WATER SUPPLY (3 parts, 2000-2009)

Water Discussion 1

23 June 2000
Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center
Austin, Texas

Background: Susan Rieff of the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) explained that the sheer scale of the water problem in Texas would ultimately demand attention and require new water resources, but it was unclear still what would be saved and what would be sacrificed in finding these new resources. She admitted to a fear that without a change in the current paradigm, rivers would go dry, fisheries would decline, and estuaries would be impaired.

Supply, Demand and Impacts: Myron Hess, counsel for NWF, catalogued the impacts of human water use in Texas:

Habitat loss: Reservoirs have harmed bottomland hardwoods, a key habitat for migration of terrestrial and avian creatures, contributing to the decline from 16 million acres originally to only 6 million acres in 1980. Some of the decline is due to direct inundation (600,000 acres of wetlands have been drowned), while other sensitive acreage has been lost to reduction in silt and freshwater flows downstream.

Evaporation: Reservoirs are also responsible for major water losses due to evaporation, ranging from 16" in east Texas to as much as 6 feet per year in west Texas. As an example Choke Canyon reservoir has a yield of 178,000 acre-feet per year, yet suffers evaporation of 150,000 acre-feet per year. This is a major problem statewide: 3.5 million acre-feet of water stored in reservoirs is lost to evaporation each year.

Estuarine effects: Reservoirs have also intercepted major amounts of flow that once reached the state’s estuaries. For instance, Lake Corpus Christi and Choke Canyon reservoir have not been full since 1992, indicating that little has been allowed to bypass the dams and reach the estuaries downstream. Another example is provided by the Rio Grande, which was considered navigable 500 miles upstream of the coast for 7 months of the year, while now, after construction of four major dams, one can stand knee-deep at its mouth.

Disappearance of springs: Surface water resources are not the only ones to have suffered due to overuse. Groundwater withdrawals have resulted in the permanent loss of 80 of the 280 major springs in Texas, and cut into baseflows in the state’s rivers. Commanche Springs provides a dramatic example – in 1684 travelers noted 6 springs there; by 1859 the springs were supplying Fort Stockton; by 1875 they irrigated 6200 acres; by 1961 they were dry.

Subsidence: Another problem related to groundwater withdrawal is subsidence. Coastal areas such as the Houston-Galveston region have seen subsidence of as much as 9 feet, exposing homes, industrial areas and roads to flooding, and contributing to the loss of coastal marshes as they are submerged.

Fishery impacts: Taken together, the erosion of surface water and groundwater supplies has had an alarming effect already on Texas fisheries. For example, 5 fish once native only to Texas, are now extinct. 3 fish once found in Texas are now extirpated from the state. Despite Texas’ great diversity of fish (6th in the nation), fully 20% of the fish species found in the state are considered threatened or endangered. Shellfish are also feeling the impact of excessive human water use: 18 of 53 mollusk species in Texas are rated as threatened or endangered, while the coastal shrimp industry in on the verge of collapse. Mr. Hess noted that some of the fishery impacts were not exclusively due to low water flows, but were also due to water quality problems, as dilution of contaminants declined.

Population and water demand trends: The current situation is expected to worsen due to population trends in the state. Texas’ population is expected to double to 40 million by 2050, and water demand to rise to 20 million acre-feet per year. This scale of demand is high in relation to dependable surface water supplies of only 23.6 million acre-feet per year (the amount available during the 1996 drought). Groundwater pumpage is already in deficit: in 1996 withdrawals were at 9.9 million acre-feet per year, almost twice recharge of 5.3 million acre-feet per year.

Surface water regulation: Part of the water problem in Texas is due to its regulatory structure. While surface water is actually owned by the public, rights to use that water have been issued to a variety of private and institutional users, often with little concern for dependable flows or habitat needs. For example, there are major segments of the Canadian, Red, Cypress, Sabine, Neches, Trinity, Brazos, Colorado, Guadalupe, San Antonio, and Nueces River which are fully appropriated. The extent of appropriations is not immediately apparent now because many of these rights are banked and have not yet been exercised.

Groundwater regulation: Texas’ groundwater resource also suffers from regulatory gaps. Texas is one of the very few western states to apply the absolute rule of capture to groundwater use. In other words, a surface landowner enjoys the right to pump as much water from the aquifers underlying his tract, despite effects on adjoining landowners’ wells or surface water supplies.

