GHOST RIGHTS TO WATER CAN BE SPOOKY--PART 2

In my previous post, I discussed "ghost" water rights held by landowners. These are rights to divert water from streams and lakes that were established prior to governmental regulation and permitting of such diversions.

Ghost-like water rights also can arise under different scenarios. One reported example is the dispute between the states of West Virginia and Maryland over water rights in the Potomac River.* West Virginia has sought to take additional water from the river for a proposed new manufacturing plant in that state. Maryland has objected to such an additional take. In 1933, Maryland began regulating
withdrawals from the river by users out of state. West Virginia has claimed that such control is limited by a 1785 compact negotiated by George Washington and a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision which enabled the state of Virginia to have water rights in the river.

Earlier this year, a South Dakota tribe of native Americans living along the Missouri River filed suit against the United States seeking $200 million as compensation for alleged violations of water rights.** The complaint is premised on a 1908 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the establishment of a land reservation for native Americans includes an implied reservation of water rights for the benefit of the tribe. The claim is alleged that water rights to the river given by the United States to others were not legal.

Fresh water is a scarce but indispensable commodity. Accordingly, what these examples illustrate is that sharing of water sources can be a contentious exercise. If sharing cannot be accomplished by agreement or compact, governmental regulation and ultimately litigation appears to be a necessary and likely consequence.

______________________________________________

*Terlep, "P&G Caught in Water-Rights Feud",
Wall Street Journal, November 26-27,2016,
p. B3

**Tupper, "SD Tribe Wages $200M Water Fight",
Rapid City Journal, November 13, 2016,
p. A1

© Daniel J. Kucera 2016

GHOST RIGHTS TO WATER CAN BE SPOOKY

In 1948, the classic song "Ghost Riders in the Sky" was published. Depicting a haunting cowboy legend, it became popular first in 1949 by the deep voice of Vaughn Monroe, but subsequently recorded by over 50 performers.

Now, it appears that there may be ghost water rights in rivers and lakes on earth. In the 1600s, colonists in America began to use water from rivers to power their mills. In doing so, they also assumed rights to use water for these purposes. The formation of states, and the United States, occurred some 100 years later, and the formal regulation of water rights even later.

A recent news story focuses on a thorny issue: do pre-regulation water rights, sometimes called "ghost water rights", survive subsequent governmental regulation of water rights?* According to the article, two pioneer landowners in the Black Hills of South Dakota obtained water rights in 1896 to divert substantial flow from Rapid Creek. The then stated purpose of the water diversion was "for milling, manufacturing, irrigating, domestic and other useful purposes." These water rights were recorded prior to the the adoption in 1907 of state water use laws providing for regulation and permitting of water rights. According to the article, there were hundreds of water rights recorded prior to state regulation.

The article states that the subject water rights, if exercised, would divert almost one-half of the entire flow of the Creek in a typical year. In 1908, a state engineer surveyed pre-existing water rights and found that they claimed large amounts of water. He wrote "the natural tendency was to make the claim large enough to cover all possible requirements, and in most cases greater than there was any expectation of using...This resulted in many instances in absurd and speculative claims, and the records show numerous cases where each of a number of claims to the water of a stream, filed in accordance with the former statutes, involved a larger quantity of water than had ever flowed in it, even during flood periods."

Now, the state board regulating water rights is considering termination of ghost water rights. However, such termination presents several potential issues. For example, do pre-existing water rights ever expire or can they be terminated? If water rights were never used, do they still exist? Do they run with the land benefited from the water rights? Can water rights be abandoned, and if so, what evidence establishes abandonment? If a water right is used partially, does the unused balance still exist? Can a pre-exisist water right be reduced in scope?

Another issue may be Constitutional. If a state terminates or reduces a pre-existing water right, is this a taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, requiring compensation?

Ghost water rights appear to be both daunting and haunting. Allocation of the rights to divert water from rivers and lakes can be a complex and contentious exercise. Indeed, to reference the song, ghost rights in the water can be spooky.

_____________________________________________

*Tupper,"'Ghost Claims'Haunt SD Waters,"
Rapid City Journal, September 25, 2016,
page A1

© Daniel J. Kucera 2016

STILL HUNTING FOR THE ORIGIN OF WATER

"Water is the driving force in nature."

-----Leonardo da Vinci


Scientists' quest for the origin of water on Earth seems to echo the song "Looking For Love In All The Wrong Places."

