A3O-Unc«st*r Fanning, Saturday, July 2, 1994
VERNON ACHENBACH JR.
Lancaster Farming Staff
NORTH CORNWALL (Leba
non Co.) Charles Wertz,
manager of the Lebanon County
Conservation District, said he
received a complaint Monday
morning from a concerned citizen
about an irrigator who allegedly
had pumped dry a local stream that
does or did harbor aquatic life.
According to Wertz, “It’s not
the first time that we received con
cerns about it being dried up, (but
that was) during drier weather.
And as I understand it... (the irri
gator is) required to maitain certain
flows that sustaiH aquatic life.”
While Lancaster Farming will
not reveal the identity of the people
and the stream involved in the situ
ation, the issue is related to the
efforts by the Susquehanna River
Basin Commission to manage the
use of water resources within the
basin. (See story page 1.)
In this case, the Lebanon Coun
ty conservation district manager
said he’s received more than one
complaint of that specific stream
being pumped dry.
However, Wertz also said that
earlier complaints were made dur
ing the drought years of the 1980 s.
He said this complaint is out-of
the ordinary because drought con
ditions don’t apply as a quick
justification.
In addition, it was expected that
heavy snows and subsequent
groundwater recharge should have
been sufficient to feed the stream
flow to normal levels.
At the same time, Wertz said he
considers the specific farm opera
tor alleged to have pumped the
stream dry as historically practic
ing good soil and water practices
with the district
According to Wertz, what may
be happening to this specific
stream is the increased taking of
water from the aquifer feeding it
by increases in development in the
watershed.
Could It Be
New Neighbors?
In many areas, homeowners
individually or collectively draw
from groundwater sources feeding
a stream.
It sets up a scenario of a system
of water use that can leave consid
erable gaps in normal stream-flow
patterns:
• Water is drawn ready to drink
from the ground (headwaters of the
stream) and that which is not “con
sumed” is used for household
activities which contaminates the
water with soaps, and nutrient
laden debris;
• The water is sent to a treament
plant located far downstream from
where the groundwater was taken;
• The treated water, a pollutant,
rejoins the flow of the traditional
stream much farther downstream
in the streambed, returning a por
tion of the flow taken from the
ground to that point.
(“Consumed” water means
water that is made no longer avail
able to the stream flow. It includes
a portion of drinking water, water
turned to steam or vapor such as in
drying clothes, and water used to
irrigate household plants, such as
lawn grasses and trees.)
The effect of the residential well
withdrawls, in this more recent and
growing system of residential
water use, is to deprive that portion
of the stream flow between the
residential wells and the treatment
plant from historic flows.
Further, since groundwater is
Who’s Drying Up The Creek?
basically protected from evapora
tion, drawing it to the surface and
returning it downstream to a sur
face discharge exposes it to a high
er chance of evaporation.
Over time, while a constant
amount of water may be tied up in
a specific cycle, certain phases of
the water cycle become depleted,
while other phases, such as that in
the atmosphere become increased.
The result is that more water is
lost for use during dry periods
because the use of the system of
taking groundwater (a natural
water storage) and discharging it
from treatment plants as surface
flow results in higher evaporation
rates at all times and much less
stored water available during
drought.
What it means to the portion of
stream going past a farm located
between the two points is signific
antly less water.
Residential developments also
do not recharge the groundwater
storage system efficiently, because
rainfall is carried away by storm
sewers.
It is not known what the effec
tiveness of storm water collection
swales and similar water storage
devices are in recharging ground
water, compared to pre
development conditions. That is
more of a site-specific
determination.
In other words, anyone living
along an original streambed,
between the well-supplied homes
upstream and the treament plant
downstream, could be deprived of
very significant flows of water
depending on the size of the aquif
er and the amount of water being
extracted from the groundwater
upstream.
In the case of the recent allega
tion that an irrigator pumped a
stream dry, Wertz noted that there
have been some significant
amounts of residential develop
ment near the farm since the
droughts of the 1980 s.
Wertz said he wasn’t sure that
the residential homes in the specif
ic area are in fact creating the
natural-streambed bypass system
of aquifer-home, home-to
treatment plant, to-downstream
discharge system.
However, he said it’s definitely
a possibility.
While such a situation would
seem to call for some sort of cor
rection, such as requiring the trea
ment plant to pump the effluent for
discharge at a single or multiple
points back upstream, near the
point of original water extraction,
in order to preserve the historic
uses of the stream, such is not the
case.
In other words, the farm opera
tor who has been a regular irrigator
may appear to be the culprit in the
low flow of a stream, where in real
ity, it is the residential develop
ment and treatment system which
is depriving the stream of its natur
al flows.
If the waste-water treatment
facility were to be required to
return its effluent to a point
upstream that would allow a sig
nificant portion of the water with
drawn for residential use to be
returned to the historic streambed,
the irrigator conceivably would
have access to a more normal and
consistant flow.
