The time for sitting on the sidelines of the subsidence debate is over. Groundwater Management Area 14 (GMA-14) has finalized its proposed desired future conditions (DFCs). Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District (LSGCD) is fighting them. It wants to exclude any mention of subsidence. So if you disagree with that point of view, speak up now or live with the consequences. LSGCD will hold a board meeting Monday at 2 pm to hear public comments. You can also register your opinions in writing until July 19, 2021.
See more below about the background of this crucial debate including a discussion of the issues; pros and cons; how you can make your voice heard and where you can get more information.
How GMAs Set Goals
GMA-14 comprises most of southeast Texas. See map below. It includes five groundwater conservation districts and two subsidence districts and four counties that have neither.
Every county in Texas belongs to a Groundwater Management Area. SE Texas belongs to GMA-14.
One purpose of a GMA is to bind the people of a region together to meet common goals. Significantly, if one county wants to abandon surface water and pump unlimited amounts of cheaper groundwater, it must first get permission from the other members of the GMA. That’s because pumping groundwater has consequences. It can cause neighboring wells to go dry, leaving rural ranchers without options.
It can also cause subsidence, in which one area sinks relative to surrounding areas. That can alter the gradient of rivers, causing water to move slower and back up more. Subsidence can also trigger geologic fault movement, disrupt pipelines, damage homes, and crack pavement.
In setting goals, GMAs also consider factors such as economic development and population growth. They typically plan 50 years or more ahead to ensure adequate water supplies.
Proposed Desired Future Conditions for GMA-14
GMA-14 has debated its next set of desired future conditions (DFCs) since 2016. At its last meeting, members finally adopted the following statement.
In each county in GMA 14, no less than 70 percent median available drawdown remaining in 2080 and no more than an average of 1.0 additional foot of subsidence between 2009 and 2080.
“In each county” means the numbers below represent county-wide averages or medians.
“70% median available drawdown remaining in 2080” means counties cannot draw down their aquifer(s) more than 30%. Seventy percent must remain at the end of the period – 2080. Each district controls this by monitoring aquifer levels and adjusting annual well permits to meet the goal.
“No more than an average of 1.0 additional foot of subsidence between 2009 and 2080” defines 2009 as the starting point for measuring subsidence and 2080 as the end.
Lone Star GCD Tries to Break Away
LSGCD has used a variety of arguments to fight the subsidence metric in DFCs. All failed to convince other GMA-14 members. Now LSGCD claims it will reach the drawdown limit before it reaches the subsidence limit, so subsidence should not be included in the limits.
Many observers have repeatedly commented on this position. “If it’s not a limiting factor, why fight it so hard?” they ask. LSGCD keeps repeating the argument without offering a satisfactory answer or showing proof. That raises even more suspicions. It’s like when your kid comes home and brags how well (s)he did in one class and refuses to discuss grades in others.
Pros and Cons
Surface water costs more than groundwater for several reasons. In this part of the world, surface water must be trapped in man-made lakes, treated extensively, and then shipped to users via canals or a pipeline network. In contrast, wells can be drilled near users on very little land.
But if everyone used well-water exclusively, aquifers would deplete rapidly, wells would run dry, and subsidence would kick in.
Aquifers can eventually recharge if you leave them alone long enough. But subsidence is forever. It occurs when “clay lenses” get smashed due to dehydration. Rehydrating them is impossible. One water professional used this analogy: Imagine smashing a brownie and then pouring water on it. It won’t return to its original state.
Also consider that the proposed subsidence limit is an average. In its sparsely populated northern reaches in the Sam Houston National Forest, MoCo has little water demand. However, in southern MoCo is growing by leaps and bounds.
Subsidence has already proven to be an issue there. It has triggered faults and cracked home slabs. Many feel they are now more susceptible to flooding because their homes sit in bowls between faults.
Critics of LSGCD’s move to eliminate a subsidence metric point out that without it, groundwater pumpers could exceed the drawdown limit and simply claim that aquifers would magically recharge in the last few years of the plan.
When The Woodlands began using more surface water in 2016 after completion of a surface water pipeline from Lake Conroe, the rate of subsidence dropped 75%.
Some neighborhoods in The Woodlands ALREADY SUBSIDED BY ALMOST A HALF FOOT BETWEEN 2009 and 2019. And four of those years followed a conversion to surface water that reduced the rate of subsidence 75%. So it’s real.
