.wichita.gov/Government/MinutesAndAgendas/CityCouncil/2006WorkshopAgendas.htm There is a powerpoint presentation on the future water supply.
Water supply is a complex issue for numerous reasons. However, let it be sufficient to say that our city’s water supply is not as secure as staff is telling the council and the public. Also, the discussion about regional water authority is an interesting topic. The Kansas Water Office has already created a de facto regional water authority. It’s called the Wichita Water and Sewer Department.
As far as the stormwater discussion aspect, I wish everything were as simple as Mr. Huie portrays. It isn’t. And, unless the public wants to spend additional millions (read more taxes) on acquiring land to build the huge detention ponds…… It ain’t a gonna happen.
JWink, Yes the banks have been tested. I’ve seen the water at the very top of the banks and they’ve held. However, it’s also a function of duration. The longer the water is at the top, then the levees will become saturated and water will move through the compacted soil.
Water Shortage! I lived in Wichita for 15 years and the use of water to keep lawns green is a vain practice and required by covenant in many new urban developments.
The growth of agricultural irrigation in S’west KS has dropped the river to non-visible where the Ogalala Aquifer exists – I grew up there when the water flowed down the river and we even played in it.
Why is the water table table in Wichita dropping? LOOK AT those green LAWNS! There isn’t a heck of a lot of irrigated wheat or corn in Wichita.
Ben’s proposals aren’t simple. That’s because the problem is multifaceted. It requires a multifaceted solution. For example, sequestering Arkansas River water will require a multistate compact, that will have to be amended from time to time, as one sees in the allocation of the Colorado River water out west. Oklahomans and Arkansans would probably not object to reduced springtime flows of the Arkansas: for one thing lowering the flood plain would be a boon to developers who would love to build on the riverfront if they could.
Ben mentioned using cinder-blocks for parking lots. I have a Sunset Magazine picture of this from the 1970’s, where it was shown for home driveways as an esthetic enhancement over plain concrete (grass was grown in the inner squares), but it can also mitigate wasteful surface runoff.
Water is the stuff of life. It is our most precious resource. Capturing more of it during the wet season for use during the dry season may be an expensive proposition in some people’s eyes, but it’s a wise long-term investment.
A compact with Oklahoma already exists for flows from the Arkansas River. Kansas is well within the water rights limits as established by the compact. So much so, we can still build several reservoirs within the Ark River basin and be in compliance.
Ralph: It seems to me I read something to the effect that Colorado or possibly Nebraska pays X number of dollars to Kansas for withholding water in the western tributaries of the Kansas River from Kansas.
Is this true? If so, I presume and fear that a portion of this money is paid to law firms in legal fees (read brokerage commissions) who represent Kansas in these negotiations. Wouldn’t Kansas be better off to receive the water than the dollars which might not reach the Kansas taxpayers?
I think Ben’s idea of creating wetlands makes sense to generate a high water absorption surface area to aid groundwater replenishment. It would also benefit migratory waterfowl and other wildlife. It could very well attract ecotourists, which would aid rural communities’ economies.
Off topic, but perhaps of interest to some readers here, he LA Times has a superb multimedia presentation on ocean pollution.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/oceans/la-oceans-series,0,7842752.special
Kansas needs future water sources and resources far more than it needs the UNNEEDED BOONDOGLE WHITE ELEPHANT DOWNTOWN ARENA proposed by the current Sedgwick County Commissioners.
But current Sedgwick County Commissioners are only interested in providing for the taxpayers’ RECREATIONAL needs than critical real needs such as dwindling water supplies for Wichita citizens who might want to drink water or take a shower in another five years.
Unbelievable! By JWink
Ben has some very useful ideas. The channeling of the excess rain water is a practice that needs to be changed. Removing it from the area does nothing to better the water situation.
Wetlands, even artificial ones, need water to survive. If global warming increases and the summer of 2006 becomes the norm, wetlands will not work too well. Evaporation will remove the water faster than it can be replenished by rain. Getting the excess rain water to aguifiers seems to me to be a better way of conserving the water.
