Tag Archive for: lone star groundwater conservation district

August Flood Digest: Brief Summaries of Nine Items in the News

Here’s a short digest of nine flood-related items in the news this month.

Fifth Anniversary of Harvey

This month marks the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Harvey. It’s hard to pinpoint an exact day for Harvey. The system moved off of Africa on August 13, 2017. It became a tropical storm on the 17th; moved into the Gulf on the 22nd; became a Cat 4 hurricane; and made landfall at Port Aransas on the 25th. The outer bands reached Harris County on the 26th.

Harvey dumped heavy rain over Houston for four days. It started moving back offshore on the 29th and 30th. Ninety percent of the river forecast points in southeast Texas reached flood stage; forty-six percent reached new record levels. Harvey dumped more rain than any storm in the history of North America. For more information, see the Hurricane Harvey tab on the Reports Page.

West Fork San Jacinto During Harvey. Looking NE toward Kingwood from the Townsend Park N Ride.

New SJRA Director From Lake Conroe

Most flooding in the Lake Houston Area during Harvey happened after the SJRA started releasing 79,000 cubic feet per second (CFS) from Lake Conroe to save homes there. Many Lake-Houston-Area residents blamed the absence of downstream representation on the SJRA board for what they saw as disregard for their property.

After touring the extensive damage by helicopter, Governor Abbott appointed two Lake-Houston-Area residents (Kaaren Cambio and Mark Micheletti) to the seven-person board. Cambio later resigned to avoid a conflict of interest when she joined Congressman Dan Crenshaw’s staff. Last month, the Governor appointed a Lake Conroe resident to fill her vacancy, Stephanie Johnson. That now leaves Micheletti as the lone downstream representative.

Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District Elections

Sometimes it seems that the main requirements for membership on the LSGCD board are half a brain, a willingness to kiss Simon Sequiera’s ring and indifference to science. Sequiera owns Quadvest, the largest private groundwater pumping company in Montgomery County. And excessive groundwater pumping in MoCo has been linked to subsidence and flooding. But concerned citizens will have a chance to take back the LSGCD board from a slate of directors backed by Sequiera. The deadline for applying is August 22. This page on the LSGCD site is all about the election and how to file if you are interested.

Edgewater Park

Harris County Precinct 3 is trying to jumpstart the development of Edgewater Park at 59 and the San Jacinto West Fork. The county has stated it is hiring a new consultant to re-design the park and that construction could begin 1 to 2 years from now. Quiddity Engineering will get the nod. The project will provide a boat launch, an additional park for the Humble/Kingwood Area, and a connection to the Spring Creek Greenway hike and bike trail. Quiddity’s contract will cover design, engineering, and other pre-construction expenses. Quiddity is the new name for Jones and Carter.

Houston Planning & Development Department News

The Planning and Development Department has a new initiative called Livable Places. The objective: create more housing options for Houstonians. The four options they visualize all increase housing density and impervious cover. I wrote them asking, “Won’t that increase flooding?” In essence, they said, “But it may help other places stay green.” True. But that’s not going to help flooding in the City much. Wasn’t our Drainage Fee designed to provide an incentive to REDUCE impervious cover. Oh well. These are different times. Can we get our drainage fees back now?

Flood Tunnels

Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) released Phase 2 of its $30 billion flood tunnel study last month – along with a recommendation to study the recommendations in more detail. The current plan for Phase 3 is to spend the next 4-6 months:

  • Working with the Army Corps to explore possible federal involvement
  • Scoping the Phase 3 study
  • Beginning procurement.

HCFCD hopes to start Phase 3 in early 2023. Said Scott Elmer, P.E. CFM and Assistant Director of Operations for HCFCD, “We expect it to take approximately 3 years to complete.” For the complete Phase 2 study, click here.

GLO HARP Program Deadline

The Texas General Land Office (GLO) announced that applications for its Homeowner Assistance and Reimbursement Program (HARP) will close at 5 p.m. on Aug. 31, 2022. Those include applications for repairs/rebuilds from Tropical Storm Imelda in 2019. To be eligible, you must submit applications by the deadline … unless funding runs out first. So hurry. 

The program includes repair or reconstruction of owner-occupied single-family homes and reimbursement up to $50,000 for certain out-of-pocket expenses incurred for reconstruction, rehabilitation, or mitigation. Repayment of SBA loans is also eligible for reimbursement.

The GLO has $71,604,000 to help residents of Harris, Chambers, Liberty, Jefferson, Montgomery, Orange, and San Jacinto counties. HARP is only available for a primary residences, not second homes. Interested homeowners should visit recovery.texas.gov/harp to apply online or download an application.

Harris County Attrition and Pay Reports

As reported in April, the loss of employees and managers in dozens of Harris County departments has created a brain drain that impacts delivery of county services. On Tuesday, 8/2/22, Commissioners considered two related reports. The first had to do with attrition. The second had to do with pay and benefits.

