When Groundwater Pumping Goes Unmanaged, Unintended Consequences Happen:

the Central Sands as Case Study

George J. Kraft

http:///dnr.wi/gov/forestry

- Wisconsin State Historical Society

Floating sludge mat, Wisconsin River - 1969

Fish Kill – Wisconsin River

Photos courtesy Bob Martini

“Because it is so heavily tapped … the Colorado River rarely reaches its delta…”—Brian Clark Howard

National Geographichttp://environment.nationalgeographic.com/

The Santa Cruz RiverCourtesy of Robert Glennon, USGS original source.

The Santa Cruz RiverCourtesy of Robert Glennon, USGS original source.

- Insert name of source here

Groundwater & Pumping Basics

Insert water cycle slide

With Pumping

West streamEast stream

No Pumping

East streamWest stream

Fancy-pants groundwater system

Wisconsin Groundwater Use985 Million GPD (USGS, 2009)

050

100150200250300350400

IrrigationPublic supply

Stock/aquaculture

DomesticIndustrial

Commercial

Mining

The Central Sands as Case Study

A Little History

�1930’s – Irrigation starts from surface water and pits

�1950s – A crack down on surface water pumpers without permits begins.

Irrigators realize that shallow pits are not regulated, more pumping from pits and later from wells.

“The public will not stand for the destruction of streams... We have the water now, but what will we have if we pump it out at a faster rate?”

- V.J. Muench, Isaac Walton League, 1950

“Wisconsin has vast water resources… Irrigation ... has no permanent effect on the ground or surface water levels.... No reasonable person is concerned about this....”

- Wisconsin Agricultural Water Conservation Committee, 1959

Central Counties Groundwater Use 213 MGPD (78 BGPY, USGS 2009)

0255075

100125150175200

StockPublic

Domestic

Industry

Irrigation

Long Lake Oasis, Waushara County

Long Lake Oasis, Waushara County

Plainfield Lake, Waushara County

Pickerel Lake, Portage County

Wolf Lake

Little Plover (Dried up part of year from 2005-2009)

“ It’s a Record Drought! ”

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1930 1950 1970 1990 2010

Prec

ipit

atio

n (in

)

Hancock 1930-2010

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

1930 1950 1970 1990 2010

Prec

ipit

atio

n (in

)

Stevens Point 1931-2010 Precipitation

2005

2005

42.6 inches

39.3inches

Long Lake -

The Drought Years

1958

Pumping Effects on Central Sands Water Levels and Streamflows

Water level average declines from pumping

Plover 2.0

Streamflow average declines from pumping

1959-1987: AVG = 10 cfs, LOW = 3.9 cfsDel Monte 0.12 Whiting 0.67Irrigation 2.77Plover 0.98TOTAL DIVERSION 4.5 cfs

Lessons Learned

People Have a Huge Capacity to Explain Things Away

1. Impervious surface reduced infiltration.2. Dewatering for the Plover water main drained the aquifer.3. Lake Michigan is down – St. Clair River connection.4. The Little Plover didn’t exist until the farmers dynamited it in during the 1920s.5. Record drought.6. Some ponds got filled at the head of x river.7. Dams used to compress water in the aquifer and cause more groundwater storage.8. Dredging in the Buena Vista Marsh.9. Low water in the Wisconsin River.10. Pumping in the Fox Valley.11. Pumping by cranberry producers in Wood / Jackson Counties.12. Some gullies around lakes were filled.13. Lake Superior is down.14. People living on lakes pump lots of water.15. Springville pond was drained.16. McDill Pond was drained.17. Water is being pumped into the deep subsurface for oil production in Texas.18. Irrigation doesn’t use water – it all goes back into the ground.

Beware of the “Tweak” !(Things that don’t really change save water)

• Talking• “Bricks in the toilet”• Conservation leaflets in utility bills• Irrigation scheduling• Low pressure nozzles• No irrigating during rain storms

• Many, many more ...

Beware of the Hydro-Illogical Cycle

Wet period

Disinterest, more pumping

Dry

Concern

Awareness

Talk about management

The Hydro-Illogical Cycle

Status of Groundwater Mgt in Wis

� For practical purposes, no statutory protection of lakes, streams, and wetlands from pumping harms.

� Amount of groundwater pumped, where, and pumping impacts are poorly understood.

What we need in gw mgt?

1. A standard for protection.

2. Assessment for new wells.

3. Resource information : how much water pumped where, trends in pumping development, designating potential problem areas.

4. Management tools and processes for overpumped areas

5. Fair, efficient, economical, allow access to resource.

What Can Be Done Now?

Local assessments of new withdrawals

Assessment where future developments may occur

Common ground