Lawns will definetely have to go, but covering the ground with concrete is not the answer. Concrete only adds to the island effect, and will raise city temperatiures. Using low water using, and drought resistant plants will help a great deal.
Jwink is correct in water becoming more valuable than oil. It is something I have been preaching for a long time. And with global warming, it is something we had better take a real serious look at before it leaves us dying of thirst.
Ralph – I never said it was simple. I somply gave a very brief overview of some of the things that can be done. As for the interstate issues my overall ideas will help that situation, not hurt it.
Channelization in Kansas causes additional stress on flood management downstream. Maintaining low flow in KS (by having saved it) will then help with low flow conditions downstream.
As heartlander noted – this is a multi-faceted issue requiring a multi-faceted approach.
Ben, PhD LG
We are getting money from CO for their past damage to the Ark River. A number of us are working together to try to see to it that this money is spent on River restoration projects in the Upper Ark Basin. Yes, some of the money went for legal fees; the attorneys who handled the lawsuit have their oen bills to pay. (I am not in any way connected to any of the law firms involved)
All the conservation in the world won’t help as long as we keep importing millions of useless thirdworlders. It is time to return to the zero population growth agenda of the Sierra Club(pre-jew takeover).
V.L.R.B!!
Here is another idea I’ll toss out.
How about encouraging or even mandating that new construction have some sort simple subgrade cistern similar to a septic tank? Gutters and downspouts could be constructed to channel roof runoff into the cistern where the water would then filter down to the aquifer. This would reduce load on already burdened drainage systems and capture water that would otherwise just go on downstream.
I note the above mention that possible differences may arise with our neighbors to the south. This really should be played as a plus. There in no major metropolis or town upstream on the Arkansas where the river is still at a significant surface flow. Wichita is the spot to start working back upstream solving the problem. If we don’t the problem will move downstream. Those to the south would have a vested interest in moving the problem away while it is still not their problem!
Good idea JR – just check with specific local groundwater levels first. However, you definitely have the idea – deal with it here instead of shipping downstream.
There is a particular bad side effect of chanellization: all that sediment is shot out into the Gulf creating a huge dead zone. Instead sediment should be routinely deposited in floodplains and there should be less oevrall created. When you start chanellizing you pretty much have to chase it all the way to the Gulf. If we capture up here we also help alleviate flodding downstream.
Yeah, don’t let the sediment be deposited in the Gulf so we can spend billions rebuilding New Orleans because the Mississippi delta continues to shrink. I wish everything were simplistic that it could be boiled down into media sound bites.
JWink, Kansas does receive monetary payments from CO, but they are insignificant when compared to the economic loss that the water supplies. KS and NE are currently still discussing the economic losses. I expect that they will litigate soon.
Ben, the water issues are extremely complex. The fact of the matter is the detention of stormwater is not a simple issue. The amount of water that we detain in the urban environment of Wichita is insignificant when compared to the overall amount of drainage flowing across our southern border. As taxpayers in the state of Kansas we couldn’t afford to build enough detention with the Ark River drainage to make a difference downstream.
The fact of the matter is that rivers flood and it’s arrogant for anyone to think that we humans can do enough to prevent flooding. We might be able to, but none of us would be willing to expend the $$ to make it happen. Wetlands can absorb some water, but they are not “sponges” with unlimited capacity. River hydrology is dependent upon climate changes and rainfall patterns that vary through out the river’s basin. We humans cannot contol it.
Ralph? You’re kidding right?
Cite the last time downtown Wichita flooded!
So what’s your answer, Ralph? Do nothing?
The money may not be there right now, but water is the big sleeper issue. We need to control it, conserve it, and make it last. The ideas on this thread may not be workable or may be expensive, but at least SOME people are advancing what might be answers to an intractable problem in the very near future.
Ralph, since I am a professional in the field I HAVE looked at the inter-related issues. The problem at New Orleans is that the sediment bypasses the marshes where it is needed and shoots out into the deeper Gulf. There it does nothing to build up the marshes. I have sritten about that specific problem in the past.
