Is Time Running Out for Sand?

Given the amount of sand we’re currently trying to remove from the mouth bar of the West Fork, this post may seem counter-intuitive to many. However…

Worldwide, sand is becoming scarce according to a number of recent reports and articles from respected sources. And as the scarcity transforms economies, it also transforms our environment.

Sand mine complex on the west fork of the San Jacinto adjacent to Kingwood.

Many now question the sustainability of an economy built on sand extraction from rivers and are exploring ways to reduce our dependence on that source … or import sand from places that are still producing it faster than they are using it.

Sand from Greenland?

An article in the New York Times points to people who are actually researching the feasibility of exporting sand produced by Greenland glaciers to Europe where river mining is outlawed in many countries. Such an endeavor would raise the cost of sand.

The article quotes Jason C. Willett, a minerals commodity specialist with the United States Geological Survey. “Currently almost all sand is mined within 50 miles of where it is used,” he said. “Once you move it any distance, it then costs too much.”

Regardless, the world makes so much concrete (more than 10 billion tons a year), that producers are investigating new ways to supply demand. Population is forecast to grow by more than 25 percent by 2050. “That makes sand, which is about 40 percent of concrete by weight, one of the most-used commodities in the world, and one that is becoming harder to come by in some regions,” says the Times.

Sand Extracted Faster than Nature Replacing It

Another article in the July 2019 international journal of science called Nature claims, “Sand and gravel are being extracted faster than they can be replaced.”

The article goes on to say:

  • Sand and gravel make up the most extracted group of materials, even exceeding fossil fuels1.
  • Urbanization and global population growth are fuelling an explosion in demand, especially in China, India and Africa2.
  • Roughly 32 billion to 50 billion tonnes are used globally each year, mainly for making concrete, glass and electronics3. (Note: this number is higher than the one quoted above but also includes additional uses.)
  • This exceeds the pace of natural renewal4 such that by mid-century, demand might outstrip supply2.
  • Desert sand grains are too smooth to be useful, and most of the angular sand that is suitable for industry comes from rivers (less than 1% of the world’s land)5.
  • This extraction of sand and gravel has far-reaching impacts on ecology, infrastructure and the livelihoods of the 3 billion people who live along rivers3,6,7

For example, the Nature article says, “In the Mekong delta, the Vietnamese government estimates that nearly 500,000 people will need to be moved away from river banks that are collapsing as a result of sand mining in the channel.”

Likewise, in Bangladesh, the Umngi River expanded when people started mining sand from the river bid.

From the July 2019 issue of Nature

UNEP Questions Sustainability

Another recent report by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) says, “Shifting consumption patterns, growing populations, increasing urbanization and infrastructure development have increased demand for sand three-fold over the last two decades,” claims the UN Report. “Further to this, damming and extraction have reduced sediment delivery from rivers to many coastal areas, leading to reduced deposits in river deltas and accelerated beach erosion.”

The report also called for reducing demand for sand and gravel through improved designs that cut the amount of concrete in buildings and infrastructure. (Lighter designs would also help address carbon dioxide emissions: Manufacturing cement, the reactive ingredient in concrete, creatives about 5 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions.

UNEP also warns that, “To meet demand in a world of 10 billion people without harming the environment, effective policy, planning, regulation and management will be needed. Currently, sand extraction and use is defined by its local geography and governance context and does not have the same rules, practices and ethics worldwide.” The report aims to start a productive global conversation on sand extraction.

“To curb irresponsible and illegal extraction, ” the report suggests a customization of existing standards and best practices to national circumstances.”

To read or download the full report on sand and sustainability, click here.

Difficulty of Change

Like all large scale transformations, this one will not be smooth or simple. The problem with all such reports is that they apply global observations to local conditions. And local conditions always govern actions and economics. As long as it’s cheaper to mine local sand than import it from Greenland, someone will mine it locally.

Those transportation costs can be a killer. In commodity businesses, every penny saved represents a competitive advantage. When you track that penny through the supply chain to the cost of finished goods ( i.e., to a house, a building, or a street, for example), it can have a substantial impact on affordability.

In a highly competitive, free-market economy like ours, producers will always fight to lower their cost of production. Getting them to voluntarily adopt practices that could benefit society is tough.

We can’t even get sand miners to push back 100 feet from the river. 4,000 miles to Greenland is a bit of a stretch!

That tiny problem aside, the value of reports such as these is that they let us develop alternatives before time runs out.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/16/2019

686 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Excavation of Taylor Gully Began Monday

When Barry drifted east over the weekend, it helped the Kingwood Area in more ways than one. Not only did it take flooding rains elsewhere, it allowed Harris County Flood Control to begin maintenance of Taylor Gully on Monday.

Erosion Upstream Clogged Ditch with Sediment

Beginning last year, developers clear cut the area upstream of the Harris County line without sediment control measures in place. That let erosion from the Woodridge Village property (see below) clog Taylor Gully with sediment.

Photo taken after May 7th flood showed massive erosion over large parts of Woodridge Village. Dirt from this area washed through the culvert in the background which had no erosion control measures in place at the time.

