Category Archives: Water Quality

TCEQ Proposed Rules Fail to Protect Central and South Central Texas Rivers and Bays

By | Published: April 16, 2012

This post was guest written by Joanna Wolaver, Water Policy Associate, National Wildlife Federation

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) proposed a rule on Friday, April 13th that will determine the amount of water that must remain flowing in Central and South Central Texas rivers and into the region’s bays to sustain fish and wildlife populations. Unfortunately, this rule fails to include many of the protections recommended by the region’s stakeholder committees, leaving fish, oysters, whooping cranes and other wildlife high and dry. The good news is that there is still time to improve the rule by voicing support for stronger flow protections to Commissioners during the public comment period, which runs from now until May 14, 2012.

A Little Background

In 2007, the Texas Legislature acknowledged the need to protect water for fish and wildlife with the passage of Senate Bill 3. This landmark bill recognized the critical role environmental flows play in maintaining the ecological health and productivity of Texas rivers and estuaries and all the economic factors associated with them. It set in motion a stakeholder process to create flow standards for each of Texas’s major river basins and associated bays that would be applied to any new water permits that are granted.

Under this law, the state appoints a committee of stakeholders for each region that includes representatives from a diverse set of interests including river authorities, municipalities, industries, environmental interests, regional water planning groups, commercial and recreational fishermen, agricultural interests and others. Each  committee, with assistance from their science advisors, is to develop consensus-based recommendations for flow standards that find an appropriate balance between protecting the environment and providing for human water needs in the basin. These recommendations are then submitted to TCEQ, which has one year to consider them and adopt rules for the region.

Stakeholders Recommend Balanced Protections

In September 2011, the stakeholder groups for the Central and South Central Texas regions–the Colorado and Lavaca Rivers/Matagorda and Lavaca Bays committee and Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers/San Antonio Bay System committee – submitted  flow recommendations to TCEQ that provide a reasonable level of protection for fish and wildlife while also allowing for future uses of water to provide for human needs.

Developing these recommendations was no small feat, as noted in a recent San Antonio-Express News opinion piece. For one, striking a balance between the needs of fish and wildlife and future human water supply demands is never an easy task. Making matters more difficult, these committees were faced with the reality that much of the water flowing in these region’s rivers has already been permitted for use with little or no consideration of the impacts on fish and wildlife.

Despite these challenges, after months of deliberation and compromise, the Colorado/Lavaca stakeholder committee unanimously approved flow recommendations that struck a reasonable balance. The Guadalupe/San Antonio comittee also developed comprehensive recommendations, endorsed by a super-majority vote of 21 to 3.

Proposed Rules Beg for Improvement

To the frustration of the vast majority of the stakeholders, the rule proposed by TCEQ for Central and South Central Texas rivers and bays fails to incorporate key aspects of the stakeholder recommendations with insufficient explanation from agency staff as to why those key aspects where left out. This leaves the region’s fish and wildlife populations at risk. Fortunately, the public comment process provides an opportunity to improve these flow standards before they are adopted by the three TCEQ Commissioners in August.

We urge you to join the National Wildlife Federation and our Texas Living Waters Project partners in asking the Commissioners to safeguard Central Texas’s fish and wildlife populations – and the jobs that depend on them – by strengthening the proposed rule. Please consider submitting comments on the rule by May 14, 2012.

For more information on environmental flows and other Texas water issues, visit www.TexasWaterMatters.org.

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

The Natural Gas Industry Is Its Own Worst Enemy

By | Published: March 4, 2011

This post from EDF's Mark Brownstein was published to the Texas Energy Exchange on March 4, 2011

Anyone who thinks “old media” is dead should have spent this week with me in Washington, DC. Virtually everywhere I went folks were discussing the articles in the New York Times this week on the water pollution issues associated with natural gas development. Although ProPublica has done an excellent job of covering the many environmental issues associated with shale gas development for more than a year, there still is nothing like a front page story in the New York Times to get the attention of policymakers in Washington.

Of course, the New York Times tale of water quality regulators seemingly asleep at the switch, or worse, actually hiding data and findings, is a story sure to catch anyone’s eye. And in the days leading up to the Academy Awards, where “Gasland” was competing for the best documentary award, hydraulic fracturing seemed to be everywhere in the media, and all of it bad news stories. Flaming water faucets are an image hard to resist or dismiss.

