Scientific literature from around the world has identified both immediate and long-term risks associated with sand and gravel mining. These risks underscore the need for tighter regulation of the sand mining industry in Texas, where the industry does not follow best practices commonly accepted in other states and countries. Yet some miners here are pushing to start mining rivers (as opposed to flood plains where they mine now).
Why Don’t We Just Let Them Mine the River?
When looking at all the sediment in the San Jacinto, it’s logical to think, “Why don’t we just let sand miners mine the river?” However, many countries in the world have outlawed the practice of river mining, largely because of the dangers of over-mining. If Texas explores this solution, experience has shown that it should be under strict governmental supervision to prevent excesses which have widened rivers, damaged properties and destroyed the river environment elsewhere.
Sedimentation in the East Fork of the San Jacinto. This dune constricts the conveyance of the river by approximately 50 percent. It would be a likely target for river miners. But where would they mine after such obstructions are removed?
River mining differs from the type of remedial dredging that we are doing now. The objective for river mining is to maximize profit, which often means pushing limits. The motivation for dredging is to maximize profits by staying within the limits outlined by the client (i.e., the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers).
“Evidence of environmental problems associated with river sand and gravel extraction is increasing. So also is the community’s expectation of river systems. Future management decisions must be based on the principle of sustainable development – sustainability not only of the sand and gravel resources but also of other river uses and values.”
The discussion of risks begins with an admonishment. “Management of sand and gravel extraction must ensure that the activity does not conflict with the aims of other component policies.” For instance, they say that, “Wild and scenic rivers, wetlands and designated recreational areas are all places where sand and gravel extraction would have a highly visible and adverse impact. Extraction should not be considered in such areas.” (Sec. 6.1.1, Page 16.)
“Increased rates of river erosion and other channel changes can occur in the shorter term, due to both natural and human-induced changes. These changes include increases in the size, magnitude and frequency of floods…” (Sec. 6.1.3. Page 17.)
“…excavation below existing bed level may be a direct cause of bank collapse.” (Sec. 6.1.4. Page 19.)
“Most of the finer sediments (sand, silt and clay) released from erosion of alluvial banks will be transported downstream, often for considerable distances. Increased siltation in these downstream areas can cause problems to navigation … and adversely impact flooding in the area.” (Sec. 6.1.5. Pages 19-20.) The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers found an increase in flood risk from sedimentation in its value engineering study on the West Fork last spring.
“If extraction is below the riverbed level, groundwater recharge from rivers to floodplain aquifers may be severely reduced. This will impact adversely on bores and wells in the area.” (Sec. 6.1.6. Page 20.)
“Extraction of river sand and gravel often involves direct clearing ofvegetation (that stabilizes soil). … Construction of access tracks and processing sites associated with the extraction process can also involve clearing of vegetation.” (Sec. 6.1.7. Page 20.)
“Suspended solids adversely affect many waterusers and ecosystems. They can significantly increase water treatmentcosts, especially where they act as a substrate for bacteria and so increasethe problems and costs of disinfection in water treatment plants.” (Sec. 6.1.9. Page 20.)
“There will be some rivers, however, where the value to other users will be such that extraction may need to be precluded. Similarly, where past extraction has over-taxed a river system, future extraction may need to be precluded until the river has recovered sufficiently, if it does so at all.” (Sec. 6.1.12. Page 22.)
What to Do
The Australian report then goes on to talk about the need for sand and gravel to support road building and economic growth. (Sec. 6.2).
Section 6.3 talks about alternative sources for sand and gravel.
Section 6.4 talks about governmental costs to monitor sand and gravel extraction.
Section 7 talks about guidelines for safe extraction when mining in rivers and how to crack down on illegal activity (something we desperately need to do here as well). Here they talk about the opportunity to involve community members as extra pairs of eyes and the need to enroll major purchases (such as TxDoT) in the enforcement effort.
Section 8 talks about permitting procedures.
