11/15/2024
Hello, everyone.
I've been quite busy, lately, and haven't been as active on FB. However, in light of the water table concerns and well water levels and/or production rates, which could be affected by the McReynolds and Dwyer properties, I'd suggest checking out the Idaho Department of Water Resources website. You can find well driller records on their 'Find a Well Map'. https://idwr.idaho.gov/wells/find-a-well-map/
Instructions:
(Use the layers check boxes as you wish. I didn't see any difference in the well values).
Locate the property and surrounding properties North-Norhwest of the Gem Island Complex. Look for the black and white arrows indicating wells. Clicking on them brings up a little pop up with info. Scroll all the way down within the mini pop-up window. Note well depth, well production rate, static water level, etc. Go to 'Well Docs' toward bottom and click the 'More Info' link. Voilà.
Looking at this, I found info 'Elvin the engineer' couldn't/didn't want to provide (or at least reference as a comparison point) — about wells on or near the discussed properties within the floodplain.
Wells I looked into provided the following data:
First, the well closest to the river (1972) is 29 feet deep, with a 6 foot static water table and a production rate of 20 gal/min.
The casing depth of the well slightly Northeast from this one, marked as located on 'Shady Lane' (1996) is 129 (!) feet with a static water level of 57 and a production rate of 55 gal/min.
The well that feeds the 'Bonnie Laura Subdivision' to the East and downhill from these residences is 40 feet deep, with a static level of 5 ft below the land surface (I looked up what 'static level' actually means because I've seen various wells of over 100 feet total depth with much deeper static levels of 50-60 ft. So, this is how high the accessible water table is, or how close to the surface). It shows a production rate of 400 gal/min, which makes sense as it seems to serve most or all of that subdivision which includes Lilac Lane. It's right next to the adjacent irrigation canal, which must have something to do with water acess and the high production rate, because naturally, water from any sort of stream or non-cement-enhanced canal will follow gravity and percolate down into aquifers below, especially if the canal is full year-round (is it?).
My reasoning for this is that another well CLOSER to the subdivision came up as NOT producing AT ALL. This one was drilled to 60 and then, 145 feet, with NO water flow (1988).
There is an older well West of the subdivision (1974), which shows production rate of 225 gal/min and a static water level of 2 feet, which I'm wondering about as it's not marked as an artesian well because it is a whopping 337 feet deep!!
Of course, I'm not an expert on this in particular, but common sense suggests that if the aquifer at some point carries significantly less water, all of these wells might have to be drilled a lot deeper than the 100-some feet that keep the water at those 50-60 ft below-surface access levels...
I haven't looked at elevations, yet, but I imagine the higher elevation makes it more difficult to reach the aquifer, which might explain why the other Bonnie Laura well stayed dry even at 145 feet depth.
Looking at other surrounding properties to the North and South, anything that is within the floodplain (South), naturally has a static water level of 5-6 feet below the surface, with well depths no more than 45 feet down. Everything uphill from the properties and the river (North) has a significantly deeper drill depth with static water levels between 50-70 feet down. This tells me that while most properties on that bench have deep wells by necessity and currently have regular access to water (if not, I'd like to hear where you live and maybe look into how elevation may affect this, via DM, please!) — it depends on how much water is actively pumped, well below the Bonnie Laura subdivision and properties higher up and to the North, 24/7, for a minimum of 75 days, out of two 40+acre properties in the easy-water-access flood plain area. In other words, we need to find out whether enough negative pressure would be created to allow static water levels to plummet low enough to where wells run dry temporarily or altogether... 🤔
I'll have to refresh my physics and hydraulic pressure knowledge and compare against prospected pumping volumes at the excavation sites (if available; —if someone knows and can save me some time here, I'd be grateful!).
Anyway, I'm trying to be objective — BUT my observations and some dim memories about the fun stuff related to water pressure at different elevations, capillary pressure, etc. make my gut still lean toward 'problematic'...
Let me know what you think, folks!
