|
|
Saturday, October 20th, 4pm- 7pm
Dancing Waters Retreat
1405 Mt Sharp Rd Wimberley
Go to www.wimberleywatershed.org to RSVP by contributing your $35 family membership fee. Your online membership renewal supports WVWA's programs to keep Jacob's Well, Cypress Creek and the Blanco River clean, clear and flowing and includes entry to the membership picnic, a T-shirt, monthly news updates, and a chance to win the Weekend Retreat in Junction
(RSVP must be completed by the September 14 deadline to be eligible for the retreat weekend).
Wimberley Valley Watershed Association
PO BOX 2534
Wimberley, Texas 78676
By
Jack Hollon,
Vice
President, Wimberley Valley Watershed Association
Over the past several
months, the lawsuit filed by Wimberley Valley Watershed Association
and other concerned citizens challenging pumping permit #168 for a golf course
development that was approved by the Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District
(HTGCD) on Feb 21, 2011, has been brought up several at the Hays Commissioners
Court and at HTGCD meetings. The permit
was granted to Wimberley Springs Partners (WSP), developers in the Woodcreek
North area of the Cypress Creek Watershed above Jacob’s Well. The three year permit allows for 250 acre feet of water to be pumped from the aquifer annually in order to install a new golf course. The permit allows for a one
year boost to 500 acre feet under certain rainfall conditions. These conditions would have technically allowed for increased 'bonus' pumping in the drought year of 2011.
The
relationship between pumping in this area and spring flow to the Creek at
Jacob’s Well is firmly established.
During dry years, the impact of such pumping on creek flow is severe. In
2011, Jacob’s Well ceased to flow altogether and long stretches of Cypress Creek
went dry. Occasional pulses of water to
the creek were seen when there was a pause in pumping of the Aqua Texas wells
in the same area.
The importance of a
healthy creek to the Wimberley and Woodcreek communities is not the issue. Blue Hole Regional Park, the Valley’s
economy, property values, and quality of life are all at stake.
How can we put the quantity of water in the permit into
context? Three comparisons of water usage:
* The 81 million gallons of water in the proposed permit is about 45% (almost half) of what
Wimberley Water Supply Corp pumped in the entire year 2010 to serve its 1,675
customers – some of which are large accounts, like the public schools and Deer
Creek Nursing Center.
* Stream flow is
measured in cubic feet of water flowing per second (cfs). Two hundred fifty acre feet will supply one cubic
foot per second of flow to Cypress Creek for over four months. There have been times in recent years when we
are very happy to have even one cfs flow in Cypress Creek. Average flow from
Jacob’s Well to Cypress Creek historically is seven cubic feet per second.
* 250 acre feet will
supply 5000 homes with 45 gallons of water to each home every day for a year. That is a typical usage rate for about two
people on rainwater, “being conservative – but not miserly,” as families with rainwater systems in Wimberley report.
Therefore, it is clear that
250 acre feet is an extraordinarily large quantity of water, most especially when water is scarce, demand is growing, and
the aquifer is declining. It has been
shown in recent studies that the region is already pumping more from the
Trinity Aquifer than annually recharges in rainfall. In other words, we are
mining the Trinity Aquifer at current pumping rates and depleting the
supply. This resource is of very
high quality; it requires little treatment by water supply companies and no treatment
by many private well owners. Suddenly,
the idea of spraying drinking water onto an undeveloped golf course – an
advertising attraction for more development – does not qualify as a high
priority use to most citizens.
That is where the HTGCD comes in.
Local citizens confirmed the continued operation of the HTGCD by a vote
of 2 to 1 in May 2003, “…to promote conservation, preservation, recharge and
prevention of groundwater waste within western Hays County … and to ensure that
groundwater is used efficiently and at sustainable rates.” (From the HTGCD Mission Statement)
When a for profit company
such as WSP requests a permit to pump non-exempt groundwater, HTGCD rules
require that the District must first make
an initial determination of a proposed course of action. Thus, on 2/21/11, the matter came up for the
Board’s first consideration of the WSP permit application. A large audience gathered in Dripping Springs
to listen and learn and/or to speak on the permit. A large majority of those who spoke during
the public comment time argued against the application, but when the hearing ended,
the Board immediately voted 3 to 2 to grant a permit, without having first made
a determination of a proposed course of action or requiring a pump test to
determine impact on other wells and Cypress Creek. The three directors in places 1, 2, and 3,
along the Hwy 290 corridor, voted “yes.”
