The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has fined Quadvest $5,625 for a 48,000-gallon sewage spill in Colony Ridge, a large and growing development in Liberty County near the San Jacinto East Fork and Plum Grove. Quadvest supplies water and sewer services for the development.
The violation occurred in Camino Real, a Colony Ridge subdivision with almost 3500 lots. It happened at a lift station approximately 1,000 feet north-northeast of the intersection of Paul Campbell Loop Road and Plum Drive.
Discharge with Bluish Color Kills Fish
The complainant alleged that the discharge had a bluish color and killed fish. The TCEQ complaint says people were exposed to unsafe levels of pollutants, however, no deaths were reported in relation to the incident except for fish.
Photo of discharge in Maple Branch Creek
TCEQ says Quadvest “failed to prevent the unauthorized discharge of wastewater into or adjacent to any water in the state. Specifically, on July 22, 2019, an electrical failure at Camino Real Lift Station-H located at 342 Road 5002 caused the pumps to fail, resulting in approximately 48,000 gallons of wastewater being discharged into Maple Branch Creek, killing approximately 30 fish.”
Cleanup and Fine Cost Quadvest More Than $105,000
In July, 2019, Quadvest cleaned up the mess. TCEQ estimated the cost at more than $100,000. Then in June 2020, Quadvest CEO Simon Sequeira agreed to pay an additional penalty of $5,625.
Previous Related Violations
During the year before the unauthorized discharge, the TCEQ issued four other notices of violations to Quadvest for:
Sewage overflowing from a manhole at an estimated rate of 10-25 gallons per minute
Failure to maintain an operational alarm system for emergency conditions
Twice failing to secure its lift station from intruders (August and November 2018)
Since this incident, other sewage problems have occurred in Colony Ridge. Stormwater can wash this fecal contamination into adjoining streams and bayous which empty into the East Fork and Lake Houston, the source of drinking water for 2 million people.
More Colony Ridge fecal contamination bubbling up from underground and flowing toward Tarkenton Bayou. Photo taken in June 2020.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/4/2020
1132 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 381 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/2020/06/Black-water.jpg?fit=1200%2C2133&ssl=121331200adminadmin2020-10-04 18:05:332020-10-04 18:05:56TCEQ Fines Quadvest for 48,000 Gallon Sewage Spill in Colony Ridge
On August 12, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Commissioners voted unanimously to initiate a rule-making process that would establish best management practices for commercial sand mining in the San Jacinto River watershed.
Meer feet separate the Hanson Aggregate mine from the San Jacinto West Fork. The integrity of dikes and setbacks from the river have become a major point of contention between the public and miners since Harvey.Photo taken late June.
Joint TACA/Lake Houston Area Request
In June, 2020, both TACA and the Lake Houston Area Grassroots Flood Prevention Initiative presented petitions to have the TCEQ establish best practices. Though the two sides have not agreed on important provisions, such as setbacks from the river and reclamation, the start of the process is a positive step.
After the commission secretary announced the agenda items, Mr. Josh Leftwich of TACA spoke on behalf of the measure. Mr. Leftwich took over as president and CEO of TACA on June 15, from David Perkins. (Mr. Perkins joined Lehigh Hanson, an aggregate company, as the Vice President of Government Affairs.)
No one for the Lake Houston Area spoke on behalf of the proposal.
Rebecca Vialva, executive director of the TCEQ Water Quality Division explained that both sides of this debate submitted separate but similar petitions in June. They requested the agency to establish a rule making process with stakeholder involvement to ensure adequate environmental protection. Ms. Vialva explained that her Water Quality Division supported that.
Vic McWherter, from the Commission’s Office of Public Interest Counsel, also supported the idea.
No one asked questions.
Rule-Making Process Not Same as Adopting Specific Rules
Before taking a vote, Jon Niermann, Chairman of the Commission, explained that initiating a rule-making process was not the same as adopting specific rules. It does not commit to any specific rules or outcomes. It simply starts a public dialog.
