Possible explanation to the missing factor to your equation
Fred Gorman
the missing factor to your equation?
http://groups.google.com/group/LIWaterBoy/web/statistically-its-all-rainfall
SCWA consumption has doubled since 1987 while the population only grew
by 1.5%. SCWA does change well productions and interconnect wells in
their delivery system. They also make delivery system adjustments when
they take over other water companies. The majority of homes north of
the lake and south of the divide are mostly on 1/4 acre plots. The
clay Lens tends to be 50' below the surface. The groundwater
elevation just north of the Mall and south of the divide is
approximately 10 feet higher than at the lake. Well 1812 is about 1/2
mile west of the lake and. The Brown's Road Pumping Station is
directly south of the Mall & directly north of the lake. Every inch
of land north of Lake Ronkonkoma up to the N/S water divide is
developed with the exception of the Bog & 60 acres of old forest just
north of the lake. According to SCWA & the USGS water does travel
horizontally at the rate of one foot a day from the divide to the
lake.
SCWA pumping http://www.nesconsetcivic.com/SCWA%20pumpage%201987-2006.pdf
pgs 11-13 the clay Lenz http://www.nesconsetcivic.com/Smithtown%20Clay%20Report.pdf
No sugginigifant population growth http://www.nesconsetcivic.com/PopulationStudy.pdf
Well 1812 http://www.nesconsetcivic.com/1937-2007%20water%20level.jpg
(note the erratic behavior since the mid sixties.)
Map http://www.nesconsetcivic.com/Smithtown%20Wet%20area.jpg
http://www.nesconsetcivic.com/drainage%20improvements%20march%201980%20volume%201.pdf
p 225 locates the N/S divide 1/2 North of the Smithhaven Mall and
gives groundwater elevations.
Fred Gorman
WaterBoy
but your figures imply that water use is dramatically higher than
population growth.
Generally, the use of water by residents would not cause a higher
water table, but the use of water combined with the high water table
and the clay lenses you mention do come into play. Since the water is
generally drawn from the Magothy Layer the clay lenses will slow the
water's flow back down to that aquifer causing a form of water table
"cliffing" above the clay lens. In times of normal or below-normal
rainfall, we would not expect this to cause a problem, but in times of
a high water table, excessive use of water by residents and businesses
can exacerbate the problem.
I would not concern myself with the horizontal flow of water within
the clay lens. Clay is so impermeable that you can almost discount it
for any flow of water since water will seep downward to the clay lens
and then flow horizontally above it. In other words, most of the
lateral flow of water will occur above the clay lens (at a speed of up
to several hundred feet laterally per day), so the slow speed of water
flowing within the clay lens is not a factor. The biggest concern
caused by the clay lens is that it slows the progress of water
downward which will keep it closer to the surface than it would be if
such lenses were not there. The water would like to flow straight
down and once it hits the clay lens, it really has no alternative but
to flow laterally. The low permeability of the clay lens helps to
purify the water that does make it through that layer to the aquifer,
thus helping to protect our drinking water.
The Browns Road Pumping Station is approximately on the water divide
(The actual divide will shift from year to year, but its exact
location is not critical.). It appears that they are attempting to
move water more quickly from the divide to where it would flow to the
sea. Unfortunately, the pipe ends up near the lake where it just
causes additional mounding since it just returns to the ground there
again rather than making its way to the sound or the bay. If the
Browns Road Pumping Station pumped the water all the way to the sound
or the bay, it would help reduce the mound rather than just spreading
it around.
Fred Gorman
WaterBoy
divide somewhat more north than what I described, but as I indicated
to another member, I am relying on more recent documents posted here
for the information on where the divide has been drawn. I believe the
one from 1999 in another area more closely depicts where the divide is
and shows that it is nearly drirectly south of the mall in that area.
Even the map from 1979 in your document (page 13-20 which I believe is
what your document has as page 134) correlates closely with the map
from 1999 on this site. Both show that the divide is south of the
mall and most recent such reviews show the divide has remained in that
same general area.
I meant to ask you where that area is that you refer to with the SCWA
data. Is it primarily residential, a mix of residential and business
properties, or primarily business? If there has been business growth
in that area, it could account for the large increase in water use
without increasing population. Either way, it is especially important
to think of the contribution from human activities when the water
table has been as high as it has been in recent months.
Thank you for writing.
Fred Gorman
WaterBoy
I agree that the region south of the mall to the lake is primarily
residential, but I was asking about the characteristics of all of
District 12 not just the area of concern. After doing some additional
research, I am having trouble interpreting the data as you are.
I am not having any problem with the population data for the Town of
Smithtown. I agree with the population growth statistics for the Town
of Smithtown which is consistent with other known facts about the
town.
However, I am having great difficulty understand how you are relating
this data to the SCWA District 12 information.
Specifically,
1. You say this includes the area south of the mall. This is
generally correct, but it also includes much of the Smithtown Bypass
and Route 111 area which is primarily busiiness. However, this also
brings up the question of why you are comparing this to the growth of
the entire Town of Smithtown, much of which is north of the area
covered by District 12. For example, District 12 omits significant
parts of Head of the Harbor, Lake Grove, Lake Ronkonkoma, Nissequogue,
and St. James.
