DOCSLIB.ORG

Identification of Geographic Areas in Texas Suitable for Groundwater Banking

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Identification of Geographic Areas in Texas Suitable for Groundwater Banking , , {'ll ) Identification of Geographic Areas in Texas Suitable for Groundwater Banking Prepared for Texas Water Development Board Austin, Texas Kenneth Calhoun Bridget R. Scanlon T. Neil Blandford Robert C. Reedy Mark D. Ankeny Bureau of Economic Geology December 31, 2002 Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. 6020 Academy NE, Suite 100' Albuquerque, New Mexico 87109 2001-I/f:5 - 3fJ8 Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. Table of Contents Section Page Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. vii 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Types of Artificial Recharge Systems ............................................................................ 1 1.1.1 Artificial Recharge at the Ground Surface .......................................................... 2 1.1.2 Artificial Recharge in the Unsaturated Zone ....................................................... 4 1.1.3 Artificial Recharge in the Saturated Zone ........................................................... 4 1.2 Historical Use of Artificial Recharge in Texas ................................................................ 5 1.2.1 Use of Spreading Basins in Texas ...................................................................... 5 1.2.2 Use of In-Channel Infiltration Techniques in Texas ............................................ 7 1.2.3 Use of Aquifer Storage and Recovery in Texas .................................................. 7 1.3 Project Objectives and Scope of Work .......................................................................... 8 2. Statewide Screening Analysis ............................................................................................ 11 2.1 Geographic Information Systems ................................................................................ 11 2.2 Screening Methods ..................................................................................................... 12 2.3 Statewide Screening Criteria ....................................................................................... 13 2.3.1 Surface Water Quality ...................................................................................... 14 2.3.2 Groundwater Quality ........................................................................................ 16 2.3.3 High Demand Regions ..................................................................................... 17 2.3.4 Aquifer Characteristics ..................................................................................... 17 2.3.5 Distance from Surface Water ........................................................................... 18 2.3.6 Topography (Slope of Area) ............................................................................. 19 3. Site-Specific Analysis ......................................................................................................... 33 3.1 Regional Grouping of Counties ................................................................................... 33 3.2 Site-Specific Analysis Methodology ............................................................................. 35 3.2.1 Rate of Infiltration ............................................................................................. 37 3.2.2 Slope of Area ................................................................................................... 38 3.2.3 Distance from Surface Water ........................................................................... 38 3.2.4 Water Quality and Environmental Hazards ....................................................... 39 3.2.5 Water Storage and Conveyance Systems ........................................................ 40 3.3 Water Availability and Infiltration Computations ........................................................... 40 3.3.1 Basin I nfiltration Calculations ........................................................................... 41 3.3.2 TCEQ Surface Water Availability Models ......................................................... 44 3.4 Calculation of Recovery Efficiency .............................................................................. 46 4. South Central Texas Region ............................................................................................... 57 4.1 Water Resources Overview ......................................................................................... 57 4.2 Rate, Area and Time Period of Infiltration .................................................................... 59 5. Brazos Region .................................................................................................................... 73 5.1 Water Resources Overview ......................................................................................... 73 5.2 Rate, Area, and Time Period for Infiltration ................................................................. 74 P:\9408\TxGrdWtrFin.D-2002\GrdWtrBkgFin_113_TF.doc Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. Table of Contents (Continued) Section Page 6. Region C ............................................................................................................................ 89 6.1 Water Resources Overview ......................................................................................... 89 6.2 Rate, Area, and Time Period for Infiltration ................................................................. 90 7. Region F ........................................................................................................................... 