>> Good morning everybody.
And for those who don't know me, I'm Robert Mace, I'm Deputy Executive Administrator here
at the Texas Water Development Board who run the Water Science & Conservation group here.
Thank you all for being here and showing interest in providing comments
or perhaps just looking and listening what other people say
about implementation of House Bill 30.
Just briefly, we've got to-- I guess,
if anybody here that's TWDB staff or my staff could stand up.
We've got a number of folks here.
And you're going to hear from John Meyer.
So, we have a number folks here, they're going to be taking notes, listening.
We've got somebody from legal here.
So, a very interesting here which you have to say, of course, in this solicitation,
we had pointed out some specific things we are looking to hear on.
You're also going to hear about some key questions by John Meyer but ultimately,
it's open for any comments you have about the implementation that we're going to go
through in putting this bill together.
Also, we're please to have with us one of our Board Members, Director Kathleen Jackson.
Miss Jackson, would you like to say something?
>> Thank you Robert.
I really appreciate everybody being here.
And wow, what a great turnout.
The stakeholder process is extremely important.
We're really pleased that the legislator has tasked us
with studying the brackish aquifers across Texas.
And we think that there is amazing opportunities moving forward not just with brackish desal.
but with many other strategies to make sure that we're developing water for Texas.
I'm here in listening mode.
I know that Bech already said he could be here as well, of course, from the quorum standpoint,
two of us can't be on the same place at the same time.
So, I'm here representing the Board and really just listening to thoughts
and ideas which I think is so important.
This is, I think, really a great opportunity because it's early on in the process.
And then, I know that as we move forward, we're going to be continuing to ask
for stakeholder input as we move forward.
So, I just want to appreciate everybody being here,
and bringing with you your thoughts and ideas.
>> I'm sure many of you followed House Bill 30
in its different permutations as it went through session.
Of course, we're here today to talk about how it finally passed and broadly,
what it represents is a science study of looking
at the Board designating brackish groundwater production zones.
And, there's a lot of science, arguably pure science, involved there,
but there's also some policy questions that are wrapped up in this bill, you know, for example,
impacts on resources that are above or perhaps lateral to groundwater production zones
that we're really looking for some feedback from you all.
And John shortly is going to provide an overview of what's in the bill,
and kind of where we're looking to get forward with the work process.
We do have out on the street now request for qualifications for what we call phase one
of the studies as well as phase two of the studies, that phase one has
to be done before we go on to the next session, and then phase two
at some point a little bit later.
John will discuss those deadlines.
Ideally, we would have waited until we have this meeting before we put those RFQs out,
but time is of the essence.
We have some very short deadlines, legislative deadlines.
One thing I do I want to assure you though, is with the contracted work,
that work is focused on the science.
And any of the designations or recommendations of designations are going to come
from agency staff and specifically the executive administrator when it goes to the Board
for a designation decision, at some point, next year.
So, hopefully the fact, the request
for qualifications went out, it didn't cause anybody concern.
There's still, as Director Jackson noted, plenty of opportunities for stakeholder input.
We tried to create several ways for you all to provide feedback, you know,
there's still time to do written commentary.
And we have a deadline of-- was it the 30th or the 31st, 30th, Friday?
>> Yeah, October 31st, Friday.
>> For this Friday, let's just going to kind of get focused for people
to send us comments so we can start processing them.
But, really, any point during this process, don't hesitate to reach
out to us, and let us know what you think.
Also, as Director Jackson eluded, there are opportunities
for stakeholder involvement going forward.
We anticipate the consultants as well as internal studies
that we're doing with staff, go forward.
Once the data is collected then we would have a discussion with stakeholders on potential areas
to look at closer for brackish groundwater production zone designation.
When you came in and signed in, we gave you all some comment sheets.
And since we've got such a big crowd here today, what we're asking is for you to--
if you want to get up and say something verbal, we're going to pass around a microphone.
Please fill that out and we'll have somebody come up the aisle
at some point and collect the sheets.
If you hear something somebody is saying, you're like, "Dang it, now I want to make a comment,"
then fill it out very quickly and give it to us,
and we'll make sure you get your moment in the limelight.
Show us a note that these proceedings are being recorded.
Then, we also have folks taking notes as well.
So, first step on the agenda then, well, second up on the agenda, I was first,
is a brief presentation on House Bill 30 from John Meyer.
And John is our technical lead in working on this project.
John?
>> Well, thank you all for coming today.
I'm glad the weather cleared up a little bit so we had safe travel here.
You know, we had quite a rainstorm here in Austin this weekend.
What I want to talk to you today is kind of what House Bill 30 contains and how we're going
to begin to implement this particular, you know, legislation within the Water Development Board.
So, House Bill 30 goes ahead and directs the Board
to map brackish groundwater production zones across the state, all the major, minor aquifers.
We have to go ahead and put up all these information
into a report that is due to the legislator.
Every even numbered year starting-- the next report is due December 1st 2016.
Within that legislation, it's specified that four aquifers have to be mapped and complete
by the report next year, which is about real tight timeframe that Robert mentioned for us
to get the SoQ's out for us to get this information contracted
out and back to the Board?
So, those four aquifers are the Gulf Coast, the Carrizo-Wilcox specifically
between the Colorado River and the Rio Grande, the Blaine and then the Rustler aquifer.
And then the remaining aquifers, we're going to go ahead, get those mapped by December 1st,
2022 which is also specified in the legislation.
And specifically within the House Bill 30 and we've got a copy of the bill, you know,
at the front desk if you haven't seen the most latest signed version of it.
A House Bill 30 indicates that the Board has to identify and designate local
or regional brackish groundwater production zones and areas of the state with moderate
to high availability and productivity of brackish groundwater that can be used
to reduce the use of fresh groundwater and that.
And then, there's some very specific place where we can designate these zones.
These zones have to be separated by hydrogeologic barriers,
sufficient to prevent significant impact, and that significant impact is something we're going
to talk about today, to water availability or water quality
in areas of the same or other aquifers.
Subdivisions of aquifers or geologic strata that have an average total dissolved solids level
of 1000 milligrams per liter or less at a time of designation.
And then, there's also some exclusion in where we can't designate zones
and I'll mention those a little bit later here in the presentation.
So, this is all going to kind of build upon the BRACS Program which stands
for Brackish Resources Aquifer Characterization System that we begun in 2009.
So, we've mapped a few aquifers across the state.
And we're going to be folding that information into this current legislation.
Our objective is to map in a very sufficient detail,
the brackish groundwater resources of each major, minor aquifer.
We collect and load a lot of information, you know,
a custom database called the BRACS database.
It's very similar to the groundwater database design,
but it's able to hold all the additional types
of information we need to kind of do our studies.
And then, we maintain a collection of well reports and geophysical well logs in order
for us to kind of look at that that those deeper brackish sections of the aquifers.
And then, one of things that the Board has always done is make all this information
available, you know, to the public, both on our web site, or if you need some of the really,
really large file sizes of the geophysical logs, you can get in touch with us
and we can get that information out to you.
So, the salinity classification that we used within the Board,
zero to 1000 milligrams per liter is considered fresh.
The brackish portion, we call it slight saline and moderately saline.
That's either 1 to 3000, or 3000 to 10,000.
