Boling Reservoir Information
House Bill 1437, passed by the Texas Legislature in 1999,
authorizes LCRA to transfer up to 25,000 acre-feet of water per year to
Williamson County under certain conditions. The bill requires an additional
charge to be added to the base water rate to pay the costs of mitigating any
adverse effects of the transfer of water to Williamson County from the lower
Colorado River watershed. This water transfer also should result in "no net
loss" of water to the Colorado River watershed.
Water resources developed or conserved to mitigate the water
transfer may be acquired from inside or outside of the Colorado River watershed
and shall be used to benefit the water services areas of the LCRA's irrigation
operations.
The LCRA has contracted with The University of Texas LBJ School
of Public Affairs to recommend a definition of the term "no net loss," and
assist in the development of a water replacement strategy, and a surcharge rate
for the transfer of water from the lower Colorado River basin to Williamson
County. LBJ School's recommendations will be based on public comments and advice
provided through two
sets of public meetings. The LCRA's Board of Directors will ultimately decide on
the definition of no net loss, the appropriate mitigation strategy and final
water surcharge rate.
Source:
http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/research/no_net_loss/report/Attachments/Project_Website_Homepage.pdf
A Proposed Reservoir on the San Bernard River
Discussions are ongoing around Boling for construction of a reservoir on the
San Bernard River. It would be used to replace the water currently transferred
to Williamson County. It would also make water available for irrigation (by
pipeline) in that area.
The reservoir would have a surface area of 5,000 acres and capture 50,000
acre-feet of water per year. It would cost approximately $90 million to
construct, and would take 7 to 10 years from now to implement.
Everything is at a standstill now until they have a comprehensive
environmental impact study so that they can apply for a permit for storage and
diversion of "waters of the state"
Major impacts, expected to show up in the study, are associated modification
of downstream flows which may affect bay and estuary inflow in the San Bernard
basin.
How will this impact us in Brazoria-Sweeny area?
That remains to be learned but our river community needs to be diligently
watching progress on discussions of this reservoir. Water is a commodity that is
more precious every day. Does water that is rightly headed to Brazoria County
need to be going to be diverted to meet demands of San Antonio and Williamson
County?
Managing Interbasin Water Transfers
to Achieve No Net Loss
Water Replacement
Strategies
San Bernard Reservoir
Provide water supply from a San Bernard River reservoir.
Water Development
How? This water replacement strategy
is based on the construction of a new reservoir on the San Bernard River near
Boling to replace the water transferred to Williamson County. The reservoir
would capture stream flow and make it available for irrigation. A pump station
and pipeline would transport the water from the reservoir to the irrigation
districts.
How Much? The San Bernard reservoir
is expected to yield about 30,000 acre-feet of water when all senior water
rights are honored. It would capture about 50,000 acre-feet per year and have a
surface area of 5,000 acres.
Is it Scaleable? Generally, the
reservoir and water transfer facilities would need to be built at the full
capacity of the system. Some elements may initially be sized for a smaller
capacity. For example, pipelines to some irrigation areas could initially be
constructed with others added at a later time.
Comparability Criteria
Costs? If the cost were comparable
to one to two off-channel reservoirs, as envisioned in the Regional Water Supply
Plan, and pumping and pipeline costs are added , the initial cost would be
approximately $90 million. Annual costs to operate pumping and pipeline systems
needed to transport the water to the irrigation districts are estimated at $50
per acre-foot. Detailed studies of this strategy have not been performed and the
costs are difficult to estimate without that information. These estimates should
be viewed as very preliminary.
Benefits? Significant deep water
habitat would be developed, and the wetlands in the rice areas would be
sustained by the availability of water.
Sustainability? This alternative is
sustainable, assuming that upstream erosion and sediment accumulation in the
reservoir do not significantly reduce its long-term storage capacity.
Reliability? The reliability of this
reservoir is based on firm yield principles, which take into account the drought
of record. Therefore, the expected firm yield would be reliable.
Risk? Obtaining the necessary
permits may be difficult. Land for the reservoir must be purchased or condemned.
During implementation the pump station will need to be managed in connection
with the other irrigation system facilities, making system management more
complex.
Permit Requirements? A permit for
storage and diversion of “waters of the state” is required. This is sometimes
difficult to obtain if the other surface water permit holders in the basin
oppose the permit, or if there is significant environmental or recreational
opposition. Section 404 and Section 10 permits from the Corps of Engineers are
also required. These permits require a variety of environmental issues to be
addressed, including: wetland impacts, habitat impacts, water requirements, and
other environmental issues. Pipeline rights-of-way must be obtained.
Implementation Time? Minimum time to
implement could be 7 to 10 years. Planning, environmental studies, and
permitting alone could require 5 or more years. Design would require about 1
year, and construction would require about 1 year.
Water Quality? About the same as the
existing supply. Some of the supply would be coming from a different surface
water source that would have slightly different quality than the current supply.
Timing of availability? (by month)
Same as the existing supply.
Location of the “developed” water? A
reservoir on the San Bernard River, near Boling
Impacts? The major impacts are
associated with inundation of the reservoir area and modification of downstream
flows, which may affect bay and estuary inflow in the San Bernard basin.