105 7.1 Water Resources Overview ....................................................................................... 105 7.2 Rate, Area and Time Period for Infiltration ................................................................ 106 8. Ogallala Region ................................................................................................................ 121 8.1 Water Resources Overview ....................................................................................... 121 8.2 Rate, Area, and Time Period for Infiltration ............................................................... 123 9. Far West Texas Region .................................................................................................... 137 9.1 Water Resources Overview ....................................................................................... 137 9.2 Rate, Area, and Time Period for Infiltration ............................................................... 138 10. Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................ 151 10.1 South Central Texas Region ..................................................................................... 152 10.2 Brazos Region .......................................................................................................... 154 10.3 Region C ................................................................................................................... 155 10.4 Region F ................................................................................................................... 155 10.5 Ogallala Region ........................................................................................................ 157 10.6 Far West Texas Region ............................................................................................ 157 10.7 Recommendations and Additional Research ............................................................. 158 References ............................................................................................................................. 161 List of Figures Figure Page 1 Project Flow Chart ........................................................................................................... 9 2 Groundwater Quality Locations with Sulfate Concentrations Greater than the EPA Secondary Standard ...................................................................................................... 21 3 Projected 2050 Water Demand ..................................................................................... 23 4 Major Aquifer Outcrop Areas ......................................................................................... 25 P:\9408\TxGrdWtrFin.D-2002\GrdWtrBkgFin_113_TF.doc ii Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. List of Figures (Continued) Figure Page 5 Suitable Depth to Groundwater in Major Aquifer Outcrop Areas .................................... 27 6 Distance to Surface Water Screen ................................................................................. 29 7 Topographic Slope Screen ............................................................................................ 31 8 Counties Selected for Site-Specific Analysis ................................................................. 49 9 Counties Selected for Site-Specific Analysis with SSURGO Data Available .................. 51 10 Stream Hydrographs and Corresponding Available Recharge Hydrographs, Uvalde County ........................................................................................................................... 53 11 Available Recharge Hydrographs for 10-Acre and 1DO-Acre Basin Areas ...................... 55 12 South Central Texas Suitable Recharge Areas .............................................................. 61 13 South Central
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Abstract of the Thesis Of
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Sarah Brennan for the degree of Master of Science in Water Resources Policy and Management presented on September 15, 2017. Title: A Review of Water Banking in State Legislation of the Western United States Abstract approved: ______________________________________________________ W. Todd Jarvis Among the suite of water resources management strategies, water banking can be a tool for water resource management in areas with high water demands or localized water scarcity. This research aims to further the understanding of water banking by conducting a review and analysis of relevant state legislation. This research identified legislation that explicitly mentions water banking and then assessed how states compare on the comprehensiveness of their water banking legislation. In this study over three hundred pieces of legislative documents referencing water banks and water banking were examined and coded to compare the nineteen states that use the Prior Appropriations Doctrine. Of the states examined, seven states had no mention of water banking in their legislation. The remaining twelve states were assessed and compared on a qualitative scale of comprehensiveness through twenty- eight categories. Washington, Arizona, and New Mexico rank consistently high in the individual categories, such as quantity and management, and the overall analysis determined that the state of Washington has the most comprehensive legislation regarding water banking. Conducting this research has enabled the identification of policy elements and objectives most often associated with water banking and has provided a platform for further discussions on how the progression of water banking legislation can compare to the growth of water banking practices and other water resource management strategies.