Energy analogy: Mark MacLeod of Environmental Defense followed with a talk on the analogy between energy and water in Texas, and a possible model for reform of water resource management.

Similar water/energy problems: Like water authorities, energy utilities have traditionally planned on supply-side solutions to shortages of electricity, rather than on efficiency or demand-side solutions. The supply orientation for both water and electricity utilities is based on the training of their engineers (the shortage question typically becomes a power plant design problem), the incentives (cost-plus guarantees reward a dollar of plant investment with 10 cents of revenue), the ignorance of options (such as pricing, markets, etc.), the regulators’ deference to the industry, and the public’s unawareness of where their energy or water comes from (energy comes largely from coal, not solar or wind).

Energy solution model: Over the last 7 years, Texas has undergone a dramatic restructuring of energy regulation, with good environmental features, including increased efficiency and renewable energy investment requirements. Mr. MacLeod found that an educated public (particularly through a deliberative poll) can influence agency officials to adopt major institutional changes and do the right thing for the environment and consumers, if cost-effective options are offered.

A donor asked what the energy reform initiative cost. Molly Stevens estimated $400,000 per year over 7-8 years, about half funded from the Energy Foundation (Pew, MacArthur, Rockefeller, etc.).

One funder asked whether customers would be willing to pay attention to water issues, where there was not such a pocketbook problem at stake as with electricity bills. Mark MacLeod was not sure, but said that Texans appeared to look beyond cost issues: deliberative polls indicated that electricity customers were willing to pay more to get a public benefit. Melinda Taylor said that water is under-priced in Texas, and repricing water to its real marginal cost could help get citizen attention and support.

Susan Kaderka said that a TPWD needs assessment poll of focus groups found that the environment is not a top-of-the-mind issue in Texas, but that water, both supply and quality, was consistently rated as a critical issue by those polled. Ms. Kaderka told the group that the poll had not yet been publicly released.

Historical context: Ken Kramer of the Sierra Club's Lone Star Chapter explained that he believed that "past is prologue" and proceeded to give a sketch of water planning in the state. The original Texas Water Plan grew out of the 1950s "drought of record", resulting in a 1957 bond issue and the creation of the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) to steer those bond moneys to water projects. During the 1960s, a great deal of attention was paid to a $3 billion proposal to pump water from the Mississippi to the High Plains and south Texas for agricultural use. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, the standard water approach in Texas was marked by grandiose plans, little attention to water use and plans outside the state, and reliance on structural solutions (dams, canals, and pipelines).

In 1969, the tide began to turn, when voters, led by fiscal conservatives and environmentalists, turned down the bond package as too costly and damaging. The bond package was again defeated in 1976. Billy Clayton’s "rainy day fund" was defeated a third time in 1981. Following this Lt. Governor Bill Hobby opened water planning to environmentalists, though their views remained in the minority. However, environmental views were supported by the withdrawal of most federal cost-share dollars by President Carter. Also, in 1985, the state Legislature passed a law requiring freshwater releases from dams constructed within 200 miles of the coast.

As a result, most Texas water plans of the 1980s and early 1990s have shown more sensitivity to environmental concerns. For example, the plans of the late 1980s indicated proposals for about 50 new reservoirs, while by 1992, the TWDB plan included only 14 dam proposals.

This encouraging trend reversed itself in 1997, when Lt. Governor Bob Bullock responded to the severe drought of 1996 with Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), a bottom-up planning process for assuring a reliable 50-year supply in each of 16 state regions. While this approach had the appearance of a grassroots idea, with the kind of citizen participation that environmentalists favored, it actually allowed river authorities, local municipalities and industry consultants and construction firms to control much of the process. As an example, each 11-12 member regional group had only 1 environmental slot.

This SB 1 process is coming to an end relatively soon (regional plans must be submitted to the TWDB by January 5, 2000, with the TWDB completing its review by January 5, 2002). There is concern that the outcome will be fraught with problems:

• Inadequate environmental public representation

• Excessive representation of pro-development interests (municipal water districts, agricultural and industrial users, etc.)

