[HN Gopher] So, how do you refill an aquifer?
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       So, how do you refill an aquifer?
        
       Author : Hooke
       Score  : 87 points
       Date   : 2023-05-15 16:37 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (heatmap.news)
 (TXT) w3m dump (heatmap.news)
        
       | AlbertCory wrote:
       | CA is on a very short fuse to do this, since there's all that
       | snow from the winter that's melting or about to. I've been
       | wondering about that myself.
       | 
       | What I would like to see is the gross numbers: what percent of
       | this year's precipitation is going to flow into the ocean?
       | Anyone?
        
         | nawgz wrote:
         | Given that all the snow at Tahoe will flow into Truckee river
         | and evaporate in Nevada... Can't imagine it's that high a
         | percentage, to be honest.
        
           | bcrosby95 wrote:
           | Snowpack is a huge deal in California, as around 30% of the
           | state's water comes from snowmelt in the Sierras. They don't
           | track it for funsies:
           | https://cdec.water.ca.gov/snowapp/sweq.action
        
             | AlbertCory wrote:
             | Thanks. Is there an aggregate number CA somewhere?
             | 
             | "CA" == amount of precipitation remaining in California, in
             | one form or another.
             | 
             | i.e. CA = total - ocean - NV - AZ - OR - evaporation -
             | other
        
           | s1artibartfast wrote:
           | The Sierra nevada mountain range has two sides. The vast
           | majority of snowmelt runs downhill into California.
           | 
           | The is more to the mountain range than Tahoe and more to the
           | river system than the Truckee.
           | 
           | You can take a look at the California river system to get a
           | sense of this.
           | 
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rivers_of_California#/.
           | ..
           | 
           | Not many rivers flow east and the truckee is failrly small.
           | 
           | The annual flow from the Truckee is 303,240 acre-feet, which
           | is about %1 of the Sacramento river
        
       | m_antis89 wrote:
       | Well - I refill an aquifier very simply so because I don't refill
       | them.
        
       | maCDzP wrote:
       | This is pretty common where I live. We take water from the river
       | and replenish the aquifers.
       | 
       | Why do it manually you ask? We have thick layer of impermeable
       | dirt that prevents natural infiltration.
        
       | SkeuomorphicBee wrote:
       | Some regions in India with wet and dry seasons have been
       | successfully doing this for some time now. Interestingly, the
       | very high precipitation during the wet season allowed them to
       | achieve improvement without megaprojects, instead focusing on
       | outreach campaigns to teach many small farmers to build recharge
       | wells and water slowing features (frequent small dams) on runoff
       | streams on their land to foster ground absorption during the wet
       | season.
        
         | hosh wrote:
         | Slowing down water is the key and there are many design
         | patterns that achieve this. You don't even need to build
         | structures (like when we envision with the word "dam").
         | 
         | Even digging a small trench that follows contours in the upland
         | helps water infiltrate into the ground. The dirt you dig out
         | can be piled up as a bearm.
         | 
         | The permaculture community the world over has been putting
         | these design patterns for decades now, and they drew from ideas
         | found in pre-modern societies.
         | 
         | Brad Lancaster wrote an excellent multi-volume book about water
         | harvesting structures, including taking into account erosion
         | and silt deposit patterns, and working with plants. He calls it
         | "planting the rain".
         | 
         | It doesn't have to be in places with wet and dry seasons. In
         | much of temperate climates of the US, beavers modified the flow
         | of the rivers such that the surface water was able to meander a
         | much greater surface than the main flow of the river. It
         | supported the trees and vegetation, which in turn formed
         | habitat.
        
           | modriano wrote:
           | I came across an excellent permaculture YouTuber (who is also
           | a professor at Oregon State (I think) and is incredible at
           | drawing diagrams) [0].
           | 
           | Incidentally, based on his videos on the power of plants to
           | filter out things as toxic as heavy metals and some
           | biological wastes [1], I'm very concerned that the "injection
           | well" idea for filling aquifers could result in contaminating
           | the aquifer. Filtering through earth and active ecosystems
           | seems like an important step in recharging aquifers safely.
           | 
           | [0] https://youtu.be/7fFXJ3G49pY
           | 
           | [1] https://youtu.be/f-sRcVkZ9yg
        
             | hosh wrote:
             | Andrew Millison! He used live out in Arizona and did
             | projects out here before being enticed to Oregon. The story
             | I heard is that someone wanted him to teach out in Oregon
             | badly enough to arrange for teaching at Oregon State.
             | 
             | OSU and the Prescott College (here in AZ) are one of the
             | few places teaching permaculture design at a college level.
             | 
             | Millison also did a series of video on the Indian water
             | crisis and how they used permaculture design to transform
             | wastelands into productive habitats.
        
