Category Archives: LCRA

In Texas, Your Water May be My Water Too

By | Published: March 17, 2012

Lately there have been a rash of articles discussing water resources and the drought.  Unfortunately, they are all focused on people using more water than they do under normal conditions or on finding new supply so people can continue to use more water.  The problem with this is that the water now proposed as "new supply" may be depended on by another user, the environment, or it might be part of a groundwater/surface water connection in a cherished area.

What's the Big Deal?

First things first.  You may have noticed a little rain outside, but it doesn't mean that the drought is over.  Far from it.  The highland lakes are currently less than 50% full and the ground in many areas is still bone dry to say nothing of all the trees and wildlife that may not recover. Many parts of Texas have still received little to no rain.  This is an important starting point for understanding the water situation as summer approaches.  If the drought continues, there will be areas in Texas where all water needs cannot be met.

The Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) recently announced its plans to develop 100,000 acre-feet of "new" water through a variety of different technologies (none of which is conservation, by the way).   Proposed project costs range from $1.9 billion to $177 million.  Ideas include desalination, off-channel reservoirs and groundwater pumping among others.  Although none of these ideas have been committed to by the board, they all have implications for other users.

This announcement comes at the heels of rice farmers not receiving their allotted water so that other users with firm contracts (such as City of Austin) could be guaranteed water.  How does this inability to deliver downstream change the relationship between farmers and Austinites?  If a farmer comes to town and sees water running down the street, might they wonder how that relates to their inability to farm this year?  This was certainly true in the case of proposed Fastrill Reservoir.  Local citizens were angered at the thought of their land being taken to provide water for Dallas lawns.  The problem with water is that it doesn't exist in a vacuum, it is a system.  That system means that we are interrelated as much as the waters are.  Unfortunately, the law often doesn't recognize this.

Groundwater v. Surface Water?

Nowhere is this more obvious than the way our legal system bifurcates the regulation of surface water and groundwater.  The problem is that nature doesn't follow along.  A recent example of this creates particular cause for concern.  Earlier this month, the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) approved the Desired Future Conditions (DFCs) for the Trinity Aquifer in western Hays County. While this act alone may not be noteworthy, this will directly affect the Texas treasure known as Jacob's Well.  Jacob's Well is one of many locations in Texas where groundwater changes character to surface water.   We know geologically and historically that allowing over pumping of groundwater will make these beautiful areas disappear.  Should the water needs of a growing residential area take priority over such a unique place? What if those residents don't use the water wisely?

As we move into the crowded and hot future, priorities will need to be set and accountability between neighbors will continue to increase.  As water resources dwindle, the state grows smaller and what happens in one part of the state directly affects the livelihood of another Texan miles away.  As we plan for the future, we need to keep this in mind.

Also posted in Austin, Central Texas, Drought, Environmental Flows, Reservoirs, Resources, Texas Rivers, Water Conservation | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

What is Water Really Worth?

By | Published: February 19, 2012

"When the well runs dry, we shall know the value of water." – Benjamin Franklin

It is often said that water is priceless because of its important to all aspects of our lives.  Despite this, society's actions often don't reflect this importance.  Water waste is still a large issue through leaking water pipes or excessive watering, which causes water to run down the street.  Perhaps the source of this disconnect is that we don't pay what water is worth.   In fact, we usually don't pay for water itself.  City dwellers only pay for the cost of transportation and treatment.  Texas agricultural users historically only paid to drill the well and/or for the pump.  As many cities review their water rates and usage, it is important to know what we pay for and think about how much we should pay for in the future.

Rate structures should be conservation oriented. A basic quantity of water for domestic uses should be available at a low price to ensure that everyone has equal access, but additional water should be increasingly more expensive with volume.  If a user wants to use more than their fair share, they will have to pay for it.  Although Corpus may be shying away from making their users accountable, the Lower Colorado River Authority is doing just the opposite.  It turns out many users on the highland lakes are accessing water without an active contract. In other words, they are getting water for free.  After waiting 2 years for nonpaying users to self report, LCRA will be reporting violators to Texas Commission on Environmental Quality for enforcement.

