Docstoc

FORT BEND SUBSIDENCE DISTRICT

Document Sample
FORT BEND SUBSIDENCE DISTRICT Powered By Docstoc
					                                                                         Contents
Acknowledgements ...........................................................................................................................................4
1998 Board of Directors ....................................................................................................................................5
Mission Statement .............................................................................................................................................6
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................7
2.0 Management Program Summary .................................................................................................................10
         2.1 Action Program Summary ............................................................................................................12
         2.2 Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................................13
3.0 Management Planning Information .............................................................................................................17
         3.1 Description of Area ......................................................................................................................17
         3.2 Population .....................................................................................................................................18
         3.3 Water Use......................................................................................................................................20
4.0 Groundwater Resources...............................................................................................................................22
         4.1 Aquifer Characteristics..................................................................................................................22
         4.2 Aquifer Recharge ..........................................................................................................................22
         4.3 Groundwater Levels ......................................................................................................................23
         4.4 Groundwater Quality ....................................................................................................................23
         4.5 Groundwater Availability..............................................................................................................24
5.0 Water Resource Management......................................................................................................................26
         5.1 Surface Water Supply ...................................................................................................................26
         5.2 Water Management Strategies.......................................................................................................26
6.0 Geomatics ...................................................................................................................................................28
7.0 Subsidence ..................................................................................................................................................30
         7.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................................30
         7.2 Modeling Efforts ...........................................................................................................................30
         7.3 Consequences of Groundwater Pumpage......................................................................................32
8.0 District Regulatory Plan ..............................................................................................................................35
         8.1 1990 Regulatory Plan ....................................................................................................................35
         8.2 Plan Review and Update ...............................................................................................................35
9.0 Operation of the District..............................................................................................................................39
         9.1 Board of Directors ........................................................................................................................39
         9.2 Administration...............................................................................................................................39
         9.3 Hearings and Reports ....................................................................................................................41
         9.4 Permits...........................................................................................................................................42
         9.5 Public Involvement .......................................................................................................................43
10.0 Programs....................................................................................................................................................45
         10.1 Conservation ...............................................................................................................................45
         10.2 Well Closure................................................................................................................................46
         10.3 Wellhead Protection ....................................................................................................................46
         10.4 Drought Management..................................................................................................................47
         10.5 Other Issues.................................................................................................................................47
11.0 Plan Certification.......................................................................................................................................49




August 6, 1998
                                                                          Tables
      Table 1: Groundwater Use by Region (MGD)..................................................................................................20
      Table 2: Aquifer Recharge and Groundwater Availability (acre-feet per year)................................................25
      Table 3: Aquifer Recharge and Groundwater Availability (MGD) ..................................................................25
      Table 4: Salt Domes in Fort Bend County ........................................................................................................33
      Table 5: Permit Fee History ..............................................................................................................................43
      Table 6: Public Involvement Activities.............................................................................................................44



                                                                         Figures
      Figure 1: Location of Fort Bend County...........................................................................................................8
      Figure 2: Map of Water-Level Declines in Wells in the Chicot Aquifer, 1943-1977.......................................9
      Figure 3: Map of Water-Level Declines in Wells in the Evangeline Aquifer, 1943-1977 ...............................9
      Figure 4: Map of Fort Bend County..................................................................................................................17
      Figure 5: Map of District Population Density ...................................................................................................18
      Figure 6: Comparison of TWDB and TC&B Population Projections...............................................................19
      Figure 7: Map of District Groundwater Pumpage Areas...................................................................................20
      Figure 8: Water Demand by Use Type from TC&B .........................................................................................21
      Figure 9: Comparison of TWDB and TC&B Water-Demand Projections........................................................21
      Figure 10: Aquifer Cross Section......................................................................................................................23
      Figure 11: Map of Aquifer Recharge Areas......................................................................................................24
      Figure 12: Map of Locations of Extensometers, CORS, and PAM Sites..........................................................29
      Figure 13: Map of Subsidence, 1906-1995 .......................................................................................................30
      Figure 14: Grid Used in MODFLOW Groundwater Model..............................................................................31
      Figure 15: Map of PRESS Sites ........................................................................................................................32
      Figure 16: Location of Faults and Salt Domes in Fort Bend County ................................................................33
      Figure 17: Map of Predicted Water-Level Declines in Wells in the Chicot Aquifer, 1995-2030 ....................37
      Figure 18: Map of Predicted Water-Level Declines in Wells in the Evangeline Aquifer, 1995-2030..............38
      Figure 19: Sum of Historical (1906-1995) and Predicted (1995-2030) Subsidence. ........................................38




                                                               Appendix
      Appendix A: Selected References
      Appendix B: Permit Application Process
      Appendix C: 8th Annual Groundwater Report
      Appendix D: Glossary of Terms




August 6, 1998                                                                                                                                                       3
                              Acknowledgements
Land subsidence within the Gulf Coast region is a serious hazard that could negatively impact the
region’s economic development and the citizenry’s quality of life. The Fort Bend Subsidence District
(District) was formed with the purpose of preventing land subsidence in Fort Bend County. This
document highlights past District activities and illustrates the future course of the District. The
District is happy to present the enclosed material for consideration of the Texas Water Development
Board.

This document and its supporting information were prepared under the direction of the Fort Bend
Subsidence District’s Board of Directors, General Manager and staff, with assistance from Brown &
Root, Inc. Information compiled herein is the result of technical, policy, and administrative input
from many governmental agencies. The District acknowledges the assistance and support of all of
the contributors to the successful operation of the District and the issuance of this Groundwater
Management Plan. The following entities are acknowledged for their guidance and support:

Federal and State Agencies
Federal Emergency Management Administration
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
National Geodetic Survey
Texas Department of Transportation
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Texas Water Development Board
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Galveston District)
United States Geological Survey

Local Entities
Brazos River Authority
Fort Bend County
Fort Bend County Economic Development Council
Fort Bend County Surface Water Supply Corporation
Harris-Galveston Coastal Subsidence District




August 6, 1998                                                                                     4
                          1998 Board of Directors

Name                                                 Appointed By:
Walter H. (Diz) Ansel                                Fort Bend County Commissioners Court

Carl Briscoe Bentley                                 Mayors of Small Cities

James Clark                                          Fort Bend County Commissioners Court

Lee Duggan                                           Mayor, City of Sugar Land

Joe C. Falsone                                       Mayor, City of Stafford

Harvey Ludwig                                        Fort Bend County Commissioners Court

Marvin Marcell (Chairman)                            Fort Bend County Commissioners Court

Carl J. Stephens                                     Fort Bend County Commissioners Court

William Wallace (Secretary and Investment Officer)   Mayor, City of Missouri City

Jack Wendt                                           Mayor, City of Richmond

B. T. Williams, Jr. (Vice-Chairman)                  Mayor, City of Houston

Benny Wleczyk                                               Mayor, City of Rosenberg

Harley Zwahr                                         Fort Bend County Commissioners Court



Ronald J. Neighbors                                  General Manager




August 6, 1998                                                                              5
                            Mission Statement
The mission of the District is to control land subsidence and manage groundwater resources through
regulation, conservation, and coordination with suppliers of alternative water sources to assure an
adequate quantity and quality of water for the future.

The District performs the following activities directed toward fulfilling this mission by:

       •   Technical research, measurements, and studies to determine and project the extent of
           subsidence and available groundwater supplies.

       •   Preparation of regulatory and management plans based on current, technically sound
           information.

       •   Issuance of permits to withdraw groundwater for beneficial uses in amounts that are not
           detrimental to the aquifer system.

       •   Pursuit of enforcement actions, when needed, to achieve the objectives of the District.

       •   Participating with other local and state entities to achieve the District’s goals.

       •   Assessment of permit fees as a regulatory tool.

       •   Cooperation with neighboring groundwater districts, governmental entities, and surface
           water suppliers to assure that adequate supplies of water are available for future use.

       •   Providing the public with access to information about groundwater withdrawal,
           subsidence, conservation, and actions of the District.

       •   Administration and operation of the District in a fair, equitable, and responsible manner to
           the benefit of all interests in the District.




August 6, 1998                                                                                        6
1.0 Introduction
General
This Groundwater Management Plan (Plan) for the Fort Bend Subsidence District (District) has been
developed in accordance with the requirements of Senate Bill 1 (1997 Texas State Legislature) and
the rules of the Texas Water Development Board (31 Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 356).

The Plan considers a 10-year planning period and will be in effect until September 2008 or until
updates or Plan revisions are adopted by the District and certified by the Texas Water Development
Board.

Since its creation in 1989, the District’s main focus has been to assess the potential for subsidence in
Fort Bend County, to work in cooperation with the Harris-Galveston Coastal Subsidence District
(HGCSD) on water-level decline and subsidence issues, to promote conservation, and to regulate the
pumpage of groundwater within Fort Bend County. The cooperative effort between the HGCSD and
the Fort Bend Subsidence District is a critical issue because natural features, such as aquifers, do not
follow political boundaries. Subsidence and water-level decline problems are best addressed on a
regional basis to insure the future of the natural groundwater resources in the region. In an effort to
address the challenges in the region, the District strives to achieve excellence within the four primary
areas of its concern:

   •   Groundwater Planning
   •   Regulatory Programming
   •   District Administration
   •   Water Conservation

Historically, the District’s regulatory role has been based on prevention of subsidence and monitoring
of groundwater use. The District is currently in the process of evaluating its regulatory role in light
of the burgeoning growth within the District. Fort Bend County has been and is projected to continue
to be one of the fastest growing counties in the United States. As population increases, a subsequent
increase in demand for water can be expected. The District anticipates exercising an expanded
regulatory role to meet this expected growth in water demand without increasing subsidence.

History
The Fort Bend Subsidence District was created by the Texas Legislature in 1989 as a conservation
and reclamation district (Act of May 26, 1989, 71st Leg., R.S., ch. 1045, 1989 Tex. Gen. Laws 4251).
The District’s purpose is to provide for the regulation of the withdrawal of groundwater within the
District to prevent subsidence that contributes to flooding, inundation or overflow of areas within the
District, including rising waters resulting from storms or hurricanes. The District’s boundaries are
defined as all the territory within Fort Bend County (Figure 1).




August 6, 1998                                                                                         7
Although Fort Bend County had experienced only small amounts of subsidence prior to the 1980’s,
several characteristics of the area raise concern about the potential for increasing subsidence in the
future:

       •   Rapid growth
       •   Water supply dependent almost entirely on groundwater
       •   Proximity to significant water-level declines in Harris County

Currently, total water use in the District is comprised of 60% groundwater and 40% surface water;
the surface water, however, is primarily used for manufacturing and agricultural uses. The District
was formed to address measured impacts from the predominant use of groundwater. In addition to
the moderate, but noticeable, amounts of subsidence, the heavy dependence on groundwater has
resulted in declining water levels in wells in the aquifers. Groundwater levels in wells drawing from
the Chicot and Evangeline Aquifers in the eastern part of the District have declined in excess of 150
feet from 1943 to 1977 (Figures 2 and 3). These declines have resulted in increased operational costs
to well users.

The District is analyzing the adequacy of previous District policies to meet its mission as defined in
its enabling legislation. This Groundwater Management Plan provides background planning
information, descriptions of current groundwater regulatory practices and programs, and an overview
of District administrative operations. This document should assist the District’s regulated community
and the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) in understanding the historical direction and
proposed future objectives of the District.

Based on an internal assessment of this information by the District’s Board of Directors, General
Manager and staff, the following sections detail the proposed Groundwater Management Program
activities for the Fort Bend Subsidence District.


Figure 1. Location of Fort Bend County




                                                               Fort Bend   #




                                                                County




August 6, 1998                                                                                           8
Figure 2. Water-Level Declines in Wells in the Chicot Aquifer, 1943-1977



                                         50
                  0


                                                          100
                                                                                                       Red declines in water levels
                                                                                                       Green rises in water levels

                                                                 150                                   Blue no change in water level




                                                          200                 200
                                                                150
                                         150
                      50
                                       100


                                                                                      100



                                                                                     50




    Contour Interval 50 Feet
                                                                                                Data Source : USGS




Figure 3. Water-Level Declines in Wells in the Evangeline Aquifer, 1943-1977



                                 100
                 50
                                              150
                                                                                                    Red declines in water levels
                                                    200
                                                                                                    Green rises in water levels
                                                                                                    Blue no change in water level
                                                    250   300
                                                                            250
                                                    300   300



                                                                      250
                                       200
                           150                                        250
                                                                                    200

                                                                                          150




    Contour Interval 50 Feet
                                                                                                Data Source : USGS




August 6, 1998                                                                                                                         9
2.0 Management Program Summary


The District’s Groundwater Management Plan is based on an examination of historical District
activities, an evaluation of the success of these past activities, and identification of future directions.
The District bases decisions on sound management practices and comprehensive technical
investigations prepared by the District in cooperation with the Harris-Galveston Coastal Subsidence
District (HGCSD), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and others.

Historical Information

•   The Fort Bend Subsidence District was created in 1989 as a conservation and reclamation district
    to provide for the regulation of groundwater withdrawal to prevent subsidence in Fort Bend
    County.

•   The District signed an interlocal agreement with the HGCSD, giving the HGCSD the authority
    and responsibility for performing all District staff activities. This agreement allows the two
    subsidence districts to work closely on regional problems associated with excessive groundwater
    pumpage and to pool research, modeling, and monitoring resources.