In May, 2015, I discussed a report that scientists have asserted water was delivered to Earth from the bombardment by asteroids and/or meteorites containing ice. This hypothesis was based upon measurement of deuterium concentrations in surface water compared with that found in these invaders.*

However, in November, I stated that a subsequent report indicated the asteroid/meteorite assertion was flawed because deuterium levels in ground water were found to be significantly lower than those in seawater.**

Most recently, it has been reported that scientists have developed a new hypothesis. "The researchers have found that deuterium levels in water trapped inside of molten rock and unaltered since the planet's early days are significantly lower than those in seawater. The lower deuterium fingerprint for Earth's primordial water hints that the world's wetness resulted from water-soaked dust grains present during the planet's assemble;y, the researchers conclude." In other words, water was part of the Earth's formation and was not delivered to Earth at a later time.***

So, where in the world did water come from? One could question how all the surface water and groundwater on Earth could have come from "cosmic dust." And even if it did, where did all that watery dust come from, etc.,etc.?

Perhaps da Vinci's statement is instructive. Water is the driving force IN nature, he says. Is water, in reality, a part of nature? If so, the larger question may be how did nature originate on Earth? It appears that all conditions on Earth, including water, came together in a purposeful way to create and sustain nature and life.

Then, again, why is so much scientific research energy being expended on a quest for the origin of water? No amount of such labors will produce more water than the Earth already has. And, it would seem that there are many more critical issues needing Earth's attention, such as hunger, safe water, sustainability of water resources, sanitation, disease, and the like.

_________________________________________

* "Who Cares", May 27,2015

** "Deja Vu", November 3,2015

*** Sumner,"Origin of Earth's Water
Questioned," Science News,
December 12,2015, p.12

DEJA VU

"Memory is like riding a trail at night with a lighted torch.
The torch casts its light only so far, and beyond that is darkness."

----------- Old Lakota Sioux Saying

Earlier this year, I discussed a published report that scientists have asserted the Earth's water was delivered to it by ice-infused asteroids and/or meteorites.* This conclusion was based upon comparisons of the Deuterium-Hydrogen (D/H) ratios of Earth water with water found in rocks from outer space.

Now, a new published report suggests that this water origin conclusion may not be correct, and that no one yet knows how water got here.** According to this report, there are problems with the prior D/H ratio analysis. Most of Earth's water is deep underground and has a different composition from ocean water. In particular, deep water has a different D/H ratio than the seawater ratio previously used to compare with asteroid and meteorite water.

Further, D/H ratios may not be reliable because Deuterium tends to become more prevalent at lower temperature, and computations are variable with distance from the sun making the ratios of questionable value in locating the origin of a water-bearing comet. Alternative ratios, such as nitrogen and oxygen isotopes have been suggested, but such measurements apparently require development of new instruments.

According to the report, no one knows how much water is inside the Earth. Estimates vary from 1.5 times to 11 times the amount of ocean water. Scientists are studying a series of underground lakes located hundreds of feet below Wind Cave National Park in the Black Hills, South Dakota. Wind Cave comprises at least 170 miles of honey-combed tunnels and is said to be the third largest cavern in the world. The lakes pop up in some of these tunnels and form the top of the Madison Aquifer, a valuable drinking water resource. The Lakota believed that their ancient gods delivered their ancestors from Wind Cave to the surface of the Black Hills.

As if figuring out where Earth water came from was not challenging, another report states that several moons of Jupiter and Saturn contain underground oceans of water, not to mention the possibilities on Mars.***

Is looking for a scientific explanation for the origin of water on Earth or anywhere else like looking for love in all the wrong places? To paraphrase the Lakota, "Looking for the origin of Earth's water is like riding a trail at night with a lighted torch. The torch casts its light only so far, and beyond that is darkness."

____________________________________________

* "Who Cares", May 27, 2015

** Crockett,"Struggle To Find Origin Of
Earth's Water",Science News,September 5,
2015, p.8

*** Crockett,"Ocean Envelopes All Of
Enceladus", Science News, October 17,
2015, p.8

PLUTONIC RELATIONS

Planet or dwarf planet, or round blob of ice, or whatever--Pluto attracted a great deal of attention this summer when photos of it and its moon captured by NASA's space probe hit the media. They briefly replaced reruns of old sitcoms.