All three commissioners, Jon Niermann, Emily Lindley, and Bobby Janecka, voted to start the process.
Model for Rest of State?
Both Mr. Janecka and Mr. Niermann expressed wishes that Best Management Practices for the San Jacinto Watershed could become a model for the rest of the state.
Lake Houston Leaders Urge Public to Engage
Dave Feille and Bill McCabe, leaders of the Lake Houston Area Grass Roots Flood Prevention Initiative, sent out an email this morning. In it, they called the TCEQ decision “a major step forward.” However, they were quick to add, “Not surprisingly, the Petitions differed in some key areas and these will be addressed and consolidated in the rule-making stage of the process.”
“We would encourage all stakeholders to become involved in the rule-making process by following the progress of our Petition at: https://www.tceq.texas.gov/rules/participate.html,” said Feille and McCabe.
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/2019/12/Liberty-Breach-12.3.19.jpg?fit=1200%2C913&ssl=19131200adminadmin2020-08-16 19:33:422020-08-16 19:53:37TCEQ Commissioners Vote to Start Rule-Making Process for Sand Mining Best Practices in San Jacinto Watershed
In June, the Lake Conroe Association (LCA) filed a 102-page complaint to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) through Austin attorneys about the San Jacinto River Authority’s (SJRA) policy of seasonally lowering Lake Conroe. The SJRA’s purpose for the lowering: to lower flood risk for downstream residents.
Also, the policy threatens the area’s water supply.
“In summary,” says the complaint, “SJRA and Houston are only authorized to divert or release and use water from Lake Conroe for municipal, industrial, mining, and agricultural purposes. Any other use of surface water from Lake Conroe is not authorized by the Amended Certificate, and thus, is a violation of the Amended Certificate and state law.”
The complaint fails to mention flood control in that last list (prominently mentioned in the SJRA’s enabling legislation). To follow the LCA’s arguments to their logical extreme, SJRA would not have been allowed to release water during Harvey. Every home on Lake Conroe would have flooded.
“TCEQ does not have jurisdiction over future water supply strategies or State and Regional Water Planning.”
“Both SJRA and the City have adopted Water Conservation Plans that comply with TCEQ’s Chapter 288 rules.”
“Therefore, these diversions, which are in compliance with the terms of the Certificate and the Conservation Plan, are not a waste of water under the law.”
The law firm acknowledged in its supplemental complaint that the lowering would only amount to 2.75 inches. However, the firm also claimed the water would be needed in a drought. Then it showed a Texas Water Development Board Drought Map as evidence. But map showed that no drought near the San Jacinto watershed.
In the End, Mother Nature, Not SJRA, Lowers Lake This Year
After all of that, evaporation alone took Lake Conroe down to the SJRA’s seasonal lowering target of 200 feet. It took Mother Nature an extra week to get there, but…
SJRA RELEASED NO WATER from Lake Conroe to achieve its August target level.
SJRA still has not released any water since the early spring.
Lake Conroe dashboard as of 4pm Saturday, August 15, 2020. Source: SJRA.net.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/20200220-RJR_8690.jpg?fit=800%2C1200&ssl=11200800adminadmin2020-08-15 16:37:462020-08-15 17:11:16Lake Conroe Association Complains to TCEQ about Seasonal Lake Lowering
On April 21st, 2020, I reported on a sand mine that was river mining in the San Jacinto West Fork without a permit. It’s unlikely that any penalties will result. In fact, three weeks later, neither the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), nor Texas Parks and Wildlife Division (TPWD), have even investigated the incident. State Representative Dan Huberty is calling on the heads of both agencies to understand why.
No Investigation by TCEQ or TPWD
The operation is called the Spring Wet Sand and Gravel Plant. Multisource Sand and Gravel Co., LTD, based in San Antonio, operates the plant.
I filed a complaint with the TCEQ on April 21. TCEQ referred it to the TPWD for investigation because TPWD regulates sand mining in rivers. Yet Parks and Wildlife did not even investigate the incident.
