As I’ve been posting a lot about sand mining legislation, a friend sent me this doc today about the reasons for Texas Parks & Wildlife Department’s (TPWD) permitting program. TPWD regulates mining in rivers; TCEQ regulates mining in flood plains.
Photo by Jim & Melissa Balcom of their son playing on the West Fork of the San Jacinto after Harvey.
Difference in Tax Rates Between Rivers and Flood Plains
Flood plain mining has a 2% tax rate; in-river mining 8%. This doc explains what the department does with that 8%. TPWD’s authority to regulate mining in rivers goes back more than 100 years.
TPWD says that:
Dredging of sand, gravel, and shell from rivers and bays can negatively impact fish and wildlife habitats. Habitat alteration is the primary cause of population declines, loss, and extinction of freshwater fishes, mussels, and other aquatic organisms. Habitat alteration is also one of the primary contributors to listing of fish and wildlife as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act.
Evolution of Mining Influenced
Because of the 4X difference in tax rates, and the fact that sand is a highly competitive undifferentiated commodity, sand from flood plains enjoys a huge cost advantage: 6%. As a result, comparatively little sand is taken from rivers today. In an average year, TPWD department says it brings in only $200,000 to $400,000 statewide. It comes mostly from small scale mining (less than 1000 cubic yards) by people who want to build roads or pipelines across streams.
Goals of Regulations
As the number of applications for permits has increased, TPWD has established project guidelines such as seasonal restrictions that avoid or minimize impacts to recreational users; site-specific provisions to ensure channel stability; and best management practices to control bank erosion, avoid land loss, and reduce downstream impacts.
Read Over Your Morning Cup
The entire document is 2-pages, well-written, and well-illustrated. It will give you a good understanding of why the state started regulating sand mining in rivers long ago…all during your morning cup of coffee or tea. Highly recommended easy reading!
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/19/2019
598 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/image3-4.jpeg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=19001200adminadmin2019-04-18 22:29:062019-04-18 22:35:49Texas Parks and Wildlife Sand and Gravel Permitting Program: History, Scope and Protections
It limits the bill’s geographic scope to the San Jacinto River and its tributaries.
It gives the Harris County Flood Control District the same powers that it gives the San Jacinto River Authority.
Local bills rarely encounter serious opposition. So this may guarantee the bill’s passage.
Issues with Revisions
Unfortunately, the language is still so sweeping, that I fear it could open the door to abuses.
Someone reading this for the first time, without the benefit of all the senate testimony, could draw the conclusion that the San Jacinto and its tributaries are wide open to sand mining – 24/7/365 – as long you justify it by saying you will improve the river’s conveyance.
Vague Language Opens Door to Abuses
For instance, after reading this bill, unless you watched the testimony, how would you know that it’s supposedly:
For the purpose of building sand traps that are maintained once or twice a year?
Limited to “strategic locations”?
Based on scientific studies?
Several years down the road, when the players change, all the verbal promises made during testimony will be long forgotten. It’s easy to see how people could get the wrong impression of the bill’s original intent.
Nightmare Scenario
At that time, I can see developer’s coming to sand miners and the SJRA (or Harris County Flood Control) saying, “I need more fill to elevate my property. Can you take it out of the river for me?”
The only problem is this. While it may reduce the risk of flooding on the developers’ property, without proper safeguards, it will likely increase flooding for surrounding and downstream properties.
Example 1: Loss of riparian vegetation along the banks increases erosion. So even though you take sand out of the river, you put more back in.
Example 2: Imagine a flood moving slowly through a widened area. Now imagine those same floodwaters moving downstream through a narrower area. As the water hits the constriction, it starts churning at and eroding the river banks.
Example 3: Lack of permitting or engineering studies means that developers could put fill anywhere. Even in streams. They could divert flows onto neighboring properties. They could put fill in wetlands and pave it over. This would accelerate flooding downstream.
Proponents of the bill argue that removing deposits like this one near a mine could keep the sand from migrating downriver. Opponents argue that it could destabilize river banks and worsen sedimentation. The vagueness of the language in the bill would also make it easy to widen the river anywhere developers wanted to build in floodplains.
Better Ways to Reduce Sedimentation
Creighton’s original stated intent was to eliminate disincentives for public/private partnerships that could help address excess sedimentation. A noble intention.
But if he really wants to stop sediment from coming downstream, he might be better off partnering with groups like the Bayou Land Conservancy that protect and restore floodplains. Or accelerating bills like his own SB2124, which creates best management practices for sand mining. Texas is the only state that I could find that doesn’t require minimum setbacks from rivers for sand mines. That contributes to repeated flooding of mines. We sure could use some help in that department. Frankly, so could the miners.
This session ends on May 27th. Tick Tock.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/18/2019
597 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 39 days until the end of this legislative session
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Harvey-SanJac_41-e1555625578344.jpg?fit=1500%2C973&ssl=19731500adminadmin2019-04-18 17:14:272019-04-18 20:19:29Bill that Could Open Door to River Mining Modified and Heading to Full Senate
As of April 15, almost all of the Emergency West Fork Dredging Project was complete. The map below shows the current status. As of April 15, the Corps and its contractors have dredged a total of 1,564,000 cubic yards of sediment.
The Great Lakes dredge has completed its segment (shown in red) and returned to dock where it is undergoing maintenance. Great Lakes has not yet demobilized. It is awaiting a decision from FEMA and the Army Corps on whether they will approve dredging of the mouth bar.
Callan Marine, a subcontractor to Great Lakes, is shown in blue. They are currently dredging just downstream from Kings Harbor. They have about 400 yards to go on the northern half of the channel. Callan should complete its segment around the end of the month.
