TownshipFuture in the Woodlands is presenting a petition to Groundwater Management Area 14 (GMA-14) that would limit proposed increases in groundwater pumping that could lead to subsidence.
Last night, TownshipFuture held a panel discussion with representatives from San Jacinto River Authority, Woodlands Water Agency and Harris-Galveston Subsidence District. They all confirmed that lower aquifer levels, caused by over-use of groundwater pumping, leads to subsidence.
You need not live in the Woodlands to sign this petition. Excessive groundwater pumping will affect much of Montgomery and Harris Counties. See the maps modeling subsidence below. Note the 3.75 feet in southern MoCo and 3 feet in northern Harris.
Subsidence if 115,000 acre feet per year are pumped in Montgomery County, depleting aquifers by 30% (leaving 70%).
Subsidence in Harris County if private utilities are allowed to deplete aquifers in MoCo by 30%, leaving 70%.
Note how projected subsidence is 1 foot at the Lake Houston Dam but 3 feet in Huffman and Kingwood. This would tilt Lake Houston back toward the north by 2 feet.
YOUR ACTION NEEDED NOW
Please sign TownshipFuture’s petition to GMA 14 opposing increased groundwater pumping! You can find it at:
The petition will be sent to GMA 14 AT 5PM TODAY and having your name included will go a long way to help persuade GMA 14 to minimize groundwater pumping. As of 2PM, over 200 people have added their names to the petition. Talk to your neighbors who might be interested in adding their names.
This is something that needs to come from our whole community, because it impacts ALL of us! Act NOW! Please share with all of your friends, neighbors and relatives.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/7/2021 at 3:45 PM
1317 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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Slide2.jpeg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=16751200adminadmin2021-04-07 15:46:572021-04-07 15:59:56Last Chance to Support Petition Limiting Subsidence
Three meetings will make this a crucial week for subsidence and flooding for large parts of Montgomery and Harris Counties. For months now, the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District (LSGCD) has adamantly opposed any mention of subsidence in its Desired Future Conditions (DFCs) while it argues for increased groundwater pumping. But LSGCD must get the other members of Groundwater Management Area 14 (GMA-14) to approve its DFCs before they can allow increased pumping. And opinions regarding those DFCS are far from unanimous. GMA-14 members are pushing for a metric that limits subsidence; LSGCD is fighting that.
TownshipFuture Meeting Tuesday
With that in mind, a group called TownshipFuture will host a Zoom webinar featuring experts from the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA), the Houston-Galveston Subsidence District (HGSD), and The Woodlands Water Authority (WWA). Says Robert Leilich, president of Woodlands MUD #1 and a steering committee member of TownshipFuture, “The meeting will explore how the cost of water is related to the potential for more flooding and what you can do about it. Upcoming proposals from the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District could lead to increased subsidence, causing residents to pay more for water. These proposals could also increase the risk of physical damage to homes and the risk of flooding in flood-prone areas of The Woodlands.”
The TownshipFuture Meetingis Tuesday, April 6, at 7PM. The Zoom webinar is free and all are invited. To register, go to https://forms.gle/GYcG1Q1uekCGbrCz6. You will be sent an email with instructions how to sign into the webinar.
GMA 14 has the authority to approve or disapprove any increase in LGGCD’s groundwater pumping. To support the petition, add your name at the bottom.
LSGCD Meeting Wednesday
Then, on Wednesday, April 7, at 4PM, the LSGCD will hold a special board meeting. According to the agenda, the board will go into executive session immediately after public comments to consider litigation. (However, they don’t disclose the nature of the litigation.) They will then take up two matters:
Proposed Desired Future Conditions for GMA 14.
Hiring a PR firm.
LSGCD staff recently finished a series of stakeholder input sessions. But the agenda does not list a report to the board on staff findings.
The hiring of a PR firm is a highly unusual move for a group of this nature. According to some observers, it indicates that LSGCD failed to convince scientists of their position on subsidence and is now taking its case to the public. One insider, though, claimed the board just feels “misunderstood.” They feel they are the victims of “misinformation.”
However, GMA-14 has a May 1 deadline to formulate proposed DFCs for 14 counties. So if LSGCD and the other members can’t reach a suitable compromise this week, they will need to schedule another meeting before the end of the month. And they are already pushing up against a public notice requirement for a second meeting.
Between May and January deadlines, GMA-14 must solicit public comments for 90 days on the proposed DFCs; review and publish the comments; adopt or modify the DFCs; and submit them to the TWDB. Final adoption of the DFCs requires a two-thirds vote of all the members of the groundwater management area.
