Section 6
Policies and Recommendations

6.1       Introduction

The South Central Texas Regional Water Planning Group developed numerous policies and guiding assumptions as it worked on the Regional Plan. An important part of this effort was the definition of a set of evaluation criteria employed during the process of reviewing options and strategies, creating alternative plan approaches and building consensus. In addition, the RWPG produced a number of legislative recommendations, a statement on ecologically unique stream segments and unique reservoir sites, and other recommendations, all of which are integral to achieving the Regional Plan's goals and articulating the values on which it is based.

6.2       Additional Regional Water Plan Recommendations

6.2.1    Additional Regional Water Supply Storage

The Regional Water Plan creates opportunities for additional year-to-year storage that can conserve new supplies and extend their usefulness.  The Planning Group therefore recommends further study and eventual implementation of one or more of several possible storage strategies. These include:

·        Additional Aquifer Storage and Recovery projects in all aquifers, including the saline zone of the Edwards Aquifer

·        Unused storage capacity of existing regional reservoirs

·        Use of additional small off-channel storage facilities

·        Palmetto Bend Stage 2 Reservoir

The purpose of this additional regional storage facility is to store wet-year supplies from the options and strategies included in the Regional Water Plan for use in drought situations. As noted in the policy statements accompanying the plan, the Edwards Aquifer Authority could require reductions in pumpage below the 340,000 acft/yr planning level in order to protect springflow. [1] Such reductions could exhaust the additional management supply already built into the Regional Water Plan. The added storage capacity would enable the region to preserve imported, take-or-pay and other water supplies when not needed for delivery to water user groups.

6.2.2    Lockhart Reservoir

The Lockhart Reservoir is recommended as a potential reservoir site. Although the Regional Plan recommends other means of meeting projected water needs in Caldwell County, the Planning Group recognizes the strong interest of the local government in shifting from low-quality groundwater sources to a surface water supply system. The reservoir is considered by the local government to be an important economic development project to create new growth opportunities for the area. There are questions about economic feasibility at present, but the RWPG recognizes the efforts in Caldwell County and by the Guadalupe Blanco River Authority to find a viable strategy to move the project forward.

When that strategy is ready, the RWPG will review the Lockhart Reservoir water supply option as a possible amendment to the Regional Water Plan.

6.3       Guiding Principles and Assumptions

The South Central Texas Regional Water Planning Group bases the criteria for evaluating alternative regional water plans on these overarching assumptions and principles:

6.3.1    Regional Balance of Benefits and Costs — Mitigation Policy

The plan must meet the defined water needs of every Water User Group in each of the region's 21 counties and must consider carefully the impact and the balance of benefits and costs of water supply development for every county in the region.  In evaluating the impacts of one or more components of the Regional Plan, the SCTRWPG will consider the long and short term costs, benefits, losses and gains to affected communities and the environment, to the extent reliable information is readily available. The developer of any option or strategy included in the Regional Water Plan should implement effective and specific mitigation measures designed to minimize any social, cultural, economic and environmental adverse impacts, including impacts on rate-payers, caused by the option or strategy. The goal of the Regional Plan is to maximize benefits and minimize negative impacts for affected communities, the region, the state and the environment.

To further the goal of maximizing benefits, the Regional Water Planning Group encourages developers of water management strategies under this Plan to consider alternative distribution, routing or other project modifications that would extend benefits to agricultural and other Water User Groups presently lacking access to new water sources.

6.3.2    Conservation

Conservation is basic to the regional water planning strategy. The Texas Water Development Board has built substantial conservation assumptions into its projections of water demand. Furthermore, the South Central Texas Regional Water Planning Group has adopted the advanced conservation case of the alternative per capita water use levels applied by the TWDB in its water demand projections. Thus, the water demands used in the alternative plans already reflect significant reductions in water use from those that would have been projected without the conservation assumptions. The conservation options and strategies evaluated during the planning process would aim for further reductions in demand beyond those already reflected in the projections.

6.3.3    Use of Evaluation Criteria

The Regional Water Planning Group uses the criteria in evaluating each alternative plan as an integrated whole and not as a series of independent projects. The options and strategies selected for each alternative have already been evaluated on a stand-alone basis using the evaluation criteria enumerated in the TWDB regulations at §357.7 (a)(7).