Having been trained in fluvial geomorphology I am well aware that “rivers flood and it’s arrogant for anyone to think that we humans can do enough to prevent flooding” – I have also said THAT many times. We CAN, however, do things to not make it worse. That is my whole point about mimicking nature. The other part of that is to not build in the flood plains. I have written and testified on that as well.
It is the engineers like Chris Carrier and the Army Corps of Engineers who are arrogant and think they can control rivers. It is the scientists such as myself who are humble and state otherwise.
Ralph – have you talked to any fluvial geomorphologists about the issue?
I’ve spent quite a bit of time in Baja California. The whole area is desert, bracketed by the Pacific ocean and the sea of Cortez. When one looks at the water situation there one finds cisterns everywhere. Rain water is not something the citizens can count on, so cisterns are used extensively to augment the usage of what water is available down there.
Jr, you have an excellent idea, and one that should be investigated to the fullest.
When one looks at the history of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas, one finds that the majority of the land was not meant to support the growth we see today, water wise. Growth will not stop, if one look at construction in Wichita shows.
New developements need to be able to show a zero water use, that is, as much water put back into the system as taken out. Cisterns is one idea, underground channeling to aquifiers is another, Increased taxes, passed on as housing cost, in order to build reservoirs, is another.
People are going to have to wake up to the water problem and do so sooner than they might want to. With global warming here, there is no choice left. Imagine paying $3 a gallon for household water! It could happen in our lifetimes.
Good ideas JM. One thing I would add is no net increase in storm-level runoff. That would address the issue of “The amount of water that we detain in the urban environment of Wichita is insignificant when compared to the overall amount of drainage flowing across our southern border.”
SMALL detention/retention facilities (doubling as open space when not inundated) can help alleviate the situation.
Ben Huie: Have you examined the water requirements to produce ethanol? And the corn, etc. needed to produce ethanol?
I haven’t spent enough time on this issue but I do know ethanol plants are being proposed for many Kansas locations. And every candidate for Kansas governor mentioned their support for ethanol production facilities in Kansas.
It would take a lot of fortitude for a Kansas politician to mention reservations about the ethanol industry because of water requirements. He would appear to be against God and apple pie.
JWink – I have not. Frpm a lot of what I have read the use of irrigated corn for ethanol is NOT a winner – however a caveat in that I have not really studied it. I like the idea os using ‘crud’ for biomass rather than a dedicated crop, at least in irrigated areas.
So, i have reservations – which would probably be amother strike against me if I ran for office again.
I refuse to give the ‘correct’ answer just to make someone happy. So, I favor nuclear and trash-burning which infuriates some of my Sierra Club friends. Oh well, they’ll get over it.
JR, exactly my point. Some of the posts are being critical of flood control projects like the Big Ditch. While Wichita has not been flooded since the Ditch was built, the Ditch is not a panacea for all possible flood events. In all probability, there will be a day when the Ditch is compromised. Then what will everyone say.
My point is simply that there are options, but all options have to be weighed against cost and the relative gain to the public. Look at the public sentiment about the increase in the county mill levy. Do you think that there is public will to create all these water related solutions?
I agree with XXX in that we should be working towards solutions. Many are, but those solutions have to be practical and economical. Water policy whether water supply or stormwater management is a difficult issue. Every solution creates trade offs with other aspects in our society.
Ben, I don’t agree that we can “mimick nature.” I do agree that we should not complicate things. Is it good public policy to let development occur in the flood plain? Just what exactly is the flood plain? Is it the modeled 100 year event? The 500 year event? The 1000 year event? I disagree with you since I believe that there is public benefit for development.
Ralph – I would have to be able to use my various texts and references to answer you in detail. Flood plain generally is considered to be 100 year – my approach tends toward “if it floods tough” when people build there. One problem we have is that the maps are woefully inadequate. They do not reflect the changes in geomorphology. That is one of the reasons we need to apply science. By the way – many of my fellow scientists agree that we should humbly try to “mimick” rather than display the arrogance that engineers do when they pretend they can control nature.
It IS a difficult issue. I and other professionals in the field will attest to that fact.