A return to the old rate of subsidence in The Woodlands would result in another 4-foot of drop by 2080.
Modeling also shows that Kingwood and Humble could subside 3 feet because of excessive groundwater pumping in MoCo while the Lake Houston Dam subsides only one foot. That could raise water floodwaters at the top of Lake Houston another 2 feet relative to the spillway at the dam.
Projected subsidence in MoCo with 70% of water in aquifers remaining.
Projected subsidence in Harris County with 70% remaining in aquifers by 2080
What Happens Is Up to You
Some people may prefer cheap water today and not care about the future or downstream neighbors.
The irony is that SJRA already built a surface water treatment plant, which some now advocate abandoning.
What’s more important to you? Short- or long-term savings? Leveling a foundation; repaving your driveway; repairing cracked walls and ceilings; and recovering from a flood cost far more than a few dollars a month on your water bill.
How To Register Your Concerns
Submit comments to LSGCD by:
Email:info@lonestargcd.org with the subject line “DFC Comments” no later than 11:59 p.m. on Jul. 19, 2021.
In Person: 2PM AT THE LONE STAR GCD OFFICE IN THE JAMES B. “JIM” WESLEY BOARD ROOM, 655 CONROE PARK NORTH DRIVE, CONROE, TEXAS 77303.
If you pre-register via the URL meeting link above, a password will be emailed to you in advance of the webinar. If you use the password to log, you WILL have the opportunity to provide live comments during the meeting. Use Webinar ID: 861 0914 6147 Password: Received via pre-registration.
You can also find several articles on this website. The easiest way to find them is by going to the index page and searching for GMA-14, Groundwater Management Area 14, Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District, LSGCD, or subsidence.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/6/2021
1377 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
00adminadmin2021-06-06 18:32:062021-06-06 18:39:32LSGCD Hearing Public Comments 2 PM Monday on Desired Future Conditions, Subsidence
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) finalized nine investigations into Colony Ridge construction practices this week. Eight of the nine found violations. And six of the eight scolded Colony Ridge for lack of best management practices relating to erosion controls. The other two cited Colony Ridge for operating without a permit.
Summary of Violations
The TCEQ meticulously documented the findings with dozens of photos and supporting documents. The nine investigations total 2,341 pages. Below is a summary of the investigation numbers, subdivisions and violations:
#1699286, Sante Fe #6, operating without a permit
#1704908, Long Branch, best management practice (BMP) violations
#174909, Sante Fe #5, failure to meet final stabilization requirements, large bare areas of unstabilized soil
#1704912, Sante Fe #8, erosion control measures not installed
#1404914, Sante Fe #9, erosion control measures not installed
#1704916, Sante Fe #10 and #11, erosion control measures not installed
#1704918, Sante Fe #10 and #11, no violation
#1707467, Sante Fe #10 and #11, operating without a permit
The best management practices and erosion control measures cited above are designed to prevent the rivers of mud seen coming from Colony Ridge. The mud has partially plugged local creeks in Plum Grove, contributing to flooding. It has also contributed to sediment buildup farther downstream near the mouth bar of the San Jacinto East Fork.
Six of the TCEQ violations relate to best management practices and erosion control. For instance:
Planting grass can stabilize soils.
Silt fences can prevent dirt from entering ditches.
Rock gabions can reduce the velocity of water, thus reducing erosion.
But the investigations found little evidence of any such practices. And when they did, the measures were often ineffective due to lack of maintenance. For instance, water eroded around and under silt fences, rendering them useless.
Dirt piled on sides of ditches. No silt fences, grass, or gabions. Photo taken May 26, 2021.
When you clear thousands of acres at a time, erosion control is important to protect downstream neighbors.
Two of the other investigations found Colony Ridge operating without a valid permit.
Conditions For Obtaining Permits
The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requires developers to formulate Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) as a condition of obtaining their permits. The plans should:
Control the perimeter of the site
Protect receiving waters adjacent to the site
Follow pollution prevention measures
Protect slopes and channels
Stabilize the site as soon as possible
Minimize the area and duration of exposed soils at any one time
Part of Colony Ridge expansion area covered in TCEQ investigations. Photo taken March 3, 2021.