At the last GMA-14 meeting, LSGCD requested more time to meet with stakeholders and its board before finalizing a DFC statement. The big questions are, “Will LSGCD request more time to finalize a proposed DFC statement for Montgomery County?” And if so, “Will it include a mention of subsidence?”
USGS is a non-political, scientific agency. It states in its research that the “land subsidence in the Houston-Galveston Region … partially or completely submerges land”, “disrupts collector drains and irrigation ditches”, and “alters the flow of creeks and bayous which may increase the frequency and severity of flooding.” To read the full research on Texas Gulf Coast Groundwater and Land Subsidence, please visit: https://txpub.usgs.gov/houston_subsidence/home/
Other scientists have also documented links between subsidence, flooding, and other damages. Check out these studies.
Subsidence exposes inland areas to increased risks of flooding and erosion by altering natural and engineered drainage-ways (open channels and pipelines) that depend on gravity-driven flow of storm-runoff and sewerage.
Expected subsidence in Harris County if GMA-14 lets Montgomery County pump 30% of its aquifers (70% remaining). The assumption going in was that this could cause up to 1 foot of subsidence, but modeling shows it creates far more.
Differential subsidence, depending on where it occurs with respect to the location of drainageways, may reduce or enhance preexisting gradients. Gradient reductions decrease the rate of drainage and thereby increase the chance of flooding by storm-water runoff. See https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1182/pdf/07Houston.pdf.
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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Slide3.jpeg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=16751200adminadmin2021-04-05 17:40:102021-04-06 09:45:21Crucial Week for Future of Subsidence, Flooding
Texas State Representative Will Metcalf from Conroe has introduced two bills in the 87th Legislature that would affect the composition of the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) Board. The two bills have major differences. One calls for the election of Board members. In case that fails, the other recommends how the Governor should appoint directors. Both bills, however, introduce an upstream bias in the selection of board members at the expense of downstream residents.
Excluding Harris County Voters
HB4575 would create a Board of seven directors who must be legal voters in the State of Texas. It does not specify who gets to vote in the election. It simply says voters in the District will elect Board members at large. But the boundaries of “the District” are not defined in HB4575. They are, however, defined in Section 5 of the SJRA enabling legislation to EXCLUDE Harris County. So far, no other sponsors have signed onto the bill.
Stacking Deck in Favor of MoCo
HB3116 relates to recommendations for the appointment of SJRA directors. It calls for the Governor to appoint six directors, all of whom must be Texas voters and property owners. Four of the six must reside in Montgomery County, the only county wholly encompassed by the District defined in the SJRA boundaries.
The Commissioners Court of Montgomery County would get to recommend two directors to the governor. Other counties in the watershed could each recommend one. But, again, four – a two-thirds majority – would have to reside in Montgomery County.
The SJRA board currently has seven members, so this bill would reduce that number by one and also increase the possibility of tie votes. That could help stymie approval of policies, such as lowering Lake Conroe seasonally or fighting subsidence. As of this date, no other sponsors have signed onto this bill either. It was referred to the Natural Resources committee yesterday.
Could Impact Lake-Lowering Policy
Metcalf’s filing of these bills comes hot on the heels of a contentious debate last year about seasonal lowering of Lake Conroe to provide a buffer against flooding in downstream communities. The hotly contested issue drew hundreds of Lake Conroe residents to a board meeting that had to be held in the Montgomery County Convention Center to accommodate the crowd. Protestors complained that it would ruin recreation and the tax base of Montgomery County.
In the end, the appointed board voted to continue its lake lowering policy. The policy calls for lowering the lake from 201 feet to 200 during April and May, then again in August. During September, the peak of hurricane season, the SJRA would lower Lake Conroe an additional half foot to 199.5. The City of Houston owns two-thirds of the water in the lake, and all releases come from the City’s share, and only at the City’s request. SJRA staff coordinate with City staff on the details and timing of all releases. And if the level of Lake Conroe has already dropped to the target elevation due to natural evaporation, no additional releases are called for.
Photo by Jay Muscatof the Kingwood Greens Evacuation during Harvey after the SJRA release from Lake Conroe.
If Metcalf’s bills gain traction, the bills could potentially undermine the lake-lowering policy. The SJRA Board extended it for three years starting last year. That would give the City of Houston time to add more gates to the Lake Houston dam. FEMA gave the City three years to complete the gates when the project clock started ticking on April 8th of last year. The City is still in the preliminary engineering phase of that project, and trying to prove up the benefit/cost ratio for FEMA.
