Samantha Reiter, General Manager of LSGCD, has repeatedly stated for months that subsidence is not a limiting factor in Montgomery County, so it shouldn’t be included in DFCs for Montgomery County. She made three motions in the GMA-14 meeting last week that would have let LSGCD avoid a subsidence limitation that she claimed did not apply.
The study – which might or might not support that conclusion – will take 60 weeks to complete. But the Texas Water Development Board deadline for DFCs from all groundwater management areas is January 5, 2022 – in 38 weeks.
The study will cost $122,700 and arrive 22 weeks after the train leaves the station.
A thorough reader will also note that while LSGCD has been trumpeting “subsidence is not a limiting factor here,” the scope of work acknowledges that Phase One of the study was basically a literature review of pre-existing studies. Most of those were based in other counties.
The ostensible purpose of the Phase Two study is to develop data specific to Montgomery County and LSGCD (see pages 1/2). So it appears, they may not really obtain data to prove or disprove their claim until long after DFCs must be finalized by statute.
Lone Star Still Hopeful It Can Avoid Subsidence Metric
To her credit, Ms. Reiter admitted later in the board meeting that GMA-14 rejected her three alternative motions to make a subsidence DFC optional. However, during that discussion, she also said she thought part of the pushback came because she circulated her motion(s) for review at 11 p.m. the night before the meeting. That angered some people who said they had been begging for motions to review, even if only in draft form, for months.
Reiter stated last night to her board that she hoped those GMA-14 members would reconsider her motions in October. That would happen after the public comment period on the DFCs adopted last Friday. However, making a major change at that point might trigger a second 90-day public comment period. That’s going to be tight. Only 91 days exist between October 6th (the next GMA-14 meeting) and January 5, the state’s mandatory deadline.
Two Potential Issues with Study Scope
First, LSGCD said it plans to review the DFCs with stakeholders. But many of the people impacted are outside Montgomery County and they aren’t considered “stakeholders.” For instance, models show that at the rate LSGCD wants to pump groundwater, it would cause approximately 3 feet of subsidence in the Kingwood, Humble, Atascocita and Huffman areas but only 1 foot of subsidence at the Lake Houston Dam. That would essentially bring floodwaters two feet closer to upstream homes in Harris County. But we’re not considered LSGCD stakeholders.
Second, the scope of work for the Lone Star subsidence study says, “we will evaluate logs up to 10 miles beyond the Montgomery County boundary to aid in constraining the interpolation of surfaces within LSGC.” Said another way, it appears that they won’t evaluate their impact on Harris County. The purpose of a groundwater management area is to bind all the people of a region together in a common cause. But that doesn’t seem to be happening here.
Fortunately, Harris County residents will still have an opportunity to provide input directly to GMA-14 or the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District.
People must stay engaged on this issue. We should not assume it is behind us simply because GMA-14 adopted some proposed DFCs for public comment.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/14/2021
1324 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/2019/02/LakeHoustonDamDuringHarvey.jpg?fit=1500%2C968&ssl=19681500adminadmin2021-04-14 16:23:122021-04-14 16:23:16LSGCD Finally Approves Phase II of Subsidence Study, Only One Problem…
On Friday, April 9, 2021, Texas Groundwater Management Area-14 (GMA-14), which comprises 21 counties in Southeast Texas, finally adopted metrics for Desired Future Conditions (DFCs). These define how much groundwater each conservation district can pump from aquifers and how much subsidence they will tolerate until 2080.
However, Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District (LSGCD) continued to fight a subsidence metric even though they repeatedly claimed subsidence was not an issue for them. They fought to make the subsidence metric optional in Montgomery County. When that failed, discussion shifted to how much flexibility LSGCD has to implement goals adopted by the group.
Below, I summarize meeting highlights. The time codes below will take you to the relevant portions of the video. You can access it by clicking this link. It will take you to a registration page. Fill in your name and email, and click register to view the video.
Opening Comments
Public comments, a motion to approve minutes from previous meetings and a request by the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) for feedback on the state water plan took up the first twenty and a half minutes.