6.3.4    Potential Reductions in Permitted Groundwater Supply

The Plan identifies amounts of water that would be withdrawn from various aquifers as part of the region’s projected available supplies.  It is understood that, if a permitting agency, such as a groundwater district, restricts these withdrawals, then additional supplies will need to be identified to compensate for any reductions in supply. The Regional Water Plan respects the rules and regulations of groundwater districts, just as it does those of all other state subdivisions and agencies. The RWPG believes that all rules should be adopted pursuant to accepted administrative procedures based on the standards of rationality, equity and scientific evidence.

6.3.5    Groundwater Sustainability

The Regional Water Planning Group has adopted the goal of groundwater sustainability and recommends management strategies needed to accomplish this goal. This recommendation is intended to help protect all users of those aquifers that are subject to increased withdrawals, to help preserve the long-term integrity of those aquifers and to build awareness of the effects of pumping on those aquifers and of their recovery capabilities. The Planning Group recommends that any person implementing any groundwater option or strategy identified as part of this Regional Plan consider and incorporate groundwater monitoring of both quantity and quality, recharge protection and enhancement, conservation methods and related practices, as determined to be appropriate by local groundwater districts. Where no district exists, the developer should monitor impacts and, when appropriate, take corrective action consistent with the goal of groundwater sustainability.

6.3.6    Protection of Edwards Aquifer Springflow and Downstream Water Rights

While the plan assumes annual withdrawals of 340,000 acre-feet from the Edwards Aquifer under drought of record conditions, it is recognized that this level of pumpage may not protect springflows.  A plan for protecting springflow may not be available for approximately three years, when a Habitat Conservation Plan being prepared by the Edwards Aquifer Authority (EAA) is completed. If the EAA or other government authorities mandate reductions in pumpage from the Edwards Aquifer below 340,000 acre-feet, annually, water options and management strategies in addition to those identified in this plan will be needed to meet the projected demands of Water User Groups, to manage peak water demand periods and to protect downstream water rights.  Recognizing this, the South Central Texas Regional Water Planning Group accepts 340,000 acre-feet as an appropriate pumpage level for planning purposes.

6.3.7    Planning for System Management Water Supplies

System Management water supplies, i.e. supplies over and above those apparently needed to meet projected demands, must be included in the plan, first, so that water options and management strategies are identified to replace any planned options or strategies that may fail to develop and, second, to serve as additional supplies in the event rules, regulations or other restrictions limit use of any planned options or strategies. The plan should specify those factors affecting reliability of the recommended options and strategies and indicate what alternatives are available as possible replacements.

6.4       Feasibility of Meeting Irrigation Water Needs

The South Central Texas Regional Water Planning Group finds that, under current conditions, it is not economically feasible for agricultural producers to pay for additional water supplies to meet project irrigation water shortages

See Supplement 1 to this chapter for the analysis of economic feasibility underlying this finding of the Regional Water Planning Group.

During the next planning cycle, the SCTRWPG will conduct additional socio-economic studies regarding impacts of the Regional Water Plan on agricultural resources and also carry out additional studies on water management strategies that may meet irrigation needs.

6.5       Evaluation Criteria

The South Central Texas Regional Water Planning Group initially adopted a set of criteria to guide the evaluation of alternative Regional Water Plans in January 1999.  In response to public comment, concerns of Planning Group members and technical evaluation, the RWPG twice revised the criteria, in December 1999 and in July 2000. These criteria are distinct from the criteria described in the TWDB regulations, which are used to evaluate the individual water supply options and strategies. Unique among the water planning regions, the South Central Texas Region chose to develop a series of alternative regional plans and to supplement technical evaluation by using the following set of additional criteria. These criteria have been used by the RWPG to evaluate each alternative as a whole (see section 6.2.3 above) rather than its individual component options and strategies.

·        Economic Impact

(1)  Furthers economic development

(2)  Minimizes long-range negative socio-economic impacts (including loss of tax base)

(3)  Promotes opportunities for cost-sharing and economic partnership

(4)  Provides cost-effective solutions

·        Water Quality

(1)  Provides and maintains appropriate quality for the intended use

·        Fairness

(1)  Emphasizes efficient use of water in areas that import water

(2)  Promotes equitable distribution of costs and benefits in meeting region's water needs

·        Feasibility

(1)  Demonstrates feasibility in terms of the following factors:

