Guest blog written by Jennifer Walker. She works on water issues at the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club.

The fate of the Hill Country’s Trinity Aquifer and its associated rivers and springs was made a little clearer at a meeting held Monday night in Boerne, Texas. 

The Texas Observer put together an excellent piece on the complicated Groundwater Management Area (GMA) process and what is at stake for GMA 9 and the Hill Country.  The decisions that are made as a result of this process determine the future of the Hill Country. 

The lay of the land

The GMA 9 planning group held three public meeting in June to determine the public’s opinion on several proposed the Desired Future Condition (DCFs) scenarios for the Trinity Aquifer.   A majority of the written and oral comments asked GMA 9 to establish a DFC that would represent current conditions.  This scenario means that current pumping needs would be met and there would be no further drawdown of the Trinity Aquifer.  Essentially the aquifer would be maintained into the future as it is now. 

With the “current conditions” option, there would be limited water available for future growth; however, many local people who participated throughout the process and at the public meetings are concerned about the viability of their future water supplies.  If the area continues to grow, the very nature of the Hill Country is in jeopardy.   The rivers and springs that permeate the area are fed by the underlying aquifers like the Trinity.  If the water levels in those aquifers decline, the amount of water fed into the rivers and streams will diminish as well.

The big decision

So what did the GMA 9 board decide on Monday?  In spite of this input, in an 8-1 vote, they voted to establish a DFC which will result in an average 30-foot drawdown of the Trinity Aquifer over the next 50 years.  Jim Chastain from the Bandera County River Authority and Groundwater District voted against the motion, advocating for a 10-foot drawdown.  The board members spoke a good deal about how the current conditions or zero-drawdown option was unworkable.  They felt that they had to provide for some future growth and worried the scenario would not provide for exempt wells in the future.  Groundwater districts do not regulate exempt wells but water needs to be provided for them based on Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) projections.    

Hill Country Losses

What does this mean for the Hill Country?  Not all areas of GMA 9 would be equally affected.  Some areas will see smaller drawdowns and other areas will see larger reductions impacting existing wells.  According to the TWDB groundwater report, a 30’ drawdown in the Trinity aquifer will provide for an additional 40,000 acre-feet of water in the GMA 9 area (current use is estimated at 60,000 acre-feet/year), but it will also reduce springs and base-flows to rivers by about 14,000 acre-feet per year.  This is in addition to the 33,000 acre-foot reduction from current pumping. A 30’ drawdown would result in an approximate 25% decrease in spring and base flows over historical conditions threatening the life of the springs and surrounding wells.

GMA 9 will submit their DFC package to the TWDB by September 1st.  Interested parties have the option to file petitions one year from the date of submittal.  As planning processes go forward here and in other parts of Texas, a balance must be struck between growth and maintaining the essence of a place.

Guest post by Lacey McCormick, Communications Manager for National Wildlife Federation.

Last week, the National Wildlife Federation and the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra club released a new report, Sprayed Away: Seven Ways to Reduce Texas’ Outdoor Water Use, examining seasonal changes in water use in 18 cities across the state. We found that water use rose 58% during July, August and September when compared to December, January and February.

Reducing the amount of water we use during the summer offers easy savings. Some experts estimate that about half the water we use on our landscapes is wasted to due to evaporation, overwatering and run-off.

In the report, we calculated how much water each of these 18 cities could save every day during the summer if they cut outdoor water use by 25%. The potential is staggering:

• Austin: 13.9 million gallons a day
• Dallas: 22.7 million gallons a day
• Fort Worth: 27.6 million gallons a day
• Houston: 17.6 million gallons a day
• Plano: 10.4 million gallons a day

Is a 25% reduction in outdoor water use realistic? Cities around the country have proved it is possible time and time again. One local example: the San Antonio Water System estimates it has cut outdoor water use by 30%.