The directors in places 4 and 5, representing Woodcreek and Wimberley –
the areas most affected by the proposed pumping – voted “No.”
Texas State law and HTGCD Rules
allow those who oppose the permit application to request a “Contested Case Hearing” – a
formal proceeding that may be conducted before the Board itself or before a
State hearings officer who acts as a judge.
Therefore, within ten days after
the Board’s initial February 21 action on the application, and in timely
fashion in accordance with the Board’s consistent interpretation of its own
Rules, ten parties including the WVWA filed formal written requests for a
contested case hearing on the matter.
Thereafter, on April 7, 2011, in a highly capricious and arbitrary
ruling negating its own prior Notice and Agenda, and reversing all of its prior
actions, rules interpretations and communications, the HTGCD Board, by the same
split 3 -2 vote, declared that Plaintiffs’requests were untimely and denied Wimberley
citizens any opportunity for a contested case hearing on the WSP application.
In other words, the HTGCD Board majority
waited until April 7, 2011, after the newly-proclaimed deadline had passed, to RE-INTERPRET its Rules and declare ex
post facto that Plaintiffs deadline for submitting formal request for
CCH occurred during the February 21 meeting, thereby denying the requesters any
opportunity for a contested case hearing.
Those of us who had
requested the Contested Case Hearing were stunned – up against a wall with only
two choices: We either give up and watch
the further decline of the aquifer and the Creek and lose historic spring flow
to a golf course development, or we appeal to court to seek reversal of the
Board ruling. The only possible decision was to continue our quest
for a Contested Case Hearing on the WSP application.
Our lawsuit is simply an appeal seeking reversal
of the HTGCD Board ruling. We seek to
have the Court send the matter back to the HTGCD to conduct a contested case
hearing on the WSP application.
A totally erroneous
claim has been made at public
meetings that the County is paying legal expenses for the WVWA in the
lawsuit. WVWA is only one of six
Wimberley parties who are sharing in the cost of the appeal. WVWA’s share of the appeal costs comes
strictly from donor contributions. Absolutely none of the
appeal expenditures have come from Hays County.
WVWA does have one other extraordinary
resource in Malcolm Harris, an attorney
with long-time family ties to Wimberley, a home on Cypress Creek, and a legal
practice mainly in Austin. Malcolm is providing expert legal services – pro bono. He has long been on the board of
WVWA and is now serving as Board President.
We are indeed blessed by such generosity and dedication to
stewardship for Cypress Creek.
Funds from the
County Parks and Open Space Bond Fund have been and continue to be carefully
directed to pay only for land acquisition and operations and maintenance for
the Jacob’s Well Natural Area, which is now owned by Hays County. With the public investment in Jacob’s Well
and Blue Hole, and the property values and economic future of the Wimberley
Valley at stake, the WVWA and the concerned citizens are fighting to protect the
property rights and best interest of our community. We urge everyone who cares about water and the economic future of the Wimberley Valley to
join us by making a tax deductible contribution online at www.wimberleywatershed.org or mailing your donation to the Wimberley
Valley Watershed Association at PO. Box
2534 Wimberley Texas, 78676.
Jack Hollon, WVWA Vice President, Wimberley TX.
by Anne Child
The Restoration Rangers have been busy with
17 official workdays, one emergency workday and several watering days already this year. We are excited to have new folks joining our
ranks from the citizenry of Wimberley and the new class of Hays County Master Naturalists.
The February flood caught us all off guard. The
creek rose 13 feet after an 8 inch rain.
This gully washer sheared our bridge off the weir and uprooted several of
the trees planted in the floodplain.