•   A District Regulatory Plan was adopted in 1990 based on sound technical data, scientific
    investigations, and analyses. A continuous program of water-level monitoring, benchmark
    releveling, and modeling of land-surface subsidence and groundwater pumpage forms the basis
    for this Plan.

•   The City of Houston, Gulf Coast Water Authority, Brazos River Authority, and others have
    secured adequate water rights to supply surface water for the District until approximately 2010.
    Surface water is currently available and can be secured from the Brazos and Trinity Rivers. The
    District has coordinated with these major surface water suppliers in the region.

Future Program Information

•   The District will continue to work with the HGCSD on a regional basis to insure that the aquifer
    system is managed responsibly.

•   Studies by the District provide evidence that excessive groundwater withdrawal in the eastern
    portions of the District is causing water-level declines and subsidence, and is contributing to
    subsidence in nearby areas of Harris County and in the coastal areas of Harris and Galveston
    Counties.

•   Sufficient groundwater and surface water supplies are not available to meet future District water
    demands past the year 2010. Regulatory programs as well as additional water supply
    development are needed to meet projected water needs.

•   Fort Bend County has experienced considerable growth in past decades, exceeding most
    forecasts. Major developments planned in the county suggest this trend will continue. Population
    changes should be tracked closely to assure that future water demands can be met.

August 6, 1998                                                                                            10
•   Water conservation efforts alone cannot reduce groundwater pumpage to the necessary limits.

•   Studies and reports performed by others suggest that groundwater quality concerns may exist for
    a significant number of groundwater users within the District’s jurisdiction.

•   The District is reviewing its current Plan with consideration to exercising its regulatory powers to
    reduce the withdrawal of groundwater, prolong use of current supplies, and gain an understanding
    of source water quality issues that affect groundwater users in the region.

•   As part of the review of the 1990 Regulatory Plan, the District is evaluating alternative regulatory
    management strategies, including increased permit fees as a disincentive to the continued over-
    reliance on groundwater. Senate Bill 1 authorizes groundwater conservation districts to use funds
    obtained from permit fees for any purpose consistent with their certified groundwater
    management plans, including using funds to expedite reductions in groundwater pumping or to
    develop alternative water supplies.

•   The District will continue its current monitoring, data collection, and modeling activities in
    coordination with the HGCSD and USGS to provide the information base necessary to develop
    future policies.

•   An Action Program has been developed, as summarized on the following pages, to serve as
    performance measures for the District in meeting management goals and objectives.




August 6, 1998                                                                                       11
2.1 Action Program Summary

The following list presents performance standards and measurements as they relate to management
goals and objectives of the District (For a complete description, see p.13 to 16) of this document.

  Goal                                          Action Steps                                            Due Date

    1     Require 100% of cities, utility districts and investor-owned utilities to report on their   Annually
          accountability of water usage.
    1     Perform meter readings of at least 10% of all groundwater permittees.                       Annually

    1     Prepare and adopt annual groundwater report including public hearing.                       Annually in
                                                                                                      April
    1     Assess the need for updating existing studies or performing new studies based on            Annually
          available data and trends.
    1     Have water well permits state that permittee agrees that water withdrawn will be for        December
          beneficial uses only.                                                                       1998
    1     Assess existing District Regulatory Plan and revise to reflect most recent data.            May 1999

    1     Assess potential for drought conditions and determine appropriate role for District.        June 1999

    2     Provide water conservation information to 10 elementary schools.                            Annually

    2     Determine appropriate water conservation programs and implement in District.                Within 18
                                                                                                      months
    2     Require that water well permits authorize withdrawal of only amounts that would not         Ongoing
          be wasteful.
    2     Distribute informational materials on water conservation to schools, libraries, and the     Annually
          general public.
    3     Perform continuous monitoring of subsidence by operating at least 2 PAM sites.              Annually

    3     Monitor water levels and subsidence.                                                        Ongoing

    3     Review, update, and adopt a District Regulatory Plan that considers alternative             Periodically
          growth scenarios and potential effect on subsidence.
    3     Review permits, annually if appropriate, to assure conformance with District                Annually
          Regulatory Plan to control subsidence.
    4     Determine the percentage of total water use met by surface water suppliers.                 Annually

    4     Participate in regional water management planning.                                          Ongoing

    4     Identify potential water resource management strategies available to the District.          Ongoing

    5     Establish 5 wells for water quality monitoring, and sample on an annual basis.              Annually

    5     Continue to work in coordination with the HGCSD on groundwater monitoring.                  Ongoing

    5     Work with the HGCSD to study water quality issues in the region.                            Ongoing




August 6, 1998                                                                                                       12
2.2 Goals and Objectives

Goals and objectives for this Groundwater Management Plan were developed to provide a “roadmap”
for the future of the District and to set forth an agenda of anticipated activities. The goals expressed
in Senate Bill 1 were determined appropriate for the District. Objectives and performance standards
(in red) are presented in accordance with Senate Bill 1 requirements. Additional objectives and
action steps (in blue) complete the District’s planning agenda.

Goal 1: Provide for the efficient use of groundwater

Objectives and Performance Standards

Annually require 100 percent of cities, utility districts, and investor-owned utilities to report on their
accountability of water usage.

       - Annual percent of cities, utility districts, and investor owned utilities reporting on their
       accountability of water usage.

Annually perform independent meter readings of 10 percent of all groundwater permittees (who are
required to be metered) to confirm the accuracy of their self-reported groundwater pumpage.

       - Annual percent of meters independently read by District staff.

Objectives and Action Steps

Monitor and analyze groundwater usage.

       - Prepare and adopt annual groundwater report including public hearing testimony.

Perform and regularly update studies to define historical, current, and future groundwater usage and
aquifer yield.

       - Assess annually the need for updating existing studies or gathering new data based on
       available trends.

Require that groundwater permits be for beneficial uses only.

       - Add statement to water well permits that water may be withdrawn for beneficial uses only.
       Complete by December 1998.

Adopt a District Regulatory Plan that establishes maximum levels of acceptable groundwater
withdrawal.

       - Review and update District Regulatory Plan reflecting most recent data. Complete by May
       1999.




August 6, 1998                                                                                           13
Develop drought management policies.

       - Review potential for drought conditions and determine appropriate role for District.


Goal 2: Control and prevent waste of groundwater

Objectives and Performance Standards

Annually provide water conservation information to 10 elementary schools in the District.

       - Annual number of schools provided water conservation information.


Objectives and Action Steps

Adopt water conservation policies, programs, and regulations.

       - Determine appropriate water conservation programs and implement in District within 18
       months.

Require that groundwater wells and systems be operated in a non-wasteful manner.

       - Continue to require that water well permits authorize withdrawal of only amounts that
       would not be wasteful.


Provide educational programs on water conservation.

       - Distribute informational materials on water conservation to schools, libraries, and the
       general public.


Goal 3: Control and prevent subsidence

Objectives and Performance Standards


Annually perform continuous monitoring and measurement of subsidence by operating at least 2
PAM sites, in coordination with the Harris-Galveston Coastal Subsidence District’s operation of
extensometers, CORS, and PAM sites.

       - Annual number of PAM sites continuously measured in coordination with Harris-Galveston
       Coastal Subsidence District.




August 6, 1998                                                                                     14
Objectives and Action Steps

Measure and monitor subsidence in the District.

       - Continue programs to monitor water levels and subsidence.

Adopt a District Regulatory Plan that controls subsidence.

       - Review, update, and adopt a District Regulatory Plan that considers alternative growth
       scenarios and potential effect on subsidence.

Issue permits for groundwater withdrawal to accomplish objectives for controlling subsidence.

       - Annually review permits, if appropriate, to assure conformance with District Regulatory
       Plan to control subsidence.


Goal 4: Address conjunctive surface water management

Objectives and Performance Standards

Annually determine the total quantity of groundwater and surface water use within the District.
Define the percentage of total water use supplied by surface water.

       - Annual percentage of total water use met by surface water suppliers.

Objectives and Action Steps

Coordinate with appropriate area entities in planning and implementing alternative water supplies to
reduce reliance on groundwater.

       - Participate in regional water management planning.

Coordinate with surface water providers to achieve an appropriate balance of water sources.

       - Participate with area surface water suppliers in developing strategies to reduce the
       reliance on groundwater withdrawal.




August 6, 1998                                                                                     15
Goal 5: Address groundwater natural resource issues

Objectives and Performance Standards

Identify and establish 5 wells for use in water quality monitoring. Sample the wells on an annual
basis for key chemical constituents.

       - Number of wells sampled for water quality purposes on an annual basis.


Objectives and Action Steps

Determine natural resource impacts to the primary aquifers.

       - Continue to work in coordination with the HGCSD on groundwater monitoring.

Identify presence of factors that can affect water quality.

       - Work with the HGCSD to study water quality issues in the region.




August 6, 1998                                                                                      16
3.0 Management Planning Information

Since its creation, the District, in conjunction with the HGCSD, has participated in studies to define
the nature of those groundwater characteristics pertinent to the issues of land subsidence and water-
level declines in wells in the Chicot and Evangeline Aquifers. Appendix A provides a listing of
studies related to subsidence in this region. This section presents an overview of data compiled by
the District and illustrates data used as the basis for the existing District Regulatory Plan.

3.1 Description of Area

The Fort Bend Subsidence District is composed of all of Fort Bend County, 875 square miles
(551,680 acres), located in southeastern Texas and bounded by Brazoria, Harris, Waller, Austin, and
Wharton Counties. The Brazos River runs through the heart of Fort Bend County (See Figure 4).
Topography is level to rolling hills with elevations ranging from 46 to 127 feet.

The county’s economy has primarily been agricultural with rice, cotton, grain crops, and cattle being
the major products. There are over 29,000 acres of irrigated land (mostly rice) in the county.
However, due to an influx of population in the northeastern part of the county near Sugar Land, the
demographics of the county are changing from primarily rural to a rural-urban mix. This influx has
occurred in the eastern part of the county and is gradually spreading westward through the county.
The major cities in Fort Bend County are Missouri City, Stafford, Sugar Land, Richmond (the county
seat), Rosenberg, and a part of Houston.

Figure 4. Fort Bend County




August 6, 1998                                                                                       17
3.2 Population

Population analysis is used to define current and projected future groundwater uses. The District has
compiled population information since 1989 and has studied both population densities and gross
population quantities within its regulatory jurisdiction. Historically, the District has prepared
independent projections to gain a more detailed understanding of population occurrences and trends
than are available from other sources. Detailed population information is important in order to
establish the trends of water usage, water-level declines, and subsidence in the District. As a result of
increased population in the District water use is evolving from primarily irrigation with some rural
manufacturing use to more urban municipal use.

Population in the northeastern part of the District is growing rapidly (particularly along the U.S.
Highway 59, State Highway 6, and U.S. Highway 90-A corridors). This growth is spreading
westward through the central part of the District while other areas are remaining rural with little
population growth. Figure 5 shows the 1990 and 1996 population densities by census tract for Fort
Bend County showing that parts of the District are urbanizing rapidly while others continue to have
relatively low population densities.

Population projections from two sources are considered for the District; the Texas Water
Development Board and a study developed for the District in cooperation with the HGCSD by Turner
Collie and Braden (TC&B) in 1996. The TWDB provides two scenarios which were analyzed for
this Groundwater Management Plan: the “Most Likely” and “Migration Rate 1.0.” The “Most
Likely” scenario is a county specific projection that reflects the rate of growth considered probable
for the county over the projection period by the TWDB. The “Migration Rate 1.0” scenario assumes
the migration rate for 1980-1990 would remain constant over the projection period. Figure 6 shows a
comparison between the two TWDB population scenarios, the TC&B projections, and U.S. Census
estimates.


Figure 5. Population Density




August 6, 1998                                                                                        18
A very good correlation exists between the TC&B and TWDB Migration Rate 1.0 projection sets.
Through the year 2020, these two data sets are within four percent and do not significantly diverge
until the year 2030 when the TWDB projections are higher. It is also important to note that the U.S.
Census Bureau estimated over 11,000 more people living in Fort Bend County by 1997 (321,149)
than the year 2000 forecast from the “Most Likely” population scenario (309,920). Thus, the “Most
Likely” scenario provided by the TWDB appears to underestimate the growth occurring in the
District.

The District’s TC&B projections were generated using a combination of an econometrics modeling
technique and a population-employment statistical distribution technique. The primary advantage of
using these methods is the ability to allocate population to specific grid cell locations within the
District. The population forecasts were then compiled and mapped with a geographic information
system (GIS) for detailed analysis within grid cell sub-regions of the District. Associated water
demand, subsidence, and other pertinent data were also analyzed within small grid cells.

The District uses the TC&B projections in its groundwater and subsidence models. Population data
is available in several formats including:

•    Determination by 2.5 x 2.5-minute grid cells (illustrates growth densities).
•    Determination by city, utility district, and county.
•    Determination by local water use classification.

These categories of data reporting serve several functions for the District including:

•    Analysis of effects of growth on projected amounts of groundwater use.
•    Analysis of effects of growth on projected amounts of subsidence.
•    Formulation of regulatory programs by geographic areas.
•    Formulation of permit fee rates by water use classification.


