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 needs for 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.

The Region L Water Planning Group recognizes water is a valuable resource that needs to be developed, managed and conserved.   The challenge throughout the planning process has been to establish a viable plan to provide enough water for all stakeholders through 2050.  This region includes twenty and one half counties.  While the South Central Texas Region is not the largest in the state, it certainly has one of the most complex planning situations.  There are three main river basins (Nueces, San Antonio, and Guadalupe) and four main aquifer systems (Trinity, Edwards, Carrizo, and Gulf Coast). 

The planning process began with assessing the projected water demands for the region.  These were supplied by the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) and revised through local input.  The needs were looked at on a county and user-group basis. The current water supplies available in the region were then assessed.  The difference between the needs and the available resources represented the shortages that the planning group had to address.   The shortages occurred in mainly the municipal and irrigation categories.  Several new water supply options were evaluated that night be implemented to meet the shortages.  The new options were assembled into five different plans.   Based on these analyses, the regional plan was developed.  Public participation occurred throughout the process.

All of the regional plans were then combined to form the State Water Plan that is currently in the review process.The TWDB is holding public hearings around the state and taking comments on the plan via fax, e-mail, and regular mail.You may view the draft state water plan on the TWDB website at http://twdb.state.tx.us. 

 In the future the regional planning group will address the issues focused on by the TWDB stakeholders advisory group as well as developing a Scope of Work for the next planning cycle.The group is currently participating in an interregional work group that is working with the Corpus Christi, Rio Grande, and Lavaca-Navidad Regions to evaluate projects and ideas that are of interest to two or more planning groups.We are also preparing to perform a Water Infrastructure Funding Survey for the region. One of the first steps of the next planning cycle will be to update demand figures using 2000 census data. A great deal of work has been done by many people, but we still have plenty to do over the next five years.

Panel I: Meeting Environmental Water Needs: Water for Fish & Wildlife

Dianne Wassenich, San Marcos River Foundation:

"From Springs to Bays: Riparian Habitats"

The San Marcos River Foundation was formed in 1985. For 16 years, the foundation has worked on water quality issues close to home. They realized that water flow has a lot to do with water quality. It’s very important to keep the Edwards Aquifer at a level that will enable springs to flow. The San Marcos River flows from an underground spring.

The Comal and San Marcos Rivers in dry months provide a large percentage of the base flows of the Guadalupe River and therefore are important to the maintenance of freshwater inflows into San Antonio Bay. This directly affects salinity levels in the bay which affect the blue crab population. If the salinity is too high, the blue crab population is reduced and the whooping cranes face food shortages. Six out of 180 whooping cranes died last winter due to a lack of adequate nutritional food sources such as blue crabs. The river is also important to other wildlife as it travels to the bays and estuaries. They provide a green corridor with a constant source of water during times of drought.

The San Marcos River Foundation decided to apply for a water right in order to protect instream flows to the bays and estuaries. The water right would be to keep water in the river for the environment. Since water rights can only be issued for "beneficial uses" and there is some dispute about whether instream flows for the environment are beneficial or not, some people have challenged the foundation’s application for a water right. There will be a contested case hearing on the permit application. The water right will be a junior right and will be given to Texas Parks and Wildlife Department to hold as a water trust. There are 14 organizations in the coalition advocating for the water right.

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) water cannot be taken 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.

Q: Is there any analysis of how Region L planning affects bays and estuaries?

A: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department did a study on how many acre feet are needed several years ago, but we are all waiting on the TNRCC’s Water Availability Model (WAM), which is close to being ready. Sometimes you have to ask for a water right and go through the hearing process in order to get an answer on how much water is needed.

TPWD has done an instream flow study but not a full assessment, or an LCRA-type water management plan. Hopefully the regional planning groups will do some of these type studies.

Q: You talk about salinity, but not about mercury or other heavy metals which also affect fish.

A: TPWD is not required to look at mercury. There are other agencies which are required to, like NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) We know that flow does affect the concentration of these toxins. Don’t throw your thermometer in the trash! The mercury from one thermometer can contaminate an entire lake.