    [Show full text]
  • Statewide Land Suitability for Groundwater Recharge
    STATEWIDE LAND SUITABILITY FOR GROUNDWATER RECHARGE January 28, 2019 Presented To Groundwater Resources Association Mica Heilmann, CPSS, CPESC PRESENTATION OUTLINE • Introduction to Land IQ • Introduction to Groundwater Recharge Suitability Index • Overview of Data Inputs • Suitability Rating Methods • Groundwater Recharge Suitability Index Results LAND IQ BACKGROUND • Land Resource, Agricultural and Spatial Scientists • Integrating land-based science with spatial analytics • Statewide Crop Mapping • Crop Age Determination • Land Classification and Consumptive Use Estimates • Spatial Evapotranspiration • Agricultural Yield • Central Valley Wide Groundwater Recharge Potential STATEWIDE GROUNDWATER RECHARGE SUITABILITY INDEX • #1 – Can you infiltrate & percolate water through the root zone? • #2 – Once it is through the root zone, can it be stored and/or will it be restricted for recharge? • Combines both surface and subsurface conditions in a sequential and logical approach STATEWIDE GROUNDWATER RECHARGE SUITABILITY Data Inputs: • Soil Agricultural Groundwater Banking Index (SAGBI) • USGS Groundwater Levels • Central Valley Hydrologic Model (CVHM) • Irrigation District Coverage DATA INPUT: SAGBI • Soil infiltration rate/drainage capacity • Topography • Soil salinity • Soil surface condition (propensity to erode or form crust) • Identified 3.6 million acres with good potential for groundwater banking • Focused on surface soils (top 5 feet) • Did not account for subsurface factors DATA INPUT: DWR GROUNDWATER LEVELS • Deeper groundwater allows
    [Show full text]
  • Gregory Newman Presentation
    Developing Science Based Scalable Approaches to Groundwater Banking Groundwater is crical to life in California (and much of the world) and current use is unsustainable By law and by necessity groundwater management must change Science based management prac:ces are lacking Berkeley Lab exper:se can help fill the need Gregory A. Newman Lawrence Berkeley Naonal Laboratory Groundwater is Crical to Life in California and Current Use is UnsustainableGroundwater is Crical to Life in California and Current Use is Unsustainable OverdraQ ~1-2 million AF/yr Normal Year ~29% Dry Year ~39% Drought Year ~60% Groundwater Level Change Spring 2012 to Spring 2015 Groundwater Recharge or Banking: building a rainy sunny day fund Precipitaon Comes in Pulses How to connect short term extreme events to long term groundwater storage? Groundwater Managed Long-term Subsurface Process Knowledge and Modeling: Geophysical imaging Hydro-Chem-Mechanical Modeling Groundwater Recharge or Banking: building a rainy sunny day fundcharge or Banking: building a rainy sunny day fund Pumped Recharge Dedicated Basin ($124/AF) Use Exis:ng Infrastructure and Agriculture Lands to Restore Groundwater ($40-107 AF)? Where is there suitable subsurface for banking? Where will banked groundwater go? How long will it take to get there? What will be the water quality? How will it impact energy use and subsidence? How much current and future overdra can be met by different GW banking strategies? (coupled hydroclimate) What will be the impact on the surface water system, Delta? Detailed Knowledge
    [Show full text]
  • Not All Water Stored Underground Is Groundwater: Aquifer Privatization and California's 2014 Groundwater Sustainable Management Act Adam Keats Center for Food Safety
    Golden Gate University Environmental Law Journal Volume 9 Issue 1 Symposium Edition: The Waste of Water in Article 7 21st Century California January 2016 Not All Water Stored Underground is Groundwater: Aquifer Privatization and California's 2014 Groundwater Sustainable Management Act Adam Keats Center for Food Safety Chelsea Tu Center for Biological Diversity Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/gguelj Part of the Environmental Law Commons, and the Water Law Commons Recommended Citation Adam Keats and Chelsea Tu, Not All Water Stored Underground is Groundwater: Aquifer Privatization and California's 2014 Groundwater Sustainable Management Act, 9 Golden Gate U. Envtl. L.J. 93 (2016). http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/gguelj/vol9/iss1/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Golden Gate University Environmental Law Journal by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Keats and Tu: Aquifer Privatization NOT ALL WATER STORED UNDERGROUND IS GROUNDWATER: AQUIFER PRIVATIZATION AND CALIFORNIA’S 2014 GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT ACT ADAM KEATS* CHELSEA TU** I. INTRODUCTION California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (“Act”) has been heralded as a “once-in-a-century achievement.”1 While some have criticized the Act’s relatively modest regulatory goals, long compliance deadlines, and weak enforcement powers,2 others have hailed the mere accomplishment of the state passing some form of *Adam Keats is a senior counsel at the Center for Food Safety, where he focuses on water privatization issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Watershed Enhancement Strategies for Groundwater Sustainability
    Watershed Enhancement Strategies for Groundwater Sustainability Photo: John Greening, 2010. A San Joaquin Valley Greenprint Demonstration Project March 2017 CONTENTS Authors ............................................................................................................................................ iv Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................... iv I. Executive Summary .................................................................................................... 1 II. Introduction and Background ..................................................................................... 2 A. Agriculture, Drought and Groundwater in Tulare County ...................................... 2 B. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act ................................................... 7 C. Project Stakeholders ............................................................................................... 8 D. Past Planning in the Kaweah and Tule Watersheds ............................................... 9 III. Mapping .................................................................................................................. 12 A. Methodology ......................................................................................................... 12 B. Theme Maps ......................................................................................................... 14 1) Soil Enhancement and Water Resources .................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Groundwater Recharge: a Role for Almonds?