                            Figure 6. Comparison of TWDB and TC&B Population
                                               Projections
                    1,200,000

                    1,000,000
       Population




                     800,000

                     600,000

                     400,000

                     200,000

                           0
                                 1990      1996      1997      2000      2010      2020      2030

    TC&B                                                      334,163   505,936   683,080   914,290
    TWDB (Most Likely)                                        309,920   414,775   547,433   706,714
    TWDB (Migration 1.0)                                      335,419   487,697   696,670   967,925
    U.S. Census                 225,421   295,480   321,149




August 6, 1998                                                                                        19
For purposes of this Groundwater Management Plan, the TC&B population data set will be used for
consistency with other District data. Although the TC&B data set is higher than TWDB Migration
Rate 1.0 by 3.7 percent for 2010, it is lower than TWDB in 2020 and 2030. In all cases the difference
in the two projections is less than six percent. Use of the TC&B data should more accurately
represent the population of the county through the year 2010.


3.3 Water Use

The District has compiled historical data and determined independent water demands for its
regulatory jurisdiction since 1989. Groundwater pumpage is reported and monitored for three
regions: Northeast, Northwest, and South (Table 1 and Figure 7). Currently, 61 percent of
groundwater pumpage in the District is used for municipal purposes, an increase of approximately
fourteen-percent from 1990-1996 with the increase occurring primarily in the northeastern part of the
District. The effects of the urbanization of the northeastern portion of the District discussed earlier
are reflected in the increased pumpage of groundwater for municipal use and decreased pumpage of
groundwater for irrigation during the period 1990-1996. The decrease in groundwater pumpage in
1997 is an anomaly and was a result of above average rainfall in the region (See Appendix C).
 Table 1. Groundwater Use by Region (MGD)

              Year              1990        1991        1992    1993    1994    1995      1996      1997
  Northeast Region              29.9        29.3          29      29     28.9    29.9     32.1       28.9
  Northwest Region              14.1        11.0        10.9     10.1    11.9    14.9     15.7       14.5
   Southern Region              18.6        16.1        16.2     16.2    19.1    17.9     19.5       17.9
              Total              62.6         56.4      56.1    55.3    59.9    62.7      67.3       61.3

   Source: FBSD Annual Groundwater Report

   Figure 7. District Groundwater Pumpage Areas



                                    NORTHWEST
                                                         1464




                         36
                                                                   NORTHEAST
                                  ROSENBERG
                                                          59
                                                                          6




                                                     SOUTH

                                              36




August 6, 1998                                                                                       20
The District performs its own water-demand projections to obtain a micro-level of detail, which is not
possible from use of the TWDB water-demand projections. TC&B completed the most recent water-
demand projections in a 1996 study performed for the District in conjunction with the HGCSD.
Water use in the TWDB’s mining and livestock categories were excluded from the data set used in
the TC&B study.

Water-demand projections used for this Plan will be from the TC&B projections to conform to the
population forecasts. Figure 8 shows projections by use type from TC&B while Figure 9 shows
water-demand projections developed by the TWDB and TC&B. These projections illustrate how the
trend of increased municipal pumpage will continue (more than doubling from 2000 to 2030) due to
the rapid urbanization in the northeastern part of the District.

The amount of groundwater pumped (Table 1) and the water demand projections shown in Figures 8
and 9 are not comparable because both surface water and groundwater amounts are included in the
calculation for Figures 8 and 9 while only the amount of groundwater pumped is included in Table 1.


                                         F ig u r e 8 : W a te r D e m a n d b y u s e Typ e fr o m TC & B

                                  30 0
    Water Demand




                                  25 0

                                  20 0
                      (MGD)




                                  15 0

                                  10 0
                                   50

                                    0
                                                  1 99 0             2 00 0             2 01 0          2 020      2 030

    Total                                         1 54 .9            1 80 .4            2 09 .8         2 39 .7    2 78 .9
    Ir rig ation                                  4 7.5              47 .5              47 .5           47 .5      47 .5
    Ma nu f a c tu rin g                          7 2.9              81 .4              83 .6           85 .3      86 .9
    Mu nic ip al                                  3 4.5              51 .5              78 .7           1 06 .9    1 44 .5



                                   F ig u r e 9 . C o m p a r is o n o f T W D B a n d T C & B W a te r -
                                                        D e m a n d P r o je c tio n s
                                          300.00
           Water Demand




                                          250.00
                          (MGD)




                                          200.00
                                          150.00
                                          100.00
                                            50.00
                                              -
                                                            1990               2000              2010      2020     2030
   T C & B                                                  154.90             180.40        209.80       239.70   278.90
   TW D B (M o s t L ik e ly )                              154.95             181.20        191.17       205.12   223.93
   TW D B (M ig ra t io n 1 . 0 )                           154.95             185.89        202.90       227.63   262.07

August 6, 1998                                                                                                               21
4.0 Groundwater Resources

4.1 Aquifer Characteristics

The District is underlain by the Gulf Coast Aquifer system. The Chicot and Evangeline Aquifers,
which are underlain by the Burkeville confining layer and overlain in part by the Beaumont clay, are
used for water supply in the District. The Chicot and Evangeline Aquifers are composed of thick
unconsolidated sediments with high permeability containing water under artesian pressure. These
sediments are generally present in the District above a depth of about 2,400 feet. The formations’
outcrop area is approximately parallel to the coastline, and the formations dip to the southeast (See
Figure 10). The Chicot Aquifer is separated by the geologically similar Evangeline Aquifer on the
basis of hydraulic conductivity. The differences in hydraulic conductivity, in part, cause differences
in water levels of the two aquifers. Underlying the Burkeville confining layer is the Jasper Aquifer,
which contains mostly saline water in the area of the District. The current water-level surface in the
area is the result of many coalescing cones of depression caused by water withdrawn from numerous
wells throughout the area.

The transmissivity of the Chicot and Evangeline Aquifer in the District is appreciably similar.
According to a 1979 report of the Texas Department of Water Resources, in the Fort Bend area, the
transmissivity of the Chicot ranges from about 3,000 to 9,000 ft2/d, and the transmissivity of the
Evangeline ranges from about 3,000 to 9,000 ft2/d. The horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the
Evangeline Aquifer is generally less than that of the Chicot, but the Evangeline is unusually more
transmissive due to its greater thickness.

4.2 Aquifer Recharge

The primary recharge areas for the Chicot and Evangeline Aquifers are located north of the District
boundaries in Austin, Grimes, and Waller Counties (Figure 11). The USGS estimates average annual
recharge in outcrops of the Chicot and Evangeline Aquifers near Fort Bend County to be 6 inches per
year. This average recharge rate was developed as an upper bound for the 1953-1990 period of
record based on the deepest penetration depth (80 feet) of postnuclear–atmospheric testing tritium
concentrations (Noble et al, 1996 and Noble, 1997). However, the USGS states this is not a
definitive recharge rate because of “uncertainty regarding some of the assumptions” used in
calculating recharge.

When calculating recharge, the USGS used an effective porosity which was derived from
hydrogeologic literature and judgement based on the lithologic characteristics of the outcrops. In the
future, USGS proposes to determine porosity from core sampling to verify calculations. Another
difficulty in determining the amount of annual recharge is that the aquifers do not lie solely under the
District and in fact much of the recharge area is outside its jurisdiction.

Recharge is also estimated by the TWDB and discussed in Section 4.5. Artificial recharge by
impounding water at the surface allowing seepage into the aquifers has not been deemed feasible.
This is due to the slow groundwater flow rate (60 feet per year) and the prevalence of Beaumont clay
formations that inhibit infiltration. Injection of recharge water into the subsurface raises issues
regarding groundwater quality. The District will continue to evaluate studies of the feasibility of
artificial recharge.


August 6, 1998                                                                                        22
      Figure 10. Aquifer Cross Section




4.3 Groundwater Levels

Water-level measurements in the District have historically been analyzed by the USGS. The District
in conjunction with the City of Houston, USGS, and the HGCSD jointly fund monitoring of 500
wells within Fort Bend, Galveston, and Harris Counties. The water table in this region ranges from
about 10 to 30 feet below land surface. Water-level changes in wells is a function of potentiometric
pressure and is significantly influenced by groundwater withdrawal. Water-level altitudes in wells in
this region are the result of coalescing cones of depression caused by groundwater withdrawal. The
USGS, Report 96-164: Water-Level Altitudes 1996 and Water-Level Changes 1990-1996 and 1995-
1996, in the Chicot and Evangeline Aquifers, Fort Bend County and Adjacent Areas, Texas illustrates
the current mapping of groundwater levels in the region (Coplin, Kasmarek, Santor, and Noble,
1996). Figures 2 and 3 (page 9), present the changes in the potentiometric surface illustrating that
water-level declines have historically occurred in the northeastern part of the District in the Chicot
Aquifer and, to some extent, in the Evangeline Aquifer.

4.4     Groundwater Quality

Water from the Chicot and Evangeline Aquifers is of relatively high quality and, in most cases,
requires only disinfection before use. Water is fresh (less than 1,000 milligrams per liter total
dissolved solids) in most of the region. In general, groundwater quality is adequate to support all
water use types. However, impacts associated with subsidence may potentially cause water quality
degradation. Further examination of water quality issues will be addressed in a later chapter of this
document.
.
August 6, 1998                                                                                          23
    Figure 11. Aquifer Recharge Areas




4.5      Groundwater Availability

The TWDB has performed hydraulic modeling of the Gulf Coast Aquifer to estimate the potential
groundwater availability in the Chicot and Evangeline Aquifers in Fort Bend County. The TWDB
regional computer model for the Gulf Coast Aquifer was updated in 1990. This update reported a
perpetual annual effective recharge of 74,381 acre-feet per year (66 MGD) for the Gulf Coast Aquifer
in Fort Bend County (See Table 2 and 3). Based on this estimate, the TWDB projects average annual
groundwater availability in Fort Bend County to be 79,033 acre-feet per year (70 MGD). The
quantities of available groundwater are based on the following modeled assumptions:

•     Lowering of water levels in the aquifer to meet demands, but not total depletion of water-table or
      artesian storage
•     Water-level declines would not occur in an amount that would result in unacceptable land-surface
      subsidence
•     A maximum water-level decline of 400 feet below the land surface for irrigation demands.

A number of factors combine to suggest that this estimate of available groundwater within the
District will require further analysis. These factors include:

•     A definitive delineation of groundwater availability by county using the TWDB modeling method
      is difficult to assess due to local variable aquifer characteristics (sand thickness, transmissivity,
      etc).
•     Actual recorded water-level declines in the greater Houston area have dropped as much as 350
      feet below the land surface and subsidence continues to occur.



August 6, 1998                                                                                          24
  The USGS reported an average total recharge rate of 6 inches per year within the District (USGS
  Report 96-4018), but it did not attempt to define a quantity of available groundwater due to analytical
  uncertainties regarding primary model parameters, effective porosity, area of outcrop contributing to
  recharge, and interface depth (tritium travel distance in recharge analysis).

  Based on the above information, the District has not developed an estimate of available groundwater
  within the Chicot and Evangeline Aquifers. Current evidence appears to suggest that continued
  groundwater withdrawals in excess of 70 MGD may exceed the capacity of the aquifer (in terms of
  water-level declines and subsidence). The District, as evidenced within the Groundwater
  Management Plan goals, is committed to determining yield estimates for the Chicot and Evangeline
  Aquifers based on a much more detailed analytical study.

  Table 2. Aquifer Recharge and Groundwater Availability (acre-feet per year)
                                                     Groundwater Availability
 Basin                      Recharge   1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2009 2010-2019 2020-2029           2030
 San Jacinto Basin            10,210      10,210    10,210    10,210      10,210  10,210           10,210
 San Jacinto-Brazos Basin     20,583      20,583    20,583    20,583      20,583  20,583           20,583
 Brazos Basin                 34,017      38,669    38,669    38,669      38,669  38,669           34,017
 Brazos-Colorado Basin         9,571       9,571     9,571     9,571        9,571  9,571            9,571
 Fort Bend County Total       74,381      79,033    79,033    79,033      79,033  79,033           74,381


  Table 3. Aquifer Recharge and Groundwater Availability (MGD)
                                                    Groundwater Availability
Basin                       Recharge   1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2009 2010-2019 2020-2029           2030
San Jacinto Basin               9.11        9.11      9.11      9.11         9.11   9.11             9.11
San Jacinto-Brazos Basin       18.37      18.37      18.37     18.37       18.37   18.37            18.37
Brazos Basin                   30.37      34.52      34.52     34.52       34.52   34.52            30.37
Brazos-Colorado Basin           8.54        8.54      8.54      8.54         8.54   8.54             8.54
Fort Bend County Total         66.40      70.55      70.55     70.55       70.55   70.55            66.40




  August 6, 1998                                                                                      25
5.0 Water Resource Management

Accomplishment of the District’s mission to prevent subsidence requires the reduction of
groundwater withdrawal. Additionally, alternative water resource management strategies must be
employed if projected water demands are to be met. This section details other strategies potentially
available to the District to supplement groundwater use.

5.1 Surface Water Supply

The District lies mainly in the Brazos River Basin; however, parts of the District lie in the San Jacinto
River Basin, the Brazos–Colorado and San Jacinto–Brazos Coastal Basins. Surface water within the
District is primarily supplied by the following entities:

    •   Gulf Coast Water Authority
    •   Chocolate Bayou Water Company
    •   Richmond Irrigation and Houston Lighting and Power Company
    •   Brazos River Authority

The Trans-Texas Water Program (TTWP) report entitled Planning Information Update, September
1996 concluded that a water supply deficit of approximately 12,500 acre-feet per year (10 MGD)
would exist for all of Fort Bend County by the year 2020. Note that the deficit will likely be as early
as 2010, since TTWP forecasts are based on TWDB “Most Likely” population scenario which has
been shown to be unreasonably low for Fort Bend County. The projected water supply deficit for the
county totaled 162,100 acre-feet per year (145 MGD) by the year 2050. These findings suggest that
additional surface water supplies will be required to meet projected water demands in Fort Bend
County. The TWDB has recommended the development of Allen's Creek Reservoir to supply water
to areas including Fort Bend County.

