Authority Contacts

WHO SHOULD I CONTACT TO VOICE MY CONCERN?…

Write/call one or more of the officials below. Tell them we can’t wait for problems to overwhelm us. We must act before things get out of hand.

SAN JACINTO RIVER AUTHORITY

Mr. Blake Kellum (936-588-1111)
P. O. Box 329
Conroe, Texas 77305
FAX 936-588-1114
Email: bkellum@sjra.net

SJRA BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Lloyd B. Tisdale, President
R. Gary Montgomery, Vice-President
Mary L. Rummell, Secretary
Joseph Stunja, Treasurer
David Kleimann, Member
Fred Koetting, Member
John Eckstrum, Member

You may contact any San Jacinto River Authority Board Member by addressing your comments or questions to their attention and forwarding your request to the Authority’s mailing address:
P. O. Box 329, Conroe, Texas 77305.

TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE OFFICIALS

Robert Cook-Executive Director (512-389-4802)
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
4200 Smith School Road
Austin, Texas 78744
FAX 512-389-4814
Email: robert.cook@tpwd.state.tx.us

Phillip Durocher, (512-389-4643)
Director, Inland Fisheries
4200 Smith School Road
Austin, Texas 78744
FAX 512-389-4394
Email: phil.durocher@tpwd.state.tx.us

Dr. Earl Chilton (512-389-4652)
4200 Smith School Road
Austin, Texas 78744
FAX 512-389-4394
Email: earl.chilton@tpwd.state.tx.us

Dr. Mark Webb (979-823-5860)
1004 East 26th Street
Bryan, Texas 77803
FAX
Email: mark.webb@tpwd.state.tx.us

COUNTY OFFICIALS

County Judge Barb Sadler (936-539-7812)
901 North Thompson, Suite 210
Conroe, Texas 77301
FAX 936-760-6919
Email: cojudge@co.montgomery.tx.us

County Commissioner Mike Meador (936-856-4851)
113 S. Trice Street
Willis, Texas 77378
FAX 936-539-7874
Email: bhouser@co.montgomery.tx.us

STATE OFFICIALS

Governor Rick Perry ((512-463-1849)
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 12428
Austin, Texas 78711-2428
Email Form: http://www.governor.state.tx.us/contact

PARKS & WILDLIFE COMMISSION BOARD MEMBERS

Peter M. Holt, Chairman, Chairman (210-648-8928)
3302 South W.W. White Rd.
San Antonio, TX 78222
FAX – (210) 648-0078

Joseph C. Fitzsimons (210-828-5600)
1920 Nacogdoches. Ste. 203
San Antonio, Texas 78209
FAX 210-828-5091

John D. Parker
1407 Woodland Drive
Lufkin, TX 75904
FAX – (936) 632-4503

Phillip Montgomery (972-455-4900)
P.O.Box Montgomery & Co.
5550 LBJ Freeway, Ste. 380
Dallas, TX. 75240
FAX 972-490-4905

J. Robert Brown (915-772-4246)
6949 Market Street
El Paso, Tx 79915
FAX 915-772-4246

Mark E. Bivens (806-376-7279)
414 S. Polk Street
Amarillo, Tcxas 79101
FAX 806-373-3557

Donato D. Ramos (956-722-9909)
P. O. Box 2009
Laredo, Tx. 78045-2009
FAX 956-727-5884

F. Dan Friedkin, Jr. (713-580-3220)
109 N. Post Oak Lane
Houston, Tx 77024
FAX 713-580-5220

Lee Marshall Bass (817-390-8400)
Chairman-Emeritus
201 Main
FT. Worth, TX 76102
FAX 817-390-8408

Photo Gallery

Weeds Indentified on the Lake

These are weeds that have been identified by the San Jacinto River Authority as potentially spreading throughout the lake and your shoreline.

Click picture for larger view

Full View Close-up

HYDRILLA

Click picture for larger view.

Full View Close-up

BUSHY POND WEED

Click picture for larger view.

Full View Close-up

GIANT SALVINIA

Click picture for larger view.

Full View Close-up

WATER HYACINTH

Click picture for larger view.

Full View Close-up

ILLINOIS POND WEED

Click picture for larger view.

Full View Close-up

Musk Grass

Click picture for larger view.

Full View Close-up

Wild Celery

Click picture for larger view.

Clearing Stumps From Lake Conroe

At the end of last year (12/13/11), local Fishing Organizations, The Lake Conroe Association, San Jacinto River Authority, Texas Parks and Wildlife, US Forestry Service, E-Z Boat Storage and the Palms Marina began working together in an effort to eliminate stump hazards located in the main parts of the lake (not creeks, tributaries, or dry lake beds). The approved area extended from the dam on the south to the southern point of Cape Malibu, being about 3 miles north of the FM 1097 bridge. The Lake Conroe Association, in conjunction with E-Z Boat Storage and Palms Marina began organizing and privately funding the stump removal part of the project at the beginning of the year. A GPS reading of the stump locations were taken in December while the lake was at it lowest level.

By the time the cutting began on 1/16/12, the lake had already risen 9″ to a 193.81 ft pool level. Local teams worked with the cutting contractors to locate and mark stumps for the contractors to cut. One member mentioned several times his worry that even a slight rise in water level might make some of the stumps unfindable. He praised the GPS program for directing the boats right over their targets. Fortunately, the weather held and the job was completed before anymore rains came. Four days later the lake rose to 194.2 ft , a level that would have made this project impossible to complete.

Encouraging for fishermen, about 95% of the cut-offs sank to the bottom in deep water, creating even better horizontal structure for fish habitat. Since these stumps are generally in the river and stream beds that fed the river, locating good fishing spots should prove easier than before.

FACTS ABOUT THIS PROJECT

  • Stumps were cut a minimum of 8 feet below the lake level.
  • Approximately 400 stumps were cleared.

Related Articles:

SJRA Weekly Lake Conroe Report: http://www.slideshare.net/sanjacriver/the-lake-report-012412

Lake Conroe Advisory Meeting: http://www.lakeconroe.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/LC-Advisory-Mtg-12.13.11.pdf

Dock Line Magazine: http://sjra.net/lakeconroe/stump-removal/TPW%20Stump%20removal%20article.pdf

SJRA Report: http://sjra.net/lakeconroe/stump-removal/index.html

Conservation method of choice for 19 Lone Star GRPs

Posted: Thursday, June 16, 2011 12:00 am

Conservation method of choice for 19 Lone Star GRPs

By Howard Roden Houston Community Newspapers

Of the 19 plans approved by the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District Tuesday, a dozen groups chose conservation as their primary strategy for attaining the mandated 30 percent reduction in groundwater usage.

While the majority of those Groundwater Reduction Plans were presented either by golf courses or homeowners associations, LSGCD board members were pleased the GRP sponsors embraced any method to reach the district’s Jan. 1, 2016, deadline.

“Our goal at the groundwater district was to see a reduction in the over-pumpage of the aquifers within Montgomery County,” Richard Tramm, LSGCD president, said.

He admitted being “pleasantly surprised” at the number of GRP sponsors relying on conservation.

“It showed a number of permittees were committed to what worked best for them,” Tramm said.

But there were other GRPs and Joint GRPs that followed a different route to acceptance.

Most notably is the San Jacinto River Authority’s Joint GRP that includes 141 large-volume groundwater users. The SJRA’s plan features development of a surface-water treatment plant on Lake Conroe and a pipeline system that will distribute that water to the city of Conroe, The Woodlands and high-growth areas along the Interstate 45 corridor.

A number of water systems in Montgomery County have pursued alternative water services. Municipal Utility Districts 8 and 9 entered into a two-faceted Joint GRP in which their contract allows them to draw surface water from Lake Conroe through a contract with the city of Huntsville.

A bed and banks permit from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is pending.

The MUDs’ other proposed water source is that from the Catahoula formation. Roy McCoy Jr., president of MUD 8, announced after the LSGCD board meeting that the two Walden MUDs will drill a test well in the Catahoula in the “very near future.”

“We think we will prevail on the bed and banks permit, and we’re going to do both,” he said. “We’re not worried about it. We can prevail on one or the other, but we think we’ll be successful with both.”

McCoy said all wells drilled so far in “our particular area” have contained less than the total dissolved solids required by the state. The temperature of test wells are around 105 degrees.

“Most likely, the temperature will have to be treated in some manner,” he said.

Commenting that the Catahoula aquifer is an “unproven source” of groundwater, SJRA General Manager Reed Eichelberger — an LSGCD board member — questioned whether the conservation district was “comfortable” enough to yield the necessary power to those whose alternative projects do not prevail.

LSGCD attorney Jason Hill said the GRP resolutions approved Tuesday become regulatory documents.

“Certification became the goal,” he told the board.

Eichelberger said the LSGCD viewed the SJRA as the “safe harbor” GRP, and its duty is to accept other entities that struggled.

“We’re willing to do that if they pay the pumpage fees and other financial responsibilities,” he said.

LCA PRESIDENT’S UPDATE

We’re hoping our LCA Members are enjoying 2011 and dealing with the multitude of extreme weather conditions being thrown at us by Mother Nature.  We’ve seen repeated record temperatures throughout June and an extended drought that has browned our grasses, damaged our trees and dropped our lake level more than three (3) feet.  Would you like some good news from your friends at the Lake Conroe Association?

 First, invasive weeds such as Hydrilla, Giant Salvinia and Water Hyacinth are well under control on Lake Conroe.  The primary activity of the LCA since its inception in 1977 has been the review of invasive weeds on Lake Conroe and organizing funding raising activities to raise private money for the control of those invasive weeds.  Thanks to the generosity of our donors, monies contributed by the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA), and time invested by a combination of the LCA, SJRA and the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department, we find our reservoir to be virtually invasive weed-free at this time.  This certainly beats a 2008 which saw infestations of Hydrilla at 2,052 surface acres, Giant Salvinia of 628 surface acres and Water Hyacinth of 68 surface acres.  To fund this effective reduction of invasive weeds, our donors contributed in excess of $600,000 and SJRA “matched” this $600,000 in donations.  The primary use of these funds was the purchase of 123,765 White Amur Grass Carp to combat the explosive growth of Hydrilla.  It is estimated that 32,000 White Amur Grass Carp remain alive in Lake Conroe today.

Second, the study being conducted by Texas A&M University to review the economic and social impact of reducing lake levels on Lake Conroe is more than 50% complete at this time and should be completed by the end of 2011.  An important survey measuring Montgomery County resident opinions on reducing lake levels will be mailed out within the next month to 1 out of every 10 households within a 4 mile radius of Lake Conroe.  Should you receive this survey, please do your best to complete and return the survey on a timely basis as your opinion counts!  Our LCA donors contributed $66,000 towards the total study cost of $142,000.  The LCA believes the study will support our opinion that lowering lake levels (due to the ever-increasing water use in Montgomery County) will negatively affect our local economy and property values, and that alternative water sources for our County should be explored immediately.

Third, we’re NOT asking you for money this year!  We are all aware of how a slowing economy, budget shortfalls and increasing unemployment have hurt so many families and friends.  In light of how important a dollar is to everyone, the LCA Board of Directors has elected to pass on soliciting funds through our Annual LCA Membership Campaign and decided to extend 2011 LCA Membership to all 2010 donors.  We believe our current balance (checking account plus certificates of deposit) is sufficient to meet our financial needs for the upcoming year and see no need to request money from you at this time.   Of course, should an unforeseen emergency occur in 2011 in our community which falls under the objectives of the LCA, we would initiate a fund raiser specific to that cause.  We anticipate renewing our Annual LCA Membership Campaign again in 2012.   For any newcomers interested in joining the LCA or for current LCA Members preferring to make a tax-deductible donation in 2011, donations to our Section 501(c) (3) non-profit organization can be mailed to:  Lake Conroe Association, P.O. Box 376, Willis, Texas  77378.  By our mission statement, the LCA “acts as a civic organization for the purpose of over-seeing, directing, initiating and promulgating programs that directly affect the control, use, and enjoyment of Lake Conroe for the benefit of Montgomery County, Texas.”

With a current lake level of 197.71 feet (over 3 feet below average pool elevation 201.0) and 2011 rainfall totals of only 6 inches (compared to an average 24 inches of rain by this date), we all look forward to some extended rain showers to replenish our reservoir, feed our grasses, plants and trees, and drop our temperatures.  We can all hope, can’t we?  We wish you and your families an enjoyable and prosperous summer of 2011.

Mike Bleier, President

Lake Conroe Association

SJRA joins the hunt for brackish water

Posted: Friday, March 11, 2011 11:04 pm

By Howard Roden | 0 comments

The San Jacinto River Authority is joining other water systems around Lake Conroe in the hunt for brackish water.

Days after the municipal utility districts in April Sound and Bentwater received tentative approval for a permit to pump water from the Catahoula Formation, the SJRA announced Thursday it would consider ways to “effectively incorporate brackish groundwater” into its countywide water plan.

The Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District has a mandated 30 percent reduction in groundwater consumption by Jan. 1, 2016, for those water users who pump 10 million gallons or more annually.

If successful in the search for a sufficient supply of brackish water, the SJRA could save money for the participants of its Groundwater Reduction Plan and slow the draw of surface water from Lake Conroe, SJRA Deputy General Manager Jace Houston said.

The SJRA’s plan would make brackish groundwater part of a portfolio that could include implementation of wastewater reuse and water conservation, Houston stated in a release.

One advantage is a partnership between SJRA and some of its GRP participants to drill brackish wells. The city of Willis is exploring such an option.

“We’re looking long-term at running a surface water pipe to Willis,” Houston said. “If we can put a well up there instead of a pipe, we can avoid that cost.”

Ken Conatser, representing April Sound’s MUDs 3 and 4, went before LSGCD board members Tuesday seeking approval of a proposed operating permit for an alternative water well not to exceed 350 million gallons annually.

LSGCD engineer Mark Lowry recommended delaying a decision until the board’s April 12 meeting, providing more time to study the data from April Sound and Bentwater (MUD 18). Bentwater MUD officials had sought a brackish water permit not to exceed the 125 million gallons the final half of the year.

“We don’t know whether the amount of water (in the Catahoula) is sustainable. There may not be enough, but that is their problem,” Lowry said. “There is nothing I see that would prevent (LSGCD) from issuing a permit.”

Conatser is confident the Catahoula’s water production will have long-term sustainability for the GRP for April Sound and the city of Montgomery. A well drilled from 2,200 feet to 2,800 feet produced drinkable water at 2,500 gallons per minute.

Most of the wells drilled into the Catahoula south of Texas 105 at deeper depths brought forth hot, salty water, Houston said. Conatser said a test well drilled to 3,200 feet got similar results.

The SJRA plans to conduct its own long-term studies on the Catahoula’s viability.

“We still need a lot more information to determine if this is a viable, long-term supply,” stated Arthur Faiello, director of Public Works for the city of Willis. “Developing a well in partnership with everyone else in the SJRA GRP protects us all from the risks associated with testing this unproven supply.”

Interest grows in a brackish water source deep underground

Municipal utility districts and major water users in Montgomery County concerned about the need to find alternative sources of water are digging deep for a solution — and they think they have found it.

A trio of water suppliers approved by the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District are tapping into the Catahoula Formation aquifer as a new resource for providing water to their customers now and in the future. Officials expect that number to grow.

“A study has been commissioned to determine the long-term viability of the Catahoula aquifer,” said Kathy Turner Jones, general manager of the LSGCD. “We want to determine the quantity, quality and suitability of the aquifer as a water resource.”

Turner said wells have been approved for Municipal Utility District 18 in Bentwater and Stanley Lake MUD and UD 3 in April Sound. Panorama Village has been approved for a test well — and Turner said she has heard rumors of interest from other cities and organizations.

Interest in the Catahoula is especially keen because the LSGCD has, for now, determined that water coming out of it will be considered an alternate resource and exempted from a mandate to reduce groundwater usage by 30 percent by Jan. 1, 2016.

To accomplish such a reduction, 85 major water users representing 135 water systems in Montgomery County banded together under a program developed by the San Jacinto River Authority. Jace Houston, deputy general manager of administration for SJRA, said the plan covers 80 percent of the total amount of water used in the county.

Ken Conatser, general manager of UD 3, was critical of the SJRA plan — saying the plan, which requires a commitment through 2045, is outrageously expensive.

“Our projected cost is millions less than it would be if we joined the SJRA program,” he said. “The Catahoula is a cost-efficient alternative.”

Original test wells drilled to 3,200 feet produced poor quality water, but at 2,800 feet — below the Evangeline, Chicot and Jasper aquifers that provide freshwater for Montgomery County — was significantly better.

Conatser said the water is low on dissolved solids and warmer than expected — around 102 degrees — but is quite acceptable. Standard chlorine treatment water from the Catahoula is potable and a viable source for human consumption. And Conatser said water from the aquifer is abundant and plentiful.

Interest in the Catahoula has not gone unnoticed by other utility districts. The SJRA is interested in tapping into the aquifer as an alternative source that would lower its need to rely on surface water — reducing the amount of water it would have to pump out of Lake Conroe beginning in 2016.

Houston said the SJRA is working with the city of Willis on a possible program that would incorporate tapping into the Catahoula aquifer as an alternative resource.

Jones acknowledged LSGCD currently considers the Catahoula exempt from the 30 percent reduction in groundwater reduction required of major users by 2016 but said the agency still maintains supervisory control over the use of this or any water resource in the county.

“The study will go a long way to determining the future use of water from the Catahoula aquifer,” she said. “The district reserves the right to monitor or limit production in the future if it is in the best interest of the public.”

That’s worrisome for Conatser because the members of the LSGCD board are appointed rather than elected. He expressed concern that board members have no consequences for inappropriate actions. Still, he supports the concept of a local agency responsible for local water management.

“I’d rather fight the battles here in Montgomery County than in Austin,” Conatser said.

For more information about the LSGCD, visit www.lonestargcd.org.

Lake Conroe MUDs strike the mother lode on new water

By Howard Roden City editor

In the search for an alternative water supply, the residents of April Sound and Bentwater appear to have struck the mother lode.

Results from two test wells drilled by Municipal Utility Districts 3 and 4 in April Sound show the water found in the Catahoula Formation of the Gulf Coast Aquifer to be “very usable,” and that the quantity available is “far more than anyone expected,” said Ken Conatser, general manager of MUD 3.

Meanwhile, similar results were reported by officials with MUD 18 in Bentwater from its test well.

“We’ve got good quantity and quality,” board member Chris Uzelmeier said.

The Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District board voted Tuesday to allow the water systems to begin construction of their production wells but withheld approval to begin pumping until the LSGCD’s next meeting in March.

Conatser oversees the joint venture intended to provide MUDs 3 and 4 with a source of water other than the San Jacinto River Authority’s Groundwater Reduction Plan. While a majority of the large-volume water systems in Montgomery County have signed on with the river authority’s program, Bentwater and April Sound are among a few Lake Conroe communities looking for a more cost-effective method to achieve a 30-percent reduction in groundwater consumption by 2016.

MUDs 3 and 4 have pursued a search for so-called “brackish” water in the Catahoula, which is located below the three aquifers currently used for the county’s groundwater. But Conatser said tests show the quality of water in the Catahoula — measured by the amount of total dissolved solids — is well within acceptable limits.

“Plus, it’s a whole lot less expensive than what it would cost to join the SJRA plan,” he said.

Scott Weisinger, of Weisinger Water Well and a board member with the LSGCD, was hired by Conatser to drill the 6-inch-diameter test wells. They achieved a flow of 150 gallons per minute.

“It gave us an indication of a good supply,” Weisinger said.

A 20-inch diameter production well has been installed and will pump at speeds of 600 gallons per minute to 2,000 gpm.

The test wells also revealed that the static water level of the Catahoula is three to five times higher than that of the Jasper, Chico and Evangeline aquifers, the primary sources of water in Montgomery County, Weisinger said.

Static water level is the level of groundwater when a pump is not operating.

While the static level ranges from 300 to 500 feet below the ground in the traditional aquifers, Weisinger said water from the Catahoula test well was only 100 feet from the surface.

“It’s almost artesian,” he said.

MUDs 3 and 4 have an agreement with the city of Montgomery in which they will over-convert their water production so Montgomery can attain its 30 percent reduction.

Although MUD 18 was the first water system to drill for an alternative supply, it is not likely to begin pumping until this fall or later, Uzelmeier said.

“We still have to issue bonds to finance the project,” he said. “We took the risk and it paid off.”

Howard Roden can be reached at hroden@hcnonline.com

LCA PRESIDENT’S UPDATE

TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY LAKE LEVEL SURVEY:

The Lake Conroe Association (LCA) has been working with Texas A&M University and Montgomery County to assess the impact of projected lake level fluctuations resulting from the San Jacinto River Authority’s (SJRA) Groundwater Reduction Plan.  Thanks to the generosity of LCA Members, the LCA was able to contribute $62,000 towards this $142,000 project.  Lake Conroe is certainly a treasured amenity for residents of Montgomery County, and reduced lake levels clearly impact use of the lake, local business success and residential property values.

Aside from evaluating engineering studies commissioned by SJRA to estimate the effects of removing water from Lake Conroe, an important element of the Texas A&M Study is a survey of local residents.  Texas A&M mailed invitations to participate in the Lake Conroe Survey in late July to a one-in-ten random sample of residents within four miles of the lake.  It is very important to respond so that A&M’s findings can incorporate our perspectives into estimates of the potential impact of the proposed SJRA Groundwater Reduction Plan.  These findings will help our leaders make choices that are sensitive to our perspectives and concerns as they address the serious water issues in our County.

(1)   If you are one of those who have already responded, thank you very much!

(2)   If you received an invitation but have not been able to respond, it’ not too late.  Go to the website (hrrc.arch.tamu.edu/lakeconroe) and enter your unique identifier from the post card you received in the mail.  If you’ve misplaced the post card, you can call the research team at Texas A&M at 979-845-7284 and they will be happy to get you started.

(3)   IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THE SURVEY BUT DID NOT RECEIVE AN INVITATION, you can send your e-mail address to Dr. George Rogers of Texas A&M at GRogers@TAMU.edu with a “subject line” of “Lake Conroe Study”.  He will accumulate these and forward them to the research team to invite you to participate in an “interested parties” survey that is separate from the random sample.  This “interested parties” survey is your opportunity to share your perspectives and be heard.  The survey will ask for your street address so that the data can be geo-coded, and the address will be subsequently deleted to assure anonymity.

