Laserfiche WebLink
tion data from the Department of Water Resources* and evaluated <br /> the amount of water that could have been lost to evaporation from <br /> the first brine delivery in Xarch, 1980 through December 31, 1980, <br /> when pond #1 was reported full and the filling of pond #2 began. <br /> The dimensions used are the ones cited above as being received from <br /> Mr. Lee Hall. The results of the calculations are as follows: <br /> 1. Gallons of brine added to pond #1 2,600,000 <br /> 2. Gallons of brine in pond #1 on <br /> December 31, if full -1,100,000 <br /> 3. Water loss to account for (1 less 2) 1,500,000 <br /> 4. Net evaporation, after rainfall 900,000 <br /> 5. #3 minus #4; assumed to be seepage 600,000 <br /> There are several things that ar- noteworthy about these cal- <br /> culations. First, they circumvent the questions about the drilling <br /> mud sealing the ponds. Second, the 600,000 gallons of seepage <br /> is in line with what would be expected from the permeabilities <br /> given in the Parsons memo of April 18, 1980. Finally, the calculations <br /> show that the seepage loss is two-thirds as much as the evaporation <br /> loss, meaning that for every gallon lost to evaporation, two-thirds of <br /> a gallon seeps into the groundwater system. Furthermore, as the pure <br /> water evaporates away, the salt going into the ground becomes more con- <br /> centrated. This concentration effect has not been included in the BAX <br /> calculations. it could result in significantly more pollution than BAX <br /> has calculated. <br /> What is the impact of 600,000 gallons of brine on the water sup- <br /> ply of San Joaquin residents? Does it represent a "relatively low <br /> degree of hazard", as stated by Mr. Jim Parsons? Using the example of <br /> domestic water supplies, 600,000 gallons of brine at 10,000 ppm would <br /> ruin one year's water supply for about 3200 persons. Notice that these <br /> numbers are derived from the reports of Forward, Inc. and that this <br /> effect occurred in a period of only 10 months. At this rate, pond <br /> #2 is ruining domestic supplies of water at an annual rate of about <br /> 3,800 persons per year. Please to that this is only one pond. It sounds <br /> bad, but in 1982 it apparently worsened, because in January, 1981, <br /> *Department of Water Resources Bulletin No. 113-3 April, 1975. <br /> 8 <br />