And then in our studies, we also go ahead and map the very saline zone
which is 10,000 all the way to 35,000.
And for our reference, 35,000 is approximately equal to seawater.
So our approach in kind of conducting and implementing this legislation is today,
we're holding the initial stakeholder meeting.
And as Robert mentioned, there's going to be plenty of opportunity during the course
of the individual studies as well as this process, you know, over stakeholder input.
Our objective is to map the entire brackish groundwater resource for each aquifer.
So we really want to map the whole aquifer and then we will subdivide that part
into this brackish groundwater production zones, yeah, according to the legislation.
Once that's done, we'll propose potential production areas.
Now, we use that term different than the brackish groundwater production zones
because the actual Board has to go ahead and make that recommendation.
So from the science standpoint, we're going to take a look
at these potential production areas in each aquifer.
Have a stakeholder meeting to talk about those things.
We're going to prioritize those areas within each of the aquifers for further study.
We'll then do the impact analysis on the 30 and 50 year pumping requirements.
Then, we will propose these brackish groundwater production zones to our executive administrator.
And then, we will present the executive administrator's recommendations to the Board.
This first set of aquifers, that's going to happen next fall.
And then we're going to present all the study findings in this biennial seawater
and brackish groundwater report that's due to the legislature.
So, I'll go through a whole series of maps with a bunch of aquifers that are
on each map that have similar objectives.
As Robert mentioned, we put out an SoQ, Statement of Qualifications.
That's going to be due November 6th of this fall.
This is for the 2016 contracts which will be the Blaine,
Carizzo-Wilcox, Gulf Coast and Rustler aquifers.
We also had a little money leftover from the legislator.
So, we're also going to be doing three more aquifers with this round of funding that's going
to be the Blossom, the Nacatoch and the Trinity.
These are going to be due in August 2017 because we don't actually have a date specified
on legislation for when these are due.
So we're going to defer this to 2017 because we have to use
up all the money by that point in time.
The remaining aquifers across the state are going to be studied by Board staff.
And we've got six and a half people that are going
to be working specifically on this project.
And we will probably organizing these aquifers in teams of two staff per aquifer
so we'll be doing three studies concurrently.
So you can take a look at the list of aquifers, I won't name each one.
We've also got four aquifers across the state.
And from the data that we have at this point,
we don't have any significant brackish groundwater within it.
So we don't propose to do studies on these aquifers, however, if within the course of time
if we find additional information out there, we may go ahead and schedule this for study.
These aquifers are the Igneous in West Texas, the Marathon,
the Marble Falls which can barely kind of see in the center part of the state
around the Llano Uplift and then the Rita Blanca.
And then we do have a number of aquifers where we do have significant use
of brackish groundwater in parts of these aquifers.
And the legislation specifically indicates
that we can't designate brackish groundwater production zones in areas
where there is also significant brackish groundwater being used at this point in time.
And so especially in West Texas, we got the Hueco-Mesilla Bolsons, the West Texas Bolsons,
the Seymour Aquifer, parts of the Ogallala Aquifer,
the Edwards-Trinity High Plain and then the Blossom Aquifer.
So we're going to be taking a look at these aquifers very carefully to determine, you know,
if we do need to designate zones in parcel them or maybe, we're going to defer that post-2022.
And then we've got four GCDs across the State in which the legislation specifically indicates
that we can't designate brackish groundwater production zones.
So within the Gulf Coast Aquifer, we've got the Fort Bend
and the Harris-Galveston Coastal Subsidence Districts.
So when we study the Gulf coast, we're going to map the entire Gulf Coast Aquifer with respect
to the brackish groundwater resources.
But we can actually designate brackish groundwater production zones
within the boundaries of those two districts.
Also with respect to the Edwards Aquifer, the Balcones Fault Zone portion of that,
we've got two GCDs, the Edwards Aquifer Authority
and then the Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer Conservation District.
We can't designate any brackish groundwater production zones within those areas as well.
However, there are some areas that are outside of the district boundaries
and there may be some areas that are down deep and maybe more saline,
they would fall in within that range.
So we've got to do some more like internally to figure it out, you know, exactly the conditions
where we may want to conduct a study and work with those districts on that.
So at this point in time, we'll kind of get in to the questions.
Robert do you want to kind of emcee this or?
Oh and that's the clicker.
>> So, let me stress that we want to hear your comments regardless on what it is, you know,
how you felt about that UT game, how the Yankees are doing, you know.
But there are three questions that we've identified as staff that we're
in particular looking for feedback on.
Again we're scientists, we're good at, you know, looking at the well logs and mapping
out the geology and making the estimates on the volumes of water of varying qualities.
But there are some, lack of a better term, mushy terms in the bill that, you know,
our Board is going to have to make a decision on and, you know,
staff is going to have to advise the Board.
And so, you know, before we make a decision, we want to hear your thoughts.
One of those key terms, I'm not going to read that paragraph
but one of the key terms is "significant impact".
And so, you know, this legislation is looking to define groundwater,
brackish groundwater production zones.
And one of the requirements is that they're separated by hydrogeologic barriers sufficient
to prevent significant impacts to water variability,
water quality in any area the same or other aquifers.
So significant, we're looking for some feedback on that.
A one hand, maybe one foot of water level decline through a confining layer
into a fresh water system could be considered significant.
One person might be 10 foot to another person.
So we're looking for some feedback there, how we should define that, what that number should be,
what do you consider significant.
Also, we're looking for separated by hydrologic barriers sufficient
to prevent significant impacts.
And so, what those hydrologic barriers mean?
Obviously, a physical barrier like a, you know, a clay or a shale above a brackish layer
that separates that brackish layer from a fresh water above, clearly a hydrogeologic barrier.
Perhaps laterally, you've got a sandstone aquifer,
you got brackish-- here's a fault, a barrier fault.
And on the other side, you've got fresh
so I think that's probably clearly hydrologic barrier.
Is distance enough to be a hydrologic barrier?
In other words, you've got sandstone, you've got brackish down here, you got fresh over here,
can you pump over here and have minimal impacts on the fresh
and for that to be considered a hydrogeologic barrier?
That's a little more hydrogeologically exoteric than significant impacts.
So maybe we'll hear from our hydrogeologic friends out there.
And then significant source, so if--
to a certain degree, we've kind of already made some demarcation as you heard from John
that if folks are already producing water from a brackish groundwater resource,
then that would take that off the table as a designated
and as a brackish groundwater production zone.
A good example of that is the Bone Spring-Victorio Peak,
that aquifer is completely brackish.
There's to the tune of what?
Seventy thousand, 80,000 acre feet a year pulled from that system.
That sounds significant.
That sounds like a significant source of brackish water to me.
But where is the lower limit on that?
You know, is it enough for a few farmers to have windmill, water for their cattle.
Is that a significant source?
Is it something higher than that or even is it something lower than that?
So those are the three key questions that we're looking for feedback on.
But again, you know, any thoughts you have, we do want to hear.
It doesn't mean that we've identified all the issues that we need to hear about.
And truly, we haven't made any decisions on this.
We really do want to hear from stakeholders on this as we go forward.
I should also note that, yeah, we're seeking input at this point, but I'm not going to say
when exactly we'll make a decision on this.
And it could be postponed awhile as the studies go forward.