Nearby Restoration Rangers sprang into action and located and replanted
most of the trees. Tree cages
were found buried in debris; the cages were
cleaned up, stretched into shape and put back around the trees. Interestingly, the little cypress tree planted
in the middle of the creek bed, that hadn’t looked well before the flood,
stayed put and is thriving now. The Hays
County Parks Department installed a replacement bridge.
During the first several workdays of the year, we
disposed of brush and construction
debris that had been collected over the last few years. The areas where
the brush had been cleared are coming back strong with grasses, barberry bushes
and buckeye trees. It is quite beautiful
and rewarding.
The wonderful trees donated by LCRA that were planted last year
continue to demand our attention. More
cages were created, mulch was added, and many buckets of water have moistened
their roots. We have learned that the
Monterrey Oaks prefer moister locations than we provided and that it is
possible to over water Texas Mountain Laurels. Most of the trees have survived and are blending into into the
landscape.
The great winter rains brought many flowers. Some were appreciated more than others. Texas thistles are pretty purple
natives and very prolific at Camp Jacob. We also found some invasive Malta Star-thistles, which were removed. We also pulled Johnson Grass, but
not quite as much as previous years.
We’re making progress. The real
eradication success story is the bamboo.
Only a few small shoots popped up this year as a result of our diligent efforts in previous years!
Our summer workdays have found us mostly in the shade pruning up
the junipers to allow the other trees, understory growth and grasses to fill
in. The plant diversity in the area is
beautiful... Eve's Necklace, Wafer Ash, Buckeye, Hackberry, Shin Oaks, Live
Oaks and end even the stately huge Old Growth Junipers. Next time you visit Jacob's well, come visit
this area.
As we reflect on the tough lessons of last year's
drought and this years flood, we are in awe of nature’s fury and resilience…
and look forward to our next workday.
by Neal Denton
Water Quality Monitor
Wimberley Valley Watershed Association
Have
you ever wondered about the quality of Cypress Creek? Is it safe for
swimming? Is it a healthy environment for fish and other aquatic
organisms? The Wimberley Valley Watershed Association (WVWA), in
partnership with the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority and the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), attempts to answer these
questions by analyzing the water quality every month. The information is
compared to “water quality criteria” developed by the TCEQ to protect
the designated uses of the creek: primary contact recreation,
exceptional aquatic life use, public water supply, and aquifer
protection. According to the most recent assessment of water quality in
Texas published in 2010, Cypress Creek has met all of these designated
uses. This means it is safe for swimming; it is a very healthy
environment for aquatic life; it is suitable for public water supply;
and it does not degrade the quality of Edwards Aquifer groundwater.
The
quality of surface water bodies is being monitored statewide under the
Texas Clean Rivers Program, a program of the TCEQ. Established in 1991,
the Texas Clean Rivers Program is a state fee-funded, non-regulatory
program that was created to provide a framework and forum for managing
water quality issues in a more holistic manner. Twelve river
authorities, a council of governments, a municipal water district, and
the International Boundary and Water Commission carry out water quality
monitoring in their respective areas and submit the quality-assured data
to the TCEQ for biennial assessments required by the U.S. Clean Water Act.
The
quality of Cypress Creek is also being monitored by volunteers at two
sites: one at Jacob’s Well and one at Old Kyle Road. These volunteers
are participating in the Texas Stream Team program, a network of trained
volunteers and supportive partners working together to gather
information about the natural resources of Texas and to ensure the
information is available to all Texans. Also established in 1991, Texas
Stream Team is administered through a cooperative partnership between
the River Systems Institute at Texas State University, the TCEQ, and the
EPA. Anyone who would be physically capable of accessing the water body
can participate in the program. The data, while not used in the State’s
assessment, assists with identifying areas of concern. The 191,000
stream miles in Texas can pose quite the challenge for those responsible
with collecting water quality information regularly. Texas Stream Team
data can help determine what locations should be targeted for
professional monitoring.
by John Whear BS ME
The
Wimberley Valley Watershed Association and Jacobs Well Natural Area are
developing a workshop for community based rainwater harvesting and seeks participants for a focus group.
