Groundwater Regulatory Program and Conjunctive Use Study

1
Groundwater Regulatory Program and Conjunctive
Use Study
2
AGENDA

• Introduction of Lone Star Groundwater
  Conservation District
• Background of Study Authorization
• Review of the Problem
• Summary of Study Findings
• Questions and Answers

3
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

4
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
• Commissioners Court

• MUDs west of I-45
• San Jacinto River Authority
• Commissioners Court

• City of Conroe
• Woodlands Joint Powers Agency
• Soil and Water Conservation District

5
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

6
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

7
(No Transcript)
8
Groundwater Regulatory Program and Conjunctive
Use Study
9
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

10
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

11
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

12
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

13
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

14
REVIEW OF THE PROBLEM
15
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

16
Existing Sources of Water
Evangeline Aquifer Recharge Zone
Grimes
Montgomery
Liberty
Chicot Aquifer Recharge Zone
Direction of Groundwater Flow
Harris
Waller
Fort Bend
Galveston
Aquifer Recharge Areas
Source Harris Galveston Coastal Subsidence
District
17
Aquifer Characteristics
18
(No Transcript)
19
Historic Decline in Water Levels1990-2004 Chicot
Aquifer Water-Level Change
20
Historic Decline in Water Levels1990-2004
Evangeline Aquifer Water-Level Change
21
Historic Decline in Water Levels2000-2004 Jasper
Aquifer Water-Level Change
Decline gt 50 Decline 20 lt 50 Decline 1 lt 20
22
Projected Decline in Water Levels (Evangeline
2000-2040)
23
Projected Decline in Water Levels(Jasper
2000-2040)
24
Regulatory Plan to Conserve Groundwater
25
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

26
Growth in Water Demand
Alternative source requirement
55
46
34
15
27
(No Transcript)
28
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

29
Groundwater Regulatory Program Development
30
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.

31
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.

32
Population/Demand Projections
80 of Demand in these 5 areas
33
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
34
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
35
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
36
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
37
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
38
Water Level Change in Evangeline Aquifer from
2000 to 2040Baseline Run Total Water Demand
50 ft contour
39
Water Level Change in Evangeline Aquifer from
2000 to 2040Reduction Scenario 2 Four Zone
Reduction
50 ft contour
40
Water Level Change in Jasper Aquifer from 2000 to
2040Baseline Run Total Water Demand
50 ft contour
41
Water Level Change in Jasper Aquifer from 2000 to
2040Reduction Scenario 2 Four Zone Reduction
50 ft contour
42
Who is using the water?
43
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?

44
(No Transcript)
45
(No Transcript)
46
(No Transcript)
47
(No Transcript)
48
(No Transcript)
49
Wholesale Surface Water Supply
50
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

51
2013 Surface Water System
52
2020 Surface Water System
53
2030 Surface Water System
54
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

55
(No Transcript)
56
2013 Surface Water System Costs
Pipe Sizing Based On
2013 Demands 2040 Demands

• 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

( in Millions)
57
Unit Rate of Surface Water Supply
( in Millions)
Based On
2013 Demands 2040 Demands

• 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 OM for SW operation
  0.26 0.26
• Total Cost of Water
  1.99 2.52
  for SW actually used

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
58
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 OM cost for
surface water (0.26/1000g)
1.7 1.7
1.7 OM 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
59
System Implementation
60
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

61
(No Transcript)
62
Comparison of Management Authorities
63
Current Status
64
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/implementa
  tion strategy.

65
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 Districts website
• www.lonestargcd.org