And really ultimately, you know, as an agency, we don't have to make a decision on these things
until we take it to the Board for approval.
So, as far as meeting format is concerned,
what they want to stress is this is not a role-making process.
You know, so if it's a rule-making process, I just have to seat here and say thank you
for your comment, everything you said.
So there can be a little bit of back and forth, particularly if you have questions.
We don't want to spar with anybody on a comment they made.
Your comment is your comment, we respect that, but we are open to taking questions.
And sometimes, the best comments can come in a question format,
especially if it's a question we haven't considered before.
So this is more informal along those lines in terms
of us being able to harvest ideas and thoughts.
I don't know if you want to pass or whoever wants to speak.
I guess who's going to pick them up?
Erica and Sanjeev [assumed spelling].
Got a lot of folks here and so who wants to speak?
Kind of gives me an indication how much time--
looks like only Mary Saws [assumed spelling] so she gets the hour and--
[ Laughter ]
We'll make sure we give everybody an opportunity to speak if they want to speak.
I also want to note that obviously, we have a board member here today.
The chairman can't be here because it would have to be a posted meeting, that would be a quorum.
And so he passes his regrets but Kathleen's here to--
with ears wide open to hear everything you'll have to say.
The only thing I would say is if you make a verbal comment, if you're so moved,
we would encourage you to submit in a written comment.
That helps us a lot and that, you know,
we get it in your words rather than taking it from notes.
We are recording this.
I noted earlier but, yeah, you might want to be more effusive in your comment later on.
So please, go ahead and send in written comments if you so choose.
And then, the other thing I wanted to stress before we go into taking comments and I guess,
we do have a microphone so I'll call of a name and-- how many we have there Sanjeev?
>> Two.
>> Two? There's a lot of lurkers in the room.
Is that-- yeah, this bill at this point is just asking the Board to make these designations.
And at this point, there is no regulatory requirements
or strings attached to this designation.
It doesn't mean there's not going to be in the future but I just want to stress that that
at this point, the Board is being asked to make these designations.
The first few of them will happen before the end of next year, before next session.
So Mary?
>> Robert, I know you were surprised that I would have something to say [laughter].
I saw everybody just fall out off their chairs.
I wanted to chat a little bit with you about the significant source of water supply
for municipal, domestic or agricultural purposes.
I noticed as you mentioned, the map showed some demarcations that you've already made.
And it sounded in your follow-up comment that perhaps those were made based
on volume of water that's being used.
>> Mm-hmm.
>> Now, it seems like during the legislative session, of course, at that time,
a lot of the bills had regulatory impacts.
There was some concern by groundwater districts, scarcely populated but who's constituents
or land owners, well owners only used brackish water
because that's really all that was available.
But it wouldn't be a large volume.
Is there any thought to talking about that?
Working on that issue?
>> Well, you're making a comment to bring it up, I would encourage groundwater districts
or other local entities or locals that have concerns to let us know in writing ideally
with some information on supporting the concern.
>> And so, really when you guys started thinking about it, you were just thinking in terms
of areas where a lot of volume of brackish was being used?
>> Correct.
And that's, yeah, I can't throw out a number.
>> No.
>> It was just clearly like for example, Bone spring Victorio Peak clearly
that in our mind couldn't be designated because of the appreciable amount
of use for agricultural purposes.
>> Yeah.
>> It gets more challenging as that relative amount of pumping comes down.
Another reason that we've take in some aquifers off the table upfront is we have a very
ambitious schedule with limited resources.
And so those that, you know, if an aquifer is all fresh, we don't need to look at it.
So, we took those off the table.
And those that already have appreciable use, we took those off the table just to reduce the--
for good reason but also to reduce the amount of work that we have to do whether
with our contractors or with internal resources.
>> Right. And I think my second comment has to do with your comment that letting us all know
that there's no regulatory impact to this at this point.
And I'm assuming that everybody here followed the ins and outs of this and the legislation.
And the focus of the earlier parts of the legislation or the earlier versions
of the legislation were to perhaps lessen the regulatory burden in terms of production permits
in ultimate groundwater production zones.
And although it's true that this legislation doesn't mention that and this is not going
to be regulatory, I think that we would be remiss if we pretended like that didn't exist
because that's going, I think, going to inform the position that's going to be taken
by a lot of the groundwater districts.
Conceivably, if you had a groundwater production or brackish groundwater production zone
in your groundwater district under some of these precursor bills,
the groundwater districts authority to regulate it would be watered down.
Ha ha! So to speak.
>> We've got Paul Weatherby [assumed spelling] up next.
You see, he's right there.
>> Probably go not to sit down Robert, I can't do both here.
Well anyway, thank you for the opportunity to make these comments.
We were striving to try to contain the comments for today's issue to the issue at hand.
But as she said it's kind of hard for us to realize what all we should bring up.
But with the said, we've always, at Middle Pecos Groundwater District,
has always supported the science, tried to use the science and at the same time,
protect and reserve our water forever.
I always have trouble trying to get in line with some
of those thinking 30-year, 50-year supply, whatever.
I expect us to have a million years of supply.
Our permitting process is whether is 2 acre feet
or 50,000 acre feet should be good for as long as it's needed.
And we manage that water accordingly.
So with that said, you notice in the bill when it came out,
brackish groundwater is a potential new source for production.
Well I don't know where they got the word new.
In Pecos County, we've been producing it for hundreds of years
from all the aquifers whether they're fresh or brackish.
They came up with 1,000 TDS and that's fine.
We've been drinking 1400, 1500 TDS for years which we consider fresh water.
So I'm a little confused on how definite you all are going to apply that--
the science or whatever to an aquifer whenever varies.
As we all know across the aquifer itself, it also varies as to the production
of the aquifer along itself, we have real fresh water available.
And if you over-pump this within a week with your irrigation, wells,
et cetera, then it tends to turn brackish.
Then it'll freshen up when you get off of it.
You know, I don't know how you all are going to come about with that science to come
in of not just our county but I'm here representing our county I don't know how you are
going to come in and say, all right, this is going to be a brackish management zone.
But today, it's fresh but, I don't know, it's just confusing.
We--
We notice that on this immediate study that you all have to do is you have the Rustler.
I assume you all are going to pinpoint up-- pin point at Rustler for this initial study.
We know it's brackish all the way across but we also know which used extensively in the county.
We ask for exemption status from the study et cetera in the beginning and that fell
on deaf ears even though parts of Texas was, ours wasn't.
We are one of the largest counties and we sure we have a lot
of that Rustler Aquifer [inaudible] that's being utilized.
And I hope during the study that the Water Development Board which we work with you all
on a weekly, daily basis and your record will show that,
that we hope that you all have the final finding that we can manage this water
and make it available and still protected for future generations.
With that, being established as a specific management zone covering hundreds and hundreds
and hundreds of square miles of aquifer in Pecos County.
And I won't get in the day, well, I'm scared of it might happen in he next 10 years
if that is established as a management zone and it goes into where it's outside the regulation
of a GCD but that's another story.
The nonexempt wells as she mentioned, I mean, the exempt wells that she mentioned,
we have submitted them, a 2 acre field.
We have thousands of them in Pecos County, they're fresh and brackish on the same ranch.