Could Also Impact Groundwater and Subsidence Debates
Metcalf’s bills could also affect the subsidence debate between upstream and downstream interests.
Private groundwater providers, such as Quadvest, heavily backed a slate of candidates for the LSGCD Board in 2018. Their candidates won based on the promise to “restore affordable water,” but residents report that water rates have not gone down.
The SJRA has opposed the unlimited pumping of groundwater. Electing the SJRA board, too, opens it up to the same kind of shadowy influence exerted by Quadvest prior to the 2018 election. If Quadvest is successful again, Quadvest could eliminate its primary opposition on the subsidence issue. The residents of northern Harris and southern Montgomery Counties would then potentially face increased subsidence. And subsidence can damage foundations, walls, ceilings, cabinets, doors, driveways, streets, pipelines, and more.
Drawing down aquifers in MoCo by 30% (leaving 70%) was supposed to have produced no more than 1 foot of subsidence, but models showed it could produce 3 feet in the Kingwood and Huffman areas of Harris County.The same amount of pumping produced 3.25 feet of subsidence in southern MoCo.
Neither Elections, Nor Appointments, Should Exclude Affected Residents
I normally don’t oppose elected boards. But I also don’t want to return to the days just before Harvey when the SJRA board represented only upstream interests and downstream areas flooded disastrously.
If the SJRA board is elected, downstream residents in Harris County should be able to vote on the board members. Metcalf’s bills have the appearance of populism, but they strive to stack the deck against downstream residents. Both are wrong.
Everyone who lives and works along the San Jacinto should get to vote on the composition of the SJRA Board if board members will be elected.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/20/2021
1299 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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/KingwoodGreens-e1551452236612.jpg?fit=1500%2C1038&ssl=110381500adminadmin2021-03-20 14:35:302021-03-20 18:33:02Rep. Metcalf Introduces Bills to Deny Downstream Representation on SJRA Board
11) 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.’
12) 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.
The Hollywood talent scouts should be tuning in tonight. Acting just doesn’t get much better than this. After all, these are the people who promised to “restore affordable water” but in three years have yet to reduce rates.
John Yoars, a Woodlands resident submitted a three-page letter in tonight’s board packet that is so plain-spoken and common sense that the talent scouts will probably ignore him. But you shouldn’t. See pages 23-25.
Mr. Yoars begins by challenging the board to “own your problems.” Specifically, he defines the B-52 sized fly-in-the-ointment as, “How will the Board control subsidence in southeast Montgomery County?”
Map showing projected subsidence in Southern MOCO if LSGCD pumps 115,000 acre-feet per year of groundwater.
Plain-Spoken Recommendations from Woodlands Resident
Yoars advocates:
Acknowledging that 2-3 feet of subsidence in southeast MoCo is not acceptable. It’s an average across the entire county. The average includes 0 subsidence in the northern parts and more than 3 feet in the south. There’s no way to justify the latter.
Dividing southern Montgomery County into three segments to isolate the problem.
From Magnolia west, there’s no problem, he says.
The south-central Conroe/Woodlands corridor already has access to surface water and has shown they can acceptably manage subsidence with it … when they aren’t at war with the SJRA.
Southeast MoCo is where the real problem is. He advocates working with the Porter Special Utility District to bring East Fork San Jacinto River water into their system to reduce the projected 3-3.75 feet of subsidence there.
Pumping groundwater only in the less populated areas where subsidence will not really be an issue in the foreseeable future.
Starting to talk about solutions instead of arguing about irrelevant issues.
That’s the kind of thinking that could help Texans win back their reputation for straight talk. Even if you don’t buy every one of Yoar’s points, his hypothesis is testable and could get us further down the trail than the current crew has.
Porter probably doesn’t not have enough money to build its own surface water treatment plant. Extending the SJRA pipeline from the Woodlands to Porter might be more cost effective. But again, engineers can easily estimate those tradeoffs.
Participate Via Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_oqaz9Z_5SJyQRd_9dynxwQ Register beforehand. You will then receive a confirmation email with a password. Use the password to join the webinar. You WILL have the opportunity to provide live comments during the designated portion of the hearings or meeting.
Dial in: Call +1 346 248 7799; enter the meeting ID: 854 2178 5781#. You will then be prompted to enter a participation code or press #. Press #. You do not need a participation code.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/9/2021
1288 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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Screen-Shot-2020-11-20-at-10.43.20-AM.png?fit=1318%2C920&ssl=19201318adminadmin2021-03-09 17:29:132021-03-09 18:43:42LSGCD to Discuss Issue of Subsidence Tonight
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Meinrath.jpg?fit=1200%2C586&ssl=15861200adminadmin2021-02-10 20:35:072021-02-11 08:32:26MoCo Groundwater Group Defers Action on Subsidence…Again, Putting Residents at Risk
“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 monthsbefore 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.