• Conflict of interest by the consultants coordinating the planning process, many of which are tied to firms with construction arms

• Heavy emphasis on structural solutions

• Lack of environmental attention

• Little public awareness

Senate Bill 1 Outcomes: Mary Kelly of the Texas Center for Policy Studies gave two extreme examples of results from the SB 1 process. On the good side, the Lower Rio Grande planners have come up with a scheme for shifting major amounts of water use from agriculture to municipalities, to answer population growth in the region. However, this shift is not at the expense of agricultural production, and instead is based on efficiency improvements on farms, such as canal improvements to reduce evaporation and infiltration losses.

A less favorable outcome is exemplified by early signs of the East Texas plan. The East Texas group has marked 13 locations as "unique reservoir sites", with none listed as "unique ecological sites". Also, the Sabine River Authority is seeking to have Congress overturn a conservation easement which has thus far blocked construction of the Waters Bluff reservoir. Finally, there seems to have been very little public participation and awareness of the East Texas process and plan.

A donor asked whether there was a potential political problem in using public funds to make investments in private agricultural infrastructure. Mary Kelly and Melinda Taylor noted that public funds had long subsidized agriculture, and that removal of the subsidies might help the water problem a great deal (Valley farmers pay 17 cents per acre-foot for administration, and about $1 per acre-foot for conveyance, but nothing for the water itself). Mark MacLeod agreed, saying that farmers should be paying something closer to the marginal cost of water. Mary Kelly added that there would be a quid pro quo involved too – municipalities would get water in return for their investment in agriculture. Ken Kramer offered that agricultural water use might also be improved by changing the cost-share and low-interest loans formulas used by the Texas Water Development Board and the US Department of Agriculture to help farmers. Terry Hershey noted that we need to recognize worthwhile government programs, even if there is no public access to private locations. She mentioned the Natural Resources Conservation Service 50-year program to build small dams in upstream locations, which reduce flooding and siltation, while creating new wetlands, as an example of a good public/private partnership.

General solution overview: Susan Kaderka noted the need to make major inroads into public opinion to try to raise the low public awareness about the effects of human water use on the enviroment. and to help the public see the reality of limits – that most of the water in Texas is already spoken for, well before the expected increases in population.

She sees two major challenges facing environmentalists concerned about water in the state:

• Redistribute water supply to accommodate the environment

• Reduce per capita demand to accommodate a growing population

She is worried that this will be a difficult task due to recent backsliding: in 1997 the Texas Water Development Board was proposing only 6 new dam projects, while by 2000, SB 1 planners were proposing 38 new dam projects in the state. Also, there is a deep-rooted legacy of negligence for the environment: out of ten beneficial uses recognized by the Legislature for water, none were explicitly for the environment.

She suggested three major goals to focus on:

• Define and protect adequate instream flows

• Define and protect adequate freshwater inflows to bays and estuaries

• Get explicit protection for water supply to critical habitat

She favored the following tools for achieving those goals:

• Incentives

• Market mechanisms

• Subsidies

• Regulations

Importance of market remedies: Melinda Taylor elaborated on a number of the promising solutions that Ms. Kaderka outlined, with some examples already underway:

She described the cap on Edwards Aquifer groundwater withdrawals that ED and Sierra had fought for, and the subsequent, if slow development in market trading of withdrawal rights. Eventually, she hopes for a dynamic market allowing farmers to sell water to San Antonio, similar to what has developed in Oregon (where municipalities have paid farmers to let land lie fallow), and in California (where the Los Angeles water utility paid the Imperial Irrigation district $100 million for 100,000 acre-feet of agricultural water).

She felt that pricing and water markets options were much more cost-effective and environmentally benign than current popular supply options, such as dams, channels, pipelines, cloud-seeding, inter-basin transfers, etc. She did admit some interest in rainwater capture. She offered one demand-reduction example that has worked well in Tucson, where the city sets prices according to drought conditions, and has managed to foster a lot of conservation. In general, she felt that this was the direction of the future – towards demand reduction, rather than supply additions (she noted that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission estimated that 100s of dams are now actually being taken off-line, including 12 major dams, due to siltation, aging concrete, etc.).

