The Future of Water for
Agriculture on the Texas
Gulf Coast
Presented by Ronald
Gertson
Rice Producer and Rural
Water Advocate
Who am I?





Fifth generation rice farmer
Frustrated “engineer”
Reluctant rural water advocate
Unapologetic Christian
And today an admittedly angry and somewhat
discouraged water planner
Topics I will cover today:

The current LCRA Water Crisis






Other Surface Water Notables






LCRA/SAWS Water Project – dead or alive
Corpus’ Garwood water rights and a new pipeline
Upstream growth
New power plants?
New reservoirs?
The Groundwater Situation




What is at risk?
What is driving the crisis?
What is being done about it?
What are the long-term consequences?
What can be done to better the situation in the long-term?
Groundwater Conservation Districts
HB 1763 and Alphabet Soup
Desired Future Conditions and Managed Available Groundwater
Questions
The Current LCRA Crisis

The LCRA BOD Water Committee is meeting
this afternoon to consider a staff proposal that
would drastically impact water availability to rice
and turf producers in the Gulf Coast Irrigation
District (Bay City) and the Lakeside Irrigation
District (Eagle Lake). At risk is 25,000 to 50,000
acres of rice production for 2010.
LCRA Staff Proposal for a
“Temporary” Change to Water
Management Policies



Change the date for setting the curtailment level
from Jan.1 to Feb. 15.
Replace the current curtailment curve with a
new curve that increases the curtailments in all
cases even if the lakes completely refill.
Make unused downstream run-of-river rights
available for diversion upstream to meet
municipal and industrial demands.
What is Driving the Policy Change?




Current curtailment policy was set by modeling
Drought of Record (DOR) conditions with
today’s water uses.
Actual inflows to the lakes for the past two years
have been about 55% of the lowest two years of
the DOR.
Lake levels have fallen faster than ever.
Fact - Current policy would not preserve firm
water supplies if current conditions persist.
End Result of Policy Change



Garwood acreage is preserved by contract.
Pierce Ranch? About 4000 acres
Gulf Coast and Lakeside suffer severe cutbacks as
follows:






< 900,000 ac-ft – no acreage allowed
@ 900,000 ac-ft – 8000 acres allowed at one district only
@ 1,125 mil. ac-ft – 8000 acres allowed at each district for
16,000 acres total
@ 2.0 mil. Ac-ft (full capacity) – 14,606 at Gulf Coast and
16,579 Lakeside
Curtailment levels at lakes-full is still roughly 34% off a 5-yr
average
Lakes are currently at about 813,000! Go figure.
What is Being Done?







LCRA BOD Water Committee meeting for discussion of change
today starting at 1:45.
Some time will be spent in closed session.
Will open for public comments at 4:30.
Urging interested parties to be present in moral support of
chosen speakers and as silent protesters.
Speakers will be focusing on economic impact, alternative
approaches and on the need for thorough vetting of assumptions
being made.
Looking to Extension Service for expert support.
Also considering hiring private consulting firm specializing in
surface water issues.
What are the Likely Outcomes?





Chance that action on the policy can be delayed until November
BOD meeting based on lack of time for proper review.
Chance that some compromise policy can be achieved, but only
if persuasive scientific approach can be used.
Once adopted by BOD it will go to TCEQ as a temporary
emergency amendment to LCRA’s Water Management Plan.
If producers are unsuccessful with BOD, TCEQ will be a second
chance for relief.
Time frame for action is likely 30 days or less with LCRA BOD
and 30 additional days with TCEQ.
What are the Long-Term
Consequences?





Staff is posing the current policy change as temporary.
If successfully adopted, the same methodology used in this staff
recommendation cannot help but be rolled forward into an
eventual permanent change to the WMP.
This could mean that we will never be able to return even to the
2009 rice acreages and certainly not to more historic high levels
of rice acreage.
This is why the very short time we have to contest the staff
proposal is extremely critical and demands all of the attention
and resources we can bring to bare.
And it is why I will be leaving as soon as this presentation is
over.
What can be done to better the
situation in the long-term?
Combination of:





Conservation
Conjunctive use of ground and surface water
Development of the off-channel reservoir(s)
Balancing reservoirs in the irrigation districts
Who pays for all of this?




Would have been SAWS under LSWP
Conservation can be cost shared with NRCS through EQIP
Other possibilities are currently unfunded and too expensive for
producers to undertake
Potential for new users to help, but no precedent for this
Other Surface Water Notables
Status of the LCRA/SAWS Water Project
 Water from the Colorado for Corpus Christi
 Upstream growth
 New power plants?
 New reservoirs?

LCRA / SAWS Status






Would expand water supplies from the Colorado River
through a combination of conservation, off-channel
reservoir and groundwater for agriculture.
Studies demonstrate that there would not be enough
water to send to S. A. after meeting in-basin demands.
SAWS is suing LCRA for breach of contract.
LCRA claims there is no basis for such
a suit.
The plan appears to be dead.
SAWS still has needs, though,
so stay tuned.
Corpus Christi Water from the
Colorado








Corpus purchased 35,000 ac-ft of the Garwood water right in
1997 for $16 mil.
Has not drawn on this right yet.
Engineering studies for pipeline currently underway.
Will likely pump from the Colorado in Matagorda County and
connect to the Mary Rhodes Pipeline at Lake Texana (about 40
miles)
No water goes into Texana
Estimated cost $100 mil
Pipeline construction time:
< 18 months
Could be using Colorado water by 2020
Upstream Growth




Growth in the Austin area is
outpacing earlier projections.
The IH130 corridor is stimulating
growth that was not previously
planned for.
Unclear who will service all of this new growth.
It is clear that much of the water will come from
the Colorado if it is available.
New Power Plants







Power plants are major water consumers
Las Brisas Power plant proposed for the Corpus area
likely driving the current move to access the Garwood
right.
South Texas Nuclear expansion
White Stallion coal plant proposed
Austin Energy to expand with coal plant
Exelon proposes nuclear south of Victoria
Water availability will be a determining factor for each
of these plants
New Reservoirs?