Furthermore, the farmer
wouldn’t have the general public
pointing Fingers at him because all
they see is a dry streambed and irri
gation equipment.
But dealing with the real-world
situation of the complaint that
6
Farm
Whilethe hypothetical farmstead located along Stream A In the diagram has histori
cally drawn water to Irrigate fields during time of low flows, the aquifer feeding the
stream Is tapped by residential development. The groundwater In any aquifer feeding
surface flows is the long term storage for that stream. Release of water from the aquif
er may normally takes weeks, months and years, depending on what part of the aquif
er Is studied. However, the aquifer provides long term storage that maintains a sur
face stream flow. Without the long term storage, streams run dry, or surface flows
become too insignificant to support the aquatic life that has historically been present.
Residential communities seeking water sources have actually been encouraged by
the Pa. Department of Environmental Resources to avoid surface water sources for
potable water and to draw from aquifers. In the meantime, the DER has also pushed for
the construction of waste water treatment plants. The effect has been that more and
more of the natural long term water storage for a stream Is diverted into homes long
before it would have normally been released Into the streambed. Furthermore, the
result Is a bypassing of flows from the natural streambed. The arrows indicate the flow
of aquifer water through homes, through community sewage to the waste water treat
ment plant, and Into the natural streambed at Stream B, well below where flows are
needed In Stream A. However, the public, and the law, only sees the low flow In Stream
A, and the farm.
Wertz has received, he is not in a
position to point fingers at anyone
except the fanner, if the fanner is
technically in violation of the
wording of a permit.
In many cases, there is no sub
stantive data to support claims of
reduced water flow, because a nor
mal flow (over a significant
amount of time) has never been
recorded.
Recording Flows
And Keeping Streams
It raises a question of doubt that
effective control of a stream’s flow
could be supported without having
records that establish normal flow.
This situation is also reasoned to
be occuring more frequently over a
greater area than generally
considered.
A problem with this type of situ
ation is that there hasn’t been an
effective system of water flow
monitoring or regulation at the
small feeder stream level. The
SRBC has called attention to the
fact that it intends to increase such
efforts.
Though charged with the
responsibility, agencies such as the
state Department of Environmen
tal Resources or the Pennsylvania
Fish and Boat Commission, have
not concentrated funds adequately
for field personnel or for equip
ment dedicated to monitor stream
quantity or quality.
And federal agencies, such as
the U.S. Geological Survey, which
have established and maintained a
number of water flow monitoring
points within the Susquehanna
River Basin, are looking at cutting
efforts, because of reduced
\v
k \\
I o 1
Well
Irrigated
Field
-* A
funding.
Other problems with managing
fresh water streams is the general
public’s lack of knowledge about
what they are and how they work.
Similar to farmers’ complaints
that, if consumers knew more
about how their food was pro
duced, they would appreciate agri
culture more, water experts have to
deal with a public largely unedu
cated about from where their water
comes and the factors which affect
its safety, dependability and
quantity.
Healthy Streams
Clean Water
While many may not understand
the specific features of aquatic life
in a fresh water stream (or system),
it is such that the benefit to people
of a “healthy” stream is its ability
to absorb and treat pollutants such
as excess nutrients from human
waste without the expensive costs
of creating a treatment system to
the point of achieving similar
purity.
In other words, “healthy”
streams are self-cleaning and can
offer dependable sources of clean
fresh water.
In fact, all waste-water treat
ment facilities operate on the pre
mise that whatever can’t be
cleaned out of the water at the trea
ment plant (because of level of
treatment and funding) will be
cleaned out by the stream.
Aquatic plants and animals
function very similarly to com
posting operations, but provide
clean potable water, instead of a
ready-to-use healthy soil amend
ment. In addition, the products of
, Residential
Community
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
0(J)
1V-
STREAM B
both systems can support a vast
array of living organisms and thus,
produce significant amounts of
human food.
The range of ability of a stream
to recover from extreme condi
tions, such as heavy doses of nutri
ent pollution, low flow, excessive
heat, siltation, chemical contami
nation, and severe flooding has
limits, based on the nature of each
stream’s surrounding watershed
and the types of aquatic plants and
animals occupying the area of
moving water.
As a general rule of thumb, all
that is required to essentially “kill”
a stream of its ability to purify
water is just one day of exceeding
one of several of the stream’s
limits.
For example, overheating a
stream, through the removal of
shade trees or brush over an
extended length, by widening, or
by removing a significant amount
of the stream flow during hot
weather, can result in the long term
“death” of any stream.
The ability of a stream to recov
er naturally from such treatment
depends largely on the health of
“sister” streams, headwater flows,
and the body of water to which the
stream of concern flows.
In effect, what happens is that a
portion of a stream can be tempor
arily sterilized until conditions
improve to the point that surround
ing life forms can recolonize.
If no local source of aquatic life
is available to recolonize the steril
ized area, the stream effectively
can never again regain its ability to
(Turn to Pagt A 39)