Paul Alexander's Latest Tune on Pumping South Pool

For two straight years the City of San Angelo pumped water from the South Pool at Twin Buttes for the ostensible reason of saving five feet of water evaporation as a result of combining the two pools.  This was City Councilman Paul Alexander's frequent refrain.  Now that he's out of office Alexander had this to say (via San Angelo Live):

“In the beginning God had a plan and it involved rivers. Water was sent down rivers and that is how it naturally all went, and rivers lose very little water. But when we started damming up the water we created a situation like a pan, spreading out the surface area, and then we lose water very quickly. So we reconfigured the water (system) and we’re losing all of our water. That is point number one. Point number two is that the Watermaster, which is TCEQ (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality), requires that we release the same amount of water that would enter the system naturally. In other words, we get to keep the storm water, but we don’t get to keep the river water.”

The city pumped the last two years to save water, only it pumped water from a bowl (the South Pool) into the variable bottom North Pool (with many cake pan like sections).  No model was created that took into account pumping losses from seepage, thirsty vegetation and evaporation or the two pools' elevation and bottom topography.

Plus the level of the North Pool never rose more than a foot.  Mostly, it remained stable or declined.  South Pool water was a pass through helping to meet San Angelo's daily water needs.

Also not mentioned was the huge pipe sent to the South Pool in the mid 1990's intended to allow flow from the South Pool to Lake Nasworthy.  Former Water Chief Will Wilde never answered why this pipe was not installed.  Wilde had a direct conflict of interest via his cotton hobby farm which has rights to Twin Buttes water above a certain acre-feet level.  Wilde negotiated a deal for/with the city to trade this obligation for all the city's treated water.  While farmers got a lesser annual amount they, including Wilde, have a predictable irrigation source year in and year out.

Back to Councilman Alexander:

“In my opinion we can maintain Nasworthy this way through May, and that would get us to the boat races. However, any rain we got would boost that…here is the problem, if we don’t have any pumps set up and going, and we were to get good rains, the water would just go into the South Pool at Twin Buttes and sit there, we still can’t get it into Nasworthy. We must have pumps to get the water into Nasworthy, the level is too low to flow through on its own…so they would need to order the pumps and set them up and it would cost about $120,000 per month to run them. If we started pumping right now, it would take about 45 days to move the (approximately) 2,500 acre-feet of water. So what I’m thinking now is that is economically important for us to spend $200,000 to support Nasworthy through June for the races, so we can keep the momentum of that event going.”

The current city council wasn't happy about spending $10,000 on RiverFest, even with its fundraising and economic impact.  This $200,000 bill would need to be added to all the other ways the city funds the annual Showdown in San Angelo boat races.  I imagine its a hefty number.

The South Pool has to rise five more feet to be at the lip of the equalization channel.  That won't happen without a major runoff event.  The South Concho River is the only perennial flow river in our area.  It feeds the South Pool.  For the last decade the city talked about pumping or pumped the South Pool three times.  That the city only has an expensive, temporary solution is telling.  It looks like someone didn't want their water messed with.

South Pool's Future Mirrors Past

Twin Buttes' South Pool is up nearly a foot since I last visited.  That's in stark contrast to every other lake in town.  The City of San Angelo warned about a declining Lake Nasworthy and its potential impact on boaters and recreational users.

There has been no discussion yet on what to do with roughly 2,000 acre feet in the South Pool.  The lake level should continue its winter rise if left untouched.  I don't think it will reach the height needed to flow into the Equalization Channel without major runoff rains. 

It remains to be seen how this water is transferred for municipal use.  Pumping to the equalization channel and having the water gravity fed led to huge losses from seepage and evaporation.  Water Chief Ricky Dickson never updated the prior year's loss analysis, as requested by Council, but then again, he never provided Council the 60 day update after initiating pumping in 2013.

Will South Pool water make it to Lake Nasworthy in time for the Lucas Oil Boat Races?  God knows I'm praying for rain, warmer weather and wind. Our real winter has cut into my windsurfing time.  

San Angelo's Dire Water Situation

The City of San Angelo issued a press release on area lakes which serve as our water supply.  The last time they gave an update was in November. 

The City of San Angelo’s Water Utilities Department continues to monitor the level of Lake Nasworthy to advise citizens who live around the lake and those who use the reservoir for recreational activities of the changing conditions.

The City continues to release water from Nasworthy downstream to water rights holders in accordance with the Concho Water Master Program, as stipulated by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.  

The City has pumped all the water it can from Twin Buttes into Nasworthy. Without replenishing rainfall, Nasworthy’s level will continue to decline. During the remaining fall and winter months, the decline should be minimal as cooler temperatures result in reduced water usage and evaporation rates. Also, water usage is lowest in the winter – about 9 million gallons per day. Summertime usage can be two to three times that amount, depending upon the watering restrictions in place. 

