Could TWDB Resolution of an Interregional Conflict Lead to a Waste of Taxpayer Money?

Post was written by Jennifer Walker who works on water issues at the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club.

The future of Texas groundwater is currently being determined by the regional water planning process.  As we have written before, each regional water planning group is responsible for determining how the area will meet their water needs for the next 50 years. But what happens when two groups make conflicting plans to use the same water?  This is exactly what is occurring between Region K and Region L, both have planned to use limited groundwater supplies from the Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer in Bastrop County.  Instead of mediating the problem and working towards a real lasting solution, the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) may be providing money to create a bigger problem.  Is this really how we want a state agency to behave?

Water Supply Tug of War

Both Region K and Region L planning groups have developed water management strategies that utilize the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer.  The Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation District (LPGCD), responsible for regulating production of water in Bastrop and Lee counties, has determined that the water available from this aquifer is 28,000 acre-feet per year.   The Region K Initially Prepared Plan (IPP) allocated practically all of this available water to meet growing demands in Bastrop County through the year 2060.  Keep in mind, the LPGCD already placed a moratorium on new permits because of limited groundwater availability.

At the same time, the Region L Planning Group has developed a water management strategy that uses the same water for a project referred to as the “Guadalupe Blanco River Authority Simsboro Project.”  The strategy contemplates installation of a well field in the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer in Bastrop County to extract 30,000 acre-feet per year to be moved in via pipeline to customers in Hays and Caldwell counties. GBRA plans to purchase this water from the private water marketing firm End-Op; however, their application for a groundwater permit from LPGCD has yet to be approved.

To make things more complicated, Groundwater Management Area 12 (GMA 12) has been meeting for the past several years to determine the Desired Future Conditions (DFC) for the aquifers that they manage.  LPGCD is included in GMA 12.  The DFC will result in a Managed Available Groundwater (MAG) for each aquifer in their jurisdiction. This will be a cap on the amount of water for which LPGCD is able to issue permits.  The MAG is expected to be fairly close to the groundwater availability that LPGCD has already communicated to Region K.  So, if the Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation District ends up with a MAG that is fairly close to their current permits, they will likely not be able to issue any more permits, and the likelihood of End-Op getting a permit and being able to sell water to GBRA begins to look dicey.

What’s an Agency to do?

In an effort to “resolve” this issue, Region L decided to leave the strategy in their plan as a recommended strategy and to characterize their use of the already claimed water as an “overdraft” of the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer.  An overdraft means that they plan to use this aquifer in excess of what will be used by Region K and in excess of the stated aquifer availability by LPGCD.  Simply renaming the strategy does not solve the problem.  Why didn’t Region L remove the GBRA Simsboro strategy from the plan, or change it to an alternative strategy?   The answer is primarily money.

What is truly shocking is that the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), charged with managing the Regional Water Planning Process and therefore Texas’ water resources, views this double-dipping as a resolution of the interregional conflict.  In fact, GBRA wants TWDB to help pay for the planning and financing the pipeline project with taxpayer dollars.

Just so we are clear — Two regional planning groups want to use the same water.  Although Region L claims their use will be an overdraft and the entity GBRA wants to purchase the water from doesn’t even have a permit for that water, GBRA wants to get taxpayer money from the TWDB for a feasibility study to build the water pipeline.

Is this the role of a state agency?  Shouldn’t an agency do the hard work of meditating this issue so that two groups aren’t relying on the same, already limited water source?   The stated mission of the TWDB is “To provide leadership, planning, financial assistance, information, and education for the conservation and responsible development of water for Texas.”  We are waiting for the leadership.

This entry was posted in Central Texas, Regional Planning Process, Resources, Water Planning. Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

3 Comments

  1. Laura
    Posted August 25, 2010 at 10:22 am | Permalink

    Jennifer, great post. Do you think any of these issues will be resolved in the upcoming TX Legislative Session?

  2. Laura
    Posted August 25, 2010 at 10:23 am | Permalink

    Very interesting. So when will this all play out? A few months? A year?

  3. Jennifer Walker
    Posted August 30, 2010 at 11:57 am | Permalink

    Thanks for your questions Laura. No one can predict what will happen at the legislature. We have heard that there will be bills introduced that focus on groundwater and how to work through some of these issues. We will monitor those bills as they are introduced and keep you all posted through this blog and our organization's website http://www.texas.sierraclub.org.

    As far as the timeline goes for this to play out. The regional water plans have been adopted by the individual planning groups and those will go to TWDB to be intergrated into the State Water Plan and then it is another 5 years until the next plan comes out.

    The DFC statements from the Groundwater Management Areas are due to the TWDB on September 1st. We will have an answer back on the Managed Avalailable Groundwater (MAG) for the Carrizo Wilcox in the next 6 months or so after that deadline. Regional Water Plans must conform with the MAGs. I think that might be our best bet to push the RWPGs to comes up with plans that do not oversubscribe groundwater resources in this area. Stay Posted.

One Trackback

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>