The pictures are said to reveal mountains of frozen water. Some have speculated that water is gushing below the mountains. Indeed, one project leader was quoted as saying that water exists in great abundance.

A question comes to mind: how did all that water arrive on Pluto? Recently, published reports have stated that the Earth's water came from bombardments of asteroids. However, photos of Pluto and its moon Charon appear to suggest crusts free of impact craters.

Will water on Pluto be harvested for the benefit of earthlings? Will large space tankers haul ice and water back to Earth? I suppose this is unlikely, if it takes 9 years over 3 million miles to go one way. On the other hand, harvested ice certainly will arrive melted after such travel.

But wait...there already is Pluto Water on Earth. "Pluto Water" was bottled spring water from French Lick, Indiana. It was available and sold from the early 20th Century until 1971 when its lithium content caused it to be labeled as a controlled substance. Pluto Water was famous for being a strong laxative due to its mineral salts. Claims were made that it was "effective" from a half hour to two hours after ingestion. Accordingly, one supposes that it quenched several needs.

Pluto was the Roman god of the underworld. Pluto also was a dog--the pet dog of Mickey Mouse. Both Pluto, the alleged planet, and Pluto, the alleged canine, were discovered in 1930. The assumption is that the alleged planet came first. Pluto, the dog, who is naked, of course should not be confused with Goofy, the dog, who tends to be clothed and also associated with Mickey Mouse and friends. Pluto is not Goofy.

Pluto, the round ball in outer space, is an unlikely destination for weddings or retirees in the near future. However, in addition to its water sources, it does offer the attractive benefit that global warming is not likely there. This should please scientists who may consider going there. It also is unlikely that any of us will drink Pluto Water anytime soon. So, while photos of Pluto's ice mountains were interesting, the only Pluto likely to cross our paths is Pluto, the dog. Beam me up, Pluto!

WILL THE RIVERS CLAP THEIR HANDS?

Rivers are a primary source of supply for many water utility systems. Such utilities are responsible to treat river water in compliance with applicable safe drinking water regulations. As rivers and their tributaries meander through agricultural land, they are susceptible to farm field soil erosion and fertilizer runoff. Perhaps the most troublesome constituents of such runoff are the nitrates. In the United States, there are strict limits on the permitted levels of nitrates in drinking water, which impose in many cases costly treatment protocols.

For example, in its 2014 annual report, the Minnesota Department of Health indicates that agricultural related nitrate pollution is a growing threat to the state's drinking water from all sources. The report states: "Roughly half of Minnesota's land is in agricultural production, primarily in the southern and western parts of the state. Up to 20 million acres of Minnesota is in row crop production annually. Row crops, which include corn, soybeans, sugar beets, and potatoes, are a major contributor to Minnesota's economy. However, since soils in row-crop production can lose nitrate during the non-growing season, these lands are the biggest influence on Minnesota's ground and surface water nitrate levels." (p.7)

Farm soil erosion is another issue for rivers. According to a published report, to mitigate erosion, farmers are switching to no till farming, a practice of planting crops without tillage of the soil. Stubble from prior crops is left on the ground. The new crop is planted by drilling seed into the soil without disturbing the ground by tilling. Accordingly, this practice tends to hold soil in place.*

So, could no till farming be the answer for both erosion and runoff control? Maybe not, according to another published report. It states that researchers have found that fields managed by conventional and turbo-tillage practices can produce lower concentrations of pollutants in runoff than those managed by no till practices.**

Maybe further research will conclude that both new seed and fertilizer could be drilled into the soil, leaving the surface otherwise undisturbed. This approach, of course, could cause increased costs for agricultural interests. But it also could assign costs to the cost causers and reduce treatment costs for utilities and their customers. Perhaps, an alternative approach could be no till practices for erosion control and more modest and efficient application of fertilizers. Whatever, with further research, maybe some day rivers will have less concern over erosion and runoff, and will clap their hands.

______________________________________________

*Lutey, Billings Gazette, republished in
Rapid City Journal, April 27,2015,p.A8

**Environmental Science & Technology,
November 20, 2012

WHERE'S THE WATER?

We live on the surface of the earth's crust, and what we see is only on the surface. Thus, we know that about 71% of the earth's surface is covered with water, and about 97% of that water is saline water in the oceans. So, fresh water--that which we drink and use in our lives--comprises only about 3% of all the water on the earth's surface.