5.2 Water Management Strategies

The Trans-Texas Water Program, Southeast Area, investigated a number of potential water supply
and water management strategies that could address future growth in water demand. These strategies
generally involve making better use of current surface water supplies or development of new
supplies.

Strategies specific to Fort Bend County include:

•   Water Conservation (Enhanced)
•   Wastewater Reclamation
•   Desalinization of Brackish Groundwater
•   Allen’s Creek Reservoir
•   Gulf Coast Water Authority (GCWA) Contractual Water Transfer


Each strategy has advantages, impacts, and costs, and all are deemed feasible. Use of any or all of
these methods could significantly assist the District in achieving its goals. The proposed State of
Texas Regional Water Planning Group (Region H) is anticipated to further define potential

August 6, 1998                                                                                        26
implementation of these and/or other strategies. Additional strategies that have been suggested for
application in this region include water marketing and aquifer storage and recovery. The District will
monitor development of alternative water management strategies with the intent of assisting, where
possible, those strategies consistent with the District’s mission.




August 6, 1998                                                                                     27
 6.0 Geomatics

Geomatics is the field of surveying, mapping, photogrammetry, and
geographic information systems (GIS). Activities involved in geomatics
include measurement, digital mapping, remote sensing, spatial analysis,
satellite positioning, and compiling geographic information about features
on or near the earth’s surface. This field makes extensive use of new
technology including satellite positioning and digital photogrammetry.
The District uses the techniques of geomatics to define and assess ground
movement.
                                                                                     Benchmark Witness
                                                                                           Post


 The U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, now known as the National Geodetic Survey (NGS), first
 installed benchmarks in the Houston-Gulf Coast region in 1906. This network has been expanded
 and releveled in whole or in part more than ten times.

    The District contracts with the HGCSD for all releveling efforts. PAMs (port-a-measures) are used
 to monitor land-surface subsidence on fixed benchmarks. A PAM is a GPS antenna mounted on and
                         connected to a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver in a portable trailer.
                         The mobility of the PAM furnishes the District with the ability to measure
                         multiple sites at a more economical cost with a single instrument. Land
                         elevation data is collected by the HGCSD in coordination with the USGS at
                         eleven extensometer sites, of which three are CORS (Continuously Operating
                         Reference Stations) sites, and seven PAM sites. In addition to these sites, the
                         District currently contracts with the HGCSD to monitor one PAM site within
                         Fort Bend County and will be developing additional sites in the near future.
                         The District’s PAM site provides information about compaction in
                         northeastern Fort Bend County. The District is proposing four new PAM sites
                         in Fort Bend County. In the future, the CORS, PAM, and GPS sites will
                          replace conventional leveling efforts. Figure 12 shows the location of the
     PAM Trailer #2
                          District’s present and future PAM sites as well as the HGCSD extensometer,
                          CORS, and PAM sites.




 August 6, 1998                                                                                          28
Figure 12. Locations of Extensometers, CORS, and PAM Sites




                                                   LKHU
                                         NETP
                        ADKS




                         Extensometers
                         CORS/Extensometer Sites
                         PAM Sites (existing)
                         PAM Sites (proposed)




August 6, 1998                                               29
7.0 Subsidence

7.1 Overview

The District uses the research, knowledge, and technical expertise of the HGCSD staff to monitor
subsidence in Fort Bend County. Measurement of subsidence due to declines in water levels in wells
in the Chicot and Evangeline Aquifers has been based on benchmarks established by the National
Geodetic Survey (NGS). Figure 13 shows historical land-surface subsidence in the District from the
earliest measurements in 1906 to recent measurements in 1995. The principal cause of land
subsidence within the District is the decline of the potentiometric water level in the Chicot and
Evangeline Aquifers. Lowering the potentiometric level increases the effective weight of the
overlying sediments thereby increasing the load on the compressible clay layers within the aquifers.
As the clay layers compress, water is permanently forced from the pores of the clay. Groundwater
withdrawal results in a lowering of the potentiometric surface in the form of a cone of depression.
The size of the cone of depression is a function of the pumping rate of the producing well, the time of
production, and the hydraulic characteristics of the sand.

7.2 Modeling Efforts

The District uses three models to predict subsidence: Water Demand Model, Groundwater Flow
Model and Clay Compaction Model. The District utilizes HGCSD’s groundwater model to project
future water-level declines. The groundwater model, MODFLOW, is a USGS modeling program that
simulates the response of an aquifer, in terms of potentiometric head changes, to groundwater
pumpage which is spatially or temporally distributed to the aquifer.

Figure 13. Subsidence, 1906-1995

                                                1


                                                        2
                                                    3
                                                        4
                                                            5
                                                                6



                                                                            7
                                            6                                                   9
                                                                    6           10
                                3   4
                                        5
                                                                        8       9
                   1        2
                                                                                        8
                                                                                            7


                                                                                     6

                                                                                            5

                                                                                        4
                                                                                                    4
                                                                                            3           6
                                                                                    2




                                                                                            1
      Contour Interval 1 Foot
                                                                                                            Data Source : National Geodetic Survey
                                                                                                            Contour Interpretations : HGCSD




August 6, 1998                                                                                                                                       30
The MODFLOW program predicts water-level declines in wells in an aquifer based on pumpage,
storage, transmissivity, and leakance values. The MODFLOW model contains 5,850 cells (30 rows
by 39 columns by 5 layers) and encompasses an area of approximately 8,400 square miles (See
Figure 14).

The PRESS (Predictions Relating Effective Stress and Subsidence) models measure compaction and
predicts subsidence at sites throughout the region by using data compiled at twenty-two sites in
Harris and Galveston Counties, and four sites in Fort Bend County (See Figure 15). The PRESS
models use water-level declines predicted by the MODFLOW model and apply the soil mechanics
properties of the site to predict consolidation (the settlement of clay strata in response to loads caused
by increases of inter-particle stress).

Figures 2 and 3 (page 9), show historical trends of water-level declines in wells throughout the
District. These figures illustrate a number of important observations regarding water-level declines
and form the basis of the District’s current observations on subsidence and groundwater withdrawal:

       •   Measurements show that subsidence is primarily a problem in the northeastern part of the
           District.
       •   Measurements show that subsidence will continue to occur with effects reaching into the
           central part of the county.

Currently, subsidence is not a problem throughout most of the District; however, the rapid population
increase in the northeastern part of the District suggests that specific policies should be formulated
for that area and that subsidence should continue to be monitored as growth continues in the
remaining parts of the District.

Figure 14: Grid Used in MODFLOW Groundwater Model




August 6, 1998                                                                                         31
Figure 15: PRESS Sites


                                                        Cypress
                                                         Creek

                                             FM 1960
                                                                     Humble              Crosby
                              Langham
                               Creek                           North
                                                              Houston          Sheldon


                       Katy                                                                  Baytown
                                                        Downtown
                                           Long
                                           Point                          Galena


                                Bellaire                          Harrisburg    Pasadena
                                 West                                                      La Porte
             Richmond -                            Bellaire
                                                                Hobby
             Rosenberg
                                                                               Genoa



                                                                                 NASA
                                                         Arcola
           Needville
                                  Smithers                                                   Eagle
                                  Lake                                                       Point




                                                                                        Galveston

                  Source : Fugro - McClelland




7.3 Consequences of Groundwater Pumpage

Studies have identified that excessive groundwater pumpage has caused water-level declines with the
following effects:
       •     Subsidence of the land surface
       •     Saltwater encroachment from salt domes
       •     Increased incidence of surface fault movement
       •     Increased groundwater pumping costs
       •     Increased incidence of flooding
       •     Increased potential for water quality impacts
Specific water quality related impacts of excessive groundwater pumpage are discussed in the
following sections.
Salt Domes
There are eight salt domes in the District, six of which pierce the Chicot and Evangeline Aquifers,
causing increases in the salinity of nearby groundwater. When groundwater pumpage creates a cone
of depression near a salt dome, it can draw the lower quality groundwater that surrounds the salt
dome into the fresh water sands. Regions surrounding salt domes in the District where the water
quality has greater than 1,000 mg/l total dissolved solids (TDS) are shown in Figure 16 and listed in
Table 4. These salt domes, with the exception of the Sugar Land and Thompson salt domes, whose
caprocks are too deep, could affect the water quality of the aquifers. Particular attention should be
focused on the Blue Ridge Dome because of its shallow depth and proximity to areas where large
quantities of groundwater are withdrawn.

August 6, 1998                                                                                         32
Figure 16. Location of Faults and Salt Domes in Fort Bend County




           Source: Fort Bend County Surface Water Supply Study Phase I


Table 4: Salt Domes in Fort Bend County

                                                                   Depth of Caprock
                                  Salt Dome                             (feet)
                            Orchard Dome                                                 170
                            Big Creek Dome                                               317
                            Boling Salt Dome                                             313
                            Nash Dome                                                    570
                            Long Point Dome                                              475
                            Blue Ridge Dome                                               58
                            Sugar Land Dome*                                           3,430
                            Thompson Dome*                                             9,250

                            * Deep-seated salt domes do not pierce aquifer


                         Source: Fort Bend County Surface Water Supply Study Phase I




August 6, 1998                                                                                 33
Faulting

There are numerous faults located in the District; however, three major faults have been located and
mapped in northeastern part of the District--the Addicks, Clodine, and Renn systems (Figure 16).
Each scarp is aligned in a northeast to southwest direction. Fault movement or “creep” is not yet a
problem in the District, but faults are all located in areas where population growth is rapid and where
property damage could be costly. The Addicks and Clodine faults have already caused property
damage including major structural damage in Harris County.
Fault movement in the greater Houston area was first associated with groundwater withdrawal in the
1930’s. Fault movement was studied in the Houston area from 1978 to 1985 by the USGS at eleven
sites. This study showed that in areas where groundwater pumpage had been reduced and water
levels in the aquifer were rebounding, the fault scarp heights either grew at a much slower rate than
previously recorded or the scarps did not grow at all. Conversely, in areas where no reduction in
pumpage had occurred and water levels continued to decline, fault growth continued at the same rate
as previously recorded.

Radon

In recent years concern has been raised about the potentially harmful effects of radon. A study of the
Gulf Coast region of Texas by the University of Texas Health Science Center found a high
occurrence of radon in groundwater sampled, but no radon was found in the surface water. The study
listed three observations about the occurrence of radon in groundwater in the Houston area:

1. Radon concentrations tended to increase with depth—the greatest concentrations of radon were
   observed between 185 and 335 meters below the surface, which is approximately the top of the
   Evangeline Aquifer.
2. Concentrations also tended to increase in direction toward the Gulf Coast.
3. The proximity of salt domes was an important predictor for the presence of radon in well water:
   particularly in medium to deep wells.

Other Issues

Although outside the scope of the District’s authority, there are a number of elements that the EPA
recommends monitoring in groundwater which include:

•   Pesticides
•   Arsenic
•   Sulfate
•   Lead and Copper
•   Radionuclides
•   PCBs

As groundwater levels change, the potential for adverse water quality impacts increase. Currently,
little definitive historical analysis of the potential relationship of subsidence to degraded groundwater
quality is known. Future study efforts should serve to assess whether possible problems may occur.

August 6, 1998                                                                                        34
8.0 District Regulatory Plan

The District Regulatory Plan specifies actions needed to regulate the withdrawal of groundwater to
prevent subsidence and forms the basis for groundwater well permit requirements and permitting
decisions. The Regulatory Plan considers projected water-level changes in the aquifer resulting from
forecasted groundwater demand modeled for several scenarios of surface water availability.


8.1 1990 Regulatory Plan

The Board adopted the current District Regulatory Plan on September 26, 1990 under Resolution No.
90-019. “The primary thrust of the Plan is to outline the current and historical status of groundwater
use and subsidence within the District and to define the steps which must be considered and
evaluated in the future in order to control and mitigate the effects of subsidence.” In the plan,
numerous action items are presented including:

       •   Gathering data on groundwater pumpage and, in conjunction with the USGS, data on
           water-level changes
       •   Gathering and analyzing data “to provide for prediction of subsidence in the future”
       •   Gathering data on projected water use
       •   Addressing the need for surface water development and use, along with other agencies
       •   Enforcing permit requirements and metering policies
       •   Gathering data on water that is not accounted for
       •   Gathering data on water conservation


8.2 Plan Review and Update

The District is reviewing the 1990 District Regulatory Plan with the intent of preparing a new
regulatory plan. Updates to the 1990 Regulatory Plan are needed due to revised population
projections and new data. Several important steps in this process have been completed:

•   Update of water demand projections. Population projections were adjusted by the 1996 TC&B
    study to consider the 1990 census data which confirmed less growth than had been anticipated as
    a result of the economic downturn in the area during the mid- to late-1980’s. These projections
    (See Figure 6, page 19) were used to calculate future water demand.