Section 9 talks about performance measures and monitor programs. Here they have some novel measures that we could learn from. I especially like Section 9.3, Community Monitoring. Inputs include:
Data collected by local community groups including extractors;
Reports by local ‘care’ groups and riparian landowners;
Reports by local environmental or recreational interest groups;
Reports by local TCM Committees;
Reports by local government.
Such an inclusive approach helps guarantee that the needs of various interest groups are balanced.
Australian Conclusions: A Cautionary Tale
Section 10, the Conclusion, says on page 36: “There are many natural causes which may increase the rate of riverbed and bank erosion. However, extraction of large amounts of sand and gravel from within the channels has exacerbated the situation in many rivers.Past experience in some areas of the State has shown that crisis point can be reached. In other areas, increasing conflict with other river uses has made extraction of sand and gravel a less viable option.”
If the State of Texas decides to permit river mining, I sincerely hope we can find a workable balance for the San Jacinto that protects everyone’s interests.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/5/2018
433 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Harvey-SanJac_323-e1524608786151.jpg?fit=1985%2C940&ssl=19401985adminadmin2018-11-05 21:30:122018-11-05 21:35:47Immediate and Long-Term Risks Associated with River Sand Mining
Note: If you are from Harris County, you cannot vote in this election, but it still affects you. Please forward this link to friends in Montgomery County. This is an update of a previous post and recommends some candidates at the end.
Next Tuesday, Montgomery County voters will elect board members to the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District (LSGCD) for the first time ever. Some candidates advocate using more groundwater, a move that could give residents cheaper water in the short run, but which could also cause subsidence and contribute to flooding in the long run. It could even create shortages, raise water costs and limit growth. Here’s how.
How Subsidence Can Increase Flood Risk
When ground subsides, it sinks. In this region, the primary cause is groundwater removal.
“Using surface water instead of groundwater reduces subsidence. Where groundwater use has been reduced, subsidence has generally ceased,” said Michael Turco, General Manager of the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District.
Southern Montgomery County, and northern and northwestern Harris County have some of the highest subsidence rates in the region today.
Yet some Montgomery County voters advocate removing more ground water because, at this moment, it’s cheaper than surface water. They are betting their future and their neighbors’ futures on it.
One part of Baytown, the Brownwood subdivision, is a classic, visually striking, and cautionary example of subsidence. Brownwood subsided so much that it became uninhabitable. Excessive groundwater pumping by industry around Galveston Bay caused the area to sink ten feet.
In 1944, the area that would become Brownwood in Baytown was starting to show signs of development.
By 1978, Brownwood was well developed…and sinking fast. Then, in 1983, a 12-foot storm surge from Alicia destroyed the entire community.
Today, Brownwood floods so muchthat all homes are gone. Baytown converted what was left into a park.
Coastal vs. Differential Subsidence
Inland areas also face flood threats from subsidence, but not the kind associated with storm surge. In Montgomery County and surrounding areas, the flood threat comes from sinking at different rates in different places.
Example: subsidence around Jersey Village created a “bowl” within the landscape that has been linked to increased flooding there. See the contour map below.
Other examples: The Woodlands and Kingwood sank two feet in the last century. Most of Buffalo Bayou sank eight.
Red contours show subsidence in last century. Blue contours show subsidence in first 16 years of this century. Note how the small red circle near Jersey Village (A) quickly expanded to the large blue circle around it. Also note (B) the widening gap between red and blue at the top of the frame. This shows that areas that depend on groundwater, i.e., Montgomery County, are subsiding faster than those on surface water, i.e., most of Harris County. Source: Harris-Galveston Subsidence District.
Three Ways Unequal Subsidence Increases Flood Risk
Unequal sinking contributes to flooding by changing the slope of rivers and streams.
If the slope increases, water flows faster and contributes to flooding downstream.
If slope decreases, water moves more slowly or even pools, contributing to flooding upstream.
Sinking between two drainage basins can even divert floodwater from one basin to another.
The “Pump-Now, Let-Somebody-Else-Pay-Later” Mentality
Subsidence happens so slowly that some people claim it’s not a problem – especially those on higher ground. They want to continue pumping water from wells because they perceive it to be cheaper than surface water.
