Plum CreekConservationDistrict

Plum Creek Conservation District
N E W S L E T T E R
Volume 1 Number 7

FALL 2015

Site 6 Rehab Project
Inside this issue:

Site 6 Rehab ProjectPage 1

2014/2015 WaterLevels

Plum Creek Conservation District is moving forward with plans to rehabilitate its “high hazard” Site 6 dam
which is located in Kyle, Texas, where Beebe Rd, High Rd. and Goforth Rd. converge. On August 13 th, at aspecial called meeting, President James Holt and the Plum Creek Conservation District Board of Directors
awarded the Site 6 rehabilitation project to Archer Western Contractors, Ltd .
When built in 1967, Site 6 was classified as a “low hazard” dam with a maximum capacity to hold 3763 acre
feet of water and the ability of containing a 25 year rainfall event of 6.4 inches. According to a 1989 NRCS
study, Site 6 has the capability to pass 52% of the probable maximum flood (PMF). The PMF is “themaximum runoff condition resulting from the most severe combination of hydrologic and meteorologicalconditions that are considered reasonably possible for the drainage basin under study.”
In 2002 Site 6 was reclassified to a “high hazard” dam, because, in the event of a dam failure, downstream
residents and property would be at risk. Breach studies have indicated that numerous structures andseveral county roads would be atrisk from a catastrophic breach ofSite 6. One of these roads, Goforth
Road, is a well traveled arterial
roadway,
locatedimmediately
downstream of the dam.

Page 2Update 84th
Legislative Session
Page 2

New Water
Technologies
on the Horizon

Site # 6 Labyrinth Weir Prototype Design

new design meets the Texas Commission ofEnvironmental Quality’s dam safety requirements.
Because it will be necessary to drain the reservoir
before construction starts, the Texas Parks andWildlife Department has relocated the fish from
Site 6 to Site 5 ( located approx. 1 mile west ofsite 6 between the subdivisions of Kensington
Trail and South Lake). The total cost of therehabilitation project is estimated at $7,959,000.
Funding for the project is provided for by a65/33.25/1.75 % funding match, where 65 % of thecost will be allotted to the federal government,
33.25 % to the Texas State Soil and Water
Conservation Board and 1.75% to the Plum Creek
Conservation District. The project is currently
underway and should be completed by the Fall of2017.

Image by Frees & Nichols

The rehabilitation project (prototype
shown to the left), which wasdesigned by Freese & Nichols, anationally acclaimed engineering
company, calls for a labyrinth weir
design, an extension of the dam
southeastward, removal of the old
auxiliary spillway which currently
crosses
over
Bebee
road,
installment of a new intake riser
andimpactbasinandarealignment of Bebee road. The

Site # 6 TPWD Fish relocation projectImage by Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept.

Winter 2014/2015 Water Levels
Page 2The table below shows water levels for 12 wells that were measured in the Winter of 2014/2015 alongwith their corresponding lowest recorded water level. If you are interested in finding out the water level inyour well and how it compares to other wells in the area, contact us to schedule a time to measure yourWell

Winter2014/2015
Water Levels

Winter 2014/2015Levels

Lowest Recorded Level

Cargile- 38.7- 66.00

Kosarek- 47.25- 50.8Larsen- 22.8- 22.8

Lipscomb- 91.05- 93.9Lockhart #8- 98.35- 108.0

Luling # 1- 49.57- 52.65

McCormick #1- 71.75- 71.75

Moore- 64.65- 70.6Nohra- 105.77- 130.67

Platt- 123.1- 123.15

Wells- 80.95- 90.35

Williams- 75.75- 83.05

Update 84th Legislative Session
With the conclusion of the 84th legislative session, there were a number of bills signed into law
having to deal with water. Listed below are summaries for a few of these bills and how they may
affect Groundwater Conservation Districts.

Update 84thLegislativeSession

HB 200(Keffer/Perry) revises the Desired Future Conditions’ appeals process. An “AffectedPerson” may file a petition with a district/districts in a Groundwater Management Area (GMA)
appealing the reasonableness of an adopted Desired Future Condition. A district is required tothen conduct a contested case hearing. The decision by the district may be further appealed todistrict court. The deadline for proposing DFCs by the GMAs is May 1, 2016. Once DFCs areadopted, any petitions must be filed within 120 days.
SB 854 (Zaffirini/Lucio III) involves the renewal of “Operating” permits. S.B. 854 requires theautomatic renewal of operating permits by groundwater districts if the permit holder submits therenewal application in a timely manner. Renewal is granted automatically without a contested
case hearing as long as the permit holder does not have any unpaid fees or fines, is not in
violation of the district’s rules, and is not requesting a change that would require a permit
amendment.
HB 30(Larson/Perry) relates to the development of brackish and seawater desalinization. HB 30
requires regional planning groups to consider large scale desalinization and brackish projects. Itrequires the Texas Water Development Board to study and map the brackish aquifers and toidentify brackish zones, except within the BSEACD,EEA, Harris-Galveston Subsidence District
and Fort Bend Subsidence District. This bill does not require any specific action from agroundwater conservation district.
HB 655 (Larson/Perry) relates to Aquifer Storage and Recovery and gives exclusive jurisdiction
to TCEQ for the regulation and permitting of ASR injection wells. If the amount of groundwater
recovered from the well/s exceeds the volume authorized by the commission, then the permittingrequirements of a groundwater conservation district would apply.
HB 3405 (Isaac/Rodriguez) expanded the territory of Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer
Conservation District (BSEACD) into parts of Hays County. BSEACD is PCCD’s adjacentneighboring district to the north.
For more information concerning the 84th legislation session water related bills, go to www.tdl.org and lookup Texas Water Journal Vol 6, No 1 (2015).