•   Update of Groundwater model. LBG–Guyton enhanced the District’s groundwater modeling
    program by converting from GWMOD to MODFLOW. This was done for three reasons:

       1. The GWMOD program was overestimating the potentiometric head in the Evangeline
          Aquifer
       2. The MODFLOW model is the current standard for groundwater modeling in the United
          States
       3. MODFLOW allows for more flexible and encompassing results




August 6, 1998                                                                                      35
    The MODFLOW program computes water levels based on projected groundwater pumpage data.
    For purposes of this update process, the groundwater model was based on the following
    assumptions known as CSD 96:

       •   Surface water use was maintained at 1994 levels
       •   All new water demand after 1995 was supplied by groundwater

    This scenario was used to calculate projected potentiometric levels from 1995-2030 for input into
    the PRESS models.

    The groundwater model predicted water-level declines in wells in the District ranging from 25 to
    200 feet in the Chicot and 25 to 150 feet in the Evangeline. The most severe declines in water
    levels in wells in the Chicot and Evangeline Aquifers within the District are projected to occur in
    the northeastern part of the District. Figures 17 and 18 illustrate the predicted water-level decline
    in wells in the Chicot and Evangeline Aquifers using the MODFLOW model and CSD 96
    assumptions.

•   Update of Subsidence (clay compaction) model. Predictions of subsidence have been re-
    analyzed by Fugro-McClelland (Fugro-McClelland (Southwest), Inc., 1977). The PRESS models
    were recalibrated and used to predict future subsidence.

    Included in the recalibration were the following steps:

       1. Curves of historical changes in water levels at each site were updated
       2. Curves of historical subsidence of individual benchmarks at the sites through Spring 1995
          were developed
       3. Predictions of historical subsidence were calculated using the PRESS program and
          compared to historical subsidence from step (2)
       4. The PRESS model was adjusted until the historical subsidence in step (2) agreed with
          predictions of modeled subsidence in step (3)

Subsidence predictions from 1995 to 2030 were computed based on water-level declines from the
CSD 96 scenario described previously. The initial PRESS models predict that subsidence will range
from two to five feet in the District. The greatest amount of subsidence is expected to occur in the
northeastern part of the District (See Figure 19). Based on the assumptions contained in CSD 96, the
amount of predicted subsidence is unacceptable. Additional quantities of surface water must be
introduced into Fort Bend County to supply the growing demand in the northeastern part of the
District. As a result, the District must perform further demand scenario models, assist in identifying
surface water supplies, and develop strategies to encourage conversions from groundwater to surface
water in the District.

Currently, groundwater pumpage within the District is approximately 60 MGD (Table 1, page 20) out
of the total of 80 MGD of existing groundwater permits. This permitted amount is 10 MGD over the
TWDB estimate for annual available groundwater (70 MGD) in the Gulf Coast Aquifer system for
Fort Bend County. Thus increased pumpage and/or permitted amounts of pumpage along with the
expanding population and water demand in the county make evaluating and implementing new
regulatory strategies in the District essential. The District must manage and monitor pumpage and


August 6, 1998                                                                                         36
permit amounts to insure that the aquifer system is not overpumped causing additional water-level
declines and increased subsidence.

Initial results confirm that in addition to causing subsidence, using groundwater to meet future water
demand will cause significant water-level declines in both the Chicot and Evangeline Aquifers. The
District is evaluating strategies that could be used in making decisions about groundwater permits
and conversion to surface water, including implementing economic disincentives to discourage
excessive groundwater withdrawal.

In an effort to control the impacts of groundwater pumpage, the District will implement programs to
reduce subsidence by:

•   Continuing subsidence monitoring through the use of the extensometers, CORS, and PAM sites
    (in conjunction with HGCSD)
•   Using and keeping up-to-date the MODFLOW groundwater model and PRESS models (in
    conjunction with HGCSD)
•   Implementing new District Regulatory Plans that balance regional land subsidence with
    groundwater availability

Figure 17. Predicted Water-Level Declines in Wells in the Chicot Aquifer, 1995-2030




                                          75                                                                   Red declines in water levels

                               50                    125                                                       Green rises in water levels
                                          100                                                                  Blue no change in water level
                     25
                                                                                           75
                                                            150
                                                                          125                         50
                                                                                    100


                                                                  150



                                                      150                       150

                                                                              200
                                                                        150

                                                       150                       175

                                    100        125
                                                                                                125
                                75                                               100                         175
                          50
                                                                                    75
                25
                                                                                      50


                                                                                                25


                                                                                                           Data Source : LBG-Guyton Assoc.
    Contour Interval 25 Feet                                                                                              CSD 96




August 6, 1998                                                                                                                                 37
Figure 18. Predicted Water-Level Declines in Wells in the Evangeline Aquifer, 1995-2030


                                                                                                                                         Red declines in water levels
                                                                                                                                         Green rises in water levels
                                                                                                                                         Blue no change in water level
                  25    50                                                 225
                             100                                                     200
                          75                                                               150
                                 150                                                                      100 75
                             125                                 250                   175
                                            200
                                                                                                      125              50
                                    175             225
                                                                                                                                          25




                                                                                           225

                                    200                                              200
                                                                                           175
                                  175
                                                                                                    150
           25                     150
                 50                                                                            125
                       75   100     125
                                                                                                100

                                                                                                    75


                                                                                                         50



                                                                                                              25
                                                                                                                                   Data Source : LBG-Guyton Assoc.
     Contour Interval 25 Feet                                                                                                                     CSD 96




    Figure 19. Sum of Historical (1906-1995) and Predicted (1995-2030) Subsidence



                                                    3
                                        2                    5         6
                                                4
                                                                                 7
                                                                       8
                                                                 9
                                                            10
                                                                     11




                                                                                                                               9
                                                                      11                   9
                                                    9
                                                            10                                 10
                                                                                                         11
                                                  8
                                                                                                                       8
                                                                                                                   9
                                                                 7
                                                        6

                                        3                   5                                                              7
                                                4
                                                                                                                               6
                                            2
                                                                                                                           5
                                                                                                                   4                 6
                                                                                                                       3


        Contour Interval 1 Foot                                                                                            2


                 Data Source : National Geodetic
                   Survey / Fugro-McClelland CSD 96
                 Contour Interpretations : HGCSD




August 6, 1998                                                                                                                                                           38
9.0       Operation of the District

9.1 Board of Directors

As defined in Section 5 of the District’s enabling legislation, a thirteen member Board of Directors
who serve staggered two-year terms govern the District. Board members are selected to represent
areas and jurisdictions in the county as well as agriculture, industrial, and business interests. Officers
include a Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Secretary who are elected annually by the Board from its
membership. The Board holds regular monthly meetings on the fourth Wednesday of each month at
4:00 p.m. at the George Memorial Library in Richmond, Texas. The District maintains an office at
611 Jackson, in Richmond, Texas.

           Board of Directors

              (a) The District is governed by a board of 13 directors.
              (b) One director from each of the following cities in Fort Bend County shall be
                  appointed by the mayor of the respective city:

                       a)   Houston
                       b)   Missouri City
                       c)   Stafford
                       d)   Sugar Land
                       e)   Rosenberg; and
                       f)   Richmond

              (c) The Commissioners Court of Fort Bend County shall appoint two directors who
                  represent agricultural interests and live in an unincorporated area, two directors
                  who represent industrial interests, and two directors who represent business
                  interests.
              (d) One Director shall be appointed by the mayors of the incorporated cities within
                  the county not listed in Subsection (b) of this section


9.2 Administration

Administration of the District has been governed by the Board through the adoption of resolutions
including:

•     Resolution 89-006 – Interlocal Agreement with the HGCSD to Perform Administrative
                         Services
•     Resolution 89-007 – Adoption of Rules
•     Resolution 90-019 – Adoption of District Plan
•     Resolution 91-043 – Interlocal Agreement with the HGCSD to Perform Governmental
                           Services
•     Resolution 92-048 – Records Management Policy
•     Resolution 96-097 – Rules Amendment
•     Resolution 97-109 – Policy Regarding the Authorization of District Funds and
                         Acquisition, Inventorying, and Disposal of Fixed Assets
•     Resolution 98-120 – Investment Policy




August 6, 1998                                                                                         39
Interlocal Agreement

The Board has the authority to enter into interlocal agreements to “contract with another
governmental entity to perform the functions of the General Manager.” The District entered into an
interlocal agreement, Resolution 89-006, by which the “Harris-Galveston Coastal Subsidence District
hereby agrees to provide, through its General Manager, the staff and other services necessary for
FBSD to fulfill its duties and responsibilities under the FBSD Act.” Under this agreement the
HGCSD through its General Manager performs all administrative activities of the FBSD. Resolution
91-042 is an amended and updated interlocal agreement, by which “the HGCSD will provide staff
time and services for the performance of certain governmental functions and services for the FBSD.”
Services that the HGCSD performs for the FBSD under Resolutions 89-006 and 91-042 include:

   •   Providing a General Manager
   •   Maintenance of records of permitted wells, permit quantities, yearly pumpage, maps of wells,
       and maps of National Geodetic Survey vertical benchmarks
   •   Administration of the well permitting process
   •   Administration of the public hearing process
   •   Field investigations
   •   Investigations of violations of FBSD rules or regulations
   •   Maintenance of information and provision of services necessary to develop, maintain, and
       revise a District plan
   •   Preparation and submission of rules and regulations to the FBSD Board for approval
   •   Data processing for the FBSD including reports and detailed information on permits,
       pumpage data, meter readings, mailing lists, budgeting, and financial information
   •   A subsidence modeling system
   •   Legal services
   •   Annual groundwater hearing and report detailing the groundwater situation in Fort Bend
       County to determine rates of withdrawal, amount of withdrawal, and other information
       concerning the withdrawal of groundwater that may effect subsidence
   •   Transportation for performance of governmental functions and services
   •   Use of HGCSD office space and office equipment
   •   Any other services the General Manager determines to be reasonably required to fulfill the
       requirements of the FBSD Act

Also, under these resolutions the HGCSD is required to staff the District’s office, which must be
located within Fort Bend County, with at least one employee.




August 6, 1998                                                                                      40
Financial

Funding for administration of the District is derived from permit fees and expended in agreement
with an annually adopted budget. Funds are disbursed in accordance with Board policy and
oversight. A financial audit is performed annually by an outside accounting firm. KPMG Peat
Marwick has served as the District’s independent auditor since 1990. The General Manager of the
District is given the authority to “authorize expenditures of the District’s funds, in the form of
purchase orders, in amounts not to exceed $5,000… and may authorize leases and contracts that do
not exceed $5,000 in aggregate liability” (Resolution 97-109).

Complete copies of all administrative policies are on file at the District office.

9.3 Hearings and Reports

The District holds two main categories of hearings: permit hearings and rulemaking hearings. Permit
hearings are held to consider matters such as applications, amendments, renewals, and revocations.
These matters are normally considered before a hearing examiner.

Rulemaking hearings are held before either the Board or a hearing examiner to consider items such as
the following:

    1.   Annual Groundwater Report
    2.   Permit fee rates
    3.   District Regulatory Plan
    4.   District rules and regulations
    5.   Any other matter deemed appropriate by the Board

The staff prepares, and the Board of Directors approves, an Annual Groundwater Report that
chronicles the District’s annual monitoring functions including:

•   Monitoring of annual rainfall
•   Monitoring of groundwater pumpage by pumpage area
•   Monitoring of water levels in wells
•   Monitoring of land-surface elevation
•   Monitoring of water quality


The District has issued an Annual Groundwater Report for each year beginning in 1990. The District
is subdivided into three areas for the purposes of groundwater pumpage reporting (See Figure 7, page
20). A detailed description of the specific activities associated with each of these monitoring efforts
is illustrated in each annual report. The 8th Annual Report for Year Ending, December 31, 1997 is
shown in Appendix C.




August 6, 1998                                                                                       41
9.4 Permits

The Subsidence District issues permits for groundwater withdrawal for up to a five year period.
These permits are not a vested right of the holder and may be revoked, suspended, modified, or
amended at any time. Modifications and amendments to a permit can only be made after notice is
given to the permit holder and the general public. A hearing is held, and a recommendation is made
to the Board of Directors by the Hearing Examiner. All water wells within the bounds of the District
must be registered prior to drilling of the well and are required to be permitted with the following
exceptions:

       1. A well serving a single-family dwelling with a casing diameter of five inches nominal or
          less
       2. A person who owns only one commercial well within the District with an inside casing
          diameter of five inches nominal or less
       3. A well with a casing diameter of five inches nominal or less pumped by a windmill
       4. Monitoring wells
       5. Leachate wells
       6. Dewatering wells

The permitting process is illustrated in Appendix B. Every application must contain the applicant’s
name, applicant’s address, location of well, and amount of water to be or being produced. If the
applicant can illustrate that the water is needed immediately, an emergency permit may be granted by
the General Manager to allow for the drilling of a well or operation of an existing well and for
groundwater pumpage until the regular permit can be issued. Once a well is permitted, it can be
amended in three ways by the permittee:

       1. Transfer of ownership
       2. Increase allocated amount
       3. Decrease allocated amount

An amendment application to transfer the ownership of a permitted well must be submitted within 90
days of ownership change. The General Manager may grant transfers of ownership and amendments
to increase or decrease the amounts of groundwater allocated on a permit.

Permit Fees

The District collects permit fees from each permittee based on the authorized groundwater allocation.
The Board of Directors determines the fee rate annually. Table 5 provides a list of historical fee
rates. Currently, there are 642 permits totaling 29.3 billion gallons of pumpage per year (80 MGD).
Since the District’s creation over 759 wells have been permitted.