Few traditional sites left for development
25 year permitting process
Must have water available to fill
Where there is water, topography is wrong
Off-channel reservoirs in the coastal region will be the
future
Capture flood flows with high capacity pumps
Transporting water to areas of need a big cost factor
Is Groundwater Our Ace in the
Hole?

Let’s take a look and then you decide
Groundwater and Alphabet Soup






GCD – Groundwater Conservation District
TWDB – Texas Water Development Board
GMA – Groundwater Management Area
MAG – Managed Available Groundwater
GAM – Groundwater Availability Model
DFC – Desired Future Condition
GCDs



Groundwater Conservation Districts are the
Legislature’s preferred method of managing
groundwater.
The regional water planning process has resulted
in the proliferation of GCDs over most of the
state.
Each GCD can choose its own management
scheme within certain parameters.
HB 1763





Passed in 2007
Forces GCDs within a Groundwater Management Area
(GMA) to do joint planning
Each GMA must provide their Desired Future
Conditions (DFC) for each aquifer and aquifer layer
under their area by September, 2010.
TWDB uses the DFCs and the GAMs to determine the
Managed Available Groundwater (MAG).
Each GCD must then incorporate the MAG into their
Management Plan in an effort to manage for their
DFC.
DFC/MAG Example





GCD X adopts a DFC that will allow an average decline of 10
feet in the water table of Aquifer Y over the next 50 yrs.
GCD X’s DFC must be determined to be compatible with
neighboring GCDs by the GMA in which it lies.
TWDB does iterative runs of the GAM and determines that Z
acre-feet of pumpage can occur annually without exceeding the
DFC of 10 ft of drawdown.
Z acre feet is passed down as the MAG for GCD X.
GCD X manages the aquifer in such a way as to prevent
pumpage from exceeding MAG Z and the DFC of 10 ft.
How can GCD X accomplish the
required objectives?



GCD X must adopt a management scheme that does
not allow the actual pumpage in the district to
consistently exceed Z ac-ft.
When total permitted volumes result in pumpage that
bumps up to MAG Z, the district must either turn
down all future permit requests or start ratcheting back
existing permits to make room for new ones.
Many unknowns about the legalities involved here.
Big Question: Who Owns
Groundwater in Place?






Several major landowner groups insist that the
landowner owns it even before he pumps it.
The Rule of Capture says that ownership occurs only once it is
captured (pumped).
The courts have skirted directly answering this question.
Several current cases could force the Texas Supreme Court to
finally answer this question.
The answer matters a great deal.
GCDs operate under the assumption that ownership does not
occur until it is captured, therefore a GCD can restrict or even
deny access to groundwater so long as there is a scientifically
plausible reason for doing so without the risk of a private
property takings suit against it.
GMA 15 Progress





Draft DFCs have been generated.
TWDB is accomplishing a draft MAG run.
Will adopt final DFCs by September, 2010.
No conflicts among GCDs so far.
Meetings are open – get with your local GCD to
be informed of meetings.
Don’t Lose Hope




Be prepared for the worst, but hope for the best.
We will survive this and live to farm another day
People have to eat.
Pray for rain in the upper basins and for wisdom
and reasonable actions in the meantime.
Questions
Questions
Simplified Draft Desired Future Conditions by County & Aquifer Layer
for GMA 15
GCD
County
Average Drawdowns Allowed by DFCs at year 2060 (ft)
Chicot
Evangeline
Jasper
Coastal Bend GCD
Wharton
10
10
20
Coastal Plains GCD
Matagorda
10
10
20
Texana GCD *
Jackson
10
10
20
Fayette Cy GCD
southern Fayette
-
30
50
Bee Cy GCD
eastern half Bee
10
10
10
Evergreen UWCD
southern Karnes
-
15
15
Pecan Valley GCD
Dewitt
10
10
10
Refugio Cy GCD
Refugio
0
10
-
Colorado Cy GCD
Colorado
0
0
20
Lavaca Cy GCD
Lavaca
5
6
15
none
Calhoun
0
10
-
none
Aransas
0
25
-
Goliad Cy GCD
Goliad
0
0
10
Victoria Cy GCD
Victoria
10
10
10
* inactive GCD
Yegua-Jackson
50
Total Pumpage Used for Each
County in GAM Run 08-56
Actual pumpage used for GAM run 08-56
Most Pumpage to
Least
Total
Chicot Aquifer
Burkeville Confining
Unit
Evangeline Aquifer
Jasper Aquifer
Wharton
175,000
108,650
66,350
0
0
Jackson
75,000
54,680
20,320
0
0
Colorado
48,000
24,450
22,650
0
900
Matagorda
44,985
35,595
9,390
0
0
Victoria
35,000
8,000
27,000
0
0
Refugio
28,758
6,257
22,501
0
0
Bee
22,175
9,500
12,000
75
600
Lavaca
20,185
3,036
12,400
149
4,600
Goliad
17,739
645
17,094
0
0
Fayette
8,658
0
885
154
7,619
Calhoun
2,955
2,881
74
0
0
Karnes
2,895
0
103
281
2,511
Aransas
1,826
1,826
0
0
0
DeWitt
14,945
1,000
7,662
0
6,283