Q: Which rivers are over-appropriated?

A: The Rio Grande, Colorado, Guadalupe—based on a 1990 study, which is the latest study. The Water Availability Model (WAM) will provide that information.

Q: What plans do you have to fix the problem of over-appropriation?

A: We don’t have the ability to go back into old water rights, we have to buy them or get them donated. We’ll have to be creative. Right now, people don’t want to donate water rights for environmental flows because there is no guarantee that if that water is not used it won’t be given to someone else who buys another water right. We have to get water rights specifically for instream flows. Hopefully, publicity from the San Marcos River Foundation application will encourage people to donate water rights. The Guadalupe is over appropriated. Old agricultural water rights that haven’t been used for decades are not being converted into municipal rights without public input.

Neighbors for Neighbors is a grassroots group formed in 1999 in Lee and Bastrop counties to fight San Antonio City Public Service (CPS), ALCOA (Milam county), and San Antonio Water Systems. ALCOA and San Antonio CPS have entered into an agreement that ALCOA will sell water to CPS—55,000 acre-feet or more, with no cap. ALCOA is leasing 19,000 acres of CPS land to strip mine for lignite and has proposed a new, additional mine of 16,000 acres. This new mine represents the worst of the worst of how NOT to do water marketing and takes advantage of rural people. The ALCOA/CPS deal provides a lot of the water that is part of the Region L plan. CPS and ALCOA signed the deal on December 31, 1998—no one knew about the contract. These types of deals should be done in the light of day. There is actually more opposition to the water portion of the deal than there is to the strip mine.

Neighbors for Neighbors is fighting the new strip mine as well. The Carrizo Aquifer is already under stress. Of the 62,000 acre-feet per year of recharge into the aquifer, there is already a demand for 55,000 in the local area. The aquifer will be mined. The Lost Pines Groundwater District agrees with this assessment, and can try to regulate or control pumping from the aquifer. However, strip mining allows water mining without regulation from the Lost Pines Groundwater District. State law and the Texas Railroad Commission allow mine water to be unregulated. Some people may also have their eyes on this water to help with flow to bays and estuaries. The loss of water from the aquifer due to mining will threaten the Houston toad (an endangered species). The Texas Railroad Commission (TRC) turned down the Unsuitability Petition filed by Neighbors for Neighbors, clearing one of the last remaining hurdles before the new mine can open. The TRC used Houston toad studies done by ALCOA and ignored studies done by Neighbors for Neighbors.

Neighbors for Neighbors is working on multiple issues with regards to the proposed ALCOA strip mine as it effects so many facet of the community. ALCOA effects the land , air and water of this community. Neighbors for Neighbors is also fighting air pollution from ALCOA, which is Texas’s largest grandfathered polluter.

This issue gets lots of international coverage, but San Antonio coverage has been sparse to non-existent. San Antonio should not want to be doing business with such a reckless polluter as ALCOA.

The Wilson County Water Action Project formed last January to protest the proposed Cibolo Reservoir and lowering of the water tables in Wilson County. The Region L plan thankfully did not endorse the proposed Cibolo Reservoir. Other counties were a tremendous help in making this happen. Each county came from a distinct angle: Goliad had a historical perspective and had nuns taking a petition around town. Dewitt/Gonzales hired an independent technical expert to do a scientific report. Wilson was totally grassroots. The board of the Action Project met every single week. The group got county, city, school district, and chamber of commerce resolutions and 7,000 petition signatures (in a county of 30,000 total population). They attended every Region L planning meeting and brought 20-30 people including officials. We got the 1-800 number of the public participation contractor for the regional planning group. We got all their information and passed it out and loaded people in Wilson down with it all. We mailed hundreds of post cards to legislators. This was a successful grassroots project.

The Texas Water Development Board and the Region L WPG say that there is 42,000 acre-feet per year recharge of the Carrizo aquifer and that Wilson County uses half of that so the rest is available to use, but the well levels have been dropping and artesian wells are not flowing, so their numbers must not be correct.