The City is currently relying on O.H. Ivie Reservoir for most of its raw water needs. The City will continue to use O.C. Fisher Reservoir as a resource until that source is depleted. San Angelo has about 15 months of available water supply, assuming no rainfall or runoff during that span.

Without adequate rainfall, Lake Nasworthy’s water level will see dramatic changes during the spring and summer of 2014. Increased demands and evaporation will have a significant impact on lake levels. As of Jan. 15, Nasworthy was at 72 percent of its capacity; Ivie was at 14 percent, and Fisher and Twin Buttes were at 1 percent each.

The Texas Water Development Board estimates San Angelo’s reservoirs lost more than 5 feet of elevation to evaporation in 2013.

The City urges lakefront homeowners to monitor the lake for changing conditions.

Area windsurfers should be aware of a large rock just off the boat ramp at Mary Lee Park.  There could be other obstructions.  That said the South Pool at Twin Buttes was up nearly four feet last time I checked.  I plan to go out soon to record its current level.

Note:  The picture above is from October when the pumps had drawn nearly all they could from the North Pool.

South Pool Up Over 3 Feet

The South Concho River restored the South Pool somewhat the last few months. Last February City Council voted to pump the South Pool for the second year in a row. 

AUTHORIZATION FOR AND DIRECTION TO STAFF TO BEGIN THE TRANSFER OF WATER FROM THE SOUTH POOL TO THE NORTH POOL PROCESS FOR THE CITY’S USE OF WATER AT TWIN BUTTES RESERVOIR

Interim Water Utilities Director Ricky Dickson presented background information.  General discussion was held on the amount of water withdrawn from and transferred to the pool; starting the process earlier in June versus August; providing for a minimum water level in the south pool so not to drain completely; depending on all the variables, being more cognizant of the variables in order to better utilize the resources; the equalization channel releases, increasing the length of the pipeline, the mobilization and demobilization, and the related costs.

Motion, to direct staff to recommend a tentative start date but a date no later than June 15th; upon starting the transfer, present an update to City Council after 60 days; transfer the water as was conducted last year; and, with the understanding pumping will begin once the pools natural water flow ceases, was made by Councilmember Silvas and seconded by Councilmember Morrison.

Further discussion was held on allowing staff the flexibility to adjust the start date; the transfer of water in relation to the water conservation stages; and creating measurement data based on the transfer of water, the amount of water pumped, and the amount of water lost as a result of the process. Mr. Dickson advised an environmental assessment will be required before work can begin near the equalization channel. Mayor New suggested staff approach the Bureau of Reclamation to gather that information and move towards capital improvements to the area.

A vote was taken on the motion on the floor. Motion carried unanimously.

The 60 day update never happened.  No measurement data was ever presented to Council.  It remains to be seen when this item returns to Council's agenda. 

Texas Aquifer Grab Funded by Cheap, Borrowed Money

The AP reported:

Officials from the few rural counties where voters opposed a $2 billion water spending measure that was overwhelmingly approved are wary of big-city thirsts sucking them dry.

The Dallas Morning News reported Saturday that the 20 rural counties which voted down the measure — about 8 percent of all Texas counties — are uniquely able to produce water. Those county leaders now fear their needs will be sacrificed to maintain economic and population growth in Texas.

The water measure borrows from the state’s Rainy Day Fund to jump-start new pipeline and conservation projects. It passed by a 3-to-1 margin and was among the biggest and most ambitious plans passed by the Legislature this spring.

With Twin Buttes Reservoir and O.C. Fisher Lake nearly dry, San Angelo is in the race for new water sources (in addition to the just finished Hickory Aquifer pipeline).

Greg Flores, the vice president of public affairs for the San Antonio Water System, said the system has tapped area aquifers for water.

Flores said the state’s population will roughly double in 50 years, with most of that growth in urban areas. The state has to plan and make water available for urban growth to prosper.

Flores said Texas’ surface water — the water in lakes and rivers — is all already allocated and permitted for all practical purposes.  “So the state is going to have to look to groundwater to meet those future demands,” he said.

How many straws can be stuck in the Earth for groundwater?  Surely, that will impact spring and stream flow. 

In Bastrop County, which was among the counties that voted no, county Judge Paul Pape says residents have concerns about the exploitation of their underlying aquifer.

“We are not happy about making it easier or cheaper for water marketers or profiteers to pump and pipe our water away from here,” Pape said. “Someday in the future, we are going to need that water.”

And it won't be there.   Texas is now wide open for the greed and leverage boys and their billions in infrastructure money.  Private equity underwriters (PEU's) already own public water systems in California and Montana.  Come on down boys, the debt's cheap and the franchise solid.  Texas is now PEU country, water-wise.

City Leaders Finally Report to Council on Twin Buttes Pumping

San Angelo's Water Department Chief Ricky Dickson finally gave City Council an update on pumping water from Twin Buttes to Lake Nasworthy.  It's over.  This could have been reported in mid-September or mid-October when the pumps sucked air.  The question is whether the city will continue paying Gajeske rent for three pumps and piping. I plan to listen to the Council meeting on YouTube and will add an update based on what I learn. 

