Does anyone have any leads as to the history of the Canadian River, outside of Wikipedia and the top returns on Google. When looking at Google Maps the Canadian River looks like it used to be a rather wide river, but I haven't seen any photos that show it much larger than a thin creek in most places.

You kind of need to be careful searching this way. The Canadian River is not actually the one that we have been talking about here, it is the much wider river south of Will Rodgers Airport and Norman.

The North Canadian River, which is what goes through downtown OKC and is our water source, is sort of a medium river, which is a tributary of the Canadian River. In OKC and many miles downstream it was widened a lot to avert the flooding it use to have.

There also is a chance that there is mislabeling between the two.

Google News - EXCLUSIVE INVESTIGATION: Luxury neighborhood pond allegedly filled with stolen city water
https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEEensZ2DI7k_e99UDPra6foqGQgEKhAIACoHCAowoIv_Cj CJhPgCMMWa5AU?uo=CAUiANIBAA&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

Over 700k worth of watet was stolen from OKC by The Lakes at Timberidge over the last couple of years.
It remains to be sern if criminal charges will be pursued.

You kind of need to be careful searching this way. The Canadian River is not actually the one that we have been talking about here, it is the much wider river south of Will Rodgers Airport and Norman.

The North Canadian River, which is what goes through downtown OKC and is our water source, is sort of a medium river, which is a tributary of the Canadian River. In OKC and many miles downstream it was widened a lot to avert the flooding it use to have.

There also is a chance that there is mislabeling between the two.

I was meaning the larger Canadian River. I know the difference, just when I was looking at Google Maps for Lake Meredith, mentioned upthread, I noticed some areas of the Canadian River appear to once be quite wide versus what we have now.

I was meaning the larger Canadian River. I know the difference, just when I was looking at Google Maps for Lake Meredith, mentioned upthread, I noticed some areas of the Canadian River appear to once be quite wide versus what we have now.

I think that's the river's floodplain you are seeing, created over the course of a river's existence.

Google News - EXCLUSIVE INVESTIGATION: Luxury neighborhood pond allegedly filled with stolen city water
https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEEensZ2DI7k_e99UDPra6foqGQgEKhAIACoHCAowoIv_Cj CJhPgCMMWa5AU?uo=CAUiANIBAA&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

Over 700k worth of watet was stolen from OKC by The Lakes at Timberidge over the last couple of years.
It remains to be sern if criminal charges will be pursued.

Someone needs to pay for this with money and jail time but I don't think that will ever happen. Who are the developers? The story said one lives at the location.

Comical situation with the water release. The gates at Canton were initially opened a half foot. Then increased to a full foot. Then trimmed down to .9. Now back at a half foot.

The canal locks for Hefner were initially before opening them; the water was at a depth of five and a half feet. Then opened them up and raised the level to six feet. Now 6 and a half feet.

The lake level has been holding steady vs's dropping daily.

RTZ, do you have any experience or background in water management?

Someone needs to pay for this with money and jail time but I don't think that will ever happen. Who are the developers? The story said one lives at the location.

I believe the builder is Crabtree Homes

I believe the builder is Crabtree Homes

I searched "Crabtree Homes" with other keywords and found a Fox story where they were listed as the builder, and quoted as saying the pond was the responsibility of the developer. Apparently those are different entities. I wonder who the developer is?

I haven't found anything saying what stage this development is in. If it's still being built up and the developer is involved then it's probably on him/them. If it's a completed addition then it's on whoever actually filled the pond with city water. When an addition is completed the developer is pretty much out of the picture.

I haven't found anything saying what stage this development is in. If it's still being built up and the developer is involved then it's probably on him/them. If it's a completed addition then it's on whoever actually filled the pond with city water. When an addition is completed the developer is pretty much out of the picture.

From the KFOR story:


Attorney Scott Adams represents the developers. The city put the company on notice this summer, threatening criminal charges. So far, the case is being handled by the city attorneys’ office.

"It was just as much of a surprise to them as it was everyone else,” Adams said. “The day we found out that there was something going on out there, we immediately tried to address it and make sure it never happens again.”

The development company is fully cooperating with the city investigation."

It was aliens that came down, installed the illegal tap and flowed 35,000,000 gallons of water into the pond. Because, you know, they like earthlings to have their lakeside lots. Who owned the property when and where the tap was alleged to have been installed?