2. Secondly, District 12 does not only include Smithtown areas. It
stretches from the Wyandanch area to east of Yaphank and includes
parts of Bellport, Bohemia, Brentwood, Centereach, Deer Park,
Farmingville, North Great River, Hauppauge, East Holbrook, Holtsville,
Huntington, Islandia, Lake Grove, Lake Ronkonkoma, Lake Hills
Ronkonkoma, Lakeland, Medford, Middle Island, Nesconset, Nissequogue,
North Patchogue, Ronkonkoma, St James, Village of The Branch,
Wyandanch, and Yaphank. This includes the area around MacArthur
Airport where significant business growth has been seen since 1988.
If District 12 comprised all of Smithtown and only Smithtown, it would
be useful to compare the growth of District 12 versus the growth of
Smithtown and be horrified at the growth in water usage there.
However, significant parts of District 12 are in Islip and Brookhaven
and significant parts of Smithtown are in other districts. Given that
these are two very different geographic areas, it seems inappropriate
to draw any conclusions about the water pumpage in District 12 versus
the growth of the Town of Smithtown.
In fact, it is entirely possible that the increased water usage in
District 12 reflects the growth of Brookhaven and the business areas
along Route 454 near the airport. While this growth is significant,
it is difficult to draw any conclusions that the increase in water
usage in the areas south and east of Lake Ronkonkoma are contributing
to Smithtown's problems.
By the way, the totals in the charts you provided do not match the
graph you provided in that same document. For example, the actual
totals for Zone 12 for 2005 should be 16,971,143,400 and the total for
2006 should be 15,100,284,100. This is consistent with the graph you
provide, but your chart shows 13,921,591,600 for 2005 and
11,915,501,700 for 2006. Is your chart adding only a subset of the
flow total? If so, which ones are excluded and why? Perhaps that is
related to the point you are making, but there is nothing in your
document explaining these differences.
TPert
figures on a piece of paper at a meeting and I just assumed that Zone
12 was Smithtown and Smithtown was Zone 12 from the way he described
it. I was being told that residents were using more water per
household and that they should get surcharged by the water authority
for using excessive water and affecting their neighbors. I remember
wondering if we were taking more baths because we were somehow dirtier
or if we were flushing more because we are into colon cleansing. I
feel like an idiot for jumping to conclusions like that. It is
amazing how easily I was fooled by neatly typed numbers on a piece of
paper. Even the totals were wrong. Who would have even thought to
check that?
Brookhaven has accounted for nearly half of Suffolk Counties
population growth in recent years, with much of that in the Centereach
to Middle Island area and a good part of it in Yaphank. If those
areas are part of Zone 12, that alone could account for most of the
increase of water usage, even if the average use per household hasn't
changed. The Islip and Smithtown areas you mention have not seen a
big increase in residents, but there sure has been increased business
development there. Look at the development along 347 and 454 and the
additional restaurants and stores around the mall area and all those
office buildings near the airport since 1988.
If it is just overall more use because of more residents and more
businesses, this makes the whole scheme a lot trickier to fix. Thank
you for researching this.
Just to add to your comments in case someone questions it.
As I remember it, in 2005 we had a drought for most of the year which
probably accounts for the big difference in water usage between that
year and the following year. We did not get hit by the big rainfalls
in 2005 until after the growing season was over.
WaterBoy
Please undersstand that I am not saying that water use has not
increased on a per household basis. I am sure that since 1988 it has
grown. Increases in the number of swimming pools, lawn sprinkler
systems, and illegal apartments would all add to water use without an
analogous increase in population statistics. I am just saying that it
would be wrong to rely on the District 12 versus Smithtown growth
comparison to derive that information since they are geographically
different areas.
I am sure that per household use statistics are maintained at the SCWA
and that they could provide the actual per household change during
that period in question. However, as you indicated, the number of
businesses has also increased dramatically in District 12 during this
period, so the increase in discharge by businesses could easily dwarf
any increase caused by the change in per household usage.
I do not have access to the per household usage figures nor the change
in the percent of the total usage which comes from businesses, but
that is the kind of information you would need to have to begin your
analysis.
Even then, before jumping to any conclusions, please remember that
additional usage does not necessarily lead to additional groundwater.
Additional water used for internal plumbing is discharged into the
ground in this area and would most likely contribute directly to
groundwater, but intelligent use of lawn sprinklers (and I emphasize
"intelligent use") would not. For example, during the 2005 drought,
it is likely that much of the additional water used was absorbed by
vegetation. Depending on how swimming pool water is discharged, it
also may or may not contribute to groundwater.
WaterBoy
posted. I believe it contains some relevant information for
discussion:
Dear Waterboy,
The charts and zone 12 figures, like Brookhaven's precipitation was
given to me by SCWA. They told me water usage doubled and that
individual consumers were consuming twice as much water as they were
in 1987. I found this astounding. I thought the Authority may have
been double billing or some monster water gluten had entered the
scene. I then called the Smithtown Planning Director. He confirmed
that people were building bigger houses and using twice as much
water.