General Discussion of DFCs
At 20:33, the group started discussing Agenda Items 7 and 8 regarding the DFCs. For the next half hour they discussed, in general terms:
What happens if GMA-14 and Lone Star disagree on DFCs (18:30)
The process of evaluating proposals (25:30)
What DFCs mean (30:30)
Which goals are most relevant where (32:00)
Limiting factors within each district and how each gets to decide the best way to achieve goals in its Groundwater Reduction Plans (37:15)
DFCs considered by the group in previous months (38.30)
The importance of measuring subsidence (41:30)
How Lone Star wants the flexibility to determine which metrics apply to itself, i.e., not measuring subsidence (46:20)
First Motion
Having laid the groundwork for voting on DFCs, at 50:30, the group began making motions. The first was to adopt Resolution 2021-04-09. This is resolution features multiple metrics based on the Houston Area Groundwater Model approved by the TWDB. Specifics include:
No less than 70% of available drawdown will remain in wells by 2080 (defined by the average height of water columns in wells to well bottoms).
One foot of additional subsidence on average across a county
A pumping increase of no more than 30,000 acre feet per year
Cover page of first motion to be approved, complete with “whereas’s”
John Martin, the chairman of GMA-14, stated that he believes this is the “most centrist” of the different scenarios the group had been examining. (52:30)
Samantha Reiter, general manager of the LSGCD in MoCo, said that she had quite a few issues with this motion. Her board did not approve it, therefore she opposed it. She also stated that she believed “each county should be able to adopt its own metrics. That’s critical.”
At 56:20, members vote. The motion carried 4 to 1. Only LSGCD voted No. Everyone breathed half a sigh of relief. But it didn’t end there.
Second Motion (LSGCD’s First)
At 57:20, Reiter made the first of three alternative, rapid-fire motions. She requested members adopt a resolution that she sent to them for review at 11 p.m. the previous evening. This motion gave groundwater conservation districts the flexibility to adopt metrics that work best for them. Reiter claims “subsidence is not a limiting factor” in MoCo, so she “can’t support it.”
Editorial comment: She’s saying in essence, “Subsidence is irrelevant because it won’t come into play. Then she argues tooth and nail against including the metric as she has for months. Why? It makes one suspicious.
Bob Rehak
At 61:30, she recapped key elements of her motion. They included:
Leave 70% of groundwater in place by 2080 for those counties where that’s a limiting factor
No more than 1 foot average subsidence for those counties where that’s a limiting factor
Each district can adopt the metric it chooses based on “Model Run D.”
During the discussion, Reiter also claims, “This doesn’t impact anyone else.” A critic points out that that is false. He also points out that Model Run D was not in the written resolution she submitted.
The motion fails: 2 FOR, 3 AGAINST.
Third Motion (LSGCD’s Second)
When that motion failed, Reiter immediately made another at 1:07:15. Key elements included:
Leave 70% of groundwater in place
Optional subsidence metric.
This motion also died.
Fourth Motion (LSGCD’s Third)
At 1:11:30, Reiter immediately made her third alternative motion: “That we approve two alternative motions, the one already approved and the one I just laid out” (with an optional subsidence metric). She wants to put BOTH out for public comment.
At 1:12:50, the representative from TWDB says, “I don’t see a provision under Chapter 36 for competing proposals.” He adds, “That’s not what the GMA is tasked with doing.”
A lawyer observes at 1:17:30 that the motion needs to be clear enough for people to provide public comment. He also worries that if one of the alternatives is substantially modified after public comment, that they might need a second round of public comment.
Reiter then modifies the motion at 1:19:30. She stripped from her proposal the wording of the previously approved, written resolution. She also suggested that they vote only on the metrics which are virtually identical to those approved in the very first motion. Then she calls on Stacey Reese, Lone Star’s legal counsel, who chimes in at 1:21:30. Reese explores the nooks and crannies of legal nuance with the other lawyer and the TWDB. She asserts that:
They don’t need to vote on a full resolution with explanatory text.
They can make two proposals.
If you propose multiple alternatives for public comment, it’s no violation of the rules. Therefore, there would be no need to go back out for public comment a second time.
Members attempted to clarify the motion at 1:19. Basically, the “resolution” turned into a statement of metrics from the very first motion (minus the “whereas’s”).
They never do circle back to whether a subsidence metric would be optional.
At 1:24:30, Martin asks what the purpose of all that was. That question remains.
At 1:28:30, the motion passes unanimously. The cost of not printing a lengthy legal notice in newspapers appeals to some of the members. This apparently superseded the first motion; but that was never clarified.
Next Steps
GMA-14’s technical consultant will craft language to be specific about what the motion does or doesn’t include. (1:30:30). According to Martin, at a minimum, the statement of Proposed DFCs will include two metrics:
No less than 70% median available drawdown remaining in 2080
No more than 1 additional foot of average subsidence between 2009 and 2080. Then they set the next meeting for the first Wednesday in October and adjourned.
Then the statement will be put out for public comment. More news to follow.