It can be – at least in the short run– until wells run low or dry. Then pumping costs increase – often along with salinity – and the people who depend on the well are out of water and out of luck.
Much of the groundwater in Montgomery County used for human consumption is pumped from the Jasper aquifer which also affects Harris and Galveston Counties. Source Harris-Galveston Subsidence District.
And that high ground they enjoyed? If it subsides faster than surrounding areas, they can alter the slope of rivers and creeks, increasing their own flood risk, like Jersey Village. This is currently happening in southern Montgomery County and northern Harris County.
Depleting at More Than 500X the Recharge Rate
Still, some people say, “I’ll worry about that when it becomes a problem.”
Problem is:
We’re depleting aquifers much faster than they’re recharging.
That means it could take 26,880 years (10 x 12 x 224) to replace the Jasper groundwater that residents will use in just 50 years.
The rate of depletion will exceed the rate of recharge by more than 500X – an environmental catastrophe.
More Expensive in Long Run
Now consider this. Experience and science show that pressure in an aquifer will decrease when pumping exceeds the recharge rate. And as pressure in an aquifer decreases, the cost of bringing water to the surface increases dramatically. Then recovery is no longer economical, i.e., competitive with surface water. It’s like the oil industry. As a rule of thumb, half the oil in reservoirs is left underground. It’s simply too expensive to recover because of low pressure.
For all these reasons, most counties in the region are trying to switch people to surface water. Groundwater withdrawals in Waller, Liberty, Grimes, Walker and San Jacinto Counties have either declined or stayed the same since 2000.
Counties surrounding Montgomery have either decreased groundwater pumping or kept it steady.
Montgomery County groundwater pumping virtually tripled in the last three decades.
Montgomery County Growth
The surge in Montgomery County groundwater usage is largely because of growth. On a percentage basis, Montgomery County is growing faster than any county in the region except Fort Bend.
Montgomery County growth trails only Fort Bend.
So Why Worry NOW?
Water resources take so long to develop that they need to be planned 50 years ahead. If Montgomery County hopes to keep growing rapidly, where will water come from to support that growth? Especially if voters undermine financial viability of the half-billion-dollar, surface-water treatment plant – that they just built – by shifting back to groundwater!
The San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) finished the plant in 2015 to comply with the LSGCD requirement to reduce groundwater use. Many people don’t realize that the SJRA pumps groundwater from 38 wells to supply The Woodlands. The SJRA must comply with LSGCD regulations like everyone else.
To comply, the SJRA and 90 other water utilities who partnered with them, drew up plans for a surface water treatment plant and signed contracts to purchase water from it. The SJRA then borrowed money from the State and built the plant. Inevitably, the cost of water increased to cover construction.
After it was built, several providers changed their minds and began pushing the LSGCD board to produce more groundwater to take costs back down. When the board refused, the breakaway faction succeeded in getting a measure on November’s ballot to elect an LSGCD board more favorable to groundwater pumping.
Since 2001, the LSGCD has had a nine-member board appointed by a combination of local entities. They include Montgomery County, cities, and MUDs. The SJRA even has one seat. The appointees are experts who fully understand the future consequences of subsidence and unlimited groundwater pumping; an elected board may not.
If an elected board ignores the science and allows unlimited groundwater pumping, it would affect the financial projections on which the surface water plant was built.
Betting the Future
If people vote for candidates who advocate using “cheaper” groundwater in the short term, they will also be voting for subsidence and policies that limit long-term growth. Without question, they will be betting their future, their children’s futures and their neighbors’ futures on a rapidly depleting water source.
If that’s the will of the people, so be it. I just hope they don’t set a precedent that residents in neighboring counties follow. If so, we could all be sunk.
Candidates Who Believe in Science-Based, Groundwater Management
Fortunately, there are people running for LSGWCD board positions who believe in science-based, groundwater management. Knowledgeable acquaintances in Montgomery County recommend the following candidates who, they say, have professional experience related to water management and/or water supply, and would work to preserve Montgomery County’s future, reduce subsidence and prevent flooding:
Place 1, County Precinct 1 – Stuart Taylor
Place 2, County Precinct 2 – Garry Oakley
Place 3, County Precinct 3 – Rick Moffatt
Place 4, County Precinct 4 – Gail Carney
Place 5, County At Large – Gregg Hope
Place 6, Conroe – Jackie Chance, Sr.
