Captain Pablo said:
Great information in this thread, but I haven't read the whole thing.
I get the opposition to brine dumping
But what are the "social justice" issues preventing desal plants from being built?
txags92 said:Captain Pablo said:
Great information in this thread, but I haven't read the whole thing.
I get the opposition to brine dumping
But what are the "social justice" issues preventing desal plants from being built?
There was a lot of objections to the location the CC Inner Harbor plant was proposed to be built in based on demographics and socioeconomics of the neighborhood. In reality, it was proposed where it was due to the location adjacent to the channel and proximity to the nexus of the existing water distribution network. But the location was in an area of lower socioeconomic status and where primarily minorities lived, so the accusation was that "a plant being built to serve primarily industrial customers" (not accurate) was placed in a way that would disproportionately affect poor and minority residents. I don't think it was a particularly accurate or reasonable accusation, but there was a large group of residents and advocates for them that showed up to testify at the meeting before the vote and it was clear that their presence and arguments influenced one or more of the council members.
YouBet said:txags92 said:Captain Pablo said:
Great information in this thread, but I haven't read the whole thing.
I get the opposition to brine dumping
But what are the "social justice" issues preventing desal plants from being built?
There was a lot of objections to the location the CC Inner Harbor plant was proposed to be built in based on demographics and socioeconomics of the neighborhood. In reality, it was proposed where it was due to the location adjacent to the channel and proximity to the nexus of the existing water distribution network. But the location was in an area of lower socioeconomic status and where primarily minorities lived, so the accusation was that "a plant being built to serve primarily industrial customers" (not accurate) was placed in a way that would disproportionately affect poor and minority residents. I don't think it was a particularly accurate or reasonable accusation, but there was a large group of residents and advocates for them that showed up to testify at the meeting before the vote and it was clear that their presence and arguments influenced one or more of the council members.
So, the white people protested? Because they are the minority in Corpus. Or was this the one black neighborhood within 600 miles on the coast.
txags92 said:YouBet said:txags92 said:Captain Pablo said:
Great information in this thread, but I haven't read the whole thing.
I get the opposition to brine dumping
But what are the "social justice" issues preventing desal plants from being built?
There was a lot of objections to the location the CC Inner Harbor plant was proposed to be built in based on demographics and socioeconomics of the neighborhood. In reality, it was proposed where it was due to the location adjacent to the channel and proximity to the nexus of the existing water distribution network. But the location was in an area of lower socioeconomic status and where primarily minorities lived, so the accusation was that "a plant being built to serve primarily industrial customers" (not accurate) was placed in a way that would disproportionately affect poor and minority residents. I don't think it was a particularly accurate or reasonable accusation, but there was a large group of residents and advocates for them that showed up to testify at the meeting before the vote and it was clear that their presence and arguments influenced one or more of the council members.
So, the white people protested? Because they are the minority in Corpus. Or was this the one black neighborhood within 600 miles on the coast.
No, it was the oppressed ones. Because you know as well as I do that white people are always the oppressors, even when they are the minority.
YouBet said:txags92 said:Captain Pablo said:
Great information in this thread, but I haven't read the whole thing.
I get the opposition to brine dumping
But what are the "social justice" issues preventing desal plants from being built?
There was a lot of objections to the location the CC Inner Harbor plant was proposed to be built in based on demographics and socioeconomics of the neighborhood. In reality, it was proposed where it was due to the location adjacent to the channel and proximity to the nexus of the existing water distribution network. But the location was in an area of lower socioeconomic status and where primarily minorities lived, so the accusation was that "a plant being built to serve primarily industrial customers" (not accurate) was placed in a way that would disproportionately affect poor and minority residents. I don't think it was a particularly accurate or reasonable accusation, but there was a large group of residents and advocates for them that showed up to testify at the meeting before the vote and it was clear that their presence and arguments influenced one or more of the council members.
So, the white people protested? Because they are the minority in Corpus. Or was this the one black neighborhood within 600 miles on the coast.