Between the earth's crust and its core is a thick layer called the mantle. Now, according to a recent report, scientists believe that the mantle contains a huge amount of water deep in the earth.* It is suggested that this water is about 440 to 660 kilometers below the surface, perhaps where the upper mantle transitions to the molten lower mantle. Some have suggested that the mantle may contain as much water as all of the surface oceans, or even more.

Some of the mantle water may date back to early earth history. Another source may arise when tectonic plates collide, allowing ocean-soaked crust to seep into the mantle.

What does all this mantle water mean for us surface dwellers? Our wells penetrate only the earth's crust, so mantle water may be a wishful source of supply. On the other hand, mantle water may have other impacts, such as causing tectonic plates to move or producing volcanoes.

One thing may be sure: still waters run deep.

_________________________________________________

* "Water Permeates Earth's Interior", Science Newa,
(July 12, 2014, p. 9)

SOURCE WATER CONTAMINATION--THE ELEPHANTS IN THE ROOM

Suppose that a water utility is in compliance with all applicable safe drinking water standards and regulations. Then, one day, an unregulated chemical contaminate migrates in the ground to its wells or spills into a river just above its intake. Suppose further that this contaminant is not removed by conventional treatment processes and enters into the utility's finished water and is distributed system-wide to its customers. Will the utility face possible liability for unsafe water at customers' taps? Or is compliance with standards and regulations a defense to such claims?

It will be interesting to see how the current West Virginia chemical spill situation fully plays out. In 2002, the California Supreme Court held that claims for damages from contaminated drinking water against regulated water utilities who met all standards were preempted by the jurisdiction of the state public utilities commission. However, claims against unregulated water utilities were allowed to proceed, even though the utilities met the applicable standards *

One of the more immediate effects of the West Virginia chemical spill situation is the introduction in the US Senate of the Chemical Safety and Drinking Water Protection Act, proposing tighter regulation of chemical facilities with the objective of enhancing protection against chemical spills which could threaten water sources of supply. The proposed statute would require regular state inspections of above ground chemical storage facilities; require industries to develop state approved emergency response plans ; allow states to recover their response costs; and aid utilities in having tools and information to respond to emergencies. On February 4, a Senate hearing was held on the West Virginia spill issues.

The Wall Street Journal reported that, after the chemical spill in West Virginia contaminated its water system, the affected utility's officials said they were unfamiliar with the contaminant and did not know it was being stored.about one mile upstream from its river intake. ** In 1996, a federal program required states to conduct source water assessments regarding their respective water utility systems. However, the program did not require development of source water protection plans. After 9/11, water utilities were required to conduct vulnerability assessments, but these were intended to identify threats from terrorism, not pollutants.

It would seem that a proactive water utility could consider some possible measures to mitigate against risk of contamination of its sources of supply, including:

1. A utility could seek to establish more effective channels of communication with state agencies involved in monitoring industrial activity in proximity to the utility's sources of supply, including any state source water protection plan.

2. Years ago, a Chicago television weather man invented a "vice president in charge of looking out the window" to make sure his forecast were consistent with what actually was happening outside. A utility could conduct its own survey of nearby chemical storage and process facilities--in other words, actually look for itself and ask questions. And, based on such investigation, it could develop an assessment of risks to its system.

3. A utility should have an emergency response plan in place which anticipates the possibility of contamination from an unknown or unregulated contaminate introduced into its source water by chemical spill, chemical migration, or other toxic spill.

4. A utility should have adequate insurance coverage for possible contamination outbreaks.

Surprises may be welcome for milestone birthday parties, but not for water utility operations!

________________________________________________________

* Hartwell Corporation v. Superior COurt of Ventura County, 38 P.3rd 1098 (CA 2002)

** February 4, 2014, P. A3

WATER BANKING YIELDS HIGH INTEREST

As demand for fresh water in parts of the United States out paces supply, utilities are exploring creative solutions. During a recent visit to London, I was interested to read an article in the International Herald Tribune discussing "aquifer storage".

What is this? Aquifer storage is essentially the reverse of drilling a well to pump water from an aquifer. Generally, water from the surface in injected through wells into the aquifer for storage . Then, when demand calls for more water, the stored water is pumped back up, treated and distributed to users. The full name for this process is "aquifer storage and recovery" or "ASR". In addition to injection wells, surface spreading and infiltration pits and basins may be used to feed the aquifer. Injection wells are regulated by U.S.EPA under its Underground Injection Control program.