Place 7, The Woodlands – Kent Maggert
Please spread the word to every voter you know in Montgomery County.
Posted by Bob Rehak, November 3, 2018
431 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/5-Subsidence-Contour-Map-e1541284423714.jpg?fit=1500%2C1289&ssl=112891500adminadmin2018-11-03 18:49:582018-11-03 19:00:50Subsidence, Flooding and the Lone Star Ground Water Conservation District Election
We like to think of change as being steady and continuous. For instance, we get a little bit older each year, and depending on our age, we get a little bit stronger or weaker.
A “State Change” in Peoples’ Lives
But in nature, the major changes are not steady and not continuous. They are sudden, jarring and dramatic. They involve toggling from one “state” to another. For instance, water is a liquid until the temperature drops to 32ºF; then it becomes a solid. A tenacious leaf hangs on the tree through spring, summer and fall, until a winter storm finally blows it to the ground. Snow piles high on the mountain until weight and temperature … create an avalanche.
So it was with many Kingwood seniors – safe and comfortable, living a somewhat privileged existence in the center of Kingwood…right up until the moment a monster named Harvey crept under their front doors.
Bill Fowler, a real estate expert, worked for ExxonMobil until he retired. He is now co-chair of the Lake Houston Area Grass Roots Flood Prevention Initiative. Fowler has been analyzing the impact of Harvey on local real-state. Recently, he concluded an analysis of home values in The Enclave. This post is based on his hard work.
About The Enclave
For those of you not familiar with the Enclave, it is an upscale subdivision in the heart of Kingwood, south of Randall’s in Town Center. Homes average 2369 square feet. All but one or two are single story. Most of the homes are zero-lot-line or have postage-stamp yards, perfect for empty nesters who hate mowing lawns.
Enclave residents can walk to shopping, restaurants, banks, drug stores, public transportation, the library, parks, trails and more. Virtually all are on a series of short cul-de-sacs where people get to know their neighbors for an exceptional sense of safety and security.
In the Heart of the Heart of One of Houston’s Most Prestigious Communities
For all the reasons above, the Enclave has always been popular with older people approaching or reaching retirement. People didn’t just move there, they put down roots there. A home in the Enclave put you in the heart of the heart of one of Houston’s most prestigious communities.
Of 165 homes in the Enclave, 74% had over-65 exemptions on their real-estate taxes in 2017.
According to the National Association of Homebuilders, 12% of Americans have lived in their homes for 20-29 years; but 35% of Enclave residents have lived there that long, virtually triple the national average.
Half of the residents have owned their homes for at least 13 years.
Despite the age of the residents, many years have gone by with less than five homes changing hands.
Things changed suddenly. All 165 homes in The Enclave flooded. Harvey uprooted all residents – at least temporarily.
Forty-four owners sold damaged homes “as-is” that were their primary residences. We know they were primary residences because they received Homestead Exemptions from the Harris County Appraisal District [HCAD]. Thirty percent of all owners decided to bail (pardon the pun) rather than go through the challenge of restoration: ten times the percentage that moved the prior year!
Sixteen additional homes in the Enclave did NOT have homestead exemptions, according to HCAD. This indicates they were being rented or leased. It is highly unlikely that renters would return to damaged homes; they had no equity, only risk.
So if we add those sixteen to the other 44 homes, we have 60 homes where residents likely chose not to return after Harvey. That takes the percentage of those not returning up to 36% of the community. Twelve times the prior year’s rate!
Due to limitations of the available online HCAD data, it is not possible to further delineate the demographic makeup of the non-owner occupied homes.
However, it is interesting to note the following about those over 65:
74% of all owners had an Over-65 exemption before Harvey.
89% of owner/residents choosing to sell were over 65. This indicates the flood was disproportionately harder for older people to deal with.
36% of all primary-residence homes owned by those over 65 were actually sold.