Quote:
Corpus Christi inner harbor desalination vote sparks backlash in historically black Hillcrest neighborhood
txags92 said:Captain Pablo said:
Great information in this thread, but I haven't read the whole thing.
I get the opposition to brine dumping
But what are the "social justice" issues preventing desal plants from being built?
There was a lot of objections to the location the CC Inner Harbor plant was proposed to be built in based on demographics and socioeconomics of the neighborhood. In reality, it was proposed where it was due to the location adjacent to the channel and proximity to the nexus of the existing water distribution network. But the location was in an area of lower socioeconomic status and where primarily minorities lived, so the accusation was that "a plant being built to serve primarily industrial customers" (not accurate) was placed in a way that would disproportionately affect poor and minority residents. I don't think it was a particularly accurate or reasonable accusation, but there was a large group of residents and advocates for them that showed up to testify at the meeting before the vote and it was clear that their presence and arguments influenced one or more of the council members.
HTownAg98 said:
Same neighborhood raised a big stink about the Harbor Bridge Project. That's one of those projects I was very happy not to be involved in. It was a fiasco.
Quote:
Sinton city officials have turned down an invitation by a state senator to attend a meeting with city of Corpus Christi officials to discuss a controversial groundwater project, as well as the regional water supply.
The intention had been to open the lines of communication between the two municipalities, which have been at very public odds over what's known as the Evangeline groundwater project.
The proposed well field in question would be located on roughly 23,000 acres near the city of Sinton, eventually producing as much as 24 million gallons of groundwater per day.
Quote:
Sinton city officials have raised concerns about the proposed groundwater project's potential impacts to the aquifer and the groundwater wells that serve as the sole source of the community's water supply.
Last month, Sinton officials filed protests against drilling and transport permits for the project.
A preliminary hearing to determine whether the city of Sinton, as well as two other protestants, have standing is expected in the upcoming weeks.
Sinton officials asserted in the news release that the city of Corpus Christi is withholding information, such as "critical hydrogeological and waterquality data related to the Project."
Sinton city officials also stated in the news release that they had sent a proposal to the city describing it as potentially "outlining a path toward resolving the pending permit issues" but had not received a response.
A March 9 news release issued by the city of Corpus Christi disagreed with assertions that the city had "failed to respond to requests for essential information," stating that responses have been sent through attorneys.
Corpus Christi city officials proposed mitigation plans several months ago.
YouBet said:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/sinton-declines-invite-to-senator-s-water-meeting-with-corpus-christi/ar-AA1XRP6g?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=69b045bf31a2400eb5c9c78015c3edf4&ei=12Quote:
Sinton city officials have turned down an invitation by a state senator to attend a meeting with city of Corpus Christi officials to discuss a controversial groundwater project, as well as the regional water supply.
The intention had been to open the lines of communication between the two municipalities, which have been at very public odds over what's known as the Evangeline groundwater project.
The proposed well field in question would be located on roughly 23,000 acres near the city of Sinton, eventually producing as much as 24 million gallons of groundwater per day.
Lot of he said, she said going on:Quote:
Sinton city officials have raised concerns about the proposed groundwater project's potential impacts to the aquifer and the groundwater wells that serve as the sole source of the community's water supply.
Last month, Sinton officials filed protests against drilling and transport permits for the project.
A preliminary hearing to determine whether the city of Sinton, as well as two other protestants, have standing is expected in the upcoming weeks.
Sinton officials asserted in the news release that the city of Corpus Christi is withholding information, such as "critical hydrogeological and waterquality data related to the Project."
Sinton city officials also stated in the news release that they had sent a proposal to the city describing it as potentially "outlining a path toward resolving the pending permit issues" but had not received a response.
A March 9 news release issued by the city of Corpus Christi disagreed with assertions that the city had "failed to respond to requests for essential information," stating that responses have been sent through attorneys.
Corpus Christi city officials proposed mitigation plans several months ago.
HTownAg98 said:
This is very broad and generally true most of the time, but there are exceptions.
