Water is one of the most important issues we will face in our region in the coming years. Air has been the focus of attention in the Dallas area for several years; but the water issue is coming to the forefront now, and people in this region need to become educated about this issue. It is gratifying to see the diversity of people here at this conference to discuss this timely issue.

There is no question that conservation must be part of the water equation in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. There are some people who say that the Dallas- Fort Worth area cannot achieve the conservation level of certain other cities such as San Antonio. That is not correct, however, and we urge those attending the conference who are interested in pursuing conservation in the area to sign up for this effort .

"Planning for Regional Water Needs"

The Texas Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1 in 1997. SB1 provided for a new "bottom up" approach to the water planning process. The groups planned for water needs over the next 50 years. The regional water plans were due in January 2001 and the final statewide plan (prepared by Texas Water Development Board) is due in January 2002.

For the purpose of generating the regional water plans, the state was divided into 16 regions and regional planning groups were established in those areas. Each group completed their respective plans on time. There are concerns that most of the regional plans do not pay adequate attention to environmental uses of water and concerns about the cost effectiveness of proposed water projects. The draft state water plan has just been released and the second round of regional planning is getting underway. The TWDB will be taking comments on the draft State Water Plan until November 12^th.

An important note to make is that the regional and state water plans talk about water "demands" but that demands are not always the same as actual "needs." People in Texas cities during the summer months may "demand" water for their San Augustine grass lawns, but whether that is a true "need" for water is another question.

North Texas includes two major planning regions – Region C (Dallas-Fort Worth area and surrounding counties) and Region D (Northeast Texas). The water futures of these two regions have been tied together. That provides the potential for conflict or cooperation, depending upon how you look at it.

Region C projects a steady, incremental increase in municipal water demands with agricultural demands for water staying pretty much the same while industrial water demands grow somewhat. Water conservation was not a major component of the Region C plan. Indeed the Region C plan calls for approximately $6 billion in water infrastructure projects, which is over 1/3 of the total projection of $17.9 billion in water infrastructure projects proposed by all 16 planning regions. The biggest single project called for by the Region C plan is the proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir, which is actually located in Region D. Marvin Nichols is projected to cost $1.7 billion and would impound over 600,000 acre feet of water. All but 120,000 acre feet of that water would go to Region C.

Region D (Northeast Texas Region) covers a much smaller area than Region D and is largely a rural area. The Region D planning group projected that all municipal demands for water would be met by 2050. Indeed Region D indicates that the region has enough water available now to meet all of its water demands in 2050. The Marvin Nichols Reservoir is proposed in the Region D plan, however, in order to build the reservoir to a maximum size and provide water to Region C. Issues surrounding the proposed reservoir and other proposed water infrastructure projects, such as transferal of water from Oklahoma to the Region C area will be discussed as part of this conference.

Instream Flows (IF) refers to the amount of flowing water needed to maintain fish and other aquatic and wetland wildlife communities in and along freshwater streams and rivers. These often overlap with, but are distinct from, so-called Freshwater Inflow Needs (FIN) which are the freshwater inflows required by our bays and estuaries to maintain acceptable salinity levels and supply nutrients and sediments for the support of marine life and other coastal species productivity. Protection of both is important because these provide significant economic benefits to certain commercial interests and they also present recreational and quality of life benefits to the public at large.

Texas has already built approximately 200 large dams and reservoirs on our rivers and streams which greatly affect the ability to maintain adequate instream flows. In much of the state, especially western and southern portions, all or nearly all of the water in steams and rivers has already been spoken for. Surface water is the property of the state, but the state may grant the right to use the water in a permit, such as those issued for these dams and many other withdrawals of water. By far, the majority of these permits were granted without any consideration of instream flows. Although, there has not yet been a comprehensive assessment, there is a fair degree of agreement among state regulators and the environmental community that many streams would run dry if all water rights were fully used during a severe drought. Unfortunately, this is before we have even determined what the actual instream flows needs of most streams are.

There are two main methods of determining the instream flow needs to maintain a stream and the health of the plants and animals that depend on it. The first is a statistically based method which I have labeled the "Hydro-history" method. This technique uses commonly available data, much of it now on the Internet, from a network of streamflow gauging stations throughout the state. Statistical measures of streamflow, such as averages, medians, or others, are derived from this data after it has been adjusted to reflect natural conditions. The instream flow requirements of the stream are set based on these statistical measures. For instance, in Texas, for planning new dams or withdrawals of water, the goal is to maintain the flow downstream at the median value in each month during times of somewhat normal streamflow. Other lower, but statistically derived, values apply during drought years.