-
Irrigators The implementation of a water
importation strategy would bring in new water. Thus, the transfer of water
to Williamson County would not affect the irrigators’ annual yield.
-
Recreators Since new water is brought in
through water importation strategies, the transfer of water to Williamson
County would not affect the Lake levels. Thus, persons who use the Lakes for
recreation purposes would continue their practices without any harm.
-
Downstream water right holders Since new
water is brought in through water importation strategies, the transfer of
water to Williamson County would not affect the availability of water to the
water right holders downstream of the Lakes.
-
Williamson County water users Surcharge
rate would reflect the cost associated with this specific strategy.
-
Environment/Biota As a matter of law and
policy, the LCRA will meet subsistence and critical flows to support the
strength and diversity of aquatic life in river, estuary and bay. “LCRA has
committed an average of 15,950 acre-feet per year out of the Combined Firm
Yield of the Highland Lakes to meet the instream flow maintenance and bays
and estuaries flow needs. Additionally, an estimated 40,060 acre-feet per
year of interruptible stored water will be supplied during the critical
drought for both purposes.”
Source:
http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/research/no_net_loss/SanBernardReservoir.shtml
Notice of Water Rights Application
Notice is given that H & L NEW GULF INC, P.O. Box 686,
Graham, Texas 76450, applicant, seeks to amend Certificate of Adjudication
No. 3421-B, pursuant to §11.122 and §11.042, Texas Water Code, and Texas
Natural Resource Conservation Commission Rules 30 TAC §§ 295.1, et seq.
Certificate of Adjudication No. 13-3421 was issued to Texas Gulf, Inc on
February 7, 1985, and authorized the owner, with a time priority of
September 13, 1928, to maintain an existing dam and reservoir on the
San Bernard River and to
impound therein not to exceed 2 acre-feet of water, to maintain an existing
off-channel reservoir and to impound therein not to exceed 2150 acre-feet of
water, and to divert and use not to exceed 20,000 acre- feet of water per
annum from the San Bernard River,
Brazos-Colorado Coastal Basin, at a maximum rate of 40,000 gpm (88.89 cfs)
for mining purposes in the Seth Ingram Survey, Abstract No. 33, Wharton
County, Texas. The certificate, as amended twice, includes mining,
municipal, irrigation and industrial use of the authorized water. The
certificate, as amended, is currently owned by H & L New Gulf Inc., a Texas
Corporation, Leonard Wittig Grass Farms., Inc, a Texas Corporation and
Newgulf Power Ventures Inc. H & L New Gulf's share of the certificate, as
amended, includes authorization to impound 1.74 acre-feet of water in the
on-channel reservoir, to impound 1914.5 acre-feet of water in the
off-channel reservoir and to divert not to exceed 17,400 acre-feet of water
per annum at a maximum rate of 20,000 gpm from a specific point on the
San Bernard River for mining,
municipal and industrial purposes and into the off-channel reservoir for
subsequent use. Pursuant to a sales option agreement between the applicant
and Phillips Petroleum Company, the applicant seeks authorization to amend
the certificate: 1) to change the purpose of use of 16,400 acre-feet per
annum of their water currently authorized for mining, municipal, irrigation
and municipal purposes to industrial purposes;
2) to add a diversion point on the
San Bernard River approximately 15 river miles downstream at the diversion
point authorized by Phillips Petroleum Company's Certificate of Adjudication
No. 13-3423 at their Petroleum Refinery and Petrochemical Complex at Sweeny,
Texas; 3) to change the place of use of the water to the Phillips complex at
Sweeny; 4) to allow use from the additional diversion point of "run of the
river" water, and 5) to allow use from the additional diversion point of
water diverted from the up-stream point into the off-channel reservoir and
diverted back into the River and conveyed via the bed and banks of the river
to the additional diversion point. Applicant has indicated that they
will meter the quantity of water diverted from the
San Bernard River into the
off-channel reservoir for storage and monitor the amount and quality of
water diverted back into the San
Bernard for transport downstream, pursuant to the "bed and bank"
provision of this amendment application, for diversion at the Phillips
petrochemical complex in Sweeny, Texas. Applicant has also indicated that
they will account for carriage losses during transportation of the water to
the new diversion point. No other changes to the certificate is requested.
This notice is being sent to you as owner of one of 4 water right holders
with a diversion point in the San
Bernard River Watershed between the existing diversion point and the
requested additional diversion point. Any proposed amendment for "run of the
river" water requested in the application at the additional diversion point
by the Executive Director will include a condition that it be junior in
priority to these 6 water rights on the river in the Brazos-Colorado Coastal
Basin.
Written public comments and requests for a public meeting
should be submitted to the Office of the Chief Clerk, at the address
provided in the information section below by May 1, 2000. A public meeting
is intended for the taking of public comment, and is not a contested case
hearing. A public meeting will be held if the Executive Director determines
that there is a significant degree of public interest in the application.