First, the water under your property is a vested property right, but its not owned in place like oil, gas, and other minerals. Texas groundwater is governed by the Rule of Capture, which means if you can pump it out of the ground, it's yours. That can create problems if you have a bunch of high water users move in and put in a bunch of wells. You start lowering the water level, wells run dry, subsidence occurs, brackish water intrusions into the water, etc., and other bad things start to happen. To help prevent over-extraction of water, many areas have formed Groundwater Conservation Districts that can issue regulations, permits, etc., to manage the resource.
K2-HMFIC said:HTownAg98 said:
This is very broad and generally true most of the time, but there are exceptions.
First, the water under your property is a vested property right, but its not owned in place like oil, gas, and other minerals. Texas groundwater is governed by the Rule of Capture, which means if you can pump it out of the ground, it's yours. That can create problems if you have a bunch of high water users move in and put in a bunch of wells. You start lowering the water level, wells run dry, subsidence occurs, brackish water intrusions into the water, etc., and other bad things start to happen. To help prevent over-extraction of water, many areas have formed Groundwater Conservation Districts that can issue regulations, permits, etc., to manage the resource.
The problem is...and this is going to get political...the local voters distrust government and dont want a water district.
txags92 said:K2-HMFIC said:HTownAg98 said:
This is very broad and generally true most of the time, but there are exceptions.
First, the water under your property is a vested property right, but its not owned in place like oil, gas, and other minerals. Texas groundwater is governed by the Rule of Capture, which means if you can pump it out of the ground, it's yours. That can create problems if you have a bunch of high water users move in and put in a bunch of wells. You start lowering the water level, wells run dry, subsidence occurs, brackish water intrusions into the water, etc., and other bad things start to happen. To help prevent over-extraction of water, many areas have formed Groundwater Conservation Districts that can issue regulations, permits, etc., to manage the resource.
The problem is...and this is going to get political...the local voters distrust government and dont want a water district.
And the problem with that is that under current state law, only a groundwater conservation district can stop somebody from coming in next door and installing a bigger pump. Under existing state case law around the rule of capture, if the city installs a bunch of wells next door and pumps the aquifer dry the surrounding landowners have no recourse against them. There is no law that can stop them and no avenue to gather civil penalties for it. If the act of running their wells dry was not done maliciously with intent to harm them by CC, they cannot recover damages for it.
Nobody wants a HOA either until the neighbor parks a set of rusty mobile homes on his lot and starts renting them out by the week as a post-prison halfway house release point. Sometimes government is neither desired nor trusted, but that doesn't mean it isn't sometimes needed as well.
txags92 said:Ag with kids said:K2-HMFIC said:
The de-sal plant was cancelled by the sport fishing lobby.
Too much industry drawing too much water.
But most importantly, not enough rainfall on the Nueces River watershed (Bracketville, Carrizo Springs, Tilden).
I do understand the concerns. They're going to dump the brine in the Bay, not in the Gulf, and there's concern that it will cause the water to get TOO salty in the Bay and kill off a lot of fish...
We've been in a drought down here for quite awhile...water restrictions for years. I live on the island so I just have a rock yard, but I do have a pool...
I'm pretty sure the city council voted to continue on with the desal plant with their last vote...
Part of the issue is the confusion over which desal plant we are talking about. There was a brackish water desal plant that would have discharged brine to Petronila Creek was killed largely by sport fishing interests who were confused about what the brine would actually be like relative to the already saline creek water.
Then there is the fully permitted CC inner harbor seawater desal plant that was planning to discharge to the CC channel that was killed initially by social justice issues and people confused about why constantly adding capacity and complexity to a plant design would cause the cost to go up. That one is back looking for a new design contractor now that the city council has voted to restart the process with a new contractor. But the status of the very large loan they received from TWDB for the plant is unclear at this point.
There is another port funded seawater desal plant that has not been fully permitted yet that plans to discharge their brine offshore in the gulf. I have questions about that one's durability to ride out a hurricane given its location, but it seems to be the least controversial and most likely to be approved without trouble.