Of those over-65 electing to sell their homes, on average, the owners had lived in their homes 15 years—some as many as 25 years.
49% of primary-residence homes sold by those over 65 were owned by a single owner (divorced, widowed or never married), rather than jointly owned.
Eighteen homes remain for sale or rent, many by owners rather than through agents.
The total HCAD value for all 165 homes in the subdivision dropped from $40.7 million before Harvey to $30.4 million after. Owners lost more than 25% in market value due to Harvey.
The City, County and School District lost more than $10 million in assessed value from this one subdivision.
The average home went from $247,000 in value to $184,000, a loss of $63,000 overnight.
Those who chose to stay and repair their homes, but who didn’t have flood insurance, lost even more.
Fourteen months later, construction trucks still line the otherwise quiet streets and driveways. The shrill whine of circle saws still pierces the afternoon calm. Construction permits still dot the windows of empty homes. Eighteen homes remain for sale.
Waiting for Mitigation
Retirees who lost their largest investment pray the politicians aren’t playing games with flood mitigation. Dredging has started, but is leaving the largest blockage in the river where it will do the most damage in another flood. More flood gates for the Lake Houston Dam are still two or three mayors away. Most residents won’t live long enough to see the benefit of additional upstream detention. And the grant application for a watershed study that’s a pre-requisite for all of those mitigation projects? Well, that has been sitting on someone’s desk at FEMA for seven months.
The residents I have talked to say they will rebuild this one time, but never again. More on that later this week in another Impact interview.
Statistical Analysis by Bill Fowler, Co-Chair, Lake Houston Area Grass Roots Flood Prevention Initiative
Posted by Bob Rehak on November 2, 2018
430 days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Enclave.jpg?fit=1500%2C1056&ssl=110561500adminadmin2018-11-02 20:13:002018-11-04 10:32:47Effects of Harvey on Seniors and Real-Estate: The Enclave Case Study
Immediate and Long-Term Risks Associated with River Sand Mining
Scientific literature from around the world has identified both immediate and long-term risks associated with sand and gravel mining. These risks underscore the need for tighter regulation of the sand mining industry in Texas, where the industry does not follow best practices commonly accepted in other states and countries. Yet some miners here are pushing to start mining rivers (as opposed to flood plains where they mine now).
Why Don’t We Just Let Them Mine the River?
When looking at all the sediment in the San Jacinto, it’s logical to think, “Why don’t we just let sand miners mine the river?” However, many countries in the world have outlawed the practice of river mining, largely because of the dangers of over-mining. If Texas explores this solution, experience has shown that it should be under strict governmental supervision to prevent excesses which have widened rivers, damaged properties and destroyed the river environment elsewhere.
Sedimentation in the East Fork of the San Jacinto. This dune constricts the conveyance of the river by approximately 50 percent. It would be a likely target for river miners. But where would they mine after such obstructions are removed?
River mining differs from the type of remedial dredging that we are doing now. The objective for river mining is to maximize profit, which often means pushing limits. The motivation for dredging is to maximize profits by staying within the limits outlined by the client (i.e., the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers).
The Australian Experience with River Mining
In Australia, the government of New South Whales discussed many of these risks in “The NSW Sand and Gravel Extraction Policy for Non Tidal Rivers.” The executive summary (page 5) describes the situation we face today in the Houston region.
The discussion of risks begins with an admonishment. “Management of sand and gravel extraction must ensure that the activity does not conflict with the aims of other component policies.” For instance, they say that, “Wild and scenic rivers, wetlands and designated recreational areas are all places where sand and gravel extraction would have a highly visible and adverse impact. Extraction should not be considered in such areas.” (Sec. 6.1.1, Page 16.)
To that list, I personally would add, “The source of drinking water for millions of people.” A growing body of evidence collected by the Houston-Galveston Area Council suggests that alarming bacterial growth in the West Fork of the San Jacinto can be linked to excess sedimentation.
The Major Risks of River Mining
Other risks outlined by New South Whales include:
What to Do
The Australian report then goes on to talk about the need for sand and gravel to support road building and economic growth. (Sec. 6.2).