We may have a plan in place within weeks. If we don't add several
years to the solution
What I need is the ability to prove SCWA consumer usage is
contributing to the groundwater flooding. If I can do this. The SCWA
can split the lead Authority responsibility with the County. They can
raise funds without County politics. I think they are talented and can
eventually become the Water and Sewer Authority. I'm sure you realize
the value of a Sewer Authority to Suffolk County.
Fred
588-6161
Fred Gorman
Ronkonkoma, Hauppauge and Lake Hills are all in zone 12. On the
WetWithoutRelief site the entire zone's well production is shown and this is
mentioned. The wells that feed north of lake Ronkonkoma, Hauppauge and Lake
Hills are pumping twice as much as they did in 1987. It is difficult to
match a well to a faucet. New wells have been added to the system and must
be taken into account. Water is moved through Zone 12. However the majority
of water pumped into the area north of lake Ronkonkoma, Hauppauge and Lake
Hills comes from the same wells in zone 12 as they did in 1987 with the
exception of the new well that have been added . Both the SCWA & The
Smithtown Planning Director confirmed residential use has doubled while the
population remained the same. Look beyond the first graph and compare the
well pumpage of 1987 to 2006.
Fred
---- Original Message -----
From: "TPert" <stupi...@optonline.net>
To: "LI Groundwater Facts and Fables" <LIWat...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2007 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: Possible explanation to the missing factor to your equation
>
WaterBoy
Director told you since I do not know on what they based conclusions
or in what context they were discussing, but if they were adamant that
water use per household has doubled, then you already have the
imformation you were looking for.
I have to assume that they know what a household is and what a
business is and were not simply dividing total usage (business plus
residential) by the number of households. If they are dividing total
usage by total households, I would be very suspicious that this
increase comes from the commercial side of the equation. If not, you
have all the information you need.
Regarding which wells to include and exclude from examination, I will
leave that to your expertise and the expertise of the sources you
cited. If they told you that by selecting the proper wells they can
prove that per household usage has doubled, I would have no way to
dispute that and you should rely on those experts for their informed
opinions.
I will say that if we only consider onlt the wells that were in use in
1988, the total pumpage from those wells was 9,116,219,150 in 1988 and
these wells contributed 9,443,957,600 in 2006 (a 3.6% increase).
However, since the SCWA uses different wells at different times for
many reasons, this has no bearing on the total per household usage.
That is why I am saying if you have experts who say that use per
household has doubled you have everything you need. They would not
use well pumpage to determine this, they would use actual residential
customer usage statistics.
Thanks for writing.
WaterBoy
today that I am cleaning up. Perjorative comments are unwelcome here
and saying that someone is wrong without backing it up with some facts
(as opposed to opinions) will not be tolerated. Also, secondhand
information that does not come from a published available document
where the source is verifiable is worthless on this site. Please use
other sites if you want to use your opinion as fact:
>From TPert:
Bigger houses consume more water? If the argument is that water usage
is doubling without an increase in population why would the fact that
a house is larger (assuming the same household size) be used as an
argument for increased water usage.
WaterBoy
This topic is about beaten to death. Earlier I was asked to judge
whether opinions of experts are indeed expert opinions without the
benefit of knowing how close the restated opinion was to what was
actually stated.
Now I am being asked to defend a statement that was attributed to an
expert who is not here to say whether or not he did or did not say it
in the first place.
Yes, larger homes can lead to additional water usage without
additional occupants. Power washing a larger home requires more
water. Humidifying the air in a larger home in the winter requires
more water (but won't add to groundwater). Getting the hot water for
your shower from the basement to the bathroom of a larger home will
use more water. Walking around a larger home will cause greater
exertion and require more showers and more frequent quenching of
thirst in a larger home. There are more floors and windows to wash
and more rugs and drapes to shampoo in a larger home. I could go on
for hours guessing why the expert atributed house size to water usage,
but that is as useless as continuing this discussion.
I have no idea why the expert cited thinks per household water use
doubled just because people are living in larger homes. I was not
there and did not participate in the discussion. The Smithtown
Planning Director who said this should be considered an expert. If he
believes that the same number of people living in a larger home will
use more water (in fact, twice as much), why are you or I questioning
it unless we have some facts to dispute it. I will agree that it
defies logic, but that is no reason to use foul language.
Such a question should have been asked at the time the expert
initially spoke, but it wasn't. He is not here, so let's not beat
this to death any more.
>From the evidence presented in this thread, there is no information to
support the contention that water use on a per household or per person
basis has doubled. The use of hearsay and secondhand information has
led us all down a path where this site does not desire to go.
Unless someone has something specific to discuss on this topic
(civilly) with actual facts, there is really no further need for
discussion on this point.
Fred:
As you previously indicated, you already have all the expert opinions
you need to support your goals. I wish you luck with your stated
purpose.
Thanks all for writing. Please let's keep the discussions civil.