Let’s start thinking about water!

Exploring Groundwater Recoverability in Texas—Maximum Economic Recoverable Storage

Total estimated recoverable storage—the total amount of water that can be drained from an aquifer—is one of the weapons on the western front of the water wars in Texas. In an unconfined (water table) aquifer managed through planned depletion (think Ogallala), it makes some sense to talk about how much total water is in storage in an aquifer. But for aquifers managed sustainably or aquifers where their productivity sources from artesian pressure (think Edwards, Trinity, Carrizo-Wilcox, Gulf Coast), it makes much less or no sense. But as a number legislatively required to be considered when groundwater conservation district establish desired future conditions: whoomp, there it is! Unfortunately, the heft of total estimated recoverable storage (it is usually a huge number) is wielded against groundwater districts that manage artesian aquifers, confusing policymakers and the public.

In this paper, Thompson and others investigate the economics of recoverability for agricultural users in the Carrizo-Wilcox. Despite an unfortunate confusing of total estimated recoverable storage with groundwater availability (sorry guys: groundwater availability = modeled available groundwater), the paper identifies some of the economic issues associated with draining a confined (artesian) aquifer. For an alfafa farmer, Thompson and crew show that the economics go south after only 0.8% of the total estimated recoverable storage has been drained from an aquifer. If this seems counterintuitive, just remember that water levels decline much, much more in a confined aquifer where artesian pressure is being depleted than in an unconfined aquifer where the aquifer is being physically drained through a lowering water table. As a result, they propose a maximum economically recoverable storage number be considered instead of total estimated recoverable storage.

Sensitivity of Extreme Precipitation in Texas To Climatic Cycles

I loves me some oscillations. As my wife will tell you, I wouldn’t shut up about them—particularly the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (what the cools kids call the AMO)—during the recent state-wide drought in the early 2010s. The warm phase of the AMO appears to correlate with drier- and warmer-than-normal conditions while the cool phase appears to correlate to with wetter and cooler conditions. Texas left cooler-and wetter-than-normal conditions in the mid-1990s right when the AMO switched from a cool to a warm phase (where we remain today). Bhatia and others look at the correlation of extreme precipitation with the AMO and the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). They found that in the semi-arid parts of Texas, extreme rainfall was not correlated with the NAO but it was to the AMO. They also found more extreme rainfall events in wetter, lower elevation weather stations for the warm phase of the AMO.

The Endless Frontier—The Next 75 Years in Science

Although not specific to Texas, this broad overview of science and the United States is certainly relevant. It is, in a sense, Volume 2 to a report published by The National Academies toward the end of World War II titled Science, the Endless Frontier. In this report, considered the most influential science policy report in US history, the author, Vannevar Bush, called on the federal government to continue its funding of research and development, funding that dramatically ramped up during the war. In the present mini-tome, Olsen revisits the successes of the past 75 years and gazes into the next 75.

As a scientist, I am, of course, a little biased, but it’s impossible to say that science has not changed the world over the past 75 years and that it will not play a critical role over the next 75. However, our country’s place in the next 75 years of science will be more challenging. As US Senator Cory Gardner says in the report: “We should be very proud of what has happened in 75 years. But it’s also important for Americans to know that we’re playing in a much better league over the next 75 years.” 

Last week’s issue of The Economist essentially notes that science is science is science (my summary…) regardless if it is done in China, France, or the United States, but I think Vannevar Bush was correct when he said that “[a] nation which depends on others for its new basic scientific knowledge will be slow in its industrial progress and weak in its competitive position regardless of its mechanical skill.” The science may be published publicly and globally, but the expertise exists locally, and that is where the economic benefits often are.

Olsen, working with a variety of collaborators and experts, make four primary conclusions: (1) science needs exciting new projects to engage and entice a diverse, new generation of students; (2) science needs to engage more with the public (and vice versa); (3) the funding community needs a deeper dive on how to best support new and risky research and fund new researchers while maintaining research continuity; and (4) science needs a reward system that recognizes the importance of high-risk research, mentoring and training, and public engagement.

In addition to the four primary conclusions, the report also discusses the role of philanthropy, convergence science (integrating knowledge and tools from the life sciences, the physical sciences, engineering, and other fields), the mismatch of academic training and the real world, espionage, diversity, and using research to feed innovation and economic growth. If there’s one disappointment, it’s that it took 75 years to revisit the future of science. My guess is that we will see this omphaloskepsis (geekspeak for navel-gazing) more frequently here on out.