Groundwater regulatory program and conjunctive use study
Download
1 / 65

Groundwater Regulatory Program and Conjunctive Use Study - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 92 Views
  • Uploaded on

Groundwater Regulatory Program and Conjunctive Use Study. AGENDA. Introduction of Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District Background of Study Authorization Review of the Problem Summary of Study Findings Questions and Answers. Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Groundwater Regulatory Program and Conjunctive Use Study' - gaurav


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

Agenda
AGENDA

  • Introduction of Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District

  • Background of Study Authorization

  • Review of the Problem

  • Summary of Study Findings

  • Questions and Answers


Lone star groundwater conservation district
Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District

  • Authorized by 77th Legislature in 2001 by HB 2362

  • Geographic boundaries encompass ALL of Montgomery County

  • Creation confirmed by popular vote on Nov 6, 2001 with 73.85 % approval

  • Amended Enabling Legislation in 2003

    by SB 1930 to protect

    rulemaking authority


Board members
Board Members

Legislative Act provided for a nine-member Board of Board appointments are for staggered four-year terms,

  • MUDs east of I-45

  • small cities excluding Conroe

  • Commissioner’s Court

  • MUDs west of I-45

  • San Jacinto River Authority

  • Commissioner’s Court

  • City of Conroe

  • Woodlands Joint Powers Agency

  • Soil and Water Conservation District


Role of the lone star groundwater district
Role of the Lone Star Groundwater District

  • Conserve and Protect groundwater resources in Montgomery County

  • Control land subsidence

  • Develop rules and regulations as necessary to meet these objectives

  • Establish well registration and permit system

  • Work with Federal Government to monitor groundwater levels

  • Participate in joint planning with GMA 14


Why is planning and regulation necessary
Why is Planning and Regulation Necessary?

Texas Water Development Board

Projections of Available Groundwater

in Montgomery County (per approved plan) 64,000 a-f /year

Current GW Permit Requests 70,000 a-f/year

Projected water demand by 2040 154,000 a-f /year

Shortage 90,000 a-f/year



Study background authorization
Study Background Authorization

  • Authorized by Board action of February 20, 2004

  • Delayed until Planning Grant Application reviewed by TWDB ( April 2004)

  • Notice to Proceed in June 2004


Cost sharing and obligation
Cost Sharing and Obligation

  • TWDB $141,000

  • LSGCD Cash $ 25,000

  • SJRA Cash $ 40,000

  • LSGCD In-Kind $ 70,000

  • SJRA In-Kind $ 25,000

  • Total $302,000


Purpose and scope
Purpose and Scope

  • Groundwater Regulatory Plan (GRP)

    • Provides science and engineering justification for establishing management zones and goals for each zone

    • Establishes a need for reduction in groundwater usage to meet goals

  • Facilities Plan

    • Technical mechanism for implementing the GRP

    • Sets timetable for implementation of surface water ( or other alternatives) based on goals established in GRP


Groundwater regulatory plan
Groundwater Regulatory Plan

  • Establishes population and water demand projections for next 40 years based on 5 year increments

  • Apply water demand projections to the TWDB GAM

  • Establishes goal for future water level declines

  • Evaluates alternative scenarios of management zones

  • Projects aquifer response based on scenario


Facilities implementation plan
Facilities Implementation Plan

  • Interface with current planning, operating and management entities

  • Develop sizes for plant, storage and conveyance facilities for surface water treatment and conveyance

  • Establish preliminary routing and location of plants and pipelines

  • Discuss TCEQ requirements for blending surface and groundwater sources

  • Develop draft financial plan for implementing surface water

    • Impact on water districts

    • Current groundwater debt

    • Rate and debt structure

  • Review options for institutional mechanisms for implementing



Discussion of the fundamental issue facing montgomery county
Discussion of the Fundamental Issue Facing Montgomery County

  • 26th fastest growing county in the United States

  • 5th fastest growing county in Texas

  • To date, entire water supply originates as groundwater from Gulf Coast Aquifer

  • Current usage is approaching (exceeding) sustainable yield of the aquifer


Existing sources of water
Existing Sources of Water

Evangeline Aquifer Recharge Zone

Grimes

Montgomery

Liberty

Chicot Aquifer Recharge Zone

Direction of Groundwater Flow

Waller

Harris

Fort Bend

Aquifer Recharge Areas

Galveston

Source: Harris Galveston Coastal Subsidence District


Aquifer characteristics

Conroe

Aquifer Characteristics


Historic decline in water levels 1990 2004 chicot aquifer water level change
Historic Decline in Water Levels1990-2004 Chicot Aquifer Water-Level Change


Historic decline in water levels 1990 2004 evangeline aquifer water level change
Historic Decline in Water Levels1990-2004 Evangeline Aquifer Water-Level Change


Historic decline in water levels 2000 2004 jasper aquifer water level change
Historic Decline in Water Levels2000-2004 Jasper Aquifer Water-Level Change

Decline > 50 ‘

Decline 20’ < 50’