Commissioners did not discuss the first, but they did discuss the second at length. They also voted unanimously to have the Office of Management and Budget investigate pay disparities. Certain commissioners wanted to apply equity guidelines to low-paid employees and freeze pay for those making more. I didn’t hear the words “Pay for Performance” once during the discussion.

In the end, commissioners recommended having HR create a job architecture, pay structure, and new evaluations that would determine pay increases or freezes. More in future posts.

New Bond Package

Discussion of a new $1.2 billion bond package consumed the last 90 minutes of commissioners court this week. The County Administrator still cannot say where the money is actually needed. Commissioners Adrian Garcia and Rodney Ellis want to apply equity guidelines to this bond. And neither wants to say which projects they would spend the money on. Garcia even threatened in a previous meeting that Republican-leaning precincts would not get ANY of the money if their commissioners voted NO on the bond.

When Hidalgo suggested guidelines for distribution of the money, Garcia stomped out of the meeting. He later reluctantly agreed to a split that would give his precinct and Ellis’ $380 million each while Republican precincts would get only $220 million each.

During the debate, it came out that much of the money from the 2015 bond program still has not been spent. That raised the question, “Why do we need another bond?”

Bragging About Trickery on One Bond While Pitching Another

Also, Commissioner Rodney Ellis publicly bragged that he purposefully didn’t define “equity” in the 2018 flood bond. “It was side language,” he said. “It was not in the language that was on the ballot, but that was the side agreement we agreed to.”

Ellis later said, “Those poor neighborhoods are the ones who have gotten the short end of the process.” But the HCFCD July flood-bond update shows that Halls, Greens, White Oak, Brays and Hunting Bayou Watersheds have received $400 million out of the $1 billion spent to date from the flood bond. Twenty percent of the watersheds are getting 40% of the money. Short end?

I personally don’t plan to vote for another bond until I start seeing some benefit from the last two. Especially when there’s no guarantee how, where or on what the money will be spent. To me, this looks like a $1.2 billion dollar slush fund for Garcia and Ellis.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/6/22

1803 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.

Last Chance to Fight Subsidence: Comment Now

On Friday, July 23, 2021 – one week from today – the public comment period will close on the proposed Desired Future Conditions (DFCs) for the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District. DFCs represent goals for preserving a percentage of groundwater for future generations and preventing subsidence. A contentious debate has raged for years between those who profit from the pumping of cheap groundwater and those whose property will be damaged by the subsidence it causes.

Subsidence Caused by Excessive Groundwater Pumping

Subsidence is a sinking of property relative to others around it. Unlimited pumping removes the water under homes and businesses that helps to prop them up. When the water is removed, it can create a bowl in the landscape and contribute to flooding.

The Woodlands has already experienced this, where a “graben” is developing between two fault lines. Graben is a geologic term meaning “a block of the earth’s crust between two faults displaced downward relative to the blocks on either side.” Such displacement can damage streets, bridges, pipelines, driveways, foundations and homes.

Modeling has shown that subsidence could cause more than 3.5 feet of sinking in southern and eastern Montgomery County, growing population centers where groundwater pumping is greatest. Subsidence is already a serious concern in The Woodlands where it has triggered faults.

Predicted subsidence in Montgomery County if Lone Star allows the pumping of 115,000 acre-feet per year.

Conflict Between GMA-14 and Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District

Years ago, Texas established Groundwater Management areas to bind the people of a region together, and ensure that public interests outweigh the self-interest of a few powerful people. GMA-14 covers most of southeast Texas. It includes five groundwater conservation districts, comprising 20 counties.

GMA-14’s Proposed DFCs

GMA-14 has debated its next set of desired future conditions (DFCs) since 2016. At its last meeting, members finally adopted the following statement. 

In each county in GMA 14, no less than 70 percent median available drawdown remaining in 2080 and no more than an average of 1.0 additional foot of subsidence between 2009 and 2080.

GMA-14 Desired Future Conditions 

Click here for the full text surrounding the DFCs. 

Let’s break that down:

  • The numbers represent averages or medians within each county.
  • “70% median available drawdown remaining in 2080” means counties cannot draw down their aquifer(s) more than 30%. Seventy percent must remain at the end of the period – 2080. Each district controls this by monitoring aquifer levels and adjusting annual well permits to meet the goal.
  • “No more than an average of 1.0 additional foot of subsidence between 2009 and 2080” means “county-wide.”

Understand that some areas have already experienced significant subsidence in the last decade. For instance, before moving to more surface water, the Woodlands was sinking about 2 centimeters per year. That’s more than three quarters of an inch per year, 7.8 inches in ten years, or almost 2 feet during the life of a 30 year mortgage.

When The Woodlands began using more surface water in 2016 after completion of a surface water pipeline from Lake Conroe, the rate of subsidence dropped 75%.

Subsidence: a Check against Excessive Drawdown

The subsidence metric (1 foot additional) is a check on drawdown. Aquifers can recharge, but subsidence cannot reverse itself.

The subsidence metric ensures that groundwater pumpers won’t deplete aquifers, then magically claim they will recharge in the last year of the monitoring period. It protects both groundwater levels and homes.