Section 6.3 talks about alternative sources for sand and gravel.
Section 6.4 talks about governmental costs to monitor sand and gravel extraction.
Section 7 talks about guidelines for safe extraction when mining in rivers and how to crack down on illegal activity (something we desperately need to do here as well). Here they talk about the opportunity to involve community members as extra pairs of eyes and the need to enroll major purchases (such as TxDoT) in the enforcement effort.
Section 8 talks about permitting procedures.
Section 9 talks about performance measures and monitor programs. Here they have some novel measures that we could learn from. I especially like Section 9.3, Community Monitoring. Inputs include:
Such an inclusive approach helps guarantee that the needs of various interest groups are balanced.
Australian Conclusions: A Cautionary Tale
Section 10, the Conclusion, says on page 36: “There are many natural causes which may increase the rate of riverbed and bank erosion. However, extraction of large amounts of sand and gravel from within the channels has exacerbated the situation in many rivers. Past experience in some areas of the State has shown that crisis point can be reached. In other areas, increasing conflict with other river uses has made extraction of sand and gravel a less viable option.”
If the State of Texas decides to permit river mining, I sincerely hope we can find a workable balance for the San Jacinto that protects everyone’s interests.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/5/2018
433 Days since Hurricane Harvey
Subsidence, Flooding and the Lone Star Ground Water Conservation District Election
Note: If you are from Harris County, you cannot vote in this election, but it still affects you. Please forward this link to friends in Montgomery County. This is an update of a previous post and recommends some candidates at the end.
Next Tuesday, Montgomery County voters will elect board members to the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District (LSGCD) for the first time ever. Some candidates advocate using more groundwater, a move that could give residents cheaper water in the short run, but which could also cause subsidence and contribute to flooding in the long run. It could even create shortages, raise water costs and limit growth. Here’s how.
How Subsidence Can Increase Flood Risk
When ground subsides, it sinks. In this region, the primary cause is groundwater removal.
“Using surface water instead of groundwater reduces subsidence. Where groundwater use has been reduced, subsidence has generally ceased,” said Michael Turco, General Manager of the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District.
Southern Montgomery County, and northern and northwestern Harris County have some of the highest subsidence rates in the region today.
Yet some Montgomery County voters advocate removing more ground water because, at this moment, it’s cheaper than surface water. They are betting their future and their neighbors’ futures on it.
One part of Baytown, the Brownwood subdivision, is a classic, visually striking, and cautionary example of subsidence. Brownwood subsided so much that it became uninhabitable. Excessive groundwater pumping by industry around Galveston Bay caused the area to sink ten feet.
In 1944, the area that would become Brownwood in Baytown was starting to show signs of development.
By 1978, Brownwood was well developed…and sinking fast. Then, in 1983, a 12-foot storm surge from Alicia destroyed the entire community.
Today, Brownwood floods so much that all homes are gone. Baytown converted what was left into a park.
Coastal vs. Differential Subsidence
Inland areas also face flood threats from subsidence, but not the kind associated with storm surge. In Montgomery County and surrounding areas, the flood threat comes from sinking at different rates in different places.
Example: subsidence around Jersey Village created a “bowl” within the landscape that has been linked to increased flooding there. See the contour map below.
Other examples: The Woodlands and Kingwood sank two feet in the last century. Most of Buffalo Bayou sank eight.
Red contours show subsidence in last century. Blue contours show subsidence in first 16 years of this century. Note how the small red circle near Jersey Village (A) quickly expanded to the large blue circle around it. Also note (B) the widening gap between red and blue at the top of the frame. This shows that areas that depend on groundwater, i.e., Montgomery County, are subsiding faster than those on surface water, i.e., most of Harris County. Source: Harris-Galveston Subsidence District.
Three Ways Unequal Subsidence Increases Flood Risk
Unequal sinking contributes to flooding by changing the slope of rivers and streams.
The “Pump-Now, Let-Somebody-Else-Pay-Later” Mentality
Subsidence happens so slowly that some people claim it’s not a problem – especially those on higher ground. They want to continue pumping water from wells because they perceive it to be cheaper than surface water.
