WILLIAM SIOK GRADUATE SCHOLARSHIP WINNERS
Matthew Jones, SA-4829 University of Kansas- Kansas Section
Water is arguably the most important resource to society. Legal disputes have arisen regarding water rights where sup- ply is limited. Many of these cases have centered on the infringement of surface water rights as a result of groundwater pumping. In these cases, judicial deci- sions have been made based primarily on
hydrogeological evidence such as surface water-groundwater interaction (SWGWI) assessments. The outcomes of these cases have affected the lives of many Americans, led to multimillion-dollar settlements, and set precedent that will persist for generations. With increasing strain on our nation’s limited water resources from population growth and climate change, it is likely that water rights disputes will continue to occur in the foreseeable future. In order to settle them justly, our society must have highly trained hydrogeologists capable of accurately characterizing SWGWI.
Water law in the United States is inconsistent regarding surface water and groundwater interconnectivity. Surface
water rights have developed under the legal prin- cipals of ripar- ian rights and the appropriative doctrine (Burness and Quirk, 1979). Riparian rights forms the basis for water law in east- ern United States and affirms the right of land own-
Figure 2: Shoreline of White Bear Lake in September 2011 demonstrating lake level declines (from Sepic, 2017).
ers to unimpeded use of their waterway. Thus, rights holders cannot diminish flow in a way that would infringe upon the rights of other riparians. On the other hand, the western states adopted the appropriative doctrine, which says that rights are maintained through use and seniority in right is determined through chronological order. Generally, groundwater and surface water have been treated as separate resources under the law (Swenson, 1999), despite the growing body of evidence suggesting they are, in fact, a single resource (Winter, 2001). Groundwater management is governed by state-level permit- ting systems that attempt to balance the needs of individuals and public interests (Swenson, 1999). The appropriative doc- trine and the concept of riparian rights are the foundation for water rights disputes in the US. Many cases have centered on allegations of infringement on riparian or appropriative surface water rights due to groundwater pump- ing. Since groundwater withdrawals are expected to increase in numerous areas throughout the US (Brown, 1999), it can be expected that many more water rights cases will develop over the next ten years. These cases will hinge on the ability of hydrogeologists to accurately characterize SWGWI.
Figure 1 - Bedrock geology of the northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota (from Jones et al., 2013).
26 TPG •
Jul.Aug.Sep 2020
The case of White Bear Lake (WBL) in Minnesota (fig. 1) exemplifies our nation’s need for accurate SWGWI anal- ysis. In 2012, WBL communities filed a lawsuit alleging that the Department of Natural Resources violated their ripar- ian rights by permitting groundwater pumping that led to dramatic declines in lake water levels (fig. 2). This led to an extensive survey of the SWGWI of WBL performed by the USGS to deter- mine if lake level declines were a result of over-pumping or a decrease in pre- cipitation. In addition to an assessment of historical data, the study involved an in-depth investigation of the lake’s interaction with the surrounding geol- ogy. There are four formations that interact with WBL (fig. 3) (Jones et al., 2013). Regional hydraulic gradients of the glacial, St. Peter, and Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifers were determined through a synoptic groundwater-level study which utilized a network of local wells. This endeavor relied on accurate
www.aipg.org
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
