Brilliant article. Thanks so much for the work you do. Your writing is so important to me to support my own journey into a better understanding of water, water cycles, and especially groundwater (I'm in a place in the UK where all the public supply comes from a chalk aquifer). I absolutely agree with you that groundwater is an important and often overlooked component of Earth's systems, and it makes sense to me how it helps to stabilise the climate.
You propose in your post that groundwater should be added as a tenth boundary on Rockstrom's Earth Boundaries framework.
What is not clear for me is how it's separate from "freshwater change" that is already there, with a subcategory for blue water use (humanity's use of lakes, rivers and groundwater) and green water (rainfall, soil moisture and evaporation). Can you say a bit about that please? Thanks so much.
Good point. Groundwater is part of the blue water. They are emphasizing groundwater use, and probably not aware of groundwater impact on rain and temperature, but I think this would be better integrated into the freshwater use boundary, rather than to create a new boundary. I will see how I can edit my article. Thanks for pointing this out.
It would appear that your suggestion to add groundwater levels to the framework makes sense. BTW, in Australia there is quite alot of useful (national) information about groundwater compiled at
Thanks Jeff for the link to that Australian groundwater information. So far as I am aware Australia has one of the wiser water policies in that, I am told that a users "right" to extract water is adjusted seasonally. In good years, everyone can pump 100% of their allocation, but in dry years everyone is only allowed 60%, 40% or 20% whatever the case may be. That is a massive step in the right direction.
I think that is still correct. I was involved with climate but the overall director at the time, Prof Rob Vertessy, instigated alot of water initiatives at the Bureau. I found Rob to be very passionate about all things water. I see he is still active and found him at the following website: https://watertrustaustralia.org.au/our-board/prof-rob-vertessy
Another brilliant article. Keep churning these out and we ought to be able to get Humanity to wake up, take notice and CHANGE our habits.
Raising the groundwater back to within reach of our soils is, I believe, akin to establishing a breeding sanctuary in a fishery. Again and again, fisherman have learned that, by reserving between 25 and 30% of a fishery as a breeding reserve, the fish can breed undisturbed and everyone catches more fish. So it will be with groundwater: by allowing the water table to come back to within reach of sufficient "rain" trees we will have higher rainfall and we will ALL get to pump more water.
Your mention of the extra rain that is falling in the mid-west of the US because of the extra transpiration from crops irrigated with groundwater is interesting. I had wondered to what extent we could use this as a sort of artificial hydraulic pump effect? However, just as Anastassia Makarieva has explained there are 'wise' trees that transpire much of their available water in synchrony with the seasons and 'stupid' trees (generally evergreen exotics) that transpire water at a time that won't enhance the rainfall. So it is with irrigated crops. Unfortunately I DO in fact irrigate a 'stupid' crop - barley or wheat grown in our cold dry winters. The transpiration from my crops is out of synch with the rains and so ineffective. But there are some 'wise' crops, irrigated later in the dry season (like orchard crops and sugar cane) whose evapo-transpiration WOULD augment the hydrological cycle. I believe we are still some way from being able to regulate our groundwater in anything remotely resembling a wise way, but I can see the possibility that if I wanted to irrigate my 'stupid' crops from a borehole (which I don't. my source of water is a dam that catches excessive surface runoff) I would only be allowed to do so in seasons when the groundwater was say within 10m of the soil surface. However, a farmer who might be using groundwater to irrigate his tree orchard or sugar cane just before the onset of the rains could be allowed to pump groundwater down to perhaps 50m below the soil surface.
Thanks Bruce. I like the analogy to the fisherman and keeping 30% of a fishery as a breeding reserve. And yes trees have a certain wisdom of when to transpire. If we are going to do agriculture, we could try and imitate their wisdom...... One analogy I thought of, was to think of trees as a wick. There are homemade humidifiers one can make with a wick and water. If trees are the wick, then we need a groundwater source to supply it with water so that we can add more moisture to the air so that it can create rain.
Thanks again for a very clearly laid out explanation of the importance of groundwater. I think your writing and graphics are brilliant!
I really like the trees as a wick analogy. I do find it hard to relate to all the examples from temperate regions involving beavers, forests and trees.
Here in the Western Cape region of South Africa we hardly have any trees - they only grow in well watered kloofs which are protected from the harsh summer winds. It is mostly a shrub vegetation that burns every 10 to 25 years, called fynbos. Fynbos is exceptionally biodiverse (smallest floral kingdom in the world), and we have a strong conservation sector trying to protect it.