The report recommends seven efficiency measures that have a proven track report at reducing landscaping water use. Read more »

Guest post by Environmental Defense Fund’s Great Lakes Regional Director Karen Chapman.

How do you allocate water for the environment in an over-allocated, degraded river with a politically-charged history? The Rio Grande provides just such a challenge.

El “Río Bravo”

From its origin in the San Juan Mountains of Colorado to where it empties into the Gulf of Mexico at Boca Chica beach near Brownsville, Texas, the Rio Grande winds 1,885 miles, 1,250 of which form the border between the US and Mexico. The Rio Grande is the fourth longest river in the U.S. and it supplies drinking and irrigation water for over 9 million people in the border region alone.

The Rio Grande has always been a river marked by periods of severe drought and floods. The construction of Elephant Butte dam in New Mexico in 1916 was the first and most dramatic attempt to curb such unpredictable cycles and tame the river for irrigation. In Mexico the river is called el “Río Bravo” – or “angry river,” for its historic floods. But the dam was the first step in altering a free-flowing river to a controlled system.

Taming a Wild River

Robbed of floodwaters, the river could no longer perform its function of moving sediment and rocks downstream that accumulated at the mouths of arroyos. Many backwater ponds and sloughs disappeared along with the water fowl and aquatic wildlife that depended on them. Cottonwood and willow gallery forests dependent on regular floods for seed distribution and establishment also began to retreat, and detrimental invasive species like saltcedar, Russian olive and phragmites took over the riparian zone.  Fish and wildlife populations also changed; the Silvery Minnow and Willow Flycatcher disappeared from Texas, and many bird and mammal game species dwindled dramatically.

Over the past decade the Rio Grande has continued to experience its share of droughts, minor floods, and political wrangling over water resources and border security concerns. In 2000, and again in 2010, U.S. and Mexican environmental officials issued commitments to enhance Rio Grande water resources and the shared ecosystem. Stakeholders hope that these commitments will someday provide funding for research and restoration activities. Most recently, discussion has centered on the idea of a huge, multi-million acre binational park spanning the border, encompassing existing, parallel protected lands with the Rio Grande as centerpiece.

Bringing Back an Icon

Conservation groups – including EDF – and many other public and private agencies continue to renew and strengthen alliances on behalf of the Rio Grande, and discuss a shared vision for what the Rio Grande could be again. While it is unlikely that the river as a whole will be returned to a more natural state, partners believe that in places like West Texas this may be possible, and various efforts are making headway.

 Environmental Defense Fund, World Wildlife Fund, and the Nature Conservancy of Texas partnered with ranchers and farmers from West Texas to form the Trans Pecos Water Trust in 2005. The Trust’s purpose was to acquire water rights in the Rio Grande mainstem and tributaries and dedicate them to instream flow. Five years later the Trust is a great success, having acquired through lease close to 2,000 acre feet of water that is now dedicated to beneficial use as instream flow. The Trans Pecos Water and Land Trust, as it is now known, also owns and manages a unique preserve on Alamito Creek, a tributary to the Rio Grande and a beautifully pristine habitat still harboring old growth cottonwood gallery forests.

Federal government efforts to pilot an endangered species in the Rio Grande have also met with initial success. Experimental populations of the Silvery Minnow were released into the Rio Grande in Big Bend National Park in December 2008, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports that so far, the fish appear to have successfully spawned. Biologists are watching the minnow with interest.

In addition, the World Wildlife Fund and the National Park Service, through Big Bend in collaboration with many others, have recently formed a Science Team and a Policy Committee that are working together to define what healthy flows might mean for the Rio Grande. The teams are exploring ways to link environmental goals with existing deliveries of water made from Mexico to the U.S. so that both countries benefit, while not compromising irrigation uses.

Balancing Act

This will be a tricky balance. There are many unknowns, never enough money, and more than enough uncertain politics, but team members are committed. The Rio Grande –Texas icon, national treasure, and vital resource to millions of people – deserves no less.