South Concho Water Rights Holder Speaks Up

The following letter was published in Livestock Weekly and the author gave permission to run it on Twin Buttes Reservoir:

Dear Sir,

Thank you for including an update regarding the TCEQ watermaster program and the Texas Farm Bureau lawsuit on the Brazos River. Coincidentally, there have recently been two letters to the editor regarding opposing viewpoints concerning the authority of the TCEQ over our neighbors on the San Saba River and Bear Creek. There appears to be a growing backlash to the watermaster program across the state, which can be confusing since their advertised role is to “ensure compliance with water rights by monitoring stream flows, lake levels, and water use”.

Through our ongoing drouth, the TCEQ’s alleged shift from protecting senior water rights to prioritizing junior municipalities, power generators and golf courses has brewed real discord along the river. Additionally, the watermaster program, which the papered water rights holders are forced to fund, serves as a landscape help line, policing a broad interpretation of the “domestic and livestock riparian water right” to include irrigating acres of lush St. Augustine grass for mowing, as a priority over historical, appropriated use.

I think Livestock Weekly readers would benefit from an article detailing the long-running Concho Watermaster program, also headquartered at San Angelo. The TCEQ Concho River Watermaster program is only on its third watermaster, survives despite its ability to ignore unlawful acts, even has a local farmer-group lawsuit currently pending in district court, and the whole story occurs in Livestock Weekly’s back yard.

I want to warn that the water situation at San Angelo is complicated, and your reporters may have some difficulty navigating the details. And since the TCEQ has recently fortified their San Angelo offices behind an electronic locking door from their newly remodeled public waiting room, complete with a stainless payment slot at the bottom of a new bulletproof, bank teller-style window which might as well sport a sign that reads “No Service”, I’ll offer a few pointers.

The main problem for this article is how do you accurately explain that Twin Buttes Reservoir is actually two lakes, collecting two major watersheds, with its two separate “pools” located three miles apart? Twin Buttes’ two “pools” are connected by a dirt “equalization channel,” but built with only a single outlet for the whole lake system, resulting in the illegal termination of the South Concho River, outside of flood events. Then you’d have to explain how San Angelo’s responsible for laundering the South Concho River’s streamflow into the south pool by releasing an equivalent amount of north pool water out of Twin Buttes’ only outlet, as calculated by the USGS streamflow gauge at Christoval.

And if you bring up the USGS gauge at Christoval, you’d have to report that out of the thousands of streamflow gauges operated by the USGS, the gauge at Christoval is the only gauge USGS funds which reads half the river, due to its location 300 feet downstream of the 115 year-old South Concho Irrigation Canal’s dam and constant flow headgate.

It would also be pertinent to point out that without limiting boards placed in the headgate at the South Concho Irrigation Canal’s dam, the South Concho River can basically be diverted around the pesky USGS streamflow gauge at Christoval. And in 2011, an affected senior water right holder on the South Concho forced the watermaster to place the limiting boards in the canal headgate for the first time in the watermaster’s history. Most readers could conclude, if they knew that the “undocumented water” in the South Concho Irrigation Canal returns to the South Concho River, five miles downstream of the South Concho streamflow gauge at Christoval, that the “extra” volume which flows into the south pool of Twin Buttes historically has not been credited to San Angelo’s Twin Buttes release requirement.

So the story would return to Twin Buttes Reservoir, where we’d look to the Bureau of Reclamation’s subcontractor in charge of monitoring the lake(s), which, in an odd case of the fox being in charge of the hen house, turns out to be the City of San Angelo and their unique, federally funded “lake operations” division of the San Angelo Water department. In another helpful exemption by the first Concho River watermaster, the City of San Angelo’s streamflow responsibility was moved to the beginning of town, as the rivers enter city limits, because, unlike the rest of Texas, which is responsible for streamflow until the river leaves the city/property limits, because … (insert any fathomable, nefarious, whiney reason here, because the reason doesn’t matter). What matters is that regardless of why, regardless of historic water use laws, and regardless of reality, the TCEQ Concho watermaster makes all of this possible.

Before the Concho watermaster, when San Angelo faced water shortages, the city paid senior water rights not to pump. Now the watermaster enforces “curtailments” on senior ag users to benefit municipalities without the need for municipalities compensating senior water rights holders. The TCEQ has its sights on controlling all of the surface water in the state, and without better producer communication, we are going to pay to have our own throats cut. I’m optimistic that the Brazos River TCEQ article, as well as a few timely letters to the editor, could prime the pump for future investigative reporting by Livestock Weekly on the uneven playing field which we are beginning to recognize as the TCEQ watermaster program.

Brian Treadwell
South Concho River senior water right holder
Christoval, Texas