(link to power point)

Key Legislative Milestones Affecting 7 major estuaries:

1957—Texas Water Planning Act (first state water plan in response to drought)

1975—legislature required freshwater inflows to be studied

1985—More studies of bays and estuaries required and important changes in how water permits are issued (for the first time, environmental needs must be considered when issuing water rights permits)

1997—SB 1

1999—SB 2

The Texas Water Code (TWC) now defines "beneficial inflows" to protect species and the ecology (section 12.0011). TPWD looks at nutrient levels, sediments, salinity, and fishery productivity and uses mathematical models to predict the amount of fresh water needed to keep the bays and estuaries healthy.

5.2 million acre feet (AF) are needed by Galveston Bay (twice the amount identified in the regional plan as needed for human uses).

TNRCC must consider instream flows and include special provisions when issuing water development permits. TNRCC must also develop water availability models for 22 river basins by December 31, 2001. These models can then be used by the regional planning groups.

Two problems with providing enough freshwater to streams, bays and estuaries: 1) cannot take water from reservoirs or those who are using water rights that were issued BEFORE the legislative mandate to consider environmental needs, and 2) instream flows must match the natural seasonal flows by mimicking the small floods that occur in the fall and spring, changing velocities, etc. bay and estuary plants and animals have adapted to those seasonal flows.

        (link to Linda's notes)

In 1993 there were a quarter million people using Galveston Bay for boating and fishing. The economic impact of recreational fishing in the bay is $364 million per year. The economic impact of commercial fishing is $200 million per year. Galveston Bay provides two-thirds of the state’s oysters. Nature tourism and environmental education are also big users of the bay.

We need freshwater to maintain these industries. Galveston Bay needs to be recognized as a user of freshwater, just like humans and industry. The Galveston Bay Foundation is considering purchasing water rights.

Q: Not enough emphasis is placed on shallow water aquifers, springs, seeps and their links to instream flows and effects on forest habitats. Why?

A: Groundwater availability models are being updated and they are trying to integrate these kinds of features into the models. The Water Development Board is working on the models. Regional water plans do not address spring flows and they should. These are examples of the kinds of things that can be addressed during the 2^nd round of regional water planning.

Q: New Mexico and Mexico are refusing to release the amounts of water they are required to into the Rio Grande. What can we do?

A: Most of the water in the Rio Grande has already been acquired in water rights permits. Now it will be a formidable task to right the sins of the past and turn the Rio Grande back into the mighty river it once was. The recent severe drought in northern Mexico has put a strain on the water use there, but it is also forcing the US and Mexico to develop a sustainable water plan.

Q: What is "beneficial use?"

A: The debate on whether instream flows are a beneficial use is a very important legal debate. It will impact, for instance, whether rights can be granted to the San Marcos River Foundation. The newly appointed State Joint Interim Water Resources Committee will be taking up this issue in the next year, among many other issues.

Q: How do federal laws on endangered and threatened species protection affect state actions on water planning and use?

A: The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department has stressed to the regional water planning groups that their plans are only a first step and during the second round of planning, these plans will be fine-tuned and will hopefully address these issues. The federal agencies will participate more in the second round of planning—the US Fish and Wildlife Service will analyze and comment on specific plans re; endangered species issues. It is important to address these issues in the planning stages. Many regional planning groups are trying to put it off until the permitting stage.

        (link to power point)

Tarrant Regional Water District (TRWD) has an innovative water reuse project ongoing in their area. TRWD is one of the biggest suppliers of raw water in the state. They run water from the Trinity River through a wetland they have constructed. This cleans the water form the river. Some of the water is returned to the river and some is held in the wetlands to be used by TRWD customers. The wetland "cells" (pictured to the right) can be expanded if needed. This is a mutually beneficial project. It creates habitat for waterfowl, provides clean water to the Trinity River, and defers the immediate need for more reservoirs.

        (link to power point) - Coming soon

Q: Why hasn’t population control been used as part of the water planning process?

A: Most forward-thinking work was not done on the first round water plans. Population and growth management can be put on the table now, in the second round. But in the end, it all comes down to politics.

Q: What is the cost per 1000 gallons for water reuse?

A: It is 15 cents per gallon. This is much lower than new reservoir construction.

Q: If I went to my county judge about increasing water prices. What could he do about getting water conservation under way?

A: Your county judge and you should go to your local water supplier/utility and work with them to get water conservation implemented in order to save water.

(link to Power Point)

Everybody uses water and we are dependent on it coming out of the tap. People have three concerns; will I have water, will it be enough, and is it safe to drink?

The precipitation patterns in Oklahoma and Texas affect our water supply. We need more water in hotter areas. Eastern portions of Texas and Oklahoma get more precipitation than the Western parts.

In the early part of the 20^th century Tulsa, OK used the Arkansas River as a drinking water source. They stopped using it in 1924 because they could not stand to drink it. Tulsa built a conveyance from Northeastern Oklahoma to the central part of the state. These kinds of projects are hugely expensive and time consuming.

        (link to power point)

The City of Austin has a drought management plan in place. Drought management is managing your water supply in a way so that you don’t ever have critical shortages. All stakeholders should have a part in developing the plan. The trigger levels for water use restrictions should be hammered out in advance so there is no question about procedures. Public education is a huge part of any successful drought management plan.

