The document discusses opportunities and limitations of Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) as a water management strategy in Texas. It provides an overview of ASR, including the three step process of recharge, storage, and recovery. It discusses how recent legislation (HB 655) in 2015 has positively changed ASR regulations in Texas. Several existing ASR projects in Texas are presented that utilize ASR for long-term storage/banking and seasonal storage/peak demand management. Potential benefits of ASR including storm water management are discussed.

1. Opportunities & Limitations of ASR as a
Water Management Strategy in Texas
Bill Mullican, P.G.

2. 2
From Noah’s flood to the drought of
the 50’s: Opportunities and limitations
of ASR as a water management strategy
in Texas as a result of HB 655

3. Presentation Agenda
 What is Aquifer Storage and
Recovery, or ASR?
 HB 655 (2015) statute and
rules
 ASR applications
 Drought strategy
 System optimization/
meet peak demands
 Storm water management
 Conclusions

5. ASR
Ground-
water
Talking
Drought
Storm-
water
Potable
Reuse
Noah’s
Ark
$200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200
$400 $400 $400 $400 $400 $400
$800 $800 $800 $800 $800 $800
$1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000

6. ASR
Ground-
water
Talking
Drought
Storm-
water
Potable
Reuse
Noah’s
Ark
$200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200
$400 $400 $400 $400 $400
$800 $800 $800 $800 $800 $800
$1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000
HB 655

7. “What is…. legislation,
passed in 2015, that has
positively changed ASR
regulations in Texas?”

8. What is ASR?
A three step process –
first recharge then
storage...
8
Mixing
Zone
Mixing
Zone
WATER QUALITY
(<250 mg/L Cl)

9. What is ASR?
Followed by
Recovery
9
Mixing
Zone
Mixing
Zone
WATER QUALITY
(<250 mg/L Cl)

10. Why are Water Suppliers
Looking at ASR in Texas?
 HB 655 (2015) – a set of policy
amendments developed to
 Address many roadblocks put in
place by HB 1898
 Address advances made in other
states with regards to ASR
technology

11. ASR benefits/ objectives
 Long term storage
(banking)
 Seasonal
storage/peak
demand
management
 Storm water
management
 Emergency storage
and supply
 Reclaimed water
storage for reuse
 Defer expansion of
water facilities
 Environmental
flows / ecosystem
maintenance
 Disinfection
removal
 Restoration of
Groundwater Levels
 Control subsidence
 Maintain
distribution
pressures
 Evaporation
management
11

12. Operational ASR Projects in Texas
Long-term Storage
(banking)
El Paso
Operational
Kerrville
San Antonio

13. Long-term storage (banking)
 Southern Nevada Groundwater
Bank (Las Vegas, Nevada): 57
ASR wells, 157 MGD
injection/recovery capacity,
over 350,000 AF banked*
 San Antonio Water System
(Texas): 29 ASR wells, 60 MGD
injection/recovery capacity, 30
MGD treatment capacity**
*Bouwer and others (2008)
** SAWS ASR Website (2018)
135,886 af
as of August 1, 2017
San Antonio Water System
Twin Oaks ASR Project

14. Seasonal Storage / Peak
Demand Management
El Paso
Operational
Kerrville
San Antonio
Operational ASR Projects in Texas

15. Seasonal Storage/Peak Demand Management
 Used when excess water is
available in winter months
and water shortages and/or
peak demand issues are a
recurring challenge
 City of Kerrville, Texas –
stores raw surface water
from the Upper Guadalupe
River in the winter in Trinity
Aquifer for withdrawal
during summer months

16. Seasonal Variation in Total Potable Water Production
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1-Dec-10 1-Dec-11 30-Nov-12 30-Nov-13 30-Nov-14 30-Nov-15 29-Nov-16 29-Nov-17
Flow(MGD)
Flow (MGD) 15 per. Mov. Avg. (Flow (MGD))Trend LineSWTP
Production

17. Seasonal Variation in Total Potable Water Production
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1-Dec-10 1-Dec-11 30-Nov-12 30-Nov-13 30-Nov-14 30-Nov-15 29-Nov-16 29-Nov-17
Flow(MGD)
Flow (MGD) 15 per. Mov. Avg. (Flow (MGD))Trend LineSWTP
Production
Current treatment capacity,
maximum water right, or contract

18. Bill Mullican, PG
June 2, 2014
The Evolution of House Bill 3013 -
relating to the underground storage of
water for later retrieval and beneficial use
Recommended Changes for the Next
Legislative Session

19. Storm Water Management
19
Could storm water management wells be
integrated into flood management strategies in
flood prone areas of Texas?
Storm water management wells, classified as Class
V injection wells under E.P.A. Underground
Injection Control Program, play a vital role in
others regions of the U.S. in the mitigation of flood
events
OBSERVATION
QUESTION
Disclaimer: The following discussion is not intended to serve as a declaration of feasibility at
any level, but rather to suggest that the use of storm water management/recharge wells in
Texas may be a topic that deserves further discussion and analysis

20. Storm Water Management in the US*
20
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
#STORMWATERWELLS
81% of the storm water wells in nation
None**
*EPA, 1999
** None authorized; 700 on inventory
71,015 documented
247,522 undocumented

21. Storm Water Management – Beneficial Uses
 Direct street runoff drainage wells
 Lake level control wells
 Pond level control wells
 Canal level control wells
 Local area drainage wells

22. Storm Water Management
 Of the 2,153 documented
storm water management
wells in Florida,
approximately 250 are
lake level control wells
 Highest density of wells in
City of Orlando, with 392
wells, all being completed
in the confined, Upper
Floridian Aquifer
Adapted from Kimrey and Fayard, 1984.