Recent
studies have shown how old social habits can provide communities with
new sources of water in arid environments. We will be focusing on
ancient rainwater social habits from pre-colonial India and rainwater
harvesting methods pioneered at the Bamberger Ranch.
We
need 16 to 32 volunteers for a Common Pool Resource focus group.
Feedback from this group will help develop simple games to illustrate
and teach these simple social habits.
A free lunch will be provided with RSVP by Monday, September 10th.
Event Information:
Saturday September 15th 11:00am till 1:30pm
at Camp Jacob 221 Woodacre Drive, Wimberley, Texas 78676
And as stewards, we must protect our freshwater: We can’t build our way out of this predicament.
Andrew Sansom
 |
| Andrew Sansom at San Marcos Springs photo by Woody Welch |
Not long ago, I spent an afternoon with David Baker, who lives near the headwaters of Cypress Creek in Hays County at a lovely spring known as Jacob’s Well. Baker, originally an artist, has spent most of
his adult life fighting to protect “the well,” as he calls it, and to keep it flowing and nourishing the creek, one of Texas’ most beautiful streams.
On the day we walked its banks, the creek was dry, and Jacob’s Well had stopped flowing for only the second time in history. The first time was in 2000, and the trend is ominous. For Baker, the possibility that the next generation of Texans will not have the opportunity to experience this iconic spring and many others throughout the Texas Hill Country is unimaginable.
It could happen.
Though the recent drought has helped to focus the attention of Texans on our water problems, to knowledgeable observers, they have been developing for a long time. “You can go without cable TV. You can even go without air conditioning, but you can’t go without water,” says Tom Mason, former general manager of the Lower Colorado River Authority, one of our state’s largest water providers.
The bottom line is that our population here in Texas is expected to almost double in the next 50 years or so, and we have already given permission for more water to be withdrawn from many of our rivers and lakes than is actually in them.
Our vast system of reservoirs was built following the last big drought, the one we call “the drought of record” in the 1940s and 1950s. At that time, most Texans lived in small towns supported largely by agriculture or on farms and ranches. Thus, the drought affected almost everyone directly. As a result, we got serious and embarked on a massive reservoir construction program and initiated a water planning strategy that we still rely on today.
The 2012 edition of the state water plan from the Texas Water Development Board was compiled by 16 regional planning groups across the state and has a price tag of $53 billion for new water infrastructure. We clearly need to invest in providing water for our future. But even if we could come up with that kind of money, the reality of other noninfrastructure challenges suggests that we cannot simply build our way out of this predicament.
The stream along which Baker and I walked that day eventually flows into the Blanco River. The Blanco originates in Kendall County and winds its way to the Guadalupe River in Hays County. On the way, much of its flow goes right back into the ground from the riverbed. The water runs underground to Jacob’s Well, where it comes back to the surface, forming Cypress Creek, which flows down through the villages of Woodcreek and Wimberley and back into the Blanco. The reality is that obtaining a permit from the state to remove water from the river today would likely be impossible—but if you wanted to drill a hole and take it out of the ground above Jacob’s Well, you would have little or no restrictions to keep you from doing so.
Unfortunately, Texas law treats the same water differently depending on whether it is on the surface or underground. This practice is unsustainable and exacerbated by a recent Texas Supreme Court ruling, which declared that groundwater is the property of private landowners.
As stewards of more than 95 percent of the landscape in Texas, private landowners do have a huge role to play in our water future, and they are not getting much help. Texas loses rural and agricultural land faster than any other state, and this continued fragmentation of family lands is irrevocably impairing the function of our watersheds and aquifer recharge zones, as well as increasing nonpoint source pollution, which is runoff from agricultural fields, highways, parking lots and an increasingly paved-over countryside.
We waste too much water.
At home, we use as much as 70 percent of our household drinking water to irrigate our lawns, and much of that is wasted. Before the water even gets to our residences, many Texas cities and water utilities lose up to 25 or 30 percent of their water through leaking water mains or otherwise poorly maintained distribution systems. The cheapest way for us to provide more water for the future is to begin using it more efficiently.