Guest post by Ken Kramer, Director of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club

Agency Responds to Public Pressure and Retains Current Bacteria Standard for Primary Contact Recreation Lakes and Streams

Yesterday, Commissioners of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) adopted revisions to the state’s surface water quality standards (WQS) and implementation procedures to achieve and maintain those standards.  The WQS describe the chemical, physical, and biological conditions that need to be attained or maintained to meet the goals of the federal Clean Water Act. 

In a significant move, the TCEQ Commissioners, at the instigation of Commissioner Carlos Rubenstein, chose to retain the current bacteria pollution standard (126 E. coli per 100 milliliters for freshwater) for those streams and lakes which are considered to be “primary contact recreation” water bodies – those used for swimming, wading, and other activities where people might ingest the water.  

 The state agency staff had recommended revisions to the state’s water quality standards that would have weakened public health protections from bacteria for people swimming and wading in Texas streams and lakes. (206 E. coli per 100 ml). Fortunately, literally thousands of Texans communicated their opposition to this downgrade of standards to TCEQ.

In response to this public opposition the TCEQ Commissioners wisely rejected the staff proposal to reduce the protections for streams that are used for primary contact recreation. There are still some concerns about other revisions to the water quality standards that might allow greater exposure to bacteria. The Sierra Club will take those concerns to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which ultimately must approve the revised water quality standards, and we will continue to monitor TCEQ’s implementation of bacteria regulation closely.

TCEQ’s Intentions

While it is not clear exactly how things will proceed at this point, TCEQ Chairman Bryan Shaw certainly stated at today’s Commission meeting his intention to pursue a streamlined process for conducting the use attainability analyses to determine the “appropriate” level of recreational use in certain streams, and the other two Commissioners expressed agreement with that intent. 

Moreover, the TCEQ staff also signaled a concern about having “too many” stream miles designated as primary contact recreation.  In a press release issued after the WQS revisions were adopted, for example, the agency stated that “about 144,600 miles [out of the 191,000 total] are considered intermittent streams, which are typically too shallow for swimming.”  The press release further asserted that: “These are shallow streams, which flow infrequently and only during heavy rains, and are more appropriately classified as secondary contact.”

The environmental community won a victory this week with the retention of the bacteria standard for “primary contact recreation” water bodies.  

This week’s Texas Observer has a great article on Texas groundwater politics.  Particularly interesting is the history behind many of the big groundwater purchases around the state. Currently, much of this water is still waiting for a buyer, who will likely pipe it to a major metropolitan area.

We have written previously on simmering groundwater conflicts and the negative impacts and hidden costs of long-haul pipeline projects.   It sounds like there might be lots to talk about this session in terms of water policy.  Stay tuned. We will be there keeping you updated.

When people find out what I do for a living, they often ask me if I find my work depressing.  I can usually confidently respond, “no, but it can be challenging.”  However, sometimes something happens that changes my answer.   The BP oil catastrophe is one of those incidents.  While our blog does not cover the region directly impacted by the oil spill, it is difficult to work in the environmental sector, or care about nature in any way, and not feel its impact.  I don’t think it an overstatement to say that so many of us feel a sense of palpable heartbreak and outrage when we watch the footage of the inundated wetlands, oil-soaked birds, or hear about the threat to endangered turtles among others.  The continued hemorrhaging of oil from the source only adds to the distress. 

Many of our EDF colleagues have spent countless hours on the front line of this disaster.  Some of them have spent the last few years working hard to restore these wetlands to increase coastal resilience and protect against the next big hurricane, while others have built close relationships with fisherman, whose livelihoods are now threatened.  Now, their combined purpose is to do whatever they can to help with this issue.  In a recent trip to the affected region, a fellow EDFer created an excellent video that is worth sharing.  My hope is that we will all take a moment to think about the policies that need to be changed to ensure something like this never happens again. We simply can’t afford it. 

