LMI Moorehead Mine Archives

Tag Archive for: LMI Moorehead Mine

Sand Miners Act Like They Own Our Rivers

Who owns our rivers? In Texas, the state owns navigable streams and rivers. People may not obstruct them, drive through them, dump waste in them, or mine them – at least not without a permit. But sand miners constantly violate those laws with only slap-on-the-wrist fines that amount to another “cost of doing business.” Meanwhile, you are the one who pays the price.

Navigable Streams/Rivers Protected for Public

What does “navigable” mean? This Texas Parks & Wildlife web page describes the concept of navigability “in fact” and “in statute.” There is no precise test for whether a stream is navigable in fact. One court observed that “[w]aters, which in their natural state are useful to the public for a considerable portion of the year are navigable.”

Another link to Texas Parks & Wildlife describes stream navigation law, specifically “Private Uses, Obstructions, Bridges and Dams.”

“Since the days of the civil law of Spain and Mexico, obstructions of navigable streams have been forbidden,” the page begins. “Nowadays the Texas Penal Code, the Texas Water Code, and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code contain prohibitions against obstructing navigable streams, and the Texas Natural Resources Code forbids unauthorized private structures.”

The Commissioner of the General Land Office has some authority to grant easements for rights of way across navigable or state-owned stream beds.

No Right to Obstruct Navigation

However, in general, no one has the right to obstruct navigation or interfere with recreation.

Parks & Wildlife Code § 90.008 states regarding Public Access: “Except as otherwise allowed by law, a person may not restrict, obstruct, interfere with, or limit public recreational use of a protected freshwater area.”

The “protected freshwater area” referred to above is defined in § 90.001 to be “the portion of the bed, bottom, or bank of a stream navigable by statute up to the gradient boundary.” That gets complicated, but generally, it means between vegetated river banks. Sand bars in a river are normally considered part of the river bed even if above water.

Prohibition Against Motor Vehicles in Rivers

In addition to the restrictions on obstruction of navigability, landowners (and the public) are generally prohibited from operating a motor vehicle in the bed of a navigable waterway (Tex. Parks & Wild. Code Section 90.002).

Prohibition Against Unauthorized Discharges

Numerous posts on this website have dealt with the legal limitations on discharging wastewater from sand mines. In general, it’s supposed to contain no more suspended solids and be no more turbid than natural levels in water upstream from the mine.

The only problem with that concept: when you have 20 square miles of sand mines in a 20 mile stretch of the river, it’s hard to find unpolluted water. In effect, the procedure/standard continually “lowers the bar” as you move downstream.

Out of Sight Makes Blight

What sparked this inquiry? As I fly up and down the West Fork, I see things normally out of public view. Such as miners’ dredge lines stretched across the river, blocking navigation. Such as trucks crossing rivers. Such as mines flushing wastewater down the river. Such as mining the riverbed, without permits or paying appropriate taxes.

Few people ever see these violations. And that has led to boldness on the part of miners. There’s little chance they will be caught. It’s kind of like speeding through a barren desert.

I have no idea whether any of the miners involved in most of the incidents below bothered to obtain permits. I do know that in many cases they have not.

Here is a small sampling of what I see from the air, month after month.

Dredge Pipelines Blocking River

*Dredge lines block river at Hallett truck crossing.*

*Dredge lines blocking river at Hanson Aggregates on West Fork in Conroe.*

Vehicles Driving Through River

*Vehicle about to cross river toward Hanson Aggregates Mine on West Fork*

Breaches Dump Wastewater into Drinking Water

*Breach at Triple PG mine into Caney Creek that was left open for months, now subject of a lawsuit by the Attorney General.*

*Another breach left open for months at same mine.*

*Breach into West Fork at Hallett Mine. Hallett says this was their stormwater outfall. It was open for years, but is now closed.*

*Plugged breach at Hanson Aggregates on West Fork*

*Often mines don’t breach directly into a river where it would be obvious. Here, the LMI River Bend mine drains onto adjacent properties which then drain to the West Fork.*

*Same area as above but closer to breach.*

Abandoned Without Reclamation

*Equipment abandoned in floodway at abandoned West Fork mine. Note oily scum on water.*

*Another abandoned River Aggregates mine perpetually leaks turbid water into West Fork. Even though mine is not active, an adjacent Hallett pit often leaks into this one and causes it to overflow.*