In this regard, most water rights in Texas are dedicated to agricultural use for irrigation, and much of this use remains antiquated and inefficient. The inefficiency magnifies a conundrum: While so much of our water is committed to agriculture, a sector of our economy that is basically flat, municipal growth is booming and thus producing the greatest future demands for water.
Finally, though the Legislature in 2007 established a process for protecting the aquatic ecosystems of our rivers, streams, bays and estuaries by requiring “environmental flow” standards for each, implementation of the law has been spotty at best. Without greater attention to the freshwater requirements of the environment itself, our inland aquatic ecosystems and extraordinary coastal resources are increasingly impaired.
Against this sobering backdrop, we can celebrate some real successes where water is concerned. Our rivers and streams are demonstrably cleaner than they were a generation ago, thanks to passage and implementation of the Clean Water Act. In the area of water conservation, the cities of San Antonio and El Paso have lowered their consumption of water per capita by a full 40 percent. On the landscape, the cities of Austin and San Antonio and Hays County and other local governments have approved hundreds of millions of dollars in bonds to create conservation easements on private lands in important watersheds and recharge areas.
The bond money is used to compensate landowners in exchange for their agreement to a legal covenant that limits development. The farmer or rancher retains ownership of the land, and a vital resource for the community is protected.
Back along Cypress Creek at this time of year, insects are hatching and swarming along the shore. If you are lucky, you can observe the native sunfish slipping up to the bank and batting vegetation with their tails, knocking their prey into the water so they can feed. Such experiences can only leave one with a deep sense of respect for the living freshwater of Texas and the understanding that we are its stewards on behalf of both the economy and the environment of future generations.
Water is life.
-------------------- Andrew Sansom, executive director of the River Systems Institute at Texas State University in San Marcos, is one of Texas’ leading conservationists and author of Water In Texas: An Introduction (University of Texas Press, 2008). He is a former executive director of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, executive director of the Texas Nature Conservancy and founder of The Parks and Wildlife Foundation of Texas.
by Raymond Slade, Jr.,
Certified Professional Hydrologist
An island exists with one interior lake of limited size as a water supply. The folks on the north side of the lake have water-use permits with pumpage restrictions--on the south side, however, some folks have limited pumpage regulation and others have none. A severe drought occurs. For the north-shore folks, landscapes die and they have barely enough water to maintain households. Meantime, on the south shores of the lake, large yards are irrigated, swimming pools installed and filled, and golf courses and other commercial developments that use substantial amounts of water are built. The drought continues until the water supply is almost depleted. Emergency water transmission pipelines are quickly built, and water is trucked into the area. Many people are about to completely run out of water and the cost for the limited water that is available is about to increase considerably.
Where is this island and when would this scenario occur?
The hypothetical island is Texas, which is indeed a hydrologic island--99% of the water in this state comes from precipitation within its borders. The above scenario could occur during the next severe drought. There are three major reasons why Texas has water shortages during drought: (1) lack of authority to regulate water usage and waste, (2) lack of funding for Water Management Strategies that would address some water shortages, and (3) wasted water. These issues are described below.
Does Texas have water shortages?
During severe drought, Texas water demand (use) exceeds the existing supply. The 2012 Texas Water Plan (http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/waterplanning/swp/) written by the Texas Water Development Board identifies, for the next 50 years, the areas of water shortage and projected shortage volumes during severe drought. For example, based on current (year 2010) conditions, about one-fourth of the nearly 2600 water user groups (i.e., municipal utilities and water districts) endure water shortages during severe drought. In many cases the shortages substantially exceed the existing supply; in some cases the shortages are more than double the supply.
The current statewide total shortage is about 3.6 million acre feet per year (about 166 times greater than the water storage in Lake Austin). This amount increases to about 8.3 million acre feet per year by the year 2060. Of the total, the current municipal (urban and rural) shortage is 315,000 acre feet per year, increasing to 3.4 million acre feet per year by 2060. The average residential use of water is about 0.1 acre feet per year per person, thus the municipal shortages include residential water for many millions of people. Documentation of the water shortage amounts for the Texas Hill Country is presented on the homepage of the Hill Country Alliance (http://www.hillcountryalliance.org).