Ms. Taylor offered three measures to discourage new reservoirs

Conservation: A low-income housing project in Houston was able to reduce its water use by 72% with off-the-shelf technology: these steps could spread, but first she felt that three issues needed to be addressed:

• Quantification of potential municipal and agricultural conservation yields

• Ideas on how to pay for conservation measures

Pricing: Ms. Taylor argues that water is much too cheap in Texas, offering the example of Valley farmers who pay mostly only for the overhead and electricity of moving water to their fields, and nothing for the water itself. Cities such as Dallas have water prices well below average and could afford higher prices as well. Further, prices should fluctuate with drought conditions.

Markets: Ms. Taylor urges that Texas create and encourage markets in traded water use rights. To do that, an enforceable cap on supply needs to be set first, then water diversions need to be metered, rights need to be assigned, and penalties imposed for cheating. If there were such a market, the state might want to acquire water rights outright for wildlife, or purchase stored waters to influence timely dam releases. Municipalities could invest in more efficient ways for farmers to use water, or pay for farmers to fallow their fields, and release the unused water, periodically.

Water Discussion 2

15 September 2000
Headliners’ Club * Austin, TX

Water: Myron Hess, counsel with the National Wildlife Federation’s Austin office, reported on the progress of the Senate Bill 1 water planning process, which seeks to have 16 Texas regional committees develop plans for meeting the water needs over the next 50 years. Mr. Hess finds that many of the plans are focused on meeting speculative economic demands, and neglect basic environmental needs. His work began by distributing NWF’s criteria for an environmentally sound plan to over 300 voting members of the 16 planning committees. Currently, he is attempting to file comments on these plans by the end of September, when 11 of the 16 plans’ comment periods end. At this point, he finds that most plans have done no affirmative review of the environmental effect of their envisioned water projects, nor any review of existing baseline environmental conditions. Environmental review appears to be restricted to per forma "low to moderate impact" assessment, without any specific review of impacts. Mr. Hess fears that many of these plans, if built, would cause dramatic disruptions of instream, spring, and estuarine flows, with significant groundwater drawdown, and frequent spring dry-ups. He hopes that NWF and other non-profits can ensure that SB 1 is an informed decision-making process, since he believes that Texans will not accept water plans that destroy the environment.

Susan Kaderka, director of the NWF Austin office, reported that in addition to NWF, 3 other groups, Sierra Club, Texas Center for Policy Studies, and Environmental Defense, were also working on the SB 1 project. At Ann Hamilton’s invitation, these four groups had just finished a joint proposal for a 3-year Texas water research, education, and advocacy program for submittal to the Houston Endowment and other interested donors. The multi-year project will focus on requiring environmental water reserves, and using water pricing and use incentives to encourage efficient use of the water available to municipalities, industry, and agriculture. She also said that the initiative would include general public education and specific alerts, since the today’s largely urban population can often grow ignorant of water sources and limits.

Questions and Answers

Q: What would the scope of the project be, and would it include out-of-state problems related to the Rio Grande’s tributaries in New Mexico and Mexico? Or, would the work include groundwater issues in addition to the traditional surface water concerns? Myron Hess said that there was a need to enforce existing intrastate international treaties and to improve water use efficiency in Mexico, yet he was pessimistic, given the dissension. For instance, El Paso is at odds with both rural landowners (planning on pumping many of them dry) and Mexico (diverting water to in-state canals, away from the international rivercourse) over water.

It was noted that the Clean River program had promise in possibly increasing cooperation in east Texas over resisting involuntary water exports.

Q: What is the role of water marketing in the midst of the public SB 1 process? Myron Hess said that there indeed had been some big transactions, particularly in the Colorado River basin, where the City of Corpus Christi and the Lower Colorado River Authority had bought senior agricultural water rights from lower basin holders. Susan Kaderka felt that these purchases have already created alarm in rural communities, and would lead to more urban/rural conflicts in the future. Myron Hess sees it as a financial contest, particularly in the groundwater area, where the law of capture allows the biggest pump to prevail.

Q: Who was the client for public interest groups working on water issues – cities, rural communities, or the environment? Myron Hess did not feel that there is a single client, but that their goal is to insure an informed decisionmaking process, improved water use efficiency, and a vital ecosystem, which would benefit all.

Q: How are river authorities governed, and what role would they play in water in Texas? Myron Hess felt that the authorities would likely continue to be the main manager of most river systems.