It should be noted that the "Hydro-history" technique establishes instream flow values without any direct reference to stream characteristics, (velocities, depths) or the specific needs of aquatic or wetland species (temperatures, timing of flows in reproductive life-cycle, flows to maintain prey populations, etc.). With this method there is an underlying assumption that providing some portion of the naturally-occurring flows will suffice. It only requires good historical flow data of the stream in order to get a true representation of the stream’s behavior. Essentially, the Hydro-history method is a ‘place-holder’ value which is intended to be used for the more general level of water resources planning.

The other, much more rigorous method of instream flow determination can be thought of as the "Habitat" route. These studies, which take from 3 to 5 years to complete are more appropriate for permitting actions of a specific project such as a dam or direct withdrawal of water from a stream. These studies are very expensive and labor intensive; requiring lots of field measurements, sampling, and other data collection and analysis. In contrast to the Hydro-history method, here specific stream characteristics and there interrelationships to the aquatic community biologic needs are examined. For example, among the many examinations made, are the streamflows needed to maintain an appropriate velocity of water for the habitat requirements of key species. Higher velocity areas with clean gravel or sandy bottoms are required by some species at certain times of year. Others may require deeper, quieter pools for all or some portion of there life-cycle. Also, the effects of streamflow on temperature and water quality are considered. Because of the time and expense, very few rivers in Texas have been studied using this method. The lower Colorado below Austin, parts of the Guadalupe basin, and very small portions of the Bosque, a tributary of the Brazos, have been studied in this manner.

Regardless of the method, once the magnitudes of instream flow are established there are some policy options for protecting these:

· conditions on new permits,

· issuing new water rights with the explicit purpose of maintaining instream flows,

· canceling unused permits or portions of permits and rededicating these to maintenance of instream flows,

· purchasing water right permits or portions of permits and rededicating these to maintenance of instream flows,

· recognizing ecologically unique stream segments and protecting them,

· Texas Water Trust-unused permits or portions of permits can temporarily be placed in Trust for environmental purposes (the Trust exists, but no water rights have been placed in the Trust thus far),

· water quality - Hasn’t occurred, but theoretically if a stream is not meeting water quality standards there could be regulatory action to force water rights holders to provide minimum streamflow to assimilate (dilute) the pollutant load.

The challenge in the policy arena is that so many water rights have been granted already with no instream flow considerations. The State of Texas only started considering these needs over the last fifteen years or so in which rights to dam or divert about 1 million acre-feet of water were granted. This compares to a total authorization of approximately 23 million acre-feet granted by the state, most since 1900. As stated above, the extent of these rights are such that some streams could go dry in an extreme drought. Currently, there is no legal framework for resolving this. Only a few of the mentioned policy options itemized above, such as purchases or cancellations of water rights, could retroactively address this situation, but there is no movement in this direction.

In response to Senate Bill 137 (1975), House Bill 2 (1985), Senate Bill 683 (1987), Senate Bill 1 (1997), and other legislative directives, the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) and the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) jointly established and currently maintain a data collection and analytical study program focused on determining the effects of and needs for freshwater inflows to the state’s bays and estuaries. There are 7 major and 3 minor bay and estuary systems distributed along ~370 miles of the Texas Gulf Coast. These estuarine (tidal) ecosystems cover over 2.6 million acres with open water bays, intertidal mudflats, and emergent marshes which contain natural and man-made resources that each contribute multi-billion dollar inputs to the state’s economy, including but not limited to (1) a navigation network of national importance; (2) a vast resource base for minerals, seafoods, and recreational opportunities; and (3) a natural source of advanced waste treatment for nutritive materials and by-products of our modern society. Indeed, the total impact on the state’s economy just from commercial fishing, sport fishing, and other recreational activities in the bays has been estimated at over ~$3.5 billion/year (1994 dollars), or ~$1,333/acre annually. However, the real value of the bays and estuaries is many times this amount and may be only fully comprehended by considering how much it would cost to replace all the goods and services provided by these valuable coastal systems.