       | Throw73849 wrote:
       | Some projects are pumping CO2 underground to reduce global
       | warming. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Maybe we could use some
       | of that money and equipment, to pump water underground!
        
         | vkou wrote:
         | The greenhouse coefficient of water vapour is, pound-for-pound,
         | about one hundredth that of CO2.
         | 
         | There's also no meaningful amount of water that can be
         | sequestered, given there's about 10^18 tonnes of it in the
         | world's oceans.
        
           | Throw73849 wrote:
           | It may be still more efficient to pump water underground.
           | Isolating CO2 is very energy intensive, for the same amount
           | of energy we may isolate 100x more H2O. Sometimes it even
           | condenses spontaneously!
           | 
           | There is also huge amount of natural CO2, single vulcano
           | eruption... It is about reducing green house gas emissions
           | generated by humans. And there are many artificial lakes,
           | fields and forests that generate huge footprint on water
           | vapour..
        
             | qzw wrote:
             | Clippy: It looks like you're trying to turn Earth into
             | Arrakis. Would you like some help with that?
             | 
             | More seriously though, as the effects of climate change
             | intensify, I think it's all but inevitable we'll have to
             | seriously look at manipulating whatever environmental
             | factors we can in order to counteract the worst of them.
             | Maybe we can't do much about the sea level rise, but maybe
             | it would be possible to moderate storm and drought/flooding
             | intensities. As you pointed out, water vapor levels may be
             | one of the easier things we could manipulate, as least on a
             | local or regional scale.
        
           | somat wrote:
           | My understanding is it is the other way around, that in equal
           | concentrations water vapor has a much stronger greenhouse
           | effect than carbon dioxide. However for physics reasons the
           | atmosphere does not hold much water vapor.
           | 
           | In fact if I understand correctly this is the mechanism for a
           | runaway greenhouse, that is, something like what happened to
           | venus. Warmer temps allow for more water vapor in the
           | atmosphere, due to it being such a good greenhouse gas, temps
           | then build out of control as more and more water is
           | vaporized.
           | 
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Role_of_water_v.
           | ..
        
             | vkou wrote:
             | > However for physics reasons the atmosphere does not hold
             | much water vapor.
             | 
             | The atmosphere is currently ~422 ppm of CO2, and an average
             | of ~5,000 ppm of H2O, with humid tropical areas having up
             | to ~50,000 ppm of H2O.
             | 
             | Water vapour makes up ~half of the greenhouse effect. It's
             | not a 'good' greenhouse gas, it's just that it's very
             | unevenly distributed, with a strong bias towards having a
             | _lot_ of it in the parts of the world that get a lot of sun
             | - the tropics.
        
               | somat wrote:
               | I am definitely not an expert on the subject. But doing
               | some basic web searches and I note how much more of the
               | infrared spectra is absorbed by water vs the relatively
               | narrow band that co2 absorbs. As a infrared emission
               | blocking gas water vapor is several times more effective
               | than co2. this is fine, we don't want earth to be a
               | freezing ice cube. but add the excessive amounts of co2
               | and you start to get an alarming condition.
        
         | HPsquared wrote:
         | Water vapour is a greenhouse gas but, confusingly, clouds can
         | have either cooling or warming effects. The interactions are
         | pretty complex.
        
           | nvahalik wrote:
           | > clouds can have either cooling or warming effects
           | 
           | Just in case anyone is wondering... one of the simplest
           | interactions has to do with daytime and nighttime cloud
           | cover.
           | 
           | Daytime cloud cover causes shade, which _can_ lower temps
           | below the clouds. At night, heat from the ground radiates up
           | and clouds can block the radiated heat. This is why cloudless
           | nights during winter are colder, and cloudy summer nights can
           | be stifling.
        