The goals of pollution prevention plans include:
Retaining sediment on the property
Selecting, installing, inspecting, and maintaining sediment control measures in accordance with good engineering practices
Removing offsite accumulations of sediment that escapes the property at a frequency sufficient to minimize offsite impacts
Preventing litter from becoming a pollutant source in stormwater discharges
Accumulations of litter on banks of Colony Ridge ditch – definitely not a best management practice. Photo taken March 3, 2021.
Penalties Unclear at This Time
It’s unclear at this time whether the TCEQ violations will result in any fines for Colony Ridge. Typically, the TCEQ gives regulated entities a chance to remedy violations before levying fines. However, the recurring nature of these violations may call for a new approach. TCEQ has warned Colony Ridge about similar issues in the past, saying that Colony Ridge violations could adversely affect human health. However, violations continue.
Clearly, the ability to fix problems without a fine – after silt has been discharged into bayous, streams and rivers – seems like an incentive to ignore, not obey, regulations. Violators can simply fix problems if caught and, if not, take their profits to the bank.
Looking south. Photo taken May 26, 2021. Colony Ridge continues to push north with same construction practices.
Conclusions of All Nine Reports
The reports comprise almost 650 megabytes. They are far too large to post in a forum like this. However, I have captured screen shots of the reports’ conclusions for those who wish more detail.
#1699286: operating without a permit
#1704908: failure to maintain and properly install BMPs
#1740909: failure to achieve final stabilization requirements, large areas of bare soil
#1704910: Failure to maintain BMPs, install them properly and stabilize drainage channels.
#1704912: erosion control measures not installed
#1704914: failure to install even minimum erosion controls.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/5/2021, based on TCEQinvestigations
1376 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/20210526-RJR_8409.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2021-06-05 14:50:582021-06-05 15:04:04Eight TCEQ Investigations Reprimand Colony Ridge Construction Practices
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has joined an aggregate company it regulates in appealing a judge’s decision that voided an air-quality permit issued to the aggregate producer.
Photo of blasting used in limestone quarries. Courtesy of Stop 3009 Vulcan Quarry. According to the group, “Quarry blasting, crushing, and hauling operations emit high levels of carcinogenic particulate matter.”
Much at Stake
On March 5, 2021, two Texas Hill County environmental groups, Stop 3009 Vulcan Quarry and Friends of Dry Comal Creek won a lawsuit voiding the air-quality permit issued to Vulcan Materials. Vulcan needs the permit to turn a former ranch in Comal County into a 1500-acre open-pit limestone quarry and rock crushing plant. The property is in the middle of residential developments. It also sits atop the recharge zone for the Edwards Aquifer. That aquifer supplies drinking water for 2 million people.
The court battle between residents, Alabama-based Vulcan and the TCEQ has raged since June 2017 when Vulcan initially applied for a TCEQ air-quality permit. The groups objected. An administrative judge first supported the TCEQ and Vulcan. But District Court Judge Maya Guerra-Gamble overturned that decision. The most recent legal filing is an appeal of the appeal.
Response from Environmental Groups
In response, Stop 3009 Vulcan Friends of Dry Comal Creek said, “Unsurprisingly, TCEQ and Vulcan Construction Materials are filing a legal appeal, attempting to overturn the decision rendered by Judge Guerra-Gamble vacating Vulcan’s air permit. The appeal will be heard by the Third Court of Appeals.”
“While Vulcan’s motivations seem transparent, it’s a bit puzzling that TCEQ is spending taxpayer dollars and agency resources ostensibly supporting an out-of-state corporation, and in visible opposition to hundreds of Texans they are supposed to protect!”
Gist of Judge’s Ruling
I first reported on this issue on March 18, 2021. 459th Civil District Court Judge Guerra-Gamble ruled that:
TCEQ’s assertion that the quarry would not harm human health or welfare was not supported by evidence.
Vulcan’s emissions calculations were not representative and not supported by substantial evidence.
Vulcan’s air quality analysis did not account for cumulative impacts or emissions from the quarry and roads.
Vulcan’s choice of background concentration was arbitrary or capricious.
In the contested case hearing, the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) judge erred in allowing Vulcan to hide behind “trade secret” claims.
Plaintiffs were denied due process when the SOAH judge allowed Vulcan to conceal data using the “trade secret” excuse and did not allow plaintiffs to cross-examine Vulcan.