Study elements for determining the environmental flow needs of the bays and estuaries are given as follows:

1. Hydrographic Surveys

2. Hydrodynamic & Salinity Modeling

3. Sediment Analyses

4. Nutrient Analyses

5. Fisheries Analyses

6. Freshwater Inflow Optimization Modeling

7. Verification of Needs

Historical freshwater inflows to the estuaries used in the analyses are compiled from gauged streamflow records and TxRR rainfall-runoff modeling of ungauged drainage areas, with corrections for permitted diversions and return flows from water users within the ungauged watersheds. Perhaps the most direct and apparent effect of freshwater inflow is the resulting change in bay salinity. Salinity data are compiled from TWDB’s in-situ Hydrolab® Datasonde Water Quality Monitoring Network, as well as the historical monitoring records of other state and federal agencies. Biological data are compiled from commercial harvest records and TPWD’s Coastal Fisheries Monitoring Program.

For the purpose of determining inflow needs, statistical regression models and other numerical analyses are developed to provide quantitative relationships among freshwater inflows, estuarine salinities, and coastal fisheries species. STELLA compartment modeling is used to account for nutrient loading, biogeochemical cycling, and develop the estuarine nutrient budgets. Constraints on estuary sedimentation, if any, are analyzed using the SED5 accretion model.

Results from all these models and analyses are placed into the Texas Estuarine Mathematical Programming (TxEMP) model, along with information on salinity viability limits for survival, growth, and reproduction of estuarine plants and animals, so that the relationships can be solved mathematically to meet state management objectives for maintenance of biological productivity and overall ecological health. TxEMP is a non-linear, stochastic, multi-objective, mathematical programming (optimization) model that was specifically developed as a tool for decision-making on the freshwater inflow needs of Texas bays and estuaries. Solution curves from the TxEMP model are verified by TWDB’s TxBLEND hydrodynamic modeling of the resulting bay circulation and salinity patterns, as well as TPWD’s analyses of species abundance and distribution patterns, in the estuaries.

Finally, TPWD and the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) jointly evaluate the findings so that TNRCC can appropriately assess the effects of the issuance of water permits within 200 river-miles of the coast. In regard to this statute requirement, the TNRCC, TPWD, and TWDB may establish estuary advisory councils to develop recommendations on alternative management methods for meeting the freshwater inflow needs and maintaining a sound environment in the bays and estuaries.

Since inflows will naturally vary both above and below the range of feasible solution determined by the TxEMP model, there are additional management considerations for water supply operations during wet, normal, and dry years. This implies multi-stage rules for environmentally safe operation of water impoundment and diversion projects, such as those provided by the "Consensus Criteria for Environmental Water Needs" (1997). For the most part, these may be seen as refinements to current operating regimes that will provide environmental flows in a manner that substantially mimics the natural hydrology without increasing the conditional probability of failure of the water supply system that sustains the people and the economy of the region. Thus, when streamflows are abundant, they may be "passed through" the water impoundment and diversion sites in amounts up to defined target levels, and when they are not available, such as in times of drought, there will not be any releases from water supply storage to make up for the lack of normal flows. This means living within the natural cycle is a recognized and important part of Texas water management for bays and estuaries.

When looking at the importance of freshwater inflows to the bays and estuaries of Texas, the economic benefits to Texas coastal communities and the state at large from fishing, tourism, and recreation need to be considered. The species of economic importance are often dependent at some point in their life history on spatially and temporally variable micro- and macrohabitat limitations which are related to the timing and amount of freshwater inflow.

Texas bays and estuaries are highly productive and diverse. They also serve as nursery grounds for a number of ecologically and economically important species. Existing and planned water development projects have the potential to alter the timing and amount of freshwater delivered to these coastal systems. The Texas Water Code §11.147, 11.150, and 11.152 requires the TNRCC to assess the effects of the issuance of a water right permit on existing instream uses and freshwater inflow needs of bays and estuaries. However, ensuring that at least minimal amounts of water remain in Texas streams and are passed to the bays and estuaries is difficult at best. Any decisions to further alter the amount and timing of freshwater inflows needs to consider attendant ecological and economic changes that might result.

Several studies have looked at the economics associated with saltwater recreational and commercial fishing. Notable is the ripple effect that every dollar spent directly on recreational or commercial activities has. Tanyeri-Abur, et al. (1998) reported that each dollar of bay and estuary related tourist and recreationist expenditure resulted in about $1.81 in total value of output, $0.75 of personal income, and $1.15 of value added to the regional economy. In addition, an employment multiplier of about 37 jobs per million dollars of tourist and recreationists expenditures is indicated by their analysis (Tanyeri-Abur, et al. 1998).