I want to continue in basis, they're brackish or fresh on the same area, same place.
And I hope you all take that and I'm sure you will get with us on specific areas of use.
And I don't know whether they addressed the DFC, now or they are not.
I don't know if it's appropriate, but I know that if a management zone gets established
by the state that if we can't continue our DFC process,
we have to work around that zone although that's out the window,
but throw the DFC thing out I guess.
Our springs, we had 32 years ago.
Now, we've just got very Pecos Springs, Santa Rosa come in, she's dried up.
Diamond Y, Diamond Y Spring is primarily-- the Rustler Aquifer provides Diamond Y Spring.
It's a federally protected with endangered species and stuff.
If you take it out of the picture, well, it-- does the rest of Rustler--
that's part of the Rustler Aquifer.
Yeah, I just don't understand right now and I hope that communicating with TWDB, you know,
how this process is going to work its way
through to further protect our springs or to continue to protect them.
And the bill mentioned oil gas industry.
Of course, we support that, you know, we do just like everybody else,
90% of our tax money comes from there.
But I know in other area where you're looking at brackish water sources, we have an enormous part
of the county which is bigger that some counties in Texas that have water that is being used,
that is not even in the Water Development Board database as designated aquifer.
And it's an enormous amount of water.
We've used the words alluvial water, most of is toward the Pecos River.
We've called it the San Andres primarily, that's all field talk, what is kind of the formation,
where it comes from, the San Andres.
That water is virtually today flowing on the ground and has for years and we're working to--
we're actually working right now to contain that and utilize it for industrial municipal use.
But-- I guess, it would be brackish because some of it is up to 30,000 TDS and some
of it is not before a thousand or 6000 TDS.
But where is it at?
I guess, you all are going to study, just come out there and look,
I don't know how are you going to do it because you don't have the science on that aquifer,
it's 2000 feet down there, we know that from all field reports.
It's 3 to 500 feet thick if you had lucky enough to get with BEG and find their records.
To some places, it's not that thick.
Some, it may be more, it's like the Capitan Reef, a lot of--
there's not a lot of information on it.
So to go in and formally establish that as a management zone,
I believe is a little preliminary to open it up to whatever is going to happen in the future.
Also, there's injection wells being injected into these waters
that you all are going to be studying.
I'm not throwing rocks at anybody, I'm just saying that we have proven it and we're going
to continue to prove that the-- whether it's commercial injection or private injection wells
on leases that they've always been able to inject in to the San Andres
because that is an oil and gas produce information but that's
where there's a heck of a lot of brackish water also.
It's shallower than the Ellenburger, Devonian, et cetera.
It's up closer, It's assessable by the public or by land owner to utilize for any beneficial use
if they want to treat it or whatever.
But you got the oil and gas going in this end in a quarter of a mile away,
you got to come out on a water well on this end.
So we're trying to work through that.
And that's going to take time so I'd hope that preliminary studies just don't blanket it
out there as being an untapped, new, whatever you want to call it,
water source for beneficial use when I can show you
that we got problems going on with it right now.
So that's where communication comes in.
The week-- I've submitted a packet by email to everybody that I thought needed to see it.
I'm not going to go over all the specifics in the packet but it does include some
of you all science, TWDBs, I've include USGS science
that it's funny how the more science you get turned in to you,
the more different entities look at it.
They can argue.
Hydrologists argue.
Groundwater water district managers argue.
All I know is, is that we support the old say in Supreme Court.
Local management is good.
I hope that you all give the local groundwater districts not only us
but across the state a definite play in this matter and not just get--
I don't guess it's fair to say this but I don't want to get politicked out.
We want our staff, if we can back up what we're telling you,
we want it to be used and recognized.
And if there's a problem with it, we want to know, we want that communication gap open.
There's been too much hard work done by everybody over the years to just kind
of say man, this-- because I think this study is too much for you all to be due by 2016,
I'm sorry you're tasked with that.
Whereas, you can just say no, we can't do that right now, we got to work on it
but I understand you need to save your job and your political positions, but I'll do stress
that we're not scientists, we're not experts down there or anyone
in groundwater districts, at least we're not.
But we happen after living there three and four generations, we know our water.
And before anything is definite, I hope we still continue to have strong input
on what is brought out on the table.
And I suppose that timeline unless it's continued to be, when did you say?
>> In ultimate, there's-- we've got--
>> December or?
>> Yeah December 1st the next year--
>> Right.
>> For aquifers then we've got a timing of money issue with the next set of aquifers,
and then we got to wrap everything up by 2022.
Really appreciate your comments Paul and appreciate you coming this far
out to share your thoughts with us.
Your comments sparked off some things in my head so let me just put this out there,
not only for you but for everybody in the audience.
The kind of broadly how these studies are going to go is two phases, you know,
whether it's in internal study that our staff is doing on these aquifers or if it's a contractor.
The first phase is going to be a data collection phase
of the available information that's out there.
You know, some of what we're looking actually, a lot of what we're looking at,
or well logs from the oil patch which really is the only data we have in some of these aquifers.
And they go deep enough and we can interpret those logs and see what's going on
or get a better sense of what's going on.
So that's going to be the phase one, it's, what is the available information that's out there.
And at that point, the consultants or our internal folks,
if they're doing an internal study, we then have a stakeholder meeting to share
with interested parties, here's what we found, here's what we think we know about the system,
and these of the areas that look like could--
they could be areas to look at deeper as far as making a designation.
And so, we'll, at that point, as the consultants or the scientists as well
as us internally will get the feedback from that discussion.
And then at that point, we'll direct our contractors
in which areas to look at for a designation.
Does that mean, you know, we're going to look at three or four identified areas,
those three areas are going to be designated?
No. It just means we're going to take a closer look at it because it could be--
when we started looking at how the system response hydraulically,
that may take it off the table.
You know, if it looks like if we pumped here, it's going to drain the fresh water up above,
well that would take it off the table based on what the law says.
After that second phase of the study is done, you know, staff will be working
with our management and executive administrator
since he will make a recommendation to the Board.
And at that point, the plan is, is that will be kind of a standard Board process,
public meeting, opportunities for public comments and as well as seen the kind
of the report that comes out that will help inform staff's recommendation
to the Board on designation.
So, there will be plenty of opportunities.
I think the fact that you've generated documents, the information you shared,
that's valuable information for us.
And so, you know, anybody out there that has information like that, you know,
that helps us as staff as we're trying to formulate a recommendation to our Board.
And then, you talked about desired future conditions and zones
and House Bill 30 doesn't impact desired future conditions at this point,
you can still have desired future conditions for brackish resources,
I think perhaps that you're alluding to is what might happen in the future
with these designated zones with the legislature.
Of course, who knows but, that's something we'll just have to see.
And then you also mentioned injection wells and those, you know, if a formation is being used
for injection, that's off the table as far as a designation.
And that is in the House Bill 30 and I think also for practical purposes,
I can't imagine somebody want to desalt that water anyways.
So, I think that would be off as well.
What? You're laughing.
Somebody desalting it [laughs].
So, I just put that out.
There's additional information since we didn't touch on that when we talked about the bill.
But, you know, I'm glad you've brought reporting for us,
continue to share with us, and we'll continue to reach out.
>> One thing or I won't give this microphone to somebody.