From the KFOR story:


Attorney Scott Adams represents the developers. The city put the company on notice this summer, threatening criminal charges. So far, the case is being handled by the city attorneys’ office.

"It was just as much of a surprise to them as it was everyone else,” Adams said. “The day we found out that there was something going on out there, we immediately tried to address it and make sure it never happens again.”

The development company is fully cooperating with the city investigation."

It was aliens that came down, installed the illegal tap and flowed 35,000,000 gallons of water into the pond. Because, you know, they like earthlings to have their lakeside lots.
Ok. So it sounds like the developer is either still involved because the addition is still being built or because they live there. And of course nobody is going to admit to knowing anything about anything.

Nope. There's probably no witnesses other than some plumbing, utility or irrigation contractor who made the tap and whomever was turning it off and on, assuming they didn't just let run for the last two years. OKC has not turned it over the district attorney yet. I guess they can subpoena records with the lawsuit and try to narrow down who worked out there but cooperating would seem to imply the developer would have done that. Maybe someone will rat out the culprit(s).

One could still correctly argue that Oklahoma's water comes from Colorado; via rivers from snowmelt in the Spring and shoulder Summer seasons but also from Thunderstorms that originate from the weather systems that DEFINITELY develop in the Rockies full year as the prevailing winds interact with the Gulf moisture.

Either way, the US is very dependent upon Colorado for water, directly and indirectly depending upon the season, location, and Rocky Mountain snow pack.

One could still correctly argue that Oklahoma's water comes from Colorado; via rivers from snowmelt in the Spring and shoulder Summer seasons but also from Thunderstorms that originate from the weather systems that DEFINITELY develop in the Rockies full year as the prevailing winds interact with the Gulf moisture.

Either way, the US is very dependent upon Colorado for water, directly and indirectly depending upon the season, location, and Rocky Mountain snow pack.

I dont think so...im fairly certain the Colorado River is on the OTHER side of the continental divide. We're actually on the dry side of that whole Rocky Mountain system.

I dont think so...im fairly certain the Colorado River is on the OTHER side of the continental divide. We're actually on the dry side of that whole Rocky Mountain system.

the arkansas River starts in Colorado as well ... as well as the Canadian River ..

I dont think so...im fairly certain the Colorado River is on the OTHER side of the continental divide. We're actually on the dry side of that whole Rocky Mountain system.

I believe the Colorado River starts in Rocky Mountain National Park just west of Estes Park. And it is west of the Continental Divide.

Wasn't sure where the Colorado River started but it runs through the Grand Canyon in Arizona so it has to be West of the Continental Divide.

the arkansas River starts in Colorado as well ... as well as the Canadian River ..

And the average flow leaving Colorado is tiny compared to average flow leaving Oklahoma.

At the first USGS gauging station in Kansas, the Arkansas River has averaged 93.7 cubic feet per second (7.75 acre foot/hour) over the last decade. At the last Gauging Station in Kansas the average discharge has grown to 2183 cubic feet per second (180.4 acre foot/hr). Then finally at the last gauging station in Oklahoma (really Ft. Smith, AR) it has grown to 40,635 cfs (3358 acre foot/hour).

Also of note, the annual average discharge of the Arkansas River through Ft. Smith is about 3.5x the annual discharge from Lake Mead. To get that amount of water to Lake Mead, though, would require a 65 foot diameter pipeline and a couple nuke plants to provide the pumping power.

Also of note, the annual average discharge of the Arkansas River through Ft. Smith is about 3.5x the annual discharge from Lake Mead. To get that amount of water to Lake Mead, though, would require a 65 foot diameter pipeline and a couple nuke plants to provide the pumping power.

I wouldn't be surprised if plans for something like that start being seriously considered the longer the drought in the West continues. There's just too much money tied up in the Colorado River basin to let it run dry.

I wouldn't be surprised if plans for something like that start being seriously considered the longer the drought in the West continues. There's just too much money tied up in the Colorado River basin to let it run dry.
Yeah it’s something that should happen, IMO.

I wouldn't be surprised if plans for something like that start being seriously considered the longer the drought in the West continues. There's just too much money tied up in the Colorado River basin to let it run dry.

