Search results for query: *

Yup :D

Ahhh...well, Willie, that's because most of the rest of it is wrong, donchaknow. :D

:?

I agree without reservation with your last sentence of fourth para, Carl.

Perhaps in a somewhat related way...are those zones where surface contamination has a high risk of infiltrating a water well? That would represent a risk of direct pollution of an aquifer, or maybe just the reservoir within the well casing, through the upper area of the bore hole.

No, it doesn't just settle back down. And Carl's "little spot" is replicated a great many thousands of times just in MS, I'd bet. The effects are cumulative over the landscape...uh, sorry Butch, what I mean is, a bunch of mudholes is worse than a few :D.

Ok, Butch...mud fricks up the water. When the water is all fricked up, we die. :D

Well, in the field of natural resource management, erosion and subsequent sediment transport into waterways is generally accepted to be extremely detrimental to both site productivity and water quality. Your videos seem to show both in spades, Carl. Sub-surface hydrologic function in disrupted...

You can still see the same wagon's tracks in western Oregon, too. High desert or rain forest, the footprint lives long.

Designated routes don't curtail the damge, only localize it. Sorry, my enviro bones are showing. Soil and water are non-renewable resources. I'll shut up now...as you were, gentlemen.

The resource damage turns my stomach. Sorry, but that's the way I see it. I wouldn't presume to tell you to do differently.