Simon Sequeira, owner of a large for-profit groundwater pumping utility in Montgomery County, has fought the inclusion of a subsidence metric in the DFCs for years. This four-page letter to GMA-14 spells out his reasons why a subsidence metric should NOT be included in DFCs. In it, he first claims that drawdown will become an issue before subsidence becomes evident. He then threatens to sue everyone in sight if a subsidence metric IS included. Duh!

If he really believed subsidence is not a factor, why does he protest it so much? And why won’t he answer that question?

“The lady doth protest too much, methinks,” said Shakespeare in Hamlet – a phrase used in everyday speech to indicate doubt regarding the truth of an overly strong denial. 

The simple fact is this. Subsidence was already happening with pumping rates lower than the DFCs proposed. When MoCo started using more surface water, the subsidence leveled off. But get ready for more if Sue-Happy Simon gets his way.

Learn More and Protect Your Property Rights

To learn more about subsidence, check out:

Please consider emailing the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District before July 23rd. Demand that they adopt the subsidence metric proposed by GMA-14 and a sustainable pumping rate.

Compose your own email to info@lonestargcd.org or just click this link. Don’t forget to replace the placeholders for contact info with your real info and hit send. It only takes a few seconds.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/16/2021

1417 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.

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.

The study will cost $122,700 and arrive 22 weeks after the train leaves the station.

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.

Subsidence in Harris County that could be triggered if Lone Star pumps as much water as it voted to.
Lake Houston Dam During Harvey had five times more water going over it than goes over Niagra Falls on an average day. More than 16,000 homes and 3,300 businesses in the Lake Houston Area flooded during Harvey.

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.

LSGCD Votes to Almost Double Groundwater Pumping, Treat Subsidence as PR problem

The Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District (LSGCD) board voted Wednesday in a special meeting to throw caution and conservation to the wind. In a long-delayed vote, the board unanimously agreed to adopt “Desired Future Conditions” (DFCs) that allow groundwater pumping to increase from approximately 60,000 acre fee per year to 115,000. This was the third of three alternatives they considered and the one that caused up to 3.5 feet of subsidence in southern MoCo. The board also voted unanimously NOT to include a subsidence metric in their DFCs and to hire an Austin PR firm, The Mach 1 Group, to handle the PR fallout.

Still No Action to Initiate MoCo Subsidence Study

For the third meeting in a row, the board also took no action to initiate Phase II of its subsidence study. The LSGCD Phase I report stated that Phase II would assess subsidence and flooding. However, having decided to ignore subsidence, the fate of Phase II remains unclear. (As of this writing, the board has not yet posted its agenda for the regularly scheduled April 13 meeting, nor has it posted the video of the April 7 meeting.) (Update: as of 4/12 at noon, video of the meeting was still not posted.)

Stage Set for Showdown

All of these decisions set the stage for a showdown at the Groundwater Management Area 14 (GMA-14) meeting this Friday at 9 a.m. Approval of LSGCD’s DFCs requires a two-thirds vote. Because GMA-14 has five voting groundwater conservation districts, approval will require at least three others.

GMA-14 will meet tomorrow at 9 a.m. to discuss its options. See meeting details below if you wish to participate.

More Troubling Contradictions Emerge from Meeting

Those who follow this debate have noted many troubling contradictions on the part of LSGCD and yesterday’s meeting was no exception.

The virtual meeting started 14 minutes late due to connectivity issues. The few hardy souls who persisted through the delays and poor audio quality, were treated to lengthy presentations that covered old ground and several contradictory comments from staff and board members.

For instance:

  • LSGCD claimed at the last GMA-14 meeting that it needed another month to hold stakeholder meetings before they could vote on DFCs. But last night’s reports on the stakeholder meetings did not mention subsidence, only the need to improve communications. This set the stage for the motions to ignore subsidence in DFCs and to hire a PR agency. It would be interesting to learn whether stakeholders expressed concerns about subsidence that weren’t reported.
  • QuadVest, which reportedly funded the campaigns of current board members, previously threatened to sue everyone in sight if they didn’t get their way. However, in yesterday’s meeting, they claimed they now had no plans to sue anyone. (Note: Previous to voting on yesterday’s motion, the board discussed litigation in executive session.) Winning through intimidation!
  • The board claimed it could not measure subsidence, although tools to do so are cheap and readily available. And the LSGCD staff was told so in the last GMA-14 meeting.
  • The board also insisted its problems were based on misinformation, but failed to acknowledge one example. Neither did they acknowledge their own role in spreading disinformation.
  • For instance, LSGCD claimed Harris County had no subsidence metric in place, ignoring the facts that the goal of the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District is to eliminate subsidence and that HGSD has extensive regulations in place to get people off of groundwater.
  • The key argument seemed to be that aquifer decline, not subsidence, was the only limiting factor on groundwater pumping. But modeling showed that at the pumping rate they adopted, subsidence would exceed three feet in places.
  • The board also argued that pumping in Harris County affected subsidence in MoCo. While true in certain cases, that ignores the fact that they approved an increase in MoCo pumping while pumping in Harris County is declining.
  • They talked a lot about property rights, but never specified whose. QuadVest believes they have a right to pump water from beneath your house.
Modeled subsidence in MoCo if pumping reaches 115,000 acre feet per year.