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
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.
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.
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. You can pre-register for the webinar at any time.
Password: Received via pre-registration
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.
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
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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/20201120-GMA14_GCD.jpg?fit=1200%2C927&ssl=19271200adminadmin2021-02-08 21:27:442021-02-09 07:14:36LSGWCD Rejects Subsidence Limit as Any Part of Desired Future Conditions
Mark your calendar and sign up now. Groundwater Management Area 14 (GMA 14) will meet by webinar Wednesday, January 20th at 10 AM to continue the process of developing a set of desired future conditions for area aquifers. The standards will eventually determine groundwater availability and affect other issues such as subsidence.
GMA 14 includes the 15 colored counties above. Each color represents a different Conservation District.Montgomery County (dark blue) has the Lonestar Groundwater Conservation District.
GMA 14 engages in a joint planning process and includes representatives from Bluebonnet, Brazoria County, Lone Star, Lower Trinity, and Southeast Texas groundwater conservation districts, plus two subsidence districts. GMA 14 spans 20 counties. It is one of 16 groundwater management areas in the state of Texas.
High Stakes
Groundwater availability is a growing concern in the management area due to subsidence, water table reduction, wells running dry, the triggering of geologic faults, impacts to infrastructure, foundation issues, and providing a sustainable basis for future growth.
Pumping 115,000 acre feet per year would cause up to 3.25 feet of subsidence in southern MoCo. That’s far more than the 1-foot in the Desired Future Conditions definedby GMA14.
The same amount of pumping would cause up 3 feet of subsidence in parts of Kingwood and Huffman, and a foot or more in much of the rest of Harris County.
Because aquifers travel under several counties, what happens in northern Montgomery County can impact southern Harris and Galveston counties, especially where people live closer to sea level.
How Much is Safe to Pump?
In determining groundwater availability targets, this month’s meeting will focus on:
Socioeconomic Impacts Reasonably Expected to Occur
Feasibility of Achieving the Desired Future Conditions
Other Relevant Information (including fault movement).
In all, GMA 14 considers nine factors in the join planning process:
Aquifer Uses and Conditions
Water Supply Needs and Management Strategies
Hydrological Conditions
Environmental Impacts
Impact on Subsidence
Socioeconomic Impacts
Private Property Rights
Feasibility of Achieving the desired future conditions
The Groundwater Management Area 14 Meeting will begin at 10:00 A.M. Click the following link to register for Groundwater Management Area 14 – January 20, 2021 Meeting: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/5586548623672514573 Once the registration is completed, an email will be sent with information on logging into the meeting and/or phone numbers and access codes to dial into the meeting should you wish to attend by telephone. Please choose one method or the other to join to avoid audio feedback.
Note: Participation via video conference is not required. If you wish to address the Board, during the public comment period, please fill out and submit the online speaker registration form.
You may also register as a speaker at the beginning of the meeting. Registration as a speaker will require providing:
first and last name;
email address
phone number.
Any person participating in the meeting must be recognized and identified by the Chairman each time they speak.
Discussion and possible action to approve minutes of November 18, 2020 GMA 14 Joint Planning Meeting;
Update from Texas Water Development Board and discussion of any related items of interest to GMA 14;
Meeting will be convened as a meeting of the GMA 14 Joint Planning Interlocal Agreement Participants.
Presentation and discussion by Districts or Interlocal Agreement Participants of recent activities of interest to or impacting the GMA 14 planning group;
Discuss and consider current Desired Future Conditions as they relate to recent static water level measurements within GMA 14 Member Districts;
Presentation, discussion and consideration of “socioeconomic impacts reasonably expected to occur” (as required by Texas Water Code 36.108 (d)(6));
Presentation, discussion and consideration of “the feasibility of achieving the desired future conditions” (as required by Texas Water Code 36.108 (d)(8));
Presentation, discussion and consideration of “any other information relevant to the specific Desired Future Condition” including but not limited to fault movement related to groundwater pumping (as required by Texas Water Code 36.108 (d)(9));
Discussion and possible action regarding the DFCs and the path forward for GMA 14 to accomplish statutory mandates for Round 3 Joint Planning;
GMA 14 Interlocal Agreement financial report;
GMA 14 Interlocal Agreement Participants meeting will be adjourned, and the meeting of the GMA 14 District Representatives will reconvene.