Decline 1‘ < 20’


Projected decline in water levels evangeline 2000 2040
Projected Decline in Water Levels (Evangeline 2000-2040)




Projections of water usage
Projections of Water Usage

Texas Water Development Board

Projections of Available Groundwater

in Montgomery County (per approved plan) 64,000 a-f /year

Current GW Permit Requests 70,000 a-f/year

Projected water demand by 2040 154,000 a-f /year

Shortage 90,000 a-f/year

Note: 97% of the water used is for public water supply


Growth in Water Demand

Alternative source requirement

55%

46%

34%

15%


Issues with severe water level decline
Issues With Severe Water Level Decline

Aquifer begins to dewater in areas of heavy pumpage. Potential problems include:

  • Worsens conditions that contribute to land subsidence

  • Water levels dropping below top of screen, reducing pump efficiency

  • Reduced saturated thickness and availability

  • Water quality degradation: arsenic, radioactivity, TDS



What are the impacts of regulating groundwater
What are the impacts of Regulating Groundwater

  • Regulation is structured to encourage conservation.

  • Conversion to alternative sources, including increased conservation, reclaimed water, surface water and other strategies will be necessary.

  • The cost for water will likely rise.


What is a regulatory zone accomplishing
What is a Regulatory Zone Accomplishing

  • Authorized by enabling legislation and board rules as a method on management

  • Establishes geographic boundaries and the allowable groundwater withdrawal within that boundary at a point in time.

  • It sets periodic milestone dates for groundwater reduction.

  • It provides for a continued “growth on groundwater” in the zone in between the milestone dates.

  • It does not preclude subdividing the zone at some future date, but makes it difficult to move from one zone to another zone.

  • It does not preclude changing the milestone dates, nor the amount of groundwater reduction within a zone at those milestone date.


Population demand projections
Population/Demand Projections

80% of Demand in these 5 areas


Single management zone countywide
Single Management Zone - Countywide

HUP – 59,603 af

Allow GW – 64,000 af

2013 Demand – 83,600 af

2013 Reduction – 30%

2040 Demand – 154,000 af

2040 Reduction – 60%


Conroe woodlands management zone
Conroe/Woodlands Management Zone

Balance of County

HUP – 22,032 af

Allowable GW

withdrawal – 56,641 af

2013 Demand – 45,226 af

2013 Reduction – 0%

2040 Demand – 94,435 af

2040 Reduction – 40%

Conroe/Woodlands

HUP – 36,968 af

Allowable GW

withdrawal – 7,359 af

2013 Demand – 38,376 af

2013 Reduction – 81%

2040 Demand – 59,928 af

2040 Reduction – 88%


Two management zones
Two Management Zones

Balance of County

HUP – 8,320 af

Allowable GW

withdrawal – 32,712 af

2013 Demand – 16,436 af

2013 Reduction – 0%

2040 Demand – 29,340 af

2040 Reduction – 0%

Zone covers 80% of the demand

Increase from 2000 to 2040

HUP – 50,680 af

Allowable GW

withdrawal – 31,288 af

2013 Demand – 67,166 af

2013 Reduction – 53%

2040 Demand – 125,023 af

2040 Reduction – 75%


Three management zones
Three Management Zones

HUP – 18,092 af

Allow GW – 30,516 af

2013 Demand – 25,116 af

2013 Reduction – 0%

2040 Demand – 43,107 ac

2040 Reduction – 35%

HUP – 30,492 af

Allow GW – 15,673 af

2013 Demand – 36,343 af

2013 Reduction – 60%

2040 Demand – 60,079 af

2040 Reduction – 76%

HUP – 10,416 af

Allow GW – 17,811 af

2013 Demand – 22,142 af

2013 Reduction – 26%

2040 Demand – 51,177 ac

2040 Reduction – 68%


4 management zones
4 Management Zones

HUP – 6,402 af

Allow GW – 8,192 af

2013 Demand – 4,485 af

2013 Reduction – 0%

2040 Demand – 7,700 ac

2040 Reduction – 0%

HUP – 5,463 af

Allowable GW

withdrawal – 20,185 af

2013 Demand – 11,046 af

2013 Reduction – 0%

2040 Demand – 19,325 af

2040 Reduction – 0%

HUP – 10,416 af

Allow GW – 17,929 af

2013 Demand – 20,943 af

2013 Reduction – 14%

2040 Demand – 47,105 af

2040 Reduction – 49%

HUP – 36,968 af

Allow GW – 17,692 af

2013 Demand – 47,129 af

2013 Reduction – 62%

2040 Demand – 80,233 ac

2040 Reduction – 78%


Water level change in evangeline aquifer from 2000 to 2040 baseline run total water demand
Water Level Change in Evangeline Aquifer from 2000 to 2040Baseline Run: Total Water Demand

50 ft contour


Water level change in evangeline aquifer from 2000 to 2040 reduction scenario 2 four zone reduction
Water Level Change in Evangeline Aquifer from 2000 to 2040Reduction Scenario 2 : Four Zone Reduction

50 ft contour


Water level change in jasper aquifer from 2000 to 2040 baseline run total water demand
Water Level Change in Jasper Aquifer from 2000 to 2040Baseline Run: Total Water Demand

50 ft contour


Water level change in jasper aquifer from 2000 to 2040 reduction scenario 2 four zone reduction
Water Level Change in Jasper Aquifer from 2000 to 2040Reduction Scenario 2 : Four Zone Reduction

50 ft contour



Who should be regulated
Who should be regulated ?