Who Benefits?

QuadVest gets to pump more water, the raw material of its business. QuadVest previously backed efforts to get the LSGCD board elected rather than appointed by local regulated entities. QuadVest then reportedly backed a slate of candidates promising to “Restore Affordable Water.” However, according to MoCo residents who get QuadVest water and have contacted me, water rates have not come down.

Who Loses?

Consequences of subsidence are widespread. Differential subsidence measured over wide areas can alter the gradient of ditches, pipelines, streams, rivers and lakes. For instance, models show that the subsidence associated with pumping 115,000 acre feet per year in Montgomery County would cause 1 foot of subsidence at the Lake Houston Dam but 3 feet in Kingwood and Huffman. That would put tens of thousands of upstream residents 2 feet closer to floodwaters.

Rescue efforts in Kingwood on Valley Manor during Harvey flood in 2017. Almost two miles from West Fork of San Jacinto.
Rescue efforts in Kingwood on Valley Manor during Harvey flood in 2017. 2.1 miles from West Fork of San Jacinto. 110 homes in this subdivision flooded. Imagine if water were 2 feet higher.

Subsidence can also crack roads, foundations, walls, ceilings, and roofs, especially near fault lines which are plentiful in southern MoCo and northern Harris Counties.

Subsidence triggered by groundwater pumping at a Woodlands home near a fault line.

Avoiding Checks and Balances

If subsidence isn’t really a danger as the LSGCD board contends, why not include a subsidence metric in its DFCs? Aquifers can rebound over time, but subsidence is forever. Over-pumping could cause irreversible damage as you see above.

GMA-14 Meeting Details

The GMA-14 meeting is April 9, 2021 at 9 a.m. To make a public comment, sign up here.

Posted by Bob Rehak on April 8, 2021

1318 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.

Doublespeak Continues to Cloud MoCo Subsidence Debate

Those who watched recent Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District (LSGCD) and Groundwater Management Area 14 (GMA-14) meetings were treated to some jaw-dropping, head-spinning doublespeak on the subject of subsidence. On January 20, 2021, at a GMA-14 meeting, LSGCD rejected any mention of subsidence in their Desired Future Conditions (DFCs). Then on 2/9/2021, three presenters told the Lone Star board that they were still considering subsidence. Then on 2/24/2021, the same three presenters told GMA-14 they still rejected subsidence.

Pardon My Whiplash!

As if that wasn’t enough, during the three-hour 2/24 GMA-14 meeting, they also:

  • Claimed that their groundwater withdrawal plan won’t create subsidence, but insisted on removing subsidence as a measure of their performance.
  • Believe they are entitled to their fair share of subsidence.
  • Insisted they should be measured on nine factors (which included subsidence), but then argued to take subsidence out of the mix.

Their main point? In essence, “We reject subsidence as a measure of our performance.”

Why? Samantha Reiter, LSGWCD General Manager, listed four reasons in a six-page, 3716-word letter which she read to GMA-14. I have summarized her arguments below for readability and to make concise responses possible.

Argument #1: Modeling

Modeling shows that projected water draw-downs won’t create subsidence in excess of one foot on average across Montgomery County, so why worry?

Response: Subsidence models have not yet been validated for the aquifer from which Montgomery County would predominantly pump – the Jasper. Moreover, while aquifers can rebound from overpumping, subsidence cannot. Without a subsidence metric as a check, private water utilities, such as Quadvest, could merrily pump as much water as they wanted for 40 years and claim they would make it up in the last ten. But the subsidence damage at that point would be permanent.

Much of the groundwater in Montgomery County used for human consumption is pumped from the Jasper aquifer which also affects Harris and Galveston Counties. However, models predicting subsidence from the Jasper have not been validated as they have for the Chicot and Evangeline Aquifers. Source Harris-Galveston Subsidence District.

Argument #2: Can’t Control Harris County

LSGCD can’t control Harris County pumping which affects subsidence in MoCo.

Response: True, but MoCo has already shown that surface water can dramatically reduce subsidence, even where subsidence is worst – in the heavily populated, southern part of the county. Moreover, SJRA’s surface water treatment plant has space to quadruple its capacity. While MoCo is arguing to increase its reliance on groundwater, Harris County is desperately trying to reduce its.

When The Woodlands began using more surface water in 2016 after completion of a surface water pipeline, the rate of subsidence dropped 75%.

See more below under “More on Argument #2.”

Argument #3: Unfairness

It’s unfair to limit subsidence in MoCo to an amount less than Harris County experienced.

Response: Is LSGCD really arguing to make the same mistakes Harris County did? Is it really worth damaging peoples’ foundations, walls, doors, cabinets, ceilings, roofs and driveways to make a philosophical point about fairness?