The Water Plan identifies Water Management Strategies that are projected to address much of the anticipated needs. However, the capital cost for the strategies totals about 53 billion dollars, of which only a small fraction has been funded by the Texas Legislature. Additionally, the annual cost to operate and maintain the strategies is in the billions of dollars.
Doesn't Texas regulate water usage?
In Texas, surface-water use is permitted and most of the permits have restrictions that curtail or prohibit water usage during drought. However, groundwater use is addressed by limited regulation for areas covered by groundwater conservation districts (GCDs); for other areas, however, essentially no regulation of groundwater use exists. Additionally, the Texas Supreme Court recently ruled that landowners own the groundwater beneath their property, thus potentially limiting the authority of GCDs to regulate pumpage. With respect to the island metaphor, surface-water users are represented by those on the north shore of the lake, while groundwater users are represented by those on the south side.
Is groundwater an important part of Texas water?
Groundwater is the source of more than half the water used in Texas.
The average rainfall on Texas is about 28 inches, of which about 89% is lost to evaporation or transpiration: the remaining 11% becomes runoff (Reed and others, 1997). About 72% of all runoff occurs during storms--most of which refills reservoirs or flows to the Gulf of Mexico. The remaining 28% of runoff leaks through stream channels to recharge aquifers. Most of this recharge moves through aquifers and discharges back to streams as base flow during dry conditions. These base flows comprise essentially all surface water during dry periods, especially during droughts. Additionally, groundwater is the "hidden" source of thousands of springs throughout Texas. Recharge to groundwater occurs throughout the State. Without the groundwater that provides this baseflow, there would be no surface water to regulate.
Can't water supplies be increased?
Yes. The Texas Water Plan identifies Water Management Strategies that would increase water supplies to meet much of the water shortage. This information and data are presented online at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/publications/state_water_plan/2012/07.pdf. The volume of water produced by surface water strategies recommended in 2060 is five times greater than that produced by recommended groundwater strategies. The strategy type that produces the largest supply is "Other Surface Water" which usually requires additional infrastructure such as new pipelines to divert and convey water from an existing source to a new point of use. Irrigation conservation is the second largest strategy category recommended.
Is Texas wasting water?
Yes. Several examples follow.
1. The largest category of water use is agriculture irrigation, which represents 56 percent of the total demand. Much irrigation water is wasted, mostly because of outdated water-conveyance systems and inefficient water-distribution methods. Water loses for irrigation systems include: transmission from the water source (conveyance), evaporation, and overwatering, the total of which often exceeds the volume needed by plants.
2. Water-thirsty vegetation is prevalent throughout Texas. Examples include landscaping and gardening that require frequent irrigation relative to that of xeriscaping, and lack of land management to control phreatophytes and other vegetation that transpire (consume) large volumes of water. About 89 percent of precipitation in Texas is lost to evaporation and transpiration; much of that loss could be reduced with effective controls on the location and extent of water-thirsty vegetation. For example, the water loss due to transpiration from salt cedar and mesquite in the flood plain of the Colorado River in west Texas is equivalent to the long-term mean flow in the river (Slade and Buszka, 1994, p. 42).
3. Leaky water-transmission pipes and canals cause much water to be lost. Water conveyance losses in Texas are estimated to be about 600,000 acre feet per year, a value equal to about 17% of the Statewide water shortage (Solley and others, 1998, p. 9).
4. Lack of widespread rainwater-collection systems and greywater irrigation systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greywater) cause much water to be wasted. Almost all municipal and residential water comes from runoff, which, as stated earlier, is only 11 percent of precipitation. Rainwater-collection systems capture almost all rain falling on their catch areas. The same amount of rainfall that supplies one house with water from runoff could supply about 8 houses that have rainfall-collection systems. About half of household water use is for irrigation, thus each greywater system would reduce household use by about half.