    Groundwater Recharge: A Role for Almonds? December 9, 2015 Speakers Gabriele Ludwig, Almond Board (Moderator) Daniel Mountjoy, Sustainable Conservation Joel Kimmelshue, Land IQ Helen Dahlke, University of California, Davis Gabriele Ludwig, Almond Board Daniel Mountjoy, Sustainable Conservation Groundwater Recharge: A Role for Almonds? Daniel Mountjoy, Ph.D. Director of Resource Stewardship 015 Groundwater Level Change Spring 2012 to Spring 2015 Spring 2012 to Spring 2015 Change in Groundwater Storage in the Central Valleyndwater Storage in the Central Valley On-Farm Recharge: Proof of Concept Terranova Ranch Helm, CA 2011: The Kings River returns to its flood plain When are farmers willing to recharge? 8 6 4 # of Farmers # of 2 0 Table Wine Raisins Walnuts Almonds Prunes Pistachios Silage Winter Alfalfa Carrots Grapes Grapes Corn Forage Nov - Jan Jan - March April - June July - Sept Growers interviewed are willing to divert floodwater to their crops well into the summer. What irrigation infrastructure exists? 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 INFRASTRUCTURE 0 Table Wine Raisins Walnuts Almonds Prunes Pistachios Silage Winter Alfalfa Carrots Tomatoes Grapes Grapes Corn Forage # OF GROWERS W/ GIVEN IRRIGATION Flood Flood and Drip Drip Micro sprinkler Most crops grown, and acreage represented, have existing irrigation infrastructure compatible for on-farm recharge but may require expanded capacity. Cost Comparisons of Configurations Permanent Permanent Temporary on-farm with on-farm with on-farm existing new pump pump rental pump Annualized cost per
    [Show full text]
  • I Managing Groundwater for Agriculture, with Hydrologic
    Managing Groundwater for Agriculture, with Hydrologic Uncertainty and Salinity By YIQING YAO B.S. (Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China) 2013 M.S. (Carnegie Mellon University, U.S.) 2014 DISSERTATION Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Civil and Environmental Engineering in the OFFICE OF GRADUATE STUDIES of the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS Approved: Jay Lund, Chair Jonathan Herman Samuel Sandoval Solis Committee in Charge 2020 i To my grandpa, Guozhu Yao, I met you in the dream when I finished the writing, and you smiled and waved. Merry Christmas! ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to first thank Jay Lund, who offered me great opportunity to join his research group as a volunteer graduate researcher. I should say thank you to Jay again for inviting me to rejoin his group as a formal PhD student after I left the group for seven months. He made me alert when I was too off the way in the first year and guided me to figure out what to focus on. He supported me with readerships and GSR and encouraged me with confidence and hope under the unprecedented time of Covid-19. His kindness, enthusiasm and insight make my entire graduate study full of joy. Besides Jay, this dissertation also owes its completion to committee members: Jon Herman, for his kind GSR sponsorship, his great class on evolutionary algorithm in which I coded for the first time, and his valuable comments on my dissertation; and Sam Sandoval Solis, for his generous feedback. Special thanks go to: Josue Medellín-Azuara,
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Climate Change in the Southwest United States
    National Climate Assessment Regional Technical Input Report Series Assessment of Climate Change in the Southwest United States A Report Prepared for the National Climate Assessment Edited by: Gregg Garfin Angela Jardine Robert Merideth Mary Black Sarah LeRoy Assessment of Climate Change in the Southwest United States A Report Prepared for the National Climate Assessment © 2013 Institute of the Environment All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. Reproduction of this report by electronic means for personal and noncommercial purposes is permitted as long as proper acknowledgement is included. Users are restricted from photocopying or mechanical reproduction as well as creating derivative works for commercial purposes without the prior written permission of the publisher. ISLAND PRESS is a trademark of the Center for Resource Economics. Printed on recycled, acid-free paper Manufactured in the United States of America Citation: Garfin, G., A. Jardine, R. Merideth, M. Black, and S. LeRoy, eds. 2013.Assessment of Climate Change in the Southwest United States: A Report Prepared for the National Climate Assessment. A report by the Southwest Climate Alliance. Washington, DC: Island Press. Keywords: Adaptation, agriculture, air quality, assessment, atmospheric river, biodiversity, climate change, climate impacts, climate modeling, climate variability, coastal, Colorado River, decision making, drought, electric power generation, extreme events, flooding, forest mortality, Great Basin, heat related illness,