But as the flurry of media attention begins to die down as the week comes to a close, we are left with two simple truths to reflect upon. The first is that America is awash in natural gas, and this promises to be a good thing both in terms of national energy security and air quality, at least in comparison to coal, which is America’s other abundant domestic energy resource. (Yes, we actually have a fair amount of oil, too, but even the biggest boosters of domestic production concede the days of America being oil self-sufficient are long gone). The second simple truth is that the vast majority natural gas industry is squandering this opportunity through a combination of reckless indifference and sloppy production practices.

No one should give either state or federal regulators a free pass on failures to act aggressively to enforce existing oil and gas production regulations, or act equally quickly to revise regulations where they clearly are failing to protect public health and the environment in the onslaught of natural gas production in what IHS Cambridge Energy Resource Associates (IHS CERA) calls the “Shale Gale.” But focusing all of our ire on the regulators’ failures gives the natural gas producers a perverse excuse. For an example of this, see my post two weeks ago, where I took an industry lawyer to task for making the claim that regulators were at fault for failing to tell natural gas producers that it is a bad idea to use diesel fuel as a hydraulic fracturing fluid. As if someone needs to be told that injecting diesel fuel into the ground might be a bad idea!

So, by all means, put the heat on the federal Environmental Protection Agency and your state environmental regulators, and hold Congress and state legislatures accountable for providing the resources needed to have good regulations and good enforcement. But please save some of your indignation for those gas producers who are failing to come to grips with the issues of the day. Natural gas producers know better than anyone what is in the water that is produced during the natural gas production process, and no one should let them get away with claiming otherwise. Sadly, unlike a few of their more progressive colleagues, many natural gas producers fail to understand that they have an affirmative obligation to minimize the possibility that contaminated water causes harm to public health and the environment. And even worse, far too few of them take proactive steps to reduce air and water pollution from their production processes – steps that actually could save them money in the long run.

The industry seems more inclined to operate by the principle that “haste makes waste.” More than anything else, what the New York Times articles demonstrate is that, taken as a whole, the natural gas production industry is simply failing to hold itself accountable for adhering to the highest common sense standards of environmental stewardship. And unless and until the natural gas industry does, don’t expect any good news stories about natural gas in either old or new media.

Also posted in Energy-Water Nexus | Tagged | 1 Response

Houston, We Have a Water Problem

By | Published: February 25, 2011

This blog was written by Marita Mirzatuny at EDF.

At current usage rates, the City of Houston will exceed their water supply by roughly 35% by 2060. This shortfall will require an additional 1 billion gallons a day to provide for the city’s needs. The projected population in the region is expected to double during the next 40-50 years, with Houston absorbing an additional 3.5 million residents, presenting very difficult water challenges. Luckily, solutions exist ranging from conservation, mandatory restrictions, improved planning such as green building and replacing impervious ground cover to increase recharge and reduce runoff. The question is whether Houston will stand up and take action. If their water use is any indication, Houston residents seem unaware of their water future.  Perhaps the $13 billion dollar investment needed to stave off water scarcity will get their attention.

Where is Houston now?

Water rates are already on the rise with businesses seeing a 10% increase and a single family home increase of 30%.  Despite this, 50-60% of water usage still goes to watering residential and commercial lawns under a very hot Texas sun. Much of this is wasted through overwatering. In 2060, citizens may wonder if lawn watering was the best use of fresh potable water. Indoors, 75% of household water use is in the bathroom. These are clearly areas to target for water reductions.

Although Houston is surrounded by water, years of abuse have resulted in 87% its waterways being so polluted they cannot meet their designated uses such as drinking, fishing, recreation or propagation. The cost of cleaning this water to fill the demand void will figure in substantially to the coming financial burden. While the idea of letting polluted water remain so is not ideal, less water used will mean less water to clean.

 What’s on the horizon?

And then there's climate change. While many Texas politicians continue to deny its effects, other states are attempting to address the starkly real consequences. Water sources are already showing impacts with unpredictable rain events, warmer summers, and less precipitation. In the Southwest, water sources are being altered by reduced snowpack, warmer winters, and earlier stream flows and water projections are becoming potentially catastrophic, with 7.26 billion households facing a shortfall over the next century. The replacement cost of this water, which is used mainly for agriculture in the San Joaquin valley, is $2.3-4 trillion assuming you can even find a source.  From 2003-2010, total loss of groundwater from Sacramento & San Joaquin river basins, due to withdrawal and alteration,  is equivalent to Lake Mead when it is full.

What can be done?

Texas and Houston need to take note. While reactions during drought seasons, such as the one in 2009, seem to invoke discussion, enhanced conservation measures and restrictions still seem to elude decision makers.  Emphasis on these issues needs to be ongoing and concrete, not merely when there is stretch of dry weather.