These front steps in The Woodlands dropped almost 10 inches due to subsidence before conversion to more surface water. Photo courtesy of Mark Meinwrath.

Argument #4: Measurable Goals

Goals must be measurable and LSGCD does not have enough monitoring sites or equipment to measure subsidence throughout Montgomery County.

Mike Turco, head of the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District answered this in the GMA-14 meeting. You can monitor subsidence with GPS, LIDAR and other readily available technologies for much less than the cost of a network of extensometers.

To see Ms. Reiter’s full text, click here. Her subsidence discussion starts on page 4.

More On Argument #2

Of the four arguments posed above, #2 seems strongest. Excessive pumping in either Harris or Montgomery County can produce subsidence across the county line. So how do you determine who’s causing how much in each location?

This is a question for scientists to answer. However, it seems to me that if one county is reducing its reliance on groundwater and the other is increasing its, any increase in the rate of subsidence should be easy to trace.

And this is precisely the scenario we face. Harris is reducing its dependence on groundwater; Montgomery is arguing to increase its.

In Harris County, the City of Houston is investing heavily to move people off groundwater. The $351 million Luce Bayou Interbasin Transfer Project will bring more water to Lake Houston. And the new $1.4 billion Northeast Water Purification Plant will supply that water to Houston as well as surrounding municipalities, counties and utility districts. Montgomery County already has a lake that’s 3-4X larger and a water treatment plant that can supply its growing population with enough water to reduce subsidence to a negligible rate. With the Montgomery County investment already made, why risk subsidence?

Expansion of Houston’s Northeast Water Purification Plant will quadruple its capacity. It will soon provide 320 million gallons of treated water capacity per day, more than three times the entire water demand in Montgomery County. Looking NE toward Lake Houston in background.

We Need Fewer Filibusters, Less Doublespeak, More Debate

I wish the LSGCD would engage in debates, not filibusters. By its own admission, LSGCD has tried to come up with a statement of Desired Future Conditions since 2016. That’s five years! How long does it take to study a problem and write a sentence!

In my opinion, verbose, rambling, repetitive 3-hour meetings filled with doublespeak have been designed to cloud tradeoffs, not find the best balance. It shouldn’t take smart people three hours to articulate a problem. And until we can get at what the real problem is, we will never find a real solution.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/5/2021

1284 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.

MoCo Groundwater Group Defers Action on Subsidence…Again, Putting Residents at Risk

The Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District (LSGWCD) board once again deferred action on subsidence at its three-hour board meeting on 2/9/2021. The ostensible reason: public confusion on the issue, although that confusion may have been caused by the District’s own staff.

Several board members also launched ad hominem attacks against critics, alleging they were deliberately spreading misinformation about the board’s position on subsidence. They demanded public apologies from critics after the District’s own staff made misleading presentations.

Confusion Starts when General Manager, Counsel Fail to Articulate Real Issue

At about 59 minutes and 35 seconds into the video, Samantha Reiter, LSGWCD’s General Manager, summarizes consultant James Beach’s testimony to GMA-14. She did not explicitly mention the exact text of his statement about LSGWCD’s position on subsidence to GMA-14. Specifically he said, “At this time, we can’t support the use of DFCs for subsidence in Montgomery County.” 

Reiter’s lack of specificity teed up a wandering, confusing and mind-numbing 90-minute presentation by Stacy V. Reese, LSGWCD’s General Counsel.

She designed the presentation to address one of the criticisms leveled against the board by critics, i.e., that a potential violation of the Open Meetings Act had occurred. According to LSGWCD watchers, LSGWCD’s board never openly authorized Beach to make that statement, which seemed to state a conclusion the Board had reached. That raised the questions, “Who authorized the statement and when?” But those were not the questions Reese addressed.

Reese’s Presentation a Masterpiece of Misdirection

Without mentioning Beach’s statement upfront or accurately summarizing critics’ concerns, Reese then tried to show that LSGWCD had investigated subsidence since 2017. But everyone already knew that. And that made a presentation which took up about half the meeting largely irrelevant while the audience drifted away.

Instead of addressing who authorized Beach’s statement and when by reviewing the LSGWCD January 12th meeting and the GMA-14 January 20th meetings, Ms. Reese instead discussed other board meetings and presentations dating back to 2017. Repeatedly skipping forward and back in time and between LSGCD and GMA 14 meetings, her presentation included so much irrelevant information, it became impossible to determine the board’s position on subsidence. One understood only that they had previously discussed it.

Not until two hours and sixteen mininutes into the meeting does Ms. Reese allude to Mr. Beach’s statement to GMA-14 about rejecting subsidence as a metric in DFCs at the bottom of a slide with eight bullet points. But she summarizes the slide in one sentence: “We’re adapting to a subsidence statement.” In other words, she shows one thing and says another.

Then she claims at 2:17 that the board has not yet voted on a final position re: DFCs or subsidence.

If you didn’t know that the real issue was Beach’s statement, you might conclude from Reese’s presentation that the board was, in fact, supportive of including some sort of a subsidence statement in Desired Future Conditions. That’s the opposite of what Beach said.

