SOUTH CENTRAL TEXAS
REGIONAL WATER PLANNING GROUP
c/o San Antonio River Authority, P.O. Box 839980, San Antonio, Texas 78283-9980
(210) 227-1373 Office, (210) 302-3692 Fax
Report on Regional Water Planning for South Central Texas
Presented to Edwards Aquifer RIP Meeting
April 5, 2007
San Antonio, Texas
Background and Structure
In 1997, the 75th Texas Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1 calling for increased public
involvement in preparing the State Water Plan. Sixteen planning regions were
established by the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), each composed of
representatives of 11 specific interests.
Region L, represented by the South Central Texas Regional Water Planning Group,
includes 20 ½ counties. See attached map.
Region L has 23 voting members who serve without pay:
Interest
Member
Affiliation
Public
Evelyn Bonavita, San Antonio
League of Women Voters
(Past Chair, Executive Committee Member)
Municipalities
David Chardavoyne, San Antonio San Antonio Water System
Gary Middleton, Victoria
City of Victoria
(Secretary)
Jim Gray, San Antonio
City of Alamo Heights
Counties
Jay Millikin, New Braunfels
John Kight, Boerne
Comal County Commissioner
Kendall County
Industries
Jason Ammerman, Port Lavaca
Michael Harris, San Antonio
Union Carbide
S.A. Manufacturers Association
Small Business
Doug Miller, New Braunfels
Darrell Brownlow, Floresville
Carol Garriott, Seadrift
Miller & Miller Insurance
Environmental Consultant
Newsletter Owner/Publisher
Agricultural
Milton Stolte, San Antonio
Bill Jones, Victoria
David Langford, Comfort
Texas Farm Bureau
D.M. O’Conner Ranches
Texas Wildlife Association
2
River Authorities
Con Mims, Uvalde
(Chair)
Bill West, Seguin
Greg Rothe, San Antonio
Nueces River Authority
Mike Mahoney, Pleasanton
(Vice-Chair)
Robert Potts, San Antonio
Evergreen Underground Water Cons. Dist.
Water Utilities
Ron Naumann, Seguin
(Executive Committee Member)
Springs Hill Water Supply Corporation
Elec. Gen. Util.
Mike Fields, Fannin
Coleto Creek Power
Environmental
Iliana Pena, San Antonio
Donna Balin, San Antonio
Mitchell Lake Audubon Center
Geologist
Water Districts
Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority
San Antonio River Authority
Edwards Aquifer Authority
The San Antonio River Authority serves as our administrative agency, since regional
water planning groups have no authority to contract. To accomplish our work, we
employ technical and public facilitation consultants and use the expertise and guidance of
TWDB.
The regional plans are updated in five year cycles. Each plan must identify water
demands in the region over a fifty year planning horizon for each of six categories of
use–municipal, industrial, steam-electric power generation, mining, irrigation, and
livestock. Then, supplies are identified to meet those demands through the drought of
record. Project costs are calculated and environmental impacts are evaluated.
The 2006 Regional Plan
Our latest water plan was completed in January 2006 and is included in the 2007 State
Water Plan prepared by TWDB. We are, now, starting the next five year planning cycle
for what will result in an updated regional plan in 2011.
The following is a brief overview of our 2006 Water Plan, according to my understanding
of the Plan. Definitive information is available by referring to the Plan on the TWDB
website (http://www.twdb.state.tx.us):
-
Population is expected to double, reaching about 4.3 million people by 2060.
-
Municipal water use in the region will nearly double, growing from about 340,000
acre-feet annually to about 637,000 acre-feet, annually. This assumes aggressive
implementation of water conservation measures throughout the region. The plan
counts on water conservation to meet about 16% of future needs.
-
The Plan contains about 26 water management strategies recommended to meet
future needs.
3
-
There are 111 cities or other water supply entities in the region for which population
and water demands are projected in the Plan and for which supplies are identified to
meet the demands.
-
The need for new supplies in the region for all uses except irrigation and livestock is
expected to grow from about 101,000 acre-feet in 2010 to about 381,000 (416,850
including irrigation and livestock) acre-feet in 2060. So, in approximately the next
three years, this region will need to increase its current water supplies by about 30%
and in the next 50 years current supplies will need to more than double to meet what,
essentially, amounts to growth in municipal and industrial needs.
-
The 2006 Plan provides for new supplies in excess of 738,000 acre-feet per year by
2060, considerably more than the 381,000 acre-feet needed (without considering
irrigation and livestock needs).