Many recreational opportunities exist on the Texas coast. Recreational activities include boating, surfing, windboarding, fishing, and wildlife watching. Spending for recreational activities adds significantly to the Texas economy. In 1996, expenditures in Texas for saltwater fishing were $887,612,938 with an overall economic impact of $1,989,532,703 (USFWS 1998a). Salaries and wages generated in 1996 by saltwater fishing were $503,068,996 in Texas (USFWS 1998a). In addition, wildlife watching pumped $1.2 billion into the Texas economy in 1996 (USFWS1998b).

Tanyeri-Abur et al. (1998) looked at total and regional economic figures in Texas related to recreational and commercial activities for 1995. For the Sabine-Neches Estuary, water-related recreation created $34.4 million in direct regional impact. Direct regional impact from inshore commercial fishing was $850,000 and from total commercial fishing $1.24 million.

The Trinity-San Jacinto Estuary had $757.69 million in direct regional impact from water –related recreation, $23.39 million from inshore commercial fishing, and $92.08 million from total commercial fishing for 1995 (Tanyeri-Abur, et al. 1998).

For the Lavaca-Tres Palacios Estuary, water-related recreation generated $94.85 million in direct regional impact. An additional $10.76 million in direct regional impact came from inshore commercial fishing and $62.65 million from total commercial fishing (Tanyeri-Abur, et al. 1998).

The Guadalupe Estuary in 1995 had $10.81 million in direct water-related recreation impact,$4.35 million in direct regional impact from inshore commercial fishing, and $20.13 million in direct regional impact from total commercial fishing (Tanyeri-Abur, et al. 1998).

The Nueces-Mission Aransas Estuary is a popular tourist destination. In 1995, water-related recreation produced $545.28 million in direct regional impacts. Inshore commercial fishing resulted in $12.91 million in direct regional impacts with $71.49 million from total commercial fishing (Tanyeri-Abur, et al. 1998).

The Laguna Madre system had $221.5 million in direct regional impact, $388.3 million in output, $152.6 million in personal income, and $242.9 million in value added revenues from water–related recreation. Inshore commercial landings had a value of $1.21 million for 1996 and total commercial harvest for 1993-1995 averaged $2.4 million per year (Tanyeri-Abur, et al. 1998).

The value of preserving freshwater inflows can be measured in economical and ecological terms. Both must be factored in when planning for the State’s future water needs. It is important to protect Texas coastal ecosystems and ecological diversity, economic health, and cultural history and future.

The progression of traditional approaches includes taking water from streams (which is the first approach dating back to the Indians), digging shallow wells, digging deeper wells, building reservoirs nearby, and building reservoirs at greater distances.

Source options include surface and groundwater. Using surface water, diversion from a river or stream, is cheap and easy, but may not be healthy or reliable. Groundwater is inexpensive if there is a distribution system already in place, but it can be limited in quality and/or quantity. Reservoirs provide reliable supply and better quality water.

Why do we build reservoirs? Unreliable flows from regional streams, and not enough groundwater to support a large population. The history of the water supply of Ft. Worth shows a trend from using artesian wells in the 1870’s, the construction of a distribution system in 1882, to the construction of Lake Worth and treatment plant in the 1910’s. The upstream lakes where constructed in the 1930’s, and additional reservoirs were built in the 1960’s and 1970’s.

Emerging trends in water supply include an emphasis on conservation, system re-operation, increased reuse of water, desalination, and a greater dependence on distant sources.

The Middle Trinity Basin includes 65 cities, 1,500,000 people, 10 North Texas Counties, and 7 reservoirs. Management strategies for the basin include conservation; reuse including wetland facilities; proposed Sulpher River Reservoirs; existing Oklahoma Reservoirs; and the Tehuacana Reservoir.

Flows in the Middle Trinity Basin are decreasing. They are currently looking to incorporate re-use of wastewater into their strategies. Two options include direct reuse, which has public perception problems. The other option is indirect reuse, which would consist of letting water pass through the town, and treating it downstream, them pumping the treated water back up to the reservoirs.

The Tarrant Regional Water District conducted a pilot study using wetland ponds. The study found the wetland water to be cleaner than what is currently in the reservoirs. The district is now planning the field scale project, which will incorporate wildlife in the planning. The District also has a memorandum of understanding with the TPWD so that the project is mutually beneficial for the public and the enhancement of wetlands and wildlife.