Usually, the LCA asks you to make a donation and WE do the work.  This time, we aren’t asking for money but, rather, a small amount of your time.  We can’t respond to a survey requesting YOUR opinions.  We REALLY need your participation at this time!  PLEASE HELP US HELP YOU!

WATER MEETING CALLED BY JUDGE SADLER:

I was asked to attend a water meeting yesterday by Montgomery County Judge Sadler.  Attendees included representatives from The City of Houston, Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District, SJRA, Region H Water Planning Committee, Montgomery County, The City of Conroe, Lake Conroe Communities Network (LCCN) and various interested parties.  I thought you would appreciate an update of what I interpreted was presented in that meeting.  I list the following:

1)      Current lake level on Lake Conroe is 196.92 (normal pool is 201.0).  The lowest Lake Conroe has ever reached is a level of 196.

2)      The City of Houston started removing water from Lake Conroe on Tuesday, August 16, 2011.  The estimated rate of removal equates to approximately one half inch per day, or fifteen inches per month.  Without significant rainfall to modify their plans, The City of Houston expects to remove a total of three feet of water by the end of 2011.  As two thirds owner of Lake Conroe’s water supply, The City of Houston will pay nothing to SJRA for this water.

3)      The City of Houston’s contract with SJRA for water removal is based on a calendar year.  They can remove two thirds of 100,000 acre feet of water (or approximately 3 feet of water) in any calendar year.  Therefore, if significant rainfall does not modify their plans,  The City of Houston COULD start withdrawing water from Lake Conroe under its 2012 allotment starting January 1, 2012.  At one half inch per day, The City of Houston COULD remove another 3 feet of water from Lake Conroe by the end of March, 2012.  Since water use reduces during the Winter season, it would be more likely that The City of Houston removes that 3 feet of water by mid-2012 and not the end of March, 2012. 

4)      Summer evaporation rates approximate one third to one half inch per day, and total approximately 4 feet per year.

5)      While weather forecasters are certainly not always accurate, climatologists do not foresee significant rain for our area for the balance of 2011.  Further, with an estimated 50% accuracy, climatologists predict a 2012 drought similar to that we are experiencing in 2011.

6)      In big, round numbers, our lake level could reach a level of 190 (or eleven feet below normal pool) by the end of 2011.  The math used would be:  Current pool of 197… less 3 feet of water removed by The City of Houston… less 2 feet of water evaporated in the second half of Summer/Fall… less 1 ½ feet of water which could be sold by SJRA (their one third of 100,000 acre feet)… less ½ foot of water to account for the surface of Lake Conroe reducing as the water level drops (similar to a bowl….more surface at the top of the bowl and reducing surface as you approach the bottom of the bowl).

7)      Looking for the most time-effective solution to our water shortage, the individuals attending Judge Sadler’s meeting strongly encouraged immediately drilling further test wells into the Catahoula Aquifer.  Determining the quality and sustainability of this aquifer is of utmost importance in evaluating our water options.

8)      Judge Sadler also encouraged the Region H Water Planning Committee to move forward with evaluating the feasibility of building another reservoir in Montgomery County to supplement the waters of Lake Conroe.  Previous requests of this nature in 2010 were denied by Region H.  With Region H entering a new 5-year planning cycle beginning in 2012, Judge Sadler pointed out that ignoring this request for another 5 years would be unacceptable given water shortages across our area.

9)      Judge Sadler further requested that Region H provide a thorough financial review comparing the costs of all water options available to our County including a new reservoir, buying water from the Trinity River Authority and a host of other potential options.

10)  While only briefly discussed due to time constraints (priority topics were The City of Houston’s water withdrawl, projected lake levels, use of the Catahoula Aquifer, and Region H’s review of a new reservoir), other water topics of interest included conservation, water restrictions, use of treated effluent for golf course and residential irrigation, and mandatory use of treated effluent incorporated into the development of new communities for irrigation and water features.  

Thank you for your support of the Lake Conroe Association and your interest in our Lake Conroe community.

Mike Bleier, President

Lake Conroe Association

Houston soon may tap Lake Conroe for water supply

Falling lake levels raise concern

Without rain soon, Houston will take emergency step to ensure water plant can still operate

By CINDY HORSWELL HOUSTON CHRONICLE

Aug. 4, 2011, 5:18AM

Along the shores of Lake Houston and Lake Conroe, many landlocked boat docks lead to nowhere while grassy islands and sandbars sprout where water once flowed.

Pieces of an old railroad, long hidden by the ample waters of Lake Houston, are suddenly visible.

Now both lakes may soon enter uncharted territory as the incessant drought and searing temperatures continue to deplete these two reservoirs’ precious water supplies.

And things could grow drastically worse if no significant rain falls in the next week and a half, authorities warn. Each lake was built on the San Jacinto River as a source of drinking water for Houston.

The city of Houston this week has alerted the San Jacinto River Authority that it may have to take an emergency step that has not been done for two decades – order Lake Conroe to release up to 150 million gallons of water a day from its dam. The water would then flow downstream to Lake Houston, so that reservoir would remain deep enough to assure the city’s water purification plant there can continue operating.

However, if Lake Conroe is drained of this amount for two months, the lake’s water level will quickly plummet to a new all-time record low.

Conroe’s current lake level is 197.3 feet above mean sea level, which is 3.7 feet below normal. The lowest the level has ever dropped is 5 feet below normal. That record was set in 1989, the only other time the city of Houston ordered water withdrawn for seven months, said San Jacinto River Authority’s deputy general manager, Jace Houston.

With water levels nearly 7 feet below the normal 44-foot elevation on Lake Houston, boaters are more often hitting stumps or becoming stranded on sandbars that have surfaced.

Officer Gary Crawford with the Houston Police Department’s Lake Patrol pointed to hundreds of old pilings now visible from a 2-mile railroad trestle crossing the lake from Huffman to Walden.

“We’re working to cut them down below the waterline,” he said. “But we could never tackle all the stumps. It would take an army to do that.”

Different kind of summer

Duesen Park has also been forced because of insufficient water to close ramps that used to provide sailboats and kayaks access to Lake Houston. Residents around Lake Conroe are likewise unhappy that their lake level is hurting.

“The number of residents using the lake this summer seems to have dropped slightly because of the low level,” said Texas Parks and Wildlife game warden Brannon Meinkowsky.

The shallower north end, he said, appears to be suffering the most.

“I don’t have a lake now,” complained Mike Bleier, president of the Lake Conroe Association. “I used to have lake-front property. But now I have a forest.”

He cannot launch a boat or jet ski from his dock and gave up recreational use of the lake for the summer.

“It’s dangerous to be out there if you’re not familiar with it,” he said. “Your boat prop can easily hit a stump or a sandbar now.”

Nonetheless, Gary Lewis, TowboatsUS operator, said the lake continues to be populated by boaters.

“I don’t see it as all detrimental, except for those who have boathouses that aren’t usable,” Lewis said. “I just see it as having more exposed sandy beaches to play on.”

To secure the city’s water supply, Houston taxpayers years ago paid for the construction of both lakes on the San Jacinto River. Lake Houston, covering 12,000 acres in northeast Harris County, began operations in 1953, followed by the 21,000-acre Lake Conroe in Montgomery County in 1973.

Lake Conroe is used to hold water in reserve until it’s needed by Lake Houston’s water plant.

“The water level on Lake Houston cannot fall below 37 feet or the water plant’s intake pumps won’t work,” explained Alvin Wright, Houston’s public works spokesman.

Down 3½ inches a week

The water level on Lake Houston currently stands at 37.6 feet, dangerously close to the mark that triggers withdrawals from Lake Conroe. The level is dropping by as much as 3½ inches a week.

“We’re experiencing much higher water usage, while water pipes are also breaking from the extreme heat,” Wright said. “Usually we have 250 repairs pending, but now we’ve got 600 repairs.”

Plus, the municipal water supply is dwindling because of greater evaporation from triple-digit highs and no rain to replenish the losses.

“Houston’s mayor and public works director will make the call to order any release from Lake Conroe. We’re still hoping that won’t happen,” said Wright, who said the city wants to avoid dipping into its reserves until absolutely necessary.

However, he stressed that Lake Livingston, Houston’s main drinking water supply, is nearly full, and the city has sufficient reserves to last two years.

cindy.horswell@chron.com

City of Houston May Request Water from Lake Conroe – SJRA Press Release

City of Houston May Request Water from Lake Conroe

Although an official notice has not yet been received, the City of Houston has given preliminary indications that it will soon request a measured release of water from its two-thirds share of the water rights in Lake Conroe to meet the City’s operational needs in Lake Houston. An exact quantity and start date is not yet known, but initial estimates are that the City might request a release of up to 150 million gallons per day beginning sometime within the next two weeks. This equates to approximately half an inch per day.

Engineering staff for the City of Houston have indicated that the purpose of the release is not to raise the level of Lake Houston but simply to stabilize the lake level for operational needs at the City’s Northeast Water Purification Plant. The amount of water requested from Lake Conroe would be adjusted daily based on weather conditions in the Lake Houston watershed, and the releases would likely continue until the current drought conditions begin to abate.

Lake Conroe was built as a joint venture between the City of Houston and the San Jacinto River Authority, with the City owning two-thirds of the water rights in the reservoir, and the SJRA owning the other one-third. In September of 2009, the SJRA and the City executed a long-term water supply contract that secured the SJRA’s right to use all of the water in Lake Conroe for the SJRA’s countywide Groundwater Reduction Plan (GRP) program. The GRP program will not need a significant amount of the City’s water until at least 2025, and during those years in which the City’s water is not used by the GRP, the contract allows the City to call on the water for its own short-term uses on a year-by-year basis.

Based on current weather patterns and inflows into Lake Houston, the SJRA does not currently see an immediate need to make any releases from the SJRA’s one-third share of Lake Conroe to meet the needs of its own downstream industrial customers; however, if severe drought conditions continue, it may become necessary for the SJRA to release a small amount of water in addition to the City of Houston’s release. If this were to occur, the SJRA’s release would be relatively small – probably in the range of 10 to 15 million gallons per day (approximately 1/20 of an inch per day or one and a half inches per month). If such releases are required, the SJRA would reimburse the GRP program for the appropriate amount of reservation fees that were paid for the SJRA’s share of the water in Lake Conroe.

In terms of impact to the level of Lake Conroe, the estimated release of up to half an inch per day would equate to three or four inches per week. During the hot summer months, this is approximately equal to the amount of water that evaporates from the reservoir. Lakefront property owners with boat slips should monitor water levels and take appropriate action as needed to trailer their boats or store them in marinas until normal rainfall patterns return and lake levels begin to rise.

For additional information, please visit the SJRA’s website at www.sjra.net. To receive updates via the internet or email, you can link to our Facebook page from our website or register your email address by signing up using the field in the lower right corner of our home page.}

Search for water must continue

Even with a negotiated contract between the city of Conroe and the San Jacinto River Authority that secures Conroe’s access to water in Lake Conroe for up to 80 years, city officials told The Courier recently that the search for future water resources must continue.

For that reason, we welcome the decision of the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District to give large volume groundwater users the option of looking for water source alternatives to Lake Conroe surface water.

The Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District recently approved changes to its district rules that give large volume groundwater users, those groups that pump at least 10 million gallons annually, the opportunity to look for alternative water sources in place of the multi-billion dollar surface-water project proposed by the San Jacinto River Authority.

As a result, representatives from several of the municipal utility districts located around Lake Conroe are looking at their options, particularly the potential for obtaining and treating brackish water. MUD No. 18, the water provider for Bentwater, already has advertised for a contractor to drill a test well to determine if there’s enough brackish groundwater underneath the Gulf Coast Aquifer to make a project viable. Brackish groundwater is located at greater depths than water from the aquifer and must be treated using reverse osmosis, all of which adds to the costs of the water as an alternative source.

Still, some believe brackish water could become an affordable alternative to tying into a surface water treatment and distribution system utilizing Lake Conroe surface water.

The negotiated agreements which now tie Conroe and The Woodlands to Lake Conroe’s surface water were an important step to ensuring this county has the water it needs for the future.

But the test well that MUD No. 18 plans to drill could open a door for other possibilities for water in the future. Whether brackish water is a viable option is a worthwhile question, and as Montgomery County looks to its future water needs, it’s worth answering.

Hunt for brackish water begins

By Howard Roden | comments

LAKE CONROE – Now that they’ve been given the green light to explore for an alternative water supply, several municipal utility districts in Montgomery County are starting to map out their strategies.

Representatives from several of the MUDs located around Lake Conroe are planning to meet and discuss their options. Meanwhile, MUD No. 18, the water provider for Bentwater, already has advertised for a contractor to drill a test well to determine if there’s enough brackish groundwater underneath the Gulf Coast Aquifer to make the project a viable one.

The Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District last week approved changes to its district rules that give large volume groundwater users, those groups that pump at least 10 million gallons annually, the opportunity to look for alternative water sources in place of the multi-billion dollar surface-water project proposed by the San Jacinto River Authority.

The SJRA’s plans calls for construction of a surface-water treatment plant on Lake Conroe, with the water piped to the city of Conroe, The Woodlands Township and selected areas along Interstate 45. The over-conversion of surface water to those areas will allow the rest of Montgomery County water users to continue pumping groundwater, but at 70 percent of the volume consumed in the 2009 calendar year.

In addition to Bentwater, the municipal utility districts in the Lake Conroe communities of Walden and April Sound think they have a cost-effective solution to SJRA’s plan by pumping the brackish groundwater located underneath the Gulf Coast Aquifer.

The Texas Commission of Environmental Quality, and other governmental entities, had included the Catahoula Formation as part of the Gulf Coast Aquifer. However, the LSGCD board amended its definitions last week to exclude the Catahoula as a part of the Gulf Coast Aquifer.

“We’re thankful that Lone Star saw the light,” said Roy McCoy, a LSGCD board member and president of MUD No. 8 (Walden). “This opens up the possibly for another source of water, not only for the residents in Walden but potentially for other residents around the county.”

McCoy acknowledges brackish groundwater, groundwater that, by definition, includes at least total dissolved solids concentrated in excess of 1,500 parts per million is an unprove source for water that has a great deal of potential as cities and communities search for water in future years.

“We’re in a very good positions that, in time, brackish groundwater could become an important part of the landscape,” he said. “It’s a tremendous opportunity.”

McCoy said drilling deeper to locate the brackish water, and its treatment process (reserve osmosis), could be more expensive up front, but those costs could be more than offset when compared to the expense of installing massive pipelines, like the ones proposed to Conroe and The Woodlands in the SJRA project.

“It could save Montgomery County millions,” McCoy said.

Of course, the major question is just how much brackish water exists in the Catahoula Formation, which is located below the freshwater aquifers of the Chico, Evangeline and Jasper aquifers.

MUD No. 18 engineer Bill Kotlan said the brackish water is located in a strata approximately 2,500 feet in depth.

Based on previous experience with gas and oil wells in the areas, the Catahoula releases water at a rate of 900 to 1,100 gallons per minute, he said.

“The real question is the volume of water that is down there,” Kotlan said.

Kotlan anticipates it will take four months to drill the test well and analyze the data before reaching a conclusion. Cost of the test well is estimated at $500,000, he said.

The municipal utilities districts of April Sound and Walden may join Bentwater on its test well to reduce costs.

“We well may decide to drill our own test well, or we may join up to save money,” McCoy said of Walden. “It’s a decision we’ll have to make.”

Kotlan said Bentwater was prepared to drop its test well in January, but was delayed by changes in the LSGCD’s district deadlines. MUD No. 18 wants to have its testing completed in time to join the SJRA’s Groundwater Reduction Plan if its test well fails to show enough brackish groundwater is available, Kotlan said.

“If there’s no other option, there’s always the SJRA MUD No. 3,” General Manager Ken Conatser said.

LCA PRESIDENT’S UPDATE

On January 15, 2010, the Lake Conroe Association held its Annual Meeting at the San Jacinto River Authority’s office to summarize 2009 LCA activities for its members and elect the LCA Board for 2010.  Through proxies submitted by LCA members, you have chosen to re-elect the 2009 LCA Board to the 2010 LCA Board.  Your 2010 LCA Board consists of Gene Barrington, Mike Bleier, Tom Butz, Dawn Cleboski, Gene Colbert, Rich Cutler, Jim Pohoski, Ben Richardson and Sue Wheatley.  Upon being re-elected for 2010, the LCA Board then voted the following into office for 2010:  Mike Bleier, President; Ben Richardson, Vice President; Dawn Cleboski, Secretary; and Tom Butz, Treasurer.  We thank our LCA members for supporting us and I thank the LCA Board for volunteering their time for yet again another year of service.

 

To provide a brief summary of 2009 activities, I list the following:

  • ·          Dam repair from Hurricane Ike damage was commenced in January, 2009 and completed in April, 2009
  • ·          Due to the collective efforts of many, Hydrilla was reduced to 2 acres by January, 2009
  • ·          Water Hyacinth reduced from 68 acres in October, 2008 to 13 acres in July, 2009
  • ·          Giant Salvinia reduced from 628 acres in October, 2008 to 50 acres in July, 2009
  • ·          Native plants were planted in Lake Conroe during 2009 by the Seven Cove Bass Club and Texas Parks & Wildlife to replace some of the native vegetation eaten by the White Amur Grass Carp
  • ·          A “Water Summit” was held by Judge Sadler and invited local officials (not including the LCA) to discuss water issues for our County
  • ·          The LCA sent a Water Question & Answer Survey to over 19,000 local residents and businesses to get responses to fourteen questions about water issues in our County and lake levels on Lake Conroe.  Survey results from over 2,500 respondents were submitted to attendees of the ‘Water Summit”.  Subsequent to this, the LCA has been included in most all meetings with local officials regarding water issues.

 

To give you a sense of what the LCA Board does on your behalf other than meet once a month, during 2009 we met with State Senator Nichols, State Representative Brandon Creighton, Conroe Mayor Melder, County Judge Sadler, County Commissioners Meador and Doyal, the San Jacinto River Authority, Texas Parks & Wildlife, the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District, the Region H Water Planning Board, the Woodlands Township Board, Lake Conroe Communities Network, and the Seven Coves Bass Club.  We present to Property Owner Associations and various local groups upon request.  We testified in Austin over funding for aquatic plant management.  And taking the lion share of our time currently, we involve ourselves in the various water issues for our County in cooperation with many involved parties.

 

I don’t know if you’re tired of the overall “water topic” in our County, but I’d be remiss to ignore the problem in this update.  I divide the “water topic” into three catagories:  Water contracts with large water users, Lake levels on Lake Conroe, and Future water sources for our County.  We have stayed away from the category “Water contracts with large water users” since this is an individual issue between The City of Conroe, various MUD Districts and the San Jacinto River Authority.  We hope they will collectively resolve this situation to provide the best solution for everyone involved.  On the category “Future water sources for our County”, this topic is somewhat “tabled” currently (and will be picked up again in the near future).  I say “tabled” because the immediate priority has been resolving the issue of “Water contracts with large water users” and the necessity for the San Jacinto River Authority to initiate construction of its water treatment plant and pipelines by the imposed 2016 completion deadline.  Judge Sadler did present his concept of a future reservoir site within our County to the Region H Water Planning Board, but that Board elected to exclude this request currently based on a lack of adequate engineering studies at this time.  A thorough review of reservoir site options and cost comparisons to other sources of water such as buying water from the Trinity River Authority or drilling deep wells to capture “brackish water” (water with a high salt content located below the aquifers we currently utilize) will be further explored this year independently by a variety of entities.  While the San Jacinto River Authority has not committed to review alternative reservoir sites until after 2016, we are hopeful that their timetable will be moved up and resources allocated to this review prior to 2016.  And that leaves us with the topic of “Lake levels on Lake Conroe”……a topic of great interest to our many LCA members.

 

Rather than go down the arguments that “Lake Conroe was built as a reservoir and not for the benefit of lakefront owners” or “Lowering the level of Lake Conroe will have enormous affects on the local economy and property values”, I’ll just summarize what’s being done to review the data regarding lake levels.  The San Jacinto River Authority hired an independent consulting firm to utilize historic data to project the potential effects on our lake levels and, based on reports provided to them by those consultants, concluded that “The true effect of SJRA’s plan on the lake level of Lake Conroe will be minimal”.  It appears that all in the County are not quite ready to accept that conclusion.  While I, personally, waded through piles of data and reports to try to come to the same conclusion as SJRA, I found the sheer quantity of data to be daunting and my engineering expertise lacking to report as any type of “expert”.  Fortunately, in attending a meeting at SJRA’s office last week, I learned that plenty of entities have engaged their own consultants to review the work completed by SJRA’s consultants.  In fact, this data and the conclusions reached are being currently reviewed by a minimum of five (5) other consulting firms employed individually by the City of Conroe, the Region H Water Planning Board, the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District, a group of MUD Districts and a group of local developers whose future projects would be negatively affected by low lake levels.  While I do not have a specific timetable from them on completion of their five independent reviews, I’m confident all understand time is of the essence and that they are far more qualified than I to adequately review this important topic.

 

But, here are a few of things I can share with you based on our involvement to date.  SJRA presents information that in future years of maximum water use (2045 and beyond by their estimation) where 100,000 acre feet per year are drawn from Lake Conroe (which SJRA refers to as “4 feet of water”), we should not be concerned because an average of seven (7) feet of water is released through the dam each year.  First, I’d like to clarify that 100,000 acre feet is far closer to “5 feet of water” than “4 feet of water”.  Second, the conclusion that the 100,000 acre feet per year of water won’t be reached until 2045 is based on two critical assumptions: 1) Projected population growth, and 2) Estimated re-charge rate of our aquifer.  If either of these assumptions are in error, we could see the use of that 100,000 acre feet per year much earlier than 2045.  And third, while stating that an “average” of seven feet of water is released through the dam each year, the use of this “average” is quite misleading.  In fact, in the ten years ended 2008, less than 100,000 acre feet per year were released in five (5) out of the past ten (10) years.  Specifically, releases were as follows:  1999….68,531 acre feet, 2000….15,391 acre feet, 2003….85,978 acre feet, 2006….10,391 acre feet, and 2008….58,193 acre feet.  We look forward to these five consulting firms reviewing SJRA’s historical data and the underlying assumptions applied, and we hope they reinforce SJRA’s conclusion that “lake level effects will be minimal”.  It would be wonderful to have all agree on the validity of SJRA’s conclusions and get us all moving in one direction together on the lake level topic.

