Discussion on human-activity-does-not-contribute-to-groundwater
jabba
I understand what you are saying in this item but what is the
solution. Is the SCWA the actual cause of high groundwater because
they pump from the Magothy aquifer, sell it to their customers who
then use it and put it back into the Upper Glacial aquifer? Or is it
the municipality who allowed development without planning for sewers?
Lately there has been alot of media attention given to sewering in
Suffolk County. If my memory is correct, the Long Island Regional
Planning Board whose chairman then was Lee Koppleman did a study of
sewering in Central LI sometime in the 1980's. They came up with the
conclusion that sewering in Central LI would have a severe
environmental impact in this area. They used the example of Valley
Stream in Nassau County where sewering dried up the natural streams in
that area. They implied that Lake Ronkonkoma would eventually change
from a kettle lake to a kettle hole. The Central portion of LI
definitely needs relief from high ground water problems that have been
plaguing homeowners for decades but is sewering the answer?
WaterBoy
single piece of it. The point is that the contribution from rainfall
is not controlled by man, but the contribution from development can be
accounted for while the development is being done. Adding a housing
development or a shopping complex will have an affect on groundwater
levels. In a low-lying area with poor soil porosity, this will be a
bigger problem than to a similar development on the top of a hill.
Those factors need to be taken into account prior to construction.
We need to approach development intelligently. Take the idea of
sanitary sewering. When groundwater levels are too high, clean,
treated water does not need to be discharged back into the ground.
When they are too low, they should be. We can make this decision
based on recent rainfall amounts or well levels to reduce the
fluctuations we experience. This is not rocket science but it makes
the development more costly and requires more time to evaluate the
water table impact. Plus any sewer district would need to be more
complex to build and run.
I do not think this is the problem, but perhaps the SCWA may need to
consider how they are moving water when they supply it. If they are
drawing water from an area downstream of the divide and supplying it
to an upstream area which is saturated, this will exacerbate an
already high water table. I do not believe that this factor is
considered now when water is provided.
Please don't take anything said here as indicating that development is
the primary cause of the problem. It isn't, but it does contribute
and we need to especially be aware of this when an area is subject to
wetter than normal weather. It should be likened to the current
concerns about global warming. Honest scientists will tell you that
the primary cause of global warming is a change in the output levels
of the sun, but most "experts" blame human activity. The main reason
for this is that unless we force the focus onto human activity, people
will not do anything about it. If we say "The sun is hotter and the
earth is getting warmer as a result," people will not attempt to
offset the impact by changing their own actions and reducing their own
contribution.
I would like to see government treat times of a high water table
similar to the way they treat periods of drought. During a high water
table, perhaps government could limit or eliminate car washing (except
at commercial facilities which recycle their water), use odd-day/even-
day lawn watering restrictions, urge taking showers rather than baths
("Shower with a friend."), discourage excessive water use ("If it's
yellow, let it mellow. If it's brown, flush it down"), add water use
surcharges, and similar ideas. It won't solve the problem, but it
would help limit the contribution by man by encouraging awareness of
man's part in the problem.