"The days of cheap water are over," says Jim Stinson, deputy general manager for the San Jacinto River Authority. Discussing The Woodland's water waste, he focused on the "34 wells that are being rehabilitated (costing $400,000 – $500,000) and those that may need to be built in the future (at a cost of $1 million to $1.7 million per well). He added however, that, "if we can achieve substantial conservation, we can eliminate the use for new wells." Instead of saying "if we can achieve substantial conservation," we need to say that "we will achieve substantial conservation." League City has started the process with its approval of a water plan last year that in addition to rate increases also identifies methods of reusing water and moving away from irrigated watering systems. Houston needs to implement these best practices to plan now how a city once full of water can remain sustainable in the future. 

Also posted in Climate Change, Houston, Regional Planning Process, Texas Rivers, Water Planning | Tagged , , , | 1 Response

Follow up to yesterday's post – - Good news "for now"

By | Published: December 16, 2010

Guest Post by Ken Kramer – Director of the Lone Star Chapter of Sierra Club

I'm pleased to report that at the Sunset Advisory Commission meeting this morning the Chairman of the Commission, Senator Glenn Hegar, who had initially floated the idea of abolishing the state's Water Conservation Advisory Council, announced after a brief discussion that he was withdrawing his suggestion "for now." This announcement came after the Chairman and other members of the Commission had received numerous communications in opposition to the proposed elimination and after two members of the Sunset Commission, Rep. Larry Taylor and Sen. Robert Nichols, made supportive arguments at this morning's meeting in favor of continuing the Water Conservation Advisory Council.

As a result of this morning's actions the Sunset Advisory Commission report and decisions on the Texas Water Development Board (the primary state agency which the Council advises) will NOT recommend abolition of the Advisory Council. Indeed, ironically the Commission report includes a couple of recommendations which specifically call upon the Water Development Board and/or TCEQ to work with the Advisory Council on specific water conservation activities.

Thus, the Advisory Council is "safe" for the time being. But remember that no person's "life, liberty or property" or valued Advisory Council is safe while the Legislature is in session. The regular session of the Texas Legislature begins January 11. We will need to carefully monitor the Legislature to be on guard for any attempts during the legislative session to eliminate the Council either through a specific bill introduced for that purpose or – more likely – a last minute amendment to a more general bill. Sen. Hegar indicated in withdrawing his proposal at the Sunset Commission meeting that he is still not convinced of the need for the Council, so he might make an effort to abolish the Council during the legislative session. Stay tuned.

In the meantime though, thanks to everyone who contacted members of the Sunset Advisory Commission on behalf of continuing the Water Conservation Advisory Council. Your support and your quick response is appreciated, especially at this busy time of the year, and it paid off!!

Also posted in Austin, Sunset, TWDB, Water Conservation | Tagged , , , | 1 Response

TCEQ Adopts Revised Water Quality Standards

By | Published: July 2, 2010

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.  

Also posted in TCEQ | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Proposed Water Quality Standards Revision a Bad Idea

By | Published: March 22, 2010

We’ve set up this blog to deal mainly with water supply issues. But sometimes, something so ridiculous comes along that we just can’t resist bringing it to your attention.

Such is the case with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) proposed revisions to the state’s all important water quality standards. These standards govern how much pollution is allowed in our rivers and streams. In theory, under the federal Clean Water Act, all our rivers and streams are supposed to be fishable and swimmable. Of course, we have not yet achieved that goal, though substantial progress has been made over the last several decades.

But now, TCEQ is proposing to undermine much of that progress. University of Texas law professor Tom McGarity says it best in a opinion piece in the Austin American Statesman: 

"The recent proposal by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to downgrade the state's water quality standards for most of the surface water in the state should trouble all who believe they have a right to swim, fish or simply wade in a cool Texas stream without the risk of contracting a gruesome waterborne disease."

Essentially, TCEQ is proposing to allow certain rivers and streams to have higher levels of bacteria—the kind of bacteria found in sewage and animal waste. As Professor McGarity explains:

"TCEQ plans to change the standards for the vast majority of Texas rivers and streams from the current "contract recreation" designation, which allows only 126 colonies of E. coli bacteria, to new designations that would allow 206 colonies in some "swimmable" waters and up to 630 colonies in waters used primarily for fishing and boating."

Sound good to you? If not—or even if it does—McGarity’s piece is definitely worth reading. If you are concerned about TCEQ’s proposed actions, contact your state legislator and let them know you want to keep all Texas waters fishable and swimmable!

Posted in Water Quality | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Response