I just urge everybody to comment good, bad,
and ugly if you want to call it that in simple terms.
>> We wanted it all.
>> You know, I know you do.
And I'm saying, I just urge everybody to put it out there.
You know, you might make or represent it mad at you or something that's all right,
you know, just get it all out there.
She can get all one basket.
>> Yeah because-- If a lot of folks have boots on the ground and we don't have
that information, we need to hear it.
So, we're going to go ahead and go in formal since we only got people that signed up.
But if you didn't-- just say who you are.
>> Yeah, is it Paul?
>> Yup.
>> Yeah, similar to-- and this may seem like logical questions but or comments but,
we haul off one of the largest water disposable people in the state.
And it seems odd to me, I mean, I love the study of--
and we need to study these brackish aquifers but we have more water that we're disposing off
and all different types of water.
So it's not just all trash water.
And you're, you know, we're going to designate these production zones
and they're producing it now, more water that has to be cleaned
as somebody's brackish aquifers have to be cleaned as well.
You don't want it running on the ground,
you don't want your cattle drinking it, you don't want to drink it.
Especially if you over pumped it like what he talked about, it will change.
So that has to be monitored.
A lot of money to process this water.
But, we're producing more water and nobody wants it.
And so we separate it, clean it, get the solids out of it, treat it, per total TDS,
and then shove it down in one of these aquifers probably in some places in Texas for sure.
So, the expense to produce it, they're doing it.
So, we have a lot of water, we just don't take care of the water and we can clean the water.
Somebody's got to buy it.
So I think that's a big part of the issue.
We know the water is there, it's always been there but nobody wants it until it's clean.
Well, who's going to clean it?
Well, we got to pay to clean it.
It just seems we've all-- we've been kind of at this point for a long time.
And I'm glad we're here to where we can talk about this out in the open.
And it's not all companies taking all of our water and ripping everybody off for all.
But, I wish there would be more discussion about clarifying that.
When you say significant impact, that's pretty broad.
Was that subterranean?
Is it on the surface?
Or where are we going to put these plants?
Where are we going to store it?
Who's going to pay for it?
That's significant.
I don't know, we got a lot of water, we just don't take care of it.
>> Could you say who you are?
>> Bradley Hart [assumed spelling].
>> Thank you Bradley.
>> Thank you.
>> Appreciate the comments.
I should note that I'm a nodder so if I nod at you, it doesn't mean I necessarily agree
with you, I just-- I'm hearing you [laughs].
So if you see me nod and go, "What did he just agree to?"
Don't misread that.
Don't be shy.
OK, got someone over here.
You brought up monitoring and Paul brought up monitoring.
And something else he didn't mention is that part of the bill also has the Board
when we make a designation to also provide recommendations on the monitoring
that could be done if somebody went in to produce from that brackish groundwater zone
to essentially, you know, prove up that the impacts are minimized.
So that's also part of the bill.
Greg.
>> Greg Sengelmann with the Gonzales County Underground Water Conservation District.
My question is a little bit about significant impact.
I was wondering whether that was somewhat of got to be a moving target and I was just--
the way I was thinking of it was to give an example.
So, lets just say you had an aquifer and its hydrologically connected, but you say, "OK,
if here's a management zone, if you pump 50,000 acre feet in the brackish area,
it's only going to cost 20 feet of extra drawdown
in the fresh area and that's not significant.
So we go far with that.
But that's assuming what in the freshwater zone, what they're pumping now, what the DFC is,
or what their future projected is?
Because if you set that in it's a point in time,
does that mean that that freshwater is static thing, you can't perm it anymore because then,
with those two together, that drawdown then goes down deeper,
you know what I'm saying, in the freshwater zone.
So, I'm not sure how that's going to work, how's it going to--
it then seem like it can be a static number in that type of scenario.
So that was sort of my question on how we would look at that.
But I guess, just like he said, that's a future DFC question.
If we wanted more pumpage, somebody came for a new permit, you would have to increase the DFC
in the freshwater zone, of course, and that's going to draw that whole aquifer down even more.
Although, yeah, you're right, the brackish project would still only contribute that much.
Assuming we're monitoring it, that's the truth, that's what going to happen.
I mean, we all know that it could cause more drawdown, it could cause less drawdown,
we're just using models at the time.
So, basically, that's my question is,
I don't see that can be a static number in that type of situation there.
>> OK. To be honest, nothing I've thought of, it's a good point.
Yeah, it could be, as you mentioned, it could be the DFC, you know, what is the--
because we're supposed to evaluate these on--
and I look over to John so he can like stretch his leg out
and kick me when I say something wrong.
But, as I recall, 30 years and 50 years, we're looking at two different timeframes,
so just shooting from the hip, you know, we could take a-- you brought a good point,
what, you know, relative to what?
Is it saturate thickness?
Is it drawdown on the freshwater aquifer and what time?
You know, shooting from the hip, it could be, you know,
what is the anticipated DFC for 30 years out?
What is it for 50 years out?
And then comparing, you know, what that impact might be.
Thank you.
Everybody wants the fried chicken special at the cafeteria, I guess,
because that's-- [laughter] any other?
Don't be shy.
Other comments?
Questions?
Going once-- Oh here we go.
And we got another one up in the front too.
>> Mary Saws.
Do you anticipate doing any role-making on these particular definitions?
If not, at what point will the stakeholders see what the definitions are,
the working definitions?
>> Traditionally, we-- the stakeholders are probably the same
when it goes to the Board as a memo.
And so at some point, that memo would be posted,
staffs would send out a notice to everybody that it's posted.
And then there would be the Board meeting.
We've had internal debate over whether or not it requires role-making.
We haven't quite settled on that yet.
But if anybody has thoughts on that, we would be happy to receive those.
I've got another question up here in the front, question or comment.
>> Mr. Mace, it's Raymond Straub of Straub Corporation at Stanton, Texas.
I would like to retouch on your comment about if, yeah,
water-bearing unit is being injected to--
into from O&G sources that it will automatically remove it
from your potential source aquifer list.
The Capitan has some of that O&G injection into it as well as the San Andres or both of those,
you can find significant sources of reasonably good quality water in those two.
So, would that remove those two aquifers from potential source aquifer?
>> Not necessarily, because I think it depends on where, so, you know,
like the Dockum for example is large aquifer.
If the injections happen over here, but there's no injection, you know,
100 miles away down here, then this potentially could still be considered for designation.
Also in, sorry, but also if, let's say, injection is occurring in the Wilcox
but it's far deeper in the formation than where the brackish or the water of interest is.
And so we have to be looking at, I think, the goal would be is to make sure
that what gets produced is not producing water from the injecting.
>> So it'd be more localized, not necessarily on a-- just a system more basis,
it would be more relative to location, is that specific?
>> Correct, that's what we're thinking.
>> OK.
>> My lawyer might get hold that language and tell us otherwise but we'll see.
>> So that thus lead to-- this is Mary Saws again, that thus lead to another question.
And that is, a lot of the legislation is written in terms of aquifers,
but these zones don't have to be of a particular size.
Isn't that right?
I mean--
>> Yeah. It's a, you know, it could be regional, it could be local.
Looking over at John.
>> Right.
>> John nods correct.