Yep and it should happen.

You could build a network of pipelines in Oklahoma to balance where the draw comes from. Then pipe the water to the continental divide in NM and feed the SW that way. Have the pipe drain into the Colorado and Rio Grande basins.

That flood on Keystone Lake a few years back, the discharge off the dam would have filled both Lake Powell and Lake Mead in like 30 days.

The Feds need to figure out how to balance the water in this country. They will, but it'll have to run dry before they do.

Yep and it should happen.

You could build a network of pipelines in Oklahoma to balance where the draw comes from. Then pipe the water to the continental divide in NM and feed the SW that way. Have the pipe drain into the Colorado and Rio Grande basins.

Oklahoma would not even let Texas draw water out of the tributaries to the Red River, this is something that once it hits there Texas already is due a portion of. There is no way they are going to support diverting massive quantities of water in Oklahoma to the west coast, and there are multiple of states downstream that have water rights once it leaves Oklahoma which probably would fight it just as much as Oklahoma would. In general there are not many states that seem open to having water in their territory shifted out, and if you go to areas like the end of the Mississippi that have the volumes to not care and deal with enough flooding they might even help promote it, probably has some of the worst quality water to serve as a feed stock in the country.

As much as a hassle as it would be to deal with mountains in northern California and Oregon, they already divert a lot from norther California to southern California, so there likely would be far less infrastructure to build there than across the Rockies and hundreds of miles of arid land on either side.

Oklahoma would not even let Texas draw water out of the tributaries to the Red River, this is something that once it hits there Texas already is due a portion of. There is no way they are going to support diverting massive quantities of water in Oklahoma to the west coast, and there are multiple of states downstream that have water rights once it leaves Oklahoma which probably would fight it just as much as Oklahoma would. In general there are not many states that seem open to having water in their territory shifted out, and if you go to areas like the end of the Mississippi that have the volumes to not care and deal with enough flooding they might even help promote it, probably has some of the worst quality water to serve as a feed stock in the country.

As much as a hassle as it would be to deal with mountains in northern California and Oregon, they already divert a lot from norther California to southern California, so there likely would be far less infrastructure to build there than across the Rockies and hundreds of miles of arid land on either side.

You don't have to cross any mountains if the release point is in New Mexico. Have a lot of elevation to deal with, but can pretty easily avoid the mountains. There's a huge gap between ABQ and SF, link up the Rio Chama water project and reverse the flow. Can feed both the Colorado River basin (via Lake Navajo to Powell to Mead) and Rio Grande.

It'll take a federal solution for sure. Oklahoma doesn't want to ship the water out west for free, but few hundred million a year though? They'd be open to it, especially if in times of drought the shipments stop. For the most part though, from OKC to the east we get more than enough water to support it.

You don't have to cross any mountains if the release point is in New Mexico. Have a lot of elevation to deal with, but can pretty easily avoid the mountains. There's a huge gap between ABQ and SF, link up the Rio Chama water project and reverse the flow. Can feed both the Colorado River basin (via Lake Navajo to Powell to Mead) and Rio Grande.

It'll take a federal solution for sure. Oklahoma doesn't want to ship the water out west for free, but few hundred million a year though? They'd be open to it, especially if in times of drought the shipments stop. For the most part though, from OKC to the east we get more than enough water to support it.
My starting point would be $600 million.

flow of Arkansas leaving Colorado may be low compared to the river leaving Oklahoma, but consider that most major tributaries of the Arkansas River also start in Colorado; add those up and it's significant to create a 'big' river leaving Oklahoma. Not saying water ONLY comes from Colorado, but water does begin there and is due to the Rockies direct from snowpack melt and indirect from weather/Thunderstorms created from the interaction of the Colorado Rockies (lift and cooling) and Gulf of Mexico (warm, moisture).

Desalination facilities are what I would favor.

flow of Arkansas leaving Colorado may be low compared to the river leaving Oklahoma, but consider that most major tributaries of the Arkansas River also start in Colorado; add those up and it's significant to create a 'big' river leaving Oklahoma. Not saying water ONLY comes from Colorado, but water does begin there and is due to the Rockies direct from snowpack melt and indirect from weather/Thunderstorms created from the interaction of the Colorado Rockies (lift and cooling) and Gulf of Mexico (warm, moisture).