A new report from the Texas comptroller's office evaluates the impacts of different drought scenarios on the economy of Texas and predicts actions that the state would need to take in response including the incentivization of low flush and dual flush toilets and water efficient home appliances.  It is unclear why this should only occur if drought continues.  Water should be conserved and used in the most efficient way possible all the time, not just in times of drought.  Cities often feel that this is not necessary when water is "available" but the reality is that all water not used by them will be used by another person or the environment or can be saved for a dry day.  More importantly, if citizens always use water in an efficient way, it is easier to adjust to dry conditions and plan for uncertainty.

 

Also posted in Austin, Central Texas, Drought, Resources, Texas Economy, Water Conservation | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Will the Drought Change the Way We Do Business?

By | Published: October 25, 2011

One theme that continues to grow louder is that this drought is not like the others.  This one changes things.  Multi-generational ranchers and farmers are selling their stock and looking out over their parched land and wondering if the work of their ancestry has reached an end.  Similarly, on Lake Travis and other Texas lakes, boat access restaurants and other lake-related businesses are experiencing desperate times.  All of these stories force Texans to realize that the past may be just that.   Assumptions about water can no longer be relied upon and we must change the way we manage a supply that can be so easily placed in peril.

One change that needs to occur is the way we manage water.  As we have already written, this needs to be done at the state and local levels.   A recent opinion piece in the Austin Statesman called on the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) to change their water management plan and take a more active role in the usage of their customers.  Of course, any water management changes made by the LCRA would certainly affect Austin, their largest customer.  Austin, which didn't implement additional water restrictions until early September is already facing looming Stage 3 restrictions by spring.

These drastic reductions, as currently written, ban almost all outdoor watering.  Austin Water Utility (AWU) representatives stated that Stage 3 was meant to be limited to emergencies and limited implementation.  The late implementation of Stage 2 and pending Stage 3 issues call the drought triggers and reductions into question.  AWU and the Mayor are pushing for a rewrite of the plan before it gets to Stage 3.  To be effective, any rewrite also needs to critically evaluate the Stage 2 triggers to ensure they are happening early enough to help us weather a true drought like this one and not just a dry summer.

Meanwhile, as some watch their livelihood slip away due to the drought others still feel they have a right to use a disproportionate portion of this shared resource.  Most of us have seen water running into the street or seen sprinklers working during the heat of the day.   Austin recently published their top ten water users, many of whom were not strangers to the list including cycling legend Lance Armstrong, who while not on it last year has been featured in the past.  The top user, Robert W. Girling used a staggering two million gallons of water in 2010.  For comparison sake, I used 35,000 gallons.

Another repeater, Congressman Michael McCaul blamed his high ranking on a leak for the third year in a row.  Lists like these are sometimes criticized.  Opponents argue that if people pay for the water so they shouldn't be exposed.  This argument might be more valid if their actions didn't affect all other water users.  Water belongs to all of us and the only way we will succeed is to work together. So, if you see your neighbor watering their driveway, you may want to ask them nicely to stop.  It's time to handle our water business differently.

Also posted in Austin, Central Texas, Drought, Water Planning | Tagged , , , | 4 Responses

LCRA Considers Reducing Water for Rice

By | Published: September 18, 2011

UPDATE: On September 21st, LCRA voted on a proposal(discussed below) to give coastal Texas rice farmers significantly less water next year. The proposal now to the TCEQ, which needs to approve the plan for it to go into effect.

Late last week, the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) announced that downstream rice farmers may soon be receiving less water unless is starts to rain.  Due to the extensive drought, the combined storage of lakes Travis and Buchanan have been dropping precipitously and could drop to 640,000-680,000 acre-feet by January 1, 2012.  This low level is perilously close to the 600,000 acre-foot mark making the conditions worse than the 1950s drought of record.  With weather models predicting another dry year in front of us, LCRA is attempting to save as much water in the highland lakes as possible in case no rain comes.  One way to do this is to reduce the one user who can legally lose water, agriculture.