[ Inaudible Remark ]
>> And they could be designated by depth as well, is that what I'm hearing?
>> I think depth is a component, I think it's going to be more of a--
sort of envision more of a especial designation that here's this area that could be designated.
And then it'll be tied to a depth in the sense
that there's a formation, it will be tacked on to.
>> Got you.
>> But there is a potential, since they use the word regional,
that we could do a regional designation if there's a layer of an aquifer
that looks regionally, you know, isolated or, you know,
component has a good confining layer then that's also a possibility for us to designate.
I should note that anything I say is subject to challenge so [laughs].
You don't like something I said, set me straight now or later.
Any other-- Got another question upfront here.
>> Once again it's Raymond Straub of Straub Corporation, Mr. Mace.
The addition of other producing zones and I notice we have pretty well lined up,
pretty much unusual suspects on water producing zones,
but what about other deeper producing zones that contain high quality water than--
we do not have an account of at the moment?
Is there a mechanism for adding these units at a later date or is there--
of these, will they be excluded from this brackish concept?
>> I think if somebody comes to us and I think the comment is related to because there's a,
like for example, South Texas, I have people come to me with, you know, really deep,
you know, way below traditional we call traditional aquifers,
coming up with brackish or even freshwater.
I would say, we'd be open that someone come in into us if they've got, you know, data,
enough data for us to consider designating it.
But at this point, you know, we don't, in house, we don't have that information of that data
and it tends to be the stuffs I've seen, it tends to be a single well.
But if anybody has information, bring it to us and we'll take a look at it,
visit with you and see what that entails.
>> In the southern-- well in Brewster and Pecos County,
potentially some of the [inaudible] systems may have
where there's actually outcrops may have some relativity high quality water in those systems.
But they would be-- I mean, they're not even been classified in,
you know, in any of our current.
>> And so, yeah, so again on that, you know, we have the major aquifers,
we have the minor aquifers and then we have the mysterious other aquifers.
And so, other aquifers which is a catch-all for those, you know, the little pockets,
alluvial aquifers or other formations that, you know, can be important sources of supply
for locals or could be, you know, future potential sources of supply.
And so, again, I think, and if you have information, anybody has information
or something like that, can bring the information you have to us and we'll take a look
at it and consider, you know, building that into what we're doing for House Bill 30.
>> So it's not a closed agenda.
>> It's not a closed, it's not just restricted to what we listed as major
and minor aquifers, let's say that.
>> But that would be part of the 2022 or beyond prospects.
>> Yes. I think ideally before 2022, I think it's arguable to whether or not the door closes,
I kind of think the door closes at 2022.
I may be wrong, but ideally we would make those designations before 2022.
And the deadlines are ambitious.
We think they're achievable.
You know, we use the term.
We have a brackish resource aquifer characterization system
that we've been employing across the states so far.
And we use the term BRACS light when we refer to these studies impart because, you know,
we won't to do the full-blown BRACS analysis that we would normally do.
And so, we do anticipate coming back in some cases after 2022 to--
don't necessarily revisit the designations but to fill in the gaps on the map and with the;
purpose of providing information for folks looking at desalting brackish groundwater.
>> This is Ty Edwards, Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation District.
Are you only going to look at brackish zones where's there's GCDs
or all the counties off for covers?
>> We're looking at everything, entire state.
You got an order, every other ones, supposed to go to Mary so it's [laughter].
>> This is Mary.
Quite a number of groundwater conversation districts have a wealth
of water quality information that they've been gathering during the last couple of decades.
Is that something that is in the BRACS' database?
Is that something that groundwater districts should provide to you during this process?
And will that be considered?
>> The-- We do have staff that work with the groundwater database that work with districts
to get their water level information as well as water quality information or database.
And so, if that cooperation presently exists, then yes,
it would be in the BRACS' database and considered.
But if there's, you know, districts that have-- haven't cooperated with us in the past.
And I don't mean that in a derogatory way just, you know, sharing data,
and haven't shared data was us in the past, there's an opportunity to certainly to do that.
We would love to have access to that information.
>> Thank you.
I'm John Bender [assumed spelling], I'm with the Texas Corn Producers.
Could you review the points between now and December first next year
in which you will be specifically seeking stakeholder input?
>> So, there's today [laughs].
There's a, of course, anytime between now and the designation.
You can send us letters, give us a call.
But as far as the formal process is today, then there will be a stakeholder meeting
after the consultants look at the available information
on characterizing the brackish resource.
Purpose of that meeting, it's going to be to share the information with stakeholders.
And then also get some feedback on where we should or should not.
And further investigate zones for potential designation.
After that points, there's going to be a report that gets delivered.
We do plan to make that available to stakeholders and the report
that comes from the consultant firm.
But at this point, we don't plan on having a stakeholder meeting to discuss that report.
And then it will be the Board meeting that makes that designation.
And so, there will be an opportunity for public comment at that Board meeting.
>> Earlier, there was a question about you all arriving
at definitions on these three questions.
And you haven't decided yet whether that will be by role-making?
If it's not done by role-making, if it's done by memo or some other means,
will there be an opportunity to comment on you all's definitions
on these three points before it's finally settled.
>> There'll be an-- When the Board takes up the designations, there'll be an opportunity
to address the Board about the designation and then, of course, you know, all these questions
that are up on the Board very well could be part of that decision.
So, there'll be opportunity to address the Board before they make a designation decision.
>> Thank you.
>> Who's the consulting firm that will make this report?
>> Don't know.
The individual studies will have a request for qualifications out on the street now
so we won't know until early next year who the selected candidates are.
And that will be taken back to the Board for approval.
As far as the report that goes to the legislature,
that will be something that we do internally.
So, the Board will make the designations.
And then, staff will take those designations, put it into or I guess,
our biennial desalination report legislature.
And then, take that back to our Board for approval
because there's other things that go into that report.
>> Well and what's the purpose for the designation?
>> It's not stated in the statue.
>> There's no purpose for that [laughter].
>> It's not unusual for, you know, for us to be asked to, you know, do, yeah,
the designations for example, that's how it happened with groundwater management areas.
And so, almost a very similar process and that it's impart defined by science.
There's a few policy questions to address.
And then, Board made the designations.
>> Robert, Mary Saws again.
It seems late on the definitions for the stakeholders to find
out what definitions you are using at the Board meeting because, by that point,
the time crunches going to be even greater so, at that point, even legitimate.
Well, two things, at that point, it will be so late
that legitimate comments practically speaking probably could not be accepted.
And then the second is that the staff will have done lots of lots of work based
on the definitions that they've come up with.
So, that's another practical reason why the Board is not [inaudible].
I think this is-- OK.
It seems like if the staff is going to apply those definitions after the consultants come
up with the data that's available.
Then perhaps, those definitions-- could those definitions be made available
at the same time as the consultant's report?
>> It's possible.
The reason I hesitate to promise anything is I don't know which way,
which direction those definitions are going to go.
You know, they could go one direction for example,
kind of uniformed definition across to all aquifers.
And just throw it out there as an example, you know, the significant impact means it has,
you know, whatever the impact of the brackish pumping is on the fresh water resources,
it's less than 1% of the saturated thickness at 2030.
I just made that up off top my head.
Don't read anything into that.