In western Kansas, the Arkansas River is dry 90 % of the time. Lakin Lake is fed by the Arkansas River via the Amazon Ditch. The lake is used for irrigation in western Ks. At Garden City, the river is nothing but sand.

Oklahoma would not even let Texas draw water out of the tributaries to the Red River, this is something that once it hits there Texas already is due a portion of. There is no way they are going to support diverting massive quantities of water in Oklahoma to the west coast, and there are multiple of states downstream that have water rights once it leaves Oklahoma which probably would fight it just as much as Oklahoma would. In general there are not many states that seem open to having water in their territory shifted out, and if you go to areas like the end of the Mississippi that have the volumes to not care and deal with enough flooding they might even help promote it, probably has some of the worst quality water to serve as a feed stock in the country.

Thing is, California, Nevada, and Arizona make up 17.4% of the country's GDP. Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana make up 2.7%. (And going off of what another poster said, that assumes that Louisiana cares enough about the water from the Arkansas/Canadian watersheds to get involved—Oklahoma and Arkansas alone are only 1.5%.) It wouldn't even be close to a fair fight—the western states have far more power and money. If they want it, there's really nothing Oklahoma could do to stop it. They simply have more resources (political, legal, financial, will) to make it happen than Oklahoma does to fight it. It would be in Oklahoma's interest to cooperate and see if they can get some sort of compensation for it rather than simply try to stop it.

In western Kansas, the Arkansas River is dry 90 % of the time. Lakin Lake is fed by the Arkansas River via the Amazon Ditch. The lake is used for irrigation in western Ks. At Garden City, the river is nothing but sand.

And for a time reference... I was born in 68... There was water in that river when I was a kid. My grandfather would go down with a pitchfork and spear a fish from it for dinner occasionally.

I don't remember which year it went dry and stayed dry but in a 53 year time span the river went dry.

Oklahoma would not even let Texas draw water out of the tributaries to the Red River, this is something that once it hits there Texas already is due a portion of. There is no way they are going to support diverting massive quantities of water in Oklahoma to the west coast, and there are multiple of states downstream that have water rights once it leaves Oklahoma which probably would fight it just as much as Oklahoma would. In general there are not many states that seem open to having water in their territory shifted out, and if you go to areas like the end of the Mississippi that have the volumes to not care and deal with enough flooding they might even help promote it, probably has some of the worst quality water to serve as a feed stock in the country.

As much as a hassle as it would be to deal with mountains in northern California and Oregon, they already divert a lot from norther California to southern California, so there likely would be far less infrastructure to build there than across the Rockies and hundreds of miles of arid land on either side.
Which is exactly why this project would have to be on the level akin to the interstate system construction across the entire mainland. It will have to be a federal project that will take decades at minimum just to form a plan after a decade of just getting to the point where discussions need to start. I wouldn’t expect something like to even start construction until the 2030s or 2040s at the earliest.

Which is exactly why this project would have to be on the level akin to the interstate system construction across the entire mainland. It will have to be a federal project that will take decades at minimum just to form a plan after a decade of just getting to the point where discussions need to start. I wouldn’t expect something like to even start construction until the 2030s or 2040s at the earliest.

100% agreed.

The west will literally have to run out of water before it get momentum. Too politically risky otherwise.

Related to water levels and where water goes after rainfall, a good chunk of the 10 plus inches of rain that fell in Dallas on Monday will eventually work its way to Houston. Dallas and the Metroplex are not the beneficiary of the significant rainfall.

https://twitter.com/NWSFortWorth/status/1562131531195224067/photo/1

flow of Arkansas leaving Colorado may be low compared to the river leaving Oklahoma, but consider that most major tributaries of the Arkansas River also start in Colorado; add those up and it's significant to create a 'big' river leaving Oklahoma. Not saying water ONLY comes from Colorado, but water does begin there and is due to the Rockies direct from snowpack melt and indirect from weather/Thunderstorms created from the interaction of the Colorado Rockies (lift and cooling) and Gulf of Mexico (warm, moisture).