Laying the Groundwork for Backpedaling?

Ms. Reese did, however, lay some groundwork for a possible reinterpretation of Beach’s statement. Although she didn’t say it outright, she implied that measuring subsidence was unnecessary because it varies with groundwater pumping rates. While a correlation does exist at times between the two variables, the assertion masks two important points:

  • First, without measuring subsidence, you cannot calibrate the accuracy of groundwater-pumping models.
  • Second, groundwater levels are reversible; subsidence is not.

The latter point deserves explanation.

Groundwater Levels Reversible; Subsidence Not

The amount of groundwater depletion depends on pumping and recharge rates. Those can vary annually depending on usage and rainfall.

But while water-well levels can rebound, subsidence cannot. Subsidence lasts forever. Once clay collapses, it stays compressed. It’s like trying to re-inflate a brownie that you’ve smashed with a sledgehammer.

Not Adopting a Subsidence Metric Would Allow Board to Defer Action on Groundwater Withdrawals for Decades

Putting these facts together, you can see how a LSGWCD board intent on unlimited pumping could cause lasting subsidence and severe damage to homes throughout the region. In a 70-year plan, they could argue through Year 60, for instance, that aquifer levels would bounce back. Without a subsidence metric in place as a check on pumping, they could continually kick the can down the road. They could say year after year that they will change regulations at some point before Year 70 to restore aquifer levels to their targets.

Mr. Beach stated this explicitly during the board meeting. At approximately 2:31 into the video, he says, “We can incorporate subsidence in the future…”

At 2:32, Jim Spigener, LSGCD’s Treasurer says it, too. “It feels like there is a rush to do something. But DFCs are a 70-year process. The danger is that we do something in the heat of a political storm and it’s the wrong thing. We’re not in any hurry to figure out how to do this right. We’re not going to figure this out in a month.”

Righto! Ms. Reese’s presentation must have put him to sleep, too. According to her, LSGWCD has worked on this since 2017.

Finally, at 2:34, someone makes a motion to table any action on desired future conditions. The motion passed. Neither did the board consider Phase Two of their subsidence study. See 2:49 of the video.

More Questions than Answers Come from 3-Hour Meeting

Reese’s inventory of subsidence discussions skips from LSGWCD board meetings in May and June of 2020 to the GMA-14 meeting on January 20, 2021, leaving a critical six month gap. (See 2:16 in video.)

Without speculating on the motives of individuals, I would point out that actions speak louder than words. The inability or unwillingness of highly intelligent people to clearly articulate issues and address them in a straightforward manner raises many questions.

  • Why?
  • Why delay?
  • Why defer action?
  • Why not clarify the differences between measuring aquifer depletion and subsidence?
  • Why not elaborate on Beach’s statement for video posterity?
  • Why spend 90 minutes rehashing old board meetings and not one minute articulating a clear subsidence goal?
  • Who does the LSGWCD board represent? Residents or Quadvest?

These are important questions. Much depends on them. Perhaps even billions of dollars in potential damages.

Types of Damage Subsidence Can Cause

Differential subsidence across a county can cause bowls to develop in the landscape, such as near Jersey Village, which increases flooding. (See subsidence map below.)

The subsidence map below also shows something else. At the rate LSGWCD wants to pump, it could cause southern MoCo and northern Harris Counties to sink two feet relative to the dam at Lake Houston. Picture tilting a full bathtub two feet. Something will get wet!

Models show that excessive groundwater pumping in MoCo could create 3 feet of subsidence in Kingwood compared to 1 foot at the Lake Houston Dam.

SMU also found that subsidence triggered geologic faults in Montgomery County that have damaged homes.

Subsidence in one Woodlands home triggered major foundation and other related problems.

Insurance companies have also linked subsidence to:

  • Damage to infrastructure such as roads, sewers and buried utilities
  • Foundation, sidewalk, driveway, roof, and brickwork damage
  • Cracks in plaster, wallboard, flooring, ceilings, windows, and moldings
  • Doors and cabinets that refuse to open or shut properly

In some cases, homes may not even be repairable.

Slow Rate of Subsidence Masks Magnitude of Problem

The biggest problem with the subsidence problem? With a few exceptions, such as fault-line triggering, it happens over such a long period of time that many homeowners will never fully experience it.

Median duration of homeownership in the U.S. is 13 years. But in The Woodlands and Houston, owners typically stay in a home just 10 years.

National Association of Realtors

At that rate, most people might not notice subsidence. I’m an exception, I’ve lived in my house almost 40 years. Stick around that long and you get a true feeling for the cost of subsidence. I’ve had my foundation leveled twice; my driveway repaved twice; my sanitary sewer lines repaired twice; my doors and windows replaced once; and my walls, cabinets, and ceilings repaired multiple times.

You don’t need to remind me about the true cost of subsidence.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/10/2021

1261 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 510 since Imelda

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.

