Electro Purifications Application Background Overview of BSEACD - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Electro Purification’s Application

• Background
• Overview of BSEACD Permitting Process (NEW)
• Overview EP Application
• Drawdown technical discussion
• Potential for Unreasonable Impacts
• Proposed Plans to Avoid and Mitigate Impacts
• What will BSEACD do?
• TESPA’s Concerns

Background

• Formerly unregulated area of

Trinity Aquifer

• HB 3405 = BSEACD jurisdiction in

June 2015

• BSEACD implemented new rules

April 2016

• Special rules for “grandfathered”

temporary permits (Needmore)

• New rules for all other permits

BSEACD Permitting Process

BSEACD Permitting Process

• Rule 3-1.4 Permit Application Requirements
• Administratively Complete
• Statement about nature and purpose of proposed use
• Location and purpose of any water to be resold, leased, or transported
• Pumpage volume and rate
• Demand trends
• Hydrogeological Report/Aquifer test (over 2,000,000 gallons a year)
• Aquifer test work plan and monitoring well network if over 200,000,000

gallons a year

• Notice to landowners within ½ mile of proposed well if application is
• ver 2 million gallons

BSEACD Permitting Process

Rule 3-1.4A.10 – Potential for Unreasonable Impact Evaluation Unreasonable Impacts: Drawdown or reduction in artesian pressure that causes:

• Well interference (well doesn’t yield water, well isn’t producing as much

water as it used to, pump needs to be lowered beyond a reasonable pump intake level);

• The degradation of groundwater quality such that the water is unusable or

requires the installation of a treatment system;

• Desired Future Condition (DFC) not be achieved;
• Overdraft
• A significant decrease in springflow or baseflows; or land subsidence.

BSEACD Permitting Process

Rule 3-1.4G

• Evaluation based on best available science, Hydrogeologic Report, aquifer

test, and other factors

• District issues preliminary finding of PUI or not
• If PUI is found, applicant may directly refer to board or must submit a

compliance monitoring plan and monitoring well network and impact avoidance plan and may submit a mitigation plan

• Applicant given 90 extra days for BSEACD review period

Rule 3-1.11B describes compliance, monitoring, and mitigation requirements

BSEACD Permitting Process

• If PUI, then 90 extra days given until District issues a preliminary decision or a proposed

permit

• Water Code 36.113(d):before granting or denying a permit, District shall consider whether

the proposed use of water unreasonably affects existing groundwater and surface water resources or existing permit holders…and that the proposed use of water is dedicated to any beneficial use

• Rule 3-1.6A: Factors District must consider when approving or denying a permit
• Beneficial Use/Non Speculative
• Won’t cause waste
• Will not unreasonably affect existing groundwater and surface water resources by

causing PUI (No well interference, will not impact DFC)

• Rule 3-1.6AB: Provide written notification to applicant of decision and that application is

administratively complete

BSEACD Permitting Process

Electro Purification Timeline

• October 2016: EP conducts aquifer test
• 7.13.17: EP submits application
• 10.11.17: District requests more information from EP
• 11.16.17

– 12.14.17: EP submits revisions to application

• 10.10.17 – 2.19.18: BSEACD conducts series of

evaluations of EP’s hydrogeological report

Electro Purification Timeline

• 2.20.18: BSEACD finding that EP application has Potential

to Cause Unreasonable Impacts

• 3.21.18: EP Submits proposed compliance monitoring plan
• 3.30.2018: BSEACD request for additional information
• 4.13.18: EP’s proposed compliance monitoring plan
• 5.1.18: EP submits mitigation plan
• 5.21.18: BSESAD preliminary decision deadline

Current Application

• Seven Wells (Bridges Wells No.

1, 2, 3, & 4 and Odell Wells No. 1, 2, and 3).

• Bridges Wells, 1, 2, and Odell 2

will be used as PWS wells

• Odell Well 1 and 3 and Bridges 4

and 3 will be used as domestic wells or capped until EP needs additional supply.

