The drought of 2011 highlighted the challenges facing Texas in meeting the water needs of Texans and the environmental upon which they depend. On April 27th from 9-4, the Texas Living Waters Project will host the “Water for People and the Environment: Managing Texas Water Demands in the 21^st Century” conference, which will explore some of the key ways in which Texas may meet those challenges through more efficient use and more effective management of our water resources.   This conference is open to the public and provides the opportunity to learn more and participate in the conversation about water and our future.

Keynote speaker for the conference will be Brian Richter, an international authority on river conservation and director of The Nature Conservancy’s Global Freshwater Program. Richter’s program promotes sustainable water management with governments, business, and local communities. He has consulted on more than 120 river projects worldwide, focusing on the challenge of sustaining healthy rivers and lakes while meeting human needs for water and energy. Richter is the co-author (with water policy expert Sandra Postel) of the book Rivers for Life: Managing Water for People and Nature. He will bring his knowledge and experience from around the world to address Texas water challenges.

Conference sessions will focus on how Texas state agencies, regional water authorities, and communities may enhance drought management and response, water conservation, water reuse, and other tools to assure that our state has adequate water resources to sustain our people and the rivers, wetlands, and coastal bays and estuaries so critical to our economy as well as our ecology.  Hope to see you there!

Conference Information:

Conference check-in and on-site registration: 8 – 9 AM; conference sessions: 9 AM to 4 PM

Pre-registration fee: $55 regular, $25 student, deadline for pre-registration: April 23;

Registration fee at the door: $75 regular, $35 student; student ID required at check-in;

Registration fee includes refreshments, lunch, and all materials; vegetarian and gluten-free options will be available at the buffet lunch.

Conference will be held at the AT&T Executive & Conference Center, on The University of Texas campus at 1900 University Avenue, Austin.

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.

It is no secret that more Texans are moving to urban areas. More people mean more water demands. More water demand means more infrastructure and all of this requires more money.  It doesn't help that all of this increased demand is taking place during a serious drought, forcing city and state governments to explore new solutions.  The good news is that most large Texas cities are not located in a desert like Las Vegas or Phoenix, at least not yet.  That aside, the current crisis necessitates action and that seems to be starting.

What to Do?

A couple of weeks ago, Texas lawmakers on the House Natural Resources Committee came together to talk water.  One of the interesting aspects of the hearing was the focus on the need for water to preserve our economy.  Water is often discussed from an environmental or even personal lifestyle perspective, but it is also a critical part of Texas industry.  In many ways, Texas has weathered the national economic turmoil fairly well.  This cannot continue without sustainable water resources.  Cities can't grow and industry can't run.  Unfortunately, even within this reality some Texas cities, such as Corpus Christi, seem to be ignoring this harsh reality.

On the other hand, the DFW area, often vilified for its water usage, is seeking to make twice-a-week watering restrictions a permanent way of life for local citizens thanks to the banding together of four North Texas city mayors.  Whether or not this particular rule is the key to all the metroplex problems, this move towards a regional approach is most certainly a huge improvement.  As we all know, water doesn't respect physical boundaries so group planning in an important part of any water solution, particularly in areas where people work in one area and live in another.  Unified metroplex rules can solve many points of confusion that might arise.

Austin is also discussing new approaches to watering and restrictions.  Often, strict watering restrictions don't take nature into account.  It can be perfectly legal to water the day after (or during) a rainstorm even if it isn't logical.  The real key to efficient watering is a combination of when and how much. Austin is considering a pilot project that gives discretion to users regarding when they water as long as they don't exceed a monthly water budget.  Smarter technologies may be a key to helping the ground "decide" when some water is needed and when it isn't.

The Natural Resources Committee hearing also turned to infrastructure and technology.  The perceived silver bullet of desalination was again raised with references to what has been done in Australia.  It is important to note that the use of increased technology in Australia was paired with customer behavior changes.  Conservation in all aspects of life was a critical component of the overall water plan.  That being said, infrastructure is an important aspect of sustainability.