People keep hearing details about one of these plants and conflating it with what is happening with another. Each of the plants has unresolved questions about their potential ecological impacts, but at some point Corpus is going to have to accept that either they start down the path on one or more of the plants right now, or they face losing major employers and having to make dramatic choices about who gets what little water they have left and what it will cost. For all those who think groundwater is the answer, keep in mind that pumping shallow groundwater in large quantities along the coast will almost certainly cause subsidence and will also impact ag viability in the area as well. Here is a map of what large scale groundwater pumping did for the Houston Galveston Area over the last century. Keep in mind that the contours are in meters, so it is showing 6-10 feet of subsidence in some areas. How would Houston's recent flooding be different with some of those areas 6-10' higher than they are today?
YouBet said:
Ha! Well there you go.
Disproportionally impacted.
American Hardwood said:txags92 said:Ag with kids said:K2-HMFIC said:
The de-sal plant was cancelled by the sport fishing lobby.
Too much industry drawing too much water.
But most importantly, not enough rainfall on the Nueces River watershed (Bracketville, Carrizo Springs, Tilden).
I do understand the concerns. They're going to dump the brine in the Bay, not in the Gulf, and there's concern that it will cause the water to get TOO salty in the Bay and kill off a lot of fish...
We've been in a drought down here for quite awhile...water restrictions for years. I live on the island so I just have a rock yard, but I do have a pool...
I'm pretty sure the city council voted to continue on with the desal plant with their last vote...
Part of the issue is the confusion over which desal plant we are talking about. There was a brackish water desal plant that would have discharged brine to Petronila Creek was killed largely by sport fishing interests who were confused about what the brine would actually be like relative to the already saline creek water.
Then there is the fully permitted CC inner harbor seawater desal plant that was planning to discharge to the CC channel that was killed initially by social justice issues and people confused about why constantly adding capacity and complexity to a plant design would cause the cost to go up. That one is back looking for a new design contractor now that the city council has voted to restart the process with a new contractor. But the status of the very large loan they received from TWDB for the plant is unclear at this point.
There is another port funded seawater desal plant that has not been fully permitted yet that plans to discharge their brine offshore in the gulf. I have questions about that one's durability to ride out a hurricane given its location, but it seems to be the least controversial and most likely to be approved without trouble.
People keep hearing details about one of these plants and conflating it with what is happening with another. Each of the plants has unresolved questions about their potential ecological impacts, but at some point Corpus is going to have to accept that either they start down the path on one or more of the plants right now, or they face losing major employers and having to make dramatic choices about who gets what little water they have left and what it will cost. For all those who think groundwater is the answer, keep in mind that pumping shallow groundwater in large quantities along the coast will almost certainly cause subsidence and will also impact ag viability in the area as well. Here is a map of what large scale groundwater pumping did for the Houston Galveston Area over the last century. Keep in mind that the contours are in meters, so it is showing 6-10 feet of subsidence in some areas. How would Houston's recent flooding be different with some of those areas 6-10' higher than they are today?
Houston's subsidence problems were largely a problem created by the density of unregulated wells. They were pumping massive amounts of water out of relatively small areas. Many, many times the maximum allowed amounts for the Evangeline field for example which is also much lower well density.
American Hardwood said:YouBet said:
Ha! Well there you go.
Disproportionally impacted.
Those neighborhoods complain about everything. There is a reason trial lawyers from CC have been historically very successful over the last several decades. It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with opportunity.
American Hardwood said:
True. But I wasn't making a point about regulations per se. The point was that anyone was pretty much putting wells wherever they wanted likely without regard or knowledge of what their neighbors were doing which led to the massive overproduction of the wells.
The significance of this is that what is proposed in San Pat county bears no resemblance at all to what happened in Houston in structure. San Patricio county has a water district which regulates the amount of extraction through their permitting. The rate for the Evageline project per well is no different than other what would be permitted for other wells. If the property was divided into 20 pieces each with a well and a farmer on it. Nobody would have said a peep about it even though the permittable amount of extraction would be the same.