 

While I have not discussed the need for Water Conservation, it clearly remains a vital topic for our future.  Since the Lake Conroe Communities Network (LCCN) has created a committee to review this area, the LCA did not see the need for a duplication of efforts.  The LCA does have a LCA Board Member on LCCN’s Water Committee.  LCCN is a valuable local organization who tackles numerous topics on our collective behalf, and they deserve our support and thanks.

 

If you were wondering, we estimate that approximately 59,000 White Amur Grass Carp are still alive currently in Lake Conroe.  This is based on Texas Parks & Wildlife’s assumption of a 32% mortality rate per year and no reproduction of the genetically modified species.

 

Just a reminder…..early voting is currently being conducted for the March 2 primary elections.  For many on Lake Conroe, the closest location is the West County Courthouse Annex at 19380 Texas 105 West, Suite 507 in Montgomery.  The Courier lists all early voting locations and times if you’re looking for an alternative site.  Whether you early vote or vote on March 2, please voice your opinion by voting.

 

 January rainfall at the damsite totaled2.28 inches and February rainfall through February 17 totalled 2.44 inches.  In reviewing data from the damsite between 1999 and 2008, average January rainfall has equated to3.81 inches and average February rainfall for 17 days has equated to 2.09 inches.  Water is currently being released from the dam and today’s lake level is 201.16.   The average temperature in January and February is 47 degrees and 52 degrees, respectively, compared to our actual 2010 results of 46 degrees for January and 42 degrees for February.

 

And finally, the LCA is trying to update a list of Property Owners’ Associations.  This information would be used to keep the various Lake Conroe communities advised of issues critical to our lake.  Would you please contact the head of your POA and request that they provide us with 1) Name of your subdivision or lakefront community, 2) An e-mail contact for the POA, and 3) A phone number or contact for the POA if no e-mail is available?  This information will be used only by the LCA and not shared with anyone.  Please send replies to our LCA Board Member Jim Pohoski at  jimpoho@cebridge.net.  Thank you, in advance, for your consideration in this request.

 

We hope you found this LCA President’s Update to be informative and appreciate your continuing support.  Should you have questions or feedback, e-mails can be sent to www.lakeconroeassociation.com.  Let’s look forward to wonderful Spring and Summer seasons ahead.

 

Working for you,

 

Mike Bleier, President

Lake Conroe Association

Walden MUDs plan to purchase share of Huntsville wastewater

By Howard Roden | comment

The two municipal utility districts that provide water to Walden residents have negotiated a contract with Huntsville to acquire a portion of the city’s wastewater return that flows into Lake Conroe.

Should MUD Nos. 8 and 9 ultimately strike a deal with the San Jacinto River Authority for access to the reservoir, Walden’s water needs could be assured through 2035, several community leaders announced during a presentation at the SJRA meeting Wednesday at the Lone Star Convention Center in Conroe.

The two MUDs are among the approximately 197 large-volume groundwater users in Montgomery County required to reduce their groundwater usage at least 30 percent by Jan. 1, 2016. LVGUs are defined by the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District as water systems that pump at least 10 millions gallons annually.

The majority of those water users agreed to join the SJRA Groundwater Reduction Plan, which calls for the construction of a surface water treatment plant near Lake Conroe. Most of the water will be piped to the city of Conroe and The Woodlands area in order for the other water systems to achieve the mandated reduction.

Several cities and governmental entities, such as Panorama Village, Shenandoah, Bentwater and April Sound, are pursuing the idea of drilling for brackish water in the deepest strata of the Gulf Coast Aquifer. However, the Walden MUDs opted to go in a different direction, settling on “indirect reuse” of their wastewater return flow, supplemented by wastewater reuse from an additional source, said Mike Irlbeck, of NRS Engineering in Austin.

The MUDs’ jointly operated wastewater treatment plant presently discharges an average of 350,000 gallons per day into Lake Conroe. The plant is permitted up to 900,000 gallons per day.

Under the MUDs’ own proposed GRP, the contract with the city of Huntsville provides Walden with up to 2 million gallons per day from Huntsville’s two existing wastewater treatment plants.

Huntsville is discharging 1.6 million gallons per day into the San Jacinto River upstream from Lake Conroe. The city has a combined discharge permit of 4.1 million gallons per day.

“Combined with the MUDs’ own return flow, these two water supply sources are sufficient to meet the MUDs’ conversion obligation under the LSGCD rules,” Irlbeck said.

Over the next 40 years, the Walden proposal will conserve more than 66,000 acre-feet of groundwater, according to the MUDs’ presentation.

“We’ve worked hard for two years to try and find an alternative that was good for our constituents,” said Linda Wilson, president of MUD No. 9. “Our project reduces groundwater use by a tremendous amount. The SJRA would never have to run a pipeline to us.”

At first, the MUDs proposed a direct-use approach to wastewater by using that source of water for irrigation purposes, such as golf courses.

“But we couldn’t do enough to make it economically feasible,” Roy McCoy, MUD No. 8 president said. “We think there are risks in both projects, but we think the risks are less using this project.”

The MUDs made their presentation to the SJRA Board of Directors last week seeking approval of an intake and “passage” of the MUDs’ water rights through Lake Conroe. SJRA board member David Kleimann commended Walden leaders for their project.

“You have done a patriotic thing, and I thank you for it,” he said.

Kleimann said the SJRA has made a “monopoly” out of the water in Lake Conroe, and criticized the agency for providing grants with money from taxpayers.

His remarks didn’t go unchallenged.

“Can you tell me what taxpayer money it (the SJRA) does receive?” said Joe Turner, SJRA board vice president.

“I just told you,” Kleimann said.

Following the meeting, Kleimann stressed that the SJRA is a governmental entity that should be working for the people.

Turner said the SJRA does not have any taxing authority and derives its revenue from the sale of water and other fees.

“He (Kleimann) is misleading the people. To say we’re a monopoly isn’t true,” he said.

But how much the Walden MUDs will pay the SJRA for water fees is up for debate. After the board convened from a heated argument in executive session, board president Gary Montgomery told MUD leaders to “continue talking” with SJRA staff with the hope of reaching an agreement on water fees.

Whatever that amount, Montgomery said he wanted the final figure to be “well-discussed and defensible in hard, black-and-white terms.”

Montgomery said he wants the agreement with the Walden MUDs to be approved by the SJRA’s GRP Advisory Committee.

Wilson said she was “thrilled” the SJRA board did not say no to the MUDs’ request. But she and McCoy did not rule out the possibility of legal action if talks reached an impasse.

Howard Roden can be reached at hroden@hcnonline.com

Montgomery officials to select water plan

By Brad Meyer Courier staff

MONTGOMERY — Montgomery officials recognize they need a partner to comply with a state agency’s mandate for future water conservation; the question is which potential resource best fits the city’s needs and budget.

Among the topics Montgomery City Council members are expected to review when they meet this evening is how the city will comply with a directive from the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District to decrease the city’s dependence on water drawn from traditional wells.

“It’s a very important issue to cities in the region,” said Bill Kotlan, acting city administrator. “Water is essential to the growth — or stability — of every community, and it’s going to be increasingly difficult and expensive to maintain its availability.”

Officials had a workshop Monday evening to discuss the city’s options for potable water based on the LSGCD directive mandating a 30 percent reduction of groundwater use by the end of 2015. Options include accessing surface water from Lake Conroe and other sources, drilling into the unregulated Catahoula Aquifer or joining forces with other water users.

Considering Montgomery’s size and projected growth, achieving an independent solution to the directive is economically impractical, Kotlan said. The city has three primary options.

One option is working with or purchasing credits from Municipal Utility District 18 in the Bentwater area. The group plans to drill a well into the brackish water of the Catahoula Aquifer and treat it.

A similar arrangement is available with MUDs 3 and 4 in the April Sound area. The third option is participating in a large group program organized and coordinated by the San Jacinto River Authority.

“All of the programs have significant costs and inherent risks associated with them,” Kotlan said. “We have some tough decisions to make and we have to start making them now.”

Of the three potential solutions, Kotlan said working with the SJRA offers the greatest security and simplicity, but at a premium cost and a long-term commitment.

“The April Sound MUD offers a rate 20 percent lower than whatever rate SJRA establishes for its participants,” he said. “We also have the option of opting out in 2016 if other cost-efficient alternatives become available.”

At stake isn’t just cost, but risk, Kotlan said. City officials will have to make a decision based on uncertainties associated with all of the potential options. Kotlan favors the cost efficiency of the MUDs 3 and 4 program but understands the security and simplicity of the SJRA plan.

“It’s a tough choice,” he said. “It’s an issue with a lot of complexity.”

The Montgomery City Council meets at 7 tonight at Montgomery City Hall, located at 100 Old Plantersville Road.

Brad Meyer can be reached at bmeyer@hcnonline.com.

LCA PRESIDENT’S UPDATE

Lake Conroe Association Completes Funding of Texas A&M Lake Study of Economic Impacts of Lower Lake Conroe Water Levels Planned by San Jacinto River Authority

Raising money in today’s economy is never easy.  When the Lake Conroe Association (LCA), Lake Conroe Communities Network (LCCN), Montgomery County and the City of Conroe desired to engage Texas A&M University for an independent study on drawing water from Lake Conroe, it came with a hefty $142,000 price tag.  The LCA kicked off the fund raising effort three months ago by agreeing to contribute the first $50,000 towards the study.  When all potential donors had completed making (or passed on making) their donations, the collective efforts fell $16,000 short.  Understanding the importance of completing this study, the LCA agreed this week to make up the $16,000 shortfall and raised its total contribution to $66,000.

As previously reported, the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District (LSGCD) and San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) have determined that water will be drawn from Lake Conroe starting in 2016 to meet the ever-growing demand on Montgomery County’s water supply.  SJRA, with a virtual monopoly on water supply in our County, engaged the engineering firm of Freece & Nichols to review the effects on Lake Conroe’s water levels and subsequently concluded that “the effects would be minimal”.  While this may be true, some question the accuracy of this conclusion and believe a second, independent evaluation is appropriate in such a vital issue as our future water supply and the impact of lake level reductions on the economies of the Lake Area and Montgomery County.

Three (3) key variables could dramatically affect the conclusions drawn by SJRA and its engineering firm, Freece & Nichols.  First, anticipated future water use is directly based on population demographics which project the rise in residents in Montgomery County.  Concerns exist that the population projections are understated and that water demands could be far greater than those used in SJRA’s conclusion.

Second, the aquifer historically supplying groundwater for Montgomery County (which, until now, provided 100% of the water used in the County) is not sufficiently recharging and only “estimates” by LSGCD can predict the rate at which it will recharge itself in the future.  If LSGCD’s “estimates” are too optimistic and, in fact, the aquifer cannot recharge adequately at the reduced level of usage it has mandated, LSGCD will further reduce the amount of water that may be used from the aquifer and increase the amount of water that must be drawn from Lake Conroe (or other unproven water sources such as “brackish water”).

Third, the City of Houston owns two-thirds of Lake Conroe water.  Under its contract with SJRA, Houston can sell any part of its two-thirds that SJRA doesn’t nominate for its own use in a given year.

While SJRA has concluded that its planned sales of water will only have “minimal effects” on Lake Conroe’s water levels over the next 40 years, errors in population demographics, lower aquifer recharge rates and/or the sale of water by the City of Houston could escalate water use “sooner rather than later” and create serious problems within 15 to 20 years.

The Texas A&M University study will review two distinct topics.  First, it will review the study conducted by Freece and Nichols on behalf of SJRA.  Texas A&M will analyze the facts, methods and assumptions applied by Freece and Nichols in an effort to support or refute that study.  In particular, Texas A&M will conclude if it agrees or disagrees with future lake levels as projected.  Second, Texas A&M will review the socio-economic effects on residents and businesses in the Lake Conroe area should lake levels drop to economically disadvantaged levels.  Coupled with this socio-economic study will be a review of the effects throughout Montgomery County if they conclude a negative economic impact is likely in the Lake Conroe area and insufficient water is available for our future.

In the socio-economic portion of the study, numerous questions are under review.  If lake levels were to drop to economically disadvantaged levels:

  • How would this affect lake area property values?
  • How would this affect property tax collections (used to fund the majority of County, school and hospital district budgets)?
  • How would this affect local business activity and related sales tax collections?

Since a maximum of 100,000 acre feet of water per year may be drawn from Lake Conroe, concerns exist that we may run out of water “sooner rather than later”.  If we were to run out of water:

  • How would existing County residents and businesses adapt to a lack of water?
  • Would all residential and business development be curtailed due to the inability to provide water for that growth throughout Montgomery County?
  • If growth within Montgomery County is curtailed, what happens to a County that can no longer sustain growth?

Certain potential donors to this Texas A&M study have elected not to contribute (such as The Woodlands Township….the most populous and tax-abundant area in the County) because: 1) SJRA already did a study, 2) SJRA is in charge of water in Montgomery County, and 3) lake levels on Lake Conroe do not directly affect their community.  While these points may hold some validity, a much bigger point is being missed; namely, what happens when the County runs out of water?  Lake Conroe may be able to satisfy our short-term water needs, but will not be able to supply our water needs forever.  Among many interested parties, the LCA, LCCN, Montgomery County and the City of Conroe desire to explore future reservoir sites before it’s too late, damage is done to our economies and our water demands outweigh our water supply.  While SJRA is virtually in charge of all of the County’s water, SJRA has declined to support a review of future reservoir sites “for at least 5 years”.  The procurement of land, acquisition of permits and construction of a suitable future reservoir site would most likely take 20 – 25 years, or more.  What happens if a scenario as outlined above occurs where local economies are damaged and the County runs out of water in 15 years?  Is it not time to take action on the review of a reservoir to supplement Lake Conroe NOW?            

Across the world, people are realizing that WATER is the commodity of the future.  Alternatives to oil are being developed to fuel our seemingly endless energy needs.  But, as best we know, no one has developed an alternative to water.  Certainly, water conservation methods will become commonplace across the nations to reduce our demands on our precious water supply.  But, it is our belief that better efforts must be made today to capture every drop of water that falls from the sky.  For Montgomery County, that means a second reservoir.

Many thanks must go to the Lake Conroe Communities Network for spearheading volunteer efforts in pursing the Texas A&M study and fundraising.  Judge Sadler and Commissioner Mike Meador deserve acknowledgement for contributing money and staff time, and for legal resources in the negotiation of a contract with Texas A&M University for this water study.  Conroe Mayor Webb Melder, Senator Robert Nichols and Representative Brandon Creighton provided support and leadership; and, certainly, those entities contributing monies towards this study deserve our gratitude.  Financial contributors include the LCA, LCCN, Montgomery County, the City of Conroe, the City of Montgomery, MUD 2, MUD 4, MUD 8, MUD 9, MUD 18, Emergency Services District 1, Corinthian Point, La Torretta del Lago, private utility owner Mike Stoecker, and the Dana Richardson family businesses E-Z Boat Storage, The Palms Marina and Sunset Shores RV Park.

The Lake Conroe Association, a non-profit 501 (c) 3 corporation, is fortunate to have over 400 supportive residential and business members who contribute their hard-earned dollars to support our past and, hopefully, future efforts on behalf of the many communities within Montgomery County.  The LCA currently has over 21,000 fund raising letters in the mail as part of our Annual 2010 Fund Raising Campaign.  Should you receive yours in the mail, the LCA would greatly appreciate your support.  In the event you do not receive such a letter, donations can be mailed to: Lake Conroe Association, PO Box 376, Willis, Texas  77378-9998.  Additional information regarding the LCA can be obtained at www.lakeconroeassociation.com and about LCCN at www.lakeconroecn.com.

Mike Bleier, President

Lake Conroe Association

LCA PRESIDENT’S UPDATE

It has been a beautiful, yet dry, Fall season so far.  I hope you’ve made your way outdoors to enjoy the lower temperatures, lower humidity and endless sunshine we’ve shared for the past six weeks or so.  But with “the good” usually comes “some bad”.  Officially in the Lake Conroe area, we’ve had only 2.83 inches of rain since September 1 and the lake level has dropped to a level of 199.36 as of today.  At this level, the lake is 1 foot 8 inches below its normal pool elevation of 201 feet.  Please be careful out there boating as submerged debris and stumps are much closer to the surface when the lake level is down.

With the lack of rainfall and dry conditions, Montgomery County was officially placed under a Burn Ban as of October 25.  Please resist burning your leaves or lighting that Fall bonfire as conditions are extremely hazardous.

The Lake Conroe Association (LCA) initiated its Annual Fund Raising Campaign on June 10 and identified its primary, immediate need to be monies to fund a study by Texas A&M University which will review future lake levels once water starts being removed by the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) in 2016 (further discussion of this Texas A&M study follows).  The LCA agreed to pay $66,000 of the $142,000 total study cost; with the balance funded by Montgomery County, the Cities of Conroe and Montgomery, various MUD’s, Lake Conroe Communities Network (LCCN) and other lake-related donors.  LCA’s Annual Fund Raising Campaign has raised $57,585 to date and $8,415 was paid from the LCA’s reserves to meet that $66,000 obligation.  We greatly appreciate the continued generosity of our LCA Members in donating $57,585 during these difficult economic times.  Should you have missed the LCA’s Annual Fund Raising Campaign and still desire to contribute, monies can be mailed payable to the “Lake Conroe Association” at PO Box 376, Willis, Texas  77378-9998.

The contract between Texas A&M University and Montgomery County for the above-referenced Lake Study was approved by Commissioners Court and executed by Montgomery County on September 27.  With SJRA prepared to initiate significant water removal in 2016 yet stating that the effects on Lake Conroe’s lake levels will be “minimal”, the Lake Study will review engineering studies commissioned by SJRA in an effort to understand and validate (or not validate) SJRA’s conclusions on future lake levels.  Should Texas A&M’s study conclude that lake levels may drop lower than predicted by SJRA, Texas A&M will also study the economic impact on our community, and Montgomery County as a whole, of lower lake levels.  The 16 month “Timeline of A&M Study of Economic Impact of SJRA’s Planned Lake Level Reductions” includes reviews of lake level studies, property value assessments, and sales tax revenue data; and also includes a survey of residents, business survey and a contemplated Town Hall Meeting.  The Lake Study including all elements listed here is to be completed by December, 2011.

As you’ve most likely read, water conservation has become a key element in both reducing our overall water consumption and potentially helping maintain lake levels in Lake Conroe.  LCCN (a local community organization) has spearheaded the water conservation topic and held several presentations to elected officials, MUD’s, and interested parties.  For more information about LCCN and their work on water conservation, you may review their website at www.lakeconroecn.com.

An invasive species named Zebra Mussels have been identified for the first time on Lake Conroe.  Zebra Mussels multiply quickly and have damaged many bodies of water in the U.S. and around the world (causing clogged intake pipes, damaging boat hulls, creating sharp surfaces on boat docks and lake floors, and altering water chemistry).  Fortunately, this case of Zebra Mussels was identified on the hull of a boat BEFORE it was launched into Lake Conroe thanks to an observant marina owner (and LCA Board Vice President).  In conjunction with Texas Parks & Wildlife and SJRA, the LCA has contributed $1,250 towards the creation and installation of 250 permanent signs around Lake Conroe at various access points to educate the public on the importance of inspecting your boat hull before launching that boat into any body of water.  For more information on Zebra Mussels, you can access www.texasinvasives.org.

Texas Parks & Wildlife completed its survey of aquatic vegetation on Lake Conroe in July, 2010 and reported only 0.02 acres of Hydrilla, 1.79acres of Giant Salvinia and 1.16 acres of Water Hyacinth…..ALL GREAT NEWS !!  Native vegetation (natural, beneficial plants) held steady at 150.21 acres.  Many thanks are due Texas Parks & Wildlife and SJRA for their efforts in controlling invasive aquatic vegetation on Lake Conroe, and to our LCA Members who have donated over $500,000 over the past four (4) years towards this cause.

As you may be aware, the primary method of controlling Hydrilla (which covered over 2,000 surface acres of Lake Conroe only two years ago) has been the purchase of 130,000 White Amur Grass Carp.  Based on a 32% estimated mortality per year and the fact that this species has been genetically-engineered so as not to produce offspring, Texas Parks & Wildlife (TPWD) estimates that 48,000 were still alive on May 31, 2010 and projects that 32,000, 22,000 and 15,000 grass carp will be alive on May 31 of 2011, 2012 and 2013, respectively.  When asked how it will calculate when to start adding new White Amur Grass Carp to Lake Conroe, TPWD responded “As soon as Hydrilla starts to expand into water beyond a few inches deep, it will likely be time to add more grass carp.  At that point, stocking calculations will be based on returning the number of grass carp per total surface acre to the most recent survey where Hydrilla was totally under control.  In this way, we hopefully will remain in a proactive mode instead of a reactive mode.”  The LCA meets regularly with TPWD and SJRA to discuss aquatic plant surveys and means by which to maintain a healthy Lake Conroe.

Well, that’s it for another edition of our LCA President’s Update.  You can review previous editions of these LCA President’s Updates, follow current topics of interest, and send us your comments at our website at www.lakeconroeassociation.com.  We’re wishing you a wonderful Fall season on the lake and thank you for your continued support.

Mike Bleier, President

Lake Conroe Association

LCA PRESIDENT’S UPDATE

Raindrops keep falling….and falling….and falling on my head. With all of our recent rain and the gates on the dam open as the San Jacinto River Authority releases water downstream, it’s hard to imagine that the topic most on the minds of the Lake Conroe Association (LCA) is the availability of water for Montgomery County.  Given so many water issues being discussed, I thought I’d update you on our perspective of where the discussions stand.

Judge Sadler held his “Water Summit” on September 28 with invitees including State Senators Nichols and Williams; State Representatives Creighton and Eissler; County Commissioners Meador, Doyal, and Chance; Conroe Mayor Melder; Woodlands Township Chairperson Blair; the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA); and the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District (LSGCD).  SJRA presented data from the recently completed engineering study on historic Lake Conroe data (lake levels, rainfall, evaporation, water releases from the dam, etc) which included many “What If Scenarios” based on utilizing water from LakeConroe in different quantities in the future.  Judge Sadler presented his concept of creating two future reservoirs within the County for water collection and use.  While all attendees agreed that the topic of water for the County must be addressed, few specific conclusions or action items were developed.  Regardless of this, Judge Sadler’s initiative to call this “Water Summit” brought many of the necessary parties together and set the basis for future such meetings.  I believe we will shortly see another such “Water Summit” and, with a stronger consensus among the invitees on the best way to address our water needs, a subsequent meeting for the general public of Montgomery County.  We’ll keep you posted when this public meeting is called.

You may recall the LCA’s September Question and Answer Survey related to lake issues that was mailed to over 19,000 County residents.  With over 2,500 written, signed responses, the survey results were submitted to the attendees of the “Water Summit”.  Key responses included:

  • 86% knew groundwater use must be reduced by 30% by 2015
  • To meet this goal, 87% knew water would be drawn out ofLakeConroe
  • 97% believed lowering the level of Lake Conroe would hurt the local economy and property values
  • 98% believed lowering the level of Lake Conroe would, at times, restrict access to the lake for recreational use of boaters and anglers
  • 95% believed water conservation measures should be implemented for existing sub-divisions, and 97% for future community developments

We would like to acknowledge Senator Nichols for personally responding to all 2,500 respondents with his thoughts on our water future.

We meet regularly with Board Members of the Lake Conroe Community Network to discuss water needs for Montgomery County.  This organization has held informative public meetings on the topics of property taxes, annexation, emergency services and water; and we find them to be most helpful in discussing water facts and potential water solutions.

During the past two weeks, we have met individually with Judge Sadler, Senator Nichols, Mayor Melder, and the SJRA.  In my meeting with Judge Sadler, I was assured that I will be allowed to attend future “Water Summits” as a representative of the LCA.  While calendars didn’t work for a meeting with Representative Creighton, our phone conversation provided insight and we set a meeting date for next week.  We are working to set a meeting date with Woodlands Township Chairperson Blair in an effort to better understand the perspectives of Woodlands’ residents as it relates to water use.

What do I feel I can state with some level of certainty?  I’d say:

  • Montgomery County needs water.  Our County is growing rapidly and growth requires water.
  • Virtually all of Montgomery County’s residential water today comes from groundwater in our aquifer via water wells.
  • Our aquifer has been overused and cannot be allowed to decrease to a level where it endangers that the aquifer will never be able to “recharge” itself.  The LSGCD has concluded that the County can no longer draw greater than 64,000 acre feet of water annually from the aquifer, and that any water needs in excess of this must come from surface water (such as Lake Conroe).  The U.S. Geological Service is releasing a report before year end which addresses how fast our aquifer is “recharging” itself, and this report will provide data to support (or modify) assumptions made by LSGCD.
  • 2015 is the year in which the County will no longer be allowed to draw greater than 64,000 acre feet of water annually from groundwater in our aquifer via water wells.
  • In 2015, all County water needs in excess of 64,000 acre feet per year will come from Lake Conroe.  Based on current water usage and estimated population growth in the County, water use in the County will approximate 87,000 acre feet annually.  The shortfall of 23,000 acre feet (87,000 projected less 64,000 allowed) will equate to about 1 foot of water per year from Lake Conroe(since Lake Conroe covers 23,000 acres and we’ll have a 23,000 acre feet shortfall, the math equates to 1 foot).
  • The one foot of Lake Conroe water will be drawn annually from 2015 to 2024.  Based on estimated population growth and ignoring alternatives (see “Alternatives” below), two feet of Lake Conroe water will be drawn annually from 2025 to 2034; three feet drawn 2035 to 2044; and four feet drawn 2045 and beyond.  The maximum allowable annual draw from Lake Conroe has been set by The State of Texas at 100,000 acre feet.
  • A water treatment plant will be built below the dam on Lake Conroe and pipelines connected from that water treatment plant to various locations including, but not limited to, Conroe and The Woodlands.  Planning and construction will commence shortly so as to meet the mandated 2015 groundwater reduction deadline.  The water treatment plant will be built in units called “trains”, and additional “trains” will be added as additional water is required in each ten year interval described above.  The estimated cost of “Phase 1” (2015 operational date) is $400 million.  The estimated cost of “Phases 1 thru 4” (2045 operational date) is $2.8 billion.  Do not think the construction of the water treatment plant is an option.  This construction is a certainty, and only the amount of water needed in the future will dictate the number of “trains” needed and the final cost.

ALTERNATIVES:  How could the amount of water to be drawn from Lake Conroe in the future be reduced?  “Alternatives” include:

  • Water conservation will be an integral part of reducing the amount of water drawn fromLakeConroe.  If we use less water, then we won’t have to draw as much.  Since a maximum of 100,000 acre feet per year can be drawn fromLakeConroeand more water than that will be needed someday, water conservation will be with us forever.  For a separate discussion of this, see “Water Conservation” below.
  • Utilizing waste effluent from treatment plants for irrigation will reduce our water use.  In summer months, it is estimated that 60% of our residential water use goes to irrigation (watering your yard and landscape).  In the winter, that estimate is 30%.  While it may be difficult to convert existing subdivisions and commercial development into users of effluent for irrigation (since the construction and infrastructure is already in place), new construction could much easier accommodate the use of effluent for irrigation by incorporating this concept into the planning stage of that development.
  • Further consideration must be given to Judge Sadler’s proposal of building two new reservoirs to capture water that would otherwise be released over the dam on Lake Conroe or lost elsewhere during periods of heavy rainfall.  Conceptually, these two reservoirs would capture water before it gets toLakeConroe.  If Lake Conroe were not full (at the 201 feet level), then the water would be allowed to flow intoLakeConroe.  If Lake Conroe were full and excess rains would be otherwise released downstream, these reservoirs would capture the water behind dams and hold it there until Lake Conroe needed it to fill the lake to the 201 feet level (normal pool elevation).  Clear obstacles to this proposal include the procurement of the land for the creation of the two reservoirs (some of which would have to come from theSamHoustonNational Forest) and the multitude of environmental concerns related to such a project.  The cost of such a project has not yet been determined.  SJRA has agreed to conduct a feasibility study of this proposal, but a study date earlier than 2015 has not been agreed to yet by SJRA.  Approvals for and construction of such reservoirs would probably take a minimum of 20 to 30 years (remembering that our County’s water needs will be here forever).
  • Many have suggested that an “alternative” might be building a reservoir between Lake Conroe and The Woodlands which captures all water released over the dam atLakeConroe.  This “alternative” has been discounted based on the lack of a suitable site.  To be cost effective and practical, this reservoir would require too much land given the lack of undeveloped land between Lake Conroe and The Woodlands.

WATER CONSERVATION:  What are suggestions for implementing a County-wide program for Water Conservation?  Some include:

  • Given the estimate above that 60% of our residential water use in summer is for irrigation, numerous concepts utilized currently by other communities could be applied.  Automatic sprinkler systems can have rain sensors added which stops the system from engaging if a certain amount of rain has fallen.  Manual sprinkler systems (hose with a sprinkler attached) could require a dial timer inserted before the sprinkler itself which forces the homeowner to set a specific watering duration (How many times have you turned on your manual sprinkler and forgot to turn it off?).  Automatic sprinkler systems can have a feature added which turn off your system if a sprinkler head is broken off or an underground water line is broken.
  • Consideration could be given to the specific landscaping plants that you select.  Obviously, some plants and trees require more water than others.  Similarly, certain lawn grasses require significantly less water thanSt. Augustine, for example.
  • Many modifications within your home can reduce the amount of water that you consume.  Examples include low water volume toilets, low water volume shower heads, and water efficient dish washers.  Showers typically take less water than baths.  Reducing shower duration affects water use.  Reducing frequency of car washes affects water use.  Eliminating the use of your water hose to clean your sidewalks and driveways reduces water use.  I’m sure you could come up with further ideas of your own.
  • Consideration should be given to reducing or eliminating amenity ponds and water features that are created strictly for aesthetic purposes.  Amenity ponds are currently replenished with groundwater and water features (waterfalls, fountains) create excessive evaporation.
  • Utility Districts/MUD’s are contemplating a tiered rate structure that charges more money per unit (gallons) based on your individual residential water use.  Basically, a “standard” is set for residential water use per month.  If you use the “standard” amount, you pay the standard price per gallon.  If you use more water than the “standard”, you pay a higher price per gallon.  If you use less water than the “standard”, you pay a lower price per gallon.  This type of program assumes that water users are price sensitive and that they will reduce usage when they 1) pay closer attention to their water usage, and 2) must pay a higher unit cost per gallon due to their “excessive” use.  This type of program has already been implemented in certain Utility Districts within Conroe and The Woodlands.
  • State legislation could be developed that mandates water conservation in some form.  Currently, neither The State of Texas no rMontgomery County nor SJRA nor LSGCD nor anyone else can mandate water conservation.  Senator Nichols has approached the LCA and Lake Conroe Communities Network for assistance in drafting wording for possible water conservation legislation.  You can’t submit a bill for legislation without wording.  Of course, nothing says such legislation would pass; but this is a start at addressing the State-wide problem of how to provide water to an ever-growing population.

FURTHER THOUGHTS:  Please consider the following:

  • The initial 1 foot of water per year will not be drawn from Lake Conroe until 2015.
  • For a current perspective, this weeks storms have forced SJRA to release 1 foot of water over the dam to reduce the lake level back to 201 feet (normal pool).
  • The average quantity of water released over the dam on Lake Conroe equates to seven feet per year (since the 1973 construction of the lake).  Through 2024, drawing one foot of water from Lake Conroe should simplistically mean that lake levels will remain similar to today but now only six foot (rather than seven foot) of water will be released over the dam per year.  Of course, beware of “averages”.  Some years will see more than seven feet and others less than seven feet.
  • Since the construction of Lake Conroe in 1973, this lake has dropped to a level of 197 feet (the level after Hurricane Rita when water had to be released to repair the dam) on 0.9% of the months over these 36 years.  Had one foot of water been removed from the lake every year since 1973, the lake would have reached a level of 197 feet on 4.3% of the months over these 36 years.  Don’t get me wrong.  The level of 197 feet was terrible and only three public boat launches could even get a boat in the water.  This factoid simply points out that given the one foot drawdown, we’d reach the level of 197 feet 18 months (out of 432 months in 36 years) rather than the actual 4 months (out of 432 months in 36 years).
  • The projected draw downs of 1, 2, 3 and 4 feet do not factor in the benefits of water conservation.  Successful water conservation efforts County-wide will reduce our overall water use.  This will equate to either a direct reduction in the drawdown amounts or an increase in the future levels of our aquifer (which would allow more water to be drawn from the aquifer and less taken from Lake Conroe).  The LSGCD will regularly monitor our aquifer level and adjust water programs accordingly.
  • You may not be aware that the majority of waste effluent from treatment plants around Lake Conroe is pumped into Lake Conroe.  Population growth has already been factored into projected draw downs.  What has not been credited is that population growth creates more waste effluent which goes into the lake and, thereby, adds some amount of water to Lake Conroe.
  • Typically,LakeConroedrops to the level of 197 feet only during an emergency (dam repair) or a drought.  SJRA is working on a “drought contingency plan” which would limit how much water could be removed from Lake Conroe in a period classified as a drought.

I’ve ignored so many details yet have written five pages already.  If you’ve read this far, I commend your dedication to the topic and patience with me.  I’ll leave topics like “How will we pay for this new water treatment plant?” and “What will all of this do to my monthly water bill?” for another day.  For now, know that concerned citizens like those Board Members of the Lake Conroe Association and Lake Conroe Communities Network are doing their best to learn about “the water business” and challenge our elected officials to arrive at the best solution for all residents of Montgomery County.  As always, we welcome your feedback at www.lakeconroeassociation.com.  I’ll communicate further information and the proposed public water summit date when we know more.  Until then, enjoy what I hope is some beautiful fall weather.

Mike Bleier, President

LakeConroeAssociation

LCA PRESIDENT’S UPDATE

On May 6, 2009, the Seven Coves Bass Club, in conjunction with Texas Parks & Wildlife, the US Army Corps of Engineers and the San Jacinto River Authority, presented information regarding the planting of “native plants” in Lake Conroe.  As the majority of the LCA Board attended this meeting and gained information, we thought we should share this information with you.

The “Lake Conroe Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan” for 2008-2009 outlines the need to reduce invasive species such as Hydrilla, Giant Salvinia and Water Hyacinth as well as maintain a healthy native plant community.  This Plan was developed by Texas Parks & Wildlife and the San Jacinto River Authority, and similar Plans have been in place since the return of Hydrilla some 7-8 years ago.

“Native plants” are an important part of ourLake’s ecosystem.  Without “native plants”, we experience lake bank erosion and increased sedimentation.  “Native plants” utilize nutrients in our Lake which would otherwise be used by invasive species or fast-growing algae.  “Native plants” also provide oxygen needed by healthy fish communities.

Given sunlight, warm temperatures, nutrients and shallow waters, some form of plant life is always going to grow in ourLake.  With the reduction of Hydrilla from over 2,000 acres to virtually no acres and Giant Salvinia from over 628 acres to approximately 150 acres and Water Hyacinth from over 335 acres to approximately 50 acres, some form of plant life is going to move into the space vacated by these reduced invasive plant species.  The question for us is “What plants do we want in ourLake?”.  It would seem obvious that we do not want invasive species to again take over our Lake.  A healthy native plant community, in conjunction with a “maintenance level” of White Amur grass carp and herbicide applications as needed, is the answer to holding back the “invasive plants”.

“Native plants” have been added to ourLakefor the past 25 years.  If you visit the northern end of theLake, you’d have seen them protected by metal cages or fences in small coves.  Since the addition of over 123,000 White Amur grass carp over the past 3 years to battle the invasion of Hydrilla, the “native plant” community has dramatically reduced from 1,078 acres in 2007 to 140 acres in 2008.  A survey is currently being undertaken by Texas Parks & Wildlife to estimate the number of acres of “native plants” as well as Hydrilla, Giant Salvinia and Water Hyacinth.  It is anticipated that the number of acres of “native plants” will show a further decrease.

The Seven Coves Bass Club grows “native plants” in a nursery located near the dam at the San Jacinto River Authority facility.  Seedlings are obtained from theLewisville,TexasResearch Facility and grown in contained water gardens until they can be separated (split in two).  One half of the plant stays in the nursery (for further propagation) and the second half is planted in the northern, uninhabited portions of the Lake in protective cages.  Over time, these “native plants” expand by either colonization around the cage site or by seed dispersion.  1,200 “native plants” were placed in ourLakein 2008, and an estimated 4,500 will be added in 2009.  To put this in perspective, 4,500 plants will cover approximately one quarter of an acre of shoreline.  As stated by Texas Parks & Wildlife, “It may take 3 to 5 years until we see noticeable vegetation outside of the cages due to the slow growing rate of these natives.”

The “native plants” utilized are preferably grass carp resistant (meaning the grass carp prefer not to eat them).  “Natives” being utilized under this program include American Pondweed, Illinois Pondweed, Wild Celery (Vallisneria), Water Stargrass, Coontail, White Water Lily, Spatterdock, Watershield, American Lotus, Bulltongue, Arrowhead, Pickerelweed, Water Willow, Softstem Bulrush, Flatstem Spikerush, Squarestem Spikerush, Slender Spikerush and Maidencane.  As the Lake Conroe Association is not familiar with each plant, we are currently undertaking a study to better understand each plant and its characteristics.  In particular, we are interested in understanding the growth rate of each species and how it may disperse along our shorelines in the future.  We will have dialogue with the Seven Coves Bass Club, Texas Parks & Wildlife and the San Jacinto River Authority regarding these issues.  We will release our findings and summaries of these dialogues to our LCA Members in future correspondence.

Not to get “the horse before the cart”, but Texas Parks & Wildlife has stated that they will issue permits to homeowners (through licensed applicators) for herbicide treatments to kill “native plants” which grow at your boat dock and limit your access to the Lake….should this even happen.  Such treatments would be at the expense of the homeowner.  Texas Parks & Wildlife has selected these specific “native plants” not only because they may be grass carp resistant but also because they typically do not act in an invasive manner and create access issues for lake users.  We will all be closely observing the behavior of these “native plants” in the future.

With Hydrilla almost gone and an estimated 70,000 grass carp still alive in Lake Conroe, the issue of “Should grass carp start being harvested from theLake?” has arisen.  Texas Parks & Wildlife commits to keeping a “maintenance level” of grass carp in Lake Conroe“forever” and won’t consider any harvesting of grass carp until it completes its current survey of levels of “native plants”, Hydrilla, Giant Salvinia and Giant Salvinia.  Should Texas Parks & Wildlife determine they desire to harvest grass carp, they propose to do so only through licensed grass carp tournaments (typically via bow and arrow) (and assumed by me to be only in uninhabited shorelines) which may harvest 30 – 40 grass carp per tournament (not “per person”….”per tournament”) based on previous results of Texas Parks & Wildlife grass carp tournaments.  We’ll further address this topic should it actually be proposed by Texas Parks & Wildlife.

I hope I haven’t overwhelmed you again with all of my detail, but the Lake Conroe Association Board feels that part of our job is to keep you informed.  I’ll write again soon when we have more information to share.  Until then, you may share your thoughts with us through our website at “lakeconroeassociation.com”.  Enjoy your Summer use of the Lake Conroe and remember to always be careful on the Lake.

Mike Bleier, President

LakeConroeAssociation

LCA PRESIDENT’S UPDATE

Welcome to 2009. On behalf of the LCA Board of Directors, we’d like to thank our membership for their support in 2008 and wish all of you a prosperous 2009.

The LCA held its Annual Meeting on Friday, January 16 at the offices of the San Jacinto River Authority to update our Members on topics of current interest and tally all proxies received from our Members to elect an LCA Board of Directors for 2009. From our 507 current LCA Members, 173 proxies were returned (which exceeds the minimum number necessary for a quorum). You elected the following individuals to represent you on the 2009 LCA Board of Directors: Gene Barrington, Mike Bleier, Tom Butz, Dawn Cleboski, Gene Colbert, Rich Cutler, Jim Pohoski, Ben Richardson, Stan Sproba, Colin Stead and Sue Wheatley. All eleven (11) of these individuals served on your 2007 and 2008 Boards as well. We look forward to serving you and our lake community in the year to come.

Subsequent to the LCA Annual Meeting, the LCA Board convened to nominate and elect its 2009 Officers. Accepting nomination for 2009 were Mike Bleier (LCA President), Ben Richardson (LCA Vice President) and Tom Butz (LCA Secretary/Treasurer), and all three were unanimously elected into their respective offices.

During the past year, we experienced a decrease in our Hydrilla infestation from 2,052 acres in January, 2008 to only 2 acres currently. A total of 123,765 White Amur grass carp have been added to Lake Conroe (27,441 in 2006, 48,750 in 2007, and 47,574 in 2008) and, based on an estimated mortality rate of 32% per year, approximately 87,000 remain alive at this time. These White Amur remain a protected species (meaning if caught, they must be released) as they will continue their job going forward of eating Hydrilla tubers as they grow out of the lake bottom this Spring and beyond. Unless unforeseen circumstances occur, we anticipate that these White Amur should control Hydrilla in 2009 and no additional White Amur will be added to the lake this year.

Water Hyacinth and Giant Salvinia (67.9 acres and 628.7 acres, respectively, in October, 2008) become primarily dormant in our Winter temperatures, and no herbicide treatments are currently being performed. We hope that our White Amur will develop an appetite for Water Hyacinth and Giant Salvinia as their Hydrilla food sources is depleted. Should this not occur, it is probable that Water Hyacinth and Giant Salvinia will be treated with herbicides by Spring/Summer, 2009.

Other points of interest include:

· Dam repairs from Hurricane Ike damage have commenced. The contract with Rebel Contractors, Inc. of Willis, TX allows 90 days for substantial completion of the project. It is anticipated that 75% of the $978,268 bid will be reimbursed by FEMA (with the balance paid by the San Jacinto River Authority and the City of Houston)

· The current lake level is 199.7 MSL (normal is 201.0 MSL).

· Lake Conroe will be the site for a very large Bass Tournament sponsored by Toyota in October, 2009. Festivities will be coordinated at Buffalo Springs.

· A new boat dock and launch area will be constructed this year at the San Jacinto River Authority damsite for use of the Montgomery County Constables’ lake patrol boats. A new building will also be erected for use of Constable lake personnel.

· The LCA joined the Conroe Chamber of Commerce to promote itself to local businesses and gain the support of this valuable, local organization.

· The next lake survey to quantify infestations of Hydrilla, Water Hyacinth and Giant Salvinia is expected in May, 2009. Another lakewide survey of all native and non-native invasive species will be conducted around September, 2009 by Texas Parks & Wildlife.

· During Winter, we lose approximately 40 million gallons of water per day to evaporation and transpiration. This compares to highs of approximately 200 million gallons per day in Summer.

While the LCA conducts a number of valuable functions for our lake community, a primary responsibility held by the LCA is that of fund raising for Aquatic Plant Management on Lake Conroe (with over $600,000 raised in the past three years). We’d like to thank the 70 individuals who sent in contributions along with their LCA proxies this month, and hope that our membership will show continued support throughout 2009. Our next official Fund Raising Campaign will be in May, 2009. With our current economic downturn affecting City, County, State and Federal budgets, we are greatly concerned that funding we count on for Aquatic Plant Management from these sources may be reduced or eliminated. We are working with Senator Robert Nichols and Representative Brandon Creighton to encourage the introduction and passing of bills in the 81st Legislative Session of the Texas Legislature which will guarantee funding for our Texas lakes. As always, we will also continue our communication with local businesses and Property Owner Associations (POA’s) to solicit their support.

During 2008, the LCA received $127, 602 in contributions. During that same period, we spent $115,775 ($112,506 on White Amur, $2,000 on our bi-annual audit, and $1,269 on other expenses); leaving a net positive cash flow of $11,827 for the year. We currently hold $11,013 in an interest-bearing checking account and $80,000 in CD’s. While we are very pleased to have $91,013 on deposit, these funds will not be sufficient to fund the treatment of significant aquatic plant infestations (should they occur). So, as always (and until new sources of City, County, State or Federal funding are received), we are sure to be counting on your support in 2009.

Thank you for listening and remaining committed to our lake community. The LCA Board looks forward to serving you for another year.

Mike Bleier, President

Lake Conroe Association

LCA PRESIDENT’S UPDATE

The committee of Texas Parks & Wildlife (TPWD), San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA), Lake Conroe Association (LCA), and angler organizations including Seven Coves Bass Club received wonderful news from TPWD regarding Lake Conroe’s Hydrilla infestation. Hydrilla was reported to have decreased from 2,033 acres in January, 2008 to 363 acres in March, 2008 – the lowest Hydrilla acreage since 2005. Finally, some good news !!

TPWD described “schools of White Amur” traveling throughout the Lake and ravaging our nuisance, invasive weed. With approximately 110,000 White Amur still alive at this time (based on an estimated 32% mortality factor) and only 363 infested acres, the White Amur now hold a distinct advantage over Hydrilla in that they are currently stocked at 302 fish/acre. If 110,000 White Amur can devour 1,670 Hydrilla infested acres in two months, just think what those 110,000 White Amur can do to the remaining 363 acres. Even though we are just entering Hydrilla growing season as Lake temperatures warm and sunshine intensifies, we are cautiously optimistic that the Summer of 2008 will be much improved for all Lake users.

Concerns exist over the possibility that once the White Amur eat the majority of our Hydrilla, they will turn to other Lake vegetation as their food source. TPWD reported that White Amur like to eat Bushy Pond Weed, a plant that has caused certain portions of our Lake to become unattractive and less navigable. TPWD also stated that White Amur are less inclined to eat Coontail or Vallisneria – both plants that provide excellent fish habitat and improve water quality. TPWD is actively monitoring the condition of our native plant community and has enlisted the services of two Texas A&M graduate students to study various Lake conditions documented by them in 2007 and comparing that data to new data being gathered in 2008. TPWD stated they were optimistic that our native plant community would survive.

TPWD and SJRA will develop a new, written Aquatic Plant Management Plan for Lake Conroe as the current Plan expired March, 2008. The new Plan will call for surveys of Hydrilla and Giant Salvinia every two months. Should Hydrilla unexpectedly show signs of a “spike” in growth, TPWD has agreed that supplemental stockings of White Amur will not be ruled out. Further, TPWD said any such “spikes” would be dealt with “immediately” rather than taking a slower, measured approach as used throughout the past two (2) years.

The news about another invasive weed, Giant Salvinia, was less encouraging. Giant Salvinia has been reported to cover between 300 – 500 acres currently, and the plant is already actively growing with our warmer temperatures. Giant Salvinia is particularly dangerous for our Lake as it can double in size every three (3) days. SJRA has already initiated herbicide applications to Giant Salvinia, and is negotiating with a helicopter operator for aerial sprayings in the less populated areas like the northern National Forest shoreline. TPWD and SJRA are committed to attacking the Giant Salvinia problem immediately.

After LCA Members donated over $500,000 in the past two years and the combined team of SJRA and LCA have spent well over $1 million to control invasive weeds on Lake Conroe, some good news is finally on the financial horizon. TPWD had secured a $150,000 grant from US Fish & Wildlife for Aquatic Plant Management (APM) on Lake Conroe. Working with LCA and SJRA, Montgomery County has agreed to increase their contribution from their $25,000 budget to $55,000. The US Forest Service has concurred that a significant portion of the Hydrilla infestation is located along the shores of the National Forest and, in response, has agreed to contribute $16,000. The Seven Coves Bass Club, in a somewhat unprecedented move for an angling organization, donated $5,000 for APM. Senator Robert Nichols continues to press Austin for financial assistance for our Texas lakes and reports that the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee has given TPWD not greater than two months to draft a proposal on how funds appropriated to TPWD by the State of Texas can be allocated for APM in Texas lakes. These sources will certainly help ease the financial burden placed on the resources of Lake residents, businesses and SJRA, but will not eliminate the need for funds from the LCA.

The LCA will initiate its annual Fund Raising Campaign in May in an effort to replenish its depleted bank account and provide a fund for future, emergency needs should infestations of Hydrilla or Giant Salvinia need immediate attention. We do not desire to be in a position where funds are needed and the LCA cannot respond. The fund raising process takes about two months – much too long for any form of “immediate” response. We hope that you will consider to continue to support the LCA and its efforts to assist all Lake users. You will see fund raising correspondence in the mail shortly as we send letters to over 15,000 Lake residents and local businesses. I’d like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank those 250+ contributors who responded to the LCA’s February, 2008 Emergency Fund Raising request which enabled the LCA to pay for this last batch of much-needed 32,000 White Amur added in March, 2008.

Again, thank you for your support of the LCA. The teamwork exhibited between residents, businesses, TPWD, SJRA, LCA, angling organizations, Montgomery County, State representatives and The Courier has enabled us to close in on reaching our goal of “40 acres or less of Hydrilla” and should serve as a guideline for other Texas lakes should they encounter infestations in the future. We hope you enjoy a beautiful Lake Conroe for years to come.

Mike Bleier, President

Lake Conroe Association

LCA PRESIDENT’S UPDATE

Just some quick information for those interested. Hoping you and your family made it through Hurricane Ike safely and with limited damage.

As you are probably aware, the dam on Lake Conroe suffered damage from Ike. Approximately 1,500 feet of the 12,000 foot length of the dam needs “spot repair” at an initial estimated cost of $1 million. Before any repair can commence, engineering design for the repair must be completed, bids must go out to qualified contractors and a final bid must be accepted by the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) Board. The actual repairs will most likely commence by late-January and actual repair work is estimated to take 8 – 12 weeks. If the lake level must be lowered for repairs, SJRA does not see such an action occurring before late-January (with plenty of advance notification so that boat owners and lake area residents can prepare).

Based on the August, 2008 surveys performed by Texas Parks & Wildlife (TPWD), our weed and plant acreages are as follows:

· Hydrilla….1.3 acres (down from 2.5 acres in June)

· Water Hyacinth…..67.9 acres (down from 106.4 acres in June)

· Giant Salvinia…..628.7 acres (up from 283.5 acres in June)

· Combined native plants…..140.0 acres (down from 151.5 acres in June)

It appears that the White Amur purchased for Hydrilla reduction are now eating Water Hyacinth. Giant Salvinia is currently being treated with herbicides by SJRA and a contractor hired by SJRA.

An estimated 90,000 White Amur grass carp remain alive in Lake Conroe at this time. While certain organizations have suggested that the ban on removing White Amur from Lake Conroe be removed, the TPWD official in charge of Lake Conroe’s Aquatic Plant Management Program (Dr. Earl Chilton) has stated that this “ban” will not be removed at this time. Dr. Chilton sited that Lake Conroe is still infested with Hydrilla tubers from the 2,100 acre infestation we experienced in 2007 and that the White Amur will prove beneficial once these tubers start to grow again in Spring, 2009 and beyond. Hydrilla tubers can live dormant in the lake bottom for up to 5 – 7 years.

The Annual Meeting of the Lake Conroe Association (LCA) will be held at the offices of SJRA on Friday, January 16, 2009 from 10AM to Noon. Among other topics, the Board of Directors for the LCA for the upcoming year will be elected. More information on this meeting will follow as the date approaches.

Thank you for listening and let us know how we can help. We can be reached at

www.lakeconroeassociation.com.

Mike Bleier

President, Lake Conroe Association

LCA PRESIDENT’S UPDATE

Have you been enjoying the warm sun of Summer and open waters of Lake Conroe? I certainly hope so given the Lake conditions over the past two years. In a meeting last night of Texas Parks & Wildlife (TPWD), San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA), anglers and the Lake Conroe Association (LCA), TPWD reported that Hydrilla has been reduced to a total of 2.5 acres based on its June, 2008 survey. What a change from the 2,033 acres reported as recently as January, 2008 !! The 103,883 White Amur grass carp estimated to be alive currently are certainly doing their job.

Regarding other “exotic, invasive plants” on our Lake, TPWD reported an increase of Giant Salvinia from 225 acres in July, 2007 to 283 acres in May, 2008. As Giant Salvinia grows so rapidly and White Amur do not particularly enjoy eating this plant, SJRA will continue to attack this plant through herbicide applications. TPWD also reported that Water Hyacinth decreased from 337 acres in July, 2007 to 106 acres in May, 2008. Given the reduction and that White Amur appear to be eating Water Hyacinth, herbicide treatments of Water Hyacinth will be ceased until an increasing trend is observed.

With July through September being the peak growing season for our various lake plants, TPWD will continue performing surveys to monitor and calculate the quantity of Hydrilla, Giant Salvinia and Water Hyacinth in our Lake. Surveys will be performed in August and October, 2008. Should the current trend of “exotic, invasive plants” continue to decrease in 2008, TPWD estimates it will perform two (2) surveys in 2009. And while the survey results are very positive now, TPWD issued a “word of caution” that we need to continue to gather data to be sure Hydrilla doesn’t come back.

In the category of “not good news”, “native plants” have been reported to decrease from 1,077 acres in July, 2007 to 151 acres in May, 2008. As occurred in the early 1980’s, it appears that the White Amur are moving from the decimated Hydrilla population to our “native plants” as their source of nutrition (with Coontail, Joint Grass, Lilies and Lotus representing the “natives” currently left in the Lake). This is not good news for any lake. Learning from this specific Hydrilla infestation on Lake Conroe and the related treatment response, TPWD assured all that any future Hydrilla infestations on Lake Conroe warranting treatment would be “hit hard and hit early”. Utilizing a stocking rate of approximately 55 fish/acre early in the infestation, TPWD would hope to solve the infestation quickly, not infuse an excessive amount of White Amur and protect the “native” plants.

As a matter of definition, a significant distinction is made between plants referred to as “native” versus “exotic”. “Native” plants occur naturally in our ecosystem, and their expansion is kept in check by fish, insects, herbivores and invertebrates eating them as a food source in the overall food chain. “Exotic” plants have been brought in from elsewhere, and the ecosystem doesn’t reduce their expansion as they are not fed upon by these same fish, insects, herbivores and invertebrates. In effect, the growth and expansion of “exotic” plants goes unchecked until affected by outside forces (introduction of White Amur or herbicides).

It is important to understand the need for “native” plants in a lake. Most directly, “natives” help control erosion of shorelines, reduce silt flow from streams, filter and clarify water, provide excellent fish habitat, and provide for a healthy ecosystem to support water fowl and other wildlife. By providing these direct benefits, “native” plants indirectly contribute to a healthy local economy by encouraging tourism to our area for fishing, bird watching and the overall enjoyment of a healthy lake. The loss of “native” plants (as compared to the “exotic” plants we have fought so strongly) would be devastating to the Lake Conroe community.

As you may have already heard, TPWD, SJRA and anglers have initiated a program for re-vegetation and native plant restoration on Lake Conroe. Seven Coves Bass Club is an active leader in this program. “Native” plants are being grown in a controlled environment in our Lake with the objective of relocating them throughout the uninhabited shorelines of Lake Conroe when those nursery plants are mature enough to be moved. Three (3) primary categories of plants are being grown in this program as follows:

· Submergents (majority of plant is under the water) – Coontail, Water Primrose, Variable Leaf Milfoil and Wild Celery

· Emergents (majority of plant is out of the water) – Cattail, Bulrush, Sedge, Maiden Cane and Water Willow.

· Floating Leaved (leaves float on surface) – Spatterdock, Water Lily and American Lotus.

Only “native” plants are being used for this re-vegetation project, and only “natives” that are the most resistant to feeding by White Amur. In the approximate 800 Texas lakes over 75 surface acres each, TPWD reports that in no case did the “natives” create major problems. The LCA has requested contact information related to Property Owner Associations representing some of these 800 Texas lakes to ask about the success of these “native” plantings.

Specifics to this Lake Conroe 2008 re-vegetation project include:

· Not greater than 3 acres of “native” plants will be introduced over the next 5 – 10 years.

· TPWD hopes that these 3 acres will ultimately spread by seed production to approximately 10% of our Lake, or 2,000 acres.

· “Native” plants will be planted along uninhabited shoreline primarily North of the 1097 bridge. They will not plant in front of a residence.

· Should these “native” plants re-propagate in front of a residence, TPWD has agreed to issue permits to the lakefront owner so that the owner can hire a contractor to spray or otherwise eradicate the “natives” in front of the residence (at the expense of the resident). Should the problem be excessive or out-of-control, TPWD and SJRA have stated they may consider cost-sharing with the resident owner.

· It is unlikely that bulkheaded shoreline will re-propagate through seeds due to the excessive wave action and deeper water (“natives” like shallow water).

· The LCA has not been asked to share in the cost of this re-vegetation project.

The LCA has questioned TPWD’s goal of reaching 2,000 acres of “natives”. Lake Conroe is reported by anglers to have been an excellent fishing lake with the 1,077 acres of “natives” reported in July, 2007, so the LCA doesn’t understand a goal of 2,000 acres, or 10% of Lake Conroe’s surface acres. TPWD feels their goal is appropriate. As only 3 acres of “natives” are actually being planted and all further growth must occur over time by seed re-generation, the LCA feels it has stated its concern and will follow “native” growth throughout the future.

TPWD commits to continue the control of “exotic” plants on Lake Conroe (such as Hydrilla, Giant Salvinia and Water Hyacinth…..or any new “exotic” which may appear in our future). TPWD has assured the LCA that the presence of these newly planted “natives” will not be used as an excuse to avoid the use of White Amur in the future. TPWD points out that the Lake Conroe Aquatic Plant Management Plan called for 1) the reduction of Hydrilla to 40 acres or less by March, 2008 (which it did achieve by June, 2008), and 2) the continued establishment of a healthy “native” plant community. TPWD has asked the LCA and its Members for the support of this “native” plant re-vegetation project.

Having evaluated the information presented and the benefits of a healthy “native” plant population on Lake Conroe, and knowing the LCA will closely monitor the activities of this re-vegetation plan, the LCA and its Board of Directors has determined it supports the concept of the re-vegetation program as outlined (while expressing concern over certain plan specifics as noted above). No monies contributed by our LCA Members for the purchase of White Amur or herbicide applications will be contributed to this re-vegetation project, but rather those monies will be held by the LCA for future treatments of “exotic” plants when the need arises.

We hope that you, too, can get behind this re-vegetation program and concur that “native” plants are an important part of our Lake ecosystem and economy. We thank TPWD, SJRA and the angling community for their efforts so far regarding re-vegetation, and the LCA looks forward to working with them in the future. As always, we welcome your questions and feedback at www: lakeconroeassociation.com.

Thank you for listening. Enjoy a beautiful Summer on the Lake.

Mike Bleier

President, Lake Conroe Association

LCA PRESIDENT’S UPDATE

This Update will cover two (2) significant topics; namely, LCA’s Annual Meeting for its Members held today and yesterday’s Advisory Committee Meeting held to provide input on the 2007 Lake Conroe Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan.

LCA ANNUAL MEETING:

Our Annual Meeting was held today at the offices of the San Jacinto River Authority. General information was provided to the attendees and questions were answered. A financial report was presented which summarized Income and Expense for the LCA for calendar year 2006. LCA Member voting was also completed (in conjunction with proxies submitted by Members through the mail) on the election of the 2007 LCA Board of Directors and proposed LCA By-Law revisions.

A brief summary of the LCA’s 2006 Cash Flow Statement (unaudited at this point) is listed as follows:

CASH, January 1, 2006 $24,989

Add 2006 Income:

Donations 205,634

Tee Shirt Sales and Interest Income 3,466

———

Total Income 209,100 209,100

======

Deduct 2006 Expenses:

White Amur Purchases 72,266

Fund Raising (Printing/Postage) 15,904

Administrative 2,372

———

Total Expenses 90,542 (90,542)

====== ———-

CASH, December 31, 2006 $143,547

======

It should be noted that “Cash” at December 31, 2006 includes monies invested in Money Market Accounts earning interest at 4.7%. We are also pleased to report that our Administrative Expenses of $2,372 represent only 1% of our 2006 Total Income of $209,100 (primarily due to Directors working exclusively on a volunteer basis).

We would very much like to thank our 950+ Members for their generosity in our 2006 Fund Raising Campaign. And, while our $143,547 Cash Balance at December 31, 2006 is substantial, we must point out that the cost of successfully controlling hydrilla, giant salvinia and water hyacinth in 2007 may far outweigh our current funds. Accordingly, LCA Fund Raising diligently continues in 2007 from residents, businesses, and Federal, State and County sources.

With voting tabulated, we are pleased to announce your 2007 LCA Board of Directors as follows: Gene Barrington, Mike Bleier, Tom Butz, Dawn Cleboski, Gene Colbert, Rich Cutler, Jim Pohoski, Ben Richardson, Stan Sproba, Colin Stead, Bernie Walling, Conrad Weil and Sue Wheatley (13 in all). Further, the LCA proposed changes to the LCA By-Laws were passed. A total of 259 proxies were received from our Members, or approximately 27% of the LCA Membership.

Subsequent to LCA Annual Meeting, the LCA Board conducted its Meeting to elect its Officers for 2007. Your 2007 LCA Officers are Mike Bleier (President), Colin Stead (Vice President), Tom Butz (Treasurer) and Sue Wheatley (Secretary).

ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING ON 2007 LAKE CONROE AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN:

Texas Parks & Wildlife (TPWD) and the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) (the two “Cooperators” under the Plan) held a Meeting yesterday at the offices of SJRA to discuss the Preliminary 2007 Lake Conroe Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan. Seventeen (17) individuals representing residents, businesses and anglers (collectively referred to as “Stakeholders”) were invited to join TPWD and SJRA in comprising the 2007 Advisory Committee. A “draft” of the 2007 Plan was submitted to the Stakeholders, and comments were solicited. Much feedback was shared amongst the attendees, and this feedback will be utilized by the Cooperators to develop the next Draft of the 2007 Plan. The 2007 Advisory Committee will meet again in approximately three (3) weeks to review all changes made to the Plan, and final comments will be shared prior to the Cooperators issuing the Final 2007 Lake Conroe Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan.

To briefly summarize where we stood at the end of 2006, the October, 2006 hydrilla survey conducted by TPWD estimated a total of 1,167 hydrilla infested acres. Grass carp called “White Amur” which have a particular appetite for hydrilla were re-introduced into Lake Conroe during 2006 in three (3) stockings, and an estimated 27,046 White Amur were feeding in Lake Conroe by year’s end. These stockings approximate a rate of twenty-three (23) white amur per infested hydrilla acre.

A particular concern for 2007 has been the status of 2,600 acres of lakebed which was dry during the Summer of 2006. Some portion of these 2,600 acres were infested with hydrilla in 2005, and the likelihood that they become re-infested now that the Lake has risen to its normal level again is high.

Having provided this brief background, please find my notes on key points discussed in the Advisory Committee Meeting yesterday (in no order of significance):

TPWD conducted a survey in January, 2007 of the previously dry lakebed in an effort to quantify the number of acres infested with hydrilla since the Lake rose to its standard level of 201 feet above sea level. They estimated that 700 acres of this previously dry lakebed has initiated hydrilla re-growth through “tubers” that can survive dry conditions for reportedly up to seven (7) years.
TPWD proposed to permit the addition of 10,000 White Amur in February, 2007 to proactively address these newly infested acres and the ongoing mortality of the 27,046 White Amur introduced in 2006 (White Amur have an estimated mortality of 30% annually). The LCA applauds this proactive approach by the Cooperators. The cost of these White Amur will be shared equally by SJRA and the LCA, and TPWD has waived its $2/fish permitting fee for 2007 (and, hopefully, beyond).
TPWD proposes to conduct its next lake-wide aquatic vegetation survey in March, 2007. Should this survey conclude that hydrilla growth is not being reduced as expected by cool Winter water temperatures and the hydrilla-eating White Amur introduced during 2006, additional White Amur would be permitted and added during April, 2007 (always subject to availability from the hatcheries).
Similar aquatic vegetation surveys would be conducted in May, 2007, July, 2007 and September, 2007. If deemed necessary by the Cooperators, additional White Amur would be added in the month after each survey.
Should hydrilla growth exceed forecasts based on historic data, TPWD may consider raising the stocking rate of White Amur from 23 fish/acre to a higher number/acre.
As in the 2006 Plan, the 2007 Lake Conroe Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan calls for the reduction of hydrilla-infested acres to “40 acres or less by March, 2008”. The Cooperators and Stakeholders are all committed to achieving this goal, and are prepared to stock additional White Amur as needed to reach this goal. To supplement the budget available to SJRA for aquatic plant management, the LCA has committed to raise whatever monies are necessary to achieve the goal of “40 acres or less by March, 2008”. Once the goal of reducing hydrilla to “40 acres or less” is accomplished, the ongoing plan will be to keep hydrilla permanently below 40 acres. It should be further noted that “40 acres or less” of hydrilla is intended to remain primarily in the uninhabited, northern portion of the Lake and not in the highly populated used southern portion of the Lake.
The Cooperators are considering further herbicide treatments in March or April, 2007 to attack, in particular, the new hydrilla growing in the previously dry lakebed. Herbicides can be very effective at reducing hydrilla tuber regeneration. The use of herbicides on hydrilla is often criticized as a “waste of money” since they typically only “burn back” the growth and do not “kill” the hydrilla plant. Successful hydrilla treatment proposals typically present a dual approach of White Amur coupled with herbicides. Think of it this way…..if the herbicides can reduce the overall biomass of hydrilla in the Lake (even temporarily), then the White Amur have less hydrilla to consume and can reduce the total hydrilla to a more acceptable level more quickly. Herbicide treatments for hydrilla beyond April, 2007 are also a possibility.
Regarding the question “Are any of the 27,046 White Amur still alive?”, there is no evidence to the contrary. White Amur were not seen dying upon introduction into the Lake. There have not been reports of dead, floating White Amur on the surface or shores of our Lake. The 12 – 14 inch White Amur were large enough at introduction to the Lake to avoid significant predication by large bass or other fish. The real truth to this question will not be known until detailed surveys are completed in March and May, 2007, and results show the success or failure of the White Amur to reduce our hydrilla infestation.
TPWD estimates that Giant Salvinia covers between 150 – 300 acres of our Lake through a diverse spread of small infestations (and an estimated 40 acre infestation in Little Lake Creek). Giant Salvinia can double in size every 2 -3 days, and is a far more serious problem than hydrilla if not controlled. The Cooperators plan to continue the treatment of Giant Salvinia through their dual approach of herbicides and biological controls (weevils). The 2007 Lake Conroe Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan calls for the reduction of Giant Salvinia to “40 acres or less by March, 2008”.
It was noted in our Meeting that many lake users may not know that White Amur are protected in our State. In the event that you inadvertently catch a White Amur, you are obligated by law to “catch and release”. Game Wardens on Lake Conroe are aware of this law and actively checking fishing boats for White Amur. Should you be found guilty of catching (and not releasing immediately) White Amur on Lake Conroe, you will be subject to significant fines and other penalties.
Are you seeing significant quantities of hydrilla washing up on your shore? It’s appearance may look like what many commonly refer to as “sea weed” (long, thin strands….not as bright green as in the Summer….and lacking the leaf quantity as in the Summer). Chances are that this IS hydrilla which has been damaged during our Winter storms. Hydrilla has a natural “die back” during the winter and becomes less healthy. Our rise in Lake level and fierce storm waves have damaged much hydrilla so far this Winter, and many shorelines are covered with this “mess”. Most likely, you’re seeing hydrilla stems that have broken loose from underwater hydrilla “mats”, and this debris will rot and disappear eventually. Some portion of this fragmented hydrilla can “root” later.
The rains have pounded us once again. As an FYI, the highest Lake level this week reached a level of 202.86 feet (above sea level). SJRA is actively letting water out of the dam to reach its mandated level of 201.0 feet. Today’s Lake level is 201.97 feet.
The LCA has recommended Public Meetings in 2007 to keep everyone abreast of the Lake infestation. We felt that our Public Meeting in 2006 was a necessary tool to keep you informed and give you a forum to voice your concerns. Dates have not yet been set for these Meetings.

That’s it for now. We’ll provide additional information as it comes to us. Thank you for supporting the LCA and taking an active interest in the health of our Lake Conroe.

Mike

BYLAWS OF

LAKE CONROE ASSOCIATION

A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION

Article I. Offices

Section One. Principal Office. The principal office of the corporation in the State of Texas shall be located in the County of Montgomery.

Section Two. Other Offices. The corporation may have such other offices, either within or without the County of Montgomery, State of Texas, as the Board of Directors may determine or as the affairs of the corporation may require from time to time.

Article II. Members

Section One. Classes of Members. The Corporation may have multiple classes of Members. The qualifications for membership shall be redefined or reaffirmed by the Board of Directors at each annual meeting.

Section Two. Election of Members. Members shall be elected by the Board of Directors. An affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Directors shall be required for election. New Members shall be elected at the Board meeting that follows qualification.

Section Three. Voting Rights. Each Member shall be entitled to one vote on each matter submitted to a vote of the Members.

Section Four. Termination of Membership. The Board of Directors, by affirmative vote of two-thirds of all of the members of the Board, may suspend or expel a Member for cause after an appropriate hearing, and by a majority vote of those present at any regularly constituted meeting, may terminate the membership of any Member who becomes ineligible for membership, or suspend or expel any Member who shall be in default in the payment of dues for the period fixed in Article IX of these bylaws.

Section Five. Resignation. A Member shall be considered to have resigned if that Member fails to pay the annual dues.

Section Six. Reinstatement. Membership in this corporation is not transferrable or assignable.

Article III. Meetings of Members

Section One. Annual Meeting. An annual meeting of the Members shall be held in Montgomery County, Texas, on the third Friday of January of each year, for the purpose of electing Directors and for the transaction of such other business as may come before the meeting. If the day fixed for the annual meeting shall be a legal holiday in the State of Texas, such meeting may be held on the next succeeding business day. If the election of Directors shall not be held on the day designated herein for any annual meeting, or at any adjournment thereof, the Board of Directors shall cause the election to be held at a special meeting of the Members as soon thereafter as conveniently may be scheduled.

Section Two. Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Members may be called by the President, the Board of Directors, or not less than one-tenth of the Members having voting rights.

Section Three. Place of Meeting. The Board of Directors may designate any place, either within or without the State of Texas, as the place of meeting for any annual meeting for any special meeting called by the Board of Directors. If no designation is made or if a special meeting be otherwise called, the place of the meeting shall be the registered office of the corporation in the State of Texas; but if all of the Members shall meet at any time and place, either within or without the State of Texas, and consent to the holding of the meeting, such meeting shall be valid without call or notice, and at such meeting any corporate action may be taken.

Section Four. Notice of Meetings. Written or printed notice stating the place, day and hour of any meeting of Members shall be delivered, either personally or by postal or electronic mail (email), to each member entitled to vote at such meeting, not less than ten days or more than 50 days before the date of the meeting, by or at the direction of the president, or the secretary, or the officers or persons calling the meeting. In case of a special meeting or when required by statute or by these bylaws, the purpose or purposes for which the meeting is called shall be stated in the notice. If mailed, the notice of a meeting shall be deemed delivered when deposited in the United States mail, addressed to the Member at his address as it appears on the records of the corporation, with postage thereon prepaid.

Section Five. Informal Action by Members. Any action required by law to be taken at a meeting of the members, or any action that may be taken at a meeting of Members, may be taken without a meeting if a consent, in writing, setting forth the action to be taken, shall be signed by all Members entitled to vote with respect to the subject matter thereof.

Section Six. Quorum. The presence, either in person or by proxy, at any meeting of at least 10% (ten percent) of the total membership shall constitute a quorum. In the absence of a quorum, a majority of those Members present in person or by proxy, or a majority of the Board of Directors, may adjourn or continue the meeting without further notice. A quorum of Directors shall be defined as 33% of the then approved Directors, or a minimum of 3, whichever is greater.

Section Seven. Proxies. At any meeting of Members, a Member entitled to vote may vote by proxy executed in writing by the Member or his duly authorized attorney in fact. No proxy shall be valid after eleven months from the date of execution, unless otherwise provided in the proxy.

Section Eight. Voting by Mail. Where Directors or Officers are to be elected by members, such election may be conducted by mail in such manner as the Board of Directors shall determine, regardless of the number of Members who vote.

Section Nine. Cumulative Voting. Cumulative voting is not permitted.

Article IV. Board of Directors

Section One. General Powers. The affairs of the corporation shall be managed by its Board of Directors. Directors need not be members of the Corporation.

Section Two. Number, Tenure, and Qualifications. The number of Directors shall be not less than three nor more than 14. Each Director shall hold office until the next annual meeting of Members and until his successor shall have been elected and qualified.

Section Three. Regular Meetings. A regular annual meeting of the Board of Directors shall be held without other notice than this bylaw, immediately after, and at the same place, as the annual meeting of Members. The Board of Directors may provide by resolution the time and place, either within or without the State of Texas, for the holding of additional regular meetings of the Board without other notice than such resolution.

Section Four. Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Board of Directors may be called by or at the request of the President or any two directors. The person or persons authorized to call special meetings of the Board may fix any place, either within or without the state, as the place for holding any special meeting of the board called by them.

Written, printed, or electronic mail (email) notice of any special meeting of the Board will be delivered to each Director not less than seven (7) nor more than thirty (30) days before the date of the meeting. The notice will state the place, day, and time of the meeting; who called it; and the purpose or purposes for which it is called.

If the President of the Board of Directors so elects, voting on any one specific action can be done via email without convening a meeting of the Board. All members of the Board must receive the email initiating the proposal requiring a vote; a quorum must vote on the matter. A printed record of all votes shall be retained and the record of the votes shall be included in the minutes of the next regularly convened Board meeting.

Section Five. Nominating and Electing Directors. A Nominating Committee will be appointed by the President of the Board of Directors to prepare a slate of candidates for the next annual meeting. Directors will be elected during the annual meeting of Members except as provided in Article IV, Section Eight.

Section Six. Quorum. A quorum of Directors is defined in Article II, Section Six and is to be used for transacting business at any board meeting. The Directors present at a duly called or held meeting at which a quorum is present may continue to transact business even if enough directors leave the meeting so that less than a quorum remains. However, no action may be approved without the vote of at least the number of Directors required for a quorum. If a quorum is never present at any time during a meeting, a majority of the Directors present may adjourn and reconvene the meeting once without further notice.

Section Seven. Actions of Board of Directors; Proxies. The vote of a majority of Directors present and voting at a meeting at which a quorum is present shall be the act of the board of directors, unless the act of a greater number is required by law or by these bylaws. At any meeting of directors, a Director entitled to vote may vote by proxy executed in writing by the director or by his duly authorized attorney in fact. No proxy is valid after two (2) months from the date of its execution, unless otherwise provided in the proxy.

Section Eight. Vacancies. Any vacancy occurring in the Board of Directors shall be filled by the affirmative vote of a majority of the remaining Directors though less than a quorum of the Board of Directors. A Director elected to fill a vacancy shall be elected for the unexpired term of his predecessor in office.

Any Directorship to be filled by reason of an increase in the number of Directors shall be filled by election at an annual meeting, or at a special meeting of Members called for that purpose. If no members have the right to vote thereon, the Directorship shall be filled by the affirmative vote of a majority of the remaining Directors though less than a quorum of the Board of Directors.

Section Nine. Compensation. Directors as such shall not receive any stated salaries for their services, but by resolution of the Board of Directors, any Director may be indemnified for expenses and costs, including attorney’s fees, actually and necessarily incurred by him in connection with any claim asserted against him, by action in court or otherwise, by reason of his being or having been such Director, except in relation to matters as to which he shall have been guilty of negligence or misconduct in respect of the matter in which indemnity is sought. The corporation is required to carry a Directors’ “errors and omissions” liability policy which will cover such indemnification.

Article V. Officers

Section One. Officers. The Officers of the corporation shall be a President, one or more Vice-presidents, the number thereof to be determined by the Board of Directors, a Secretary, a Treasurer, and such other Officers as may be elected in accordance with the provisions of this article. The Board of Directors may elect or appoint such other Officers, including one or more Assistant Secretaries, and one or more Assistant Treasurers, as it shall deem desirable, such Officers to have the authority and perform the duties prescribed, from time to time, by the Board of Directors. Any two or more offices may be held by the same person, except the offices of President and Secretary.

Section Two. Election and Term of Office. The Officers of the Corporation shall be elected annually by the Board of Directors at the regular annual meeting of the Board of Directors. If the election of Officers shall not be held at such meeting, such election shall be held as soon thereafter as conveniently may be. New Offices may be created and filled at any meeting of the Board of Directors. Each Officer shall hold office until his successor shall have been duly elected and shall have been qualified.

Section Three. Removal. Any Officer elected or appointed by the Board of Directors may be removed by the Board of Directors whenever in its judgment the best interests of the Corporation would be served thereby, but such removal shall be without prejudice to the contract rights, if any, of the Officer so removed.

Section Four. Vacancies. A vacancy in any office, because of death, resignation, removal, disqualification, or otherwise, may be filled by the Board of Directors for the unexpired portion of the term.

Section Five. President. The President shall be the principal executive officer of the Corporation and shall, in general, supervise and control all of the business and affairs of the Corporation. He shall preside at all meetings of the Members and of the Board of Directors. He may sign, with the Secretary or any other proper Officer of the Corporation authorized by the Board of Directors, any deeds, mortgages, bonds, contracts, or other instruments that the Board of Directors have authorized to be executed, except in cases where the signing and execution thereof shall be expressly delegated by the Board of Directors or by these bylaws or by statute to some other Officer or Agent of the Corporation; and, in general, he shall perform all duties incident to the office of President and such other duties as may be prescribed by the Board of Directors from time to time.

Section Six. Vice-President. In the absence of the President or in the event of his inability or refusal to act, the Vice-presidents in the order of their election shall perform the duties of the President, and when so acting, shall have all the powers of and be subject to all the restrictions on the President. Any Vice-president shall perform such other duties as from time to time may be assigned to him by the President or by the Board of Directors.

Section Seven. Treasurer. If required by the Board of Directors, the Treasurer shall give a bond for the faithful discharge of his duties in such sum and with such surety or sureties as the board of Directors shall determine. He shall have charge and custody of and be responsible for all funds and securities of the Corporation; receive and give receipts for moneys due and payable to the Corporation from any source whatsoever, and deposit all such moneys in the name of the Corporation in such banks, trust companies, or other depositories as shall be selected by the Board of Directors; and, in general, perform all the duties incident to the Office of Treasurer and such other duties as from time to time may be assigned to him by the President or by the Board of Directors.

Section Eight. Secretary. The Secretary shall keep the minutes of the meetings of the Members and of the Board of Directors in one or more books provided for that purpose; see that all notices are duly given in accordance with the provisions of these bylaws or as required by law; be custodian of the Corporate records and of the seal of the Corporation. and see that the seal of the Corporation is affixed to documents, the execution of which on behalf of the Corporation under its seal is duly authorized in accordance with the provisions of these bylaws; keep a register of the post-office address and electronic mail address of each member which shall be furnished to the secretary by such Member; and in general perform all duties incident to the Office of Secretary and such other duties as from time to time may be assigned to him by the President or the Board of Directors.

Section Nine. Assistant Treasurers and Assistant Secretaries. If required by the Board of Directors, the Assistant Treasurers shall give bonds for the faithful discharge of their duties in such sums and with such sureties as the Board of Directors shall determine. The Assistant Treasurers and Assistant Secretaries, in general, shall perform such duties as shall be assigned to them by the Treasurer or the Secretary or by the President or by the Board of Directors.

Article VI. Committees

Section One. Committee of Directors. The Board of Directors, by resolution adopted by a majority of the Directors in office, may designate one or more Committees, each of which shall consist of two or more Directors, which Committees, to the extent provided in said resolution, shall have and exercise the authority of the Board of Directors in the management of the Corporation; but the designation of such Committees and the delegation thereto of authority shall not operate to relieve the Board of Directors, or any individual Director, or any responsibility imposed on it or him by law.

A Committee duly designated may perform the functions of any officer and the functions of any two or more Officers may be performed by a single Committee, including the functions of both President and Secretary.

Section Two. Other Committees. Other Committees not having and exercising the authority of the Board of Directors in the management of the corporation may be designated by a resolution adopted by a majority of the Directors present at a meeting at which a quorum is present. Except as otherwise provided in such resolution, members of each such Committee shall be Members of the Corporation, and the President of the Corporation shall appoint the Chairperson(s) thereof. The President of the Corporation or the Committee Chairperson(s) may appoint the Committee Members.

Section Three. Term of Office. Each Member of a Committee shall continue as such until the next annual meeting of the Members of the Corporation and until his successor is appointed, unless the Committee shall be sooner terminated, or unless such Member be removed from such Committee, or unless such Member shall cease to qualify as a Member thereof.

Section Four. Chairman. One Member of each Committee shall be appointed chairman by the person or persons authorized to appoint the Members thereof.

Section Five. Vacancies. Vacancies in the Membership of any Committee may be filled by appointments made in the same manner as provided in the case of the original appointments.

Section Six. Quorum. Unless otherwise provided in the resolution of the Board of Directors designating a committee, a majority of the whole committee shall constitute a quorum and the act of a majority of the Members present at a meeting at which a quorum is present shall be the act of the Committee.

Section Seven. Rules. Each Committee may adopt rules for its own government not inconsistent with these bylaws or with rules adopted by the Board of Directors.

Article VII. Contracts, Checks, Deposits, and Funds.

Section One. Contracts. The Board of Directors may authorize any Officer or Officers, Agent or Agents of the Corporation, in addition to the Officers so authorized by these bylaws, to enter into any contract or execute and deliver any instrument in the name of and on behalf of the Corporation, and such authority may be general or confined to specific instances.

Section Two. Checks, Drafts, or Orders for Payment. All checks, drafts, or orders for the payment of money, notes, or other evidences in indebtedness issued in the name of the Corporation shall be signed by such Officer or Officers, Agent or Agents of the Corporation and in such manner as shall from time to time be determined by resolution of the Board of Directors. In the absence of such determination by the Board of Directors, such instruments shall be signed by the treasurer or an assistant treasurer and countersigned by the president or a vice-president of the Corporation.

Section Three. Deposits. All funds of the Corporation shall be deposited from time to time to the credit of the Corporation in such banks, trust companies, or other depositories as the Board of Directors may select.

Section Four. Gifts. The Board of Directors may accept on behalf of the Corporation any contribution, gift, bequest, or devise for the general purposes, or for any special purpose of the Corporation.

Article VIII. Certificates of Membership

Section One. Certificate of Membership. The Board of Directors may provide for the issuance of certificates evidencing membership in the Corporation, which shall be in such form as may be determined by the Board. Such certificates shall be signed by the President or a Vice-president and by the Secretary or an Assistant Secretary. The name and address of each member and the date of issuance of the certificate shall be entered on the records of the corporation. If any certificate shall become lost, mutilated, or destroyed, a new certificate may be issued therefor on such terms and conditions as the Board of Directors may determine.

Section Two Deleted

Article IX. Dues

Section One. Annual Dues. The Board of Directors may determine from time to time the amount of initiation fee, if any, and amount of annual dues payable to the Corporation by Members of each class.

Section Two. Payment of Dues. Annual dues are required for a Member to remain in good standing. The date of collection of the annual dues will be determined by the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors has the right to waive the annual dues for all current Members for any year they so determine.

Section Three. Default and Termination of Membership. When any Member of any class shall be in default in the payment of dues for a period of six (6) months from the beginning of the fiscal year or period in which such dues become payable, his Membership may thereupon be terminated by the Board of Directors in the manner provided in Article II of these bylaws.

Article X Miscellaneous

Section One. Books and Records. The Corporation shall keep correct and complete books and records of account and shall also keep minutes of the proceedings of its Members, Board of Directors, and Committees having any of the authority of the Board of Directors, and shall keep at the registered or principal office a record giving the names and addresses of the Members entitled to vote. All books and records of the Corporation may be inspected by any Members, or his Agent or Attorney, for any proper purpose at any reasonable time.

Section Two. Fiscal Year. The fiscal year of the Corporation shall begin on the first day of January and end on the last day of December in each year.

Section Three. Corporate Seal. The Board of Directors shall have the power to have a Corporate seal if they should determine it necessary.

Section Four. Waiver of Notice. Whenever any notice is required to be given under the provisions of the Texas Non-Profit Corporation Act or under the provisions of the articles of incorporation or the bylaws of the Corporation, a waiver thereof in writing signed by the person or persons entitled to such notice, whether before or after the time stated therein, shall be deemed equivalent to the giving of such notice.

Article XI. Amendments

Section One. Power of Members to Amend Bylaws. The bylaws of this Corporation may be amended, repealed, or added to, or new bylaws may be adopted by the vote of a majority of the Members entitled to vote or by the vote of a majority of a quorum at a meeting duly called for the purpose according to the articles or bylaws.

It is therefore resolved on this the 19th day of January, 2007 that the bylaws presented to this meeting become the bylaws of this Corporation effective forthwith.

It is further resolved that the bylaws be authenticated as such by the certificate of the Secretary of this Corporation and placed in its minute book, and that a full and true copy thereof, certified by the Secretary, be kept at the principal office of the Corporation for inspection by Shareholders at all reasonable times during business hours.

/s/ Mike Bleier

Colin Stead

Tom Butz

Sue Wheatly

Amendments seconded and passed on Jan 19, 2007. See minutes of meeting.

LCA PRESIDENT’S UPDATE

Good day to all Lake Conroe residents and users. The LCA thought it time to provide you with an update on the Aquatic Plant Management status of the Lake.

2007 LAKE CONROE AQUATIC PLANT MANAGEMENT PLAN:

After numerous meetings between Texas Parks and Wildlife (TPWD), San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) and seventeen (17) representatives from residents, businesses and anglers, the 2007 Lake Conroe Aquatic Plant Management Plan has been finalized. The LCA endorses the basic approach of the Plan and its goals. Should you desire to read the Plan, the Plan is being added to our LCA website at “www: lakeconroeassociation.com”.

A key element of this Plan is its approach to deal with not only Hydrilla but also Giant Salvinia and Water Hyacinth (whereas the prior year’s Plan only dealt with Hydrilla). All of these noxious weeds pose a threat to our Lake.

The two (2) primary elements of the Plan deal with treatment options and timelines for action. For the discussion of specific treatment options, please refer to the Plan and subsequent discussion in this Update. To provide you information on “timelines for action”, please see the following (which includes current timetables as of this morning):

· Monday, March 19…..TPWD initiates its first 2007 survey of infested acres (weather permitting). The survey will take about a week. Data gathered will determine if additional white amur are to be added at this time.

· Week of March 19……SJRA initiates herbicide applications for Giant Salvinia and Water Hyacinth (weather permitting). This herbicide application will be cost-shared 50/50 between SJRA and the LCA.

· May…….TPWD conducts its second survey of infested acres. Data gathered will determine if additional white amur are to be added in June.

· July……TPWD conducts its third survey of infested acres. Data gathered will determine if additional white amur are to be added in August.

· September……TPWD conducts its final 2007 survey of infested acres. Data gathered will determine if additional white amur are to be added in October.

· September, 2007……date at which the Plan commits to have Giant Salvinia reduced to 40 acres or less (with no more than 5 contiguous acres). The latest survey estimated 300 acres of Giant Salvinia (which, under ideal growing conditions, doubles in mass every four days).

· March, 2008……date at which the Plan commits to have Hydrilla reduced to 40 acres or less. The latest survey (Sept, 2006) estimated 1,167 infested acres plus TPWD estimates that 700 acres of previously dry lakebed (in Sept, 2006) are now infested.

TREATMENT OF HYDRILLA:

Hydrilla will be treated using both White Amur and herbicides. While many residents and lake users prefer a treatment program which utilizes “more white amur now and no herbicides”, the Plan does not call for this approach.

White Amur will be added based on future TPWD surveys of infested acres. As you are aware, there is grave concern over the introduction of too many White Amur which may, once all Hydrilla is eaten, eat other native vegetation in the Lake (similar to what happened 25 years ago). TPWD will remain environmentally conservative in this approach to protect the Lake’s native vegetation. Having said this, in order for TPWD and SJRA to achieve the Plan objective of “40 acres or less of Hydrilla infested acres by March, 2008”, one of two things must happen. First, the White Amur already in the Lake would have to be sufficient to reduce Hydrilla (as proven through surveys). Or second, more White Amur will need to be added. SJRA and the LCA will cost-share the purchase of these White Amur on a 50/50 basis.

Herbicides will also be used to combat Hydrilla. Use of a product called “Sonar” may be used in cove-type areas where the product will not dissipate easily into the main body of the Lake (only 100 to 200 of infested Hydrilla acres of the Lake fit this description). This product takes 45 to 60 days of “contact time” to be effective; but when effective, actually kills both Hydrilla and Giant Salvinia by eliminating their ability to conduct photosynthesis.

More common to our Lake, a product called “Aquathol” will be used to “burn back” Hydrilla. This product provides almost-immediate results in removing “topped-out Hydrilla”, but does not kill the plant. This product has been used historically to clear access to the main body of the Lake and around boat docks. “Aquathol” will be used to reduce the total mass of Hydrilla in the Lake so that the White Amur have less Hydrilla to eat and, theoretically, can control Hydrilla faster and more effectively. Again, TPWD and SJRA endorse an approach of White Amur plus herbicides rather than introducing too many White Amur (and the potential effects on native vegetation).

Historically, SJRA has paid for herbicides. While the LCA understands the use of herbicides in treating Hydrilla and their potential value, we continue to evaluate the high cost of herbicides versus the addition of more White Amur. SJRA has requested the LCA to become a 50/50 cost-share partner in the purchase of herbicides, and the LCA has requested that SJRA provide the LCA with a cost estimate based on monies spent on herbicides last year by SJRA and projected for this year. The LCA cannot agree to cost-share on herbicides for the treatment of Hydrilla until it can evaluate these projected costs and make its own decision on whether these are monies well spent on behalf of our LCA members. This information will be available in the next couple of weeks.

IF YOU CATCH A WHITE AMUR, YOU MUST “RELEASE”:

In the event that you inadvertently catch a White Amur, the law states that you must “release” that White Amur immediately. Anyone caught by Game Wardens with White Amur on board their boat is subject to significant fines and penalties. In an effort to raise awareness of this issue and protect the White Amur you have helped to purchase, a Signage Campaign has been initiated to state the law and assist anglers in identifying a White Amur. TPWD will prepare the signage, and such signage will be posted at boat launches and marinas. Costs for this signage will be shared by TPWD, SJRA, the LCA and Texas BASS Federation (largest angling organization in Texas).

TREATMENT OF GIANT SALVINIA:

Giant Salvinia has not received the same attention level on Lake Conroe as has Hydrilla. Most likely, individuals do not focus as much on things that they cannot see (or, at least, see easily). With Hydrilla encroaching on your boat dock or hindering your ability to navigate through and enjoy the Lake, it’s only natural that Hydrilla has received the majority of the public’s and LCA’s attention. The LCA’s objective would be the reduction of Giant Salvinia to less than one acre by the end of the year.

Under ideal growing conditions, Giant Salvinia can DOUBLE in mass EVERY FOUR DAYS. Giant Salvinia was estimated to cover 300 acres in the Fall of 2006. Imagine if you will, a plant (again, under ideal growing conditions) covering 300 acres on April 1 which becomes 600 acres on April 5… which becomes 1,200 acres on April 9…. which becomes 2,400 acres on April 13. In this example, it only took 8 days to produce more infested Giant Salvinia acres than the total infested Hydrilla acres we had last year (1,167 acres in September, 2006). Giant Salvinia is a terrible, invasive, exotic plant which could destroy our Lake much faster than Hydrilla.

Why haven’t all of us been focusing on Giant Salvinia? The answer lies in its location. Giant Salvinia has primarily resided in the northern-most, uninhabited waters of Lake Conroe where waters are extremely shallow. With no inhabitants to be bothered by the plant and almost zero access by boat (or air boat), Giant Salvinia did not appear to present a direct threat to most of us. Further, the plant was “trapped” in its shallow waters with very little room to expand and limited nutrients and sunlight to utilize in its small space. This is not to say that Giant Salvinia hasn’t caused problems for lakefront residents as well, but such problems were limited (unless, of course, “your” lakefront was infested).

Why are we so concerned about Giant Salvinia now? With the heavy rains at the end of 2006 which raised the Lake level by over four (4) feet, Giant Salvinia was “flushed out” of its habitat and into the main body of Lake Conroe (unlike Hydrilla which anchors itself to the Lake floor, Giant Salvinia floats on the Lake surface). Most likely, all of our Lake’s shoreline has become invaded by very small amounts of Giant Salvinia. I know I can find small pieces of Giant Salvinia just about anywhere I go on the Lake. TPWD and SJRA concur with these findings.

With Giant Salvinia spread throughout the Lake now, 2007 could prove disastrous with no physical restrictions on its growth and unlimited nutrients and sunlight available to it across the Lake. The time to act is now!!! Giant Salvinia is not going to go away on its own. We can treat the 300 or so acres immediately, or we can treat multiples of those acres next month. And, of course, we can spend money now or spend multiples of that money next month.

If there is a good thing about Giant Salvinia, it can be killed with herbicide applications. Since it floats on the surface, herbicides can be applied directly on the plant. This differs greatly from Hydrilla in that Hydrilla grows from the bottom and only leaves the “topped out” portion exposed for direct herbicide applications. While many people resist the use of herbicides, the use of herbicides on Giant Salvinia is a necessity (no other solution, such as White Amur for Hydrilla, is known).

Herbicide applications on Giant Salvinia (and Water Hyacinth…..a floating plant like Giant Salvinia and often found living harmoniously with Giant Salvinia) begin next week. The maximum projected cost for this application is $80,000, and the LCA will share the cost on a 50/50 basis with SJRA.

You will soon see and hear Fund Raising efforts by the LCA regarding monies needed for the treatment of Giant Salvinia and Water Hyacinth. It should be noted that the LCA has obtained preliminary endorsement of this Fund Raising campaign from angling organizations such a Texas BASS Federation (anglers have always recognized the devastating effects of Giant Salvinia). Meetings are being held next week with BASS to work out a joint Fund Raising effort where support is requested from residents, businesses AND anglers. These Fund Raising efforts have been endorsed by TPWD and SJRA.

LCA BANK BALANCE AND FUND RAISING EFFORTS:

The LCA currently holds approximately $152,000 from previous Fund Raising efforts. From this balance, $32,000 will be paid next week for the LCA’s 50% portion of the 10,000 White Amur placed in the Lake over the past three (3) weeks. An estimated $40,000 will be paid during the next month for the LCA’s 50% portion of Giant Salvinia and Water Hyacinth herbicide applications. Deducting these two payments, the LCA will have a remaining balance of $80,000. When further additions of White Amur are approved in 2007 and funds are needed for potential Giant Salvinia herbicide applications, the LCA could find itself without the monies needed to return Lake Conroe to its previously enjoyable and safe condition. Therefore, Fund Raising continues to be a priority for the LCA….and you.

Previously unprecedented, the LCA will work with angling organizations to raise awareness and monies. As an LCA member, you should have received our request to write two (2) US Senators and ten (10) US Representatives informing them that funding is needed at a Federal level for Aquatic Plant Management (and “Thank You” very much if you followed through on the letters). The LCA will next work on a similar letter to State Senators and State Representatives to request funding at a State level for Aquatic Plant Management. I will travel to Austin this Wednesday at Senator Nichols request to present Texas’ needs for Aquatic Plant Management funding to approximately 55 State Representatives and to request their support for Senator Nichols’ Bill (which would authorize TPWD monies to be used for Aquatic Plant Management). The LCA participates in the Conroe Chamber of Commerce and tries to inform local businesses why our “weed problem” is their problem too. We speak at POA Meetings, sell tee shirts, present the issue to Montgomery County Commissioners Court and try every avenue to raise money that is presented to us. The US Forest Service, who owns 30% of Lake Conroe’s shoreline, has obtained preliminary approval to provide funding to SJRA for Aquatic Plant Management on Lake Conroe. And, of course, we’ll be asking for your support.

Thank you for listening, and I will present another President’s Update next month with new information on our progress and concerns. Until then, enjoy our Lake.

Mike Bleier

President, Lake Conroe Association

LCA PRESIDENT’S UPDATE

This Update will cover two (2) significant topics; namely, LCA’s Annual Meeting for its Members held today and yesterday’s Advisory Committee Meeting held to provide input on the 2007 Lake Conroe Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan.

LCA ANNUAL MEETING:

Our Annual Meeting was held today at the offices of the San Jacinto River Authority. General information was provided to the attendees and questions were answered. A financial report was presented which summarized Income and Expense for the LCA for calendar year 2006. LCA Member voting was also completed (in conjunction with proxies submitted by Members through the mail) on the election of the 2007 LCA Board of Directors and proposed LCA By-Law revisions.

A brief summary of the LCA’s 2006 Cash Flow Statement (unaudited at this point) is listed as follows:

CASH, January 1, 2006 $24,989

Add 2006 Income:

Donations 205,634

Tee Shirt Sales and Interest Income 3,466

———

Total Income 209,100 209,100

======

Deduct 2006 Expenses:

White Amur Purchases 72,266

Fund Raising (Printing/Postage) 15,904

Administrative 2,372

———

Total Expenses 90,542 (90,542)

====== ———-

CASH, December 31, 2006 $143,547

======

It should be noted that “Cash” at December 31, 2006 includes monies invested in Money Market Accounts earning interest at 4.7%. We are also pleased to report that our Administrative Expenses of $2,372 represent only 1% of our 2006 Total Income of $209,100 (primarily due to Directors working exclusively on a volunteer basis).

We would very much like to thank our 950+ Members for their generosity in our 2006 Fund Raising Campaign. And, while our $143,547 Cash Balance at December 31, 2006 is substantial, we must point out that the cost of successfully controlling hydrilla, giant salvinia and water hyacinth in 2007 may far outweigh our current funds. Accordingly, LCA Fund Raising diligently continues in 2007 from residents, businesses, and Federal, State and County sources.

With voting tabulated, we are pleased to announce your 2007 LCA Board of Directors as follows: Gene Barrington, Mike Bleier, Tom Butz, Dawn Cleboski, Gene Colbert, Rich Cutler, Jim Pohoski, Ben Richardson, Stan Sproba, Colin Stead, Bernie Walling, Conrad Weil and Sue Wheatley (13 in all). Further, the LCA proposed changes to the LCA By-Laws were passed. A total of 259 proxies were received from our Members, or approximately 27% of the LCA Membership.

Subsequent to LCA Annual Meeting, the LCA Board conducted its Meeting to elect its Officers for 2007. Your 2007 LCA Officers are Mike Bleier (President), Colin Stead (Vice President), Tom Butz (Treasurer) and Sue Wheatley (Secretary).

ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING ON 2007 LAKE CONROE AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN:

Texas Parks & Wildlife (TPWD) and the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) (the two “Cooperators” under the Plan) held a Meeting yesterday at the offices of SJRA to discuss the Preliminary 2007 Lake Conroe Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan. Seventeen (17) individuals representing residents, businesses and anglers (collectively referred to as “Stakeholders”) were invited to join TPWD and SJRA in comprising the 2007 Advisory Committee. A “draft” of the 2007 Plan was submitted to the Stakeholders, and comments were solicited. Much feedback was shared amongst the attendees, and this feedback will be utilized by the Cooperators to develop the next Draft of the 2007 Plan. The 2007 Advisory Committee will meet again in approximately three (3) weeks to review all changes made to the Plan, and final comments will be shared prior to the Cooperators issuing the Final 2007 Lake Conroe Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan.

To briefly summarize where we stood at the end of 2006, the October, 2006 hydrilla survey conducted by TPWD estimated a total of 1,167 hydrilla infested acres. Grass carp called “White Amur” which have a particular appetite for hydrilla were re-introduced into Lake Conroe during 2006 in three (3) stockings, and an estimated 27,046 White Amur were feeding in Lake Conroe by year’s end. These stockings approximate a rate of twenty-three (23) white amur per infested hydrilla acre.

A particular concern for 2007 has been the status of 2,600 acres of lakebed which was dry during the Summer of 2006. Some portion of these 2,600 acres were infested with hydrilla in 2005, and the likelihood that they become re-infested now that the Lake has risen to its normal level again is high.

This Update will cover two (2) significant topics; namely, LCA’s Annual Meeting for its Members held today and yesterday’s Advisory Committee Meeting held to provide input on the 2007 Lake Conroe Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan.

 

LCA ANNUAL MEETING:

Our Annual Meeting was held today at the offices of the San Jacinto River Authority.  General information was provided to the attendees and questions were answered.  A financial report was presented which summarized Income and Expense for the LCA for calendar year 2006.  LCA Member voting was also completed (in conjunction with proxies submitted by Members through the mail) on the election of the 2007 LCA Board of Directors and proposed LCA By-Law revisions.

 

A brief summary of the LCA’s 2006 Cash Flow Statement (unaudited at this point) is listed as follows:

 

CASH,January 1, 2006                                                       $24,989

 

Add 2006 Income:

Donations                                                  205,634

Tee Shirt Sales and Interest Income             3,466

———

Total Income                                     209,100         209,100

======

Deduct 2006 Expenses:

White Amur Purchases                               72,266

Fund Raising (Printing/Postage)                 15,904

Administrative                                              2,372

———

Total Expenses                                    90,542         (90,542)

======        ———-

 

CASH,December 31, 2006                                                $143,547

======

It should be noted that “Cash” atDecember 31, 2006includes monies invested in Money Market Accounts earning interest at 4.7%.  We are also pleased to report that our Administrative Expenses of $2,372 represent only 1% of our 2006 Total Income of $209,100 (primarily due to Directors working exclusively on a volunteer basis).

We would very much like to thank our 950+ Members for their generosity in our 2006 Fund Raising Campaign.  And, while our $143,547 Cash Balance atDecember 31, 2006is substantial, we must point out that the cost of successfully controlling hydrilla, giant salvinia and water hyacinth in 2007 may far outweigh our current funds.  Accordingly, LCA Fund Raising diligently continues in 2007 from residents, businesses, and Federal, State and County sources.

With voting tabulated, we are pleased to announce your 2007 LCA Board of Directors as follows:  Gene Barrington, Mike Bleier, Tom Butz, Dawn Cleboski, Gene Colbert, Rich Cutler, Jim Pohoski, Ben Richardson, Stan Sproba, Colin Stead, Bernie Walling, Conrad Weil and Sue Wheatley (13 in all).  Further, the LCA proposed changes to the LCA By-Laws were passed.  A total of 259 proxies were received from our Members, or approximately 27% of the LCA Membership.

Subsequent to LCA Annual Meeting, the LCA Board conducted its Meeting to elect its Officers for 2007.  Your 2007 LCA Officers are Mike Bleier (President), Colin Stead (Vice President), Tom Butz (Treasurer) and Sue Wheatley (Secretary).

ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING ON 2007LAKECONROEAQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN:

Texas Parks & Wildlife (TPWD) and the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) (the two “Cooperators” under the Plan) held a Meeting yesterday at the offices of SJRA to discuss the Preliminary 2007 Lake Conroe Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan.  Seventeen (17) individuals representing residents, businesses and anglers (collectively referred to as “Stakeholders”) were invited to join TPWD and SJRA in comprising the 2007 Advisory Committee.  A “draft” of the 2007 Plan was submitted to the Stakeholders, and comments were solicited.  Much feedback was shared amongst the attendees, and this feedback will be utilized by the Cooperators to develop the next Draft of the 2007 Plan.  The 2007 Advisory Committee will meet again in approximately three (3) weeks to review all changes made to the Plan, and final comments will be shared prior to the Cooperators issuing the Final 2007 Lake Conroe Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan.

To briefly summarize where we stood at the end of 2006, the October, 2006 hydrilla survey conducted by TPWD estimated a total of 1,167 hydrilla infested acres.  Grass carp called “White Amur” which have a particular appetite for hydrilla were re-introduced intoLakeConroeduring 2006 in three (3) stockings, and an estimated 27,046 White Amur were feeding inLakeConroeby year’s end.  These stockings approximate a rate of twenty-three (23) white amur per infested hydrilla acre.

A particular concern for 2007 has been the status of 2,600 acres of lakebed which was dry during the Summer of 2006.  Some portion of these 2,600 acres were infested with hydrilla in 2005, and the likelihood that they become re-infested now that theLakehas risen to its normal level again is high.

Having provided this brief background, please find my notes on key points discussed in the Advisory Committee Meeting yesterday (in no order of significance):

  1. TPWD conducted a survey in January, 2007 of the previously dry lakebed in an effort to quantify the number of acres infested with hydrilla since theLakerose to its standard level of 201 feet above sea level.  They estimated that 700 acres of this previously dry lakebed has initiated hydrilla re-growth through “tubers” that can survive dry conditions for reportedly up to seven (7) years.
  2. TPWD proposed to permit the addition of 10,000 White Amur in February, 2007 to proactively address these newly infested acres and the ongoing mortality of the 27,046 White Amur introduced in 2006 (White Amur have an estimated mortality of 30% annually).   The LCA applauds this proactive approach by the Cooperators.  The cost of these White Amur will be shared equally by SJRA and the LCA, and TPWD has waived its $2/fish permitting fee for 2007 (and, hopefully, beyond).
  3. TPWD proposes to conduct its next lake-wide aquatic vegetation survey in March, 2007.  Should this survey conclude that hydrilla growth is not being reduced as expected by cool Winter water temperatures and the hydrilla-eating White Amur introduced during 2006, additional White Amur would be permitted and added during April, 2007 (always subject to availability from the hatcheries).
  4. Similar aquatic vegetation surveys would be conducted in May, 2007, July, 2007 and September, 2007.  If deemed necessary by the Cooperators, additional White Amur would be added in the month after each survey.
  5. Should hydrilla growth exceed forecasts based on historic data, TPWD may consider raising the stocking rate of White Amur from 23 fish/acre to a higher number/acre.
  6. As in the 2006 Plan, the 2007 Lake Conroe Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan calls for the reduction of hydrilla-infested acres to “40 acres or less by March, 2008”.  The Cooperators and Stakeholders are all committed to achieving this goal, and are prepared to stock additional White Amur as needed to reach this goal.  To supplement the budget available to SJRA for aquatic plant management, the LCA has committed to raise whatever monies are necessary to achieve the goal of “40 acres or less by March, 2008”.  Once the goal of reducing hydrilla to “40 acres or less” is accomplished, the ongoing plan will be to keep hydrilla permanently below 40 acres.  It should be further noted that “40 acres or less” of hydrilla is intended to remain primarily in the uninhabited, northern portion of the Lake and not in the highly populated used southern portion of theLake.
  7. The Cooperators are considering further herbicide treatments in March or April, 2007 to attack, in particular, the new hydrilla growing in the previously dry lakebed.  Herbicides can be very effective at reducing hydrilla tuber regeneration.  The use of herbicides on hydrilla is often criticized as a “waste of money” since they typically only “burn back” the growth and do not “kill” the hydrilla plant.  Successful hydrilla treatment proposals typically present a dual approach of White Amur coupled with herbicides.  Think of it this way…..if the herbicides can reduce the overall biomass of hydrilla in theLake(even temporarily), then the White Amur have less hydrilla to consume and can reduce the total hydrilla to a more acceptable level more quickly.  Herbicide treatments for hydrilla beyond April, 2007 are also a possibility.
  8.  Regarding the question “Are any of the 27,046 White Amur still alive?”, there is no evidence to the contrary.  White Amur were not seen dying upon introduction into theLake.  There have not been reports of dead, floating White Amur on the surface or shores of ourLake.  The 12 – 14 inch White Amur were large enough at introduction to theLaketo avoid significant predication by large bass or other fish.  The real truth to this question will not be known until detailed surveys are completed in March and May, 2007, and results show the success or failure of the White Amur to reduce our hydrilla infestation.
  9. TPWD estimates that Giant Salvinia covers between 150 – 300 acres of ourLakethrough a diverse spread of small infestations (and an estimated 40 acre infestation in Little Lake Creek).  Giant Salvinia can double in size every 2 -3 days, and is a far more serious problem than hydrilla if not controlled.  The Cooperators plan to continue the treatment of Giant Salvinia through their dual approach of herbicides and biological controls (weevils).  The 2007 Lake Conroe Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan calls for the reduction of Giant Salvinia to “40 acres or less by March, 2008”.
  10. It was noted in our Meeting that many lake users may not know that White Amur are protected in our State.  In the event that you inadvertently catch a White Amur, you are obligated by law to “catch and release”.  Game Wardens onLakeConroeare aware of this law and actively checking fishing boats for White Amur.  Should you be found guilty of catching (and not releasing immediately) White Amur onLakeConroe, you will be subject to significant fines and other penalties.
  11. Are you seeing significant quantities of hydrilla washing up on your shore?  It’s appearance may look like what many commonly refer to as “sea weed” (long, thin strands….not as bright green as in the Summer….and lacking the leaf quantity as in the Summer).  Chances are that this IS hydrilla which has been damaged during our Winter storms.  Hydrilla has a natural “die back” during the winter and becomes less healthy.  Our rise inLakelevel and fierce storm waves have damaged much hydrilla so far this Winter, and many shorelines are covered with this “mess”.  Most likely, you’re seeing hydrilla stems that have broken loose from underwater hydrilla “mats”, and this debris will rot and disappear eventually.  Some portion of this fragmented hydrilla can “root” later.
  12. The rains have pounded us once again.  As an FYI, the highestLakelevel this week reached a level of 202.86 feet (above sea level).  SJRA is actively letting water out of the dam to reach its mandated level of 201.0 feet.  Today’sLakelevel is 201.97 feet.
  13. The LCA has recommended Public Meetings in 2007 to keep everyone abreast of theLakeinfestation.  We felt that our Public Meeting in 2006 was a necessary tool to keep you informed and give you a forum to voice your concerns.  Dates have not yet been set for these Meetings.

That’s it for now.  We’ll provide additional information as it comes to us.  Thank you for supporting the LCA and taking an active interest in the health of ourLakeConroe.

Mike

LCA PRESIDENT’S UPDATE

Happy Holidays to our LCA Members.  We’re pleased that Lake Conroe is far more visually appealing and watercraft-usable than we experienced in the Summer.  Due to a number of factors, our Lake is closer to becoming theLakewe have all enjoyed in the past.  And while the battle over invasive weeds is far from over, we seem to be moving in the right direction thanks to your generous contributions to the Lake Conroe Association.

Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) has completed its November/December, 2007 aquatic plant survey and released those results today to the committee with whom they have work closely over the past two years (including San Jacinto River Authority, LCA and angling organizations).  In general, TPWD has seen a reduction of “topped-out” hydrilla but acknowledges that sub-surface hydrilla is still of serious concern for the year ahead.  While committed to reaching its stated goal of “40 acres or less of hydrilla by March, 2008”, TPWD reported the current hydrilla infestation to be 1,942 acres.  This represents an increase of 167 acres from the July/August, 2007 survey which reported 1,775 hydrilla infested acres.  TPWD reported that hydrilla is currently being found out to a depth of 9 feet below the lake’s surface, and that the average height from the lake floor is 2 to 4 feet.  TPWD expressed optimism because it has observed a significant reduction in the density of the hydrilla (or said another way….even though the number of infested acres has increased, the total volume of hydrilla material has decreased).

TPWD reported a significant hydrilla infestation in the northeastern portion of theLakewhich had limited infestation previously.  The two most significant infestations were in areas referred to as Cagle and Stubblefield.  TPWD reiterated that the inhabited, southern portion of theLakeremains its first priority, but that this newest northeastern infestation is of concern and measured 400 to 500 acres.

Given its reported hydrilla infestation of 1,942 acres, TPWD has suggested that 15,775 white amur grass carp be added toLakeConroein January, 2008 to compensate for fish mortality since the August, 2007 stocking.  The calculation of white amur mortality is based on studies which report a 32% annual mortality during the first year after stocking and a 39% mortality each year thereafter.  SJRA and LCA have agreed to 50/50 cost share this stocking as done throughout 2007.  As a “stocking factoid”, it is calculated that 23,300 white amur have died out of the 86,200 stocked since March, 2006.

TPWD intends to perform a new survey in January, 2008 specifically in the three most infested (and populated) areas referred to as Little Lake Creek, Lewis Creek and Caney Creek.  Should the infestation in these areas not decrease in the next month, TPWD stated it intends to then permit additional white amur beyond the 15,775 already permitted and discussed above.

TPWD stated that they still believe they can achieve the stated goal of “40 acres or less of hydrilla by March, 2008” even though they have reported 1,942 acres currently.  TPWD emphasized that the Plan (Lake Conroe Aquatic Management Plan effective throughMarch 31, 2008) calls for a “measured approach” to the problem – meaning that the objective of hydrilla reduction cannot override the goal of maintaining the native vegetation inLakeConroe.  TPWD expressed that hydrilla reduction AND maintenance of native vegetation are both priorities.  In fact, TPWD intends to enhance native vegetation in 2008 by planting tape grass/water celery in the uninhabited areas of theLake.

Rather than wait for you to ask the question, I’ll pose the question “What does the LCA think about TPWD’s presentation and proposal today?”  We were very disappointed to learn that the number of hydrilla infested acres increased from 1,775 to 1,942 between the July/August, 2007 survey and the November/December, 2007 survey.  We are especially concerned that this increase occurred during a period where 1) we had approximately 63,000 white amur eating hydrilla (the largest quantity since the early ’80’s), 2) enormous sums of money were spent on herbicides and white amur, and 3) this growth occurred during a slower growing period based on cooler water temperatures.  The LCA requested a January, 2008 stocking greater than the 15,775 permitted by TPWD to proactively deal with an infestation that continues to grow, and we do not believe that a more aggressive stocking would negatively affect native vegetation significantly.  TPWD denied our request to increase this stocking and offered the January, 2008 survey as their best alternative.  Since only TPWD and SJRA are “Cooperators” under the Plan, the LCA must accept this proposal and commit to actively review the infestation on a very regular basis (which we WILL do).

The LCA contributed $252,000 to SJRA during 2007 for aquatic plant management.  While fund raising in the Winter months for aquatic plant management proves difficult (in part due to “out of sight, out of mind”), the LCA continues to work behind the scenes on your behalf.  We recently sponsored a booth at the Conroe Chamber of Commerce annual trade show in an effort to meet with local businesses and express our genuine need for their support.  Through phone calling and personal meetings, we have engaged local businesses to join the fight against invasive weeds onLakeConroeand successfully enlisted numerous businesses as LCA Business Members.  To acknowledge the increasing commitment from the local business community, we have listed those businesses making contributions of $250 or more at the end of this Update.  We hope you keep these business partners in mind when making purchases in their area of specialization.  The LCA also maintains ongoing communication with our local representatives inAustinto reinforce our need for their support in securing funding for aquatic plant management in 2008.

The next comprehensive Residential Fund Raising Campaign will not occur until Spring, 2008 but, of course, donations are graciously accepted throughout the year.  Donations to our 501 (c) 3 charitable corporation can be sent to Lake Conroe Association, PO Box 376, Willis, Texas 77378-9998.  Donations should be tax deductible.

For those concerned over AVM (Avian Vacuolar Myelinopathy), a disease typically carried by birds and potentially deadly to man, TPWD confirmed that it sampledLake Conroe twice in 2007 for AVM and reported no signs of this disease.  Accordingly, TPWD states that for now there is no concern for Lake Conroe.

It’s time for calendar year LCA Board elections once again.  The Nominating Committee has suggested that 2007 LCA Directors be re-elected for 2008 to provide continuity and allow these volunteers to see the resolution of weed infestations through to the end.   The 2007 LCA Officers have accepted this nomination.  Accordingly, you will shortly receive a ballot through the mail to cast your support for the recommendation of the LCA Nominating Committee or write-in your own candidate(s).  If you are interested in joining the LCA Board in 2008 and desire to have your name considered by the Nominating Committee before the ballot goes to our Members, please contact me as soon as possible.  Anyone interested in this position should be available to attend LCA Board Meetings on the second Tuesday of each month at10AMand intend to become involved in LCA activities/responsibilities.  If the LCA Board is re-elected as is, it should be noted that the LCA Board’s intention is to re-elect the 2007 Officers for the upcoming 2008 term.  The 2007 LCA Officers were Mike Bleier (President), Colin Stead (Vice President), Tom Butz (Treasurer) and Sue Wheatley (Secretary).

Thank you for your time in reviewing this information.  We will continue to endeavor to provide you with timely information whenever new data becomes available.  Until then, we wish you and your family a safe, happy holiday season; and please find below a listing of LCA Business Members and a brief description of their services and products.

Mike Bleier, President

LakeConroeAssociation

 

****LCA BUSINESS MEMBERS****

The Board of Directors of the LCA would like to recognize the following businesses who have given a minimum of a $250 donation in 2007.

The PalmsMarinaonLakeConroe

(formerly The Anchorage Marina)

P. O. Box525

Willis,TX77356

Ben31@lakeconroe.com

www.palmsmarina.com

 (website will be activated this week)

LakeConroe’s newest luxury marina.  Brand new 12×26, 12×28, 12×30, 14×40, 18×50 & 18×60 foot wet slips.  Sewer pump out & 20/30/50 amp service at each of the larger slips

Lakeshore Sports

15225 Walden Road

Montgomery,TX77356

936-448-2628

www.lakeshoresports.com

Sells Cobalt runabouts and Premier pontoon boats to theLakeConroeand furroundingHoustonlakes.  We promote boating as a great family activity and work hard to ensure an enjoyable experience for all our customers.

E-Z Boat Storage & Valet Launch

14811 FM 1097 W

Willis,TX77318

936-856-4151

Ben31@lakeconroe.com

www.e-zboat.com

LakeConroe’s finest valet launch facility.  Located at the Southeast corner of the big bridge andLakeConroe.

Patti Shannon Sells, Inc. Real Estate

12455 Longmire Lakeview

Conroe,TX77304

936-588-4099

Rusty@pattishannonsells.com

www.pattishannonsells.com

LakeConroereal estate

Prudential Gary Greene, Realtors

Gary Richardson & Candace Joyner

14602 FM 1097 W

Willis,TX77318

936-856-5590

Candace@lconroe.com

www.lakeconroeproperties.com

Residentail real estate firm specializing in the selling of Lake Conroe Properties.

Pro Powersports ofConroe

13895 Highway 105 W

Conroe,TX77304

936-588-1970

info@propowersportsofconroe.com

www.propowersportsofconroe.com

Full service powersports retailer, offering new & pre-owned sales, finance, insurance, service, parts & accessories.

Bentwater on the Northshore

100 Bentwater Drive

Montgomery,TX77356

www.bentwater.com

Laura Baird Interiors

4605 Post Oak PlaceDrive,Suite140

Houston,TX77027

www.candbinteriors.com

Bella Vita onLakeConroe

235 I-45 North

Conroe,TX77304

 The Baird Law Firm

4605 Post Oak PlaceDrive,Suite240

Houston,TX77027

David Weekley Homes

1111 N. Post Oak Road

Houston,TX77055

www.davidweekleyhomes.com

Express Personnel Services

Piedmont,OK73078

Inland Discount Marine, Inc.

1 Marina Drive

Montgomery,TX77356

deh@consolidated.net

www.inlandmarina.com

TOPPS ofLakeConroe

P. O. Box1521

Montgomery,TX77356

wstultz@consolidated.net

www.topps-lakeconroe.com

LakeShoreService

P. O. Box1124

Montgomery,TX77356

Cobalt boat repair

936-448-4440

WestlakeStorage

P. O. “Box1154

Montgomery,TX77356

Dry boat storage

Playa Vista onLakeConroe

5606 South Rice

Houston,TX77081

www.playavistaconroe.com

Alfred “Ted” Ruemke Law Office

704 N. Thompson,Suite190

Conroe,TX77301

ruemke@yahoo.com

Firm handling litigation, personal injury & family law.

LCA PRESIDENT’S UPDATE

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) completed its May, 2007 Hydrilla Survey for Lake Conroe and reported its results (and proposed actions) today at a meeting between TPWD, the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA), the Lake Conroe Association (LCA) and several local residents and businessmen who round out the team who meet every two months to discuss TPWD surveys. TPWD reported its first decline in Hydrilla on Lake Conroe since 1996, and accounted for this success by the combined program of White Amur grass carp and herbicides over the past year. While the March, 2007 survey reported an estimated 1,870 infested Hydrilla acres, the May, 2007 survey reports an estimated 1,380 infested Hydrilla acres….a reduction of 490 acres, or 26%.

Based on this reported information, TPWD does not recommend the addition of further White Amur at this time. TPWD stated that should their July, 2007 survey indicate an increase in the number of Hydrilla infested acres from the May, 2007 total, they would then recommend an appropriate White Amur stocking to recognize the increase.

TPWD stated that they have applied consistent principles in calculating the number of Hydrilla infested acres throughout each survey, and that they have checked their GPS (Global Positioning System) data carefully to assure the accuracy of the data. They feel very confident in the accuracy of this and previous surveys. They are pleased to have directly observed reduction of specific Hydrilla “mats” by the feeding activity of White Amur, and such observations have been noted by SJRA personnel as well.

In an effort to present comparable data between the March, 2007 and May, 2007 surveys, SJRA did not apply Hydrilla herbicides during this period (which would have driven down the May, 2007 survey and tainted reported results). Any herbicide applications observed during this two (2) month period were being applied to Giant Salvinia and Water Hyacinth, and were herbicides which did not affect Hydrilla. Subsequent to the completion of the May, 2007 survey, Hydrilla herbicide applications have commenced.

“BUT THE HYDRILLA LOOKS MUCH WORSE NOW THAN IT DID IN MARCH.”

“HAVE YOU DRIVEN OVER THE BRIDGES AT LITTLE LAKE CREEK OR LEWIS CREEK? HOW CAN YOU TELL ME IT’S GETTING BETTER SINCE MARCH?”

“YOU OBVIOUSLY DON’T DO YOUR SURVEYS AROUND ANY OF OUR BOAT DOCKS BECAUSE I CAN’T EVEN GET OUT OF MY BOAT SLIP, AND I COULD GET MY BOAT OUT IN MARCH.”

I was right there with you in ALL of these comments. I live on Lake Conroe, am very upset about the condition of our Lake. I would have guaranteed you that the survey results would show an increase in the number of Hydrilla infested acres. The LCA was thoroughly prepared to fight for more White Amur when those results were presented.

The explanation provided by TPWD and SJRA in response to “THEN WHY DOES IT STILL LOOK SO BAD?” focuses primarily on the fact that White Amur (and fish in general) prefer the cooler water during our warm months. TPWD and SJRA report that the White Amur are eating the Hydrilla from the deeper water and moving closer to the shoreline as each week passes. I’d have to say that the reasoning makes sense.

“SO WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO TO PROVIDE SOME RELIEF FOR ALL OF US ENDURING THE HYDRILLA AT OUR BOAT DOCKS AND IN THE SHALLOWER WATERS OF THE LAKE?”

The treatment proposal presented calls for significant Hydrilla herbicide applications throughout the Summer and Fall….to be applied from the infested shoreline outward. The approach would intend to provide immediate relief and decrease the overall amount of Hydrilla that the White Amur must ultimately consume. As cooler temperatures return to our shallower waters, the White Amur should continue their eating towards our shorelines and reduce the Hydrilla infestation to “40 acres or less by March, 2008” (the Lake Conroe Hydrilla Management Plan and Lake Conroe Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan objectives).

Obviously, this entire proposal hinges on the accuracy of the TPWD survey. The LCA has requested that TPWD provide its survey data for March, 2007 and May, 2007 to the LCA for verification, and TPWD has agreed (and, in fact, the first electronic data was received from TPWD this evening….with the balance to come tomorrow). With this data, we intend to identify the significant locations where Hydrilla reduction has been observed by TPWD. SJRA has agreed to provide us with an aerial flyover to review these specific locations and confirm the reduction of Hydrilla. Further, watercraft will be utilized by the LCA to verify similar data and get a view directly from the Lake. The LCA (to the best of its ability) hopes to report that the survey data does indeed support the conclusion that we are experiencing a reduction in Lake Conroe’s Hydrilla infestation….news that would be wonderful to all of us. We hope to provide that opinion to you within one week.

*******************************

SELECTED 2007 SURVEY DATA:

Little Lake Creek…..677 acres March, 592 acres May

Lewis Creek…..267 acres March, 274 acres May

Caney Creek…..657 acres March, 372 acres May

Atkins Creek…..101 acres March, 3 acres May

********************************

HYDRILLA HERBICIDE APPLICATIONS:

Herbicides being used include Aquathol K spray, Aquathol K granular and Sonar, and have been applied for approximately two weeks now. SJRA has two sprayboat crews out currently. Now that the TPWD survey is completed and personnel have been freed up, TPWD has committed one sprayboat crew. An outside contractor with one sprayboat crew has now been hired to assist as well (although they are committed to spraying Lake Conroe’s Giant Salvinia and Water Hyacinth for the next four weeks….see below), and this contractor MAY become available to be hired by individual homeowners or businesses for herbicide treatment of their specific property at the homeowner’s or business’ cost. You should note that Hydrilla herbicide applications will typically occur on Monday through Wednesday….allowing a couple of days (as recommended by herbicide manufacturers) before high weekend Lake use by swimmers, anglers and watercraft users

The projected cost of Hydrilla herbicide treatment has not been established for 2007, but estimates will place that amount well over $300,000 in our opinion. Projections are being developed. Expenditures for Hydrilla herbicide treatments will be limited, ultimately, by the amount of available funds from SJRA, Montgomery County and LCA donations.

The LCA will not spend all of its resources on herbicides alone. LCA monies will be set aside as a contingency for future White Amur stockings which may be required should Hydrilla infestation once again increase, and which will be required to account for ongoing White Amur mortality.

***********************************

GIANT SALVINIA AND WATER HYACINTH HERBICIDE APPLICATIONS:

Giant Salvinia and Water Hyacinth often live together in the same areas. Giant Salvinia is being controlled reasonably well, but Water Hyacinth has aggressively returned this year. Overall, a combined 250 acres of the weeds has been estimated.

Giant Salvinia and Water Hyacinth have been treated earlier in the year by SJRA at the most highly infested locations. For the next four (4) weeks, an independent contractor has been hired by SJRA to exclusively treat all 250 acres of this infestation (thereby allowing the SJRA spray crews to dedicate their efforts on Hydrilla). This four (4) week treatment is estimated to cost $52,000, and the cost will be shared equally by SJRA and the LCA. Further treatments will occur throughout the year as needed.

************************************

WHERE WILL THE MONEY COME FROM?

If I were a good Fund Raiser, I would probably open this LCA President’s Update with this section….but I thought the information needed to be presented first. SJRA has and will fund White Amur and herbicides up to its budget for Aquatic Plant Management for Lake Conroe. The LCA successfully requested an increase in funding from Montgomery County from $25,000 previously to $100,000 for the year ending August 31, 2007. Presently, ALL OTHER FUNDING MUST COME FROM THE LCA THROUGH THE GENEROUS DONATIONS OF ITS RESIDENT AND BUSINESS MEMBERS.

THE LCA 2007 FUND RAISING GOAL HAS BEEN SET AT $240,000. Residential Fund Raising Letters have been mailed to over 13,000 homes in the Lake Conroe area during the past four (4) weeks, and we are so appreciative to our Residential Members who have contributed in excess of $60,000 in these first four (4) weeks. A Business Fund Raising Program has been initiated to raise awareness within the Lake Conroe business community outlining the importance of a healthy Lake Conroe to the success of local businesses, and we thank the local businesses who have generously supported us through donations in excess of $20,000 during these past four (4) weeks. WILL YOU BE SENDING YOUR CHECK SOON TO FUND THE $160,000 OR MORE STILL NEEDED BY THE LCA THIS YEAR? WE SURELY NEED YOUR SUPPORT NOW!!!

The LCA is a 501 (c) 3 non-profit organization and your Residential or Business contribution should be tax deductible (please consult with your financial advisor). Historically, ninety-six percent (96%) of all monies contributed to the LCA are utilized for the purchase of White Amur and herbicides and their related fund raising costs. The LCA is audited every two (2) years.

Contributions can be mailed to Lake Conroe Association, P.O. Box 376, Willis, Texas 77378-9998. To become a Residential or Business Member of the LCA for 2007, please make your minimum contribution of $100 or $300, respectively. Of course, contributions of any dollar amount will be graciously appreciated.

********************************

GOT ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ?:

You can always reach us through our LCA Website at “lakeconroeassociation.com”.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND WE WILL UPDATE YOU NEXT WEEK WITH OUR REVIEW OF TPWD’S MAY, 2007 HYDRILLA SURVEY RESULTS. UNTIL THEN, ENJOY THE LAKE AND BE SAFE.

Mike Bleier

President, Lake Conroe Association

LCA PRESIDENT’S UPDATE

The Lake Conroe Association (LCA) met with representatives of Texas Parks & Wildlife (TPWD), the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA), bass fishing organizations and The Courier today. The primary discussion topic was the hydrilla infestation on Lake Conroe.

TPWD reported its July, 2007 hydrilla survey results of 1,776 hydrilla infested acres…..up from 1,380 acres in May, 2007. This represents an increase of 396 acres, or 28%. Previous surveys of hydrilla infested acres reported 470 acres in March, 2006, 740 acres in July, 2006, 1,200 acres in September, 2006, 1,900 acres in March, 2007, and 1,380 acres in May, 2007. While TPWD points out that the number of hydrilla infested acres today is less than in its March, 2007 survey, the LCA is very disappointed that the infestation increased during the past two months. With approximately 50,000 White Amur grass carp (estimated number alive after mortality) in the Lake and hydrilla herbicides being applied, we ALL hoped for a decrease in our hydrilla problem.

In response to their survey results, TPWD has agreed to permit the stocking of 25,364 additional White Amur at this time. Compared to the approximate 50,000 White Amur alive currently in Lake Conroe, this represents a 50% increase in White Amur. While contracts have not yet been signed, we expect the White Amur to be delivered from Arkansas fisheries via several truckloads beginning in 2 – 3 weeks. Special provisions will be made by the fishery and its delivery company to transport the White Amur during this very hot time of year.

25,364 White Amur (minimum 12 inches long) delivered in hot August will cost approximately $150,000. SJRA will fund 50% of this cost and, thanks to the generous donations of our LCA Members, the LCA will fund the remaining 50%, or $75,000. This payment will seriously diminish the LCA’s available funds and, accordingly, we will intensify our Residential and Business Fund Raising Campaigns. Without continued contributions, the LCA will be limited in its ability to fund future treatment proposals, if needed.

To become a Member of the LCA, an individual is asked to donate $100 or more and a business $300 or more. Of course, all contributions are welcomed and greatly appreciated. As the LCA is a 501 (c) 3 non-profit corporation, donations should be tax deductible. Donations can be mailed to: Lake Conroe Association, P.O. Box 376, Willis, Texas 77378-9998.

As I will certainly be asked how I feel about TPWD’s proposal to add 25,364 White Amur at this time, I will have to answer this question in two statements. First, it is unfortunate that a more aggressive approach was not taken by TPWD initially. With only 470 hydrilla infested acres in March, 2006, we should not have had to stock in excess of 85,000 White Amur (number purchased before mortality) to solve this infestation (if, indeed, this number does “solve” the infestation). Time, energy and money was wasted; and I hope lessons are learned so that this does not happen to other Texas lakes in the future. Second, a 50% increase in the stocking of White Amur versus a 28% increase in the hydrilla infestation demonstrates that TPWD acknowledges the problem and desires to solve it. As no one knows the exact number of White Amur it will take to solve the infestation, I feel that a 50% increase represents an appropriately-aggressive approach today.

If you have been following this hydrilla infestation, you are aware that the Lake Conroe Aquatic Management Plan covering April 1, 2006 through March 31, 2008 calls for the reduction of hydrilla to “40 acres or less by March, 2008”. So, go ahead and ask your next question: “Do you think that this goal of 40 acres or less WILL be achieved?” When Dr. Earl Chilton of TPWD was asked this question today, he responded that he felt the objective of “40 acres or less” was still achievable. I would be very pleased if this goal were reached, but find it unlikely that a decrease from today’s 1,776 acres to a goal of “40 acres or less” in seven months can occur. I hope that I am proven wrong. While I expect TPWD and SJRA to do their utmost to achieve that goal of “40 acres or less”, a significant reduction between now and March, 2008 would set the stage for success later in 2008. If 75,000 White Amur could reduce hydrilla from 1,776 acres to 200 acres (just to pick a number out of the air) by March, 2008, then I’d anticipate that those same 75,000 White Amur would most likely complete their job shortly thereafter and allow us to enjoy our Lake more fully, and at less cost, in 2008. This is not a scientific explanation but, rather, just my opinion…..which LCA Members ask me on the golf course and at the supermarket and over the internet and “in my face”. I’m not Johnny Carson’s “Karnak” on predicting the future, but I’m sharing my opinion because you ask me for it. Let’s just all hope that the plan in place today succeeds.

Thank you for listening. Thank you for your contributions. All of us at the LCA are doing our best to assist in solving this hydrilla infestation and return Lake Conroe to its magnificent beauty. Enjoy the balance of your summer on the Lake.

Mike Bleier

President, Lake Conroe Association