Evaluating MAGs & Pumping, DFCs and Waterl Levels: Preparing for Round 2 of Joint Groundwater Planning, Josh Grimes and James Beach
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
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
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
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
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
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
Editor's Notes
Fill in the missing blanks in the meter dataJanuary – May 2011July – December 2013Assign aquifer and formation based on NTGAM stratigraphy Weight pumping by formation based on screen lengthSum data: by county, basin and aquiferBy county and aquifer formationCompare to MAGs