August 6, 1998                                                                                     42
Table 5. Permit Fee History
  Resolution No.   FY or Date           Application Fees ($)     Permit Fee Rate ($/MG)   Min. Fee
                                                                     [Agric. Rate]           ($)
      89-002        11/8/89     10.00   all applications
      89-009         1990                                             7.50 [5.25]           7.50
      89-012        11/29/89    10.00   amendment – increasing
                                 5.00   amendment – decreasing
                                 5.00   rebate application
      90-026         1991                                             6.50   [4.55]         6.50
      91-044         1992                                             6.50   [4.55]         6.50
      92-056         1993                                             6.50   [4.55]         6.50
      93-067         1994                                             7.50   [5.25]         7.50
      94-076         1995                                             7.50   [5.25]         7.50
      95-086         1996                                             7.50   [5.25]         7.50
      96-102         1997                                             7.50   [5.25]         7.50
      97-114         1998                                             7.50   [5.25]         7.50



Permit Fee Rebates

A permit fee rebate may be granted to any permittee who:

       1. Files an application within 90 days after the permit expires, and
       2. Has a water meter installed and operating during the entire permit term, and
       3. Withdrew less groundwater than the permitted amount, and
       4. Is due a rebate because the permit fee originally paid for the amount by which authorized
          withdrawal exceeded actual withdrawal is greater than or equal to $100, and
       5. If operating a well for public supply, the ratio of the amount of water sold to water
          produced is at least 85%, or
       6. Is the well owner and presents sufficient evidence that well was never drilled.


9.5 Public Involvement

Local entities and the general public are encouraged to participate in District activities. All hearings
and meetings of the Board are open to the public, who are provided opportunities to speak before the
Board.

A mailing list of interested parties is maintained for distribution of information. Additionally, the
General Manager and District staff are available to attend community meetings to provide
information about District activities. A listing of general public involvement activities can be seen in
Table 6.




August 6, 1998                                                                                        43
Table 6. Public Involvement Activities

 Professional Organizations:                                Educational Groups:
          American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)                Independent School Districts (Elem.,
          American Water Works Association (AWWA)                     Jr. High & High Schools)
          Association of Water Board Directors (AWBD)               San Jacinto Community College
          American Water Resources Association (AWRA)               Texas A & M
          Texas Association of Groundwater Districts (TAGD)         University of Texas
          Texas Water Conservation Association (TWCA)               University of Houston
 Civic Associations:                                                Rice University
          Rotary Clubs                                              Texas Southern University
          Chambers of Commerce                                      Teaching Environmental Science
          Utility District meetings                                   Program (TESP)
          Community Associations                            Environmental Groups:
          Libraries                                                 Galveston Bay Foundation
 Governments:                                                       Bayou Preservation Association
          City Council Meetings                                     EPA Program
          Meetings with City staffs                                 SeaGrant Program/Armand Bayou
          Commissioners Court and staff                             Bureau of Reclamation
                                                                    Texas Water Development Board (TWDB)
                                                                    Texas Natural Resource Conservation
                                                                      Commission (TNRCC)




August 6, 1998                                                                                             44
10.0 Programs

10.1 Conservation

The District is committed to water conservation as a means of helping to reduce groundwater
pumpage through elimination of waste. Currently, the District has a number of programs that aim at
meeting this objective:

       •   A requirement that public supply systems must account for 85% of groundwater pumped
       •   Random meter readings of permitted wells
       •   Provision of water conservation information

When the District considers an application from a water supplier, an audit of per capita water use and
the percentage of water lost through the system is reviewed. Suggestions are provided for
improvement of water rates (retail suppliers), consumer and operational water waste reductions, and
other conservation techniques. Permits are often conditioned to require a permittee to submit a plan
about how water accountability can be improved. Such activities have resulted in the installation and
use of customer meters, the use of meters on public facilities, the recalibration and repair of meters,
water audits, and other waste reduction practices.

Water-loss reduction measures reduce pumpage and are often financed through cost savings or
revenue improvements. In the past, the District has sponsored various water conservation and water-
loss reduction seminars, drought contingency workshops, reuse conferences, and conservation
workshops in conjunction with the TWDB and TNRCC.

The District performs random meter readings on wells, which do not fall under exceptions to
metering, to ensure that permittees are accurately reporting the amount of water pumped and that
meters are calibrated and operating correctly. If a permittee is in violation of their permit, the District
has the right to seek injunctive relief.

The District uses economic disincentives to encourage permittees to employ water conservation
measures by requiring public supply permittees to account for at least 85% of the water sold or
otherwise accounted for versus water produced in order to receive permit fee rebates.

The District provides information to interested parties about the importance of conservation measures
that households and others can use to save water. Additionally, the District is reviewing the
feasibility of implementing an educational program to encourage water conservation. The decision to
implement a water conservation educational program will be based on the data gathered over the next
few years through the accountability program, which will give an indication of how efficiently water
is being used and whether or not a feasible program of groundwater reduction is possible though
conservation programs. The District has implemented a plan to determine if water is being wasted or
lost.




August 6, 1998                                                                                          45
The plan requires that all utilities within the District:

        1. Meet an eighty-five percent accountability rate for water use
        2. Audit their water-sold to water-produced ratio and provide this information to the District
        3. Determine if water savings measures are needed by determining the ratio of water sold to
           water produced

10.2 Well Closure

The District recognizes the need for capping or plugging abandoned and deteriorated wells to prevent
water quality degradation. The TNRCC’s rules addressing this issue are in Chapter 238: Well
Drillers and Water Well Pump Installers which “direct the commission to establish the level of
quality to be maintained, and to control and protect the quality of the underground water in this state
and to promulgate procedures and standards for plugging wells.” The TNRCC places well plugging
or capping responsibilities on “the landowner or person having the well drilled, deepened, or
otherwise altered to cap or have capped, under standards set forth in §§ 238.44-238.51… any well
which is open at the surface.”

Well plugging consists of pressure filling with cement via a trimie pipe from the bottom up in an
abandoned and deteriorating well. Wells drilled prior to June 1, 1983 are “grandfathered without
further modification unless the well is found to be a threat to public health and safety or to water
quality.” Exclusions to this clause include wells that have:

•   An annular space around the well casing that is open at or near the land surface
•   An unprotected opening into the well casing that is above ground level
•   Top of well casing is below known flood level and not appropriately sealed
•   Deteriorated well casing allowing commingling of aquifers or zones of waters of different
    qualities


10.3 Wellhead Protection

Although the District recognizes the need for protecting groundwater from contamination, it has not
adopted a formal wellhead protection program. The District does recognize the City of Sugar Land’s
Wellhead Protection Program as a reliable standard that all well permit holders in the District could
follow.

The Sugar Land Public Works Department was awarded the Regional Administrator's Award for
Environmental Excellence for Wellhead Protection on September 27, 1996. The City of Sugar Land
initiated wellhead protection activities in 1988. The initial stages of the program consisted of the
Texas Water Commission delineating wellhead protection areas around Sugar Land's public water
supply wells; the City conducted a field survey to locate potential sources of groundwater
contamination, and also conducted a survey to gather information from residents about abandoned
wells, septic tanks, and other subsurface structures. In 1991, the City received a $50,000 grant from
the U.S. EPA for further development of its wellhead protection program including establishing in-
house training for city personnel; an open house to increase community awareness of, and interest in,
protecting the water supply; and development of a Wellhead Protection Program and contingency
plans.

August 6, 1998                                                                                         46
The Wellhead Protection Program is designed to protect the City's public water supply against
pollution and contamination by regulating the construction, repair, correction, abandonment,
plugging and operation of privately owned wells within the city. This program:

    •   Creates surface/subsurface protection areas surrounding a well
    •   Determines possible risks to groundwater by plotting the radius of each wellhead protection
        area
    •   Inventories possible contaminants contained within the wellhead protection area
    •   Formulates contingency plans to reduce risks and remove existing contamination

Currently, the District’s general policy is to contact and inform the correct regulatory agency of any
perceived violation of wellhead protection rules. The entities responsible for these regulations
include the TNRCC, Fort Bend County, the City of Sugar Land, and other municipalities in the area.
The District is also studying how to help implement the TNRCC’s voluntary wellhead protection
program in areas of the District where it is not currently being applied.

10.4 Drought Management

Drought conditions have been a major recent issue in the District, and localized water supply limiting
conditions sometimes occur during these periods of dry weather. The District plans to assume a
leadership role in assisting water suppliers by:

•   Development of a drought management plan, if warranted
•   Encouraging permittees to have drought management plans that meet state standards
•   Compiling a repository of local area drought management plans for ready access by local entities
•   Serving as a liaison between water districts
•   Sponsoring, in coordination with the HGCSD, an informal network that can assist in identifying
    opportunities for water supply sharing
•   Encouraging interaction and cooperation between water districts


10.5 Other Issues

The District recognizes the importance of studying the interdependence of groundwater withdrawal
and declining water levels, flooding, faulting, and water quality. In the past, monitoring geologic
faults was done to determine the effect of declining water levels on fault creep. This effort needs to
be re-examined to determine not only the effects of groundwater pumpage on fault creep but also how
faulting may effect water quality. In the same manner that faults may permit pollutant migration, salt
domes create an area where water quality degradation can occur. Another area that requires further
analysis is the relationship of salt domes to radon in groundwater. Additionally, the location of
excessive levels of contaminants in groundwater need to be delineated and reviewed to insure the
proper placing of future wells.




August 6, 1998                                                                                        47
Groundwater quality will be an increased focus of the District through actions including:

•   Continuing to participate with the HGCSD in joint funding of USGS groundwater quality
    monitoring program

•   Studying, in coordination with the HGCSD, the effects of groundwater withdrawal on faulting
    and contamination from salt domes

•   Assisting with the implementation of wellhead protection in areas where it is not currently
    implemented

•   Analyzing the information available on radon and other pollutants in groundwater to determine if
    further study of these issues is needed

•   Continuing to expand the library of materials on groundwater quality, particularly in the Chicot
    and Evangeline Aquifers

•   Studying the changes in water quality resulting from increased pumpage due to drought
    conditions




August 6, 1998                                                                                         48
   11.0 Plan Certification

   The Fort Bend Subsidence District Groundwater Management Plan provides documentation of
   past and current District activities as well as providing a guide in directing future District actions.
   The Plan has been prepared to conform to provisions of Senate Bill 1 (§36.1072(a) Texas Water
   Code). A summary of legislative requirements and their page or section reference in the Plan is
   provided below:



         Requirement                                                                 Reference

     1   Certified copy of resolution adopting plan                                    Page i

     2   Notice and hearing requirements followed                                      Page i

     3   Coordination with surface water suppliers                                    Page 10

     4   Management goal providing for efficient use of groundwater                   Page 13

     5   Management goal providing for control and prevention of waste                Page 14

     6   Management goal providing for control and prevention of subsidence           Page 14

     7   Management goal addressing conjunctive surface water management issues       Page 15

     8   Management goal addressing natural resource issues                           Page 16

     9   Consistency with regional plan                                                 N/A

     10 Management objectives for each goal                                         Pages 13-16

     11 Performance standards for each goal                                         Pages 13-16

     12 Actions, procedures, performance and avoidance to implement the plan          Page 12

     13 Estimates of total usable amount of groundwater                               Page 24

     14 Amount of groundwater being used annually                                     Page 20

     15 Annual amount of recharge                                                 Page 22 & 24-25

     16 Opportunities to increase recharge                                          Pages 22-23

     17 Projected water supply and demand                                           Pages 20-26

     18 Adopt rules necessary to implement the plan                                 Pages 39-44

     19 Issuance of permits for wells                                               Pages 42-43




August 6, 1998                                                                                          49
                 Appendix

Appendix A: Selected References
Appendix B: Permit Application Process
Appendix C: 8th Annual Groundwater Report
Appendix D: Glossary of Terms




August 6, 1998
Appendix A: Selected References
American Oil Company (1958). Refinery Ground Subsidence 1957 at Texas City: Plant Engineering
  Department, Texas City, Texas.

Carr, Jerry E., Meyer, Walter R., Sandeen, William M., and McLane, Ivy R. (1985). Digital Models
   for Simulation of Ground-Water Hydrology of the Chicot and Evangeline Aquifers Along the Gulf
   Coast of Texas: Texas Department of Water Resources Report 289.

Cech, Irina, Kreitler, Charles W., Lemma, Mengistu, and Prichard, Howard M. (1987). Radon,
   Radium, and Other Radioactivity in Ground Water: Hydrogeologic Impact and Application to
   Indoor Airborne Contamination. Proceedings of the NWWA Conference 1987.

Cech, Irina, Kreitler, Charles W., Holguin, H., Lemma, Mengistu, and Prichard, Howard M. (1988).
   Radon Distribution in Domestic Water of Texas. GROUND WATER, vol. 26, no. 5.

Cech, Irina, Mayerson, A., Lemma, Mengistu, and Prichard, Howard M. (1987). Pattern of
   Distribution of Radium 226 in Drinking Water of Texas. Water Resources Research, v. 23, no.
   10.

Espey, Huston, and Associates (1983). Harris-Galveston Coastal Subsidence District: Water
   Resource Management Program Phase I.

Espey, Huston, and Associates (1983). Harris-Galveston Coastal Subsidence District. Phase II
   Water Management Study.

Fugro-McClelland (Southwest), Inc. (1997). Recalibration of PRESS Models and Development of
   Two New Models, Harris and Galveston Counties, Texas.

Gabrysch, R.K. (1966). Pumpage of Ground Water and Decline of Water Levels in the Houston
   District, Texas. Texas Water Development Board Report 63.