The Colorado River is 600 miles long. It has 23 large reservoirs; 5 store more than 200,000 acre-feet. The total storage of these reservoirs are 4.2 million acre-feet. 703,000 acre-feet are already authorized via water rights, 129,000 acre-feet are lost each year to evaporation, and 430,000 acre-feet are used by agriculture. A football field, including the endzones, covered with one foot of water is an "acre-foot" of water.

According to the regional plan, the target inflows on the Colorado River will be met only 37% of the time (under current demands), and critical inflows will be met only 86% of the time. Critical inflows assure the bare minimum amount of water needed to keep the salinity levels in the bay low enough to allow the species there to survive. Under the revised regional plan, the target inflows will be met only 27% of the time, and the critical inflows will be met only 62% of the time. This is unconscionable and unacceptable. The projects proposed in the plan, especially the off-channel reservoirs—need to be changed. One thing that can be done is to capture only truly floodwaters and nothing else. If, as the name implies, this is a floodwaters project, only flood waters should be used. Water should never be taken from the river during low flow (drought) times. Also, conservation in agricultural irrigation can be implemented—for example, rice fields can be leveled so that it does not take so much water to flood the field.

Q: Are all withdrawals from the Colorado River critical?

A: Withdrawals during low flow periods and drought are the problem, not during flood flows

Q: How are these projects going to impact our community?

A: Communities do not have a chance to grow and change in their own chosen way. Their future is out of their hands. The effected communities are being unnecessarily impacted by other communities taking their water resources. The communities who say they need the water should do conservation and everything else they can before they take water from other communities.

Q: How will coastal areas be effected by off-channel reservoirs?

A: We should not just look at coastal areas but rural areas as well. These areas are increasingly dependent on fish and wildlife.

We need to see if we are really efficient with our water use. San Antonio has made positive changes, but the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex per capita water use is outrageous. Half the water is used on lawns. Do we really need to meet peak demand during drought? The coastal and rural communities will be drastically impacted unless we change our water habits and needs.

When I was 14, my parents’ land was flooded to make way for a lake for the Dallas water supply. We were like refugees and went ton the Texas Hill Country where the Trinity Aquifer is. The Trinity is like the Edwards’ little brother. It stretches from north Texas to the Hill Country and covers 56,000 square miles over 9 Hill Country counties (Bandera, Blanca, Kendall, Travis, Hays, Comal, Bexar, Gillespie, Kerr). This portion has been designated as a Priority Groundwater Management Area. This means that water shortages are expected and there is a streamlined process for creating groundwater conservation districts in the area. The Trinity has lots of dissolved zones—like caves and fissures—where water moves rapidly. But it also has a lot of tight areas where there is not much recharge.

The land over the Hill Country portion of the Trinity receives 9 million acre-feet in rainfall each year. Most of it runs off or is evaporated. Only 5% will soak into the aquifer, which amounts to roughly 450,000 acre-feet per year of recharge. Most of this becomes the base flow for springs and streams. Only 10% of this 450,000 acre-feet is available for well production (about 46,000 acre-feet).

People from all over the country want to live in the beautiful Texas Hill Country. Developers are marketing land without consideration of the impacts new development will have. Aldo Leopold’s essay on land ethics recommends that we look at land as a community of which we are part. This community includes the soils, the species, and us. We must take a very strong stewardship role. We need this stewardship role built into the regional planning processes.

Each of the counties in the Hill County Trinity aquifer area have groundwater conservation districts. The oldest was formed in 1987 and the newest was created in 1991. Groundwater districts can be formed through legislation (which is problematic because legislators can make them very weak), through a petition of 50 landowners to TNRCC, or TNRCC can create a district in a priority area. Blanco, Kendall, Hays and Comal counties have new groundwater districts which are still up for confirmation by the voters. In 1991 the Comal groundwater conservation district was defeated because of a misinformation campaign. The Comal district is now up for confirmation again in November. Kendall and Hays districts are up for confirmation next May, and the Bexar election will be a year from November.