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes October 10, 2019
    SACRAMENTO GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY Regular Board Meeting Final Minutes October 10, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Sheehan called the meeting of the Board of Directors to order at 9:00 a.m. at the Regional Water Authority/Sacramento Groundwater Authority office. Individuals in attendance are listed below: Board Members George Leidy, Carmichael Water District Caryl Sheehan, Citrus Heights Water District Marcus Yasutake, City of Folsom Brett Ewart, City of Sacramento Linda Dorn, County of Sacramento Paul Schubert, Golden State Water Company John Wingerter, Orange Vale Water Company Mary Harris, Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District Staff Members Jim Peifer, Rob Swartz, Nancy Marrier, Cecilia Partridge, Monica Garcia and Chris Sanders, legal counsel Others in Attendance Joe Duran, Tom Gray, Greg Zlotnick, Laura Byrd, Trevor Joseph, NC Doyel, Alan Vail, Bob Reisig, Ali Taghavi, Matti Siltanen, Hilary Straus, David Gordon and Alan Driscoll. A quorum was not present at this meeting; therefore, no actions could be taken. Motion/Second/Carried (M/S/C) Mr. Ewart moved, with a second by Mr. Yasutake, to continue with the information items on the agenda. The motion carried by the unanimous voice vote of all directors present. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR The minutes of the August 8, 2019 meeting. Page 1 A quorum was not present at this meeting; therefore, no action was taken on this agenda item. 4. SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT AND GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN (GSP) DEVELOPMENT UPDATE Mr. Swartz said that progress continues on activities related to developing a GSP for the North American Subbasin (NASb). A summary table of activities related to the scope of work for the NASb relative to the DWR Proposition Sustainable Groundwater Planning (SGWP) grant was enclosed in the packet.
    [Show full text]
  • Agenda Groundwater Banking Joint Powers Authority Board of Directors Special Meeting
    AGENDA GROUNDWATER BANKING JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS SPECIAL MEETING December 28, 2020 Due to COVID-19, this meeting will be conducted as a teleconference pursuant to the provisions of the Governor’s Executive Orders N-25-20 and N-29-20, which suspend certain requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act. Members of the public may not attend this meeting in person. Participation by members of the Board of Directors will be from remote locations. Public access and participation will only be available telephonically/electronically. To virtually attend the meeting and to be able to view any presentations or additional materials provided at the meeting, please join online using the link and information below: Via Web: https://zoom.us/j/87878804927 Meeting Number (Access Code): 878 7880 4927 Meeting Password: 198164 Telephone Dial In: (669) 900-6833 As courtesy to the other participants, please mute your phone when you are not speaking. PLEASE NOTE: Participants joining the meeting will be placed into the lobby when the Board enters closed session. Participants who remain in the “lobby” will automatically be returned to the open session of the Board once the closed session has concluded. Participants who join the meeting while the Board is in closed session will be placed in the waiting room. When the Board has returned to open session, the participants will be automatically added to the meeting. CALL TO ORDER 1:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Directors Pierucci, Selvidge, Reinhart, Swan PUBLIC COMMENT NOTICE If you wish to address the Board of Directors on any item, please submit a request to speak via the “chat” feature available when joining the meeting virtually.