Discussion and possible action regarding next meeting date, location, and agenda items;
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Slide3.jpeg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=16751200adminadmin2021-01-14 11:03:432021-01-14 11:08:26Groundwater Management Area 14 to Hold Joint Planning Committee Meeting on January 20
Recently released subsidence maps show that excessive groundwater pumping in Montgomery County could lower the northern end of Lake Houston by two feet or more relative to the spillway at the southern end of the lake. While subsidence would lower the area near the spillway by a foot, it would lower areas near the county line even more – from 3 to 3.25 feet.
Subsidence Estimates are Conservative
And those estimates are conservative because:
Models under-predict subsidence; they currently model nothing from the Jasper Aquifer, which Quadvest, a MoCo water supplier, wants to pump heavily from (see more below).
Montgomery County factions are threatening legal action to let them pump more than their counterparts in the 15-county Groundwater Management Area #14 (GMA14) think is safe.
So how did we get to this point?
Groundwater Vs. Surface Water
The rest of the world is trying to convert to surface water to avoid subsidence. However, Simon Sequeira’s family-owned business, Quadvest, still pumps much groundwater in Montgomery County. He’s at war with the world. While others recognize subsidence and the science behind it, Sequeira denies it’s a problem – at least in Montgomery County.
At the last GMA14 meeting, lawyers were reportedly lining up to get a piece of his action and licking their lips.
Broken Promises And Legal Battles
Several years ago, Sequeira led a fight to get the board of the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District elected rather than appointed. Then he backed candidates who favored unlimited groundwater pumping and promised to Restore Affordable Water.
While groundwater is cheaper than surface water, water bills reportedly failed to come down. However, he has stopped paying the SJRA a fee designed to encourage conversion from groundwater to surface water. Sequeira says he is setting aside that money in a special fund in case he loses his legal battle. But his legal battles go far beyond the SJRA. He and the board of the Lonestar Groundwater Conservation District are also taking on the rest of GMA14. See map below.
GMA 14 includes the 15 colored counties above. Each color represents a different Conservation District.Montgomery County (dark blue) has the Lonestar Groundwater Conservation District.
Purpose of Groundwater Management Areas
GMA stands for “Groundwater Management Area.” GMAs were set up years ago, in part, to make sure that one county doesn’t hog groundwater, depriving surrounding areas and creating subsidence. So the other counties in GMA14 get to approve (or not) the groundwater withdrawal rates in Montgomery County.
They do that by defining “desired future conditions.” How much drawdown in an aquifer is acceptable? How much subsidence can people and infrastructure tolerate?
GMA14 wants Sequeira to leave 70% of the water in aquifers intact and to produce no more than 1 foot of subsidence. But the pumping levels proposed by Sequeira would produce far more subsidence, according to GMA14.
Hired-Gun Experts Defy Scientific Consensus
Ever since, Sequeira took on this fight, his hired-gun experts have been trying to prove subsidence doesn’t pose a threat in Montgomery County. Unfortunately, data and models don’t agree with him. His pumping has already created subsidence in MoCo and now threatens northern Harris County, too.
Front steps of Woodland’s homeowner Dr. Mark Meinrath in 1992 and 2014. Part of Meinrath’s home straddles a fault which subsidence triggered. Relative to the rest of his house, these front steps dropped 9.9 inches in 22 years.
Strangely enough, while science has shown – and the rest of the world believes – that unlimited groundwater pumping causes subsidence, Sequeira does not. His profit margin depends on cheap groundwater, unfettered by fees designed to encourage people to convert to surface water.
Five Alternative Plans Considered
Sequeira and company originally proposed three alternative plans to GMA14 that involved pumping enough groundwater to cause:
900 feet of decline in the Jasper Aquifer
700 feet of decline in the Jasper Aquifer
250 feet of decline in the Jasper Aquifer (Similar to “Run D” scenario, modeled below.)
Of those three, GMA14 only considered the last. GMA14 also came back with two more scenarios. They involved pumping even less groundwater:
115,000 acre-feet per year (Also similar to Lone Star’s “Run D” scenario. See below).
97,000 acre-feet per year
61,000 acre-feet per year
Note: Lone Star and GMA14 use different criteria to describe the volume pumped. GMA14 uses acre-feet-per-year instead of feet-of-decline in a specific aquifer. Nevertheless, experts say Sequeira’s last scenario is roughly comparable GMA14’s first.