However one of the big threats to fynbos (aside form urban development and agriculture) are alien invasive trees. These trees hail mostly from Australia, and have become invasive (eucalptus, many species of Acacia, Hakea, Myrtle). They are displacing our local species, and have dried up many of our water catchment areas. For this reason there is a 'war' on invasive alien trees and millions and millions have been spent on trying to eradicate them. Research clearly shows removing trees in the catchment increases water runoff - not necessarily fast runoff, the fynbos has mountain seeps which act lie sponges.
Unfortunately this biodiversity-driven agenda is also shaping our cities. The Biodiversity Branch of the City of CT has removed many trees and whole plantations on the slopes above the city in the name of conservation.
They want the removal of all non indigenous trees. They have cleared all trees along waterways, even those meandering among the suburbs, where people want shade. Why? because in our river systems there are no trees in the lower riverine areas.
The idea that a city is an urban ecosystem where people want shade and coolness doesn't deter their cause. I find this stance unpragmatic and frankly frustrating. There are folk who have taken the City to court in defence of keeping a patch of pine trees.
I know what you are are writing about - infiltration and vegetation to increase groundwater - applies all around the globe. But I just wanted to point out that it is harder to envisage when you take trees out of the equation. Perhaps some of our local shrubs are also super deep rooted (like a wick), but in terms of biomass and humidifiying effect it is hard to take a shrub seriously! And of course the system is designed to burn, in order to maintain diodiversity, there are all sorts of nifty fire adaptations.
It would be great to see more climate-water articles from the mediteranean climate areas, expecially those with shrubby chaparral / kwongan/ machis.
Yeah I can look more into chaparral related material, and maybe South African stuff too…. California and Spain are also Mediterranean climates …… invasive vs other tree roles is an interesting question . It’s probably location and species dependent to try and figure out for each location . Sounds like I’m South Africa they might have gone too far in taking out all invasive without considering other roles
Brilliant article. Thanks so much for the work you do. Your writing is so important to me to support my own journey into a better understanding of water, water cycles, and especially groundwater (I'm in a place in the UK where all the public supply comes from a chalk aquifer). I absolutely agree with you that groundwater is an important and often overlooked component of Earth's systems, and it makes sense to me how it helps to stabilise the climate.
You propose in your post that groundwater should be added as a tenth boundary on Rockstrom's Earth Boundaries framework.
What is not clear for me is how it's separate from "freshwater change" that is already there, with a subcategory for blue water use (humanity's use of lakes, rivers and groundwater) and green water (rainfall, soil moisture and evaporation). Can you say a bit about that please? Thanks so much.
Good point. Groundwater is part of the blue water. They are emphasizing groundwater use, and probably not aware of groundwater impact on rain and temperature, but I think this would be better integrated into the freshwater use boundary, rather than to create a new boundary. I will see how I can edit my article. Thanks for pointing this out.
It would appear that your suggestion to add groundwater levels to the framework makes sense. BTW, in Australia there is quite alot of useful (national) information about groundwater compiled at
https://reg.bom.gov.au/water/groundwater/index.shtml
thanks for link to the groundwater info for australia
Thanks Jeff for the link to that Australian groundwater information. So far as I am aware Australia has one of the wiser water policies in that, I am told that a users "right" to extract water is adjusted seasonally. In good years, everyone can pump 100% of their allocation, but in dry years everyone is only allowed 60%, 40% or 20% whatever the case may be. That is a massive step in the right direction.
I think that is still correct. I was involved with climate but the overall director at the time, Prof Rob Vertessy, instigated alot of water initiatives at the Bureau. I found Rob to be very passionate about all things water. I see he is still active and found him at the following website: https://watertrustaustralia.org.au/our-board/prof-rob-vertessy
Hi Alpha, thanks for the response! You are definitely onto something here, there are some public conversations around an Earth system boundary (ESB) in recognition of groundwater's fundamental role in regulating the climate etc. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08083-8 I'm exploring the Stockholm Resilience website who do seem to share your understanding https://www.stockholmresilience.org/search.html?query=groundwater
Juan Rocha appears to be the person to reach out to, working to create "a new lens to conceptualize, study, model, and manage groundwater" https://www.juanrocha.se/publication/groundwaterscapes-a-global-classification-and-mapping-of-groundwaters-largescale-socioeconomic-ecological-and-earth-system-functions/
It would make me so happy to know that you are connected.
thanks for the links and people to contact
Dear Alpha,
Another brilliant article. Keep churning these out and we ought to be able to get Humanity to wake up, take notice and CHANGE our habits.