How those metrics were explained in the first resolution adopted earlier.
LSGCD Meeting 6 PM Tonight
The regularly scheduled April meeting of the LSGCD board is tonight. It will be interesting to see how Reiter spins the results of the GMA-14 meeting. Here’s the agenda and background information. Pay particular attention to Items 9 through 12. They include discussion of the second phase of a subsidence study, results of the GMA-14 meeting, and a discussion of the legal implications. Here’s how to watch it live. If you want to make public comments, see the instructions in the agenda. The fun starts at 6 p.m.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/13/2021 (Updated at 6pm to revise time codes per newly posted video).
1323 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/2021/04/Groundwater-Resolution.jpg?fit=1200%2C641&ssl=16411200adminadmin2021-04-13 14:08:522021-04-13 18:37:03GMA-14 Adopts Desired Future Conditions, But Not Without a Fight from LSGCD
State Representative Dan Huberty has introduced House Bill 2525. It would create a Lake Houston Dredging and Maintenance District within Harris County. That would include the headwaters of the lake on the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto. The District would have the power to remove sediment and debris on an ongoing basis in perpetuity.
Rogers Gully Mouth Bar. Many ditches and streams around the lake are blocked like this one.
The District would NOT have the power to levy taxes or condemn land, but it COULD enter into interlocal agreements with political subdivisions and corporate entities to help cover expenses and repayment of bonds. The Mayor of Houston and the Harris County Judge would appoint a board to govern the District.
House Bill 2525 would take effect immediately if receives a two-thirds vote of both houses. Otherwise, it would take effect on September 1, 2021 if signed into law by the governor.
Brandon Creighton has filed an identical companion bill in the Senate, SB 1892. Neither bill has passed through committees yet.
Public Hearing Scheduled for Tomorrow Morning
The House Natural Resources Committee will hold public hearings on HB 2525 Tuesday morning, 4/13/2021. You can support the bill three ways at this point:
Texas residents who wish to electronically submit comments related to agenda items on this notice without testifying in person can do so until the hearing is adjourned. See: https://comments.house.texas.gov/home?c=c390
The House convenes at 10 AM and the committee will reconvene upon adjournment. “If we do not get to the bill in those first two hours,” said Casey Christman, Huberty’s assistant, “it may be last afternoon before it gets heard. It could end up being a very lengthy day.”
Key Points to Make
All things considered, I chose to register my support via the house website. It could not have been easier and only took a couple minutes. The site is extremely well organized. The key points I made included:
Maintenance on the lake has been deferred for decades.
The removal of accumulated sediment will reduce flooding and increase lake capacity.
This will support the economic vitality of the region.
Even though most of the above-water portion of the West Fork Mouth Bar have been removed by now, this chart of depth soundings shows that an underwater plateau still exists that can force flood waters up and out of the channel.
Please support House Bill 2525. To learn more about sediment and debris buildups around the lake, see these posts:
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/2020/07/20200616-RJR_3355.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2021-04-12 15:57:542021-04-12 16:30:03How to Support House Bill 2525 and Additional Dredging for Lake Houston Area
LSGCD Finally Approves Phase II of Subsidence Study, Only One Problem…
At its April 13, 2021 board meeting, the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District (LSGCD) finally approved Phase 2 of its Subsidence Study. Approval of the study had been on the agenda for months, but kept getting postponed. It was only after Groundwater Management Agency 14 (GMA-14) insisted on a subsidence metric in its Desired Future Conditions (DFCs) last Friday, that LSGCD finally approved the study this Tuesday.
Samantha Reiter, General Manager of LSGCD, has repeatedly stated for months that subsidence is not a limiting factor in Montgomery County, so it shouldn’t be included in DFCs for Montgomery County. She made three motions in the GMA-14 meeting last week that would have let LSGCD avoid a subsidence limitation that she claimed did not apply.
The study – which might or might not support that conclusion – will take 60 weeks to complete. But the Texas Water Development Board deadline for DFCs from all groundwater management areas is January 5, 2022 – in 38 weeks.
For the full details of the study scope of work, costs, and timetable that LSGCD approved last night, click here.
Scope of Work to Focus on MoCo
A thorough reader will also note that while LSGCD has been trumpeting “subsidence is not a limiting factor here,” the scope of work acknowledges that Phase One of the study was basically a literature review of pre-existing studies. Most of those were based in other counties.
The ostensible purpose of the Phase Two study is to develop data specific to Montgomery County and LSGCD (see pages 1/2). So it appears, they may not really obtain data to prove or disprove their claim until long after DFCs must be finalized by statute.