The two sides are still arguing about how much can be pumped safely. And that’s why the lawyers are drooling.
Models Show Unacceptable Subsidence from Sequeira’s Least-Damaging Plan
Subsidence can alter the landscape in ways that cause water to collect in areas that otherwise might not flood. The maps below model projected subsidence in south Montgomery and northern Harris Counties. And we know that this model under-predicts subsidence. That’s because it doesn’t model ANY subsidence from the Jasper aquifer.
Sequeira’s least-damaging plan would cause up to 3.25 feet of subsidence in southern Montgomery County and up to 3 feet in northern Harris County, according to GMA14. See below.
Pumping 115,000 acre feet per year would cause up to 3.25 feet of subsidence in southern MoCo. That’s far more than the 1-foot in the Desired Future Conditions definedby GMA14.The same amount of pumping would cause up 3 feet of subsidence in parts of Kingwood and Huffman, and a foot or more in much of the rest of Harris County.
Effect on Humble, Kingwood, Atascocita, Huffman Areas
If you live in the Lake Houston Area and you stare at that last subsidence map long enough, eventually you will come to a jaw-dropping realization.
The Lake Houston spillway is only subsiding by a foot. But the headwaters of the lake are subsiding up to 3 feet. Imagine filling a bowl with water and then tilting it toward one side.
Homes and businesses in the headwaters of Lake Houston will be lowered2 feet relative to the spillway.
That’s a huge amount. Those who built homes a foot above the hundred year flood-plain could find themselves a foot below it. Those who had a couple inches of water in their homes during Harvey could have more than two feet in a similar future event because of subsidence.
Battle Lines Drawn
So the battle lines are drawn. Sequeira wants to allow up to 900 feet of decline in the Jasper aquifer. And GMA14 wants no more than 1 foot of subsidence with 70% of the aquifer intact. That would mean pumping less than 100,000 acre feet per year.
The presence of so many lawyers in the last GMA14 meeting reportedly has the smaller groundwater management districts nervous. One observer used the word “intimidated.” Some don’t have financial resources to fight Sequeira.
And that should make every homeowner in the Lake Houston Area nervous, too.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/22/2020
1181 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public policy and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Slide2.jpeg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=16751200adminadmin2020-11-22 15:36:592020-11-23 09:36:15Someone’s Trying To Tilt Lake Houston Toward Your House
Here’s a digest of recent flood-related happenings. Follow the links for more detailed information.
Texas’ First-Ever Regional Flood Planning Process Gets Underway
The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) is helping recently formed regional-flood planning groups deliver 15 regional flood plans by January of 2023. These regional flood plans will form Texas’ first-ever state flood plan, due to the legislature by September of 2024.
The Board designated flood-planning group members on October 1st. The regional flood planning group meetings are publicly posted under the Texas Open Meetings Act. The first meetings were posted on the TWDB website and the Secretary of State website. Groups have two objectives:
Reduce current flood risk
Prevent creation of new flood risk
Flood Projects Move Closer to Funding
Flood projects eligible for funding through the State’s Flood Infrastructure Fund (FIF) moved one step closer to becoming a reality this week. Select applicants are currently submitting complete (as opposed to abridged) project applications to the TWDB. These applications will help Texas communities finance drainage and flood mitigation and control projects.
Eligible entities submitted 280 abridged applications for more than $2.3 billion in financial assistance.
TWDB culled that list to fit the available $770 million in funding for structural and nonstructural flood projects. Of that $770 million, TWDB will allocate $231 million (30 percent) to grants and $539 million (70 percent) to loans with no interest.
TWDB Chairman Peter Lake characterized this program as one of the biggest steps the State has ever taken toward flood mitigation.
As of November 5, 2020, the TWDB had received 125 applications from cities, counties, water districts, and other political subdivisions. The deadline for full applications is November 23.
Spring Creek Flood Control Dams Conceptual Engineering Study
Lake Conroe/Lake Houston Joint Operations Study
Flood Early Warning System for San Jacinto County
Chuck Gilman, SJRA’s Director of Water Resources and Flood Management, said, “We hope to receive final notice on our four full applications in late December or early January.”
“The causes and effects of flooding vary from region to region, so there is no single ‘silver bullet’ solution to mitigate floods,” said Lake. “It is critical that we support Texas communities as they plan for and mitigate future risks based on their unique needs and circumstances.”
The Board will consider approving financial assistance commitments at public meetings in the coming months.“Financial assistance will help communities with both flood planning and project implementation. While we can’t avoid natural disasters, we can mitigate the damage they do,” said Lake.
