TAGD October 2013 Quarterly Meeting

1. Evaluating MAGs & Pumping,
DFCs & Water Levels
Preparing for Round 2 of Joint Groundwater Planning
Josh Grimes, GM of PGCD
James Beach, PG
Prairielands GCD

2. Prairielands GCD
• Formed in 2009
• Fee based district
• Online registration, reporting, and payment
• Financially supporting the Update of NTGAM
• Not meaningfully involved in Initial Round of
Joint Groundwater Planning (DFCs)
Prairielands GCD

3. Background
• Prairielands was assigned DFCs for 5 aquifers
in 4 counties
• DFCs were defined as feet of water level
decline in 2060
Prairielands GCD

4. Cross-Section (Updated BEG Structure)
Prairielands GCD

5. Comparing Pumping and MAGs
1. Estimate formations screened for both
exempt and non-exempt wells
2. Proportion pumping
3. Move all pumping to a MAG formation
Prairielands GCD

6. Prairielands GCD

7. Exempt Well Evaluation
Prairielands GCD

8. TDLR Driller’s
Logs
2001-2013
Well Count
by Aquifer
and Use
BEG
Structure
Prairielands GCD
Ellis
Domestic
Geothermal
Industrial
Injection
Irrigation
Public Supply
Stock
(blank)
Hill
Domestic
Geothermal
Industrial
Injection
Irrigation
Public Supply
Stock
(blank)
Johnson
De-watering
Domestic
Geothermal
Industrial
Injection
Irrigation
Public Supply
Stock
(blank)
Somervell
De-watering
Domestic
Industrial
Injection
Irrigation
Public Supply
Stock
(blank)
Grand Total
Above
Fredericksbur
Woodbine Woodbine g/Washita Paluxy
45
118
8
11
72
6
18
1
5
5
6
20
7
1
3
14
1
1
12
55
40
41
9
41
23
23
1
1
5
2
4
1
8
3
3
1
3
1
2
1
2
241
127
2
1
78
1
15
17
1
4
254
2
150
17
4
4
49
2
15
11
1
14
295
1
229
9
11
11
7
27
15
12
1
60
414
302
1
1
351
Glen
Below Grand
Rose Hensel Pearsall Hosston Hosston Total
7
178
89
18
1
7
5
26
5
13
17
1
3
11
7
1
28
195
3
2
4
105
7
2
4
15
4
4
1
5
8
5
1
19
53
76
99
2
179
3
1152
3
50
11
23
591
19
6
3
1
9
32
1
6
1
4
17
1
161
2
7
23
3
2
42
16
79
1
120
2
275
30
171
5
177
9
407
1
1
28
152
5
159
7
363
3
1
4
1
1
1
3
2
1
8
4
3
7
7
8
11
3
15
117
277
8
391
12
1932

9. Prairielands GCD
COMPARISON OF DISTRICT METER
DATA AND MAGS
Prairielands GCD

10. Prairielands GCD

11. Prairielands GCD

12. Prairielands GCD

13. Prairielands GCD

14. Prairielands GCD

15. Big Picture Comparison
• Meter data show yearly variation in pumping
• Explained by drought other factors
• Need to look at long term trends
• Pumping generally less than MAGs on County
basis
Prairielands GCD

16. MORE DETAILED COMPARISON
BY AQUIFER
Prairielands GCD

17. Prairielands GCD

18. Prairielands GCD

19. Prairielands GCD

20. Prairielands GCD

21. Detailed Comparison
• Hosston Aquifer production exceeds MAGs in
3 of 4 counties
• Hensel and Glen Rose also exceed MAG in 2
counties
Prairielands GCD

22. Prairielands GCD
COMPARISON OF DFCS AND
WATER LEVEL CHANGES
Prairielands GCD

23. DFCs by county and aquifer
Prairielands GCD

24. Findings from Historical Data
• Limited wells and measurements from TWDB
database to assess 19 DFCs
• Short term data and long term data can result
in different trends
• Need to use long-term trends (10-20 years)
• Need more wells and more measurements
Prairielands GCD

25. Available Data
Prairielands GCD

26. Prairielands GCD

27. Prairielands GCD

28. Prairielands GCD

29. Prairielands GCD

30. Prairielands GCD

31. Prairielands GCD

32. Prairielands GCD

33. Prairielands GCD

34. Prairielands GCD

35. Prairielands GCD

36. Comparison of DFC and
water level decline
Aquifer /
County
Woodbine
Paluxy
Glen Rose
Hensel
Hosston
Ellis
Less than DFC
No Data
No Data
No Data
Less than DFC
Hill
exceeds DFC
Old data only
(1941-1991)
No Data
Less than DFC
exceeds DFC
Johnson
exceeds DFC
exceeds DFC
Less than DFC
No Data
Less than DFC
Somervell
NO DFC
Less than DFC
Old data only
(1950-1986)
exceeds DFC
Less than DFC
Fine Print
1.
2.
3.
4.
Preliminary data and analysis
Based on arithmetic averages of wells by county
Summary based on limited information
Evaluation not meant to imply any particular regulatory response
Prairielands GCD

37. Agreement between MAG and DFC?
Aquifer /
County
Woodbine
Paluxy
Glen Rose
Hensel
Hosston
Ellis
Agree
No Data
No Data
No Data
Disagree
Hill
Disagree
No Data
No Data
Agree
Agree
Johnson
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
No Data
Disagree
Somervell
NO DFC
Agree
No Data
Agree
Agree
Agree
Water level decline > DFC and Pumping > MAG
OR
Water level decline < DFC and Pumping < MAG
Disagree
Water level decline > DFC and Pumping < MAG
or
Water level decline < DFC and Pumping > MAG
Prairielands GCD

38. Summary
• Pumping data from meters is helpful to compare to
estimated MAGS
• 19 DFCs require a significant number of monitoring
wells
• County/aquifer “disagreements” need a closer look,
more data, better data, better model, etc.
• Prairielands GCD:
–
–
–
–
developing and improving monitoring network
improving meter data
supporting GAM update
Focusing on long-term goals
Prairielands GCD