Water Discussion 3

15 September 2009
River Systems Institute, Texas State University
San Marcos Spring Lake * Austin, TX

This discussion involved both a boat tour and talk by Ron Coley (Aquarena Center) about Spring Lake at San Marcos, and a panel presentation on surface and ground water by David Baker (Wimberley Valley Watershed Association), Bill Bunch (Save Our Springs Alliance), Myron Hess (National Wildlife Federation), Dianne Wassenich (San Marcos River Foundation), moderated by Andy Sansom (River Systems Institute, Texas State University).

Glass-bottomed Boat Tour:

At 11:15, Mr. Sansom showed the group to a glass-bottomed boat, and Ron Coley, Aquarena Center Director, led a boat tour of Spring Lake.  Mr. Coley explained that the Lake is fed by over 200 springs that erupt out of the Balcones Fault, flowing at 100 cfs today (300 cfs after the recent 6” rainfall), and forming the source of the San Marcos River.  The Lake holds 150 million gallons, and was created by a dam on the 3’-deep San Marcos headwater stream in 1849.  Originally home to the 7000-year old Calf Creek civilization, the Springs have become a popular tourist attraction in recent years – hosting 120,000 visitors a year, and increasingly hosting children for environmental education purposes (300 kids are present today). 

The Springs were named after San Marcos because they were discovered by de Leon on St. Mark’s Day in 1689, as he and his troops searched for LaSalle’s expedition.  Their white skin, beards, and use of horses, armor, steel weapons brought hundreds of curious Native Americans to watch as the de Leon force headed from Medina to San Marcos.  As the Natives gathered on the overlooking escarpment, the Spaniards named the ridge the Balcones (the balconies), later adopted for the fault that runs at its base. 

Mr. Sansom noted that groundwater in the State of Texas is governed under a “rule of capture”, where water is owned by whomever can “capture” or pump it.  This was because the location and flow of groundwater was not well understood in early days.  While groundwater’s behavior is much better known now, San Marcos Springs is a good example of how diverse its flows can be:  local Hill Country rains can emerge out of the Springs in as little as 6 weeks, while flows from the Del Rio area (traced with tritium from 1950s-era above-ground nuclear tests) can take as long as 7 years. 

Mr. Coley pointed out that the Isco automatic sampler allows scientists at Spring Lake to sample and collect computerized water quality data every three hours or every three weeks.  Temperature ranges from 69 to 73 degrees F, depending on the Spring.  Water quality data are posted online by the USGS.

The Lake’s plant life is managed without herbicides or grass carp through the work of a corps of 1500 volunteer SCUBA divers who must take a $250 course to become a “scientific diver”, and then are required to remove exotics (water hyacinth and elephant ear, for instance) and plant natives (such as Texas Wild-rice).  There are 200 species of various creatures in the Lake, including 2 listed salamanders, a listed fountain darter, 5 bass, 14 sunfish, 6 exotic fish, and 1 6’-long North American Eel (which somehow travels to the Lake from the Sargasso Sea).  Birds seen during our visit included the Louisiana heron and yellow-crowned night heron 

Facilities near the Lake include an underwater theater which will be demolished by the Army Corps of Engineers in 2010.  A floating boardwalk is open at all times, and offers an excellent place for birdwatching (139 species were identified in the latest Backyard Bird Count).  The nearby Park Hotel has been converted into a water museum and into offices for the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and the River Systems Institute.  A wood-frame building on the Lake contains dive equipment, a USGS office, and the headquarters of the Texas Stream Team, a network of 2000 volunteers who test water quality in rivers across the state, providing an early warning system for pollution problems.  A visitor center at the Lake hosts an archeological exhibit and meeting rooms.  The archeological artifacts came partly from a 1970s-era dig at the bed of Springs Lake that yielded 150,000 stone tools. 

The focus on visits to Spring Lake is on the 5 1940s-vintage glass-bottomed, covered boats that tour the Lake under electric power on a 30-minute cycle.  The boats are operated by 50 undergraduate and 5 graduate guides, who are taught to interpret the site, and not provide a mere “data load” nor “fact pack”.  The boats themselves are somewhat fragile:  one boat is undergoing repairs at almost any time. The Center is seeking to raise money to replace these original boats with more reliable ones.