Fire and Flooding
Fire and flooding may seem like a strange combination. But yes, fire can contribute to flooding. I first noticed this phenomenon on an island called Guanaja in the Bay of Honduras where I used to scuba dive. One year, poachers set fires at the bottom of a hill to drive exotic tropical birds toward nets at the top of the hill. The next year, half the hill slid into the Caribbean during heavy rains.
So what does that have to do with Houston? As drought approaches, developers continue to set fires to clear land. That kills all the grasses that retain soil. When rain does return, that soil will wash downstream and likely contribute to the mouth bar growing on the San Jacinto East Fork. Reduction of the river’s “conveyance” can back water up and contribute to flooding.
Drought Vs. Flooding
Jeff Lindner, Harris County Meteorologist says, “The focus for the last several years has been on flooding and heavy rainfall. We’ve had floods in some portion of Texas for each of the last 5 years. However, the onset of moderate to strong La Niña conditions in the Pacific appear to be swinging the state back toward a dry period.”
“What was predicted to be an active period next week is slowly decreasing both “cold” and “moisture” wise in recent model runs, as is typical in La Nina winters,” says Lindner.
Climate Prediction Center outlooks for the next two weeks indicate below average rainfall and above average temperatures. Similar outlooks continue for three months. Vegetation health will continue to decline, but likely at a slower rate than during the hot summer months when heat is maximized.
Three month outlook from NOAA predicts below average rainfall across southern US.
So be careful of outdoor burning (see story above). Many counties have already imposed outdoor burn bans.
Note outdoor burn ban in Liberty County.
The only positive side of drought is that it can make ideal construction weather for flood-mitigation projects (see two stories above).
Harris County Community Flood Resilience Task Force Has First Meeting
The Harris County Community Flood Resilience Task Force held its first meeting earlier this month. The first order of business: expand the group’s membership from five to 17. The group is creating a web site which will accept online applications; it should be up shortly.
The application deadline: December 11. Stay alert for more information if you are interested in representing your area. Preference will be given to those:
Who have flooded
Represent flood-prone communities
Have knowledge in certain areas, such as housing, public health, engineering/construction, urban design/planning, flood-risk mitigation, environment, etc.
Water Baron of Montgomery County Takes On World; Lawyers Drool
Simon Sequeira, CEO of Quadvest and the Water Baron of Montgomery County, continues his War with the World. At the last GMA14 meeting, lawyers are reportedly lining up to get a piece of the action and licking their lips.
Sequeira also supplies water to Colony Ridge in Liberty County. Several years ago, he led a fight to get the board of the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District elected rather than appointed. Then he backed candidates who favored unlimited groundwater pumping and promised to Restore Affordable Water.
Broken Promises
While groundwater is cheaper than surface water, water bills reportedly failed to come down. However, he has stopped paying the SJRA. Sequeira says he is setting aside that money in a special fund in case he loses his legal battle with the SJRA. But his legal battles go far beyond the SJRA. He’s also taking on the rest of GMA14.
GMA14 includes the 15 colored counties above, each represented by a different conservation district. Montgomery County (dark blue) has the Lonestar Groundwater Conservation District.
Purpose of Groundwater Management Areas
GMA stands for groundwater management area. GMAs were set up years ago, in part, to make sure that one county doesn’t hog groundwater, depriving surrounding areas and creating subsidence. So the other counties in GMA14 get to approve (or not) the groundwater withdrawal rates in Montgomery County.
They do that by defining “desired future conditions.” How much drawdown in an aquifer is acceptable? How much subsidence can people and infrastructure tolerate?
GMA14 wants Sequeira to leave 70% of the water in aquifers intact and to produce no more than 1 foot of subsidence.
Hired-Gun Experts Defy Scientific Consensus
Ever since, Sequeira took on this fight, his hired-gun experts have been trying to prove subsidence doesn’t pose a threat in Montgomery County. Unfortunately, data and models don’t agree with him. His pumping has already created subsidence in MoCo and now threatens northern Harris County, too.
Strangely enough, while science has shown – and the rest of the world believes – that unlimited groundwater pumping causes subsidence, Sequeira does not. His profit margin depends on cheap groundwater, unfettered by fees designed to encourage people to convert to surface water.
Five Alternative Plans Considered
Sequeira and company originally proposed three alternative plans to GMA14 that involved pumping:
900 feet of decline in the Jasper Aquifer
700 feet of decline in the Jasper Aquifer
250 feet of decline in the Jasper Aquifer (Similar to Run D scenario, modeled below.)