Ben, BTW, I understand the issue with NO quite well and you’re exactly right. But you know as I do, many of the past Corps projects were tied to political agendas as opposed to the Corps trying to control nature. Large public works projects have been viewed to be good for the economy. Dollars spent on construction circulate back through the economy. There are hundreds of other examples about Man attempting to control nature. Hydroelectric dams in the Pacific Northwest, Lake Okeechobee in Florida, the coastal levees in the Carolinas, etc., etc. While I don’t think we can mimic nature, I do believe that we can live more in harmony with nature.
Ben, I will agree with you that if people want to live in the flood plain, then tough. They can suffer the consequences. However, public policy seldom allows them the opportunity. Same can be said for living on the Gulf coast or for smoking for that matter.
Ralph – you make good points about the Corps. However, having dealt with them for many years I do find that they believe that they can control nature.
We have a running joke: Scientists often muse and ponder about the existence of God. We see and study the natural world to try to understand it and are awed by all that is out there. Steven Hawkins (famous cosmologist) put it well when he observed that science is for us scientists and God is for Philosophy.
Engineers all too often don’t have that problem. They think they ARE God.
Ralph, it is not us scientists who are arrogant – we see nature as what we try to learn from and adapt to. It is the negineer who believes he can do a better job and can conquer nature who is arrogant.
I have to agree with Ben on the corps issue. All you have to do is look at the history of damn building by the corps, and the problems caused by them, to know that attempts at controlling nature are not advisable.
Besides, nature rarely follows human design anyway. The infamous series of three New Madrid quakes in 1811-1812 occurred a few weeks apart, from Dec. 16 to Feb. 7. They measured 8.1, 8.0 and 7.8 and represent three of the four strongest earthquakes ever recorded in the lower 48.
They also reversed the flow of the missippi river. Imagine what would happen if that were to happen today. Siesmic scientists are giving a 9 in 10 chance of a 7 to 8 earthquake happening again within the next 50 years.
While this seems off topic, it is very much otherwise because of the impact on the water situation in Kansas, as well as neighboring states. There is more to the water problem than lawns, aquifiers, rivers and reservoirs. The situation,as a whole, needs to be looked at by people who arn’t afraid to ask the right questions, and give the right answers. Ben is on the right track on this one, and I commend him for his foresight. Anything I can do to help, count me in.
Kansas is pulling more water from its aquifers than is going in. At some point the wells will go dry.
There is only one solution.
Newater.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEWater
LRB,NEWater may be a part of the solution, but not the only one.
Water rights os going to play a huge role in years to come:http://www.grassrootsonline.org/waterrights.html
http://www.polarisinstitute.org/polaris_project/water_lords/water_lords_index.html
If the corps of engineers is to play a role in future water projects, it will have to be led by people with future generations in mind, not the ones today padding their resumes.
How about replacing the Corps of Engineers with a Corps of Scientists?
Re: corn ethanol,’Scientists say ethanol’s water demands cause for scrutiny, not alarm’http://www.uswaternews.com/archives/arcsupply/6sciesayx6.html“It would take about 300 million gallons of water for processing the product and cooling equipment to make 100 million gallons of ethanol each year, according to the Renewable Fuels Association.”—The waste-water may be reusable… but contamination concerns?Plus the water needed for irrigation?
Switch grass, etc. and new (or not yet discovered) technologies may use less water, and be better for the land.I haven’t researched issue, but lots of info at http://www.greencarcongress.com/ See “Topics” section.
Politicians should be pushing higher mpg much more than ethanol. Today’s low mpg’s would require too much farmland.Farmers would still have more demand than they could supply.
“How about replacing the Corps of Engineers with a Corps of Scientists?”
Best idea I’ve heard since the suggestion we impeach the bushster.
The difference between a scientist and and engineer is that a scientist has no clue how to make his theories work.
Solutions have to be engineered.
Not true LRB – scientists routinemy work with engineers to fine-tune things. The engineers I have a problem with are the ones who ignore science.
A solution MUST be scientifically sound to work. It then needs engineering to reduce it to practice. However, no matter how good the engineer he cannot make something that is not scoentifically sound work.
And no matter how good the scientist is he can’t make it work without engineering. Engineering is applied science.
