No. 6: Groundwater Management in Texas

It's March 6th. Remember the Alamo!

While outlining the posts to follow my discussion of negative externalities associated with the Rule of Capture and the need to protect a landowner's claim to the groundwater beneath his property through the assignment of well-defined, enforceable, and transferable groundwater rights, I received email from an acquaintance calling my attention to a new publication by the Austin office of the Environmental Defense Fund: Down to the Last Drop (2009 Update: Spotlight on Groundwater Management in Texas). The authors of the report are Laura Brock Marbury and Mary E. Kelly.

I have not read the document thoroughly (I'll get to it soon), although several topics stand out such that the authors' opinions appear to be very close to mine. The first is that surface water and groundwater are not independent of each other and that proper water-resource management should consider the interconnectivity between both sources of water. We tend to divide the field of hydrology into "surface water" and "groundwater," and - because of that division - many politicians, planners, hydrogeologists, and surface water hydrologists often don't think of the many factors that link one with the other.

Streams and lakes are fed by groundwater, and vice versa. Hence, how we choose to manage one part of the surface water/groundwater system might very well have significant implications for what happens to the other. A couple of examples:

(1) Pumping excessive volumes of groundwater might lead to diminished flow to streams or to the cessation of springflow; and

(2) Diverting or impounding surface water might cause reduced recharge of aquifers.

Suffice it to say that it is important to understand how the two are interconnected within a hydrologic basin in order to avoid unintended consequences.

The second point of interest in Down to the Last Drop is the matter of groundwater planning, especially problems associated with Groundwater Management Areas (GMAs)and the Legislature's requirement that each of the 16 GMAs identify Desired Future Conditions (DFCs) for aquifers within their respective jurisdictions. Marbury and Kelly point out that the current approach to establishing DFCs does not require that "future conditions be physically measureable either directly or through an alternative measureable metric." They go on to make a case that "The rules should also require the GMAs to establish protocols for monitoring groundwater resource conditions to ensure that present conditions are consistent with established desired future conditions. Individual groundwater district management plans should also be amended to incorporate applicable metrics for the aquifer under their jurisdiction."

I have heard enough discussion, from representatives of Groundwater Conservation Districts, about DFCs to have concluded long before now that implementing recommendations such as those suggested by Marbury and Kelly would clear up much of the confusion surrounding DFCs by making the process based less on guesswork than on a firm understanding of current conditions and the development of a system (or systems) to measure key indicators of hydrologic conditions within a GMA to determine whether the desired conditions can be achieved. Frankly, some of the DFCs with which I am familiar do not make sense. More about that later.

Suffice it to say that water planning is an evolving process in Texas. Prior to the passage of Senate Bill 1 in 1997, the State lacked an orderly program to guide the development and management of groundwater and surface water resources. Texas is now in the second decade of water planning, and I expect that it will require more time to resolve major differences of opinion and to formulate strategies to ensure that water will be available to all sectors of the State's economy over the next 50 years. If I have learned anything about the pace of water planning in Texas, it is the following: Don't expect too much too soon. Texas has embraced the Rule of Capture (ROC) for many decades; and for as much as I regard that doctrine to be one that promotes inefficiency and devaluation of groundwater, I think that Texas will eventually reach a point at which, through statewide water planning, the ROC will give way to another more sensible doctrine that embraces the role of market-based solutions in the management of water resources.

Best Regards,

aquadoc
Southwest Groundwater Consulting, LLC