Of those three, GMA14 only considered the last (even though Lone Star and GMA14 use different criteria to describe the volume pumped).
GMA14 countered by adding two more alternatives that involved even less pumping:
115,000 acre-feet per year (Similar to Lone Star’s Run D scenario. See below).
97,000 acre-feet per year
61,000 acre-feet per year
The two sides are still arguing about how much can be pumped safely. And that’s why the lawyers are drooling.
Models Show Unacceptable Subsidence from Sequeira’s Least Damaging Plan
Subsidence can alter the landscape in ways that cause water to collect in areas that otherwise might not flood. The maps below model projected subsidence in south Montgomery and northern Harris Counties. And we know that this model under-predicts subsidence. That’s because it doesn’t model ANY subsidence from the Jasper aquifer.
Sequeira’s least damaging plan would cause up to 3.25 feet of subsidence in southern Montgomery County and up to 3 feet in northern Harris County, according to GMA14. See below.
Pumping 115,000 feet per year would cause up to 3.25 feet of subsidence in southern MoCo.
The same amount of pumping would cause up 3 feet of subsidence in parts of Kingwood and Huffman, and a foot or more in much of the rest of Harris County.
Effect on Humble, Kingwood, Atascocita, Huffman Areas
If you live in the Lake Houston Area and you stare at that last subsidence map long enough, eventually you will come to a jaw-dropping realization. The Lake Houston spillway is only subsiding by a foot. But the headwaters of the lake are subsiding up to 3 feet. Imagine filling your bathtub with water and then tilting it two feet.
Homes and businesses in the headwaters of Lake Houston will be lowered2 feet relative to the spillway.
That’s a huge amount. Those who built homes a foot above the hundred year flood-plain would find themselves a foot below it. Those who had a couple inches of water in their homes would have more than two feet after subsidence.
Battle Lines Drawn
So the battle lines are drawn. Sequeira wants to allow up to 900 feet of decline in the Jasper aquifer. And GMA14 wants no more than 1 foot of subsidence with 70% of the aquifer intact. That would mean pumping less than 100,000 acre feet per year.
The presence of so many lawyers in the last GMA14 meeting reportedly has the smaller groundwater management districts nervous. One observer used the word “intimidated.” Some don’t have financial resources to fight Sequeira.
Lawyers I talk to believe Sequeira has little chance of winning a lawsuit. But who needs a favorable judgment when you have an army of lawyers that can intimidate the other side into backing down.
However, if Sequeira is successful, he could open up himself and the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District to billions of dollars in “takings” claims. The lawyers make out coming and going.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/20/2020
1179 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.
During a flyover of the City of Houston’s Northeast Water Purification Plant Expansion project on 9/11/2020, I counted 13 construction cranes operating simultaneously on different parts of the site. The site stretches a full two miles from the start of the plant near the northeast corner of Beltway 8 to the tip of the water intake platform in Lake Houston. Here are photos that show the scope of this massive construction project.
The water intake platform stretches approximately 1100 feet out into Lake Houston.The 108-inch intake pipes are larger than some pieces of construction equipment.Looking NE toward Lake Houston along the path that the intake pipes will take through Summerwood.Looking west toward the main treatment plant, with Beltway 8 in the background.Construction began in 2018.Looking SW across the eastern portion of the new plant.Looking SW across the western portion. The site is divided into about 10 sections each as large or larger than a city block.A close up of construction activity in just one of the sections.Looking straight east back toward Lake Houston from the western edge of the plant.Note the current water treatment plant in the foreground.It produces about 80 million gallons per day of fresh water.Looking north over the center of the site.Looking WNW. Note the NE corner of Beltway 8 in the top left.The plant expansion will provide another 320 million gallons per day.For scale, note the size of the man on the scissor-lift in the red circle.
The plant expansion will supply 320 million gallons per day of treated water capacity in addition to the current 80 million gallons per day. So capacity will quintuple by completion in 2024.
Converting Area to Surface Water to Reduce Subsidence
According to the City, “The expansion will include conventional treatment processes like the existing plant that help coagulate, settle, filter, and then disinfect water.” Quality will exceed requirements set forth by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
In addition, says the City, an advanced oxidation process called ozonation will disinfect water to help ensure that harmful organisms such as Giardia and Cryptosporidium are eliminated. Ozonation also helps eliminate taste and odor causing compounds, which improves the aesthetic quality of the water supplied by the plant.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/20200911-RJR_1586.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2020-09-17 11:33:022020-09-17 11:44:16Construction of Northeast Water Purification Plant in High Gear