Lone Star Still Hopeful It Can Avoid Subsidence Metric
To her credit, Ms. Reiter admitted later in the board meeting that GMA-14 rejected her three alternative motions to make a subsidence DFC optional. However, during that discussion, she also said she thought part of the pushback came because she circulated her motion(s) for review at 11 p.m. the night before the meeting. That angered some people who said they had been begging for motions to review, even if only in draft form, for months.
Reiter stated last night to her board that she hoped those GMA-14 members would reconsider her motions in October. That would happen after the public comment period on the DFCs adopted last Friday. However, making a major change at that point might trigger a second 90-day public comment period. That’s going to be tight. Only 91 days exist between October 6th (the next GMA-14 meeting) and January 5, the state’s mandatory deadline.
Two Potential Issues with Study Scope
First, LSGCD said it plans to review the DFCs with stakeholders. But many of the people impacted are outside Montgomery County and they aren’t considered “stakeholders.” For instance, models show that at the rate LSGCD wants to pump groundwater, it would cause approximately 3 feet of subsidence in the Kingwood, Humble, Atascocita and Huffman areas but only 1 foot of subsidence at the Lake Houston Dam. That would essentially bring floodwaters two feet closer to upstream homes in Harris County. But we’re not considered LSGCD stakeholders.
Second, the scope of work for the Lone Star subsidence study says, “we will evaluate logs up to 10 miles beyond the Montgomery County boundary to aid in constraining the interpolation of surfaces within LSGC.” Said another way, it appears that they won’t evaluate their impact on Harris County. The purpose of a groundwater management area is to bind all the people of a region together in a common cause. But that doesn’t seem to be happening here.
Fortunately, Harris County residents will still have an opportunity to provide input directly to GMA-14 or the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District.
People must stay engaged on this issue. We should not assume it is behind us simply because GMA-14 adopted some proposed DFCs for public comment.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/14/2021
1324 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.
GMA-14 Adopts Desired Future Conditions, But Not Without a Fight from LSGCD
On Friday, April 9, 2021, Texas Groundwater Management Area-14 (GMA-14), which comprises 21 counties in Southeast Texas, finally adopted metrics for Desired Future Conditions (DFCs). These define how much groundwater each conservation district can pump from aquifers and how much subsidence they will tolerate until 2080.
However, Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District (LSGCD) continued to fight a subsidence metric even though they repeatedly claimed subsidence was not an issue for them. They fought to make the subsidence metric optional in Montgomery County. When that failed, discussion shifted to how much flexibility LSGCD has to implement goals adopted by the group.
Below, I summarize meeting highlights. The time codes below will take you to the relevant portions of the video. You can access it by clicking this link. It will take you to a registration page. Fill in your name and email, and click register to view the video.
Opening Comments
Public comments, a motion to approve minutes from previous meetings and a request by the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) for feedback on the state water plan took up the first twenty and a half minutes.
General Discussion of DFCs
At 20:33, the group started discussing Agenda Items 7 and 8 regarding the DFCs. For the next half hour they discussed, in general terms:
First Motion
Having laid the groundwork for voting on DFCs, at 50:30, the group began making motions. The first was to adopt Resolution 2021-04-09. This is resolution features multiple metrics based on the Houston Area Groundwater Model approved by the TWDB. Specifics include:
John Martin, the chairman of GMA-14, stated that he believes this is the “most centrist” of the different scenarios the group had been examining. (52:30)
Samantha Reiter, general manager of the LSGCD in MoCo, said that she had quite a few issues with this motion. Her board did not approve it, therefore she opposed it. She also stated that she believed “each county should be able to adopt its own metrics. That’s critical.”
At 56:20, members vote. The motion carried 4 to 1. Only LSGCD voted No. Everyone breathed half a sigh of relief. But it didn’t end there.
Second Motion (LSGCD’s First)
At 57:20, Reiter made the first of three alternative, rapid-fire motions. She requested members adopt a resolution that she sent to them for review at 11 p.m. the previous evening. This motion gave groundwater conservation districts the flexibility to adopt metrics that work best for them. Reiter claims “subsidence is not a limiting factor” in MoCo, so she “can’t support it.”
At 61:30, she recapped key elements of her motion. They included:
During the discussion, Reiter also claims, “This doesn’t impact anyone else.” A critic points out that that is false. He also points out that Model Run D was not in the written resolution she submitted.
The motion fails: 2 FOR, 3 AGAINST.