Water marketing is simply the sale of water between willing buyers and sellers. You can buy water or water rights. It is a market transaction and can be done with actual water or water rights. We can avoid developing new water resources if we are more efficient with what we have. An economist is always looking for the highest value use. In this case, it would be human consumption. With this highest use identified, water marketing becomes a transfer of water used on agriculture to water used by municipalities. Some say that a 5% transfer from agricultural to municipal use will cover the need for 25 years. 25% of water is lost in leaky pipes, etc. If people from some African countries or many other countries saw how much clean water we just pour onto the ground they would be horrified.

Regulatory processes to keep water in streams have largely failed. Regional water plans won’t help much either (none of the regional plans consider environmental needs). So how do you provide water for the environment? You buy water or water rights. Maybe we can buy water in markets in the same way the Nature Conservancy buys land for the environment.

One way in which water marketing will benefit the environment is if farmers can sell some of their water rights and use the money to invest in conservation. However, we must make sure that all the water being sold to municipalities does not ruin the rural way of life. A threat posed by water marketing is that it places too much emphasis on the economic value of water (and no value on water for the environment). The shrimp and the salamander do not have bank accounts.

The economics of groundwater are completely different from the economics of surface water. The rule of capture for groundwater encourages a perverse "keeping up with the Joneses" in that in order to hold onto water under your property, you have to pump as fast as or faster than your neighbor. The worst case is pumping the aquifers to depletion. Groundwater is the case where water marketing can do the most harm. The legislature should modify the rule of capture.

Q: What will we do about people who cannot afford to pay more on their monthly water bill to pay for conservation?

A: As the Texas population doubles over the next 50 years, water prices will go up. Low income rates for water could be established.

Q: When is the great state of Texas going to bring groundwater users onto the modern era and out of the Old West?

A: Things are changing now that people are buying land for the sole purpose of pumping huge amounts of groundwater. The attitudes of formerly staunch supporters of the rule of capture are changing. Groundwater districts can also regulate groundwater pumpage and well spacing.

        (link to Fred's notes)

While hazardous waste dumps, lots of people, historical sites, and pipelines are reservoir killers, big trees and forests are not. According to a study from Tennessee, when a forest is flooded and trees die and rot, reservoirs are good fish habitat. But that only lasts a short time. Also, river fishing is destroyed—all the way up to the headwaters of the dammed river.

The Feds can have an impact when it comes to endangered species. However, SE Texas does not have a lot of endangered river species. This limits the Fish and Wildlife service from stopping reservoirs. It’s not as easy to protect the habitat.

Bottomland forest is very rich because of the flooding and the silt that is deposited. Also because of the flooding, there are no houses built there, and no people. There are big trees and lots of good habitat for animals.

It took four years to fill up Toledo Bend reservoir. That whole time, no water was running downstream because they wanted to fill it up as fast as possible. Typically it takes 1-4 years to fill up a reservoir. The lack of water from Toledo affected the white shrimp in the Sabine Lake. The white shrimp fishery cratered and died and never came back. Reservoirs impact wildlife downstream by affecting the seasonal flows of water that the wildlife depends on.

Base flows must be accounted for. Small, frequent floods (2,5,7-year floods) refurbish side stream and backwater habitats good for little crayfish, bugs, etc. With a reservoir upstream there are no floods, just constant flows. Without floods, upland trees like pines will start to grow along the river and will eventually replace bottomland hardwoods.

The Bell-Milam Land and Water Rights Association was formed in 1967 in Rogers, Texas with the purpose of: monitoring water rights legislation, being a unified voice for landowners, and opposing a Little River reservoir. They fought it then and won, and they’ll do it again. (The reservoir would be between Temple and Bryan)

The edges of the newly proposed reservoir will fluctuate by about a mile, creating vast wastelands where there are now thousands of pecan trees that are harvested each year. $3.5 million in farmland will be taken off the tax rolls. 35,000 acres will be flooded. Including the buffer zone, 55,000 acres will be lost--$4 to $5 million a year in lost farmland productivity. This does not even account for the multiplicity effect of each dollar bouncing around the local economy, which could raise the economic impact to $25 million. Taxes will go up.

Rural Texas is on the short end of the stick.

Most of our members don’t like to be called environmentalists. But they all are because they love their land. No one knew the regional planning group was going to propose the dam until two days before the plan was submitted to the TWDB. There are people in Cameron who are third, fourth, and fifth generation landowners. Once the bottom land is gone, no more will be made.

        (link to powerpoint)

Region H Water Planning Group covers a very diverse area: Houston and rural areas. There have been extensive opportunities for public input throughout the process. All meetings are open to the public and have a public comment component. Region H WPG has 24 voting members and other non-voting members. The next round of planning will be delayed about a year while infrastructure studies are done by TWDB.

        (link to powerpoint)

Region I covers a very large area and has three major cities in it (Tyler, Lufkin, and Beaumont). This is a very diverse area . The East Texas Regional Water planning Group used open meetings, formal public meetings, public awareness presentations, newsletter, press releases, websites and copies of the plan to get the word out and try to involve the public in the planning process. The group did public awareness presentations to several interest groups. These presentations were not well attended. Now is an uncertain time for public participation in water planning because of where we are in the planning cycle. Copies of the Region I plan are available on CD from the Deep East Texas Council of Government’s at 409/384-5704 or water@detcog.org.

The ETRWPG has a website at www.detcog.org/etrwpg

The draft State Water Plan has just been released by TWDB. Copies of it are available on their website at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us. The TWDB will be taking comments on the draft plan until November 12^th. They will also be holding public meetings across the state to take comments on the plan. A list of the times and locations of the meetings go to the TWDB website http://www.twdb.state.tx.us. The Lone Star Chapter website has more information on commenting on the draft State Water Plan.