The Lake is the center of a major research effort at Texas State University, connected to the work of 88 graduate students and 40 faculty members in hydrology, geology, geography, and aquatic biology.  The Lake and water issues are a central theme for the University at large:  all freshmen and entering transfer students are required to read John Graves’ book, Goodbye to a River.  The University’s investment and focus on the Lake and water issues generally, are reflected in the high respect for its graduates in the environmental field (its geography department is considered the best in the U.S., and the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality has more staff members who are graduates of Texas State than those from any other university). 

Special Presentations - Water - Dianne Wassenich:

Dianne Wassenich, a former board member and current executive director of the San Marcos River Foundation (est. 1985), explained that the Foundation focuses on protecting the water quality, streamflow, natural beauty and parkland of the River. 

The Foundation is perhaps best known for its concern over the excessive water rights that have been granted for the river.  Based on the risk of low flows, in 2002 the Foundation persuaded the American Rivers NGO to cite the Guadalupe/San Marcos as one of the more endangered rivers in the U.S.  And, in 2000, the Foundation filed an application with the TCEQ for water rights to secure instream flows.  The TCEQ rejected the filing, claiming that it did not have the authority to grant  these instream rights (traditional rights have been restricted to municipal, agricultural, or industrial uses, not wildlife uses).  The TCEQ’s decision was appealed to the 13^th Circuit, and then to the Texas Supreme Court.  The Texas Supreme Court declined to take the appeal last week, and so the Foundation has exhausted its state remedies, and now is considering whether to take the water rights case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Another option to protect stream flows in the River is participation in the state SB 3 estuarine flow stakeholder process, which is currently being developed for Sabine Lake and Galveston Bay.  The model developed there will later be applied in the Guadalupe basin.

The Foundation is also collaborating in a process proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, known as the Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Plan.  The Plan is driven by concern over wildlife impacts from flow reductions (20% of the whooping crane population died this winter due to drought and diversions, and related impacts on the crane’s blue crab diet).  A Steering Committee of multiple interests and users, including the National Wildlife Federation, Farm Bureau, the City of Victoria, and others, is leading the work.  The process is time-consuming, with 80 or more people involved in meetings, but it is progressing with a grant of $1 million from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and possible matching funds from Texas Parks and Wildlife.  Additional private funds may be needed later for mitigation, research, and purchase of conservation easements or fee title to the Edwards Aquifer’s recharge zone lands 

Andy Sansom concluded Ms. Wassenich’s presentation by explaining that the Hill Country is “ground-zero” for concerns about water, with limited supplies available, rapid, wide-spread growth in demand, and a severe drought under way.  Mr. Sansom called it a “war”.  The drought situation now is not as apparent as in the 1950s’ drought, since it is disguised by extensive groundwater use that was not available then.  Mr. Sansom sees the Pedernales, Blanco and Upper Colorado Rivers as in particularly deep trouble.

Special Presentations - Water - Bill Bunch:

Bill Bunch is the founder and executive director and lead counsel for the Save Our Springs Alliance, established in Austin in 1992 over concerns regarding development of the Barton Springs aquifer recharge zone, and the impacts on the quantity and quality of spring flows.

At about the same time, in 1991, a key suit was filed, Sierra v. Babbit, which sought groundwater pumping controls in the Edwards Aquifer, with the goal of protecting a number of endangered species that were dependent on flows in the Comal and San Marcos Springs.  The resolution of the suit carved out an exception to the laissez faire “rule of capture” in this part of Texas, leading to the creation of the Edwards Aquifer Authority and the implementation of pumping controls.

In 2000, following up on the regional, aquifer-wide approach of this litigation, Mr. Bunch and others created the Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance, a grassroots organizing network of 43 groups, stretching from Uvalde to San Antonio, New Braunfels, San Marcos and Austin.  The Alliance works together on water, endangered species, and open space concerns. 

Currently, in the midst of the economic recession and land development bust, they see a promising opportunity to buy up threatened lands at bargain prices.  The present situation reminds Mr. Bunch of the S&L crash of the late 1980s, which led to the placement of key parcels within the U.S. government’s Resolution Trust Corporation, and their subsequent auctioning for protection.  As Mr. Sansom pointed out, more land was protected in the 1985-1990 period than in any other period of the state’s history. 

Mr. Bunch recommends that land conservation be joined by strong water conservation and efficiency efforts.  He believes that development, population growth and related water demand increases in the Hill Country are rapidly out-stripping available water supplies.  He thinks that reducing per-capita water use, as in San Antonio, is the only feasible and cost-effective option (for instance, augmenting supplies in the Austin may require a costly $500 million water treatment plant).