         | gus_massa wrote:
         | The amount of water in the air is almost impossible to change
         | because the evaporation and condensation keep the balance
         | "constant". It actually depends on the average temperature and
         | other factors so it's not a real "constant", but unless it's
         | possible to cover all the seas it's impossible to reduce it.
         | 
         | The amount of CO2 changes more slowly, plants and cyanobacteria
         | and some minerals absorb it, but it's a slow process. Natural
         | decomposition, fires and fossil fuel power plants release it,
         | but it's a slow process.
         | 
         | So it's easy to modify the CO2 amount in either direction.
         | Burning fossil fuel to produce energy makes a lot of money.
         | Carbon capture requires a lot of money. So you can guess which
         | one is wining now.
        
       | walleeee wrote:
       | While initiatives like these are important, it is also critical
       | to rethink agricultural practice. California grows a number of
       | thirsty crops under conditions which make little ecological
       | sense. Reform must address the legal framework, incentives for
       | farmers, and consumer habits and expectations upstream, as it
       | were.
        
       | 0ct4via wrote:
       | https://archive.is/R7KQU
        
       | ajb wrote:
       | This remind me of Aubrey Jaffer's story about his father making
       | 'disposal wells' in Miami:
       | https://people.csail.mit.edu/jaffer/Wells Because a lot of land
       | got paved over, it was easily flooded, as the water couldn't make
       | its way into the aquifer. Jaffer senior had a business digging
       | wells, and discovered that they could also suck down the water in
       | a flooded carpark, so added making plugholes for carparks to his
       | business.
       | 
       | Although in theory this replenishes the aquifer, I'm not sure
       | that water off a carpark floor is these days considered clean
       | enough to inject into the aquifer. I think I read somewhere that
       | a lot of these injection wells had to be plugged, but now I can't
       | find that.
        
         | mrbgty wrote:
         | Yeah, it doesn't make a lot of sense to send water directly
         | down a hole without getting filtered at all through layers of
         | earth.
        
       | Dig1t wrote:
       | For further reading on aquifers I highly recommend
       | https://www.edwardsaquifer.net
       | 
       | It's run by a scientist in Texas and has an amazing wealth of
       | information on the aquifers of Texas. I never thought I would
       | find a subject like this interesting until I read this guy's
       | site.
       | 
       | Texas has been managing aquifers for a long time, there's a rich
       | history behind their management, and reading about this stuff has
       | been the only way I've found to make geology interesting. Many of
       | the lessons learned and policies employed in Texas likely would
       | be very useful in California.
        
         | EdJiang wrote:
         | There's also this guy who purchased a plot of land in the
         | middle of nowhere, West Texas who's trying to terraform it into
         | a forest.
         | 
         | No idea how feasible it is, but interesting to watch!
         | https://www.youtube.com/@dustupstexas
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | mech422 wrote:
         | Phoenix is the same way. They do a really good job managing
         | water supplies - for aquifers in particular (PHX sits on top of
         | an underground lake) they use huge 'ponds' to let the water
         | soak back into the aquifer.
        
           | toss1 wrote:
           | >> They do a really good job managing water supplies - for
           | aquifers in particular
           | 
           | Yes, except for some very bad deals allowing great tracts of
           | land to be sold and leased at below-market rates to Saudi
           | companies without charging or monitoring water use. They grow
           | forage crops like alfalfa that are banned or restricted in
           | Saudi because of excessive water requirements, and ship the
           | crops back to their cattle there. It has made neighbors'
           | wells run dry. They are effectively taking the water from the
           | aquifer and shipping back to Saudi. For free. One of many
           | articles here [0] (guess which political party made the
           | deals).
           | 
           | [0] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/in-drought-
           | stricken-ar...
        
           | hosh wrote:
           | We have to. Arizona is at the bottom of the water rights
           | agreement among the states drawing from the Colorado River. I
           | see a lot of water harvesting structures here, often in the
           | form of parks and greenways.
        
             | genmud wrote:
             | That's actually not true, IIRC per capita we are actually
             | better off than California and Nevada.
             | 
             | Edit: Just looked it up and california gets about 5 million
             | acre feet (maf), AZ gets about 2.8maf and Nevada only gets
             | 0.3maf.
             | 
             | So per capita, AZ is doing pretty well allocation-wise.
        