It can be – at least in the short run– until wells run low or dry. Then pumping costs increase – often along with salinity – and the people who depend on the well are out of water and out of luck.
Much of the groundwater in Montgomery County used for human consumption is pumped from the Jasper aquifer which also affects Harris and Galveston Counties. Source Harris-Galveston Subsidence District.
And that high ground they enjoyed? If it subsides faster than surrounding areas, they can alter the slope of rivers and creeks, increasing their own flood risk, like Jersey Village. This is currently happening in southern Montgomery County and northern Harris County.
Depleting at More Than 500X the Recharge Rate
Still, some people say, “I’ll worry about that when it becomes a problem.”
Problem is:
The rate of depletion will exceed the rate of recharge by more than 500X – an environmental catastrophe.
More Expensive in Long Run
Now consider this. Experience and science show that pressure in an aquifer will decrease when pumping exceeds the recharge rate. And as pressure in an aquifer decreases, the cost of bringing water to the surface increases dramatically. Then recovery is no longer economical, i.e., competitive with surface water. It’s like the oil industry. As a rule of thumb, half the oil in reservoirs is left underground. It’s simply too expensive to recover because of low pressure.
For all these reasons, most counties in the region are trying to switch people to surface water. Groundwater withdrawals in Waller, Liberty, Grimes, Walker and San Jacinto Counties have either declined or stayed the same since 2000.
Counties surrounding Montgomery have either decreased groundwater pumping or kept it steady.
Meanwhile, Montgomery County’s groundwater withdrawals have soared. A report by LBG Guyton Associates to the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District showed that the largest pumping increase since 2000 occurred in Montgomery County.
Montgomery County groundwater pumping virtually tripled in the last three decades.
Montgomery County Growth
The surge in Montgomery County groundwater usage is largely because of growth. On a percentage basis, Montgomery County is growing faster than any county in the region except Fort Bend.
Montgomery County growth trails only Fort Bend.
So Why Worry NOW?
Water resources take so long to develop that they need to be planned 50 years ahead. If Montgomery County hopes to keep growing rapidly, where will water come from to support that growth? Especially if voters undermine financial viability of the half-billion-dollar, surface-water treatment plant – that they just built – by shifting back to groundwater!
The San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) finished the plant in 2015 to comply with the LSGCD requirement to reduce groundwater use. Many people don’t realize that the SJRA pumps groundwater from 38 wells to supply The Woodlands. The SJRA must comply with LSGCD regulations like everyone else.
To comply, the SJRA and 90 other water utilities who partnered with them, drew up plans for a surface water treatment plant and signed contracts to purchase water from it. The SJRA then borrowed money from the State and built the plant. Inevitably, the cost of water increased to cover construction.
After it was built, several providers changed their minds and began pushing the LSGCD board to produce more groundwater to take costs back down. When the board refused, the breakaway faction succeeded in getting a measure on November’s ballot to elect an LSGCD board more favorable to groundwater pumping.
Since 2001, the LSGCD has had a nine-member board appointed by a combination of local entities. They include Montgomery County, cities, and MUDs. The SJRA even has one seat. The appointees are experts who fully understand the future consequences of subsidence and unlimited groundwater pumping; an elected board may not.
If an elected board ignores the science and allows unlimited groundwater pumping, it would affect the financial projections on which the surface water plant was built.
Betting the Future
If people vote for candidates who advocate using “cheaper” groundwater in the short term, they will also be voting for subsidence and policies that limit long-term growth. Without question, they will be betting their future, their children’s futures and their neighbors’ futures on a rapidly depleting water source.
If that’s the will of the people, so be it. I just hope they don’t set a precedent that residents in neighboring counties follow. If so, we could all be sunk.
Candidates Who Believe in Science-Based, Groundwater Management
Fortunately, there are people running for LSGWCD board positions who believe in science-based, groundwater management. Knowledgeable acquaintances in Montgomery County recommend the following candidates who, they say, have professional experience related to water management and/or water supply, and would work to preserve Montgomery County’s future, reduce subsidence and prevent flooding:
Please spread the word to every voter you know in Montgomery County.