Pumping Wastewater to River and Adjoining Properties

*Triple PG mine pumped wastewater over its dike onto adjoining properties while operating under an injunction. Note how water is higher outside the mine (strip of trees in middle of image) than inside.*

*Note pipe in dike at Hanson Aggregates mine at allows water to drain out into ditch that runs to river.*

*Pumping water over the dike at LMI’s Moorehead mine.*

*Pumping wastewater into West Fork at Hallett Mine*

*At site of former breach, note how pipes now carry wastewater to West Fork from Hallett Mine.* *Water experts say that intense blue color is either cyanobacteria or extremely high chloride content in water.*

River Mining Without Permit

Effect on Water Quality

*Looking north at confluence of West Fork (top) and Spring Creek by US59. West Fork usually runs murkier than Spring Creek right. Almost all area sand mines are on West Fork.*

*Same confluence as above but looking west.* *56,000,000 gallons of white goop from Liberty Mine breach turned West Fork (right) white.*

Contributing to Blockages and Flooding

Rivers transport sand and sediment naturally. But with 20 square miles of sand mines built in the floodway of the West Fork upstream from the Lake Houston Area, miners have increased the potential for erosion 33x compared to the average width of the river. The pictures below, taken shortly after Harvey, show the results.

A six foot high dune not present before Harvey occluded the West Fork by 90% according to the US Army Corps of Engineers. More than 600 homes and hundreds of businesses flooded upstream from this blockage.

*West fork San Jacinto Mouth Bar after Harvey. Thousands of homes upstream from this blockage flooded during Harvey. It’s costing taxpayers more than $100 million to remove such blockages.*

Please share this post with friends and family. It’s time to start getting ready for the next legislative session.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/30/2020

1005 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.

Are Sand Mine Dikes Designed to Fail? State Sets No Standards

More than one engineer has told me that sand mine dikes appear as though they are designed to fail. Part of the problem is that the State sets no standards for their construction; the State simply says they must be “effective.” But there are only minor penalties if they prove ineffective.

How Sand Mines Use Water

Mines use water to separate sand from silt by spinning the mixture through a centrifuge. The large sand particles go to a stockpile. The smaller silt particles return to a settling pond. If left long enough, the water clarifies and can safely be released.

*Water and silt go one way, sand the other.*

*The constant inflow of silty water in the settling pond creates a delta* *that raises the water level.*

Constant Battle Against Silt and Water

The problem, however, is the buildup of silt and water over time.

The fine sediment often does not have enough time to drop out of suspension before water in the settling pond begins to overflow. That’s when dikes often break and sediment laden water is released into the river.

Last November, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality cited the LMI Moorhead mine for the unauthorized discharge of 56 million gallons of white goop into the San Jacinto West Fork. It had 25X more suspended solids than water from upstream.

Sadly, this is not an isolated problem. I have documented breaches in most San Jacinto River mines.

Road Disappears as Dike Gets Higher

Since then, aerial photos show that LMI is building dikes higher to prevent future releases. But as the thin dikes made out of sand/silt get higher, they also get narrower. They seem designed to fail at some point.

Process waste water leaks through them into surrounding wetlands and the West Fork. To keep the dikes from failing, the mine even appears to be pumping water out of its pit into the wetlands.

A large rain could easily overwhelm these dikes and cause another failure. As a starting point, review the satellite photo below from Google Earth. It was taken about a month after a major breach from another part of the mine. Note the perimeter road around the entire pond. It disappears in aerial photos taken a few months later.

*Satellite photo from 12/1/2019 shows a drivable road around the entire eastern perimeter (right) of the LMI Moorhead mine.*

Now compare that to this series of helicopter photos taken on 4/21/2020. The series starts in the upper right of the satellite photo and heads south (toward the bottom of the satellite image). This area of the mine is far from public view, except from a helicopter..

*Note the difference in elevation between the pond in the mine and the pond outside of it.*

*Note the partially buried pipe between the two ponds. A siphon?*

*Looking south along the eastern perimeter. you can see how the road now disappears and the wall of the dike gets thinner.*

*Zooming out, you can see how the far this condition exists* *and why I ask the question, “Are these dikes designed to fail?”*

Tracking south to the next grove of trees, you can see water leaking through the narrow dike as it approaches the top. Comparing the dike to nearby tree trunks, I estimate the dike is no more than 2-3 feet wide.