I have never met an engineer who will ignore science. That’s like a musician who ignores sound.
I’m not buying your argument. Sorry.
The US Army Corp of Engineers are some of the best civil engineers on the planet.
http://www.usace.army.mil/
Hi folks!
Lay person J R weighing in here.
Scientist Ben has good ideas. I’ve not yet read Engineer LRBs links but I’m sure hers? are good ideas as well.
Now while the fun old debate between scientists and engineers could be interesting to watch here, I say this is a problem that rises above petty sqaubble theatre. THAT is MY department! :)
I’m pleased and surprised that this thread has gotten so much play! Even new posters are weighing in on what I earlier feared would be a “yawner”.
Work together will ya?
Ben, Quite frankly there is arrogance on both sides of the debate. My experience is that scientists want solutions that are neither practical or feasible. Engineers for the most part are conciencious to balance all public interests.
JR, Nicely said. We all have to work together to find feasible solutions that meets the broadest public interest.
Anyway, the original aspect of the thread was the security of the Wichita waters supply. The Equus Beds recharge project is based upon a KWO/COW water study’s future demand based upon projected population growth for the year 2050. An interesting aspect is that the workforce study developed by WSU shows a much larger population growth to the year 2030 in order to meet Boomer retirement and just normal business growth. The $400 million question is whether or not the Equus Beds recharge project will provide an adequate water supply for Wichita.
Kansans in general and Wichitans in particular will have to give up their love affair with huge expanses of grass lawn. Residential landscaping in the Wichita area consists of 1/4-1/2 acre of grass augmented by other high water use plants. Just like areas in the Southwest, Kansans should begin to convert to xeriscape style yards and eliminate grass from the landscape. Using huge amounts of water just to keep a lawn green is an enormous waste of scarce resources. Cities like Albuquerque restrict the % of a total lot that may be grass, I believe that only 30% of the total land area of an urban home can be grass or other similar high water use landscaping on any new construction. It is obscene when you see some of the suburban neighborhoods in and around Wichita with green grass that is watered several times a week, wasting thousands of gallons of water a year just so each home can have a front yard that resembles a park or golf course.
Several additional comments about our water situation in Kansas. Wonder what the status of the Cheyenne Bottoms wetlands is north of Great Bend? Seems like the Cheyenne Bottoms “swampland” was mentioned by some Cavalry officers in their memoirs of a long walk through central Kansas after losing their horses to Indians. So apparently its been around for many years. It was probably a part of the Arkansas River channel centuries ago. My question is, is it drying up also?
On a different subject that KsFarmGirl or her parents might remember. In the 1940’s and 50’s, lots of sugar beets were grown around Garden City. I suspect the farmers out there used massive irrigation from the Ogalala acquifer to flood the fields in that otherwise alien area for growing sugar beets. I recall the sweet clover smell of sugar beet blooms as the plants developed and the many hispanics working the fields in those days.
During World War II and for a while afterward, the Army Air Force bases built to test B-29’s in Garden City, Pratt, Great Bend and, I believe, Liberal were busy communities of their own.
There were a considerable number of producing oil fields in many counties of western Kansas such as Pratt County.
And at some point, the natural gas fields were developed around Hugoton, Kansas in Stevens County.
Of course, the main cash crop was the vast fields of wheat but no corn that I recall.
So, back in the day, western Kansas was a boom area. The rivers ran full with lots of fish. Considerable wild game in the low areas bordering the fields. Water actually jumped out of the ground in natural artesian wells near Meade, Kansas.
Of course, Wichita served as the business capital of all this activity in south central and western Kansas. And all the people in the little communities and farms read the competing Wichita BEACON (the morning paper) and the Wichita EAGLE (the afternoon paper), each under separate ownership.
What happened?
The impacts of global warming on water should also be considered. No one can say for sure what the changes will be (or how soon) — but probably hotter and drier.This is for Iowa, but gives an idea of problems.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/climate-change-in-the-hawkeye-state.html
jknivdhvbihbihbvhbv fhee e uf uve fi eurf ebvuyerf euyve rfjsd cjehc jksdc!!