The TCEQ describes its mission as protecting the state’s public health and natural resources consistent with sustainable economic development. Its goal is “clean air, clean water, and the safe management of waste.”
Finding Balance Between Over-Regulation and Under-Protection
If Texas is to continue to grow, it must find the right balance between over-regulation and under-protection. We must also find ways to live with the legacy of 3-mile-wide quarries, such as the one Vulcan proposes – if that is, indeed, the only way to grow.
Below is a picture of the San Jacinto West Fork. Twenty square miles of sand mines ring the river between I-69 and I-45. This area will be scarred forever.
The giant Hallett aggregate mine on the West Fork of the San Jacinto is almost 2 miles east to west and 2 miles north to south.
Concrete lasts a few years, but the giant pits and the equipment concrete producers leave behind last forever. We must protect the environment that provides quality of life in order to attract new residents.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/4/2021
1375 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/blasting-dust-1.jpg?fit=900%2C600&ssl=1600900adminadmin2021-06-04 14:16:292021-06-04 14:24:21TCEQ Joins Aggregate Company in Appealing Revocation of Air-Quality Permit
LSGCD Hearing Public Comments 2 PM Monday on Desired Future Conditions, Subsidence
The time for sitting on the sidelines of the subsidence debate is over. Groundwater Management Area 14 (GMA-14) has finalized its proposed desired future conditions (DFCs). Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District (LSGCD) is fighting them. It wants to exclude any mention of subsidence. So if you disagree with that point of view, speak up now or live with the consequences. LSGCD will hold a board meeting Monday at 2 pm to hear public comments. You can also register your opinions in writing until July 19, 2021.
See more below about the background of this crucial debate including a discussion of the issues; pros and cons; how you can make your voice heard and where you can get more information.
How GMAs Set Goals
GMA-14 comprises most of southeast Texas. See map below. It includes five groundwater conservation districts and two subsidence districts and four counties that have neither.
One purpose of a GMA is to bind the people of a region together to meet common goals. Significantly, if one county wants to abandon surface water and pump unlimited amounts of cheaper groundwater, it must first get permission from the other members of the GMA. That’s because pumping groundwater has consequences. It can cause neighboring wells to go dry, leaving rural ranchers without options.
It can also cause subsidence, in which one area sinks relative to surrounding areas. That can alter the gradient of rivers, causing water to move slower and back up more. Subsidence can also trigger geologic fault movement, disrupt pipelines, damage homes, and crack pavement.
Because of subsidence, some areas near the coast have actually sunk beneath the waves. Others farther inland have created giant bowls in the landscape that contribute to flooding.
In setting goals, GMAs also consider factors such as economic development and population growth. They typically plan 50 years or more ahead to ensure adequate water supplies.
Proposed Desired Future Conditions for GMA-14
GMA-14 has debated its next set of desired future conditions (DFCs) since 2016. At its last meeting, members finally adopted the following statement.
Click here for the full text surrounding the DFCs.
Let’s break that down:
Lone Star GCD Tries to Break Away
LSGCD has used a variety of arguments to fight the subsidence metric in DFCs. All failed to convince other GMA-14 members. Now LSGCD claims it will reach the drawdown limit before it reaches the subsidence limit, so subsidence should not be included in the limits.
At the last MoCo Commissioners Court Meeting, the LSGCD board chair made pled with commissioners to support omitting subsidence as a metric, even though, he claims, it would never limit pumping.
Many observers have repeatedly commented on this position. “If it’s not a limiting factor, why fight it so hard?” they ask. LSGCD keeps repeating the argument without offering a satisfactory answer or showing proof. That raises even more suspicions. It’s like when your kid comes home and brags how well (s)he did in one class and refuses to discuss grades in others.
Pros and Cons
Surface water costs more than groundwater for several reasons. In this part of the world, surface water must be trapped in man-made lakes, treated extensively, and then shipped to users via canals or a pipeline network. In contrast, wells can be drilled near users on very little land.
But if everyone used well-water exclusively, aquifers would deplete rapidly, wells would run dry, and subsidence would kick in.
USGS describes subsidence as an issue in 45 states, chief among them Texas, California and Florida.