               | hosh wrote:
               | When I said, "bottom of the water rights" means that the
               | other states has senior water rights, not allocation per
               | capita.
               | 
               | California currently gets about 4.4 maf, which is 1/3rd
               | the flow. Depending on sources, they have senior water
               | rights.
               | 
               | (Complicating this is that various tribal nations have
               | water rights senior to the states, and it is only now
               | affecting allocations)
        
               | SECProto wrote:
               | "The Water Knife" by Paolo Bacigalupi, though near-future
               | speculative fiction, gives a pretty solid explanation of
               | the issues. Junior rights don't matter much when there
               | isn't enough water
        
       | russellbeattie wrote:
       | I think we should dig the California viaduct deeper. Make it one
       | long lake. Or dig giant water holes all along it. All the excess
       | water can just fill up the holes along its 700 mile length. No
       | idea if it's practical(probably not), but watching all that water
       | flow into the ocean this winter seemed like such a waste.
       | 
       | The WRCB's plan is to store 600,000 acre feet of water which is
       | 26,136,000,000 cubic feet. If we took 500 miles of viaduct
       | (2,640,000 feet) at an average depth of 30 feet and average width
       | of 40 feet ( = 3,168,000,000 cubic feet) and dug it 10x deeper,
       | we'd be styling.
       | 
       | I mean, a 300 foot trench along the middle of California is
       | doable, right?
        
       | clord wrote:
       | Trees and grazing animals collaboratively replenish aquifers.
       | Meadows, being porous, guide moisture downwards, preventing
       | floods and evaporation. Animal droppings enhance soil
       | bioactivity, boosting water capture. Moreover, this process, free
       | of fossil fertilizers, sequesters carbon. Areas abandoning cattle
       | operations or imposing 're-wilding' often face desertification
       | and flooding. Similarly, grain plantations that exclude animals
       | share this issue. I've personally seen a parched, over-fertilized
       | grain field transform into a vibrant savannah with natural
       | springs within five years due to herd migration. The soil is now
       | a joy to walk on, spongey and soft. Next farm over they still
       | plant grains, and it's hard-pan and salted.
        
       | maerF0x0 wrote:
       | Requiring farms to have ponds/wells could be a way to create a
       | distributed solution.
       | 
       | Joel Salatin has been teaching about the value of ponds for
       | decades now. for example here's a video of him talking about
       | ponds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o82ar51eIsE
       | 
       | This will require the water boards to rethink things like not
       | allowing capture of rainwater/flow.
       | 
       | The evaporation of ponds becomes somewhere else's rainwater
       | (potentially further inland creating a virtuous cycle). And you
       | can use depth to control the capture vs evaporation ratio --
       | deeper ponds evaporate slower and hold more precipitation.
       | 
       | But this all goes against our very reductionistic thinking --
       | this quarter section is for corn, nothing else.
        
         | ganoushoreilly wrote:
         | Owning property with a pond has it's own issues. In many of
         | those farms run off can be detrimental. We have a 3/4 an acre
         | pond and while we don't farm anywhere near it, the few
         | _springs_ that feed it all touch a lot of farm lands. So far we
         | 're lucky, but just a quarter mile down the road, our neighbors
         | have a pond that won't sustain life, which we suspect is due to
         | runoff from their crops.
         | 
         | There's also the issue of excess evaporation and creating
         | unusable land. There's solutions out there but they're not all
         | cut and dry with just placing _ponds_.
        
           | candiddevmike wrote:
           | Would organic farming help here? Seems like there are studies
           | [1] showing nitrate leaching is less with it. Probably
           | reducing cattle/chicken counts too, as those shit pits are a
           | big source of it.
           | 
           | 1 - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01
           | 678...
        
             | ganoushoreilly wrote:
             | Oh most definitely it would, but you run into trade offs
             | with production / productivity. That's at least what most
             | of my local farmer friends argue. We proactively add some
             | good bacteria to our ponds monthly to reduce waste by
             | products and things as well, so it's possible that they
             | could fix some of the biome issues.
        
             | markdown wrote:
             | The problem is that organic farming can only feed 2 and a
             | half families. It's not a feasible way to live unless you
             | already have the privilege of wealth or alternate sources
             | of income.
        
         | docandrew wrote:
         | Unfortunately it's illegal to dig ponds on your property
         | without a permit and the appropriate water rights in some
         | areas. There's a whole field of law around water rights and
         | these sorts of permits, it's really wild. You need an
         | engineering plan with the expected evaporation rate and then
         | need to describe how you'd replace the water you took from some
         | downstream, more senior rights holder.
        