Special Presentations - Water - David Baker:

In 1987, David Baker came to live near the Jacob’s Well spring, near Wimberley, to work as an artist and operate a bed and breakfast.  During the drought of 1996, he saw the vulnerability of the spring, and helped form the Wimberley Valley Watershed Association.  The Association is a spring-monitoring effort, a land trust, and an educational group, with about 500 members. 

The monitoring effort is done in conjunction with the Texas Clean Rivers program (the Association is the only non-profit that is a part of the program), and uses a $60,000 gauging station installed by the USGS.  From their monitoring, they’ve learned that the Jacob’s Well spring is fed by the Trinity Aquifer, with flows also coming from Cypress Creek, via the Blue Hole and the Blanco River.  Cave divers exploring the Well have found that it extends at least 5500 feet, and may host unique species.

Flows in Jacob’s Well are threatened by pumpage of a major 1 million gallon per day well that drains a conduit that directly feeds the spring.  Mr. Baker feels that Aquatex, the company that operates the well, is an example of the global privatization of water, where $450 billion is invested annually, following only oil and coal.  He also laments the fact that since there is no cost to the water beyond the electricity to run the pump, Aquatex has no incentive to efficiently handle the water, and actually loses about 50% of the water in its distribution system.

In Texas, at least outside of the Edwards Aquifer zone, landowners have an unfettered right to pump as much water from beneath their land as their pump can draw (the “law of the biggest pump”).  Therefore, Mr. Baker has been concerned about the fragmentation of land ownership around Jacob’s Well, where there are 150 parcels in 100 acres.  He has been successful though in leveraging a $2 million private loan, a $30 million Hays County bond issue, and bargain sales to secure 55 acres circling the Well.  The Watershed Association is currently engaged in a lawsuit to block a project to build a hotel and 65 condominiums adjacent to the Well.

In addition to the monitoring, land acquisition, and litigation, Mr. Baker has become involved in the politics that swirl around water.  He was recently elected a board member of the local groundwater control district.  The district faces three problems:  first, its legislated authority is limited, giving it little leverage over pumping rates;  second, withdrawals from the local aquifer are 1200 acre-feet in excess of sustainable levels;  and third, 90% of what is platted locally is not yet built, implying that full, permitted build-out could pose a powerful threat to the aquifer. 

Mr. Sansom talked about the irony of the current situation regarding regulation of water.  For example, the Blanco River’s surface flows are heavily regulated from its start near Fredericksburg, but when they submerge in Woods Creek, and pass through the Trinity Aquifer before reappearing at Jacob’s Well, they are essentially unregulated.  It is the same water, but it is treated vastly differently when it is above ground vs. underground.

Special Presentations - Water - Myron Hess:

Mr. Sansom then introduced Myron Hess, who had worked as a water and wildlife attorney for him at Texas Parks and Wildlife, and then had gone on to work for National Wildlife Federation in the Living Water Project.  Mr. Sansom considers the Living Waters Project to have been a “game-changer” in moving progressive water policy forward in the state.

Mr. Hess said that he is currently most involved in studying and assuring protection of environmental stream flows, under the process set up by SB 3.  The SB 3 focus is presently focused on estuarine flows reaching Sabine Lake and Galveston Bay, asking the question of how much water is needed to keep those estuaries viable, and how those flows can be reliably secured for the future.  There are several strategies under review for guaranteeing adequate water:  first, to convert existing, but under-utilized, agricultural, industrial or municipal use rights to instream rights, or second, to lock in return flows (e.g., treated wastewater discharges) for permanent use in the river.

The SB 3 process is partially a scientific review of estuarine needs, and partially a political tug-of-war over competing interests, all conducted in a state of ignorance.  These are big problems with short fuses, even within the constraints of just the Sabine and Galveston systems.  Added to that is the pressure to set up a model in these two river basins that will be workable when applied to the remaining rivers of Texas.  The next stage is fast approaching:  the Legislature is due to appoint the technical committee for studying the Colorado and Guadalupe estuarine systems during the summer of 2009.  Private funding has been focused on technical water research, and on educating the more conservation-minded delegates involved in the SB 3 meetings.