Who Should Supply Water?

Interestingly the gap between need and supply has created an opportunity for private companies to replace local agencies as water providers.  Traditionally, water supply and infrastructure has been the exclusive purview of the municipal provider, but as city to-do lists get longer, they are more willing to contract out the work.  The basic reasoning is that a private company has a financial incentive to replace old, leaking infrastructure because lost product means lost revenue.  Many criticize this shift because it changes a public service to a private, money-making enterprise and is seen as the commoditization of water, which should be a public good.  Unfortunately, a frequent side effect of privitization is exorbitant increases in water bills.  After all, these companies are here to make a profit.  On the other side of the coin, many cities simply do not have the revenue to replace pipes responsible for thousands of gallons of leaking water.

In some ways, it is hard to argue against paying higher prices for water. Many feel that we don't pay what water is worth; however, commoditizing water can be a dangerous game.  If cities are going to contract with companies, a balance must be struck.  Water is necessary for life so no one should be priced out of the market for their basic water needs.  High, punitive pricing should be reserved for large, discretionary users who may decide the price of a large lawn is worth it.  Additional issues arise if users in comparable urban areas are paying significantly different rates simply because of a local government choice.  If privitization is going to be continuing trend, state legislators need to consider putting some basic rules in place to limit what people can be forced to pay, particularly for basic amounts as well as other limitations on corporate actions as they affect water supply.

It isn't news that there isn't one answer to this issue.  Group efforts with diverse approaches are necessary, but it's good to see some important conversations taking place.  We will keep letting you know what we hear.

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.

Almost 2 years ago, in one of our first blogs, we posted about a groundwater case pending in front of the Texas Supreme Court.  At the time, none of us predicted that we would have to wait over 2 years for a decision, but wait we did — until Friday.  On February 17th, the Texas Supreme Court issued perhaps the most important decision governing groundwater since the 1904 East case declared that right of capture was Texas' official system of allocation.  While we were awaiting a ruling, the Texas legislature tried to answer the same question posed to the court with SB 332.  After enacted legislation and a 50-page opinion, the only thing that we can be certain about is more uncertainty.

Some background

Although Texas recognizes right of capture, there was a question regarding when the property right is perfected. The fundamental issue in the Edwards Aquifer Authority (EAA) v. Day case is whether an overlying landowner owns the groundwater beneath her property “in place” or whether ownership of the groundwater only vests once the groundwater has been captured through pumping.   If the property right is held in place, regulations promulgated by groundwater districts limiting pumping by a landowner may constitute a constitutional taking requiring compensation. Consequently, imposing regulations to ensure groundwater sustainability may be become difficult if not impossible.

The ruling

The Day case was initiated when the plaintiff landowners requested 700 acre-feet from the EAA and were granted a permit for 14 acre-feet so they brought a claim alleging a taking.   The EAA grants permits based on proven historic use of the water between 1972 and 1993.  The court explicitly held that landowners have a vested right in water in place; however, the court remanded the case to determine if a takings had occurred in this individual case.  In defining the rule of capture, the court defined it as right of capture for oil and gas has been classified in the state.

The impact

While the ruling is being hailed as a victory by landowners, its true implications will not be known without further litigation.    This means that future court decisions will be responsible for filling in the factual details of what constitutes a taking and what does not.  Meanwhile, while that is getting sorted out around the state, groundwater pumping may be left unchecked during a critical time and a continuing drought will only exacerbate this problem.  In addition to creating some uncertainty across the state, the ruling may put the legitimacy of multi-year, stakeholder driven Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program (RIP) into question.  This is particularly unfortunate because it was a consensus-based approach to maintaining flow in the springs while still adhering to pumping limits.  While only time will tell, it is alarming to think that this ruling may have created more questions than answers thus putting our already fragile groundwater resources at further risk.