The LCRA is a permit holder to approximately to 2.1 million acre-feet/year of Colorado River water.  They contract the water to various users including cities, industry and agriculture.  These contracts can take two forms:

1) Firm water contract mean that water is available even during a severe drought. Cities, industries and electric power plants rely on firm water supplies.

2) Interruptible water is subject to rationing or curtailment first when there isn't enough for everyone. This type of contract is primarily used for agriculture

Factors that LCRA will be taking into consideration include the combined lake storage levels at the beginning of the year as well as the weather projections.  The hope is to avoid releasing water for the start of a crop if a later release to complete the crop season won't be possible.  LCRA deems this a waste of water because the initial water is consumed, but the crop can't be realized.

In order to reduce agricultural water or implement any other measure that deviates from the Water Management Plan, the LCRA has to seek approval from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

This issue and other potential drought management options will be discussed at LCRA's Water Operations Committee September 20th and the Board Meeting on September 24th.  We will let you know what we hear.

Also posted in Austin, Central Texas, Texas Rivers, Water Planning | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Can LCRA “just say no” to White Stallion?

By | Published: September 1, 2011

This post was coauthored by Nadine Orrell and Marita Mirzatuny of the EDF Austin Office.

The battle for Colorado River water continues with a new move against White Stallion.  To recap – the issue is whether the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) has the discretion to deny a water contract with the proposed White Stallion Coal Plant even if the water is “available” under normal conditions.   The problem is – what is normal these days?  In all too familiar dry conditions, other users such as the downstream rice farmers would have to reduce or stop their water use.  Since we do not know if the current drought conditions will continue, is now the time to make long-term commitments of “firm” water by granting the White Stallion Water Contract?

The Argument

LCRA’s position is that if water is available to meet a request for supply and an applicant complies with LCRA rules, LCRA must complete the contact.  The LCRA Board believes that it lacks discretion to deny the White Stallion water contract for water from “firm” supplies if those supplies were available, even if such action would force rice farmers to not have water in low water years.  However, new information indicates that the LCRA Board may have more discretion than they previously thought. 

The New Twist

 An August 29, 2011, letter from attorneys (and former Texas Commission for Environmental Quality commissioner Larry Soward) for the advocacy group No Coal Coalition to the LCRA Board of Directors, explained that the law gives the LCRA broad authority and discretion to deny the While Stallion Water Contract.  In its letter, the No Coal Coalition explained that the Texas Constitution, LCRA’s Enabling Legislation and its Water Management Plan (WMP) give LCRA the power to say no to water contracts even if the water is available under normal conditions. 

Section 59, Article XVI of the Texas Constitution gives LCRA the ability to “control, store, preserve and distribute” the waters of its rivers and streams.   LCRA’s Enabling Legislation § 8503.004, states that LCRA “may control, store, and preserve” and “may use, distribute, and sell” its waters.   Its Enabling Legislation § 8503.004(u) actually gives LCRA plenary authority to “do any and all other acts or things necessary or convenient… to the exercise of all…authority or functions conferred …by the constitution, this chapter, or any law.”   LCRA’s WMP further requires LCRA to act as a steward and exercise discretion in its role as a water manager, overseeing firm and interruptible users, and engaging in long-term planning.  In this case, that might not include the committed 25,400 acre-feet (or 8 x 109 gallons!) to a new coal plant.

Although the vote on White Stallion is currently postponed, similar issues still remain. Considering the drought conditions that we have experienced here in Texas, LCRA should exercise its broad authority and discretion to control its water contracts and just say no to White Stallion Water and others like them.