5. Much municipal water is wasted. For example, the average per capita water use ranges from about 100 gallons per day for some cities, up to about 250 gallons per day for others. Municipal demand is 26 percent of the total water demand. Frisco, Midland, Plano, Richardson, and Dallas have the largest per capita use. San Angelo, Killeen, Pearland, Pasadena, and Missouri City have the lowest per capita use. Use of additional or increased municipal conservation measures could create substantial reductions in municipal shortages.
When the next severe drought occurs, public perception of the importance of water conservation will increase, which could prompt politicians to enact rules to promote conservation. However, by that time, it likely will be too late to avoid many of the predictable water shortages. In reality, the extent to which water drought problems are addressed is directly proportional to the severity of the drought, as portrayed below.
How can Texas better manage its water shortages?
Three major schemes are needed: (1) increased conservation of water to minimize waste, (2) funding for at least some of the most-promising Water Management Strategies, and (3) consistent water-use regulation for both groundwater and surface water.
The collective water-conservation measures addressed above would decrease much of the recognized water shortage. However, most are relatively or prohibitively expensive to implement and many individual measures would reduce water shortages by minimal amounts. Additionally, the public and city, county, and state politicians are reluctant to develop rules mandating water-conservation measures, as they recognize the Texans they represent are addicted to the water they use.
If Texas fully funded, built, and maintained all the identified Water Management Strategies, the current water shortage would be reduced from 3.6 million acre feet per year to 2.2 million acre feet per year, which would continue to be a substantial shortage volume. Additionally, it is unlikely that the Legislature will increase funding for the Water Management Strategies, considering that they have known of the water shortages for many years and thus far have funded only about 2 percent of the anticipated capital cost. In 2007, 2009, and 2011, state lawmakers appropriated only $1.47 billion in bonds--despite the $53 billion needed. Of that allocated, only $100 million (less than one-fifth of one percent of that needed) was appropriated in the 2011 session. Finally, the economic loss to Texas for not meeting water supply needs currently is about $13 billion dollars per year; that value increases to about $126 billion per year by the year 2060.
Unlike most other western states, Texas has a statewide regulatory program only for surface water, and not for groundwater. Unless their property lies within a groundwater conservation district, Texas landowners are generally allowed to pump as much groundwater as they want from beneath their land, regardless of the effects on neighboring wells, so long as they are not “wasting” the water; this is sometime referred to as the “rule of capture.” Groundwater districts may impose some limits on pumping from wells within their boundaries, but the Texas Supreme Court’s recent ruling [in the Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Day case] makes it clear that a landowner may sue the district for compensation if the limits go too far. The court did not provide clear guidance on how much regulation is too much.
Groundwater is not static--it moves: the water under any given property at any given time "was" under another property and "will be" under yet another property. Any water captured from beneath one property is no longer available to the owner of the adjacent property. Additionally, groundwater pumpage creates "drawdown" (lowering) of surrounding groundwater levels. Increased pumpage causes increased drawdown. Groundwater moves toward areas of drawdown, even water that would not otherwise move into that area. Such captured water would no longer be available to the owner of the land from which it flowed--from where it previously "was". Under current groundwater law, the biggest pump gets the most water, including water captured from neighboring properties.
As mentioned earlier, during periods of drought, groundwater is the source of almost all surface water in the state. Texas permits and regulates surface water--however, it is ironic that such regulation is most critical during drought conditions when substantially all the surface water comes from groundwater, which has limited or no regulation. Because of this inadequacy in regulation authority, water will be wasted and much needed water will be unavailable during drought--when it is most needed.
As throughout the world, surface water and groundwater are fully exchanged and thoroughly interconnected throughout Texas. The most equitable and cost-effective method to minimize water shortages during drought would result from legislated authority to regulate groundwater with the same veracity as already exists for surface water. Only then will rules exist to manage, to the fullest practical extent, whatever water exists during droughts.
References
Slade, R.M., Jr., and Buszka, P., 1994, Characteristics of streams and aquifers and processes affecting the salinity of water in the upper Colorado River basin, Texas: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 94-4036, 81 p. http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/pubs/wri/wri944036
Solley, W.B., Pierce, R.R., and Perlman, H.A., 1998, Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1200, 71 p. http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/pdf1995/html/
|
