re-development and cleaning, as well as well and pump failure.
• Installing inappropriate water well pumps because they are cheaper or more available, but unable to meet water demand.
• Providing inadequate energy supply, water and energy meters and controls. If the situation is blessed so that suction pumping is an option, skipping intake check valves leads to re-priming and pumping delays.
• Inadequate water-level, pumping rate, energy use, and water quality monitoring records, leading to missing the opportunities to early recognize when repairs and redevelopment and cleaning may be needed to prevent later more expensive repairs and redevelopment and cleaning.
• Improperly sealing the well head to protect the water well from surface and near-surface contamination, allowing contamination of the well and of the aquifer.
• Improperly abandoning the well, which may also lead to surface-water contamination of the well and the aquifer.
Finally, note that water temperature impacts water vis-
cosity and aquifer permeability: very cold groundwater flows more slowly than very warm groundwater, so that water-well discharge in very cold weather may be measurably lower than during very warm weather. And, note that if you want to increase water well yield, you need to increase the saturated
Figure 2 - Estimating well yield at new 95-m (312-ft) deep drinking water well at 22 cubic meters per hour (97 gpm), northern Uganda.
thickness of the screened interval or vertical open area, not the diameter of the well. You might increase the well diameter for convenience of pumping equipment, but not to increase well yield.
Geological Hazards, continued from p. 15
He lists funding and attention, resource availability, education, and effective communication as barriers to mitiga- tion efforts. Maser also believes that “the more prepared we are before, the better. Last year, there was a larger effort at the federal level for pre-disaster mitigation as opposed to post-disaster management.” This strategy shift can perhaps be attributed to the billions of dollars in damage that resulted from the onslaught of natural disasters in 2017. With projections indicating that some natural disasters will become more frequent and damaging, it is clear that hazard mitigation must be a legislative priority moving forward.
Geoscientists play a unique role in
disaster mitigation as their responsi- bilities may fall either in preventing future damages or responding to current disasters. Seismologists, meteorologists, volcanologists, and spatial epidemiolo- gists primarily focus on researching the genesis of disasters in their respective fields, whereas sedimentologists, clima- tologists, and biogeochemists may focus more of their attention on the aftermath of natural disasters. By combining a wide breadth of geoscience knowledge on pre- and post-disaster mitigation with legis- lative and industry knowledge, disaster
mitigation can become a more informed and productive process over time.
What’s more, there is ample opportu-
nity for geoscientists to assist in advis- ing on federal grants and infrastructure mitigation measures. Floodplain man- agers can use funds from the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program to create flood maps to assess what areas are particularly susceptible to flooding and advise what structures need to be updated or demolished. Hydrologists can counsel city planners on which water treatment facilities are most vulnerable to wastewater intrusion. Social geogra- phers can cooperate with community members to gain valuable stakeholder insight as to what mitigation measures might be most effective in their commu- nities. Geologists can work with build- ing scientists to conduct land surveys and determine which areas require soil stabilization and which existing build- ings need to be retrofitted using funds from the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program. Geoscientists have the poten- tial to revolutionize natural disaster mitigation, and it is crucial that they work to collaborate with other industry specialists to help ease the burdens that future disasters might cause.
Legislators are responding to demands from both the citizenry and the scientific
www.aipg.org
community to get ahead of natural disas- ters before catastrophe strikes. With comprehensive disaster mitigation legis- lation, backed by research from agencies like FEMA, USGS, and NOAA, the U.S. can work to protect its most vulnerable communities while ensuring long-time fiscal savings. Investing in disaster miti- gation will not only increase the nation’s safety but also improve its economic resilience for years to come.
References Multihazard Mitigation
Council
(2018). Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: Utilities and Transportation Infrastructure.
Principal
Investigator Porter, K.; co-Principal Investigators Scawthorn, C.; Huyck, C.; Investigators: Eguchi, R., Hu, Z.; Schneider, P., Director, MMC. National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington.
Smith, Adam B. 2018’s Billion Dollar Disasters in Context. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. February 07, 2019. Accessed April 16, 2019. https://www.
climate.gov/news-features/blogs/ beyond-data/2018s-billion-dollar- disasters-context.
Jul.Aug.Sep 2019 • TPG 17
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64