-
The largest water demand in the region is from the City of San Antonio. (Figures
shown, below, are total water demand, as opposed to new supplies needed.) The
largest sub-regional demand center in the region is the area from San Antonio along
I.H. 35 to San Marcos.
Region Municipal Demand
2010 395,994
2060 637,235
City of San Antonio
2010 216,945 54% of region demand
2060 317,727 49% of region demand
The 2006 plan provides for excess supplies because of future uncertainties in, for
example:
-
the ability to obtain all necessary permits for the projects,
encountering a drought worse than the drought of record,
not knowing what supply will be available from the Edwards Aquifer in the future(*),
and
not knowing what “Desired Future Conditions” will be established for the
aquifers(**)
(*) The Edwards Aquifer Authority (EAA) statute, Senate Bill 1477, requires EAA to
limit Edwards Aquifer pumpage to 450,000 acre-feet, annually, until the end of 2007 and
then to reduce it to 400,000 acre-feet, annually, beginning in 2008.
But, the EAA statute also requires the agency to ensure continuous minimum springflows
at Comal and San Marcos springs to protect endangered species by the end of 2012.
According to independent studies, to maintain uninterrupted discharge of at least 60 cfs
from Comal Springs during a repeat of the drought of record, pumping from the Edwards
Aquifer would have to be reduced to about 225,000 acre-feet. So, pumping limits for the
aquifer may have to be less than the 400,000 acre-feet provided for in SB1477 to protect
these spring flows.
4
After considerable discussion by the planning group, a pumping level of 340,000 acrefeet, annually, was agreed upon as a placeholder amount for planning purposes until the
Edwards Aquifer Authority receives U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approval of a Habitat
Conservation Plan that will better establish what is needed to protect the endangered
species at the springs. Now, of course, there is the possibility that this Edwards Aquifer
RIP process may be given a chance to establish those needs through a collaborative effort
of the stakeholders. If, ultimately, pumping from the Edwards Aquifer is limited by law
to less than 340,000 acre-feet provided for in our regional plan, then other projects will
be needed to make up the reduced supply.
(**) By September 1, 2010, groundwater conservation districts operating within stateestablished groundwater management areas must agree upon desired future conditions for
the aquifers in their management area. It is nearly assured that when the future desired
aquifer conditions are established, the quantities of groundwater shown in the 2006
Region L Plan as being available for use will change and, I expect, will, be reduced.
Strategies in the 2006 Plan involving the Edwards Aquifer
There are three water management strategies in the Plan involving the Edwards Aquifer
that should be noted:
The first recommended strategy is converting existing irrigation permits to municipal and
industrial use. The EAA statute allows irrigation permit holders to sell or lease up to
50% of their rights. In our planning process an analysis was made of the amount of
irrigation water that is potentially available for sale or lease for municipal and industrial
uses. The Plan anticipates about 64,000 acre-feet of converted rights to be available for
municipal and industrial use in 2010, increasing to about 71,000 acre-feet in 2060. This
water is earmarked in the Plan to help meet the needs of 23 municipal water users.
The second recommended strategy involving the Edwards Aquifer is the proposed
construction of recharge dams. Three scenarios were studied involving different numbers
of recharge structures. The scenario that appears to be the most efficient in terms of both
enhanced recharge and cost is one involving construction of dams directly over the
aquifer recharge zone on the Frio and Sabinal rivers and the Hondo and Verde creeks in
the Nueces Basin and one on the Cibolo Creek in Bexar County. With these structures,
and the modification of outlets on two existing flood control dams on Salado Creek in
Bexar County, recharge is expected to be enhanced by about 54,000 acre-feet, annually,
on the average and about 10,000 acre-feet, annually, during drought conditions. The
increase in sustained yield of the aquifer with these projects is estimated to be about
13,000 acre-feet, annually. This is the amount that, depending on EAA rules yet to be
developed, could be considered for additional use under a recharge recovery permit.
A third strategy involving the Edwards Aquifer is a conceptual recharge and recirculation
system. This strategy involves artificial recharge of the aquifer from yet to be identified
sources and capture of the resulting increased springflows for recirculation in the form of
additional recharge. The concept is to maintain springflows at levels to protect the
5
endangered species at Comal and San Marcos springs while allowing increased pumping
from the aquifer to meet municipal and industrial water needs. This project is being
studied by the EAA and is recognized in the Region L plan as having potential but
requiring further evaluation.
Social Concerns in Regional Water Planning
There are social problems faced in developing regional water plans that the average
person never thinks about, but should.