A TPWD game warden in Montgomery County said, “We need to catch them in the act. And even if we do, the fine is like getting a speeding ticket – inconsequential. It’s only about $500 per dump truck. At this point there’s no way to prove how much sand they removed. A better solution would be to have TCEQ pull their permit. We see these kinds of things right before a mine goes out of business. They just go out there and get the last sand they can get before they leave.”
Spring Wet Sand and Gravel may not have reached the end of operations yet, but pickings are getting slimmer as some of the photos below will show.
Scope of Mining More Apparent in May Photos
Compared to April 21 (when the SJRA was still releasing water from Lake Conroe), a recent flyover on May 11th revealed the full scope of the river mining.
Measurements in Google Earth show the point bar occupied about 7.5 acres. Assuming an average height of three feet, that area held more than 36,000 cubic yards of sand. That would equate to about 3,600 regular dump trucks (10 yards per average load).
At $500 per truckload, that totals $1.8 million. And that doesn’t even include the 8% tax that TPWD gave up on sales. But it’s not worth their time?
You have to catch a lot of hunters and fishermen without licenses to make up that kind of money. You would think it might be worthwhile for TPWD to investigate … even if it’s just half that much. That could probably pay the salaries of at least a dozen full-time employees.
Photo taken on May 11. Looking downstream outside the Spring Wet Sand and Gravel Plant, just south of SH 99.Closer shot reveals scrape marks from excavator are still visible. See lower right. Also note little pile of orange sand left behind.
The presence of the orange pile in the right foreground may provide a clue as to why the miners did not excavate lower in this location. Sometimes color continuity of sand from batch to batch is important. For instance, when making concrete blocks for a building, owners usually want the color of all the blocks to be uniform.
Looking upstream from the opposite end of the point bar.The platform used by mining equipment may provide a clue as to the depth of the excavation. Spring Wet Sand and Gravel plant in the backgroundand road leading to river excavation.Looking a little more to the south shows the full extent of Spring Wet Sand and Gravel’s operations in the background.On May 11, the only activity visible inside the entire mine was the dry mining shown above. This may not be the end for this mine, but pickings appear to be getting slimmer.Spring Wet Sand and Gravel’s main processing facility
State Representative Huberty’s Response
Upon learning that TPWD chose not to investigate the river mining, State Representative Dan Huberty immediately contacted the directors of TPWD and the TCEQ to request explanations. Huberty has fought for a decade to regulate the industry in a way that protects both the public and law-abiding miners.
Dangers of River Mining
The type of river mining shown here is called “bar scalping” by scientists who study the impact of river mining. Some see bar scalping as the least destructive form of river mining. In general, though, most scientists still warn about dangers of river mining.
Increases in river bed and bank erosion both up- and downstream
Loss of agriculture land, houses and infrastructure
Failure of roads, dikes and bridges
Lowering of groundwater reserves
Reduction in water quality
Reduction in diversity and abundance of fish
Changes to riverside vegetation
For those reasons and more, river mining is prohibited in most countries of Europe. According to the World Wildlife Fund, “Europe has shown that developed economies can continue to prosper without resorting to river sand. Its supplies now come from crushed quarry rocks, recycled concrete and marine sand.”
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/13/2020
987 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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/20200511-RJR_2022.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2020-05-13 16:21:552020-05-13 16:22:17River Mining Without Permit Goes Without Investigation
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has assessed a penalty of $19,063 against the Texas Concrete Plum Grove Plant at 7530 FM1010 in Cleveland, TX. The complaint stems from three incidents in 2019 and alleges unauthorized discharge of 40 million gallons of process wastewater; failure to keep proper and accurate water sampling records; and lack of soil stabilization at the site before abandonment. The complaint also alleges that one breach in the mine’s dike was 20-feet wide.
Unstabilized soil at abandoned Texas Concrete Mine. Photo taken April 21, 2020.Comparison with satellite images shows equipment has not moved since 12/1/2019.