This is only a story because it's the City of CC that wants the water, and a bunch of fear mongering has been involved, and a lot of special interests have campaigned against it. And to show how crazy this all is, the City of CC supplies most of San Pat county with water except for the City of Sinton which was GIVEN the water by the Welder family many years ago and who is a party to the proposed sale of water to CC. Those 3 wells Sinton currently has are not affected by the proposed sale.
American Hardwood said:
True. But I wasn't making a point about regulations per se. The point was that anyone was pretty much putting wells wherever they wanted likely without regard or knowledge of what their neighbors were doing which led to the massive overproduction of the wells.
The significance of this is that what is proposed in San Pat county bears no resemblance at all to what happened in Houston in structure. San Patricio county has a water district which regulates the amount of extraction through their permitting. The rate for the Evageline project per well is no different than other what would be permitted for other wells. If the property was divided into 20 pieces each with a well and a farmer on it. Nobody would have said a peep about it even though the permittable amount of extraction would be the same.
This is only a story because it's the City of CC that wants the water, and a bunch of fear mongering has been involved, and a lot of special interests have campaigned against it. And to show how crazy this all is, the City of CC supplies most of San Pat county with water except for the City of Sinton which was GIVEN the water by the Welder family many years ago and who is a party to the proposed sale of water to CC. Those 3 wells Sinton currently has are not affected by the proposed sale.
YouBet said:
Forgot to bring this up....my wife read the other day that Robstown and Calallan now both have arsenic seeping into their water. I assume that is due to this drought issue but don't know for sure.
So that's not great, if true.
K2-HMFIC said:American Hardwood said:
True. But I wasn't making a point about regulations per se. The point was that anyone was pretty much putting wells wherever they wanted likely without regard or knowledge of what their neighbors were doing which led to the massive overproduction of the wells.
The significance of this is that what is proposed in San Pat county bears no resemblance at all to what happened in Houston in structure. San Patricio county has a water district which regulates the amount of extraction through their permitting. The rate for the Evageline project per well is no different than other what would be permitted for other wells. If the property was divided into 20 pieces each with a well and a farmer on it. Nobody would have said a peep about it even though the permittable amount of extraction would be the same.
This is only a story because it's the City of CC that wants the water, and a bunch of fear mongering has been involved, and a lot of special interests have campaigned against it. And to show how crazy this all is, the City of CC supplies most of San Pat county with water except for the City of Sinton which was GIVEN the water by the Welder family many years ago and who is a party to the proposed sale of water to CC. Those 3 wells Sinton currently has are not affected by the proposed sale.
It should be noted that none of the Welders live in Sinton anymore and wont be affected by this sale.
txags92 said:American Hardwood said:txags92 said:Ag with kids said:K2-HMFIC said:
The de-sal plant was cancelled by the sport fishing lobby.
Too much industry drawing too much water.
But most importantly, not enough rainfall on the Nueces River watershed (Bracketville, Carrizo Springs, Tilden).
I do understand the concerns. They're going to dump the brine in the Bay, not in the Gulf, and there's concern that it will cause the water to get TOO salty in the Bay and kill off a lot of fish...
We've been in a drought down here for quite awhile...water restrictions for years. I live on the island so I just have a rock yard, but I do have a pool...
I'm pretty sure the city council voted to continue on with the desal plant with their last vote...
Part of the issue is the confusion over which desal plant we are talking about. There was a brackish water desal plant that would have discharged brine to Petronila Creek was killed largely by sport fishing interests who were confused about what the brine would actually be like relative to the already saline creek water.
Then there is the fully permitted CC inner harbor seawater desal plant that was planning to discharge to the CC channel that was killed initially by social justice issues and people confused about why constantly adding capacity and complexity to a plant design would cause the cost to go up. That one is back looking for a new design contractor now that the city council has voted to restart the process with a new contractor. But the status of the very large loan they received from TWDB for the plant is unclear at this point.
There is another port funded seawater desal plant that has not been fully permitted yet that plans to discharge their brine offshore in the gulf. I have questions about that one's durability to ride out a hurricane given its location, but it seems to be the least controversial and most likely to be approved without trouble.