The TNRCC may grant
a contested case hearing on this application if a written hearing request is
filed by May 1, 2000. The Executive Director can consider an approval of the
application unless a written request for a contested case hearing is filed
by May 1, 2000.
Source:
http://texinfo.library.unt.edu/texasregister/html/2000/May-05/in-addition/in-addition.html
THIS
is why we need an active organization on the river !! No one was watching
this!!
6 Evaluation of Water Replacement Strategies (Draft)
Their document
indicates it was last modified July 2005.
6.2 Strategies Evaluated
The following strategies were evaluated as potential sources of water
replacement.
1. Balancing reservoir in Garwood Irrigation Division
2. Automated check structure and control system in Garwood Irrigation
Division
3. Precision land leveling
4. Groundwater development – LCRA Garwood Irrigation Division
5. Conjunctive use of groundwater in Garwood Irrigation Division
6. Groundwater development – LCRA Lakeside Irrigation Division
7. Groundwater development – LCRA Gulf Coast Irrigation Division
8. Groundwater from Alcoa mine in Milam County
9. Brushy Creek wastewater treatment plant return flow
10. Reservoir on San Bernard River
11. Purchase unused portion of Allen’s Creek Reservoir
12. Reducing urban outdoor water use
13. Purchasing adjoining basin irrigation water rights
14. Purchase Colorado River irrigation water rights
15. Reduced irrigation for second rice crop in Colorado River basin
16. Canal lining in LCRA irrigation districts
17. Conservation of stormwater
18. Desalination
"Ten water
replacement strategies were eliminated from consideration based on the fact
that they did not satisfy two or more of the decision criteria. These
options are: reduced urban outdoor water use; groundwater from Alcoa;
adjoining basin irrigation water rights; purchase Colorado River irrigation
water rights; San Bernard reservoir;
purchase unused portion of Allen’s Creek reservoir; capture of municipal
stormwater; desalination; canal lining; and Brushy Creek return flow. Table
6.4 illustrates the primary screening." p. 6
Sources:
The above excerpt was taken from:
http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/research/no_net_loss/report/Evaluation_of_Water_Replacement_Strategies.pdf
The entire document (Draft) can be accessed in multiple PDF files from this
link:
http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/research/no_net_loss/report/
3/3/06: Updates
in process and not fully analyzed yet. If you follow through, please email
Webmaster with results.
Update August 31, 2004
The following was found at
http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/research/no_net_loss/report/Attachments/2/Round_2_Presentation_Slides.pdf
Welcome to Public Meeting on Water Transfer
from the Lower Colorado River to Williamson County
conducted by the LBJ School – University of Texas at Austin
August 31, 2004
Strategies
Eliminated from Consideration
Ten water replacement strategies did not satisfy two
or more decision criteria and were eliminated from
consideration:
– Groundwater from Alcoa
– Adjoining basin irrigation water rights
– Purchase Colorado River irrigation water rights
– San Bernard reservoir
– Purchase unused portion of Allen’s Creek reservoir
– Capture of municipal stormwater
– Desalination
– Canal lining
– Reduced urban outdoor water use
– Brushy Creek return flow
Update August 30, 2005
Public Meeting for Initially Prepared Plan Lower Colorado
Regional Water Planning Group
August 30, 2005, Burnet, Texas
This article indicates that the San Bernard River is still a possible water
supply source of surface water as part of the Brazos-Colorado Coastal River
Basin. A footnote
states: "Includes a water right from the San Bernard River with unconfirmed
reliability."
http://www.regionk.org/Presentations/K_08_30_05.pdf
Update August 2005 - Looks like they already have their
Environmental Impact Study--presented to the Corp of Engineers.
FINAL PROGRAMMATIC
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration
Lower Colorado River Basin,
Colorado River, Texas
http://www.swf.usace.army.mil/Pubdata/notices/LowerColoradoRiver/
http://www.swf.usace.army.mil/Pubdata/notices/LowerColoradoRiver/AbstractandTOC.pdf
5.4.3 Hydraulics and Hydrology
The
implementation of all program components would cumulatively alter the hydraulics
and hydrology in the basin by reducing flood heights and altering the duration
of flows. Channelization and confinement of the Colorado River and its
tributaries would block floodwaters from entering the San Bernard River
basin. Structural measures in Wharton would increase peak flows downstream
of the project; however, the LCRA/SAWS Project would have a beneficial
cumulative effect of reducing that rise in peak flows if the diversion was
upstream of Wharton as it would take flood flows from the Colorado River and
capture them in off channel detention reservoirs. However, this decrease
would probably not be sufficient to mitigate the total increase in peaks flows.
Structural measures such as detention basins, and multi-purpose reservoirs would
cumulatively retain more water in the upper basin for a longer period and result
in more constant flows with attenuated peaks downstream of Lake Travis.
Cumulatively, changes in gate operations at existing reservoirs, including Lake
Travis, and projects proposed by others, including increased impermeable areas
in the basin, would increase water surface elevations below Lake Travis through
Travis and Bastrop counties.
If you see any news articles or have any information on the
proposed reservoir,
please contact any member of the
BOD or
Webmaster