Terms of “Proposed Agreed Order”
A “Proposed Agreed Order” dated April 14, 2020, spells out the basis for the alleged violations. Such orders represent a way for both Texas Concrete and the TCEQ to avoid the cost of litigation. The goals of the order: to reach a fair settlement under Texas law and force Texas Concrete to take corrective actions.
Unless Texas Concrete signs the order and pays the fine within 60 days, TCEQ will forward the case to its litigation division. The settlement offer then becomes void.
More Recent Alleged Violations
The enforcement action is in addition to a more recent investigation launched on April 28th of this year. The investigation alleged unauthorized discharge of water and lack of stabilization at the site. A TCEQ letter in response to an inquiry by State Representative Dan Huberty indicated that the investigator could not gain access to the site because no one was there. However, the investigator made limited visual observations from the property boundary. No processing activity was noted. There is no signage. And portions of the Site appear overgrown with vegetation.
The letter also indicates that TCEQ has tried to contact the site’s owner to gain access to the property for a proper investigation.
However, all communication efforts since April 28 have been unsuccessful.
Case Demonstrates Need for Performance Bonds for Reclamation
Calls to Texas Concrete’s headquarters in Houston by ReduceFlooding.com received a similar response. The person answering the company phone claimed they had no plant in Plum Grove. The person also said that she had never heard of Mr. Somaiah Kurre, the person listed as President of Texas Concrete Sand and Gravel, Inc. on the company’s permit. The phone of the plant’s manager had been disconnected.
The company’s web site indicates the Plum Grove Plant is still in operation, even though equipment on the site has not moved since December 1, 2019.
Ironically, Pit & Quarry magazine, and industry trade publication, featured the Texas Concrete Plum Grove Plant as a model for how to adapt to change. The article was dated January 16th of this year.
In the meantime, the plant represents a safety hazard to area children. The gate presents no real barrier to someone intent on trespassing. Pits on such mines can be 90 feet deep according to industry sources. And perimeter roads often collapse.
Such problems underscore the difficulty of getting operators to reclaim a mine when it becomes unprofitable. That’s why Texas should establish performance bonds that guarantee reclamation before the State grants a permit to begin mining.
“We will make sure they fix this,” said State Rep. Huberty. Huberty’s staff is already drafting more sand mining legislation for the session next year.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/7/2020
982 Days after Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/20200421-RJR_1225.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2020-05-07 13:03:272020-05-07 13:03:50TCEQ Levies $19,063 Fine Against Texas Concrete Plum Grove Plant
More than one engineer has told me that sand mine dikes appear as though they are designed to fail. Part of the problem is that the State sets no standards for their construction; the State simply says they must be “effective.” But there are only minor penalties if they prove ineffective.
How Sand Mines Use Water
Mines use water to separate sand from silt by spinning the mixture through a centrifuge. The large sand particles go to a stockpile. The smaller silt particles return to a settling pond. If left long enough, the water clarifies and can safely be released.
Water and silt go one way, sand the other. The constant inflow of silty water in the settling pond creates a deltathat raises the water level.
Constant Battle Against Silt and Water
The problem, however, is the buildup of silt and water over time.
The fine sediment often does not have enough time to drop out of suspension before water in the settling pond begins to overflow. That’s when dikes often break and sediment laden water is released into the river.
Sadly, this is not an isolated problem. I have documented breaches in most San Jacinto River mines.
Road Disappears as Dike Gets Higher
Since then, aerial photos show that LMI is building dikes higher to prevent future releases. But as the thin dikes made out of sand/silt get higher, they also get narrower. They seem designed to fail at some point.
Process waste water leaks through them into surrounding wetlands and the West Fork. To keep the dikes from failing, the mine even appears to be pumping water out of its pit into the wetlands.
A large rain could easily overwhelm these dikes and cause another failure. As a starting point, review the satellite photo below from Google Earth. It was taken about a month after a major breach from another part of the mine. Note the perimeter road around the entire pond. It disappears in aerial photos taken a few months later.
Satellite photo from 12/1/2019 shows a drivable road around the entire eastern perimeter (right) of the LMI Moorhead mine.