23. 23

25. San Jacinto River: Porter
25 Source: USGS
0
25000
50000
75000
100000
125000
150000
1/1/2017 3/2/2017 5/1/2017 6/30/2017 8/29/2017 10/28/201712/27/2017
Discharge(CFS)
Disharge (CFS)

26. Groundwater Levels
Have Steadily
Declined, Creating
Storage Capacity for
ASSR and Storm Water
Management
After the TWDB

27. Outcrop
Line of
Equal Elevation
Confined
Thickness
Unconfirmed
Thickness “Saturated
Thickness”
Measured
Water Levels

28. 28

29. Outcrop
Line of
Equal Elevation
Measured
Water Levels
Unconfined
Versus Confined

30. USGS
Interactive
Mapping Tool
– Water level
Changes in
Evangeline
Aquifer 1977-
2017

31. Total GW Production from Gulf Coast Aquifer
System 1880 – 2009 (in acre feet, from HAGM)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
MillionsofAcre-Ft

32. Bottom Line
 Based on water-budget statistics from
HAGM(2013), total net change in decline
of Gulf Coast Aquifer System storage (20
county area) is ~ 21.6 million acre feet
 In Harris County, over a 4-day period, an
average of 33.7 inches of rain was
recorded, equal to ~1.04x1012 gallons, or
~3,200,000 acre-feet of water
 One could conclude that at least for a
storage capacity perspective in the area
impacted by Hurricane Harvey, sufficient
storage space is available

33. Bottom Line – Second Verse
 For an event comparable to Hurricane Harvey,
based on an reasonable injection rates of
1,000 gpm/16+ inch diameter well completed
in the Evangeline Aquifer in Harris County, ~
5,200 Class V injection wells are required to
inject 10 percent of the flood water over a
two-week flood event
 At an average cost of $750,000 per well, it
would require an infrastructure investment of
$3.9 billion (not considering drought,
subsidence benefits)
 Realistically, it will require significant
additional temporary storage for storm
water management/drainage wells to
become a credible option for further
consideration

34. Conclusions and Observations
 There are a lot of questions: to
address
 Water quality – source water and
injection zone?
 Pretreatment requirements, if any?
 Is co-location with temporary surface
water storage feasible?
 Benefits to existing water supply?
 Environmental impacts – impacts on
stream flow and fresh water inflows to
bays and estuaries?
 Other benefits?
34

35. TCEQ Class V Authorization Well Types
 TCEQ UIC Program includes permit
authorization for injection wells
 #5D02 Storm Water Drainage
 #5D04 Industrial Storm Water Drainage
 #5F01 Agricultural Drainage
 TCEQ shows ~700 storm water/drainage
related wells in the Class V well inventory
 Anticipated authorization technical
requirements include water quality (both
from storm water and injection zone
water) and proposed sampling/monitoring
program

36. References utilized for presentation
 Bouwer, H., Pyne, D. G., Brown, J., Germain, S. S., Morris, T. M., Brown, C. J. Dillon,
P., and Rycus, M. J., 2008, Design, operation, and maintenance for sustainable
underground storage facilities: AWWA Research Foundation, 229 p.
 Bradner, L.A., 1996, Estimation of recharge through selected drainage wells and
potential effects from well closure, Orange County, Florida, U. S. Geological
Survey, Open-File Report 96-316, 30 p.
 Bradner, L.A., 1991, Water quality in the Upper Floridian Aquifer in the vicinity of
drainage wells, Orlando, Florida, U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources
Investigations Report 90-4175, 57 p.
 Brothers, K., and Katzer, T., 1990, Water banking through artificial recharge, Las
Vegas Valley, Clark County, Nevada: Journal of Hydrology, v. 115, pg. 77 – 103.
36

37. References utilized for presentation
 Environmental Protection Agency, 1999, The Class V Underground Injection
Control Study, Volume 3, Storm Water Drainage Wells, 96 p.
 Kimrey, J. O., and Fayard, L. D., 1984, Geohydrologic reconnaissance of drainage
wells in Florida, U. S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 84-
4021, 67 p.
 Lindner, J., 2018, Hurricane Harvey, presentation to the Texas AWWA Houston
Section Seminar, on February 13, 2018, Houston, Texas.
 Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, Environment Protection and
Heritage Council, National Health and Medical Research Council, 2009,National
Water Quality Management Strategy Document 23, Australian Guidelines for
Water Recycling, managing Health and Environmental Risks (Phase 2) Stormwater
Harvesting and Reuse: 129 p.
37

38. References utilized for presentation
 Pyne, D., 2005, Aquifer Storage Recovery: A Guide to Groundwater Recharge
through Wells, ASR Press, Second Edition.
 Schiner, G. R., and German, E. R., 1983, Effects of recharge from drainage wells on
quality of water in the Floridian Aquifer in the Orlando area, Central Florida, Water
Resources Investigations Report 82-4094, 124 p.
 Seereeram, D., Kincaid, D., Torres, M, and Watroba, D., Orange County’s Floridian
Aquifer’s drainage wells, recent experience and proactive rehabilitation program:
presented to ASCE Water Resources Technical Committee Luncheon, Orlando,
Florida, February 18, 2010.
 Seereeram, D., Kincaid, D., Torres, M, and Watroba, D., Orange County’s Floridian
Aquifer’s drainage wells, recent experience and proactive rehabilitation program:
presented to ASCE Water Resources Technical Committee Luncheon, Orlando,
Florida, February 18, 2010.
38

39. Thank you