People keep hearing details about one of these plants and conflating it with what is happening with another. Each of the plants has unresolved questions about their potential ecological impacts, but at some point Corpus is going to have to accept that either they start down the path on one or more of the plants right now, or they face losing major employers and having to make dramatic choices about who gets what little water they have left and what it will cost. For all those who think groundwater is the answer, keep in mind that pumping shallow groundwater in large quantities along the coast will almost certainly cause subsidence and will also impact ag viability in the area as well. Here is a map of what large scale groundwater pumping did for the Houston Galveston Area over the last century. Keep in mind that the contours are in meters, so it is showing 6-10 feet of subsidence in some areas. How would Houston's recent flooding be different with some of those areas 6-10' higher than they are today?
Houston's subsidence problems were largely a problem created by the density of unregulated wells. They were pumping massive amounts of water out of relatively small areas. Many, many times the maximum allowed amounts for the Evangeline field for example which is also much lower well density.
For most of Houston's history, there was no such thing as a "regulated" well. But the large areas with the worst subsidence coincide with areas where large volumes of water were being extracted for use in refineries and petrochemical plants (Texas City, Ship Channel, etc) and areas where there was very dense historical O&G extraction from shallow formations (Goose Creek Field near Baytown). There are also two potholes associated with the City's main extraction and treatment plant down on the east side of downtown and the large Jersey Village area wells on the NW side of town. The combined extraction was more than the formations involved could yield without collapse of the matrix support in the formation, but it was just plain overuse and not some distinction between regulated and unregulated uses that was the main problem.
Whoop Delecto said:
Kemah area has plans for a large desal plant
Ag87H2O said:txags92 said:American Hardwood said:txags92 said:Ag with kids said:K2-HMFIC said:
The de-sal plant was cancelled by the sport fishing lobby.
Too much industry drawing too much water.
But most importantly, not enough rainfall on the Nueces River watershed (Bracketville, Carrizo Springs, Tilden).
I do understand the concerns. They're going to dump the brine in the Bay, not in the Gulf, and there's concern that it will cause the water to get TOO salty in the Bay and kill off a lot of fish...
We've been in a drought down here for quite awhile...water restrictions for years. I live on the island so I just have a rock yard, but I do have a pool...
I'm pretty sure the city council voted to continue on with the desal plant with their last vote...
Part of the issue is the confusion over which desal plant we are talking about. There was a brackish water desal plant that would have discharged brine to Petronila Creek was killed largely by sport fishing interests who were confused about what the brine would actually be like relative to the already saline creek water.
Then there is the fully permitted CC inner harbor seawater desal plant that was planning to discharge to the CC channel that was killed initially by social justice issues and people confused about why constantly adding capacity and complexity to a plant design would cause the cost to go up. That one is back looking for a new design contractor now that the city council has voted to restart the process with a new contractor. But the status of the very large loan they received from TWDB for the plant is unclear at this point.
There is another port funded seawater desal plant that has not been fully permitted yet that plans to discharge their brine offshore in the gulf. I have questions about that one's durability to ride out a hurricane given its location, but it seems to be the least controversial and most likely to be approved without trouble.
People keep hearing details about one of these plants and conflating it with what is happening with another. Each of the plants has unresolved questions about their potential ecological impacts, but at some point Corpus is going to have to accept that either they start down the path on one or more of the plants right now, or they face losing major employers and having to make dramatic choices about who gets what little water they have left and what it will cost. For all those who think groundwater is the answer, keep in mind that pumping shallow groundwater in large quantities along the coast will almost certainly cause subsidence and will also impact ag viability in the area as well. Here is a map of what large scale groundwater pumping did for the Houston Galveston Area over the last century. Keep in mind that the contours are in meters, so it is showing 6-10 feet of subsidence in some areas. How would Houston's recent flooding be different with some of those areas 6-10' higher than they are today?