  • Types of users ?

    • agriculture, irrigation, public, commercial, industrial

  • Size of users ?

    • small users, large users, single demand users, wholesale suppliers, retail suppliers

  • Which of these users is causing the problem ?

    • Is it necessary to capture all users or only 90% of them ( what is the cost of the last 10%)

  • What would be the impact of regulation to the user group?

    • Is it gaining a positive impact ?

    • Is it punitive to the user group

  • Do you regulate by owner or by well?



Planning aspects of the surface water system
Planning aspects of the Surface Water System

  • It will be a “wholesale” supply system that augments current retail systems

  • It will be designed cost effectively, providing surface water to areas needing expansion or experiencing problems

  • It will be designed to address the problems of over pumping





The cost of water
The Cost of Water

  • Wholesale cost versus retail cost ( transmission versus distribution)

  • Capital cost of a surface water system

  • Operation and maintenance of the treatment plant, pumps and pipelines

  • Capital cost of existing and new groundwater wells

  • Operation and maintenance of the wells, storage facilities and pumps

  • Cost of the lost opportunity to use an existing investment

  • Cost of the distribution of water within the retail system


2013 surface water system costs
2013 Surface Water System Costs

Pipe Sizing Based On

Pipeline $ 56.4 $ 77.5

Treatment $ 38.6 $ 38.6

Special Crossings $ 17.2 $ 29.5

Total Construction $ 112.2 $ 145.6

Engineering and Contingencies $ 35.6 $ 45.6

Land Acquisition $ 8.8 $ 8.8

Total Cost $ 156.6 $ 199.9

2013 Demands 2040 Demands

( in $$ Millions)


Unit rate of surface water supply
Unit Rate of Surface Water Supply

( in $$ Millions)

Based On

50% Value of Un-depreciated Asset * $ 18 $ 18

Water System Cost $ 156.6 $199.9

Total Cost $ 174.6 $217.9

Annual Cost ** $ 14.0 $ 17.5

Annual SW Treated 6,570 mg 6,570 mg

Surface Water Cost / 1000g $ 2.13 $ 2.66 for water actually used

Less savings for GW pumping ($ 0.40) ($ 0.40)

Plus O&M for SW operation $0.26 $ 0.26

Total Cost of Water $ 1.99 $2.52 for SW actually used

2013 Demands 2040 Demands

The value of a Historic Use Permit could be equal to the cost of surface water received less the capitalized cost of a new well (~ $0.40/1000 g)

* Based on a 30 year active life of a well and an average cost of $1.2 million per well

** Assuming 5% interest and 20 year payment


Other cost options
Other Cost Options

Management Strategy SW Users SW Zone is County is

Pay cost neutral cost neutral

Total SW used 20,000 a-f 20,000 a-f 20,000 a-f

Total GW used 16,363 60,300

Capitalized cost of surf water ($2.13/1000g) $ 14.0 $ 14.0 $ 14.0

Capitalized cost of ground water ($0.40/1000g) $ 0.0 $ 2.2 $ 7.9

O&M cost for surface water ($0.26/1000g) $ 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 1.7

O&M cost for ground water ($0.40/1000g) $ 0.0 $ 2.2 $ 7.9

Total Cost for Water $ 15.7 $ 20.1 $ 31.5

Average Price per 1000 g in SW zone $ 2.39 $ 1.68 $ 1.19

Average Price per 1000 g in other zones $ 0.80 $ 0.80 $ 1.19



Considerations in plan implementation
CONSIDERATIONS IN PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

  • To be successful, the plan MUST have some level of support from the stakeholders involved

  • To Implement, the Plan must include

    • An incentive to conserve water

    • An incentive to use an alternative source

    • A financially equitable solution

    • Someone to build the system

    • Someone to administer the system and contractually obligate buyers and sellers of water




Current status1
Current Status

  • Presentations made to 20+ water utilities in Montgomery County.

  • Draft report submitted to TWDB and comments received.

  • Following receipt of comments tonight, a final report will be submitted to TWDB

  • Board of Directors will authorize development of Regulatory Plan requirements.

  • Decisions need to be made on management/implementation strategy.


For more information
FOR MORE INFORMATION

Kathy Turner Jones

General Manager

Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District

PO Box 2467

207 W Phillips Street, Suite 300

Conroe, Texas 77305

936/494-3436

A copy of the Final Report and this presentation will be available on the District’s website:

www.lonestargcd.org