           | bequanna wrote:
           | Which states? I think this is heavily dependent on the size
           | of pond, size of waterway you're impeding and the
           | jurisdiction.
        
       | meristohm wrote:
       | Permeable pavement sounds interesting, and I wonder how safe it
       | is (the bottom of the fractional-distillation barrel might have
       | fewer volatiles but do we want more surface area of the stuff to
       | come into contact with water?) and how quickly it gets clogged.
       | 
       | Also, beavers: they're great at slowing the flow of water across
       | a landscape, giving the water time to recharge aquifers. We'll
       | need to address how we use land, though, to make room for these
       | engineers to do their thing.
        
         | dylan604 wrote:
         | My concern for urban permeable pavement is all of the chemicals
         | that would be absorbed with it. Same with the forced injection
         | of water back into an aquifer. I was under the impression that
         | the water being pulled through the ground is a filtering
         | process so that the water in the aquifer is clean.
        
           | myshpa wrote:
           | > the water ... filtering process ... the water in the
           | aquifer is clean
           | 
           | Clean(er) ... maybe ... nowadays nitrates,
           | pesticides/herbicides, pfas/pfoas, industrial chemicals
           | (solvents, heavy metals, volatile organic compounds),
           | pharmaceuticals (prescription drugs, over-the-counter
           | medications), lead, arsenic, mercury, and cadmium (through
           | industrial activities, mining operations, and improper waste
           | disposal), chlorinated solvents, such as trichloroethylene
           | (TCE) and perchloroethylene (PCE), all were detected in the
           | groundwater.
           | 
           | Nothing is "clean" anymore. Not the arctic, not the tops of
           | the mountains in the natural reserves, not the remote
           | islands, not the deep underground.
        
       | gaoshan wrote:
       | In the case of a place like Florida, parts of the gigantic
       | aquifer that extends under that State and up in Georgia get
       | backfilled by brackish water once depleted below a certain level
       | and this effectively destroys it, preventing refilling or
       | refreshing because of the salt content that gets introduced.
        
         | walleeee wrote:
         | yes, this is commonly called saltwater intrusion and is a
         | serious problem
         | 
         | https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-resources/science/s...
        
       | sb8244 wrote:
       | I very much enjoy this type of article or videos on similar
       | subjects. Another source that has been very entertaining /
       | educational for me is "Practical Engineering" Youtube channel.
       | 
       | Looked it up and there's a great video from him about wells &
       | aquifers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bG19b06NG_w
        
       | pgrote wrote:
       | Aquifers are intriguing. They are so large a person has a hard
       | time realizing over a period of time how the land is affected
       | when they are tapped. Subsidence is hard to wrap your head
       | around.
       | 
       | San Joaquin Valley is a good example.
       | 
       | https://www.mantecabulletin.com/news/local-news/san-joaquin-...
       | 
       | https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/location-maximum-land-subs...
        
         | onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
         | The water users sucked up $500M worth of water infrastructure -
         | that 250k people are likely to pay for - $2000 per person.
         | 
         | As long as greedy people have this option, they're going to
         | take it.
         | 
         | The solution is not hoping people start thinking sustainably.
         | It's doing something to prevent people from putting expensive
         | externalities onto others.
        
       | indus wrote:
       | There is a California-specific law called the Subdivision Map Act
       | that requires cities/counties to have provisions for parks when
       | approving new subdivisions and housing.
       | 
       | The specifics of this is super convoluted and left to the
       | interpretation of the city and its planning done at the county.
       | 
       | What would be amazing is to add a certain percentage to lakes and
       | ponds when new parks are created--and not just green field.
       | 
       | Hope someone can lead and get this amended.
        
         | lief79 wrote:
         | Surface water in the desert ... that could easily backfire.
         | 
         | I think a related idea that might be more appropriate is
         | requiring drainage areas that slow water flow and increase
         | absorption.
        
       | aurizon wrote:
       | I have often felt the ogallala aquifer could be recharged by
       | diverting some of the great lakes spring runoff into the Atlantic
       | via canals as well as via one of the many gravel buried moraines
       | that connect with and now recharge the ogallala. Not sure how
       | this would affect the Atlantic, but 5-10% of it would go a long
       | way to help the lowering of the Ogallala over the pat 100 years.
       | 
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer
        
       | thescriptkiddie wrote:
       | I wonder if this could help Venice with its subsidence problem.
        