After weeks of 95+ degree days, it is safe to say that summer has arrived.  Hot summers are always a challenge for water utilities because seemingly endless sunny days mean more outdoor watering, but they also mean more air conditioning of homes and businesses.  While many cities have effectively reduced water use through turf replacement and landscaping programs, they may have neglected the other big water user: power. 

El Paso is a perfect example of this challenge.  Experiencing temperatures of 110 degrees, water use has already peaked at 132.5 million gallons/day and power at a staggering 1,382 megawatts (MWh) of power.  For comparison, a 95-degree day last month used 119.4 million gallons and 1,176 MWh.  In the past, the city of El Paso implemented successful programs to reduce lawn watering and their overall water use has been fairly consistent even with a rise in population; however, water is still scarce and additional power demands only exacerbate the problem. 

Historically the water and energy sectors have planned efficiency separately, but that time has passed.  Collaborative planning can ensure maximum savings and ensure avoidance of unintended consequences. Solutions such as joint rebate programs between agencies encourage the customer to replace old equipment while providing a double savings for the city.  The only way cities like El Paso can achieve true sustainability is to merge efficiency planning in the water and power sectors.  Together, maybe we can beat the heat!

When it comes to water, this take-or-pay approach is at a minimum a disincentive to conserving water.

A couple of interesting examples of municipal water conservation have crossed my desk lately; one has been in place for a while with great results and the other is just starting up.  Both are great models for other cities facing water supply challenges. 

The Success Story

The LA Times recently reported that Los Angeles’s February 2010 water use was the lowest it has been in 31 years!   That’s right. Even though the city grew by one million people, overall water use declined.  The 30 billion gallons saved in the last nine months is enough to supply more than half of Austin for a year.  If that doesn’t illustrate the power of conservation, I don’t know what will. 

Current water use in LA is 20% less than in was in 2007.   Officials think that the decrease was originally motivated by the 2007 intense drought conditions. The residential user now uses 30% less than they did in February 1997. 

The New Story

The Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex has often been criticized for its lack of conservation efforts, but times seem to be changing.  When the 16-country North Texas planning area rolled out is water supply plan for the next 50 years, conservation and reuse was projected to account for 23% of future water supply.  Perhaps this was the result of the realization of regional water shortages in the future and the understanding that saving water is a lot cheaper than large pipeline projects. 

Now there is news of a public education campaign run by the Tarrant Regional Water District encouraging citizens to save water during the summer.   The media campaign focuses on outdoor and indoor water conservation opportunities.  Education campaigns such as these are a long term investment in creating a conservation culture. 

Clearly there is a lot of work still to be done in this region and we would love to see an increase in the conservation only targets, but it’s an improvement. Hopefully some day we will hear LA-style success stories in North Texas.

No, it’s not a new dance craze.  The tussle over Toledo Bend Reservoir, located on the Sabine River, and shared by Louisiana and Texas, is about balancing the protection of the incredible biodiversity of our easternmost river basin with water supply needs. 

 Built during the mid-1960s, Toledo Bend is one of our largest reservoirs, capable of storing about 4.5 million acre-feet of water.    But, most of this stored water is not currently being consumed for municipal or industrial purposes.  Louisiana uses very little of its 1 million AF share of the reservoir.  In Texas, the Sabine River Authority (SRA) has contracted for sale of only a very modest percentage of the 750,000 acre-feet/year water rights permit it holds from the state of Texas. 

 But, SRA and regional water planners have apparently set their sights on transferring up to 700,000 acre-feet/year out of Toledo Bend (and out of the Sabine basin) to supply the water needs of the Dallas-Fort Worth region (in 2060!).  SRA has also applied for another 250,000 acre-feet of water from Toledo Bend. 

 Back in 2000, there was substantial in-basin opposition to moving water out of Toledo Bend and over to Houston, so much so that the idea was not included in the 2000 Region H water plan.  The Senate Bill 3 environmental flows process has again highlighted the debate over how to manage the wealth of water in this basin.