Aquifers can eventually recharge if you leave them alone long enough. But subsidence is forever. It occurs when “clay lenses” get smashed due to dehydration. Rehydrating them is impossible. One water professional used this analogy: Imagine smashing a brownie and then pouring water on it. It won’t return to its original state.
Also consider that the proposed subsidence limit is an average. In its sparsely populated northern reaches in the Sam Houston National Forest, MoCo has little water demand. However, in southern MoCo is growing by leaps and bounds.
Subsidence has already proven to be an issue there. It has triggered faults and cracked home slabs. Many feel they are now more susceptible to flooding because their homes sit in bowls between faults.
Critics of LSGCD’s move to eliminate a subsidence metric point out that without it, groundwater pumpers could exceed the drawdown limit and simply claim that aquifers would magically recharge in the last few years of the plan.
Some neighborhoods in The Woodlands ALREADY SUBSIDED BY ALMOST A HALF FOOT BETWEEN 2009 and 2019. And four of those years followed a conversion to surface water that reduced the rate of subsidence 75%. So it’s real.
Modeling also shows that Kingwood and Humble could subside 3 feet because of excessive groundwater pumping in MoCo while the Lake Houston Dam subsides only one foot. That could raise water floodwaters at the top of Lake Houston another 2 feet relative to the spillway at the dam.
What Happens Is Up to You
Some people may prefer cheap water today and not care about the future or downstream neighbors.
People downstream from Montgomery County in Harris and Galveston Counties have already seen the damage subsidence can cause. They have decided collectively to move to more surface water. And they have invested heavily to bring more of it to the area and treat it – with the Luce Bayou Interbasin Transfer Project and the City of Houston’s new Northeast Water Purification Plant.
The irony is that SJRA already built a surface water treatment plant, which some now advocate abandoning.
What’s more important to you? Short- or long-term savings? Leveling a foundation; repaving your driveway; repairing cracked walls and ceilings; and recovering from a flood cost far more than a few dollars a month on your water bill.
How To Register Your Concerns
Submit comments to LSGCD by:
Email: info@lonestargcd.org with the subject line “DFC Comments” no later than 11:59 p.m. on Jul. 19, 2021.
In Person: 2PM AT THE LONE STAR GCD OFFICE IN THE JAMES B. “JIM” WESLEY BOARD ROOM, 655 CONROE PARK NORTH DRIVE, CONROE, TEXAS 77303.
Via Webinar: Register at https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_VnPqSCCnSFGfHMQDZ6pd_Q. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. You can pre-register for the webinar at any time.
If you pre-register via the URL meeting link above, a password will be emailed to you in advance of the webinar. If you use the password to log, you WILL have the opportunity to provide live comments during the meeting. Use Webinar ID: 861 0914 6147 Password: Received via pre-registration.
To see a live broadcast, but not comment: https://lonestargcd.new.swagit.com/views/58.
For More Information
A group of informed and concerned MoCo residents have started a website called StopOurSinking.com. Click on their Learn More Page for videos, FAQs, presentations, and news stories. And don’t miss, the legal page “Does a groundwater pumper have the right to cause sinking?”
You can also find several articles on this website. The easiest way to find them is by going to the index page and searching for GMA-14, Groundwater Management Area 14, Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District, LSGCD, or subsidence.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/6/2021
1377 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
Eight TCEQ Investigations Reprimand Colony Ridge Construction Practices
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) finalized nine investigations into Colony Ridge construction practices this week. Eight of the nine found violations. And six of the eight scolded Colony Ridge for lack of best management practices relating to erosion controls. The other two cited Colony Ridge for operating without a permit.
Summary of Violations
The TCEQ meticulously documented the findings with dozens of photos and supporting documents. The nine investigations total 2,341 pages. Below is a summary of the investigation numbers, subdivisions and violations:
The best management practices and erosion control measures cited above are designed to prevent the rivers of mud seen coming from Colony Ridge. The mud has partially plugged local creeks in Plum Grove, contributing to flooding. It has also contributed to sediment buildup farther downstream near the mouth bar of the San Jacinto East Fork.
Violations apply only to TCEQ regulations, not Liberty County’s drainage standards. The Liberty County attorney is reportedly conducting a separate investigation into Colony Ridge construction practices and engineering reports.
Nature of Violations
Six of the TCEQ violations relate to best management practices and erosion control. For instance:
But the investigations found little evidence of any such practices. And when they did, the measures were often ineffective due to lack of maintenance. For instance, water eroded around and under silt fences, rendering them useless.