Houston's subsidence problems were largely a problem created by the density of unregulated wells. They were pumping massive amounts of water out of relatively small areas. Many, many times the maximum allowed amounts for the Evangeline field for example which is also much lower well density.
For most of Houston's history, there was no such thing as a "regulated" well. But the large areas with the worst subsidence coincide with areas where large volumes of water were being extracted for use in refineries and petrochemical plants (Texas City, Ship Channel, etc) and areas where there was very dense historical O&G extraction from shallow formations (Goose Creek Field near Baytown). There are also two potholes associated with the City's main extraction and treatment plant down on the east side of downtown and the large Jersey Village area wells on the NW side of town. The combined extraction was more than the formations involved could yield without collapse of the matrix support in the formation, but it was just plain overuse and not some distinction between regulated and unregulated uses that was the main problem.
Most of the subsidence in Harris and Galveston counties occurred between the mid 40s' and mid 70s when Houston passed a million in population and 90% of the city water supply was from groundwater. Add in the refineries along the ship channel that all had massive wells for cooling/process water and the consumption for the region greatly exceeded the recharge and led to significant subsidence, especially in the Baytown/Channelview area. Now, 50 years after the formation of the subsidence district, Houston is roughly 90% treated surface water off Lake Houston and most of the big wells have been either shut down or permitted with restrictions on how much can be pumped. Because of that, subsidence has been stopped in some areas and greatly slowed down in most others. In fact, water levels have come back up in some areas of central Houston as much as 50-60 feet over the past 30 years.
The problem with groundwater districts IMO is the same as any other government bureacracy. Once they are established, they will never go away and the rules never get less restrictive. Eventually, that property right you own means nothing because the cost/restrictions in place in order to actually use it are so high it is not economically feasible to do so. 50 years later, HGSD not only regulates big wells, they regulate and permit all wells, even small residential ones that have virtually no impact on subsidence. But is doesn't matter to them. I know a lot of individuals that would have drilled a small private well for irrigation that said no because the usage was so restricted and expensive that the savings generated by using well water would never justify the up front cost of the well.
I'm not saying that no regulation is needed. Water is a valuable resource, and the more people move here, the tighter that supply is going to get. But there is a fine line between rules that prevent overutilization vs. ones that force underutilization and start getting into the taking of private property rights. Anytime government is involved be careful what you ask because eventually you're likely to get more than you bargained for. Just ask some of the property owners in Harris, Galveston, and Fort Bend Counties.
txags92 said:Ag87H2O said:txags92 said:American Hardwood said:txags92 said:Ag with kids said:K2-HMFIC said:
The de-sal plant was cancelled by the sport fishing lobby.
Too much industry drawing too much water.
But most importantly, not enough rainfall on the Nueces River watershed (Bracketville, Carrizo Springs, Tilden).
I do understand the concerns. They're going to dump the brine in the Bay, not in the Gulf, and there's concern that it will cause the water to get TOO salty in the Bay and kill off a lot of fish...
We've been in a drought down here for quite awhile...water restrictions for years. I live on the island so I just have a rock yard, but I do have a pool...
I'm pretty sure the city council voted to continue on with the desal plant with their last vote...
Part of the issue is the confusion over which desal plant we are talking about. There was a brackish water desal plant that would have discharged brine to Petronila Creek was killed largely by sport fishing interests who were confused about what the brine would actually be like relative to the already saline creek water.
Then there is the fully permitted CC inner harbor seawater desal plant that was planning to discharge to the CC channel that was killed initially by social justice issues and people confused about why constantly adding capacity and complexity to a plant design would cause the cost to go up. That one is back looking for a new design contractor now that the city council has voted to restart the process with a new contractor. But the status of the very large loan they received from TWDB for the plant is unclear at this point.
There is another port funded seawater desal plant that has not been fully permitted yet that plans to discharge their brine offshore in the gulf. I have questions about that one's durability to ride out a hurricane given its location, but it seems to be the least controversial and most likely to be approved without trouble.