Where 56 Million Gallons Allegedly Entered River

*The same condition exists on another pit at the same mine. The dike shown in the foreground is the one that the TCEQ says failed last year. Note water ponding on the narrow road. See photo below.*

Note the difference in the color of the water in the pond and in the river in the photo below. The pond color has not changed during the eight months I have been documenting these sand mining operations from the air.

*Same dike, photographed from a different angle, looking north. West Fork is in foreground.*

*A new* *Artavia drainage ditch in the background now funnels water from more than 2000 acres straight toward mine.* *The mine blames Artavia for the November discharge.*

No Texas Regulations Govern Dike Construction

Unfortunately, the State of Texas has no regulations that address construction of dikes.

No standards exist for height, width, composition, compaction, or reinforcement.

I asked Ramiro Garcia, head of enforcement for the TCEQ, this question. “Does Texas have regulations for sand mines that affect the width, height, slope, compaction, and materials used in perimeter dikes or barriers?“

His reply: “The Industrial Stormwater Multi-Sector General Permit requires the use of pollution prevention practices that can effectively protect the water quality in receiving waters, or that are necessary for remaining in compliance with the general permit. The GP states that “the permittee shall evaluate and use appropriate measures and controls to reduce soil erosion and sedimentation in areas of the facility with demonstrated or potential soil erosion and sedimentation” (Part III.A.4(c)). There are no specific requirements for width, height, slope, compaction, or materials for dikes or barriers.“

So the permittee gets to determine what’s “appropriate”!

Designed to Fail?

The lack of regulation is how we get strips of sand a couple feet wide holding back hundreds of millions of gallons of waste water. One big rain, a flood, and the wastewater buildup is gone. Conveniently!

If the TCEQ discovers an unauthorized discharge, the mine pays a “slap on the wrist” fine. They average about $800. That’s why I ask, “Are sand mine dikes designed to fail?” It seems cheaper and easier to pay the fine than build earthworks that protect the source of drinking water for 2 million people.

State Rep. Dan Huberty tried to implement effective sand mining regulations during the last legislative session. Unfortunately, most of the mining bills he sponsored died in committee. I’m using the time before the next session to document mining practices on the San Jacinto. Hopefully, we’ll be able to make a better case next year.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/4/2020

979 Days after Hurricane Harvey

The MoCo/LJA Way: Build First; Work Out Drainage Details Later

LJA Engineers submitted a master drainage plan for the 2,200 acre Artavia development that Montgomery County approved. It has no detention ponds. And the drainage channels currently do not connect to the San Jacinto river. Even though LJA said they would connect to the river, the plans do not specify how, when or where. As you will see below.

Dead-end drainage. Currently, the Artavia drainage channel stops just short of the Liberty Materials Moorehead mine in the background. The San Jacinto River lies beyond the mine. This and all other aerial photos below were all taken March 6, 2020.

A Sand Mine Is Not the San Jacinto

The plans DO show the channel terminating in a sand mine between Artavia and the river. A spokesman for the sand mine said the developer is still trying to work out environmental and easement issues.

Aerial photos show the main channel stops about a 100+ yards short of LMI’s shipment facility. Meanwhile, during heavy rains, the dead-end drainage overflows onto surrounding properties. A spokesman for the mine claimed that the overflow flooded the mine last year and caused the dikes to break. He alleged that was the proximate cause for 56 million gallons of white sediment-laden water entering the West Fork.

*Exhibit 2 of Artavia Drainage Impact Analysis from 9/20/2018 shows the project outfall in the middle of the LMI sandpit that borders Moorehead Road and the San Jacinto West Fork in Montgomery County.*

The project manager for LJA did not return calls to explain their position on the dead-end drainage. And when asked for an explanation, the new Montgomery County Engineer (not the one who signed these plans) only referred me back to LJA.

Below are the drainage plans for Artavia, obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request to Montgomery County.

Several things have jumped out at me so far. LJA has not yet returned phone calls, so to me they remain…

Unaddressed Issues

Elevation Change Accelerates Flow

Elevation drops suddenly as you get near the river – 12 feet. That accelerates water flow and threatens the sand mine. As you can see above and below, the channel is like a firehose aimed at the mine. That mine has enough problems of its own. In the past, dike breaches have affected Lake Houston water quality; we don’t need more of that. The mine blames the breaches on water overflowing from the Artavia ditch.