 With a big push from SRA, the Sabine/Neches Bay and Basin Stakeholders Committee recently took the position that meeting the environmental flow recommendations prepared by that basin’s science group would cause reservoir levels to be lowered too far, adversely affecting waterfront property values and the fishing and tourism industry that has built up around Toledo Bend. 

 Modeling conducted by the consulting firm AECOM for SRA concluded that meeting the subsistence, base and pulse flows environmental flow regime recommendations developed by the science team would reduce the Texas yield of the Toledo Bend Reservoir by 617,000.  It appears to us, at least as far as we can tell from the modeling done for SRA, that this environmental flow estimate might overstate what the bay/basin science committee recommended, due to certain assumptions apparently included in the effects modeling.  But, there was very little time for either the stakeholders or other interested parties to review the AECOM modeling before the stakeholders were required to make their recommendation.  

 The AECOM study did not fully examine how implementation of the in-basin flow recommendations, as is or slightly modified from the BBEST recommendations, would compare to the effects of exporting 700,000 acre-feet of water from Toledo Bend to the Dallas Fort Worth area (meaning no return flows available to help meet environmental flow needs in the Sabine).  That is, how would export of this much water out of Toledo Bend affect those same economic interests around the reservoir, let alone downstream fishing and tourism economic interests that depend on freshwater flows to sustain Sabine Lake?

 Clearly, there are more questions than answers right now in trying to determine how protecting the valuable aquatic resources of the Sabine River and Sabine Lake should be done in the context of meeting realistic water supply needs.   Nevertheless, there is still time within the SB 3 process to find reasonable compromises, if all the cards are on the table so that potential trade-offs are clear.  In our view, the SB 3 process in the Sabine would be well-served by additional independent modeling analysis of the potential effect of proposed environmental flow recommendations on reservoir levels.

We have already talked a lot about water conservation on this blog, but the sunset process is another opportunity to streamline agency procedures to increase water savings. One way to do this is to strengthen the review process of the mandated municipal water conservation plans.

Most cities and retail water suppliers are required to submit conservation plans every five years to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) or the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) to coincide with the regional water planning process. 

By law, several critical things must be included in the plans, such as 5 and 10-year usage goals and conservation pricing measures. The problem is that TCEQ does not analyze the reports to ensure they are truly conservation oriented.  Reports are only reviewed for completeness when they should be reviewed for sufficiency.  This leads to a great variation in the aggressiveness of the submissions.  A critical review by agency experts would increase accountability and create a dialogue to assist cities in their programs while saving more water.   After all – if cities are going to take them time to prepare these – shouldn’t they save the most water possible? 

The Sunset Commission should recommend that the TCEQ and TWDB ensure the following items are included in the plans:

• Pricing schemes should involve rate structures that provide incentives to reduce water use. 
• Non-price measures should be evaluated including leak detection programs; plumbing fixture retrofits; audits of household and industrial water use; landscaping audit and incentive programs; and public education. 
• Educational programs should be included for all age groups. Bill format can also act as an educational tool to inform customers about their usage compared to the average user and previous months.
• Rebates for appliances with dual benefits can be shared between energy and water utilities to defray costs.
• In addition to residential programs, there is significant conservation potential in the industrial and commercial sectors. 
• Cities should adopt ambitious GPCD goals and not simply use the minimum state recommended reduction of 1 % per year, especially if a city’s current use is far above 140 GPCD.

To maximize water conservation in Texas cities, TCEQ and TWDB must have the direction and additional resources to allow their staffs to aggressively and effectively implement water conservation plan requirements to conduct a substantive review of plans submitted and require improvements.

Reducing municipal water use saves taxpayer money, even as it helps to extend our water supplies for future growth, while protecting the beautiful rivers and streams of this state for fish, wildlife and recreation.