Wayne Bossert, who manages the Northwest Kansas Groundwater Management District No. 4, has a post up this morning about an idea being kicked around by his colleagues to the south to build an aqueduct to move Missouri River water westward to replenish supplies in depleted Ogallala-dependent communities:

The proposal is to transfer high flows west – four million AF per year capacity – thus assisting the adjacent and downstream states by reducing flood flows and the damage they do. A series of bank storage collector wells would collect the flows and place the water into the aqueduct. The aqueduct would provide water along the way to various users (municipal, ag and industrial), generate power, be a lazy-river tourist attraction, and pull any other duties such a supply of water can be harnessed to do. It would terminate in a new, man-made, 700,000 AF reservoir in west-central Kansas. From there it would need to be further distributed – mainly dedicated to irrigated agriculture for taking some stress off the Ogallala groundwater use.

What do you think? Is this a sensible idea?

One of my favorite water books, Steven Solomon’s Water: The Epic Struggle for Wealth, Power, and Civilization, persuasively demonstrates that one can trace the geography of human history through our relationship with water – our great port cities and rivers as highways, our first great industrial power supply, the source of fertile soil and the irrigation needed to grow food, and so on.

Historian Carl Smith, in his new book City Water, City Life: Water and the Infrastructure of Ideas in Urbanizing Philadelphia, Boston, and Chicago, adds another layer to that story.

In richly detailed accounts of the development of three great urban U.S. municipal water systems, Smith shows how our very notions of what it meant for people to come together in urbanity intimately shaped, and were intimately shaped by, the need to provide water for America’s growing cities.

Fairmount waterworks, Philadelphia, courtesy US Library of Congress

It’s hard to overstate the significance of the cultural jump from the individualism of gathering one’s own water for one’s own home to the collectivism to banding together to build a water system. It was possible for newly forming cities in the United States in the early to mid-1800s to piecemeal roads and the like, but ultimately water systems required a new sort of collective action unlike anything urban communities had attempted to date.

It cities to think hard about what they expected to become, because along with grandiose ambitions came significant up front costs. If one imagined one’s city was going to rival London or Paris, one had to spend the money to build a big water system to achieve it, depending on growth and expanded revenue to pay the resulting costs. (Smith calls the pioneering issuance of bonds on never-before-seen scales “as momentous an event in American urban history as that of building the actual waterworks”.)

Smith describes the way water in abundance changed its role in the lives of city dwellers. Cleanliness, delivered by water, became associated with moral virtue and healthfulness (while also dramatically reducing the actual scourges of water-borne disease like cholera). Smith describes one Boston booster who

championed bathing the poor as a way to scour their slatternly characters as well as their dirty bodies, pointing out that this could only happen if clean water was made available to them.

Smith threads through his narrative examples of the way water brought into the cities also was used to recreate “nature” that was being lost through the shift to urban life. There were parks built within the cities, with fountains:

[T]he American nation’s presumed identification with nature, as well as a timeless concern with the dehumanizing tendencies of urban life, drove efforts to protect or restore the presence of the natural world in the city, even if that presence was nearly as fabricated as the grid.

There’s much more:

• the relationship between water system development and future growth
• the endless arguments over how to price city water
• the endless arguments over how to encourage conservation

For water nerds and urban history nerds, highly recommended.

Data from the German-NASA GRACE satellites highlights groundwater depletion hotspots in the United States. CREDIT: CAROLINE DE LINAGE/UNIV. OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE, Science magazine

Jay Famiglietti, from UC Irvine in California, and his colleagues have made something of a scientific cottage industry out of the use of data from the German-NASA GRACE satellites (short for Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) to measure changes in groundwater around the world. Not surprisingly, it’s going down as humans pump it out to use faster than the globe’s hydrologic system can put it back. The GRACE numbers have substantially improved our understanding of this problem (see, for example, India, California’s Central Valley, the Tigris-Euphrates basins). “GRACE may be the only hope for groundwater depletion assessments in data-poor regions of the world,” they wrote in 2007.

But there are problems, as Famiglietti and Matthew Rodell write in this week’s Science (link might be behind Science’s paywall). GRACE was launched in 2002 with a five-year nominal lifetime, which it has obviously exceeded. A follow-on is not planned to launch until 2017:

For GRACE and its successors to maximize their value for water management, key issues must be addressed. First, the current 2- to 6-month latency before GRACE data are released must be substantially reduced to enable their use in seasonal prediction. Second, GRACE data should be better integrated into the modeling and decision support systems used by operational water management centers. Finally, next-generation missions beyond GRACE-FO should aim to achieve higher spatial (<50,000 km2) and temporal (weekly or biweekly) resolution, for example through novel orbital configurations, so that smaller river basins and aquifers can be observed directly. The availability of GRACE data at these finer scales, at which most planning decisions are made, would likely ensure their broader use in water management.

NASA’s Fiscal Year 2014 budget (big pdf) $83.4 million for work on the GRACE follow-on mission. Preliminary estimate puts the total life cycle cost at $404m to $460m. I don’t follow NASA closely, or understand its budget dynamics, so I’ve no idea if that’s a reasonable number, or what the tradeoffs are in terms of other programs struggling for funding in the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies appropriations bills in which NASA has to compete.