When you clear thousands of acres at a time, erosion control is important to protect downstream neighbors.
Two of the other investigations found Colony Ridge operating without a valid permit.
Conditions For Obtaining Permits
The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requires developers to formulate Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) as a condition of obtaining their permits. The plans should:
The goals of pollution prevention plans include:
Penalties Unclear at This Time
It’s unclear at this time whether the TCEQ violations will result in any fines for Colony Ridge. Typically, the TCEQ gives regulated entities a chance to remedy violations before levying fines. However, the recurring nature of these violations may call for a new approach. TCEQ has warned Colony Ridge about similar issues in the past, saying that Colony Ridge violations could adversely affect human health. However, violations continue.
Clearly, the ability to fix problems without a fine – after silt has been discharged into bayous, streams and rivers – seems like an incentive to ignore, not obey, regulations. Violators can simply fix problems if caught and, if not, take their profits to the bank.
Conclusions of All Nine Reports
The reports comprise almost 650 megabytes. They are far too large to post in a forum like this. However, I have captured screen shots of the reports’ conclusions for those who wish more detail.
For full reports, visit the TCEQ website.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/5/2021, based on TCEQ investigations
1376 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
TCEQ Joins Aggregate Company in Appealing Revocation of Air-Quality Permit
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has joined an aggregate company it regulates in appealing a judge’s decision that voided an air-quality permit issued to the aggregate producer.
Much at Stake
On March 5, 2021, two Texas Hill County environmental groups, Stop 3009 Vulcan Quarry and Friends of Dry Comal Creek won a lawsuit voiding the air-quality permit issued to Vulcan Materials. Vulcan needs the permit to turn a former ranch in Comal County into a 1500-acre open-pit limestone quarry and rock crushing plant. The property is in the middle of residential developments. It also sits atop the recharge zone for the Edwards Aquifer. That aquifer supplies drinking water for 2 million people.
The environmental groups’ celebration of the judge’s ruling was short-lived, however. On April 30th, the TCEQ joined Vulcan in filing an appeal.
Battle Started in 2017
The court battle between residents, Alabama-based Vulcan and the TCEQ has raged since June 2017 when Vulcan initially applied for a TCEQ air-quality permit. The groups objected. An administrative judge first supported the TCEQ and Vulcan. But District Court Judge Maya Guerra-Gamble overturned that decision. The most recent legal filing is an appeal of the appeal.
Response from Environmental Groups
In response, Stop 3009 Vulcan Friends of Dry Comal Creek said, “Unsurprisingly, TCEQ and Vulcan Construction Materials are filing a legal appeal, attempting to overturn the decision rendered by Judge Guerra-Gamble vacating Vulcan’s air permit. The appeal will be heard by the Third Court of Appeals.”
“While Vulcan’s motivations seem transparent, it’s a bit puzzling that TCEQ is spending taxpayer dollars and agency resources ostensibly supporting an out-of-state corporation, and in visible opposition to hundreds of Texans they are supposed to protect!”
Gist of Judge’s Ruling
I first reported on this issue on March 18, 2021. 459th Civil District Court Judge Guerra-Gamble ruled that:
This May 20, 2021, story by Stephanie Johnson in My Canyon Lake, an online newspaper, provides additional detail.
Whom Does TCEQ Represent?
However, some feel that the regulators have become too close with those they regulate. And there was an attempt in this year’s legislature to transfer regulation of aggregate mines to the Railroad Commission of Texas. The bill, HB4341, died in the House Environmental Regulation Committee. Notably, it would have created criminal offenses for making false statements in official documents such as permit applications and reports.
Finding Balance Between Over-Regulation and Under-Protection
If Texas is to continue to grow, it must find the right balance between over-regulation and under-protection. We must also find ways to live with the legacy of 3-mile-wide quarries, such as the one Vulcan proposes – if that is, indeed, the only way to grow.
Below is a picture of the San Jacinto West Fork. Twenty square miles of sand mines ring the river between I-69 and I-45. This area will be scarred forever.
Concrete lasts a few years, but the giant pits and the equipment concrete producers leave behind last forever. We must protect the environment that provides quality of life in order to attract new residents.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/4/2021
1375 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.