Gabrysch, R.K. (1968). The Relationship Between Specific Capacity and Aquifer Transmissibility in
   the Houston Area, Texas. GROUND WATER, Journal of the National Water Well Association,
   July-August.

Gabrysch, R.K. (1969). Land-Surface Subsidence in the Houston-Galveston Region, Texas.
   Proceedings, International Symposium on Land Subsidence, Tokyo, Japan.

Gabrysch, R.K., Naftel, W.L., and McAdoo, Gene D. (1969). Records of Water Level Measurements
   in Observation Wells in Harris County, Texas. Texas Water Development Board Report 103.

Gabrysch, R.K., Bonnet, C.W., and Naftel, W.L. (1970). Record of Water-Level Measurements in
   Wells in Harris County, Texas, 1966-1969. Texas Water Development Board Report 122.

Gabrysch, R.K. McAdoo, Gene D., and Bonnet, C.W. (1970). Records of Water Level Measurements
   in Wells in Galveston County, Texas 1894-1969. Texas Water Development Board Report 123.


August 6, 1998
Gabrysch, R.K. McAdoo, Gene D., and Naftel, W.L. (1970). Records of Wells, Drillers Logs and
   Chemical Analysis in Galveston County, Texas 1952-1970. Texas Water Development Board
   Report 139.

Gabrysch, R.K. (1971). Development of Ground Water in the Houston District, Texas, 1966-69:
   Texas Water Development Board Report 152.

Gabrysch, R.K., and Bonnet, C.W. (1972). Preliminary Report of Land-Surface Subsidence in the
   Area of Burnet, Scott, and Crystal Bays near Baytown, Texas. U.S. Geological Survey Open File
   Report.

Gabrysch, R.K., and Bonnet, C.W. (1973). Land-Surface Subsidence in the Area of Burnet, Scott and
   Crystal Bays near Baytown, Texas: U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigation 21-
   74.

Gabrysch, R.K., McAdoo, Gene D., and Bonnet, C.W. (1973). Groundwater Data for Harris County,
   Texas, Volume I, Drillers Logs of Wells 1905-71: Texas Water Development Board Report 178,
   v. 1.

Gabrysch, R.K., Naftel, W.L., and McAdoo, Gene D. (1974). Groundwater Data for Harris County,
   Texas, Volume III, Chemical Analysis of Water from Wells, 1922-71: Texas Water Development
   Board Report 178, v. 3.

Gabrysch, R.K., McAdoo, Gene D., and Bonnet, C.W. (1974). Groundwater Data for Harris County,
   Texas, Volume II, Records of Wells, 1892-1972. Texas Water Development Board Report 178, v.
   2.

Gabrysch, R.K. (1975). Land-Surface Subsidence in the Houston-Galveston Region, Texas: Texas
   Water Development Board Report 188.

Gabrysch, R.K. (1976). Land-Surface Subsidence in the Houston-Galveston Region, Texas.
   Proceedings, Second International Symposium on Land Subsidence, Anaheim, California.

Gabrysch, R.K., and Bonnet, C.W. (1976). Land-Surface Subsidence in the Area of Moses Lake near
   Texas City, Texas: U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigation 76-32.

Gabrysch, R.K., and Bonnet, C.W. (1976). Land-Surface Subsidence at Seabrook, Texas: U.S.
   Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations 76-31.

Gabrysch, R.K. (1977). Approximate Areas of Recharge to the Chicot and Evangeline Aquifer
   Systems in the Houston-Galveston Area, Texas: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 77-
   754.

Gabrysch, Robert K., and Holzer, Thomas L. (1977). Discussion of Krietler, C.W., 1977: Fault
   Control of Subsidence, Houston, Texas. GROUND WATER, Journal of the National Water Well
   Association, vol. 15, no. 3.



August 6, 1998
Gabrysch, R.K. (1978). Land Subsidence in the Houston-Galveston Region, Texas. Water Spectrum.
   U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in press.

Gabrysch, R.K. (1978). Profiles Showing Potentiometric Surfaces and Changes in Effective Stress in
   Aquifers in Harris and Galveston Counties, Texas 1977-78: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File
   Report 78-299.

Gabrysch, R.K. (1979). Approximate Altitude of Water Levels in Wells in the Chicot and Evangeline
   Aquifers in the Houston Area, Texas, Spring 1977 and Spring 1978. U.S. Geological Survey
   Open-File Report 79-334.

Gabrysch, R.K. (1979). Approximate Water-Level Changes in Wells in the Chicot and Evangeline
   Aquifers 1977-79, and Measured Compaction 1973-79, in Harris and Galveston Counties, Texas:
   U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report.

Gabrysch, R.K. (1980). Approximate Altitude of Water Levels in Wells in the Chicot and Evangeline
   Aquifers in the Houston Area, Texas, Spring, 1979 and Spring, 1980: U.S. Geological Survey
   Open File Report 80-579.

Gabrysch, R.K. (1980). Approximate Land-Surface Subsidence in the Houston-Galveston Region,
   Texas, 1906-78, 1943-78, and 1973-78: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 80-338.

Gabrysch, R.K. (1980). Development of Groundwater in the Houston District, Texas, 1970-74:
   Texas Department of Water Resources Report 241.

Gabrysch, R.K., and Ranzau, C. E., Jr. (1980). Approximate Water-Level Changes in Wells in the
   Chicot and Evangeline Aquifers in the Houston-Galveston Region, Texas, 1977-80 and 1979-80.
   U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 80-337.

Gabrysch, R.K. (1981). Approximate Altitude of Water Levels in Wells in the Chicot and Evangeline
   Aquifers in the Houston-Galveston Region, Texas, Spring 1981: U.S. Geological Survey Open
   File Report 81-676.

Gabrysch, R.K. (1982). Groundwater Withdrawals and Changes in Water Levels in the Houston
   District, Texas. 1975-79: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 82-431.

Gabrysch, R.K. (1983). The Impact of Land-Surface Subsidence in Impact of Science on Society.
   United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organizations.

Gabrysch, R.K. (1988). Approximate Water-Level Changes in Wells Completed on the Chicot and
   Evangeline Aquifers, 1977-88 and 1987-88, and Measured Compaction, 1973-88, in the Houston-
   Galveston Region, Texas: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 88-168.

Gabrysch, R.K. and Coplin, L. S. (1990). Land-Surface Subsidence Resulting from Ground-Water
   Withdrawals in the Houston-Galveston Region, Texas, Through 1987. Harris-Galveston Coastal
   Subsidence District Publication. Report of Investigations no. 90-01.



August 6, 1998
Gabrysch, R.K., and Coplin, L.S. (1995). Approximate Land-Surface Subsidence in Fort Bend
   County, Texas, 1943-87 and 1973-87: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report, in press.

Gabrysch, R.K., and Liscum, Fred (1995). Rainfall, Runoff, and Infiltration in the Houston, Texas
   Area. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report, in review.

Jones, Lonnie L., and Warren, John P. (1976). Land Subsidence Costs in the Houston-Baytown Area
   of Texas: Journal AWWA, November.

Jorgensen, Donald G. ( ). Geohydrologic Models of the Houston District, Texas. GROUND
    WATER, Journal of the National Water Well Association, vol. 19, no. 4.

Holzer, Thomas, Gabrysch, Robert K., and Verbeek, Earl R. (1983). Faulting Arrested by Control of
   Groundwater Withdrawal in Houston, Texas. U.S. Geological Survey Earthquake Information
   Bulletin, Nov-Dec. 1993, v. 15, no. 6.

Holzer, Thomas L., and Bluntzer, Robert L. (1984). Land Subsidence Near Oil and Gas Fields,
   Houston, Texas: GROUND WATER, Journal of the National Water Well Association, vol. 22,
   no. 4, July-August.

Holzer, Thomas L., and Gabrysch, R.K. (July-August 1987). Effects of Water-Level Recoveries on
   Fault Creep, Houston, Texas. GROUND WATER, Journal of the Association of Groundwater
   Scientists and Engineers. vol. 25, no. 4.

Jorgensen, Donald G., and Gabrysch, R.K. (1974). Simulated Water-Level Changes Resulting from
   Proposed Changes in Groundwater Pumping in the Houston, Texas Area. U.S. Geological Survey
   Open-File Report.

Jorgensen, Donald G. (1975). Analog-Model Studies of Groundwater Hydrology in the Houston
    District, Texas: Texas Water Development Board Report 190.

Kaczmarek, Mark C., Coplin, L.S., and Santos, Horatio X. (1996). Water-Level Altitudes 1996,
   Water-Level Changes 1990-96 and 1995-96, in the Chicot and Evangeline Aquifers, Fort Bend
   County and Adjacent Areas, Texas: U. S. Geological Survey, Report 96-164.

LBG-Guyton (1997). Ground-Water Model Review and Conversion Prepared for the Harris-
  Galveston Coastal Subsidence District.

Locke, Glenn L. (1990). Ground-Water Withdrawals, Water-Level Changes, Land-Surface
   Subsidence, and Ground-Water Quality in Fort Bend County, Texas, 1969-87: U.S. Geological
   Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 90-4012.

Long, J.W., Winslow, A.G., and White, W.N. (1950). Geology and Groundwater Resources of the
   Houston District, Texas: Texas Board of Water Engineers Bulletin 5001.

Meyer, Walter R., and Carr, Jerry E. (1979). A Digital Model for Simulation of Groundwater
  Hydrology in the Houston Area, Texas: Texas Department of Water Resources Report LP-103.


August 6, 1998
Muller, Daniel A., and Price, Robert D. (1979). Groundwater Availability in Texas: Estimates and
  Projections Through 2030: Texas Department of Water Resources Report 238.

Noble, J.E., Bush, P.W., Kaczmarek, Mark C., and Barbie, D.L. (1996). Estimated Depth to Water
   Table and Estimated Rate of Recharge in Outcrops of the Chicot and Evangeline Aquifers near
   Houston, Texas: U. S. Geological Survey Report 96-4018.

Noble, John E. (1997). Estimated Rate of Recharge in Outcrops of the Chicot and Evangeline
   Aquifers near Houston, Texas: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 179-97.

Petitt, B.M., Jr., and Winslow, A.G. (1955). Geology and Groundwater Resources of Galveston
    County, Texas: Texas Board of Water Engineers Bulletin 5502.

Pratt, W. E., and Johnson, D. W. (1926). Local Subsidence of the Goose Creek Oil Field. Journal
    Geology, v. 34, no. 7.

Texas Department of Water Resources (July 1979). Stratigraphic & Hydrologic Framework of Part
   of the Coastal Plain of Texas.

Texas Department of Water Resources. (1981). Groundwater Withdrawals and Land-Surface
   Subsidence in the Houston-Galveston Region, 1906-80. Report 287.

TEXAS GUIDEBOOK (1991). Land-Surface Subsidence in the Houston-Galveston Region.
  Proceedings, Fourth International Symposium on Land Subsidence, Houston, Texas 1991.

Trans-Texas Study Program (1994). Phase I Report.

Trans-Texas Water Program (1996). Planning Information Update.

Turner Collie & Braden (1996). Update of Population and Water Demand Forecasts for the Harris-
   Galveston Coastal Subsidence District.

WCL Enterprises (1998). Conversion Implementation Analysis DRAFT: WCL Enterprises for
  consideration by the Harris-Galveston Coastal Subsidence District

Wesselman, J.B. (1983). Ground-Water Resources of Fort Bend County, Texas: Texas Water
  Development Board Report 155.

Williams, J.F., III and C.E. Ranzau, Jr. (1985). Approximate Water-Level Changes in Wells in the
   Chicot and Evangeline Aquifers, 1977-85 and 1984-85, and Measured Compaction 1973-85, in
   the Houston-Galveston Region, Texas: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 85-158.

Winslow, A. G., and Doyel, W. W. (1954). Land-Surface Subsidence and its Relation to the
   Withdrawal of Ground Water in the Houston-Galveston Region, Texas: Econ. Geology, v. 49, no.
   4.




August 6, 1998
Winslow, A. G., and Wood, L. A. (1959). Relation of Land Subsidence to Ground-water
   Withdrawals in the Upper Gulf Coast Region, Texas: Mining Eng., Am. Inst. Mining Metall.
   Petroleum Engineers Trans.

Wood, L. A., Gabrysch, R.K., and Marvin, Richard (1963). Reconnaissance of the Groundwater
  Resources of the Gulf Coast Region, Texas: Texas Water Commission Bulletin 6305.

Wood, L. A., and Gabrysch, R.K. (1965). Analog Model Study of Groundwater in the Houston
  District, Texas with a Section on Design, Construction and Use of Analog Models.




August 6, 1998
Appendix B: Permit Application Process


       Application
        Received




                                                      Was an
       Was an                   Yes                                         No
                                                     Emergency
  Emergency Application                                                                      Inform Applicant
                                                     Application
      Received?
                                                     Approved?



                                                    Yes
     No




   Public Hearing Held
     on Application




           Do
                                             Does Hearing                 Preconference Hearing
        Applicant,             No                                                                                 Preconference
                                        Examiner Think that the    Yes     Scheduled. Hearing
   Staff, and Hearing                                                                                            Hearing Held for      Contested
                                        Issues Can be Resolved             Examiner May Issue
      Examiner's                                                                                                Presentation of the   Hearing Held
                                           Through Extensive             Temporary Permit for up
   Recommendations                                                                                                    Issues
                                               Discovery?                      to 4 Months.
          Agree?