• Bridges Well 5 and 6 have not

been drilled and are not part of current application

• 2.5 MGD = 913M gallons a year

= 2800 acre feet a year from Cow Creek

• GoForth only customer

Proposed Pipeline

• 11.24 mile pipeline
• along 3237 and 150, then south of

Mountain City to Goforth

• Run through Halifax Ranch or COA

lands depending on which side of 150

• ROW utilization unlikely

Status Update

• EP has performed pumping tests on three wells sealed in the Cow Creek

formation of the Middle Trinity Aquifer in 2016, issued hydrogeologic report in 2017

• Significant drawdown of the aquifer was measured
• EP has proposed a well field consisting of seven well at full capacity (2.5 MGD)
• BSEACD analyzed the data and determined there is the potential for

unreasonable impacts

• BSEACD rules gave EP several options to proceed
• EP chose to prepare impact avoidance plan, compliance monitoring plan and

mitigation plan to address the unreasonable impacts (several versions were submitted)

• Plans are currently being reviewed by BSEACD and a permit being prepared which

will contain special provisions

Three Productive Zones

• Edwards/Upper Glen Rose
• Lower Glen Rose
• Cow Creek

Pumping 1700 GPM for One Year

Potential Unreasonable Impacts

• 1. Well interference that causes one or more wells to cease to yield water: This

condition is very likely, without special permit conditions and avoidance measures.

• 2. Well interference that significantly decreases yield of other wells to the extent it

prevents the wells from providing an authorized, historic, or usable amount or rate of water production: This condition is almost certain, without special permit conditions and avoidance measures.

• 3. Well interference that lowers the water levels below the physical or economically

feasible level of pump intakes: This condition is almost certain, without special permit conditions and avoidance measures.

• 4. Degradation of water quality in other wells such that the native water is unusable for

its current purpose: This condition is not determinable on the basis of existing information, but its likelihood is probably spatially variable.

From BSEACD Tech Memo 2018-0219

Compliance Plan

Driftwood Multiport Index Compliance Well (Lower Glen Rose, Cow Creek triggers) Cow Creek Member Monitor Wells

• 1) Bowman Well;
• 2) Ochoa Well;
• 3) Lowe Well;
• 4) Wood 01 Well;
• 5) Escondida Well; and
• 6) EP Western Monitoring Well (to be completed).

Lower Glen Rose Well

• Odell No. 1

Upper Glen Rose Well

• EP UGR Monitoring Well

EP Western Monitoring Well

EP Proposed Avoidance Actions

• Phase I: (.75 MGD) = 273,750,000 gallons per year
• Phase II: (1.25 MGD) = 456,250,000 gallons per year
• Phase III: (1.75 MGD) = 638,750,000 gallons per year
• Phase IV: (2.25 MGD) = 821,250,000 gallons per year
• Phase V: (2.5 MGD) = 912,500,000 gallons per year

EP Proposed Avoidance Actions (con’t)

General Criteria to Move to Next Phase

• Aquifer Conditions must not have reached compliance Level 2
• Must have produced 70% of Phase I volume for 6 months
• Must have contracts in place that Support Phase II volume
• Must have mitigated any unanticipated unreasonable impacts
• Permittee must notify General Manager in writing to request

move to next Phase.

• Submit updated Compliance Monitoring, Impact Avoidance and

Mitigation Plans, if appropriate

EP Proposed Avoidance Actions (con’t)

To move from II-III, III-IV or IV-V

• Must have mitigated any “unanticipated unreasonable impacts”

that occurred as a result solely of production from the EP Well Field during the preceding phase.

EP Proposed Avoidance Actions (con’t)

Offer at EP’s expense to lower well owners’ pump below the Compliance Monitor Level 4 trigger or to base of the well (whichever is deeper) prior to EP’s commencement of pumping;

• Cow Creek wells (Cow Creek Compliance Level 4);
• Lower Glen Rose wells (Lower Glen Rose Compliance Level 4).

Eligible Wells

• Existing within the impact avoidance area of the wellfield

documented to be in place on the date of the BSEACD preliminary permit determination

• After that date, series of onerous conditions to qualify for pump

lowering

EP Proposed Avoidance Actions (con’t)

Impact Avoidance Area

Wells are located in Hays County within a 2 mile radius from the EP Well Field; and Wells will be completed in the Cow Creek Member of the Middle Trinity Aquifer or the Lower Glen Rose Formation of the Middle Trinity Aquifer; and Wells will have the well pump set to produce from an elevation of 703 feet or less belowground level for Cow Creek wells and 510 ft or less below ground level for Lower Glen Rose wells. (12 CC wells, no discrete LGR wells and seven unknown)

Mitigation Plan

A tool to address unanticipated unreasonable impacts to existing groundwater users attributable to groundwater production by EP that could not be addressed and because of circumstances either unknown to EP and/or the District at the time of approval of EP’s Permit or were unanticipated due to circumstances beyond EP’s control.