Page 3

New Water Technologies on the Horizon

There are several innovative and experimental water technologies emerging on the horizon that may offer potential for conserving water and therefore increasing fresh water supplies.
Seawater & Brackish Desalination: One of the biggest road blocks standing in the way of many desalination
projects is the high cost associated with the need for considerable amounts of energy. Advances have been
made in increasing the energy efficiency of traditional (Reverse Osmosis) desalination through innovated membrane design. Researches are looking at new materials, such as Graphene, as a replacement for Polymide, astandard type RO membrane material. Graphene is an allotropy of Carbon and was first isolated in a lab in 2003.
It has remarkable properties, being 207 times stronger than steel and very permeable that ,some say, could offer
promise as an ‘ultimate RO membrane’. Lockheed Martin is developing a commercial product called Perforene
and has just received a US patent for it.
There is also research being done on alternative desalinization methods. One alternative method, called biomimicry, is being investigated at the National Environmental Research Institute of Singapore in which the biologicalprocesses of mangrove plants and euryhaline fish are being studied. Both mangrove plants and euryhaline fish,
such as Tilapia, have the ability to extract seawater efficiently using very little energy. At the heart of a mangrove’s capability to desalinate is the salt gland. The aquaporins (or water ways) of these salt glands have beenstudied extensively by Dr. Tan. Dr. Tan indicates, through observations using advanced imaging techniques, thataquaporins provide selective passages for water molecules to pass through, but block salts. By studying how
these biological processes work, scientist are hopeful that their research will play a role in the development of apractical utilitarian desalination solution.
Smart monitoring: In Texas, all Water Supply Corporations (WSC), having 3300 plus connections, or current
TWDB loans, are required to report annually their estimated water loss due to leaks. 2014 Estimates show that
there was a total of 203,801 acre feet of water loss due to leaks for the state of Texas . Inevitably, water lines willleak and fixing them as soon as possible is a big priority for WSCs. Not only do leaks reduce a WSC’s profits,
but also put a strain on water supplies, especially during times of drought. New monitoring technologies havebeen developed to detect and locate leaks quicker, giving a WSC the ability to reduce potential water loss. When
strategically placed, electronic instruments, such as acoustic sensors which listen to the flow of water and pressure sensors which measure water pressure, can reduce water loss. To financially assist WSCs in providing leakdetection, the TWDB Water Loss Auditing Department offers free rental access to their acoustic leak detection
and flow meter devices.

Image by Valmont Industries, Inc.

intelligent irrigation: The 2012 Texas State Water Plan calls for a reduction of water demand for agricultural
irrigation purposes from 10,079,215 acre-feet in the year 2010 to 8,370,554 acre-feet in 2060, a 1,708,661 acrefoot reduction. One would expect agricultural water use to increase rather than decrease in order to meet thegrowing decadal demand for food as Texas’ population is expected to increase by 82%. The plan, however, anticipates that by utilizing drought resistant crop varieties, water efficient farming practices, better weather predictability and more efficient irrigation systems, this expected demand would be offset. One of the new technologies,
precision irrigation systems, uses predictive analysis to make smarter decisions. The emphasis is on having abetter weather forecasting model coupled with measurement procedures to help determine, for example , what
the best planting date would be, when and how much fertilize to apply, and when and where irrigation should occur, thus maximizing the effectiveness of the water used.

James A. Holt Jr., President, Kyle
James O. Lipscomb, Vice-President, Lockhart
Peter Reinecke, Secretary-Treasurer, Luling
Ben Twidwell, Luling
Lucy Knight, LockhartFred Rothert, Kyle

Phone: 512-398-2383
Fax: 512-398-7776
E-mail: info@pccd.org
Web Site: www.pccd.org

Johnie Halliburton, Executive Manager
Karen Bassett, Secretary
Daniel Meyer, Assistant Manager
Korey Schuelke, Field Technician
Robert Wilson, Consulting Attorney
Wm Feathergail Wilson, PG, Consulting Geologist

Staff

Stamp

1403 FM 20 East
PO Box 328
Lockhart, Texas 78644

HerePlace

Plum Creek Conservation District

The Plum Creek Conservation District’s Newsletter is available via email. If you or someone you know would
like to receive our Newsletter via email rather than US Mail then contact our office at (512) 398-2383.

1403 FM 20 East
PO Box 328
Lockhart, Texas 78644

Directors

Plum Creek Conservation District