Now compare that to this series of helicopter photos taken on 4/21/2020. The series starts in the upper right of the satellite photo and heads south (toward the bottom of the satellite image). This area of the mine is far from public view, except from a helicopter..
Note the difference in elevation between the pond in the mine and the pond outside of it.Note the partially buried pipe between the two ponds. A siphon?Looking south along the eastern perimeter. you can see how the road now disappears and the wall of the dike gets thinner. Zooming out, you can see how the far this condition existsand why I ask the question, “Are these dikes designed to fail?”Tracking south to the next grove of trees, you can see water leaking through the narrow dike as it approaches the top. Comparing the dike to nearby tree trunks, I estimate the dike is no more than 2-3 feet wide.
Where 56 Million Gallons Allegedly Entered River
The same condition exists on another pit at the same mine. The dike shown in the foreground is the one that the TCEQ says failed last year. Note water ponding on the narrow road. See photo below.
Note the difference in the color of the water in the pond and in the river in the photo below. The pond color has not changed during the eight months I have been documenting these sand mining operations from the air.
Same dike, photographed from a different angle, looking north. West Fork is in foreground. A newArtavia drainage ditch in the background now funnels water from more than 2000 acres straight toward mine.The mine blames Artavia for the November discharge.
No Texas Regulations Govern Dike Construction
Unfortunately, the State of Texas has no regulations that address construction of dikes.
No standards exist for height, width, composition, compaction, or reinforcement.
I asked Ramiro Garcia, head of enforcement for the TCEQ, this question. “Does Texas have regulations for sand mines that affect the width, height, slope, compaction, and materials used in perimeter dikes or barriers?“
His reply: “The Industrial Stormwater Multi-Sector General Permit requires the use of pollution prevention practices that can effectively protect the water quality in receiving waters, or that are necessary for remaining in compliance with the general permit. The GP states that “the permittee shall evaluate and use appropriate measures and controls to reduce soil erosion and sedimentation in areas of the facility with demonstrated or potential soil erosion and sedimentation” (Part III.A.4(c)). There are no specific requirements for width, height, slope, compaction, or materials for dikes or barriers.“
So the permittee gets to determine what’s “appropriate”!
Designed to Fail?
The lack of regulation is how we get strips of sand a couple feet wide holding back hundreds of millions of gallons of waste water. One big rain, a flood, and the wastewater buildup is gone. Conveniently!
If the TCEQ discovers an unauthorized discharge, the mine pays a “slap on the wrist” fine. They average about $800. That’s why I ask, “Are sand mine dikes designed to fail?” It seems cheaper and easier to pay the fine than build earthworks that protect the source of drinking water for 2 million people.
State Rep. Dan Huberty tried to implement effective sand mining regulations during the last legislative session. Unfortunately, most of the mining bills he sponsored died in committee. I’m using the time before the next session to document mining practices on the San Jacinto. Hopefully, we’ll be able to make a better case next year.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/4/2020
979 Days after Hurricane Harvey
The 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/2020/05/20200421-RJR_0878.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2020-05-04 13:04:422020-05-04 13:23:31Are Sand Mine Dikes Designed to Fail? State Sets No Standards
Portion of Texas Concrete Mine in Plum Grove on 4/21/2020.
Last September 24, less than a week after Imelda, the TCEQ issued a notice of enforcement to the Texas Concrete Sand Mine in Plum Grove on the East Fork of the San Jacinto. The report noted that the mine was abandoned; no activity had been observed there in the two months before Imelda. And no personnel were onsite when investigators visited the operation.
Imelda dumped 30.4 inches of rain on this exact location on 9/17/2019 and days later, investigators found four breaches leaking pit water into the East Fork.
Purpose of Soil Stabilization
Sediment and other pollution can escape through breaches in the mine’s dikes and affect water quality all the way down to Lake Houston. Stabilizing soil helps prevent erosion and water pollution, and thus reduces sediment buildups that can contribute to flooding. I discuss TCEQ standards for final soil stabilization in this post. As you can see in the photo above, this site does not have “perennial vegetative cover with a density of 70 percent (%) of the native background vegetative cover … on all unpaved areas and areas not covered by permanent structures.”
