Flowing wells: terminology, history and role  in the evolution of groundwater science

Jiang, Xiao-Wei; Cherry, John; Wan, Li

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-6001-2020

Articles | Volume 24, issue 12

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-6001-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Special issue:

History of hydrology (HESS/HGSS inter-journal SI)

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-6001-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 24, issue 12

Review article

|

21 Dec 2020

Review article |

| 21 Dec 2020

Flowing wells: terminology, history and role in the evolution of groundwater science

Xiao-Wei Jiang, John Cherry, and Li Wan

Download

Final revised paper (published on 21 Dec 2020)
Preprint (discussion started on 22 Jun 2020)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Needs Focus and Condensation', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Aug 2020
- AC1: 'Response to Referee #1 (Anonymous)', Xiao-Wei Jiang, 13 Aug 2020
RC2: 'Jiang et al - flowing wells and the development of a groundwater paradigm', Garth van der Kamp, 06 Aug 2020
- AC2: 'Response to Referee #2 (Garth van der Kamp)', Xiao-Wei Jiang, 13 Aug 2020

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by editor and referees) (27 Aug 2020) by Okke Batelaan

AR by Xiao-Wei Jiang on behalf of the Authors (12 Sep 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (25 Sep 2020) by Okke Batelaan

RR by Garth van der Kamp (04 Nov 2020)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

This manuscript provides a thorough and detailed summary of how the phenomenon of flowing wells has influenced the development of hydrogeological thinking over the centuries. As such it makes a solid contribution to understanding of the history of hydrogeology.
A few minor revisions are recommended to enhance clarity of the manuscript.
The terms “aquifer”, “confined”, and “unconfined” are used throughout the manuscript to distinguish two distinct classes of permeable formations. However, these terms are not explicitly defined in the manuscript. Clear unambiguous definitions should be included because these terms are not always used consistently in the hydrogeological literature. There is also a connection with the definition of the term “artesian” which is discussed extensively in this manuscript. In particular consideration should be given to whether the terms “confined” and/or “artesian” include permeable formations which are bounded above and below by aquitards but in which the water table exists below the bottom of the overlying aquitard. The definitions provided by the classic Freeze and Cherry (1979) text are pertinent in this regard and could be adopted, except that then the terms “confined” and “artesian” are synonymous.
LL 396-424 (The birth of Darcy’s Law). In this section it is clear by modern understanding that the head loss in the aquifer was not the “head loss from the recharge area to the orifice” (L 415). It would likely take years or more for a new hydraulic gradient to be established between the recharge area and the newly changed elevation of the orifice. Presumably Darcy’s measurements of flow rate for different elevations of the discharge orifice were taken after the flow rates appeared to be reasonably stabilized. The manuscript should make clear what Darcy’s assumptions were in this respect and evaluate these in terms of present-day understanding of the theory of constant-head (drawdown) tests for confined aquifers.
LL 607-610. The manuscript makes an intriguing observation with reference to the classic and influential paper by Freeze and Witherspoon (1967): “However the computing capabilities at the time limited the permeability contrasts between aquifer and aquitard units to a factor of 100, which is far from what is reality in actual flow systems in the field and these simulations are then to some degree misleading in light of what we now know.” Was this limitation in fact acknowledged by Freeze and Witherspoon, or was it recognized and published afterwards (if so provide the reference), or is this an observation by the authors of the present manuscript and if so, on what basis? This is important because the Freeze and Witherspoon paper continues to play an influential role in the teaching of flow systems and in the formulation of conceptual hydrogeological models.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (05 Nov 2020) by Okke Batelaan

AR by Xiao-Wei Jiang on behalf of the Authors (10 Nov 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (10 Nov 2020) by Okke Batelaan

AR by Xiao-Wei Jiang on behalf of the Authors (13 Nov 2020) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

The gushing of water from flowing wells is a natural phenomenon of interest to the public. This review demonstrates that this spectacular phenomenon also instigated the science of groundwater and can be considered a root of groundwater hydrology. Observations of flowing wells not only led to the foundation of many principles of traditional groundwater hydrology but also played a vital role in the paradigm shift from aquitard-bound flow to cross-formational flow driven by topography.