Groundwater conservation districts do several things:

1) Get information

2) Educate and get public support for conservation

3) Devise management plans for district

There is a Hill Country Water Alliance under development so that various groundwater districts can share information and, possibly in the future share technical experts. Get out and support the groundwater conservation districts in your area!

Many things were left out of the water planning process. Most importantly, no one is questioning growth. It’s been taboo to discuss population growth questions. Last year Jacob’s Well stopped flowing for the first time in recorded history, due to over-pumping groundwater.

Bexar County is a political entity with political boundaries. This boundary pays no attention to the natural boundaries of watersheds and habitats. Environmental problems cannot be resolved unless we look at the broader landscape and beyond political boundaries.

We live at the crossroads of the arid West and the wetter East. The line between the two moves back and forth. Sometimes we are arid and sometimes we are not. Our political discussions pertaining to water are literally shaped by how much water has been falling out of the sky (or not falling out of the sky).

In 1763 there were lots of trees in San Antonio. They defined the landscape. The old Spanish maps show all the trees. The Spanish let the land teach them how to live in this environment. During hot, dry summer months they followed live water (we do this now by going to Schlitterbahn). The Spaniards understood that water is essential to urban development. They knew that they could manipulate the source through acequias and ditches. They used this to create a viable community in South Texas. But they also realized that there were limits.

In 1873, the poet Sydney Lanier wrote that the streams in San Antonio are "limpid, pure and fast flowing and that everyone has a cistern". Meaning that in the winter there is plenty of water but in the summer people rely on water from their cisterns.

1877 – The railroad comes to San Antonio and new growth sprouts up around it. This new growth pattern kicks into high gear. Streets are built on top of acequias.

1893 – Brackenridge drills well and begins to sell the water. Newspaper headline reads "Freshwater Apparently Unlimited in San Antonio." Brackenridge created a cheap source of water that everyone could access without much thought. People abandoned their cisterns, acequias and water conscious ways. This put more and more demand on the water supply.

The real issue for water is demand and population growth. We do not know how to communicate about water now. There are scattered views even at this conference. How do we describe our water crisis? What are the monikers that we use (fish, wildlife, trees, agriculture, people) to discuss and determine our actions and reactions with regards to water? What are the answers? Is it population control, population concentration, less sprawl or any number of other solutions?

Q: What about the PGA Village development in San Antonio?

A: The only way to kill it is through the city council. Convince them that another idea or approach will work for them.

Q: Austin has more green space than San Antonio. Why?

A: San Antonio was built on the cheap. The city did not want to spend tax money on green space or sidewalks.

Q: Do we need an ecosystem Management Authority for our region?

A: It will force us to think in a way that we don’t ordinarily do. It would be good for the region. This is a way to think outside of the box.

175,000 acre-feet are needed to protect Comal Springs during a drought. This means that a 67% reduction in current demand. There is no political will to do that. We do not know what the spring flow requirements are to protect endangered species. There is no science to back up the numbers we use now.

Our objective is to have long-term, permanent rules in place by next spring. We will be turning some "emergency" prohibitions into year-round conservation rules (like lawn watering during the day, once-a week lawn watering, inverted block rates on water, etc.) Other mandates are still being developed.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) provides technical assistance to farmers and ranchers with irrigation conservation. Irrigation use places a tremendous demand on the water supply. Agricultural uses account for 80% of water consumption in Texas. Three quarters of all cropland in the western US is irrigated. Farmers are good stewards of the land.

You can get free toilets from SAWS!

Aquifer storage and recovery does not produce water, it stores it for future use. Typically, you would store water in a reservoir, but in the arid West you have a problem with evaporation.

The Hueco-Mesilla Bolson aquifer is 20 years away from depletion. The level has dropped 150 feet.

In El Paso, they have dropped their per capita water use from 220gpd to 158gpd and the goal is to get it down to 140gpd. They have a full rebate and incentive program for conservation and they are trying to acquire water rights.