Note how the water in this short section of Artavia’s drainage ditch does not even pond at one end and reaches halfway up the banks at the other. That shows the slope. The SJR West Fork is between the two sections of the mine in background.

Flow Rates Understated

LJA calculations appear to understate the volume and velocity of flow. They use a Manning’s coefficient of .035, a value associated with pasture/farmland or channels filled with stones and cobbles. The coefficient recommended for smooth channels is 0.022. The difference creates a 63% increase in velocity and a 60% increase in volume of flow. See for yourself. With no real way yet for the water to get to the river or under FM1314, that will cause water to pile up much faster.

*Not too many cobbles and boulders in this channel.* *All sand and silt* *which is already blocking culverts.*

LJA also uses pre-Atlas rainfall statistics in their calculations of 10-, 25- and 100-year peak flows. The new Montgomery County standard is 16.1 inches in 24 hours compared to the 12.17 that LJA used for the 24 hour, 100-year flood.

Did LJA use “good engineering practices” and model Atlas 14 to ensure that it actually contained the 100-yr, 24-hr storm? There’s an ethical issue here. Did they put public safety first? We don’t know because they didn’t say so in any of their documents.

No Mention of Wetlands

LJA never mentions wetlands in their analysis. However, the National Wetlands Inventory shows wetlands on Artavia property and other property Artavia drains through.

*Wetlands on Artavia Property or property Artavia drainage would likely have to go through.*

Threat to Pipeline

A pipeline crosses the Liberty Materials mine. High velocity flow through the mine could undermine and threaten that pipeline like it did at another Liberty mine and at the Triple PG mine on the East Fork.

*Green line shows path of pipeline across across Liberty Materials Mine. White line shows current path of drainage ditch.*

No Outlet

There’s no explanation for how Artavia will get water through the pit at the end of their ditch. They can not store Artavia’s runoff in the pit. Their pit is already filled to the brim with highly silty, turbid water. Another unauthorized discharge could affect water quality in Lake Houston...again!

*Level of water in the pit that Artavia’s ditch would have to drain through. Pit is already overflowing. West Fork is in background.* *TCEQ measured suspended solids in pit’s water at 25X higher than river.*

Threat to Mine

A representative for the mine owner says the mine owner doesn’t want more water in the pit. They can’t afford the cost from environmental or business perspectives. With the COVID-19 threat, construction activity is way down. So margins are slim. And they can’t afford to have water fill their deep pit where they dry mine.

“No Adverse Impact”

LJA claims the project will have no adverse impact on downstream properties. But it already has. Properties along Greenbaugh and in Oak Tree have flooded since Artavia started clearing land and filling in wetlands.

*Oak Tree detention pond (behind camera) used to overflow into wetlands. Then Artavia started clearing and filling. Now water backs up into the 40+ homes in the small subdivision.*

The Liberty Materials mine also alleges it was flooded by Artavia’s overflow, resulting in the discharge of 56 million gallons of silty water into the West Fork.

*The day the West Fork turned white.* *TCEQ blamed LMI. LMI blamed Artavia.*

Who Pays to Get Water Under FM1314?

LJA can only convey 68 cfs under FM1314. Meanwhile, TxDoT has not yet finished the design for a bridge. They hope to start bidding the job by the Fall of this year. Residents, not the developer, will pay for the improvement through the local municipal utility district.

*Where water exits on the downstream side of FM1314*

LJA claims “The culvert crossings were designed to have capacity to convey 100-year storm events.” But they certainly aren’t doing that now.

Diverting Water From East to West Fork

The developer appears to be diverting water from the East Fork watershed to the West Fork watershed. See Section 1.4 and Exhibit One.

It would be harder to “beat the peak” to the East Fork. It’s 12 times farther away; water would take much longer to get there. So the diversion appears to be an attempt to avoid building detention ponds. But the diversion adds to flood volume in heavily populated West Fork areas where far more homes flooded during Hurricane Harvey.

Will LJA Figure It Out In Time?

For the sake of adjacent residents and businesses, let’s hope they figure these loose ends out before the next flood.

We heard of many of the same problems and promises on the Perry Homes Woodridge Village project north of Kingwood that LJA also engineered. Hundreds of homes flooded there twice last year.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/20/2020

934 Days after Hurricane Harvey