Raising the groundwater back to within reach of our soils is, I believe, akin to establishing a breeding sanctuary in a fishery. Again and again, fisherman have learned that, by reserving between 25 and 30% of a fishery as a breeding reserve, the fish can breed undisturbed and everyone catches more fish. So it will be with groundwater: by allowing the water table to come back to within reach of sufficient "rain" trees we will have higher rainfall and we will ALL get to pump more water.
Your mention of the extra rain that is falling in the mid-west of the US because of the extra transpiration from crops irrigated with groundwater is interesting. I had wondered to what extent we could use this as a sort of artificial hydraulic pump effect? However, just as Anastassia Makarieva has explained there are 'wise' trees that transpire much of their available water in synchrony with the seasons and 'stupid' trees (generally evergreen exotics) that transpire water at a time that won't enhance the rainfall. So it is with irrigated crops. Unfortunately I DO in fact irrigate a 'stupid' crop - barley or wheat grown in our cold dry winters. The transpiration from my crops is out of synch with the rains and so ineffective. But there are some 'wise' crops, irrigated later in the dry season (like orchard crops and sugar cane) whose evapo-transpiration WOULD augment the hydrological cycle. I believe we are still some way from being able to regulate our groundwater in anything remotely resembling a wise way, but I can see the possibility that if I wanted to irrigate my 'stupid' crops from a borehole (which I don't. my source of water is a dam that catches excessive surface runoff) I would only be allowed to do so in seasons when the groundwater was say within 10m of the soil surface. However, a farmer who might be using groundwater to irrigate his tree orchard or sugar cane just before the onset of the rains could be allowed to pump groundwater down to perhaps 50m below the soil surface.
Keep up the good work - we WILL get there. Bruce
Thanks Bruce. I like the analogy to the fisherman and keeping 30% of a fishery as a breeding reserve. And yes trees have a certain wisdom of when to transpire. If we are going to do agriculture, we could try and imitate their wisdom...... One analogy I thought of, was to think of trees as a wick. There are homemade humidifiers one can make with a wick and water. If trees are the wick, then we need a groundwater source to supply it with water so that we can add more moisture to the air so that it can create rain.
Thanks again for a very clearly laid out explanation of the importance of groundwater. I think your writing and graphics are brilliant!
I really like the trees as a wick analogy. I do find it hard to relate to all the examples from temperate regions involving beavers, forests and trees.
Here in the Western Cape region of South Africa we hardly have any trees - they only grow in well watered kloofs which are protected from the harsh summer winds. It is mostly a shrub vegetation that burns every 10 to 25 years, called fynbos. Fynbos is exceptionally biodiverse (smallest floral kingdom in the world), and we have a strong conservation sector trying to protect it.
However one of the big threats to fynbos (aside form urban development and agriculture) are alien invasive trees. These trees hail mostly from Australia, and have become invasive (eucalptus, many species of Acacia, Hakea, Myrtle). They are displacing our local species, and have dried up many of our water catchment areas. For this reason there is a 'war' on invasive alien trees and millions and millions have been spent on trying to eradicate them. Research clearly shows removing trees in the catchment increases water runoff - not necessarily fast runoff, the fynbos has mountain seeps which act lie sponges.
Unfortunately this biodiversity-driven agenda is also shaping our cities. The Biodiversity Branch of the City of CT has removed many trees and whole plantations on the slopes above the city in the name of conservation.
They want the removal of all non indigenous trees. They have cleared all trees along waterways, even those meandering among the suburbs, where people want shade. Why? because in our river systems there are no trees in the lower riverine areas.
The idea that a city is an urban ecosystem where people want shade and coolness doesn't deter their cause. I find this stance unpragmatic and frankly frustrating. There are folk who have taken the City to court in defence of keeping a patch of pine trees.
I know what you are are writing about - infiltration and vegetation to increase groundwater - applies all around the globe. But I just wanted to point out that it is harder to envisage when you take trees out of the equation. Perhaps some of our local shrubs are also super deep rooted (like a wick), but in terms of biomass and humidifiying effect it is hard to take a shrub seriously! And of course the system is designed to burn, in order to maintain diodiversity, there are all sorts of nifty fire adaptations.
It would be great to see more climate-water articles from the mediteranean climate areas, expecially those with shrubby chaparral / kwongan/ machis.
Yeah I can look more into chaparral related material, and maybe South African stuff too…. California and Spain are also Mediterranean climates …… invasive vs other tree roles is an interesting question . It’s probably location and species dependent to try and figure out for each location . Sounds like I’m South Africa they might have gone too far in taking out all invasive without considering other roles