Thus it represents a high risk of pollution.
No Activity Observed for Months, Signs Removed
Josh Alberson, a Kingwood resident, traced excessive turbidity in the East Fork to the mine during the same period and visited it on several occasions. He also observed no activity then or today. Alberson took the three photos below this evening.
This post used to hold the operation’s identifying sign, according to Alberson. These posts used to hold the safety sign for Texas Concrete.It certainly appears as though someone no longer wants to be identified with the problems remaining on this site.Past the gate, nothing remained but broken pipe and equipment left to rust. Alberson could see no recent tire tracks in or out. The unguarded, barely fenced operation likely represents a safety hazard to area kids.
Aerial photos taken last week showed no activity at the plant and no processing equipment. However, several dump trucks, a bulldozer and a dredge remained on the property.
Comparing the images below with the Landsat photo in Google Earth dated 12/1/2019 shows that none of the equipment has moved for at least five months and most likely longer.
Pipes, an excavator and fallen light pole have blocked the entry to the plant since 12/1/2019.None of the other equipment has moved since then either.Mine’s dredge is on dry ground and no longer operational.Comparison with 12/1/2019 Google Earth image shows that the dredge has not moved since then.
Alberson also says that the breaches he reported to the TCEQ last year still remain.
Texas Concrete Says “No Mine in Plum Grove”
The phone number for the plant’s manager (listed in the TCEQ report) has been disconnected and is no longer in service. A receptionist at Texas Concrete’s headquarters was unaware of the man listed as president of the mine in the TCEQ report. She also said “we have no mine in Plum Grove.”
TCEQ Says No Active Permits For Mine
Christian Eubanks, an investigator for the TCEQ says the plant has no active permits. He investigated the plant last year and has opened a new investigation.
Google Earth shows the mine covers approximately 147 acres and borders the East Fork for more than a mile. In its current state, even more breaches could open up in the next big storm and no one would be there to fix them.
This site represents a preventable disaster in the making. But what to do?
Former Texas Concrete Plant in Plum Grove as seen in Google Earth.
Currently, Texas regulations state that a mine needs a reclamation plan to get a permit. However, there are no regulations stating they must execute the plan before abandoning the property.
The time to think about a major expense, such as reclamation, is NOT what all the profit has left a mine. That, of course, should be done upfront – before mining starts and profits roll in. Duh!
Texas should also exercise eminent domain when miners ignore their reclamation responsibilities. These abandoned pits can represent dangers to neighborhood kids.
Pits can have steep slopes and sharp drop offs. Some, reputedly are 90 feet deep. Roads around them collapse. The sides often cave in. They can even harbor dangerous bacteria.
With money from forfeited performance bonds (if miners fail in their reclamation responsibilities), Texas could turn abandoned mines into parks for people and wildlife to enjoy. And it wouldn’t be at taxpayer expense.
Walking away from reclamation responsibilities is just another way to externalize clean up costs that some mines reportedly build into their business plans.
It’s shameful. State Rep. Dan Huberty has campaigned for more than a decade for sensible sand mine legislation. He had this to say about the Texas Concrete case. “We are working with TCEQ and will be requiring the land owner to remediate.” He added, “We will also be drafting legislation to require bonds that ensure clean up after they are done mining and hold the owners liable for non-performance.”
When aggregate companies have outstanding issues such as the Plum Grove mine, I personally would like to see their ability to do business with TxDoT suspended. That would get compliance quickly.
Posted by Bob Rehak on April 28, 2020with thanks to Dan Huberty, Josh Alberson and the TCEQ
753 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 222 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/2020/04/Texas-Concrete-Plum-Grove.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2020-04-28 17:16:252020-05-06 21:18:44Abandoned Texas Concrete Mine in Plum Grove Still Hasn’t Stabilized Soil or Removed Equipment
Yesterday, I posted pictures taken from a helicopter of a 7.5-acre sand bar in the San Jacinto West Fork that had been mined without a permit. Then last night, Josh Alberson sent me some video from a boat of the same area. Gabe Gosney, a passenger in Alberson’s jet boat, shot the video on GoPro and wants to share it with the community.