Groundwater Districts are a viable management tool. The State of Texas has chosen groundwater districts as the preferred method of managing groundwater. Currently there are approximately 42 confirmed groundwater districts. Thirty-three districts were created in the last legislative session, subject to confirmation.

The mission of groundwater districts is to prevent waste and manage groundwater resources. The Panhandle Groundwater Conservation District began in the panhandle, but has grown since then. The Ogallala Aquifer is the major source of water in the Panhandle. Ninety-six percent of the water is groundwater. The majority of this goes towards irrigation. The Ogallala is a finite resource, so the Panhandle looks mainly at "controlled depletion".

A controversial issue in groundwater management today is that of groundwater export. In actuality the issue goes back quite a long time. The first transport of water out of the Panhandle Groundwater District (to the City of Amarillo) was in the 1950s. The District put a transport permit system into place in 1984. That transport permit system was challenged in court, and the court ruled that the District could not limit transport of water but it could limit production of water (withdrawal). The District immediately changed the name of its transport permit system to a "high impact" permit system but made no other changes in the system. In the 1990s the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority (CRMWA) obtained (by purchase) a permit to transport 40,000 acre feet out of Roberts County (within the District), and the City of Amarillo acquired a permit for additional water from Roberts County.

Now another major proposal to transport groundwater out of Roberts County is causing a stir. Mesa Water Co. (owned by T. Boone Pickens) wants to move water by pipeline to a number of possible destinations – including El Paso, San Antonio, and/or Dallas-Fort Worth. CRMWA filed a contested case action against Mesa in the Panhandle District’s consideration of the Mesa permit. Mesa in turn sued CRMWA under the state’s Private Property Rights Protection Act, claiming that actions by CRMWS were lowering the value of Mesa’s groundwater. The outcome of these two cases will probably start groundwater down a new road but where it will lead we don’t know.

Q: Is there bioaccumulation of contaminants in the wetlands? If so, what has been done about it?

A: Jim - We have not had that problem with our wetlands during the nine years of our pilot project.

Q: How does the wetland function in the winter, does it die back?

A: Jim - It does, but not enough to stop the removal of waste.

Q: Is recharge of the Ogallala low? Why?

A: C.E. - There is a difference in the geology of aquifers (the Ogallala and the Edwards). The Ogallala gets much lower recharge in comparison to withdrawals from the aquifer.

Q: Could you use bottomland hardwood forests rather than wetlands to clean water? Did you have to clear bottomwood forests to construct the wetlands?

A: Tom - We didn’t clear any forests for our wetlands project because the area was an open area.

Q: With desalination, what do you do with the brine?

A: Tom -This is a significant concern of ours.

Q: How do the feedlots in the Panhandle affect the groundwater quality?

A: C.E. - There is little effect on the quality of the groundwater in our area.

Q: The Ogallala is much larger than your district, is there coordination among the groundwater districts that lie over it?

A: C.E. - Senate Bill 2 helped to establish this sort of coordination. But with the Ogallala, impacts to the aquifer tend to be regionalized.

Q: Why is irrigated agriculture decreasing in the Panhandle?

A: C.E. - It is dwindling off as the groundwater becomes harder to reach as aquifer levels decline.

Q: When is the projected end of the Ogallala? And to the Mesa Water Project?

A: C.E. - The Panhandle groundwater districts goal is to have 50% of the groundwater remaining in the aquifer in 50 years. The Mesa project would have a life of 50 to 60 years.

Q: What is the cost comparison between wetlands and reservoir construction?

A: Jim - A wetland system is 25% the cost of building a new reservoir.

Q: Are there plans to look at relocation of the populace from the flooding due to sea level rise?

A: Tom - No.

Q: How long before we start pumping seawater?

A: Jim - It will become more feasible and money wise in the future. The coastal cities will probably be the most likely to use seawater, leaving areas such as Dallas-Fort Worth to use freshwater.

Q: What type of conservation do you do as a groundwater conservation district?

A: C.E. - We promote agricultural and municipal conservation, education, advertising, and we also incorporate it into the permitting process.

Conservation results from behavior and equipment modification, and utility and consumer cooperation. The Edwards Aquifer Authority (EAA) has the most aggressive conservation effort in the state. It includes public information and school education, audits and leak protection, retrofitting plumbing fixtures, conservation pricing, metering, and prohibition of water waste.