A primary advantage of ASR is water can be stored during wet weather or low demand periods and then recovered in dry or high demand periods. Other advantages include" the additional water in the aquifer can defend against salt water intrusion and land subsidence; there is no evaporation issue with underground storage; crop land is not flooded and taken out of service; and aquifers may have more available storage space than surface reservoirs.

On the other hand, there may be some potential negatives: ASR may result in the injection of pathogens, particularly if treated wastewater is injected; if water is disinfected prior to injection, disinfection by-products may be introduced into the aquifer; and chemical differences between aquifer water and injected water could result in leaching of arsenic, manganese, iron, radionuclides or carbonates from the aquifer geological formation.

There, of course, may be an overriding legal issue: whose water is it, anyway? In other words, who has a right to the water in an aquifer; is a utility legally entitled to recover the injected water? In some jurisdictions, a landowner has a right to recover water under the person's land, even if some had been injected by a utility.

Several countries are utilizing ASR, including Australia, Belgium and The Netherlands. Even Thames Water, the utility serving London, stores water in an aquifer under that city.

In the United States, utilities in several states have developed or are planning to develop ASR facilities. For example, the San Antonio Water System Twin Oaks Aquifer Storage and Recovery facility is said to be the third largest ASR facility in the country, with 29 wells and some 60 mgd well field capacity. The Washington state legislature has adopted rules for review and issuance of permits for ASR projects and several projects are underway.

With dry weather in portions of the United States, and growing water demand in agricultural and population areas, resulting in depleted surface waters and aquifers, prudence may encourage more utilities to consider ASR to take advantage of storm water and treated wastewater when available.

AS THE RIVER TURNS

In March, USEPA issued its findings from a survey of thousands of miles of rivers and streams through out this country. It concluded that 55% of the miles are in poor condition for aquatic life. The assessment includes the following conclusions:

1. Some 27% of the rivers and streams have excessive levels of nitrogen and 40% have high levels of phosphorus. These constituents form "nutrient pollution" which causes adverse increases in algae and adverse decreases in oxygen in the water.

2. Some 24% of rivers and streams are considered poor due to loss of healthy vegetative cover needed to mitigate erosion, remove pollutants and maintain water temperatures.

3. Some 9% of miles contain high levels of bacteria, which can be unsafe for swimming and other recreation.

4. More than 13,000 of miles contain fish with high levels of mercury, which may be a health issue for humans.

In early April, a report funded by the National Science Foundation describes a record breaking 2011 algae bloom on Lake Erie. Such blooms in freshwater can result from runoff containing nitrogen and phosphorus, with high precipitation, poor lake circulation and warm temperatures. Decomposition of algae and aquatic plants deplete oxygen in the water needed for aquatic life.

The EPA's Office of Water Acting Assistant Administrator is quoted as stating: 'We must continue to invest in protecting and restoring our nation's streams and rivers as they are vital sources of our drinking water , provide many recreational opportunities, and play a critical role in the economy." (EPA Release, March 26, 2013)

So, what have EPA and other governmental agencies have done over the past 40 years to protect rivers and streams from such adverse environmental impacts as described in these reports and to enhance their drinking water and recreational potential uses? Maybe it is time for less reliance on promised action; and instead time for us to actually take ownership of what we own.

MAKE NO BONES ABOUT WATER

Recently, the skeleton of England's King Richard III was discovered under a parking lot (car park) in Leicester. He is the king codified, somewhat incorrectly, in Shakespeare's play: "I, that am curtailed of this fair proportion,/Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,/Deformed, unfinished, sent before my time/Into this breathing world, scarce half made up,/And that so lamely and unfashionable/That dogs bark at me as I halt by them."

Richard III was killed in battle in 1485. Presumably, his remains were mellowing ever since. His skeleton shows head injuries as well as his deformed back.

Since discovery of Richard's bones, archeologists have dug into extensive analysis to confirm that the bones, in fact, are perceived royalty. The research has included DNA matches with apparent descendants over the globe, carbon dating of the bones and identification of the man's diet as appropriate for a king in 1485.

The interesting fact, however, is that for centuries people were walking, and more recently driving, on King Richard III. What would the Bard say about that? It seems disrespectful to royalty, and certainly contrary to what my mother admonished me repeatedly: "Don't let people walk all over you."