Also posted in Austin, Central Texas, Energy-Water Nexus, Texas Rivers, Water Conservation, Water Planning | Tagged , , , , | 1 Response

It's Back to the Drawing Board for White Stallion

By | Published: August 4, 2011

Just a quick update on something we have been following.  It seems that the vote on the contract to provide White Stallion coal plant with Colorado River water has been indefinitely postponed. 

The Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) vote, which had been previously postponed until August 10 is now back at the negotiating table.  It seems that White Stallion has significantly changed the terms of the contract. 

The proposed changes include extending the amount of time White Stallion officials would have to pay LRCRA $55 million, which was to be used for water infrastructure development.  The new proposal also includes lower fees for White Stallion. 

It is unclear how long this will deltay the vote, but we will keep our eyes on it and let you know.

Also posted in Austin, Central Texas, Energy-Water Nexus, Houston, Texas Rivers, Water Planning | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

NPRs Lake Travis Story Not Completely Fair

By | Published: June 29, 2011

There was an interesting NPR story today about Lake Travis depletion and how  the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) appears to rank their users.  Folks with houses and businesses on the lake claim that no one cares about them.  Similar pronouncements can heard around other depleted water reservoirs around the state.  It all brings up the question of which use is more important?  Do cities trump recreation, do jet skis override agriculture?  Only we can decide.

We do have one small bone to pick with the story.  If you have been reading our blog, you probably already know that the rice farmers aren't sitting as pretty as the story would have you believe.  Most farmers have an interruptable contract, which means that during drought or times of high demand, their water can be reduced. This is not true of the contracts with City of Austin or power producers who have firm contracts – or a guaranteed amount.  It is a bit unfair to imply that Lake Travis businesses are suffering while rice farmers are not.  The problems at Lake Travis are a result of all the water users along the Lower Colorado including municipal and industrial users who were hardly mentioned in the piece.  In fact, Austin is still only in Stage 1 watering restrictions.

As we have said before, the issue is management and how we calculate "available" water.  Don't forget the White Stallion Water Contract is up for discussion again in August.  Who knows that Lake Travis will look like then.

Also posted in Austin, Central Texas, Energy-Water Nexus, Water Planning | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Saying goodbye to LCRA's Tom Mason

By | Published: June 10, 2011

It is with heavy hearts that we bid Mr. Tom Mason farewell from his position as General Manager of the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA).  Effective July 1, Mr. Mason will leave the LCRA after 4 years in that position and 24 years with the Authority.

Decisions of the LCRA affect water and power for hundreds of thousands of Texans.  As water becomes scarcer, the ability  to balance all the interests along the Colorado River including cities, agriculture, industry and the environment gets increasingly difficult.  Mr. Mason's tenure as general manager has been impressive as he successfully connected with customers, promoted water conservation and attempted to strike a balance between all water needs.  He also increased transparency of the organization and built coalitions, which isn't always easy in Texas water.

Evidence of Tom's abilities is reflected in all the published supportive statements from board members, legislators and environmental advocates just to name a few.  Former board member B. R. Skipper Wallace originally had reservations about Mr. Mason stating, “I’ll be frank to tell you that when we first interviewed him that I told him that his background was not to my liking,” Skipper Wallace said. “That he had some liberal connections to organizations and law firms that were not to my liking since I’m very conservative.”  He later changed his mind because Mr. Mason proved himself.

In the wake of his resignation, people are postulating on the political impetus behind his decision.  It is regretful that someone doing their job so well might be influenced to make such a decision.  No doubt the pressure on him throughout his tenure was extreme at times, but he managed to stand up for the good of the many.   Jim Marston, the head of our Texas office who always has a way with words said this, "Tom Mason is one of those all too rare public servants who performed his job well for he public and never let politics or ideology get in the way of doing what is right."

I couldn't have said it better myself.  Good luck Tom. Thanks for a job well done and I hope we meet again.

Also posted in Austin, Central Texas, Legislature, Water Planning | Leave a comment