Talk:Water table

message: The definition of water table given here is, unfortunately, plain wrong. The water table is a pressure surface, where water below the ground surface is at atmospheric pressure. There is now abundant evidence that many soils are unsaturated below the water table (as given by the free-water surface in wells). For example, in peat soils, biogenic gas bubbles form below the water table due to anaerobic decay. Andy Baird, Professor of Physical Geography, Queen Mary, University of London (4th November 2005).
: This point seems to be an exception, and this article is to explain the standard concept of what a water table is under standard conditions (alluvial aquifer and vadose zone), not recent research on what it may be in peat aquifers, which are atypical.  The water table is customarily taken to be the zero-pressure isobar (taking p_atm = 0), which for most purposes is the level to which water rises in a shallow open borehole. --kris 19:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, much of the information in this article belongs in groundwater and aquifer, so I'm going to move it there. -Smack 20:44 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
True that you don't need an aquifer to have a water table, but I was just trying to put the links which were in context at the beginning of the article.
Shouldn't this entry have the definition of a water table (the surface where the water is at atmostpheric pressure)?  :Those other things (air+water vs water) are consequence or come from the definition.  Some of this might be repeated from Aquifer#Saturated_vs._Unsaturated, so maybe it should just link to there? or move it over here? - kris 16:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Old talk

message: im doing work on the water table for science i need to know "why we need to draw water several feet below the water table and not above it or on it." but i cant find the answer ive been searching for a few days can someone tel me that b-4 tomorrow PLZ I NEED THIS THIS THANGS DO TOMORROW —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.154.242.62 (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  need help 

message: I cannot see where long-term fluctuation of water tables is addressed at all under that heading in the article. How the long-term fluctuations affect surface streamflow is what I'd really like to hear something about. Is channelized streamflow greater or lesser in a region as water tables rise in the geological long haul? Would a constantly flowing stream be changed to intermittent with rising water tables, or with falling water tables.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.166.209 (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  need help 

message: I temporarily removed the following confusing statement from the intro paragraph:
:The water table is also often erroneously defined as the surface that separates the phreatic from the vadose zone, below which all rocks are saturated with water.
:Image:Vadose zone.gif from the USGS depicts these as the same thing.  Can anyone explain a circumstance in which the phreatic-vadose boundary would be different from the water table?  The articles linked to by the above sentence and the other text in the intro seem to treat them as if they were the same thing. -- Beland 18:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition question 

message: Why does the water table vary in height in the diagram?  Is it because the river is draining water at a high rate, but it flows slowly through the soil?  The article seems to imply it is due to variations in the gravitational field of the planet due to topography, which, if the image is taken to be at scale, is incorrect. -- Beland 19:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The drawing tool used probably made a continuous smooth curve. Either that or it is a Meniscus. Ferritecore (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagram question 

message: "Water table" has a completly different meaning in architcture, see: water table (architecture) Ferritecore (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Archetecture 

message: I think the relationship between the water table and rivers can be clarified. The article and illustrations currently give the impression that the water of a river is (all, mostly) originating from the water of the phreatic zone along its course. Large rivers it seems get most of their water from tributaries, and those tributaries may start as runoff, not ground water.
So what proportion of a typical river's water is being added from the phreatic zone along its course? Must a river surface always be not higher than the water table -- or can water from elsewhere flow through a channel that is entirely above the water table (depending on flow volume and geology)? Are there situations where the river channel is well above the water table, and leeching water downwards into it?
:I would expect a river to usually be close to equlibrium with the water table. Net water table<->river flow could be either way, depending on circumstance, but usually small compared to the ammount of flow in the river. A river flowing out of of a swamp may be draining its water table. A river flowing through a desert (Colorado?, Nile?) may be feeding the local water table. Ferritecore (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rivers vs Water Table