LSGWCD Rejects Subsidence Limit as Any Part of Desired Future Conditions

The Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District (LSGWCD) thumbed its nose at the rest of Southeast Texas when it rejected any mention of subsidence limitations in “desired future conditions (DFCs)” for Montgomery County. The statement came two hours, seven minutes and 15 seconds into a Groundwater Management Area (GMA) 14 meeting last month.

“At this time we can’t support the use of DFCs for subsidence in Montgomery County,” said James Beach, an engineering consultant for LSGWCD.

It’s unclear who authorized the consultant to make this statement. Those who follow LSGWCD meetings cannot remember the board discussing such a statement in any open meeting.

Bad Timing

This comes two months before a deadline to finalize DFCs for the entire GMA and two years after the debate about subsidence started. Since 2018, LSGCD and GMA 14 partners have debated various groundwater withdrawal/subsidence scenarios.

Run D was the most popular scenario for a long time. It called for leaving 70% of groundwater in place and causing no more than 1 foot of subsidence. However, withdrawing 30% of groundwater produced far more subsidence in Harris County.
The same models showed 2.5 feet of subsidence in south Montgomery County.

GMA 14 covers most of southeast Texas. It includes 19 counties clustered into 7 groundwater conservation districts. Rules adopted by the group apply to every conservation district and county in the area.

Members of GMA 14

LSGWCD has argued in favor of virtually unlimited groundwater pumping ever since its board became elected. Quadvest, a large, private water producer in Montgomery County successfully backed candidates running for the LSGWCD board on a platform of “restoring affordable water.” Both the Board and Quadvest have argued ever since – contrary to scientific evidence – that subsidence is not an issue in Montgomery County. They even produced a study (Phase One) to prove the point. It basically amounted to a survey of scientific literature mashed up with public comments.

HARC Study Points Out Limitations of LSGWCD Study

However, a report issued today by HARC calls several of the report’s conclusions “misleading” regarding:

  • Compaction data of various aquifers in Montgomery County.
  • Not mentioning well-known limitations on use of models for Montgomery County aquifers.
  • Focusing more on subsidence in Harris and Galveston Counties than on subsidence in Montgomery County.

The HARC Study also points out limitations on the use of data in LSGCD’s Phase One study. For instance, the latter was:

  • Primarily a survey of scientific literature, not conditions in Montgomery County.
  • It didn’t discuss drought.
  • Nor did it discuss oil and gas production.
  • It drew unjustified conclusions from limited data.
  • The language was imprecise and subjective.
  • It relied more on public comment than scientific data.

To read the full Phase 1 report and an Executive Summary, follow the links at the bottom of their Subsidence Page.https://www.lonestargcd.org/subsidence

Two Subsidence-Related Items On LSGWCD Agenda for Tuesday

LSGWCD will hold a board meeting Tuesday night starting at 6 pm. The agenda contains two related items.

  • 14. Receive information from District’s technical consultants regarding subsidence studies and/or discussion regarding the same –Samantha Stried Reiter and/or District’s technical consultant(s)
    • a) Discussion, consideration, and possible action to approve Subsidence Study Phase 2 Scope of Work.
  • 15. Groundwater Management Area 14 – update the board on the issues related to joint planning activities and development of desired future conditions in GMA 14 – Samantha Reiter and/or District’s technical consultant(s)
    • a) Discussion, consideration, and possible action on any items related to Lone Star GCD’s proposal(s) to and/or participation in GMA 14.

Re: the second point, a water expert I queried said there is no way LSGWCD can opt out of GMA 14. The reference is likely to whether they want to participate financially with other groundwater conservation districts in funding the operations of GMA 14.

How to Attend In Person or Online

In-Person Participation

If you choose to participate in person, you WILL have the opportunity to provide live comments during the designated portion of the hearings or meeting.

Online Participation

If you choose to participate via the Zoom webinar link below, you WILL have the opportunity to provide live comments during the designated portion of the hearings or meeting.

If you choose to participate in the webinar via the Zoom App, you will need to pre- register via the URL meeting link above to get a password emailed to you in advance of the webinar. You will use the password emailed to you during pre- registration when you log into the app to join the webinar. You WILL have the opportunity to provide live comments during the designated portion of the hearings or meeting.

Participation via the videoconference webinar is not required and only necessary if you plan to make public comment during any hearing or the meeting. If you plan to make public comment during any hearing or meeting, please contact the District at (936) 494-3436 or info@lonestargcd.org to register as a speaker during public comment. 

Please indicate whether you would like to make public comment during the management plan hearing, permit hearing and/or board meeting. You must also register as a speaker when logging into the webinar by providing your name and email address. You can pre-register for the webinar. Any person participating in the meeting must be recognized and identified by a moderator before they speak.

Watching or Listening but Not Commenting

LISTENING/WATCHING BUT NO PARTICIPATION IN LIVE PUBLIC COMMENT
If you do NOT want to make live public comment and/or you choose to participate in the public hearings and meeting using the conference call number or live broadcast link below, you will NOT have the opportunity to provide live comments during the designated portion of the hearings and meeting. The conference call phone number is provided for LISTENING PURPOSES ONLY, and the live broadcast link is provided for LISTENING AND WATCHING PURPOSES ONLY.