                                               No
     Yes




        Present
   Recommendation to
     Board for Action




           Is                  No
       Application
                                         Application Denied               Inform Applicant
      Approved by
        Board?




     Yes



      Permit Issued



                         **See following pages for details




August 6, 1998
Applications

1. Receive application.

2. Check application for completeness, if not, hold until complete (Rule 5.2.b).

   2.1 If the application includes an application for an Emergency Permit, determine if it qualifies
        under Rule 5.5.a. If the application qualifies, approve Emergency Application and continue
        with Step 3.


   2.2 If an application for an Emergency Permit is not approved, inform the applicant. The
        applicant may appeal the decision by making a request in writing within ten business days of
        the ruling. The request is heard at the next regularly scheduled Board meeting.


3. Schedule the application for a public hearing and advertise in the newspaper. Some amendment
   applications may be included on the notice as well (Rule 5.2.c).


4. Send a copy of the Hearing Notice to each of the applicants and governmental officials (certified
   mail) (Rule 7.2.a).


5. Check for application fees (Rule 5.2.b).

   5.1 If application fees have not been received, the Office Manager sends a letter requesting
        payment within 10 days. Application is held until paid.
   5.2 If application fees are not paid after 10 days, the Director of Permit Services sends a letter
        (regular and certified mail) demanding payment within 7 days. Application is held until
        paid.
   5.3 If fees are not received, the District staff will recommend to ‘take no action’ on the
        application for failure to pay application fees. This would place the applicant in violation if
        the well has been drilled or is operating without a permit.

6. Send the new well applications (including existing wells not previously permitted) to a Field
   Representative to be plotted and reviewed for other miscellaneous information.



August 6, 1998
7. The Office Manager prepares the work sheet for all of the applications.


8. The Director of Permit Services reviews all applications to be considered during the hearing
     contacts all of the new applicants, including existing wells not previously permitted, as well as
     any applicants that there are questions regarding, and also verifies that the permittee has complied
     with any special provisions attached to the permit. If the permittee has not complied with all the
     special provisions on the current permit, then it will be recommended that the renewal application
     be continued until the following hearing. If the special provisions are still not complete, the
     District staff may make a recommendation with a special provision attached for the violation or
     issue a six-month permit with the provisions attached and only half the requested allocation.


9.   Public Hearing is held before the Hearing Examiner.

     9.1   Applicant makes a request, and the District staff makes a recommendation. If the Hearing
           Examiner feels that all parties have reached an agreed settlement, the proceeding will be
           considered uncontested (Rule 7.4.b). The Hearing Examiner may make a determination that
           the issues cannot be resolved and not declare the proceedings to be contested. If the
           Hearing Examiner declares the proceeding to be contested, then a prehearing conference
           shall be scheduled (Rule 7.4.c). Also, the Hearing Examiner may recommend issuance of a
           temporary permit for up to four months during this process (Rule 7.4.c).


     9.2   During the prehearing conference the Hearing Examiner may consider the designation of
           parties, formulation and simplification of issues, discovery, and other matters of concern
           (Rule 7.5.a.1).


     9.3   Contested hearing is held before the Hearing Examiner.


10. At the conclusion of the presentation of evidence, the Hearing Examiner will prepare a report. If
     the recommendation is different than what was requested or a special provision is recommended,
     then a copy of the recommendation is sent to the applicant when the Hearing Examiner’s book is
     sent to the Board, approximately one week prior to the Board Meeting (Rule 7.6.a). Prior to
     Board action, any party in a contested case may file written exceptions to the Hearing


August 6, 1998
    Examiner’s report, and any party to an uncontested case may request an opportunity to make an
    oral presentation (Rule 7.6.b).


11. The Hearing Examiner presents the Hearing Examiner’s Book to the Board. Any applicants
    present are given an opportunity to speak if desired. The Board may ask questions of the
    Hearing Examiner, the District staff, and/or the applicant. The Board then makes its decision
    (Rule 7.8.a).


12. Any decision by the Board may be appealed within 20 calendar days by requesting a rehearing
    before the Board (Rule 7.8.b).


13. A letter is sent out by the General Manager the afternoon of the Board Meeting to notify any
    applicants or permittees for which the Board approved a special provision, denied, or whose
    permit requests were modified.


14. The Hearing Examiner’s Book as approved is entered into the database system.


15. A computer printout of the data entered is checked against the approved book.


16. A Permit Fee Statement is printed for all new allocations authorized by the approved book. The
    permittee has 45 days to pay the permit fee statement (Rule 5.2.i.2). The permit does not
    become valid until paid (Rule 5.2.i.1).


     16.1 If the statement has not been paid, the Office Manager sends out a late notice.


     16.2 If the statement is still not paid after 30 days, the Director of Permit Services sends out a
           demand letter (certified and regular mail).


     16.3 If permit fee remains outstanding, the permittee is placed on the next hearing notice for
           voiding of the permit. A copy of the Hearing Notice is sent to the permittee by certified
           mail.



August 6, 1998
           16.3a The District staff makes a recommendation to void the permit for failure to pay the
                  permit fee statement.


           16.3b The Hearing Examiner recommends to the Board to void the permit for failure to
                  pay.


           16.3c The permit is then void effective the start date of the permit. This would place the
                  permittee in violation if the well has been drilled or is operating without a permit.


18. The permit is printed and mailed to the permittee.


19. Approximately four months prior to expiration of the permit, a renewal application is sent to the
    permittee and automatically placed on the hearing notice approximately 75 days prior to
    expiration.




August 6, 1998
Amendment Applications


Increasing Amount Allocated


       1. An amendment application to increase the permitted allocation can be considered as long
           as an application for amendment has been submitted before the present allocation has been
           exceeded (Rule 5.4.a).


       2. Check application for completeness, if not complete, hold until complete (Rule 5.2.b).


       3. Check for appropriate application fees (Rule 5.2.b). Continue from Step 5 (Applications).


       4. The District staff will do a cursory review of the application to see if it qualifies for in
           house approval by the General Manager (Rule 5.4.a.3).


            4.1 If it does, the application is approved. Continue from Step 14 (Applications).


            4.2 If it does not, the application will be scheduled for hearing. Continue from Step 3
                 (Applications).


If the Board or the General Manager approves the application, it is approved retroactively. If the
application is denied, the current allocation sets the amount that can be pumped. It is possible that
the Board’s action could immediately place the permittee in violation as a result of the denial.


Decreasing Amount Allocated


       1. An amendment application to decrease the permitted allocation can be considered as long
           as the request is made prior to payment of the permit fee statement and prior to the due
           date of the permit fee statement, whichever is earlier (Rule 5.4.b).


       2. The General Manager may grant such request without notice. Continue from Step 14
           (Applications).

August 6, 1998
Transfer Ownership of the Permit


       1. An application to amend the permit due to an ownership change must be submitted within
           90 days after the sale of the property (Rule 5.4.c).


       2. The General Manager may grant such request without notice. Continue from Step 14
           (Applications).


If the request is made after the 90-day period, no action is taken on the request, and the application
will then be treated as a previously permitted well. Continue from Step 2 (Applications)


Rebates


An application for a permit fee rebate must be filed within 90 days after the permit expires (Rule
5.6.a). The following will be considered in processing a rebate application (Rule 5.6.b):


1. A water meter must have been installed and operating during the entire permit term.


2. The amount of actual withdrawal during the permit term was less than the amount permitted.


3. The permit fee paid for the amount by which authorized withdrawal exceeded actual withdrawal
   is at least $100.


4. For public supply wells the accountability must be at least 85%.


The General Manager may rule on an application for rebate (Rule 5.6.c). Once a ruling is made,
notice of the ruling shall be served on the applicant. An applicant may appeal the General Manager’s
decision if the application is denied, by filing a written request for a hearing within ten days of the
date of service of the General Manager’s decision. The request will be presented at the next Board
meeting.



August 6, 1998
Registrations


All new wells must be registered before drilling can begin (Rule 5.1.a). The District staff will review
the form within 5 business days and process it as follows (Rule 5.1.b):


1. If the well to be drilled meets the exemptions provided in Rule 5.7, the registration form is signed
     and a copy is sent to the party that submitted the form.


2. If the well does not meet the exemptions of Rule 5.7 but an emergency application has been
     approved or a permit has been issued, the registration form is signed and a copy is sent to the
     party that submitted the form.


3.   If the well does not meet any of the above, the registration form is denied and a copy is sent to the
     party that submitted the form.




August 6, 1998
Appendix C: 8th Annual Groundwater Report




August 6, 1998
Appendix D: Glossary of Terms

Alluvium. A general term for clay, silt, sand, gravel, or similar unconsolidated material deposited
during comparatively recent geologic time by a stream or other body of running water.

Aquiclude. A saturated, but poorly permeable bed, formation, or group of formations that does not
yield water freely to a well or spring. An aquiclude may transmit appreciable water to or from
adjacent aquifers.

Aquifer. A formation, group of formations, or part of a formation that contains sufficient saturated
permeable material to yield economical quantities of water to wells and springs.

Artesian well. A well deriving its water from a confined aquifer in which the water level stands
above the top of the aquifer.

Artificial Recharge. Recharge at a rate greater than natural, resulting from deliberate actions of
man.

Benchmarks. A benchmark is a permanent point of known or assumed elevation, and should be
described in such a way that it may be located by anyone with the ability to read.

Compaction. A loss in overall volume and pore space of a fine-grained material as the particles are
packed closer together by the weight of overlying material.

Cone of Depression. A depression in the groundwater table or potentiometric surface that has the
shape of an inverted cone and develops around a well from which water is being withdrawn. It
defines the area of influence of a well.

Confined aquifer. An aquifer which contains groundwater under pressure between relatively
impermeable or significantly less permeable material and that would rise above the top of the aquifer.

CORS. (Continuous Operating Reference Station) A receiver mounted to a point for which the
vertical position is known to a high degree of accuracy and which is used to measure compaction
rates.

Downdip. Downward slope of a geologic formation.

Extensometer. A well drilled and cased to a selected depth into which a smaller diameter standpipe
has been installed. Compaction of the interval between the land surface and the bottom of the
standpipe is continuously monitored by a clock-driven recorder. If the standpipe extends to the base
of the compacting interval, the installation monitors total subsidence.

Fault. A fracture or a zone of fractures along which there has been displacement of the sides relative
to one another parallel to the fracture.

Fluviatile. Produced by a river.


August 6, 1998
Geoid. The equipotential surface of the earth’s gravitational field that best approximates mean sea
level.

Geodetic Surveying. In geodetic surveying, calculations for the reduction of measurements to
usable form are made using formulas based on the geometry and trigonometry of the figure of the
geoid or spheroid.

Geomatics. Is a new term for activities including surveying, mapping, photogrammetry, and
geographic information systems. (GIS).

Head. Energy contained in a water mass, produced by elevation, pressure, or velocity.

Hydraulic Conductivity. The rate of flow of water in gallons per day through a cross section of one
square foot under a unit hydraulic gradient, at the prevailing temperature (gpd/ft2). In the SI System,
the unites are M3/day/m2 or m/day.

Hydrogeologic. Those factors that deal with subsurface waters and related geologic aspects of
surface waters.

Level. Surveying to determine the elevation of a point on the land surface.

Lithologic. The scientific study of rocks, usually with the unaided eye or with little magnification.

MODFLOW. A three dimensional model that predicts potentiometric head responses to groundwater
pumpage.

Outcrop. The emergence of a mineral from the earth so as to be exposed on the surface.

PCBs. (Polychlorinated Biphenyls) A group of toxic, persistent chemicals.

PAM. (Port-A-Measure) A receiver of signals from satellites mounted in a trailer used to measure
compaction rates.

Permeability. The property or capacity of a porous rock, sediment, or soil for transmitting a fluid; it
is a measure of the relative ease of fluid flow under differential pressure.

Photogrammetry. May be defined as the science of making measurements from photographs in
order to determine size, shape, or position of the object photographed.

Piezometer. The pipe in which the elevation of the water level is measured to calculate hydraulic
head.

Porosity. The percentage of the bulk volume of a rock or soil that is occupied by interstices, whether
isolated or connected.

Potentiometric Surface. An imaginary surface representing the total head of groundwater in a
confined aquifer that is defined by the level to which water will rise in a well.


August 6, 1998
PRESS. (Predictions Relating Effective Stress and Subsidence) A clay compaction model used to
predict subsidence at sites throughout the District.

Recharge area. A land area in which water reaches to the zone of saturation from surface infiltration
(e.g. An area where rainwater soaks through the earth to reach an aquifer).

Recharge. The addition of water to the zone of saturation; also, the amount of water added.

Scarps. The abrupt steepening of the ground surface caused by surface faults.

Spirit Level. A spirit level is a small closed vessel of transparent material (glass) having the inside
surface of its upper part curved (circular in form); the vessel is nearly filled with a fluid of low
viscosity (alcohol or ether), with enough free space being left for the formation of a bubble (blister)
of air and gas which will always assume a position at the top of vessel as gravity pulls the fluid
downward.

Subsidence. The loss of elevation of the land surface caused by the withdrawal of fluid.

Tectonic. Designating or pertaining to changes in the structure of the earth’s crust, the forces
responsible for such deformation, or the external forms produced.

Transmissivity. The rate at which water is transmitted through a unit width of an aquifer under a
unit hydraulic gradient.

Zone of Saturation. A subsurface zone in which all rock openings are filled with water.




August 6, 1998

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:6
posted:9/11/2011
language:English
pages:67