The amount of water entering Oklahoma from Colorado is a tiny tiny fraction of the water in Oklahoma. I've posted the numbers that make that very clear. All major tributaries from Colorado have already merged with the Arkansas prior to getting to Kansas. The drainage basins outside of Colorado are just vastly larger and wetter. Yes, the Rocky's influence the weather, but that isn't Colorado providing Oklahoma with water.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Arkansas_river_basin_map.png

In the UK it's apparently called a hosepipe ban

A.k.a. we ran low on water; don't even think of turning on your "hosepipe" to give your backyard tomato garden even a SIP of water!

Thames Water hosepipe ban comes into force in England

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-62643961

The OKC water department routinely comes by about once a month and open up the hydrant about 500 ft from my house. The water just runs down the street. Last week they had it open for 2 hours. It's too bad there is not some way to put that water on my yard. An open hydrant puts out a lot of water.

Here’s another article to explain how dire the situation is: https://www.route-fifty.com/infrastructure/2022/08/colorado-river-dries-us-teeters-brink-larger-water-crisis/376392/


WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR THE COUNTRY’S FOOD SUPPLY?
This is the big question. I don’t want to be flippant, but people don’t understand the food-water nexus. Do we try to bring more water to the southern high plains, to Arizona, to California, because if the food system’s optimized, maybe that’s the cheapest thing to do? Or does agriculture move to where the water is? Does it migrate north and east? It’s not just food production. What about the workers? Transportation? If we were to move all of our agriculture to northern California, into Idaho, into North Dakota over the next decade, that’s a major upheaval for millions and millions of people who work in the ag industry.

How many actual gallons does a large farm use per day?

Is there not an easier and cheaper way to supply water just for irrigation?

A train with 100 tanker cars can transport 3 million gallons at a time…. Power plants and export facilities run trains daily in some areas from coal mines. Would 3 million gallons a day make a dent in areas with a lot farms?

It would be expensive day to day, but much cheaper than a transcontinental pipeline with pump stations to lift water over 5,000 feet?

With coal traffic declining over the next 10 years the railroads probably wouldn’t mind replacing those unit coal trains with unit water trains?

Just an idea. I have no idea how much water a farm uses per day.

Google says Lake Mead at max capacity can hold 9.3 trillion gallons. Lake Hefner for comparison can hold 23.9 billion gallons.

Yes. But does a large farm use 300,000 gallons a day? 20 million?

If they use 300,000 gallons a day and 10 are close to each other you could supply them for 8 cents a gallon and remove them from the equation. 10 farms in another valley could do the same. Etc.

I am not talking about filling a dam, but just supplying water for irrigation in areas where it could allow more water to go downstream to the next community. Wouldn’t solve every problem.

Where are you going to off load that water? At every farm? Wouldn't all the farms have to be next to the tracks?

It’s not a turnkey solution. Would take infrastructure investment. Just less than a transcontinental pipeline.

Where are you going to off load that water? At every farm? Wouldn't all the farms have to be next to the tracks?
Not to mention the inevitable leakage but catch is right we need ideas and solutions. People aren’t going to change. At some point it may literally get to the point where water won’t come out of the faucet and then people will take drastic measures. This situation is not a joke.

I don't belive trains are a very practical longterm idea. Just the logistics of oil transport by rail and freight are a pain without pipelines and were talking about a whole lot more volume. Not to mention the carbon footprint of trains.

The west needs desalination plants and pipelines which would require a lot of energy and resources.

I think I read somewhere that desalination is horrible on the environment ?

I think I read somewhere that desalination is horrible on the environment ?

The only problems with desal is it requires a lot of electricity and you need to do something with the brine. You can't simply dump the brine in the ocean as it would kill off life in the immediate area. However, I did see where scientists have come up with a possible solution to the brine issue.

From several Anglo blogs I read from France, a similar hose pipe ban in effect across a lot of France. Can’t speak for the rest of the continent, but it seems to be a 500 year drought.

Between CO, AZ, NV there is about $4 Trillion GDP. They should probably tax 0.25% of that for the next 20 years at the production level and utilize those $10B+/year to start solving this problem now. You can probably cover most of the infrastructure needed in the first 5 years and utilize the remainder to create an endowment that helps fund the states that are helping supply the water.