And that could be, you know, formally applied across all the aquifers.
And so, you know, if we go down that path, that may be something that we could share.
I would have to, of course, work with my managers, upper management to see
if they're comfortable sharing that upfront.
Another way it could go is it could be more aquifer-specific.
Yeah, there may be, for example, again, I'm just pulling this out of the hat.
It might be that there's a shallow windmill wells for ranchers that, you know,
1% of the total saturated thickness causes them to go dry in which case then maybe, you know,
whatever our significant impact is tailored to the aquifer, the specific aquifer.
And so again, you know, that pushes the decision later in the process, you know,
as staff we work with, executive administrator, in terms of coming up with a recommendation.
So again, it just depends how quickly, you know, we can come up with a recommendation.
The deadlines are pretty ambitious, so we don't have a lot of time
to go to the Board with designations.
>> And so, it's going to be pretty, pretty chop-chop.
You know, I think ideally, we would have the report that comes out of the consultants,
have a stateholder meeting there.
But we're just not going to have a lot of time in order to meet that legislative deadline.
We're going to have to go to the Board twice essentially with these designations,
once for the designation, once for the report to legislature on the desalination in general.
So, hear what you're saying, we'll take that comment and consider it.
And then, you know, based on the feedback today and the written comments,
we'll have to see what our path is as staff going forward.
Or whether we do something uniform or we do something more site-specific.
I should also note that, you know, I tend to lean towards site-specific because as soon
as you come up with a uniform way doing something, somebody throws you a curve ball
and you have to go different direction but--
>> Yeah, my name is Courty Bess [assumed spelling]
and I'm with the High Plains Water District.
And this is kind of pertains to John's question second ago.
But, as you all sort of narrow down the specific areas where you want to study
through the consulting process and some of the initial stakeholder input, do you ever see going
out to these specific regions and have a more in-depth conversation or stakeholder input
from local residence, land owners, groups,
et cetera that have greater input before actually finalizing the study areas.
>> At this point, no.
Again, just the timing issue of meeting the deadline, December 1st of next year.
So, I would, you know, since you work for groundwater district, I'm certainly counting
on you all to bring those concerns to us or help us get the word out to your locals
to participate or let us know what the concerns are, but we definitely want
to hear what you say, and anything your constituents have to say.
So, if you can help us out there, that would be great.
Mary [laughter]?
Sorry to keep picking on you Marie.
Anybody else?
Going once, going twice?
Here we go.
That works men.
>> [Inaudible], Schleicher County, just interested citizen.
Paul from Pecos was mentioning that they're injecting into water zones
that they're also pulling out of.
Are you all working with any other organizations and to try alleviate that, work with that,
doing anything about it so that there's not a problem years down the road?
>> It's not in our preview.
It's regulated by the Railroad Commission in Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
which we only chat with those folks from time to time,
but they have the regulatory authority over those activities.
There's Mary [laughs].
>> Did you tell us when you expect or when the due date is for the consultants
to come back with the availability?
>> Is that August?
Next year.
[ Inaudible Remark ]
>> August 31st, 2016 and that goes around the conference.
We are meeting it up to the conference room to determine when they want to set
that stakeholder meeting because after that stakeholder meeting, we're going to talk
about the proposed production areas.
And then, we go back and prioritize those areas for them.
And we have to turn around and do all the numerical function having the 30
and 50 [inaudible].
I'm sure it will happen during the summer of 2016 [inaudible] probably later spring.
>> So, there'll be two-- so the August 31st, 2016 date is the date that you want them
to have already applied the 30 and 50 year.
And so, then you're saying that they can come up with their date availability
and have their stakeholder meeting based on their schedule and what they think in terms
of going back and crunching numbers to meet the August 31st date.
>> Correct.
>> OK. And because when do you expect to take it to the Board?
>> As soon as possible because we only got September and October basically, did you--
all of the functioning numbers work with Board staff and executive management.
And there are two Board meetings, you have the brackish groundwater production zone
designations and for the Board [inaudible] decision.
And then, we have to put all that information into the biennial seawater report
and that's [inaudible] legislator December 1st.
So, we know we're getting the report off December 1st,
you know, we just have to [inaudible].
>> Probably no later than early November, maybe late October.
We want to try to ideally leave a one Board meeting between when we take it to the Board
to give the Board the option to consider kind of hold
and consider before they come back and make a file decision.
So, that's why I said no later than early November.
That means you're going to have to work on Thanksgiving week maybe [laughter].
But hopefully, earlier than that, right?
Yeah?
>> Hopefully, earlier than that.
>> Right behind you.
>> Jeremy White with the USGS.
So, when you say crunching numbers, you mean running numerical models?
>> For us, crunching numbers are-- we're asking the--
we don't want the consultants to give us the answer on what should
or should not be designated as a brackish groundwater production zone.
We want that to come from the agency.
And so, what we were envisioning is that the consultants do whether
in groundwater parlance, we call sensitivity analysis.
You know, basically, let's say we identify zone,
this looks like this could be a good zone to designate.
They're going to go run in different amounts of pumping which could be
through a numerical model or perhaps an analytical tool.
And then see what the impacts are on the bordering aquifers.
And so, we see kind of a range of numbers coming out of that.
And then, now, if a priori we come up with a uniform way of saying, you know,
not significant impacts so it'd be pretty obvious to see, you know, what that is
and how much pumping gets you there.
If we don't have a priori decision, then at that point, we can then go, you know,
staff working with our executive administrator and go what you want to do here, you know,
because it could be one-foot, two-foot, half of foot, no fourth, you know, what's the answer.
The other good reason I think for doing it that way is that it allows everybody
to see what the potential answers are.
And so, it isn't-- the expectations, we don't just present one number
but there'll be a range that, you know, if you don't like one-foot, you want two-foot,
you want to make that argument well then, you're going to know what that means
in terms of production and impacts.
Similarly, once the Board makes the designation,
that information will be part of the record if you will.
So, with, you know, somebody decides to take that ball and run with it.
And they don't like the parameters that our Board used to ultimately make the designation,
they can choose around if they fit.
So, we're talking about calculations, we're kind of talking about those types of calculations.
We're hoping that by the time we get something form the contractors,
you know, they've done the real hard work.
And then, we just well, I shouldn't say that.
They've done the easy-- they've done the hard technical work.
And there's going to be the hard kind of the decision work of, you know, is something--
should something be designated or not.
>> It just sounds really aggressive to get done by August.
>> Yes.
>> I'm not interested, I'm just saying it's--
>> Yes.
>> -- really ambitious.
>> Yes.
>> And just to follow up to that question,
many of these production zones do not have potential production zones,
do not have GUMs that available or they're imparts of the GUMs
that there's a lot of uncertainty.
Do you anticipate that the consultants will be using numerical tools
to do the same survey analysis and like tools, what if there are no numerical tools available,
do you expect the consultants to develop on numerical tool for the same survey analysis?
>> I think the, you know, if there's a GUM that looks like it would be a good tool
to evaluate impacts of pumping and brackish system on bordering, you know,
fresh resources then obviously that would be the tool we'd use.
If that doesn't exist, then we'll be looking for an analytical tool which I don't know
if that exists or perhaps a sample conceptual model put into the--
into a numerical model to look at those impacts.