Region L was the only region to incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) or guidelines for conservation. The next step is to have conservation requirements, not just guidelines, like the EAA does. After this, we should include an implementation schedule with criteria to determine the status of conservation efforts, like California does with their BMPs.

Water conservation is the cheapest way to get additional water supplies. For example, one option is to retrofit toilets. There are lots of potential savings when each toilet uses 25 gallons per day. Another possibility is through changes in landscaping practices. Natural vegetation saves water and money. But here the focus needs to be on the amount of water used on the lawn, not just the plant selection. Rebates should be retractable if the amount of water used does not decrease.

Another option is to have an inverted block rate for municipal water use. This means that your water rate increases with the more water you use. Dallas just passed this type of rate structure. This is good, but it needs to get better.

We need statewide conservation standards and there needs to be pressure from the citizens for municipalities to increase water conservation.

Drought planning is usually staged. It can include emergency planning, and works for all demand reductions.

Developing a drought plan involves the public in the process. It includes identifying constraints and establishing trigger levels. The effort should include supply and demand, plant capacity (which must keep up with demand), and the distribution system.

There needs to be lots of communication. There are only two inspectors for the city of Austin.

The Texas Legislature recently passed a bill which mandates that all new apartments built after 2003 must have sub-meters or apartment owners can ask water utility to provide service of installing these.

What can we do to meet the needs of people and the environment? What are the benefits of water marketing? What are some of the concerns? What are the benefits?

What is water marketing? It is a voluntary reallocation of water from one user to another, where the buyer and seller set the price. Through water marketing, we become more efficient on how we allocate water between uses, and water is moved to the highest value of use.

Currently, Texas laws do not provide for environmental flows. During the first round of regional plans, only one region looked at inflows to the bays and estuaries, only one region designated unique stream segments, and only one promoted advanced conservation measures.

What can we do? We could buy the water outright, much like the concept of conservation easements for land. Buy the water right and dedicate it to instream flows. For example for people involved in agriculture, if they are farming on marginal land, it may be worth more not to farm, and the farmer could sell his water right. Another example is when cities could pay farmers to conserve water. The farmer would then have the benefit of selling his extra water (derived from the savings) to the city.

There are environmental concerns to water marketing. Treating water as a commodity does not include the less tangible issues. How can the environment afford a water right? Farmers and ranchers might also be affected, as they may not be able to keep their rights due to economic reasons.

Q: What happens when large multinational or foreign companies, that may not have concerns for the outcome of the local population, begin to own water locally?

A: Mark - As a world resource, water is going to become more and more significant. It is the government’s responsibility to ensure that people have the water they need to exist. The role for markets is to find cost-effective ways of supplying the water, while the role of the government is to ensure availability and pricing.

Q: Washing machines use an awful lot of water. What can be done to lower the costs of the more efficient models?

A: Tony - There are new energy efficiency standards for washing machines that will be in place by 2006. These machines will use less water as well because more energy efficiency translates into less water needed.

Q: What about rebates to buy the more efficient washing machine models.

A: Tony - It will take public input. Contact your local utilities and ask for those types of programs.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is dedicated to working with others to assure that there will continue to be sufficient amounts of good quality water available to support productive fish and wildlife populations and their habitats for the benefit of all Texans.

Though there has not been a Federal nexus for us to be involved in the current water planning process with any real influence, we have been monitoring the process. The Service recognizes the importance of this process to the future health and survival of the endemic fish and wildlife populations of Texas and their habitats. The Texas offices of the Fish and Wildlife Service , with assistance from the Tulsa, Oklahoma office, have been attending regional water group meetings, and reviewing and commenting on their plans. We have also attended state water board meetings and participated in the Policy Group efforts. We are currently reviewing the Draft State Water Plan and will be providing comments.

Where does the Service stand on some of the natural resource issues in this plan?

Many people think that the only responsibility the service has is threatened and endangered species protection. Although that is an important part of our work, we are also dedicated to preventing other fish and wildlife populations from getting into trouble.

Generally, we feel that the current draft plan fails to balance natural resources needs with human needs. Ultimately, if you take care of your ecosystems, they will take care of you. Efforts to meet human needs will be easier.

The three main issues that our concerns tend to fall under are:

1. Direct loss of habitat

2. Decrease of healthy stream flows

3. Freshwater inflows to bays and estuaries

We would like to see conservation plans developed and implemented for each water planning region and district before large water development projects are considered.