"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.

Lately, there has been a lot of talk about the lack of water and how best to use water, but not a lot of attention has been paid to how Texas allocates water and what happens when that water is no longer available.  Although Central Texas recently received some much needed rain, the state is still well behind in average precipitation.  This continues to raise concerns among water rights holders.   In light of the current drought, many water rights are being reduced or withheld, but what does this really mean?  To understand, we must first review the law. 

Prior Appropriation

Surface water in the State of Texas is held by the state in trust for the people.   Surface water is allocated through permits issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) using the prior appropriation system.  The doctrine of prior appropriation is common in western states and simply put means first in time, first in right.    Under this system, anyone can potentially obtain a permit for a beneficial use (as defined by statute) so long as water is available and other statutory requirements are met.  A water right  is treated as real property and can be bought or sold.  Older rights,  which can date back to the 18th century are more protected and can be very valuable.   As water becomes more scarce and can no longer fulfill the needs of all permit holders, senior users can make a "call" requiring junior users to limit or cease their use so that the senior user can receive her full amount.   

Getting the "call"

Under normal conditions, everyone should be able to draw their complete permitted amount, but these aren't normal conditions.  In November 2011, TCEQ was forced to curtail several junior water rights in the Neches River Basin.  Similar calls were made througout the year in the Sabine, Brazos, Colorado, and Guadalupe River Basins.  In total, 15 calls were made by the TCEQ  in 2011, affecting 1,200 water permits across Texas and surpassing all previous years by a long shot.  Some of the effected junior rights dated back to the early 1900s.  While some of these rights were only partially curtailed, others were completely suspended effecting a suite of sectors including recreational uses, agriculture, industrial and mining.  Water rights for municipal or power generation were not suspended due to public welfare concerns.

What now?

Yesterday, TCEQ lifted 160 restrictions in the Neches River Basin allowing junior users to again access their permitted water; however, many water users across the state are still curtailed and many others are at risk, particularly if it doesn't rain. It is critical that existing users ensure they are using water in the most efficient way possible to protect from other reductions.   A review of Texas water rights in another reminder that we are all sharing these precious resources and our actions can directly effect others.  Without vigilance now, many more rights will be curtailed later.

As concerns about water supply continue, more and more stories seem to point to desalination as the answer.  Until now, most Texas desal plants are small and regionally located, but a seawater desalination plant will open on South Padre Island in 2014 again opening conversations about importing water from the coast to Central Texas.  El Paso is the largest municipal user of desal technology in Texas.  The plant on Fort Bliss is capable of treating 27.5 million gallons of water a day for regional users.  Like other technologies, desalination can be a useful tool for water resources, but there are other important considerations to be made before it is hailed as the final solution. 

Price

To date, one of the stopping points for using desal as a water supply alternative is it's price.  Treatment of brackish groundwater can be 4 times as expensive as freshwater supply and the price increases considerably for salt water.  Of course price is also contingent on location.  Brackish groundwater often has the advantage of being local without additional pipeline costs, whereas some discussed projects such as hauling treated Gulf water instate would have exponential costs added for pipeline construction and transport.  Property owners along the way might also wonder where that pipeline is going to be located and through what legal means will it be placed there.

Energy

As we have mentioned here before, it takes energy to move and treat water.  This needs to be considered for these larger projects.  A city can increase its water sustainability while inadvertently decreasing energy sustainability.  Proposals for these projects need to include calculations of the associated energy footprint so that the big picture is considered.  Energy needs also increase based on the salinity of the water because additional treatment is required.  Long-haul projects also require large amounts of energy.  To bring water from the coast to San Antonio, 140 miles of pipelines would need to be installed with large amounts of power to push the water uphill.  