       | ChiCityRanger wrote:
       | The article needlessly mentions the Murzuk-Djado Basin and the
       | Arabian Basin as having "little hope of recharging", when the
       | very study it cites shows that the Murzuk-Djado basin as being
       | less stressed than the California basin it talks about. I hate
       | how American Exceptionalism always creeps its way into everything
       | regardless how benign the topic seems. It's like she's trying to
       | say "hey, we've got it bad but at least we're not as backwards as
       | those mOsLeM countries".
       | 
       | here's the study for those interested:
       | https://news.uci.edu/2015/06/16/a-third-of-the-worlds-bigges...
        
         | Permit wrote:
         | > It's like she's trying to say "hey, we've got it bad but at
         | least we're not as backwards as those mOsLeM countries".
         | 
         | Nope, it's not like that at all.
        
           | ChiCityRanger wrote:
           | I could be wrong. It's likely that my characterization was
           | not her intent. That said, even the most well meaning
           | individual in the "west" has this implicit bias against the
           | "non west" that it just gets everywhere and you see it
           | everywhere.
        
             | whiskeytuesday wrote:
             | _You_ see it everywhere, I see it occasionally.
        
         | justrealist wrote:
         | I think it's more the practical matter that California even
         | when dry receives 5x the rain of Saudi Arabia.
        
         | pdabbadabba wrote:
         | As a general matter, I hear you. But in this case I think your
         | objections are misplaced: it actually agrees with you that the
         | California basis is _more stressed_ , but also is the subject
         | of an ambitious plan to recharge it (which may or may not
         | succeed) which is the topic of the article.
         | 
         | It also blames the stress on the Murzuk-Djado and Arabian
         | Basins on climate change which, to me, places the blame more on
         | the U.S. than on 'backwards muslims.'
         | 
         | Here's the full passage:
         | 
         | > _Especially in places that have already been hard-hit by
         | climate change_ , many aquifers have become so depleted that
         | humans need to step in; the Arabian Aquifer in Saudi Arabia and
         | the Murzuk-Djado Basin in North Africa, per a 2015 study, are
         | particularly stressed and have little hope of recharging. In
         | the U.S., aquifers are depleting fast from the Pacific
         | Northwest to the Gulf, _but drought-stricken California is the
         | poster-child of both water stress and efforts to undo the
         | damage_.
         | 
         | In any case, it's actually pretty fascinating how a few
         | sentences about aquifers can draw out these issues. And, to
         | your point, I would certainly not be shocked to learn that
         | there are ambitious plans to recharge the Murzuk-Djado and
         | Arabian Basins that this article overlooks.
        
       | onecommentman wrote:
       | Albuquerque has been doing this since 2007.
       | 
       | "More ambitiously, however, the Water Authority in 2007 initiated
       | a pilot program for aquifer storage and recovery, in which a
       | small amount of San Juan-Chama water was released into the Bear
       | Canyon arroyo and tracked to see if it reached the aquifer.
       | Results were positive, and the Water Authority is moving forward
       | with plans to recharge the aquifer on a larger scale.
       | 
       | We will be using direct injection as well as infiltration to get
       | the water into the aquifer. We hope to put up to 40,000 acre-feet
       | back into the aquifer in the first couple of years. After that,
       | we will continue to add purified San Juan-Chama water to the
       | aquifer primarily during winter months when demand is low."
       | 
       | https://www.abcwua.org/education-23b_Recharge/
        
         | jubjubbird wrote:
         | Speaking of Albuquerque, this just-published paper shows how
         | measuring the change in acceleration due to gravity can be used
         | to map aquifer storage change. Importation of San Juan River
         | water has made a big difference.
         | 
         | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2023.101413
        
           | fghorow wrote:
           | Microgravity surveying is great for this and other geo
           | applications. I know of many geothermal fields mapped the
           | same way to monitor fluid level and steam migration. Good
           | stuff!
        
       | w10-1 wrote:
       | The numbers and interest could change significantly if
       | desalinization membranes could target multi-stage high-volume
       | applications. Or using overland solar tunnels: roofed with solar
       | arrays, the bottom of which would be cooled to condense the
       | evaporation from the water.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-05-16 23:01 UTC)