Cleaning that sediment out of Taylor Gully will help restore the natural conveyance of the ditch and reduce future flood risk to Harris County residents.

Video courtesy of Jeff Miller. It looks up Taylor Gully toward the Montgomery County Line in the background and then pans downstream toward Rustling Elms. He was standing with his back to Creek Manor. The culvert you see at the start of this shot is the same culvert in the background of the erosion photo above.

Reducing Flood Risk

Approximately 200 homes adjacent to this ditch flooded on May 7th. Residents appreciate every extra margin of safety they can get, especially since Perry homes and its subsidiaries are far from finished with installing detention upstream.

It was less than a week ago that Harris County commissioners accepted the right of way agreement. That allowed flood control to begin this project. Hats off to to the hard and fast working people at HCFCD!

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/16/2019 with video from Jeff Miller

686 Days since Hurricane Harvey

All thoughts expressed in this post are my opinions on matters of public policy and safety. They are protected by the first amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the great State of Texas.

Update on Webster, Spurlock Elm Grove Lawsuits; Woodridge Construction

A defendant’s motion to dismiss more than 200 lawsuits brought by two local lawyers, Jason Webster and Kimberly Spurlock, on behalf of flooded Elm Grove residents has been tabled by agreement of the lawyers involved. A hearing on the motion to dismiss was scheduled for Monday, July 15th at 4PM in Harris County Judge Lauren Reeder’s 234th Judicial District Court.

Background: Lawsuits and Motion to Dismiss

Here’s a brief chronology of events in the case to date:

Motion to Consolidate, Change Venue and Counterclaims

That same day (June 17):

On June 24, 2019, the lawyers for both sides agreed to consolidate the cases and Judge Reeder signed an order consolidating them.

On June 27th, the plaintiffs filed a request to enter the defendant’s property to inspect it.

Plaintiffs’ Response to Motion to Dismiss

July 8 – Defendants responded to the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the case(s). They cited the facts that they were NOT suing LJA Engineers, nor were they alleging any defect in their engineering plans or designs. Their claims, they said, related solely to construction practices. Specifically, they cited:

  • a. Blocking the drainage channels;
  • b. Filling in existing drainage channels;
  • c. Failing to properly install box culverts;
  • d. Failing to create temporary drainage channels;
  • e. Failing to allow adequate drainage after construction;
  • f. Failing to install silt barriers;
  • g. Allowing the Development to force rainfall toward Plaintiffs’ homes;
  • h. Failing to pay proper attention;
  • i. Failing to provide notice or warning; the filling in of creeks
  • j. Failing to have a proper rain event action plan;
  • k. Failing to have a proper storm water pollution prevention plan;
  • l. Failing to follow a proper storm water pollution prevention plan;
  • m. Failing to coordinate activities and/or conduct;
  • n. Failing to supervise the activities of the Development;
  • o. Failing to instruct in proper construction and/or drainage requirements;
  • p. Failing to train in proper construction and/or drainage requirements,
  • q. Failing to construct the emergency release channel; and,
  • r. Failing to timely implement the detention ponds.

On that same day, July 8, Webster and Spurlock filed an amended petition specifying points A-R above.

Lawyers Agree to Table Motion to Dismiss … Subject to Conditions

Last Friday, July 12, the lawyers for both plaintiffs and defendants filed a Rule 11 Agreement. It specifies that Figure Four and PSWA “pass” the scheduled July 15th hearing on the motion to dismiss, but retain their right to refile under certain conditions.

No Rulings Yet on Venue, Access or Trial Date

Judge Reeder has not yet ruled on the change of venue motion or access to the property. Nor has she set a trial date.

Meanwhile, Back at the Construction Site…

Meanwhile, construction on the job site in the last week continued but at a slower pace. According to Elm Grove resident Jeff Miller who has closely monitored construction progress:

  • Rebel Contractors widened a ditch leading down the eastern side of the development adjacent to North Kingwood Forest.
  • They deepened the channel connecting that ditch with the S2 detention pond.
  • The installed culverts under a road that will connect the north and south sides of the project.
  • They continued clearing land, moving dirt and building up portions of the northern section.
Culverts being installed under future road, but not yet functioning
More culverts ready to install under future roads
Future roadway with 3-4 story brush piles in background
More brush piles near future road

No More Obvious Progress on Expansion of Detention Capacity

It appears that no additional detention ponds have yet been excavated beyond S2, according to Miller. Therefore, my last estimate of approximately 25% completion of detention has not changed.

Had Hurricane Barry dropped the kind of water here that it did on Louisiana and Mississippi, Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest residents would almost surely have flooded again.

LJA Engineers designed the onsite detention to hold a little more than a foot of rainfall. But with only an estimated 25% of the detention functioning at this point, 3″ of water could produce another flood (assuming my estimate is accurate).

Posted by Bob Rehak on July 15, 2019

685 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 9 weeks since May 7

All thoughts expressed in this post represent my opinions on matters of public interest and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas