stakeholder advisory meeting #1 - twdb.texas.gov advisory . meeting #1 . ... arm-strong glass-cock...

Stakeholder Advisory Meeting #1

High Plains Aquifer System GAM

Lamesa, TX February 11, 2013

Outline Introduction

The High Plains GAM team Study Objectives General Introduction to the GAM program

Background Basics of groundwater flow Numerical groundwater modeling and the GAMs

High Plains regional overview Key model improvements Request for Data GAM schedule

Project Team & Responsibilities

Study Objectives Integrate existing HPAS GAMs

Northern Ogallala Southern Ogallala Dockum

Address key issues with the conceptual models used in the previous GAMs

Produce tool that better captures the interrelationships between the aquifers and incorporates the most-recent data available

Groundwater Availability Modeling

PEC OS

W EBB

BR EW STER

H U D SPETH

PR ESID IO

R EEVES

C U LBER SON

VAL VER D E

D U VAL

TER R ELL

C R OC KETT

KEN ED Y

FR IO

H AR R IS

H ILL

BELL

BEE

C LAY

POLK

ED W AR D S

J EFF D AVIS

KER R

GAIN ES

LEON

U VALD E

H ALE

D ALLAM

IR ION

D IMMIT

LAMB

KIN G

BEXARKIN N EY

STAR R

H ALL

W ISEJ AC K

U PTON

H ID ALGO

SU TTON

C ASS

OLD H AM

ELLIS

MED IN A

KIMBLE

ZAVALA

KEN T

R U SK

LEE

LYN N

GR AY

C OKE

LA SALLE

MILAM

ER ATH

H AR TLEY

H U N T

BR AZOR IA

SMITH

KN OX

FLOYD

LLAN O

AN D R EW S

TYLER

TR AVISLIBER TY

J ON ES

N U EC ES

R EAGAN

BOW IE

W AR D

ZAPATA

LAMAR

R EAL

N OLAN

TER R Y GAR ZA

MILLS

C OLEMAN

EC TOR

TOM GR EEN

MASON

YOU N G

FALLS

C AMER ON

MATAGOR D A

H AYS

BR OW N

C OOKE

JASP E R

D EAF SMITH

BU R N ET

MAVER IC K

H OU STON

LAVAC A

FISH ER

C OLLIN

MOOR E

FAN N IN

MOTLEY

MAR TIN

LIVE OAK

D ALLAS

EL PASO

BAILEY

BOSQU E

H AR D IN

KLEBER G

J IM H OGG

TAYLOR

C OTTLE

POTTER

D ON LEY

GOLIAD

SAN SABA

ATASC OSA

D EN TON

C OR YELLC R AN E

C ON C H O

BAYLOR

D E W ITT

BR OOKS

PAR KER

R U N N ELS

N AVAR R O

AR C H ER

C AR SON

C ASTR O

W OOD

SC U R R Y

C R OSBY

FAYETTE

Mc MU LLEN

W H AR TON

BOR D EN

C ALH OU N

SH ELBY

MEN AR D

GILLESPIE

PAR MER

W ILSON

D IC KEN S

SC H LEIC H ER

GR IMES

FOAR D

PAN OLA

H ASKELL

BR ISC OE

R AN D ALL

D AW SON

MID LAN D

H OW AR D

Mc LEN N AN

GON ZALES

GR AYSONR ED R IVER

SW ISH ER

R OBER TS

H OC KLEY

AN D ER SON

TAR R AN T

W ALKER

LU BBOC K

VIC TOR IA

BASTR OP J EFFER SON

SH ER MAN

W H EELER

MITC H ELL

YOAKU M

STER LIN GW IN KLER

TR IN ITY

H EMPH ILL

WILBAR-GER

COMAN-CHE

WA

LLER

KAR N ES

LIPSC OMB

J AC KSON

W ILLIAMSON

R EFU GIO

W ILLAC Y

LOVIN G

AU STIN

EASTLAN D

H OPKIN S

Mc C U LLOC H

BLAN C O

H AR R ISONSTEPH EN S

AN GELIN A

C ALLAH AN

C OLOR AD O

H AN SFOR D

KAU FMAN

BAN D ER A

PALO PIN TO

MON TAGU E

H AMILTON

OC H ILTR EE

C OMAL

LIMESTON ESABIN E

C OC H R AN

FOR T BEN D

C H AMBER S

VAN ZAN D T

W IC H ITA

J OH N SON

STON EW ALL

H EN D ER SON

TITU S

FR EESTON E

MON TGOMER Y

H OOD

KEN D ALL

BR AZOS

GALVESTON

U PSH U R

H U TC H IN SON

LAMPASAS

BU R LESON

H AR D EMAN

GU AD ALU PE

CHILD-RESS

ARM-STRONG

GLASS-COCK

NACOG-DOCHES

MAR ION

C ALD W ELL

MAD ISON

OR AN GE

D ELTA

R AIN S

GREGG

C AMP

MO

RR

IS

F RA N

K LIN

ROCK-WALL

COLLINGS-WORTH

THROCK-MORTON

SOMER-VEL

SANAUGUS-

TINE

SANJACINTO

JIMWELLS

SHACKEL-FORD

CHERO-KEE

NE

WT

ON

ROBERT-SON

WASHING-TON

ARAN-SASSAN

PATRICIO

80

8079

7967

6778

7885

8582

82686876

7669

6981

8175

7577

7787

8771

7172

7273

7374

7484

8486

8683

8346

4647

4766

6653

5345

4554

5456

5650

5065

6538

3864

6441

4151

5116

1659

5942

4249

4939

3963

6348

4840

4061 6157

5744

4437 3755

5558

5862

6243

4360

6052

5236

3670

7029

296

614

1417

1735

3515

159

925

25333328

288

87

712

123

334345

526

2632

3230

3023

2321 2110

1011

1127

2720

2018

1822

2219

1924

2413

132

231

314

41

Texas Water Development Board

Cindy Ridgeway

Contract Manager

High Plains Aquifer Groundwater Availability Model (GAM)

GAM Program

Purpose: to develop tools that can be used to help GCDs, RWPGs, and others understand and manage their groundwater resources.

Public process: you get to see how the model is put together.

Freely available: models are standardized, thoroughly documented. Reports available over the internet.

Living tools: periodically updated.

What is Groundwater Availability?

Science Policy Groundwater Availability

GAM or other

tool

Desired Future

Conditions

Managed Available

Groundwater

Goal: informed decision-making

Groundwater Model

Major Aquifers

Minor Aquifers

How we use Groundwater Models

Inform groundwater districts about historical conditions in the aquifer


Assist districts and management areas in determining desired future conditions

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000

Dra

wdo

wn

(ft)

Pumping (acre-feet per year)

Drawdown vs. Pumping in Jeff Davis County UWCD Igneous Aquifer

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 1 Trendline

Scenario 2 TrendlineDecline in Water Levels

Requested Drawdown: 10 feet


Assist districts and management areas in determining desired future conditions

5,200

5,600

6,000

6,400

6,800

7,200

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Out

flow

(AF/

yr)

Outflow to Springs

Stakeholder Advisory Forums

Keep updated about progress of the model Understand how the groundwater model can,

should, and should not be used Provide input and data to assist with model

development

Contact Information

Cindy Ridgeway, P.G. [email protected]

512-936-2386

Texas Water Development Board 1700 North Congress Avenue

P.O. Box 13231 Austin, Texas 78711-3231

Web information:

http://www.twdb.texas.gov/groundwater/models/gam/hpas/hpas.asp

http://www.twdb.texas.gov/groundwater/index.asp

PEC OS

W EBB

BR EW STER

H U D SPETH

PR ESID IO

R EEVES

C U LBER SON

VAL VER D E

D U VAL

TER R ELL

C R OC KETT

KEN ED Y

FR IO

H AR R IS

H ILL

BELL

BEE

C LAY

POLK

ED W AR D S

J EFF D AVIS

KER R

GAIN ES

LEON

U VALD E

H ALE

D ALLAM

IR ION

D IMMIT

LAMB

KIN G

BEXARKIN N EY

STAR R

H ALL

W ISEJ AC K

U PTON

H ID ALGO

SU TTON

C ASS

OLD H AM

ELLIS

MED IN A

KIMBLE

ZAVALA

KEN T

R U SK

LEE

LYN N

GR AY

C OKE

LA SALLE

MILAM

ER ATH

H AR TLEY

H U N T

BR AZOR IA

SMITH

KN OX

FLOYD

LLAN O

AN D R EW S

TYLER

TR AVISLIBER TY

J ON ES

N U EC ES

R EAGAN

BOW IE

W AR D

ZAPATA

LAMAR

R EAL

N OLAN

TER R Y GAR ZA

MILLS

C OLEMAN

EC TOR

TOM GR EEN

MASON

YOU N G

FALLS

C AMER ON

MATAGOR D A

H AYS

BR OW N

C OOKE

JASP E R

D EAF SMITH

BU R N ET

MAVER IC K

H OU STON

LAVAC A

FISH ER

C OLLIN

MOOR E

FAN N IN

MOTLEY

MAR TIN

LIVE OAK

D ALLAS

EL PASO

BAILEY

BOSQU E

H AR D IN

KLEBER G

J IM H OGG

TAYLOR

C OTTLE

POTTER

D ON LEY

GOLIAD

SAN SABA

ATASC OSA

D EN TON

C OR YELLC R AN E

C ON C H O

BAYLOR

D E W ITT

BR OOKS

PAR KER

R U N N ELS

N AVAR R O

AR C H ER

C AR SON

C ASTR O

W OOD

SC U R R Y

C R OSBY

FAYETTE

Mc MU LLEN

W H AR TON

BOR D EN

C ALH OU N

SH ELBY

MEN AR D

GILLESPIE

PAR MER

W ILSON

D IC KEN S

SC H LEIC H ER

GR IMES

FOAR D

PAN OLA

H ASKELL

BR ISC OE

R AN D ALL

D AW SON

MID LAN D

H OW AR D

Mc LEN N AN

GON ZALES

GR AYSONR ED R IVER

SW ISH ER

R OBER TS

H OC KLEY

AN D ER SON

TAR R AN T

W ALKER

LU BBOC K

VIC TOR IA

BASTR OP J EFFER SON

SH ER MAN

W H EELER

MITC H ELL

YOAKU M

STER LIN GW IN KLER

TR IN ITY

H EMPH ILL

WILBAR-GER

COMAN-CHE

WA

LLER

KAR N ES

LIPSC OMB

J AC KSON

W ILLIAMSON

R EFU GIO

W ILLAC Y

LOVIN G

AU STIN

EASTLAN D

H OPKIN S

Mc C U LLOC H

BLAN C O

H AR R ISONSTEPH EN S

AN GELIN A

C ALLAH AN

C OLOR AD O

H AN SFOR D

KAU FMAN

BAN D ER A

PALO PIN TO

MON TAGU E

H AMILTON

OC H ILTR EE

C OMAL

LIMESTON ESABIN E

C OC H R AN

FOR T BEN D

C H AMBER S

VAN ZAN D T

W IC H ITA

J OH N SON

STON EW ALL

H EN D ER SON

TITU S

FR EESTON E

MON TGOMER Y

H OOD

KEN D ALL

BR AZOS

GALVESTON

U PSH U R

H U TC H IN SON

LAMPASAS

BU R LESON

H AR D EMAN

GU AD ALU PE

CHILD-RESS

ARM-STRONG

GLASS-COCK

NACOG-DOCHES

MAR ION

C ALD W ELL

MAD ISON

OR AN GE

D ELTA

R AIN S

GREGG

C AMP

MO

RR

IS

F RA N

K LIN

ROCK-WALL

COLLINGS-WORTH

THROCK-MORTON

SOMER-VEL

SANAUGUS-

TINE

SANJACINTO

JIMWELLS

SHACKEL-FORD

CHERO-KEE

NE

WT

ON

ROBERT-SON

WASHING-TON

ARAN-SASSAN

PATRICIO

80

8079

7967

6778

7885

8582

82686876

7669

6981

8175

7577

7787

8771

7172

7273

7374

7484

8486

8683

8346

4647

4766

6653

5345

4554

5456

5650

5065

6538

3864

6441

4151

5116

1659

5942

4249

4939

3963

6348

4840

4061 6157

5744

4437 3755

5558

5862

6243

4360

6052

5236

3670

7029

296

614

1417

1735

3515

159

925

25333328

288

87

712

123

334345

526

2632

3230

3023

2321 2110

1011

1127

2720

2018

1822

2219

1924

2413

132

231

314

41

http://www.twdb.texas.gov/groundwater/models/gam/hpas/hpas.asp

http://www.twdb.texas.gov/groundwater/index.asp

Early Credits

Thanks and credit to Robert Mace at TWDB for many of the slides in this section

What is an aquifer?

an aquifer is geologic media that can yield economically usable amounts of water. DIRT ROCK

What is an aquitard?

an aquitard is geologic media that can not yield economically usable amounts of water.

clay, shale, unfractured dense rocks Note: can still transmit water,

but s l o w l y

What is a water table?

A water table is where the saturated zone meets the vadose (unsaturated) zone.

A water table occurs where the groundwater is under atmospheric pressure

Same aquifer: unconfined and confined

unconfined

confined Hydraulic Head: Water level as measured in a well

Groundwater Flow

Groundwater flows from higher potential energy (head) to lower potential energy

Direction of flow

Hydraulic conductivity – A physical property of the geologic media representing its ability to transmit water (related to permeability and transmissivity)

Aquifer Properties

WELL SORTED Coarse (sand-gravel)

POORLY SORTED Coarse - Fine

WELL SORTED Fine (silt-clay)

Permeability and Hydraulic Conductivity High Low

S. Hughes, 2003

Aquifer Properties

Specific yield – The volume of water that an unconfined aquifer releases from storage per unit surface area of aquifer per unit decline in water table elevation.

Aquifer Properties

From Heath (1983)

Porosity

Specific Yield

Storativity – The volume of water that a confined aquifer releases from storage per unit surface area of aquifer per unit decline in head. Much smaller than specific yield

Aquifer Properties

Specific Yield vs. Storativity

> From Heath (1983)

Specific Yield vs. Storativity

Source: TWDB

Groundwater Definitions (cont.)

Recharge – The entry of water to the saturated zone at the water table:

Recharge = (precipitation + stream loss) minus (runoff + evapotranspiration).

Cross-formational flow – Groundwater flow between separate geologic formations.

Stream losses or gains – The water that is either lost or gained through the base of the stream or river.

Schematic Cross Section of Groundwater Flow

Definition of a Model

Domenico (1972) defined a model as a representation of reality that attempts to explain the behavior of some aspect of reality and is always less complex than the real system it represents

Wang & Anderson (1982) defined a model as a tool designed to represent a simplified version of reality

Why Groundwater Flow Models?

In contrast to surface water, groundwater flow is difficult to observe

Aquifers are typically complex in terms of spatial extent and hydrogeological characteristics

A groundwater model provides the only means for integrating available data for the prediction of groundwater flow at the scale of interest

Numerical Flow Model A numerical groundwater flow model is the

mathematical representation of an aquifer It uses basic laws of physics that govern

groundwater flow In the model domain, the numerical model

calculates the hydraulic head at discrete locations (determined by the grid)

The calculated model heads can be compared to hydraulic heads measured in wells

Modeling Protocol

Define model objectives

Data compilation and analysis

Conceptual model

Calibration

Reporting

Verification

Future Water Strategies

Prediction

Comparison with

field data

Model design

Field data

Field data

*Includes sensitivity

analysis

Transient*

Steady State*

West East

Spring

Dry spring

Irrigation return flow

Enhanced recharge beneath agricultural area

Escarpment spring

Start with a conceptual model Divide it up into cells

Study Area

Regional Planning Groups

Groundwater Management Areas

Groundwater Conservation Districts

Topography (Feet above mean sea level) Source: USGS

Annual Average Precipitation 1971- 2000 Source: Oregon State University PRISM Climate Data Group

Annual Average Temperature 1971- 2000 Source: Oregon State University PRISM Climate Data Group

High Plains Aquifer Boundaries

Major Aquifers Minor Aquifers

Cross-Section

Source: Blandford and others (2008)

Model Layering

GAM Model Specifications

Three dimensional (MODFLOW-NWT) Regional scale (1000’s of square miles) Grid spacing

Uniform grid – ½ mile proposed

Implement recharge groundwater/surface water interaction pumping

Calibration to observed water levels/fluxes

MODFLOW Code developed by the U.S. Geological Survey Selected by TWDB for all GAMs Handles the relevant processes Comprehensive documentation Public domain – non-proprietary Most widely used groundwater model

USGS had 12,261 downloads of MODFLOW computer code in 2000

Supporting interface programs available Groundwater Vistas to be used in all GAMs

Using MODFLOW-NWT – most recent version

Key Model Improvements

Integrate existing HPAS GAMs Northern Ogallala (including Rita Blanca) Southern Ogallala (including Edwards-Trinity) Dockum Cross-formational flow important to DFC process

Key Model Improvements Address some key conceptual issues, including

Improved/consistent hydrostratigraphy (utilize BRACS) Historical pumping estimates (potentially base on volumetric

balance) Treatment of recharge, return flow

HPWD, PGCD, NPGCD provided additional resources for these tasks and more, e.g. Increased density of structural picks Streamlined tools for estimating historical production More comprehensive treatment of recharge More stakeholder involvement (more direct

meetings) – it is critical that we get all useful data and information from all the districts and other stakeholders

Hydrostratigraphy

BEG (Hamlin/Nance) will lead development of structure, with review by Seni

Primary control through new geophysical log analyses Secondary information from driller’s logs, cores,

previous studies Products

Structural picks Lithology and potentially porosity estimates Water quality estimates, when possible (more

applicable to Dockum)

Hydraulic Properties

Lack of pump test data in region, relative to total number of wells. Possible additional sources: TCEQ water supply records GCD records, Ag research stations

Other inputs/considerations Specific capacity from driller’s logs Lithology and sand percent from geophysical logs DBSA lithologic analyses of driller’s logs Depositional environment Specific yield

Recharge Effort led by Bridget Scanlon at BEG Primary Ogallala issues

Differences between Northern and Southern implementations

Where does areal recharge occur outside playas Rate of infiltration versus water table decline Irrigation return flow Significant recharge in the southernmost counties

Dockum recharge will likely be similar to previous model

Developing new spatial and temporal recharge model consistent across the region

Natural Discharge

Discharge to surface water from Ogallala a small portion of post-development water balance

Some exceptions (e.g. Hemphill County) Records of past springs may be helpful for steady-

state calibration Some springs have a perched source that may not be

implementable in this model

Groundwater Production

Dominant discharge mechanism for Ogallala Increasing in Dockum Some meter data now available

North Plains (all) Panhandle (in management areas) High Plains (starting)

Historical demand estimates available Change in storage calculations can provide

alternative estimation method

Data Request Any un-published data to support

the model Geophysical logs Pump tests Water levels Interpreted properties Structural picks Production information

Data request by March 15, 2013

Tasks and Proposed Schedule

Thank You Questions?

Wade Oliver, PG 512-425-2058

[email protected]

Neil Deeds, PhD, PE 512-425-2025

[email protected]

1

Meeting Minutes for the First High Plains Aquifer System Groundwater Availability Model (GAM) Stakeholder Advisory Forum (SAF) Meeting

February 11, 2013

Mesa UWCD Offices, Lamesa, Texas The first Stakeholder Advisory Forum (SAF) Meeting for the High Plains Aquifer System Groundwater Availability Model (GAM) was held on Monday, F e b r u a r y 1 1 , 2013 at 1:00 PM at the offices of Mesa Underground Water Conservation District located at 212 North Ave. G in Lamesa, Texas. A list of meeting participants is provided at the end of this meeting note.

The purpose of the first SAF meeting was to provide an introduction to the High Plains Aquifer System, the modeling team, and to solicit input from stakeholders including any available data that could be made public in support of this modeling project. The meeting also provided a forum for discussing the project schedule and provided an opportunity for feedback from stakeholders.

Meeting Introduction: Cindy Ridgeway, TWDB The meeting was initiated by Ms. Cindy Ridgeway of the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB). She gave a brief introduction to the GAM Program and discussed how GAMs are used in Texas water resources planning. She then discussed GAMs and how they related to modeled available groundwater (MAG) as well as the importance of the stakeholder process. She closed by introducing the High Plains Aquifer System GAM Team and introduced the project manager Dr. Neil Deeds of INTERA, Inc.

SAF Presentation: Neil Deeds, Ph.D., P.E., INTERA, Inc. Dr. Deeds presented a prepared presentation structured according to the following outline:

1. The basics of groundwater flow in the aquifers; 2. The concept of numerical groundwater flow modeling; 3. The concept of numerical groundwater flow modeling; 4. Experience from previous models of the aquifers; 5. The planned approach to modeling the aquifers; 6. A request for relevant data to support the model; and 7. The proposed schedule for the project.

2

Questions and Answers:

Q: Senate Bill 660 last legislative session required that desired future conditions provide a balance between the “highest practicable level of groundwater production and the conservation, preservation” etc. of groundwater. Will the TWDB use the GAM to provide the districts with an estimate of the “highest practicable level of groundwater production” to consider when developing DFCs?

A: No. Texas Water Code 36.108 (d) and 36.108 (d-2) direct the districts in a groundwater management area to propose desired future conditions that provide a “balance between the highest practicable level of groundwater production and the conservation, preservation, protection, recharging, and prevention of waste of groundwater and control of subsidence.” TWDB uses the GAMs to provide the best available information about the aquifers such as extracting historical water budgets to see how the aquifer(s) responded in the past or to develop modeled available groundwater based on from DFC policy decisions by management entities. What is considered “practicable” inherently contains policy decisions made at a local level regarding the extent to which groundwater could feasibly be developed. Statute directs that this determination is to be made by the local groundwater districts in the management areas.

Q: When will the model be complete?

A: A draft of the transient model is scheduled to be finished in January 2015.

Q: How did additional GCD funding come to happen?

A: TWDB selected the contractor under the original scope. Participating districts identified several scope areas that could be improved with additional funding. Participating districts then coordinated with TWDB to provide additional funding under an expanded scope.

Q: How does the funding for this GAM ($600K original + $300K additional from the Districts) compare to previous Texas GAMs?

A: It is one of the higher levels of funding for a GAM.

Q: When does TWDB give a green light to use the model for the DFC process?

A: The final report will be completed in August 2015. The model will be reviewed by TWDB and, if found to meet GAM standards, will be available after that (approximately 1-2 months after delivery). The districts may choose to use the draft model prior to review by TWDB, but this carries some risk if TWDB determines that some changes need to be made.

Q: Can we request an extension for adopting DFCs, i.e. wait for the model to come out officially?

A: TWDB rules regarding the timing of the adoption of DFCs (Texas Administrative Code §356.31(a)), which is consistent with Texas Water Code §36.108, require that new DFCs are adopted not later than five years after the date the GMA last adopted a DFC. The statute does not provide for flexibility in this requirement.

3

Q: How much of this is reinventing the wheel from previous models?

A: In nearly all aspects of the model, the goal is to enhance existing work. We are not going to be reanalyzing accepted analysis/data, but rather improving and extending the model, where possible, with new data.

Q: What was the time period of the previous model [Southern portion of the Ogallala Aquifer including the Edwards-Trinity (High Plains) GAM]?

A: The focus of the model calibration was between 1980 and 2000.

Q: How can [or should] the districts that did not provide additional funding contribute to the project?

A: GCD data input is critical to this process. The districts in this region have been around for a long time and have collected lots of valuable data. Resources for updating the model will be amplified if the districts can help in providing all this data [including more recent data].

Q: Will the data that the districts provided for the previous GAM(s) be incorporated into the model?

A: Yes.

Q: It would be nice to simulate years 2010 and 2011 in the model update, since these represent very wet and very dry years.

A: We have proposed that the transient calibration run through 2011. The changes to the aquifers during this time period will therefore be included in the model.

4

February 11, 2013

Attendance

Name Affiliation Cindy Ridgeway TWDB

Leatrice Adams Permian Basin UWCD

Donna Springer Permian Basin UWCD

Gerald Crenwelge High Plains WD

HP Brown Region O

Ray Brady RMBT

Stefan Schuster DBSA

Bill Mullican HPWD

Ken Rainwater TTUWRC

Darrell Peckham Water Quest

Deanya Williams Mesa UWCD

Lori Barnes Llano Estacado UWCD

Harvey Everheart Mesa UWCD

Ben Weinheimer TX Cattle Feeder's Assocation

Jim Conkwright HPWD

Jason Coleman SPUWCD

Wade Oliver INTERA

Neil Deeds INTERA

stakeholder advisory meeting #1 - twdb.texas.gov advisory . meeting #1 . ... arm-strong glass-cock...

Documents