Open AccessReply to [“Comment on “Testing the interbasin flow hypothesis at Death Valley, California’”] Winograd et al.
Author(s) -
Nelson Stephen,
Anderson Nelson Katherine,
Mayo Alan
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
eos, transactions american geophysical union
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.316
H-Index - 86
eISSN - 2324-9250
pISSN - 0096-3941
DOI - 10.1029/2005eo320006
Subject(s) - geology , spring (device) , hydrology (agriculture) , flow (mathematics) , geotechnical engineering , physics , mathematics , geometry , thermodynamics
We happily respond to Winograd et al. regarding our recent Eos article concerning interbasin flow [ Nelson et al ., 2004]. We reiterate that we specifically reject interbasin flow only to Death Valley (DV) from Ash Meadows (AM) through the southern Funeral Mountains (FM), but suggest it should be critically reexamined elsewhere. Clearly, fractured carbonate rocks may be transmissive and deliver much water to a well or spring. We question, however, the spatial scales over which interbasin flow has been invoked, involving as it must continuously connected fracture permeability over tens to hundreds of kilometers.