People keep hearing details about one of these plants and conflating it with what is happening with another. Each of the plants has unresolved questions about their potential ecological impacts, but at some point Corpus is going to have to accept that either they start down the path on one or more of the plants right now, or they face losing major employers and having to make dramatic choices about who gets what little water they have left and what it will cost. For all those who think groundwater is the answer, keep in mind that pumping shallow groundwater in large quantities along the coast will almost certainly cause subsidence and will also impact ag viability in the area as well. Here is a map of what large scale groundwater pumping did for the Houston Galveston Area over the last century. Keep in mind that the contours are in meters, so it is showing 6-10 feet of subsidence in some areas. How would Houston's recent flooding be different with some of those areas 6-10' higher than they are today?
Houston's subsidence problems were largely a problem created by the density of unregulated wells. They were pumping massive amounts of water out of relatively small areas. Many, many times the maximum allowed amounts for the Evangeline field for example which is also much lower well density.
For most of Houston's history, there was no such thing as a "regulated" well. But the large areas with the worst subsidence coincide with areas where large volumes of water were being extracted for use in refineries and petrochemical plants (Texas City, Ship Channel, etc) and areas where there was very dense historical O&G extraction from shallow formations (Goose Creek Field near Baytown). There are also two potholes associated with the City's main extraction and treatment plant down on the east side of downtown and the large Jersey Village area wells on the NW side of town. The combined extraction was more than the formations involved could yield without collapse of the matrix support in the formation, but it was just plain overuse and not some distinction between regulated and unregulated uses that was the main problem.
Most of the subsidence in Harris and Galveston counties occurred between the mid 40s' and mid 70s when Houston passed a million in population and 90% of the city water supply was from groundwater. Add in the refineries along the ship channel that all had massive wells for cooling/process water and the consumption for the region greatly exceeded the recharge and led to significant subsidence, especially in the Baytown/Channelview area. Now, 50 years after the formation of the subsidence district, Houston is roughly 90% treated surface water off Lake Houston and most of the big wells have been either shut down or permitted with restrictions on how much can be pumped. Because of that, subsidence has been stopped in some areas and greatly slowed down in most others. In fact, water levels have come back up in some areas of central Houston as much as 50-60 feet over the past 30 years.
The problem with groundwater districts IMO is the same as any other government bureacracy. Once they are established, they will never go away and the rules never get less restrictive. Eventually, that property right you own means nothing because the cost/restrictions in place in order to actually use it are so high it is not economically feasible to do so. 50 years later, HGSD not only regulates big wells, they regulate and permit all wells, even small residential ones that have virtually no impact on subsidence. But is doesn't matter to them. I know a lot of individuals that would have drilled a small private well for irrigation that said no because the usage was so restricted and expensive that the savings generated by using well water would never justify the up front cost of the well.
I'm not saying that no regulation is needed. Water is a valuable resource, and the more people move here, the tighter that supply is going to get. But there is a fine line between rules that prevent overutilization vs. ones that force underutilization and start getting into the taking of private property rights. Anytime government is involved be careful what you ask because eventually you're likely to get more than you bargained for. Just ask some of the property owners in Harris, Galveston, and Fort Bend Counties.
Yeah, that is why I said my concern was more for regional overuse and not about any specific project for GW use. You can stop the subsidence by reducing/stopping overpumping and GW elevations will recover, but the land surface elevations won't come back up.
The only reason the rule of capture ever became effectively the law of groundwater in Texas was because people had no understanding of how groundwater flow worked. The 1904 court language was "Because the existence, origin, movement and course of such waters, and the causes which govern and direct their movements, are so secret, occult and concealed that an attempt to administer any set of legal rules in respect to them would be involved in hopeless uncertainty, and would therefore be practically impossible".
We have a much better understanding and ability to predict the influences of wells and withdrawals on groundwater flow these days. So there is no reason to stick to the idea that one person can install a pump and withdraw as much as they want, even if it damages their neighbors. We can either regulate that at the state level, where local input will be very limited, or we can rely on locally elected groundwater conservation districts who are aware of and influenced by local concerns. I prefer to keep that kind of control local to the degree possible.