Great Lakes Dredge has completed its segment and is docked, undergoing maintenance.Callan still has a short distance to dredge. See the unfilled rectangles in the map above.
Next step: FEMA and the Army Corps need to make a decision on the mouth bar. They have not yet indicated when that might be.
Posted by Bob Rehak on April 17, 2019
596 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/190415_Post-Harvey-Dredging-Overview-Zoom-1.jpg?fit=1500%2C1000&ssl=110001500adminadmin2019-04-17 21:58:362019-04-17 22:18:56Army Corps Updates Dredging Status
Texas Parks and Wildlife Sand and Gravel Permitting Program: History, Scope and Protections
As I’ve been posting a lot about sand mining legislation, a friend sent me this doc today about the reasons for Texas Parks & Wildlife Department’s (TPWD) permitting program. TPWD regulates mining in rivers; TCEQ regulates mining in flood plains.
Difference in Tax Rates Between Rivers and Flood Plains
Flood plain mining has a 2% tax rate; in-river mining 8%. This doc explains what the department does with that 8%. TPWD’s authority to regulate mining in rivers goes back more than 100 years.
TPWD says that:
Evolution of Mining Influenced
Because of the 4X difference in tax rates, and the fact that sand is a highly competitive undifferentiated commodity, sand from flood plains enjoys a huge cost advantage: 6%. As a result, comparatively little sand is taken from rivers today. In an average year, TPWD department says it brings in only $200,000 to $400,000 statewide. It comes mostly from small scale mining (less than 1000 cubic yards) by people who want to build roads or pipelines across streams.
Goals of Regulations
As the number of applications for permits has increased, TPWD has established project guidelines such as seasonal restrictions that avoid or minimize impacts to recreational users; site-specific provisions to ensure channel stability; and best management practices to control bank erosion, avoid land loss, and reduce downstream impacts.
Read Over Your Morning Cup
The entire document is 2-pages, well-written, and well-illustrated. It will give you a good understanding of why the state started regulating sand mining in rivers long ago…all during your morning cup of coffee or tea. Highly recommended easy reading!
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/19/2019
598 Days since Hurricane Harvey
Bill that Could Open Door to River Mining Modified and Heading to Full Senate
Senate Bill 2126, which allows sand mining in rivers – without permits or royalties – was voted out of the Senate Water and Rural Affairs committee last night. The committee left the bill pending during the previous day’s testimony after four of the seven members expressed concerns about it.
Changes in Committee Substitute SB 2126
However, when the bill’s author, Senator Brandon Creighton, created a “committee substitute” bill, four senators voted FOR it.
The substitute bill contains two major changes:
Local bills rarely encounter serious opposition. So this may guarantee the bill’s passage.
Issues with Revisions
Someone reading this for the first time, without the benefit of all the senate testimony, could draw the conclusion that the San Jacinto and its tributaries are wide open to sand mining – 24/7/365 – as long you justify it by saying you will improve the river’s conveyance.
Vague Language Opens Door to Abuses
For instance, after reading this bill, unless you watched the testimony, how would you know that it’s supposedly:
Several years down the road, when the players change, all the verbal promises made during testimony will be long forgotten. It’s easy to see how people could get the wrong impression of the bill’s original intent.
Nightmare Scenario
At that time, I can see developer’s coming to sand miners and the SJRA (or Harris County Flood Control) saying, “I need more fill to elevate my property. Can you take it out of the river for me?”
It could even increase sedimentation downstream as many academic studies have shown.
Example 1: Loss of riparian vegetation along the banks increases erosion. So even though you take sand out of the river, you put more back in.
Example 2: Imagine a flood moving slowly through a widened area. Now imagine those same floodwaters moving downstream through a narrower area. As the water hits the constriction, it starts churning at and eroding the river banks.
Example 3: Lack of permitting or engineering studies means that developers could put fill anywhere. Even in streams. They could divert flows onto neighboring properties. They could put fill in wetlands and pave it over. This would accelerate flooding downstream.
Better Ways to Reduce Sedimentation
Creighton’s original stated intent was to eliminate disincentives for public/private partnerships that could help address excess sedimentation. A noble intention.
But if he really wants to stop sediment from coming downstream, he might be better off partnering with groups like the Bayou Land Conservancy that protect and restore floodplains. Or accelerating bills like his own SB2124, which creates best management practices for sand mining. Texas is the only state that I could find that doesn’t require minimum setbacks from rivers for sand mines. That contributes to repeated flooding of mines. We sure could use some help in that department. Frankly, so could the miners.
This session ends on May 27th. Tick Tock.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/18/2019
597 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 39 days until the end of this legislative session
Army Corps Updates Dredging Status
As of April 15, almost all of the Emergency West Fork Dredging Project was complete. The map below shows the current status. As of April 15, the Corps and its contractors have dredged a total of 1,564,000 cubic yards of sediment.
The Great Lakes dredge has completed its segment (shown in red) and returned to dock where it is undergoing maintenance. Great Lakes has not yet demobilized. It is awaiting a decision from FEMA and the Army Corps on whether they will approve dredging of the mouth bar.
Callan Marine, a subcontractor to Great Lakes, is shown in blue. They are currently dredging just downstream from Kings Harbor. They have about 400 yards to go on the northern half of the channel. Callan should complete its segment around the end of the month.
Next step: FEMA and the Army Corps need to make a decision on the mouth bar. They have not yet indicated when that might be.
Posted by Bob Rehak on April 17, 2019
596 Days since Hurricane Harvey