    [Show full text]
  • Groundwater Banking Guidelines for Central Valley Project Water
    Groundwater Banking Guidelines for Central Valley Project Water Effective Date: November 12, 2014 Updated May 23, 2018 Draft Proposed Revisions: April 4, 2019 Introduction The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) developed these Water Banking Guidelines (Guidelines) to implement water bankingBanking as authorized by the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA), and as authorized by certain Federal contracts. Reclamation recognizes groundwater bankingBanking as an important water management tool in optimizing the use of Central Valley Project (CVP) Water, while addressing groundwater overdraft in some areas. Historically, Reclamation has approved bankingBanking of CVP Water in acknowledged groundwater banks (Groundwater Banks) listed in Appendix "A". The process used to approve past bankingBanking actions served as the basis of development for these Guidelines. Authority Banking of CVP Water is authorized by Sections 3408 (c), (d), and (e) of the CVPIA, Title XXXIV, Public Law 102-575, October 1992. Additionally, certain CVP contracts allow for the bankingBanking of CVP Water, and the development of these Guidelines is required by the delegation of authority to negotiate and administer contracts for CVP waterWater supplies. Applicability These Guidelines apply to Contractors that have a contract with Reclamation for water service or repayment, water rights settlement, exchange, or other applicable contract(s) (herein referred to as contract) requesting to bankBank CVP Water outside of its Contract Service Area. Contractors are subject to these Guidelines and any updates thereof when bankingBanking CVP Water as approved by Reclamation. These Guidelines do not apply to within-district conjunctive useConjunctive Use, to a Contractor bankingBanking its CVP Water within its Contract Service Area, to annual transfers and exchanges between CVP Contractors, previously authorized transfers and exchanges under executed long-term contracts, or the bankingBanking of non-CVP waterWater, or water acquired under a Contractor’s own water right.
    [Show full text]
  • The Federal Role in Groundwater Supply: Overview and Legislation in the 115Th Congress
    The Federal Role in Groundwater Supply: Overview and Legislation in the 115th Congress Peter Folger Specialist in Energy and Natural Resources Policy Charles V. Stern Specialist in Natural Resources Policy Nicole T. Carter Specialist in Natural Resources Policy Megan Stubbs Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy July 18, 2018 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R45259 The Federal Role in Groundwater Supply: Overview and Legislation in the 115th Congress Summary Groundwater, the water in aquifers accessible by wells, is a critical component of the U.S. water supply. It is important for both domestic and agricultural water needs, among other uses. Nearly half of the nation’s population uses groundwater to meet daily needs; in 2015, about 149 million people (46% of the nation’s population) relied on groundwater for their domestic indoor and outdoor water supply. The greatest volume of groundwater used every day is for agriculture, specifically for irrigation. In 2015, irrigation accounted for 69% of the total fresh groundwater withdrawals in the United States. For that year, California pumped the most groundwater for irrigation, followed by Arkansas, Nebraska, Idaho, Texas, and Kansas, in that order. Groundwater also is used as a supply for mining, oil and gas development, industrial processes, livestock, and thermoelectric power, among other uses. Congress generally has deferred management of U.S. groundwater resources to the states, and there is little indication that this practice will change. For example, several bills introduced in the 115th Congress contain provisions that would direct that the federal government recognizes that aspects of groundwater, such as the connection between surface water and groundwater, be consistent with state water laws (surface water includes streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, and is not groundwater or atmospheric water, such as rain or snow).
    [Show full text]