Environmental water needs for most of our river basins are not fully understood. Instream flow studies should be conducted in each basin before water availability for human use can be determined without impacting aquatic ecosystems.

The service looks forward to continued involvement in the next phase of the water planning process and hopes that our efforts will contribute to a water plan that not only provides enough water to meet human demands, but enough water to provide for our fish and wildlife populations and their habitats.

The Marvin Nichols Reservoir will inundate East Texas land that has been in the Dalby name for 160 years. The title of the family’s land dates back to 1861. There is a strong social history attached to this land, and a priceless heritage will be lost.

In the future, there will be no social events. My homestead, and those of my friends, will be gone. The county road we travel will be under water. There will be no bottomland river outings, no hunting, and no small animals. There will be a loss of habitat and Indian relics. There will be no more logging, which will constitute a loss of income.

Region D does not need water to support its demands in the planning period. Dallas is the largest user of water in the state. In addition, Lewisville and Irving both plan on increasing their water use in the future.

The current planning process is said to be bottom-up, but there were not enough people involved in the process from the start. This includes the general population and federal agencies like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

With eleven ecoregions, Oklahoma is the second most diverse state, behind Texas. The rich diversity is due to differences in rainfall patterns across the state, which leads to a wide range of runoff rates. In general, the eastern portion of the state has more abundant water resources and better water quality than the western portion.

In Oklahoma, there are many habitats of concern. Numerous rivers have been dammed, diverted, and in some cases sucked dry. In the 1980’s, there was a plan to move water from eastern Oklahoma to the west for irrigation, municipal, and industrial use. This plan never materialized. The water resources of the southeastern portion of the state are of concern again now because of the potential transfer of water to Texas.

There are four major streams in the southeast part of the state: the Kiamichi River, Little River, Glover River, and Mountain Fork River (the last two being tributaries to the Little River). The details of the compact for the potential transfer are uncertain because the negotiations, involving the Indian Tribes and the Oklahoma Water Resources Board, have been conducted behind closed doors.

It is thought that part of the plan will include taking water from the Kiamichi River, just below the Hugo reservoir and transferring it via pipeline to Lake Lavon in northeastern Texas. Although the exact amount it unknown, estimates range from 150-160 million gallons per day. Another possible component of the plan includes taking water from the Little River just below the confluence with the Mountain Fork and piping it westward. This might even include constructing a low water dam if necessary.

Although it has not been specifically included, there is the potential in the future to include the federally authorized Lukfata reservoir on the Glover River. The Glover River is the last free flowing stream in Oklahoma, and the effects to the Little River may include the flooding of a National Wildlife Refuge. There are also endangered species and their habitats that may be affected by the transfer.

Q: What is the reaction of the local people surrounding the Kiamichi River plans?

A: Jerry - There is a Southern Oklahoma Water Alliance that has formed which includes about 100 people. Quite a bit of interest in the area has been stirred up.

Q: With two Indian nations and a National Wildlife Refuge affected, how can the federal government not be involved?

A: Jerry - The Corp of Engineers is involved in the negotiations. For the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, we need a nexus to get involved. The problem is that this plan is on a fast track, and the compact between the State and the two Indian tribes is due out by November.

Q: Are the Indian tribes for this?

A: Jerry - I really don’t know. I feel that their leaders are. Southeastern Oklahoma is the poorest part of the state. The tribes might see this as economic development.

Q: What role do the federal, state, and local representatives have in this?

A: Jerry - The congressman of this part of Oklahoma is pro-development.

Two important aspects to involving the public in regional planning are access to information and communication efforts. This must include educating all parts of the community so that they can become involved. The process needs public input and the participation of the public.

The relationship between Region C and Region D has been that Region C has the population, they are feeling the pressure, they have the money, and Region D has the water.

"Nuestra Agua, nuestra vida"

It comes down to cost and benefits. What do you want to put your money on, and where do you want to spend it. Your yard? Your council member? Your elected official? Your water planning group?

Keep asking questions!

The Living Waters Project partners have developed a website called Texas Water Matters. It has recent articles about water issues around the state, information about the economic principles behind sound water planning, and specific information about water planning in your region as well as lots of other information on water. You can access it at http://www.texaswatermatters.org

The Texas Water Resources institute has a website that covers a variety of water related issues. You can access it at http://twri.tamu.edu