Tag Archive for: subsidence

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.

Last Chance to Support Petition Limiting Subsidence

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:

https://townshipfuture.org/home/our-advocacy/petition-to-limit-groundwater-pumping-in-montgomery-county/

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.

Crucial Week for Future of Subsidence, Flooding

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 Meeting is 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.

TownshipFuture has also launched a petition opposing the desire of the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District to increase groundwater pumping. To view the TownshipFuture petition to the GMA 14 Board of Directors, click here or go to https://townshipfuture.org/home/our-advocacy/petition-to-limit-groundwater-pumping-in-montgomery-county/.

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:

  1. Proposed Desired Future Conditions for GMA 14.
  2. 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.”

The LSGCD meeting will also be a Zoom webinar. To register, visit https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_cxsukkSBSg2VQE9uiUayRA. For other participation options or to make public comments during the meeting, see the instructions at the start of the agenda.

GMA-14 Meeting Friday

On Friday, April 9 at 9AM, GMA-14 will take up the matter of DFCs. It has a statutory deadline to meet to finalize DFCs: no later than January 5, 2022.

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?”

You can attend the GMA-14 meeting via the GoToMeeting App. Register here. Click here for the meeting agenda. And click here if you wish to make a public comment.

How Subsidence Relates to Flooding

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.

Other studies show that:

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/5/2021

1315 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.

Rep. Metcalf Introduces Bills to Deny Downstream Representation on SJRA Board

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.

The SJRA board first adopted this policy after Governor Gregg Abbott visited the flood-ravaged Lake Houston Area in 2018. That year, he also appointed two downstream residents who flooded during Harvey, Kaaren Cambio and Mark Micheletti, to the SJRA board.

Kingwood Greens Evacuation During Harvey by Jay Muscat
Photo by Jay Muscat of 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.

Shortly after the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District (LSGCD) first elected its board in 2018, the LSGCD board began advocating for higher groundwater pumping. It has also stonewalled any mention of subsidence in the desired future conditions for Montgomery County in Groundwater Management Area 14.

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.

As the map below shows, subsidence could also tilt Lake Houston toward the Harris/Montgomery County line by two feet relative to the amount of subsidence at the Lake Houston Dam. That could increase flood risk for people living in the upstream reaches of the lake.

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.

LSGCD to Discuss Issue of Subsidence Tonight

The Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District will meet tonight starting at 6PM. On the agenda are two items of interest for those concerned about subsidence in Montgomery and Harris Counties.

  • 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.

A Not-So-Instant Replay of Last Month’s Meeting?

Both sound similar to two items on last month’s agenda. However, the board deferred discussion and action on Phase 2 of the subsidence study because a large number of public comments and excessively long technical and historical presentations by staff. The presentations tried to convince any viewers still awake that LSGCD was still seriously examining subsidence – despite the fact that they had just told the GMA-14 board that they rejected any mention of subsidence in their Desired Future Conditions (DFCs). Since the last LSGCD board meeting, the same presenters again told GMA-14 that they soundly rejected any mention of subsidence…and always had.

Acting Worthy of Hollywood

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.

View Discussion Starting at 6PM

LSGCD has three ways for you to participate

  • Live Broadcast Link (watching only): https://lonestargcd.new.swagit.com/views/58
  • 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.

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.

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.

Groundwater Management Area 14 to Hold Joint Planning Committee Meeting on January 20

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.

The last available subsidence maps, for instance, showed the north Harris and south Montgomery County area sinking 2 feet relative to the Lake Houston Dam.

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 Huffmanand 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
  • Other Relevant Information

MEETING INFORMATION 

________________________

GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AREA 14

JOINT PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

January 20, 2021 at 10:00 AM

Via GoToWebinar.com


INSTRUCTIONS FOR PARTICIPATING

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:

  1. first and last name;
  2. email address
  3. phone number.

Any person participating in the meeting must be recognized and identified by the Chairman each time they speak.

Go To Webinar Information

https://www.gotomeeting.com/webinar/join-webinar

GMA 14 Speaker Registration Form

:http://www.setgcd.org/meetingshearings/
_______________________________ 

AGENDA

The agenda includes:

  1. Call to order;
  2. Confirmation of receipt of posted notices;
  3. Welcome and Introductions;
  4. Public comment;
  5. Discussion and possible action to approve minutes of November 18, 2020 GMA 14 Joint Planning Meeting;
  6. 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.
  1. Presentation and discussion by Districts or Interlocal Agreement Participants of recent activities of interest to or impacting the GMA 14 planning group;
  2. Discuss and consider current Desired Future Conditions as they relate to recent static water level measurements within GMA 14 Member Districts;
  3. Presentation, discussion and consideration of “socioeconomic impacts reasonably expected to occur” (as required by Texas Water Code 36.108 (d)(6));
  4. Presentation, discussion and consideration of “the feasibility of achieving the desired future conditions” (as required by Texas Water Code 36.108 (d)(8));
  5. 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));
  6. Discussion and possible action regarding the DFCs and the path forward for GMA 14 to accomplish statutory mandates for Round 3 Joint Planning;
  7. 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.
  1. Discussion and possible action regarding next meeting date, location, and agenda items;
  2. Meeting Adjourned.

GMA 14 – January 20, 2021 Agenda

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/14/2020

1234 Days since Hurricane Harvey