Mitigation Plan Eligibility

• 1. Designated Impact Area - the location of the allegedly impacted well in

the area of influence of EP Well Field (the “DIA”) identified in Attachment A to this Mitigation Plan.

• 2. Well Construction and Completion – evidence of whether the allegedly

impacted well was (i) in operation prior to the commencement of production from the EP Well Field, (ii) completed to the state’s minimum standards in place at the time of construction, and (iii) in compliance with the District’s Rules, including the District’s well construction rules, if applicable.

• 3. Groundwater production zone - The allegedly impacted well must be

completed in and withdraw water from the formation or the hydrologically connected formations in which the production wells operating in the EP Well Field are completed.

Mitigation Plan Eligibility

• 4. Natural Variability in Water Levels – The allegedly impacted well must

have been in an operational condition such that it was adequately completed and adequately equipped to account for water level drawdown attributed to drought conditions, seasonal increases in local pumping, normal pumping usage, and pumping from neighboring wells in the DIA.

• 5. Time of Occurrence – The allegedly impacted well was functioning as an

adequate operational well prior to the issuance of EP’s permit. The alleged unreasonable impact well issue occurred after the production at the EP Well Field commenced.

• 6. Well Registration - A well owner must have previously registered the

allegedly impacted well, or must be willing to immediately register their well, and operate the same in compliance with the District’s Rules at the time that a well impact claim is filed.

Process for Review of Impacts

STEP 1. WELL OWNER – Contractor Diagnostics and Well Impact Complaint Form (30 days) STEP 2. DISTRICT REVIEW - Verification of Diagnostics and Inspection (15 days) STEP 3. DISTRICT REVIEW - Verification of Eligibility for Mitigation & Monitor Well Evaluation (45 days) STEP 4. DISTRICT NOTICE – Notification of Unreasonable Well Impact Determination

Mitigation Options

• Lower the well pump
• Deepen the well
• Connect to an existing water purveyor
• Reimbursement
• Monetary settlement

Reasonable/Non Speculative Demand

Beneficial Use:

• Applicant has to provide a statement about the proposed use of

water

• Copy of contract for sale, lease, or transfer of groundwater
• Estimated or calculated per capita/or household consumption

Whole Sale Projects: Only look at the Contract

Impact to DFC

• DFC for Trinity Aquifer in GMA 10 is “average regional well drawdown not

exceeding 25 feet during average recharge conditions.”

• BSEACD will look at the permit volume compared to the Modeled Available

Groundwater (MAG)

• MAG for Trinity in Hays County is 3,557 acre feet
• MAG for Trinity in GMA 10 is 1,288 acre feet
• Total groundwater pumping in Hays County in 2013 estimated at 5,061 acre feet
• EP Permit is 2800 acre feet
• BSEACD did not consider impact to DFC in the PUI evaluation
• But Water Code requires that Districts must manage groundwater to achieve the

DFC, so District will look at it before issuing permit

• But there is a different MAG for this white area.

Procedure Moving Forward

• May 21st deadline
• Notice 10 days to publish
• 20 day comment period and deadline to submit contested case

request

What Will BSEACD Do?

WHAT WE KNOW:

• They are NOT going to reduce the permit request
• Will use the phased approach. EP will only be ”authorized” to

produce the amount for each phase depending on what the data says. WHAT WE DON’T KNOW:

• What the final Compliance Monitoring Plan, Impact Avoidance

Measures, or Mitigation Plan will look like

TESPA’s Concerns

• Overdraft situation
• EP admits they will be pumping storage (deplete storage -- reduce head –

increase gradient flow downward = impacts to Glen Rose)

• Impact to desired future condition (MAG??)
• BSEACD has not factored pumping from Needmore permit
• Within well field taking all available water from the Cow Creek
• Lots of unknowns about long term impact
• Phased approach shifts risk on aquifer and existing wells. Leaves no
• pportunity for landowners to protest between phases.

TESPA’s Concerns

• Compliance wells not distributed throughout the impact avoidance area
• Long term monitoring necessary to determine impact avoidance area
• Well owners in the HTGCD have no recourse, participation in mitigation

plan

Questions?