But, perhaps even more interesting is that Richard's bones are like ground water. We all walk, drive, farm, construct buildings and carry on life's activities on top of water in the earth below--water which serves all of these activities. We know where some of this water exist is, but not necessarily all of its locations. We may not know its age with certainty or how it really got there.

No doubt, Richards bones now will be well preserved for the future. Water is the bones of life. Will humanity preserve it for the future? With no disrespect to the Bard: "I, that I am curtailed of appearance/By earth, rock, blacktop and foundation,/And by wasteful uses and awkward laws,/As without halting, people and dogs walk over me as I slip away under their legs."

WHEN WATER WORLDS COLLIDE

The Wall Street Journal has reported on an alleged fight in Nevada over ground water between a city which is seeking to construct a 20 mile long pipeline to tap the aquifer and a ranching community which fears that their wells could dry up if the city's plan is approved. The ground water at issue is fed by mountain runoff. The article also recites similar controversies in other locations. (Wall Street Journal, March 8, 2013, p. A3)

Disputes over water rights are not new, nor are they likely to be confined to western states. For example, Lake Michigan is a magnet for many thirsty water systems who salivate over the possibility of tapping into the Lake and abandoning their declining wells or lesser quality surface water supplies. In theory, taking water from the Lake is limited to water systems within the Lake's watershed. However, as an example, diversion has been permitted in Chicago under a 1930s U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

Water wars are unlikely to go away. More likely, they will increase, as cities grow, climate changes, and surface water supplies prove no longer adequate or are all spoken for. On the other hand, who knows for sure how much ground water is available and where?

Two questions come to mind. First, how should source water be allocated to the competing user groups? Who has priority? What standards are applicable?

Second, Who should do the allocating? State governors? State administrative regulatory agencies? State courts?

An issue lurking in the shadows is the interstate nature of water. For example, aquifers contain water that may have come from other states or Canada, from runoff or as original water. Likewise, surface waters may have sources in upstream states.

The commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution--the clause that authorizes Oongress to regulate interstate commerce--was inserted because states had been enacting tariff barriers to imports from other states so as to protect commerce within a particular state. The Commerce Clause is a touchstone for such federal regulations low water toilets, faucets and shower heads, the Safe Drinking Water Act and USEPA.

Looking into the future, do not be surprised if, and when, Congress comes marching into the water wars with primacy federal regulation of allocations of water sources of supply.

REDISTRIBUTION OF SOURCE WATERS: SOCIAL ENGINEERING OF WATER

On December 12, 2012 a report called the Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study was released by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and seven western states--Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah and Wyoming. The study is intended to examine how more water could be provided to these western states, which have growing populations and limited water resources.

One of the options discussed in the study is the importation of water from other parts of the United States. For example, to provide more water to the Colorado River basin, it is proposed that a pipeline or pipelines, some 700 miles long, be constructed to import water from the Missouri River. The report estimates that the capital cost would be $8.6 billion and it would take 30 years to complete. An alternative is given to take water from the Mississippi River.

The study also discusses the possible importation to the Green River from the Bear, Snake and Yellowstone Rivers in Wyoming. In addition, the report reviews importation to Southern California from the Columbia River, icebergs hauled by tugboats from Alaska, and tankers hauling water from Alaskan rivers. (See usbr.gov)

The study does recognize that importation of source water is not without permitting, legal and policy issues. Moving water from one basin across the country to another basin, of course, likely will raise concerns--particularly in the case of the Missouri River, which is a major tributary of the Mississippi. The Missouri provides a source of drinking water, irrigation water and hydro-power in six states. With the current drought conditions in several midwestern states, there already is concern about the continued viability of these water uses as well as navigation on the Mississippi.

Discussion of such importation options raises broader questions, as well. Could the federal government propose importation pipelines from the Great Lakes, such as Lake Michigan, already the source of drinking water for millions? Or, could some agency develop a well farm in the midwest or east mining water from one of the major aquifers and piping the water to a western basin?

Moving water resources from one basin to another-the redistribution of water assets-would seem to have obvious consequences for the rivers, lakes and aquifers from which water would be taken. All of these sources themselves have limitations. And they have dedicated present uses in their areas. To deplete a basin or source already committed to uses for the benefit of another basin and its uses would seem problematic. Thus, the study also discusses such alternatives as water conservation, reuse, etc.