The key to desalination is to see it is as a part of a suite of solutions like El Paso has.  The city employed the new technology along with a host of other conservation, efficiency and water supply projects.  Because of the pricing and energy drawbacks of desalination, other supply options such as water efficiency programs should be fully implemented before additional treatment plants are built.  Regional brackish water treatment makes more sense, where possible, than piping treated water long distances.  Technology can provide some great solutions, but it is not a magic cure. It must be paired with common sense and evaluated with all the data to ensure a well rounded sustainable system.

Happy New Year!  2011 was not a good year for Texas water lovers and despite some recent rains we are still in a serious drought that isn't likely to end soon.  As we all enter into another potentially challenging water year, the blog suggests that you make a water resolution.  January is the time for fresh starts, so why not start here?  Here are some suggestions. 

1) Limit buying bottled water – A few years ago I set a goal for myself that I would only buy 25 bottles of water all year including international travel.  I went out a bought a good refillable Nalgene and wrote down every I bought a bottle.  When I did buy one, I bought a big one to reduce waste.  I finished the year well beneath my goal so each year I lower the number.  If you don't like the way your local water tastes, try a filtering bottle. 

2) Shorten shower time — Many of us have no idea how long we are in the shower.  Becoming aware of how much water we are using is the first step in reducing and changing our relationship with water.  Just take a look at the clock when you get in and when you get out and see how you fare. If you were in there a long time, see if you can reduce it.  You can also buy a timer just for this purpose to help you limit showers to 5 minutes.

3) Replace plumbing — If you have an old toilet, shower head or faucet, make this the year to change those.  Check with your city because there might be a rebate or incentive program that will reduce costs. You might even get it for free!!

4) Do a little landscaping — If you are like me, your yard may look a little pitiful right now.  This might be a good time to survey what high water usage plants can be removed and/or replaced with something more fitting to the local environment.  If you do decide to replant, be sure you can ensure survival while still adhering to any watering restrictions in your area.

5) Tell a friend — We are all in this together so, although individual action is certainly important, we need to work together to ensure there is enough water to go around.  If you see someone wasting water, stranger or friend, say something.  It doesn't have to be confrontational, just give them a little information, make a joke or direct them to the blog. 

Of course this is only a starter list.  If you thought of one that we haven't mentioned, please submit a comment with your idea.  Welcome to 2012.

In this blog we have talked a lot about changing the way we think about water and our uses of it. Recently, a story was brought to my attention that does the opposite of that.  I don't want to pick on anyone, but it was a good "teachable moment" that needed to be pointed out.  Sadly, it is probably not a unique situation.

The story focused on Southlake, Texas in the DFW metroplex. Not surprisingly, the drought has caused many plants to die in Southlake just as it has across Texas.  The city has an ordinance that requires the replacement of these plants.  An audit is completed that notifies the property owner which plants need to be replaced and it must be completed within a certain time frame.

On the surface you may not think that this is such a bad idea, but it raises many concerns.  First and foremost the drought is not over.  New plants require considerable amounts of water to get established.  It makes little sense to require large amounts of planting when there is no substantial relief in sight.

Even the plants that do get well established over the winter months face another large looming problem.  Next summer.  Unfortunately, the city ordinance doesn't require or even incentivize drought resistant plants so now citizens will be striving to keep plants alive that may require large amounts of water.  There is talk of including smarter plants in the 2030 plan, but the one from this winter will be in the ground long before that time comes.  If the city is going to require replanting, shouldn't this be at least used as an opportunity to upgrade the foliage to something that will survive upcoming summers without further taxing water supplies?

These types of ordinances are unfortunate because they create perverse incentives to water conservation and put citizens in a no-win situation. People are forced to invest money in plants, which they then need to water to stay in compliance and make sure the money they spent isn't wasted. I love plants and I understand a community wanting to look a certain way, but the reality is that we aren't talking about saving plants we are talking about forced replacement.

We are in an extreme drought. A game changer some might say. It is time to face the reality of the situation and adjust.  It is time to throw out the rules that don't make sense and pass some that do.