I am curious about many things. Like, why do we see cones of depletion in groundwater? For instance, down the road from me is a group of homes who share a well for domestic water. A landowner adjacent to them applied for consent to sink a much larger bore and pump roughly fifty times as much water as the existing well so that he could start an intensive
dairy operation. Our district council apparently thought this was a great idea and granted the consent over the objections of the existing well owners.
We had an exceptionally warm and dry spring and early summer last year, and the people on the older well said that their groundwater level dropped by over a meter a week in the beginning of December as the big pivot irrigators on the new farm were running day and night. Now they worry about what it will cost them to drill deeper in case of an actual drought year.
Our town supply is an artesian bore not too far from this group of homes. It, however, goes much deeper and taps an aquifer fed by the copious amounts of rain and snow (5m a year) along the dividing range. We know this because isotope tracers were measured in the various aquifers and we are able to "fingerprint" water from different depths to match it to its source. If you're interested, hit me up for a link to the 1996 paper that describes them in detail.
What I want to know is how much deeper would my friends need to drill to go past the shallow groundwater (10-30m), the upper aquifer that they currently draw from (60-90m), and the deep artesian one that the
city council uses for its public supply (130-150m) to get this inexhaustible source? Would it be worth it? Or are we better off having a democratically managed process to assure families in the area that an industrial user can't come along and suck their
wells dry?