Perhaps one very important conclusion coming out of this study is that every person in this country has the important responsibility of protecting our limited and essential water resources, no matter where that person resides and where that resource may be.

ROUNDING UP THE NOT USUAL WATER SUSPECTS

In 1935, Klaus Hansen was a pharmacologist at Oslo University. That year, he became the first human to drink something called "heavy" water.

Heavy water was discovered in 1931 in the United States by Harold Urey. What is heavy about this water? Ordinary water, the kind that pours from our faucets, is H20. Heavy water, also known as deuterium oxide, is D2O. Thus, in heavy water, deuterium, a heavy isotope
of hydrogen, replaces the hydrogen of ordinary water. Heavy water is about 10% heavier than ordinary water and has higher freezing and boiling levels.

Apparently, ice cubes made from heavy water will sink to the bottom of your gin and tonic. However, it is not recommended for that purpose. Instead, heavy water commonly is used as a moderator of neutrons produced in nuclear fission reactions in nuclear reactors. As one might guess, there also is something called "semi-heavy" water, where deuterium replaces only one of the hydrogen atoms of ordinary water, thus DHO.

So, what happened to Prof. Hansen after he drank the heavy stuff? Apparently, nothing. He lived past age 75.

Well if ordinary water is not to your taste, and heavy water not your cup of tea, are there other water alternatives? Why not consider "drinking" fruits and vegetables?

For example, there is the obvious choice--watermelon. Typically, watermelon is 92% water. Of course, watermelons tend to weigh a lot, so this could be said to be a form of heavy water. Watermelons are said to contain beneficial nutrients, as well. In fact, watermelons have their own website: watermelon.org. There also has been some suggestion that ingredients in watermelons may have male enhancement benefits. (sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080630165707.htm) There is no indication whether seeded or seedless melon is to be preferred. Of course, eating watermelon heartily could leave one bladder-challenged.

There are other choices for water, as well. Cucumbers and iceberg lettuce comprise 96% water. Tomatoes, zucchini, radishes and celery are 95% water. Eggplant, cabbage, cauliflower, sweet peppers, spinach and strawberries are 92% water. Grapefruit and broccoli are 91% water.

Because of the high water content of such fruits and vegetables, they are said to be good conductors of electricity. I find this information of little use, unless one wishes to wire a house with cucumbers and zucchini.

So, when it is all said and done, the best and most convenient water source probably is the usual suspect--the faucet.

BEAM ME UP, SCOTTIE

Looking for water in all the wrong places? Scientists report finding a cloud of water surrounding a giant black hole in a galaxy. It is said to be the oldest and largest amount of water in the universe, holding an amount equal to the mass of at least 100,000 suns. The vapor disk is estimated to be 3,500 light years across (Science, September 10, 2011, p.4).

Although no one has yet found clear evidence of water on Mars, some scientists have concluded that salt water oozing from rocks causes seasonal dark streaks at some locations on that planet. The assumption is that the water freezes below ground and later boils above ground (Id. at p. 8)

Studies in California and Wisconsin reportedly suggest that many urban sanitary sewers are leaking and permit raw sewage to enter into storm sewers that drain into waterbodies that serve as sources of water supply (Id. at p.13).

I am not sure what all this means. But these stories could suggest that if we continue to avoid needed upgrade of sewer infrastructure, and if we want to avoid brine water on Mars, maybe we should seek water in another galaxy.

FISHING IN RIVERS IN THE SKY

We are familiar with the "usual suspects" which have become our sources of water supply-surface waters such as lakes and rivers and ground waters of various depths. Currently, science appears to be focusing on "rivers in the sky"--atmospheric bands of water vapor which induce or affect water supply, flooding and the earth's water cycle when they drop their moisture load.

"Like freight trains loaded with water vapor, atmospheric rivers are long, narrow bands whose winds funnel huge amounts of moisture through the sky." (Science News, February 26, 2011, p.20). These rivers can discharge large quantities of rain or snow.

The sky rivers appear to arise due to temperature differences between the tropics and the poles, especially in winter. A strong temperature difference can cause low pressure storms to spin off, with winds within such storms creating an atmospheric river. (Science News, p.21).

It appears that research is being directed toward predictability of such rivers as well as a better understanding of their cause and nature. No doubt, there is concern not only as to flooding effects, but also the potential for replenishment of surface water sources of supply for water service. For further information on NOAA research studies, see www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/atmrivers