We must understand that in nearly every situation where new water supplies are needed
to meet expanding municipal and industrial needs, that water is found in the rural areas in
the form of river flows and groundwater aquifers. For generations, they have provided
environmental and economic benefits to the rural communities and those visiting.
Generally, people in the rural areas see large municipal water suppliers as intimidating
and untrustworthy. They see the big cities coming after the rural water and threatening
their economic future. They fear reduced or eliminated spring flows, lowered river flows,
lowered groundwater levels, increased cost of pumping private wells, reduced
environmental flows, and reduced capacity for future growth. The big cities have deep
pockets and political influence. The rural communities don’t.
The municipal water suppliers, on the other hand, are generally responsible for the health,
safety and wellbeing of thousands of people and enormous economies and they can not
fail in their duties to continually provide adequate supplies of affordable, good quality,
water. Projects they pursue, usually, have been thoroughly studied at great public
expense and have been authorized by their governing bodies.
Since the Region L plan is very dependent on groundwater for new supplies, the burden
of helping to satisfy regional needs while protecting local environments and economies
will rest heavily on the backs of the groundwater districts of this region. For fairness to
all sides, it will be critical for the groundwater districts to have well thought out,
scientifically based, management plans and rules, adequate funds, and intelligent, openminded leadership.
Future Planning Activities
We, currently, are awaiting TWDB funding of the first two years of the next five year
planning cycle. We are expecting about $447,000 in TWDB funds, to which will be
added about $79,000 of local funds to accomplish six activities over the next two years:
-
Administrative and Public Participation Activities
-
Lower Guadalupe Water Supply Project (LGWSP) for GBRA Needs
6
This project is designed to move about 63,000 acre-feet of surface water supplies,
annually, from the lower Guadalupe Basin to the San Marcos and Boerne region. Work
will involve updating the technical evaluation of the project, refining the design and
operation of the project to minimize adverse impacts on the environment and local
economic conditions, and updating the costs.
-
Brackish Groundwater Supply Evaluation
This work will identify areas for development of brackish groundwater supplies from the
Edwards and Gulf Coast Aquifers for representative water user groups potentially
including SAWS, Woodsboro, and Seadrift and will review and refine technical
information regarding one brackish groundwater supply project from the Wilcox Aquifer
being evaluated by SAWS under separate contract. SAWS is contributing nearly $26,000
toward this study.
-
Enhanced Water Conservation, Drought Management, and Land Stewardship
Here, we will review and refine conservation recommendations found in the 2006
Regional Water Plan and estimate costs and benefits with emphasis on condensate
collection, rainwater harvesting, drought management and land stewardship.
-
Environmental Studies
Among other things, we will research and refine estimates of historical diversions and
effluent discharges affecting flows in the lower Guadalupe River and freshwater inflows
to the Guadalupe Estuary prior to 1977 and we will evaluate potential effects on fisheries
harvest equations for selected species of interest. Additionally, we will receive
ecosystem modeling services from Texas A&M University in the continued development
of a simulation model linking freshwater inflows to marsh ecosystem dynamics in San
Antonio Bay. Since 2002, San Antonio Water System, San Antonio River Authority, and
Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority have sponsored a study by Texas A&M University
linking freshwater inflows and marsh community dynamics in San Antonio Bay to
whooping cranes. Both the San Antonio River Authority and the Guadalupe-Blanco
River Authority will be contributing to the funding of this work element.
-
Environmental Evaluations of Water Management Strategies
While Region L has been singled out for praise by state officials for providing in-depth
evaluations of the potential environmental impacts associated with the various water
management strategies in its regional plan, the planning group is interested in doing more
to ensure that environmental concerns are fully evaluated for each water management
strategy. So, under this task, we will conduct workshops in which we will compare
environmental evaluations in our 2006 Plan to those performed by other planning regions
and solicit comments regarding potential improvements that we could incorporate into
our evaluations for our 2011 Plan.
7
Conclusion
As we begin updating our 2006 regional plan, we invite you to attend our meetings. We
meet, quarterly, usually at the San Antonio River Authority offices at 100 E. Guenther
Street, across from Pioneer Flour Mills. If you wish to be notified of our meetings, or
need other information concerning Region L, please contact Bob Perez at the San
Antonio River Authority at (210) 302-3279 or email rperez@sara-tx.org.
Respectfully submitted,
Con Mims, Chair
South Central Texas Regional Water Planning Group
(Region L)