Third Motion (LSGCD’s Second)
When that motion failed, Reiter immediately made another at 1:07:15. Key elements included:
This motion also died.
Fourth Motion (LSGCD’s Third)
At 1:11:30, Reiter immediately made her third alternative motion: “That we approve two alternative motions, the one already approved and the one I just laid out” (with an optional subsidence metric). She wants to put BOTH out for public comment.
At 1:12:50, the representative from TWDB says, “I don’t see a provision under Chapter 36 for competing proposals.” He adds, “That’s not what the GMA is tasked with doing.”
A lawyer observes at 1:17:30 that the motion needs to be clear enough for people to provide public comment. He also worries that if one of the alternatives is substantially modified after public comment, that they might need a second round of public comment.
Reiter then modifies the motion at 1:19:30. She stripped from her proposal the wording of the previously approved, written resolution. She also suggested that they vote only on the metrics which are virtually identical to those approved in the very first motion. Then she calls on Stacey Reese, Lone Star’s legal counsel, who chimes in at 1:21:30. Reese explores the nooks and crannies of legal nuance with the other lawyer and the TWDB. She asserts that:
Members attempted to clarify the motion at 1:19. Basically, the “resolution” turned into a statement of metrics from the very first motion (minus the “whereas’s”).
At 1:24:30, Martin asks what the purpose of all that was. That question remains.
At 1:28:30, the motion passes unanimously. The cost of not printing a lengthy legal notice in newspapers appeals to some of the members. This apparently superseded the first motion; but that was never clarified.
Next Steps
GMA-14’s technical consultant will craft language to be specific about what the motion does or doesn’t include. (1:30:30). According to Martin, at a minimum, the statement of Proposed DFCs will include two metrics:
Then the statement will be put out for public comment. More news to follow.
LSGCD Meeting 6 PM Tonight
The regularly scheduled April meeting of the LSGCD board is tonight. It will be interesting to see how Reiter spins the results of the GMA-14 meeting. Here’s the agenda and background information. Pay particular attention to Items 9 through 12. They include discussion of the second phase of a subsidence study, results of the GMA-14 meeting, and a discussion of the legal implications. Here’s how to watch it live. If you want to make public comments, see the instructions in the agenda. The fun starts at 6 p.m.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/13/2021 (Updated at 6pm to revise time codes per newly posted video).
1323 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.
How to Support House Bill 2525 and Additional Dredging for Lake Houston Area
State Representative Dan Huberty has introduced House Bill 2525. It would create a Lake Houston Dredging and Maintenance District within Harris County. That would include the headwaters of the lake on the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto. The District would have the power to remove sediment and debris on an ongoing basis in perpetuity.
The District would NOT have the power to levy taxes or condemn land, but it COULD enter into interlocal agreements with political subdivisions and corporate entities to help cover expenses and repayment of bonds. The Mayor of Houston and the Harris County Judge would appoint a board to govern the District.
House Bill 2525 would take effect immediately if receives a two-thirds vote of both houses. Otherwise, it would take effect on September 1, 2021 if signed into law by the governor.
Brandon Creighton has filed an identical companion bill in the Senate, SB 1892. Neither bill has passed through committees yet.
Public Hearing Scheduled for Tomorrow Morning
The House Natural Resources Committee will hold public hearings on HB 2525 Tuesday morning, 4/13/2021. You can support the bill three ways at this point:
For in-person witness registration, see: https://mytxlegis.capitol.texas.gov/HWRSPublic/About.aspx. Instructions related to public access to the meeting location, and health and safety protocols for attending this meeting are available at: https://house.texas.gov/committees/public-access-house-committee-meetings/
A live video broadcast of this hearing will be available at: https://house.texas.gov/video-audio/
Texas residents who wish to electronically submit comments related to agenda items on this notice without testifying in person can do so until the hearing is adjourned. See: https://comments.house.texas.gov/home?c=c390
Huberty’s office is not sure what order the committee will call the bills up. But the hearing will begin at 8 AM. https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/schedules/html/C3902021041308001.htm
The House convenes at 10 AM and the committee will reconvene upon adjournment. “If we do not get to the bill in those first two hours,” said Casey Christman, Huberty’s assistant, “it may be last afternoon before it gets heard. It could end up being a very lengthy day.”
Key Points to Make
All things considered, I chose to register my support via the house website. It could not have been easier and only took a couple minutes. The site is extremely well organized. The key points I made included:
Please support House Bill 2525. To learn more about sediment and debris buildups around the lake, see these posts:
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/12/2021
1322 Days after 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.