Posted by Bob Rehak, November 3, 2018
431 Days since Hurricane Harvey
Effects of Harvey on Seniors and Real-Estate: The Enclave Case Study
We like to think of change as being steady and continuous. For instance, we get a little bit older each year, and depending on our age, we get a little bit stronger or weaker.
A “State Change” in Peoples’ Lives
But in nature, the major changes are not steady and not continuous. They are sudden, jarring and dramatic. They involve toggling from one “state” to another. For instance, water is a liquid until the temperature drops to 32ºF; then it becomes a solid. A tenacious leaf hangs on the tree through spring, summer and fall, until a winter storm finally blows it to the ground. Snow piles high on the mountain until weight and temperature … create an avalanche.
So it was with many Kingwood seniors – safe and comfortable, living a somewhat privileged existence in the center of Kingwood…right up until the moment a monster named Harvey crept under their front doors.
Bill Fowler, a real estate expert, worked for ExxonMobil until he retired. He is now co-chair of the Lake Houston Area Grass Roots Flood Prevention Initiative. Fowler has been analyzing the impact of Harvey on local real-state. Recently, he concluded an analysis of home values in The Enclave. This post is based on his hard work.
About The Enclave
For those of you not familiar with the Enclave, it is an upscale subdivision in the heart of Kingwood, south of Randall’s in Town Center. Homes average 2369 square feet. All but one or two are single story. Most of the homes are zero-lot-line or have postage-stamp yards, perfect for empty nesters who hate mowing lawns.
Enclave residents can walk to shopping, restaurants, banks, drug stores, public transportation, the library, parks, trails and more. Virtually all are on a series of short cul-de-sacs where people get to know their neighbors for an exceptional sense of safety and security.
In the Heart of the Heart of One of Houston’s Most Prestigious Communities
For all the reasons above, the Enclave has always been popular with older people approaching or reaching retirement. People didn’t just move there, they put down roots there. A home in the Enclave put you in the heart of the heart of one of Houston’s most prestigious communities.
Then Came Harvey
Things changed suddenly. All 165 homes in The Enclave flooded. Harvey uprooted all residents – at least temporarily.
Forty-four owners sold damaged homes “as-is” that were their primary residences. We know they were primary residences because they received Homestead Exemptions from the Harris County Appraisal District [HCAD]. Thirty percent of all owners decided to bail (pardon the pun) rather than go through the challenge of restoration: ten times the percentage that moved the prior year!
Sixteen additional homes in the Enclave did NOT have homestead exemptions, according to HCAD. This indicates they were being rented or leased. It is highly unlikely that renters would return to damaged homes; they had no equity, only risk.
So if we add those sixteen to the other 44 homes, we have 60 homes where residents likely chose not to return after Harvey. That takes the percentage of those not returning up to 36% of the community. Twelve times the prior year’s rate!
Due to limitations of the available online HCAD data, it is not possible to further delineate the demographic makeup of the non-owner occupied homes.
However, it is interesting to note the following about those over 65:
Fourteen months later, construction trucks still line the otherwise quiet streets and driveways. The shrill whine of circle saws still pierces the afternoon calm. Construction permits still dot the windows of empty homes. Eighteen homes remain for sale.
Waiting for Mitigation
Retirees who lost their largest investment pray the politicians aren’t playing games with flood mitigation. Dredging has started, but is leaving the largest blockage in the river where it will do the most damage in another flood. More flood gates for the Lake Houston Dam are still two or three mayors away. Most residents won’t live long enough to see the benefit of additional upstream detention. And the grant application for a watershed study that’s a pre-requisite for all of those mitigation projects? Well, that has been sitting on someone’s desk at FEMA for seven months.
The residents I have talked to say they will rebuild this one time, but never again. More on that later this week in another Impact interview.
Statistical Analysis by Bill Fowler, Co-Chair, Lake Houston Area Grass Roots Flood Prevention Initiative
Posted by Bob Rehak on November 2, 2018
430 days since Hurricane Harvey