You know, and one of the challenges we have is, you know,
we don't have a lot of information in these systems.
I think one of the key terms is the vertical hydraulic hand activity of the confining layer
which you'll have to make educated, you know, kind of best educated guess on what that is,
and then see what the results are.
>> So you just mentioned that if there isn't an appropriate analytical model then you would
expect the consultants to develop a numerical model?
>> Simple numerical model.
We're not talking developing a GUM, but I think a simple-- so, you know, conceptual model.
I got an aquifer here, it's got parameters, I got a confining layer, it's got parameters,
I got a freshwater aquifer up here, it's got parameters.
Set the grid out uniformly, I know what the general thickness is,
set my boundary conditions, let's pump it and see what the impacts are going
through the confining layer, as well as up depth if that's of concern.
So I think that can be done pretty quickly.
But your model, you might disagree with me but [laughs].
You know, and that's going to be one of the challenges for the consultants is that,
you know, how many zones do we have?
How much time and financial resources do we have to do these assessments?
So I think it will be key for us to come up with a simple way of making this analysis.
And in many cases, if there's not a great deal of data, probably doesn't warrant more
than a simple numerical representation.
I kind of always stunk at analytical solutions
so I just always want the computer models anyways but--
>> Just one more follow up.
When you're talking about significant impacts, you're talking about water quality also?
>> Water quality is mentioned in the statute as something to look at.
And we're still kind of debating exactly what that means because generally
when you're producing a brackish system, you're pulling--
you're going to be pulling fresh towards a pumping center.
And so, I would anticipate major water quality impacts on the fresh if anything is going
to be impacting water quality-- improving water quality on the brackish resource.
I suppose you could induce water level declines in your fresh aquifer
which then pulls water somewhere else.
But I would guess that if you're-- if you have that much impact in your fresh resource,
you've probably gone well beyond appreciable impact, what's that word,
significant impact at that point.
Let's talk a little bit internally about well,
does the water quality aspect relate to the brackish system itself.
And which is supposed it could, which is possible, but it's hard to imagine
that we have enough time to be stimulating those systems, let alone have the data to be able
to do it, so, leaning towards impacts on the freshwater resources.
And I think, almost by definition, they're going to be very minor if nonexistent.
>> OK. Thanks.
>> We've got 32 more minutes of fun, if-- here we go [laughs].
>> I was glad to hear the mention of water quality
because that was something I was interested in.
Railroad Commission oversees groundwater--
water from production, anything associated with O&G type waste.
And they look at like about 3000--
300 TDS in the groundwater as some sort of cleanup standard.
TCEQ has their same water quality top standards.
Is there going to be an understanding with TWDB, Road Commission, TCEQ,
some sort of unified concept of what contaminant or waste is going to be--
now that we're bringing brackish water into a useable market,
something that's tangible and usable.
Is there going to an update into understanding of what waste is or what contaminant maybe?
And how the agencies themselves administer or regulate that?
>> It's not going to be part of this project.
And I think what you're saying is, correct me if I'm wrong, is that,
let's say there's this designation, let's say at some point in the future,
this designation means something and somebody goes in and decides to put in well field
and desalt this brackish groundwater, well,
there's going to be a [inaudible] concentrate to dispose of.
This bill and this project is not looking at that disposal.
And so, whatever, you know, whatever the current requirements are and for municipal sourcing,
it would be TCEQ, you know, regulating that injection.
Whatever those current requirements are, I think the--
looking at the injection goes beyond what we've been asked to do is this project
that it's clearly an issue if somebody, you know, wants to go in, in one of these zones
and start desalting brackish groundwater.
>> So you don't see any immediate change in the classification of the qualities of water
in the way in which they're managed.
>> I don't-- Yeah, I'm not aware of any changes along those lines.
>> Several times, you've mentioned which is completely understandable
that you don't have enough time to do this.
Sufficiently and--
>> I think we have time.
>> -- thoroughly, not today, I'm talking about the whole thing.
Come November 1st, November 10th, if you're not able to complete what you need to do,
what are the steps to get an extension when the legislature,
I understand has ordered you all to do this, give you a timeline.
If you-- To be fair to all aquifers, people, et cetera, et cetera, to be fair to yourselves
and your studies, to be good studies.
And you need six more months to do that.
You have to call a special session of the legislature or what to get an extension.
Are you just going to say, is this all we got, but then, we all have to live
with what all you got that you didn't have time to complete.
>> I probably start by turning in my resignation [laughter].
>> No, but do you, hey, is there-- do you know of a way to--
>> I mean, for off, I want to be clear that we fully anticipate meeting those deadlines.
And we will do everything we can to meet the deadlines.
>> All right.
>> You know, if, let's just say, a thermal nuclear war with North Korea breaks
out then maybe we've got a good reason to go inform the legislature that, hey,
we're going to be a little late with this.
There's a-- You know, ideally, you would have a legislature change the launch,
change the deadline.
Of course, the legislature is not meeting until formally, until 2017.
But, you know, we have no plans to ask the legislature to have a special session
to change the deadline at this point.
And so, you know, we do feel like we can deliver a good project, we call it BRACS light.
You know, the BRACS project was envisioned as, you know, very detailed assessment
of a formation to assess communities in making decisions on, you know, what productivity
and what water quality might be when they go in
and do a brackish well field for brackish desalination.
HB30 is a little bit different which is, you know,
we're directed to define brackish groundwater production zones.
And so, they're, you know we don't feel like we need as detailed of information.
And the legislature has given us some pretty good, you know, don't go here.
You can look over here but definitely don't go looking over there that--
to allow us to be able to do what we need to do.
And then we look at our potential contractors, we'll have to, you know,
make sure that they've got a track record of giving things done on time because this is going
to be one of those things where, you know, we're going to have to be on time
in order for us to meet our deadlines.
We've got question over here?
>> If you all designate those zones usable water, do you see that TCEQ coming back
and changing their depths for usable water, for casing depths.
>> You know, we've looked at that information.
>> We're talking to the Railroad Commission.
We've got kind of a formation group, teams [inaudible].
And so we brought that up certainly to the Railroad Commission staff.
If we designate zone or a contractor designate some zones
and then kind of put some [inaudible].
We've got some of the staff here today.
I don't think we have an answer to that right now but we're very aware of the possibility
that there could be some slight differences to be made.
[Inaudible] and trying to discuss this as [inaudible] through pipeline.
>> And you mentioned TCEQ but that moved couple of years go from TCEQ
over to Railroad Commission which is why John's referring to the Railroad Commission.
But we are in close communication with the surface casing folks at Railroad Commission,
because they've got a lot of data over there that we
like to get our hands before doing these mapping projects of brackish resources.
Anybody else?
Going once, going twice, going three times [laughs].
Put your hand down Adam.
Well, very good.
Give yourself around of applause for great questions,
[ Applause ]
-- great comments.
Again, please follow up with us or if you've heard something, you know,
and later on you're thinking about it, shoot us an email or send us a letter,
however, you want to give comments to us.
We will be really taking a serious look at comments after this week.
But again, anytime the mood strikes you, give us a call or send us some notes.
I would love to hear what you have to say.
If you have data, concerns, thoughts, technical guidance for us, we would love to hear it.
And with that, we're adjourned.
Thank you.