Giant Sand Bar Now Looks Like Example of Pit Capture
The area in question lies on the west side of the river, just south of SH99. When Alberson first saw it, he excitedly texted me, saying he found an example of “pit capture” on the West Fork. The only problem: there was no pit to capture. And no recent flood.
As Alberson sped down the West Fork, he spotted the area and slowed. Gosney shot hand held from the boat. Here’s what the carnage looked like from the river.
3 minute 15 second video by Gabe Gosney of 7.5 acre area in San Jacinto West Fork being mined for sand.
Changes to Riverine Environment
Several things become apparent immediately upon viewing the video.
Humans caused extensive damage to the river ecosystem (property of the state).
What looked like the edge of a sand bar from 300 feet up in a helicopter is actually small piles of sand left by the miners.
River current now flows through the mined area, but at a slower rate than the river itself.
Trees that used to form a small part of the edge of the bar in one area have toppled.
The sand bar outlined above in this Google Earth satellite image from 12/1/2019 no longer exists.It has been mined out of existence.
Alberson says the river was up about a foot to a foot and a half compared to normal because of the SJRA’s seasonal release of 529 cubic feet per second from Lake Conroe. He said the current was quite fast – difficult to stand in. He did not get out of the boat to see how deep the water was in the mined area, but his impression was that it was shallow.
During floods, the dying trees you see in the video will dislodge and float downstream where they will cause property damage or get lodged in bridge supports, form dams, and cause flooding.
When floodwaters spread out in this area, they will slow and deposit their sediment load. However, where the river channel becomes narrower downstream, the river will speed up again and likely accelerate erosion of river banks and other people’s property.
Texas Parks and Wildlife is investigating. More news to follow.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/24/2020with thanks to Josh Alberson and Gabe Gosney
969 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/2020/04/Video-Key-Frame.jpg?fit=1200%2C636&ssl=16361200adminadmin2020-04-24 17:10:362020-04-24 17:29:30Video From Boat of 7.5-Acre Area in San Jacinto West Fork Mined for Sand
A 7.5-acre point bar outside a San Jacinto West Fork sand mine has disappeared, the apparent victim of river mining. River mining is prohibited in many countries because of its dangers. Texas does not prohibit it, but taxes it at a higher rate than floodplain mining to discourage the practice. The dangers include:
Upstream and downstream erosion
Destruction of riverbanks and river properties
Undermining infrastructure (such as bridges and pipelines)
Location of River Mining on West Fork Just South of Highway 99
No Permits on File With Key Regulatory Bodies
A check with the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA), Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), and Texas Parks and Wildlife Division (TPWD) showed the following:
TPWD says they know of “no permits for stream bed excavation along the San Jacinto River.”
A TCEQ investigator has spoken to the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) Wetlands Conservation Program. “If the facility is digging in or very near the water’s edge,” said the TCEQ’s Jonathan Walling, “the facility would most likely need a permit from TPWD.”
Tom Heger of TPWD said Montgomery County Parks & Wildlife officials are investigating.
Compare the satellite image above to the shots below. Google Earth measurements show the sand bar that no longer exists was bigger than most of the pits in the mine itself.
Looking downriver, you can still see outlines of point bar and marks from excavator.Close up of marks left by teeth of excavator.Looking toward West Fork where point bar used be. Vehicle tracks lead back to mine behind camera position.Pits created in the river.Relationship of river mining to flood plain mine in background.Well-used road between excavation and mine.The disappearance of sand is not because of the seasonal release of water from Lake Conroe.Hundreds of bars both up and downstream appeared normal.Google Earth shows the river to be approximately 350 feet wide at this point.