So some of what i heard is being discussed is large scale desalinization and then piping it in to the lakes. We all know our food relies on this system working properly. This isn't just a regional issue, it's national for all of us. If this dries up, our food dries up. And we do not have good alternatives to move the agriculture. We will have to pay for it by means of price increases. The cost of growing the food goes up because the cost of the water for irrigation goes up, which went up because of the price of desalinization (which is expensive).

I know that some communities near the Pacific coast in CA are actually spinning up desalination plants but for a different reason. I heard a story on NPR the other day about a town that uses only partially desalinated water for the non-potable needs like toilets, fire hydrants, etc. If I remember, it was also used for sprinklers (for the places that used them....and dont ask me about how that worked with any sort of salt content in the water, i guess it is low enough to not kill plants, but not low enough for human consumption). So yes, the city and residents had to create an infrastructure to support it, but it was far less expensive to only partially desalinate than fully for drinking water. The residents in this town, i believe, only saw an increase of $40 annually for their water bill. But went from a water reserve that had gotten down to 23%, up to 63% in one year. I believe they expect to have a surplus next year. That also took commitments from residents to rip out water eating yards and replace with native elements. The people really were all doing their part because they all had a direct part in the process.

I also saw an article about CA installing solar panels over a huge irrigation channel to help stave off evaporation and also contribute to their solar generation goals. That seems like an awesome idea to me.

I’ve always wondered if piping in “foreign” water into a lake or river could harm/shock the local aquatic ecosystem. Not sure if I worded that right but I am not an expert on this topic. Would the water have to be conditioned apart from any desalination?

Did that community run a second water line to each house?

Some desal info

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/israel-proves-the-desalination-era-is-here/

What to do with brine
https://news.mit.edu/2019/brine-desalianation-waste-sodium-hydroxide-0213

Did that community run a second water line to each house?

Yes they did, so each home has two meters. One for the regular water and one for desalinated water. Like i said, a pretty big investment setting up an entire second system on infrastructure. The story did not say how that infra was paid for. I'm guessing a bond issue or something and they somehow convinced the small community members to all agree that it was needed. I'm thinking it would have been much more difficult to get done if it was a 40k person town. But when you're as short of water as they are, maybe this is something the residents are already sold on? Or maybe these folks will be the example for more cities that are not on the beach?

I think I read somewhere that desalination is horrible on the environment ?

I'm sure its not great for the environment, but that bridge was already crossed when a long time ago when the first people moved out west. Now its doing what we need to do to keep the west going at the lowest environmental cost.

Sry.duplicate

So some of what i heard is being discussed is large scale desalinization and then piping it in to the lakes. We all know our food relies on this system working properly. This isn't just a regional issue, it's national for all of us. If this dries up, our food dries up. And we do not have good alternatives to move the agriculture. We will have to pay for it by means of price increases. The cost of growing the food goes up because the cost of the water for irrigation goes up, which went up because of the price of desalinization (which is expensive).

I know that some communities near the Pacific coast in CA are actually spinning up desalination plants but for a different reason. I heard a story on NPR the other day about a town that uses only partially desalinated water for the non-potable needs like toilets, fire hydrants, etc. If I remember, it was also used for sprinklers (for the places that used them....and dont ask me about how that worked with any sort of salt content in the water, i guess it is low enough to not kill plants, but not low enough for human consumption). So yes, the city and residents had to create an infrastructure to support it, but it was far less expensive to only partially desalinate than fully for drinking water. The residents in this town, i believe, only saw an increase of $40 annually for their water bill. But went from a water reserve that had gotten down to 23%, up to 63% in one year. I believe they expect to have a surplus next year. That also took commitments from residents to rip out water eating yards and replace with native elements. The people really were all doing their part because they all had a direct part in the process.

I also saw an article about CA installing solar panels over a huge irrigation channel to help stave off evaporation and also contribute to their solar generation goals. That seems like an awesome idea to me.

This is a process in use - already in ar-least India, maybe other places. They also make use of the land under other solar panel farms for crops.

Some desal info

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/israel-proves-the-desalination-era-is-here/

Very interesting and promising. There is certainly no shortage of lava rock. In the west, it will still require the import of water from the east and the Pacific. Brine could go to the Great Salt Lake and other dry basins.

While our lawn sprinklers are running keeping our yards green, Lake Hefner water level is dropping rapidly. Ugh.