You can submit written comments in advance to info@lonestargcd.org.

Telephone conference call phone number: +1 346-248-7799 Meeting ID: 886 2954 3383# 
You will then be prompted to enter a participation code or press #. Press #. You do not need a participation code.
Live broadcast of the hearings and meeting via the link below or on the meetings tab on the District’s website at https://www.lonestargcd.org/meetings

Live Broadcast Link:https://lonestargcd.new.swagit.com/views/58

To Learn More About the Implications of Subsidence

ReduceFlooding.com has posted several times about subsidence in south Montgomery and North Harris Counties. See:

Those Who Deny History are Doomed to Repeat It: Subsidence in 1974 and 2019

Someone’s Trying to Tilt Lake Houston Toward Your House

Truth is the First Casualty in Water Wars, Too

MoCo Water War Escalates, Putting Millions in Crossfire

Fault Movement and Property Damage Linked to Aquifer Depletion in Montgomery County

One thing is for sure. The next two months will be exciting.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/8/2021

1259 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.

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.

  • 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:

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:

  • 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

Another Storm Brewing: The Groundwater Debate and How It Relates to Flood Risk

Groundwater relates to flooding? Yes. Here’s how. And here’s why you should care, especially now.

In November, Montgomery County voters will elect board members to the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District who may advocate using more groundwater, a move that some believe could give residents cheaper water in the short run, but which could also cause subsidence, contribute to flooding, create shortages, raise costs and limit growth in the long run.

Unequal Groundwater Withdrawals, Unequal Subsidence

Subsidence is scientifically well documented and understood. Removing groundwater from clay causes the clay to compress. When that happens, you sink. And once clay is compressed, it stays compressed forever – even when rehydrated.

Yet some Montgomery County voters are advocating removing more groundwater because, at this moment, it’s cheaper than surface water. They are betting their future and their neighbors’ futures on it.

Subsidence can contribute to flooding because not everybody subsides equally. While Kingwood only subsided two feet in the last century, one part of Baytown subsided so much that it became uninhabitable in about half that time.

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.

Today, the area floods so much that it is uninhabitable. All the homes are gone. Brownwood has been turned into a park.

The “Pump-Now, Let-Somebody-Else-Pay-Later” Mentality

Subsidence generally happens so slowly that some people claim it’s not a problem. Especially those on higher ground. They want to continue to pump water from their 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.

Gulf Coast Aquifers: Source Harris-Galveston Subsidence District. Much of the water in Montgomery County used for human consumption is pumped from the Jasper aquifer.

Depleting at More Than 500X the Recharge Rate

Still, some people say, “I’ll worry about that when it happens.” Problem is:

The rate of depletion will exceed the rate of recharge by more than 500X.

More Expensive in Long Run

Now consider this. As pressure in an aquifer decreases, the cost of bringing water to the surface increases dramatically, sometimes to the point where recovery is no longer economical, i.e., competitive with surface water. It’s much like the oil industry. As a rule of thumb, half the oil in reservoirs is left in the ground because it’s too expensive to recover.

For all these reasons, most counties in the region are trying to switch people to surface water. Their groundwater withdrawals have either declined or stayed the same.

Counties surrounding Montgomery have either decreased groundwater pumping or kept it constant.

Meanwhile, Montgomery County’s groundwater withdrawals have soared.

Montgomery County groundwater pumping, however, has generally increased in the last three decades.

A report by LBG Guyton Associates to the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District showed that the largest increase in pumping since 2000 has occurred in Montgomery County. Pumping in surrounding counties has generally decreased since 2000.

Montgomery County Growth

The surge in Montgomery County groundwater usage is largely because Montgomery County has grown so quickly. With the exception of Fort Bend County, Montgomery County is growing faster than any county in the region on a percentage basis.

Houston Region growth last year by county. In percentage terms, Montgomery County trailed only Fort Bend County. 

So Why Worry NOW?

Water resources take so long to develop that they need to be planned 50 years into the future. The Houston region’s population tripled in the last 50 years.

If Montgomery County expects to grow that fast in the next 50, where will the water come from to support that growth? Especially if voters undermine the financial viability of the half-billion dollar surface-water treatment plant – that they just built – by shifting to groundwater!

Proponents of unlimited groundwater pumping in Montgomery County will ELECT directors of the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District for the first time in November.

If people vote for candidates who advocate use of “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 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.

Red contours show subsidence in the last century. Blue contours show how much subsidence has increased in the first sixteen years of this century. Note the widening gap between red and blue at the top of the frame. It shows that subsidence in Montgomery and northern Harris Counties is increasing at an increasing rate. Parts of Harris County have subsided 10 feet! Source: Harris-Galveston Subsidence District.

Posted 9/14/2018 by Bob Rehak

382 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Note: Because this is such an important issue, I have created a new tab titled Subsidence on the Reports page.