If the stream is perennial (flows most of the time), or is more than 30 feet wide between the banks (even if it is dry most of the time), the State claims the bed and the sand and gravel in it as State-owned.
A permit from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department is required to “disturb or take” streambed materials from a streambed claimed by the State.
According to TPWD, the operator did not have a permit. In fact, no one on the entire San Jacinto river has a permit, according to TPWD.
How River Mining Degrades River Beds/Channels: Academic Insights
…bed degradation occurs when mineral extraction increases the flow capacity of the channel. A pit excavation locally increases flow depth and a barskimming operation increases flow width. Both conditions produce slower streamflow velocities and lower flow energies, causing sediments arriving from upstream to deposit at the mining site. As streamflow moves beyond the site and flow energies increase in response to the “normal” channel form downstream, the amount of transported sediment leaving the site is now less than the sediment carrying capacity of the flow. This sediment-deficient flow or “hungry” water picks up more sediment from the stream reach below the mining site, furthering the bed degradation process.
The mine owners could not be reached for comment. Their phones went unanswered, perhaps because of the COVID crisis.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/23/2020
968 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/2020/04/20200421-RJR_0918.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2020-04-23 18:23:222020-04-23 19:54:37TPWD Investigates River Mining Without Permit on San Jacinto West Fork
Mine process wastewater flooding neighboring properties in upper right. Picture taken Jan 20, 2020.Mine process wastewater flooding neighboring properties in foreground. Picture taken Feb. 13, 2020.Triple PG wastewater on neighboring properties on March 6, 2020. See water in strip of trees in front of stockpile.
TCEQ Report on Compliance Investigation
TCEQ observed process water outside Triple PG’s property boundary and concluded, “The allegation of a discharge of process water was confirmed. As a result of the investigation conducted on March 11, 2020, one alleged violation was noted for failure to prevent the discharge of process water.” That was the fourth such finding in five years for the mine.
TCEQ says in part, “Because process water was located outside of the facility’s property boundary with a high likelihood to enter waters of the state, an unauthorized discharge had occurred.”
676% Higher Levels of Suspended Sediment than Creek Water
Wastewater was overflowing from Ponds Five and Six. Analysis of water samples showed that the overflow had levels of suspended solids in it that were 137% to 676% higher than the background level found upstream in White Oak Creek. That’s more than 2X to almost 8X above the creek water.
Discharge Not Authorized
Both TCEQ rules and the terms of the injunction prohibit any discharges of process water not authorized by the TCEQ.
The Notice of Enforcement issued by the TCEQ on 4/3/2020 cites, “Unauthorized discharge of process water: Specifically, during the investigation conducted on March 11, 2020, process water was noted outside the property boundary of Triple PG Sand Development Facility with the likelihood to enter waters of the state.”
Recommended corrective action? TCEQ simply says, “There shall be NO unauthorized discharge of pollutants.”
Additional Fines Possible
The Texas Water Code Section 7.102 allows fines up to $25,000 per day for each day of a continuing violation. See flooded neighboring properties above in January, February and March flyover photos.
That water was building up and flooding adjoining properties for at least three months. This could get expensive for Triple PG!
The Attorney General’s office did not respond yet to a request for comment about the type of penalties that it would seek, if any.
Fourth Unauthorized Discharge in Last Year
TCEQ has conducted eight other investigations at Triple PG in the previous 5 years. They included investigations into:
Failure to renew their registration
Alleged failure to maintain pollution prevention measures and controls
Failure to maintain a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWP3)
Unauthorized discharge of process water (three times since May 2019)
This makes the fourth citation for unauthorized discharges in a year.
Editorial Comment: This mine just doesn’t seem to take the TCEQ, Attorney General, State of Texas or the health of their neighbors seriously. I hope the Attorney General shuts them down.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/6/2020
951 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 200 after 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/2020/03/20200306-RJR_0052.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2020-04-06 18:39:052020-04-06 20:36:51TCEQ Alleges Fourth Unauthorized Discharge in 10 Months at Triple PG Mine