Mr. Hess noted that the National Wildlife Federation is also working on groundwater, which is inextricably linked to the quantity and quality of surface water, especially in the Hill Country.  Regulation of groundwater has been largely delegated to local groundwater conservation districts, which are asked to set up sustainable levels of pumpage, based on “desired future conditions”.  District managers, and the public, need to recognize that these conditions could plausibly include the loss of major springs.

Mr. Hess discussed the status of water-related legislation in the Session next.  He said that the economic recession and budget shortfalls have distracted legislators from focusing much on water questions.  A number of promising water bills have died during the Session, but they could be revived as amendments to bills that survive to be passed into law.  One water bill that does seem likely to be enacted is one covering importation of water from out-of-state (likely from Oklahoma to Dallas), and which NWF is seeking to amend to block import of exotic plants and fish.  The Legislature may also decide to delegate its SB3 panel-appointment powers to the Texas Water Development Board, which may make the SB3 process somewhat less publically accountable. 

Questions and answers:

Q:  How can conservationists take advantage of the decline in land values to protect water flow and quality, and how can critical lands be identified for purchase?  Bill Bunch said that it was tempting to compare the current situation to that of the late 1980s, when a lot of land was acquired and protected.  However, he thought the government was handling failed banks and their collateral assets differently now.  Land assets in the “walking-dead” banks are now being kept at inflated prices on the banks’ balance sheets to match TARP funds, and thus underwrite their capital, and are not being transferred to government hands for sale.  Mr. Sansom explained that land owners now have much more equity in the land than they did in the 1980s, so they are currently under less pressure to liquidate to pay back their loans.  He added that private donors had contributed to an important effort to identify lands critical to recharge of the Trinity Aquifer, so that strategic land purchases could be pursued.  However, Mr. Sansom felt that “motivated” sellers would seek out Texas Parks and Wildlife, Nature Conservancy and other potential conservation buyers if the decline was severe and long enough.

Q:  The Texas Land Trust Council was pressing for $10 million in funding from the General Land Office to purchase development rights.  What are the prospects?  Myron Hess said that he was dubious about the effort, since no funding mechanism had yet been found.  Andy Sansom was more optimistic, saying that it was possible that the money could be found in excise taxes on Gulf petroleum production.  Blair Fitzsimons (American Farmland Trust) and David Braun (Plateau Land & Wildlife Management) are involved in advocating for this program.  Dianne Wassenich said that the Trust for Public Land has been conducting a “Green Print” in five Texas counties to identify where any raised money can be spent for the best conservation yield.

Q:  What role do small gifts play for advancing land conservation?  Mr. Baker said that the Association relies on gifts ranging from $15 to $10,000 from their 500 members.  Bill Bunch said that it was difficult to keep in touch with some members, since we live in such a mobile society.  He was concerned that formerly friendly media, such as the Austin Chronicle, had become less reliable in explaining complicated environmental issues and in rallying public support for conservation.  He felt that it might be necessary for the environmental movement to build its own media arm to inform and build grassroots support among the general public.

Q:  What role will climate change play in water issues?  Myron Hess noted that recent research had indicated that even if precipitation remains stable, that rises in temperature alone will cause a 30% decline in Texas stream flows, due to extra evaporation.  Andy Sansom pointed out that the construction of 215 open-water reservoirs in the years since the 1950s drought had made our water system yet more vulnerable to evaporation, and that under drought conditions, evaporation could increase by 80%.  Within the different areas of the state, Mr. Hess said that the models suggest that climate change will cause East Texas to become generally wetter and West Texas to become dryer.  But, these are crude predictions.  Mr. Hess felt that we need more local, higher-resolution modeling of temperature and precipitation, and more exact projections about impacts on flows and Texas species.  He thought it was important that the public understands that climate change is not only about the threat to penguins and polar bears far from Texas.  Dianne Wassenich hoped that the Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Plan will make headway in this regard, particularly toward understanding the effect of climate change on the threat to Whooping Cranes on the Texas coast.

Q: Billboards advertise the level of the Edwards aquifer.  Does spreading an important environmental message offset the ugliness of the signs?  David Baker said that he had had some success in orchestrating media coverage:  recently, his Association celebrated its birthday by tearing up 100,000 square feet of paving, to help improve infiltration for Jacob’s Well.