Shallow groundwater aquifers in San Antonio are recharged by rain. Thousands of gallons of JP4 jet fuel, chemicals, solvents, and TCE were intentionally dumped onto the ground and thus into the aquifer under the Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio. The plume has now moved 4 miles beyond the fenceline, covers about 12 square miles under 20,000 homes, about 20-50 feet below the ground. The plume has reached the San Antonio River and threatens to reach the Edwards Aquifer soon. Cancer and other illnesses have increased above the plume. The R&H refinery is a superfund site that sits right next to Kelly AFB.

The state has identified groundwater as a source of drinking water in times of drought. KAFB has been extracting 1 million gallons of contaminated groundwater per day, treating it, and discharging it into creeks which flow to the Gulf.

There are six alternate clean-up solutions proposed by the military:

1) Pump 41 million gallons a day from 19 wells and discharge treated water into city sewers. Cost: $23 million. Clean-up time: 17 years.

2) Pump 4 million gallons per day from 6 wells in the TCE-concentrated plume, dump into sewers, and plant 800 poplar trees. Cost: $12 million. Time: 17 years.

3) Pump 41 million gallons per day from 19 wells and dump into sewers and aquifer. Cost: $32 million. Time: 17 years.

4) "Air Force Do-Nothing" Clean Up: Build a slurry wall to surround plume with wells on south and east boundaries. Pump 1 million gallons a day and dump into Leon and Six Mile creeks. Cost: $4 million. Time: 19 years.

5) 13 barriers down the plume with iron filings, with water flowing through the iron filings. $32 million, 18 years.

6) 6 barriers with iron filings. $13 million, 18 years.

Conclusion: Large quantities of water are wasted by the air force. The air force is seeking comments on the clean-up solutions. We need to lobby for aquifer storage of treated water. SAWS could use this water for industrial uses, golf-course watering, etc. We need to lobby our legislators and others to put pressure on the military.

There are many misconceptions about desalination and a lack of willingness to pay for it. There are various methods for desalination, membrane is the most common. The coastal region of Texas has heavily studied desal in order to meet their future water needs.

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.

"The Panhandle Aquifer is NOT being recharged. Water marketing does not work in non-sustainable aquifers. If half is allowed to be used in 50 years, the other half will be gone in 100. T. Boone Pickins has his eye on that water, and this threat will challenge the rule of capture. Remember: Pigs get fed, hogs get slaughtered."

Regulatory processes to keep water in streams have largely failed. Regional water plans won’t help much either (few 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.

There are some black holes in the Region L water plan:

There is an alternative to these projects: recharge enhancement. If you add water markets, enhancements, and conservation, specifically on farms, the increase will be as little as $50 million per year and there will be no harm to the springs.

Why are the "black hole" projects so costly? They are very energy intensive. ALCOA is 108 pipeline miles away. LCRA is 172 pipeline miles away, and desalination pushed water through a membrane, using $96 million/year alone on energy. Recirculation uses $9 million a year in energy.

Public participation in crucial in the next round of regional water planning. The Edwards Aquifer Authority has been charged by the planning group to study recirculation. This study should be done by the end of 2002. At that point, there could be an amendment to the water plan for recirculation.

Clean Air and Water meets on the 4^th Tuesday of every month at 419 E. Magnolia at 7 PM.

Q: Does the clean-up of the aquifer around Kelly AFB include the shell around the aquifer?

A: No, the clean-up is for water only, it does not clean up the polluted aquifer walls or surrounding areas. This stuff might leach back into the water once it is cleaned. We will have to wait and see.

Q: What is the main problem with water reuse?

A: People are just very resistant to the idea of using treated wastewater for household uses. It is a matter of peoples personal comfort levels.

Public understanding and participation are essential to state water planning. Senate Bill 1 stresses the need for public meetings and hearings. The first step to participating is looking at the Texas Water Development Board’s website at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/ under "Regional Water Planning Groups Information". This section lists almost everything you need to know in order to participate in water planning for Texas. There should be a public participation component at every RWPG meeting. This is where citizen’s can voice their concerns.

Region K has held 35 public meetings since April 1998. The meetings were heavily publicized. Region K had the largest public participation budget of any of the regional groups.

Here is what you need to do:

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.  You can send in a comment on the draft State Water Plan through the Lone Star Chapter website. Click here to do that.