(a)  Timing

(b)  Technical/ scientific

(c)  Economic

(d)  Political

(e)  Regulatory

(f)   Legal

(g)  Public acceptance

·        Efficiency

(1)  Minimizes evaporative and distribution losses

(2)  Promotes conservation

(3)  Promotes conjunctive use

·        Flexibility

(1)  Adaptable to new and innovative technology

(2)  Adaptable to changes in demand projections

(3)  Adaptable to changes in law

(4)  Adaptable to future supply options

·        Compatibility

(1)  Maximizes regional compatibility with local water plans

(2)  Minimizes negative impacts on property rights

(3)  Maximizes consistency with local growth management plans

(4)  Maximizes compatibility with plans from surrounding regions

·        Reliability

(1)  Maximizes a sustainable (referring to yield) supply of water for short-term and long-term needs

(2)  Minimizes interruptions to water supplies

·        Environment

(1)  Minimizes short-term and long-term negative impacts on native species and habitat diversity, including but not necessarily limited to:

(a)  Endangered & Threatened Species

(b)  Ecologically Unique Stream Segment Candidate Sites (as identified by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department)

(c)  Vegetation & Wildlife Habitat (including wooded riparian areas, wetlands and other habitat categories defined by the Physiognomic Regions of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department)

(d)  Groundwater Sustainability (as measured by aquifer drawdown)

(e)  Water Quality and Aquatic Habitat (including streamflows, springflows, estuarine inflows, and all aquatic habitats)

(2)  Minimizes short-term and long-term negative impacts to the human environment

(a)  Cultural Resources (including archeological and historic sites)

(b)  Recreational

(c)  Aesthetics

6.6       Conservation Planning Guidelines

Because of the central role of advanced conservation in achieving the water supply objectives of the Regional Plan, the RWPG is including in this report Conservation Planning Guidelines for potential use by water user groups across the region. We recognize that the creation of conservation programs and the selection of specific conservation technologies is a matter of local choice. The RWPG hopes that this educational tool will facilitate understanding of the importance of conservation efforts and the wide range of methods available for use.

See Supplement 2 to this section for the full text of the Conservation Planning Guidelines.

6.7       Legislative Recommendations

6.7.1    Plan Implementation

Given the unprecedented level of time and money expended in the development of Regional Water Plans across the state, the South Central Texas Regional Water Planning Group urges the Legislature to act promptly to help ensure full implementation of these plans.

6.7.1.1     Funding

The South Central Texas Regional Water Planning Group believes that State funding should be provided as a key incentive for partnership in funding from local, regional and federal governmental agencies.

State Water Plan Implementation.  State support is fundamental for the successful implementation of the water resources projects in the State Water Plan resulting from the SB-1 Regional Planning Process. Specifically, new legislation to create State support for implementation of the State Plan should include the following:

·        A statewide funding mechanism for projects included in the State Water Plan.

·        Sufficient funding for TWDB and TNRCC to administer their programs and activities associated with planning, financing and permitting of the projects in the State Plan.

Water Data Collection.  The Legislature should fully fund the cooperative, federal-state-local program of basic water data collection, including (a) Stream gages-quantity and quality; (b) Groundwater monitoring-water levels and quality; (c) Hydrographic surveys-sediment accumulation in reservoirs; (d) Water surface evaporation rates; (e) Water use data for all water user groups; and (e) Population projections.

Access to State Water Data.  There should be adequate funding for the critical roles of TWDB and TNRCC in facilitating access to water data essential for local and regional planning and plan implementation purposes.

Continuation of Regional Water Planning.  The SB-1 Planning Process is an important program, and funding should be continued to sustain the work of the Regional Water Planning Groups after January 2001.

Surface Water Rights Monitoring and Administration.  TNRCC should be adequately staffed and funded to ensure the legal and appropriate use of permitted surface water rights through comprehensive monitoring and administrative programs such as the watermaster program.

Assistance for Alternative Water Supply Strategies.  The State should provide funding to assist water planning regions and local water entities in developing demonstration projects for alternative water supply strategies and technologies, such as but not limited to desalination. With this assistance, water planning regions could avoid short-term projects that may be less costly but also less desirable because of environmental and socio-economic impacts. By funding demonstration projects for alternative technologies that may not yet be cost-effective, the State can help local water management entities avoid adverse impacts to the environment, to property rights and to local socio-economic conditions. In this way, the State can play a crucial role in guiding regions to water supply solutions that meet needs while also resolving conflict.  Funding to demonstrate the value of innovative long-term strategies thus can help achieve cost-saving, efficient regional water management solutions.

Irrigation Technology Center.  The State should provide funding to help establish within the South Central Texas Water Planning Region the Irrigation Technology Center, as proposed by the Texas A&M University System, in order to provide hands-on access to state-of-the-art water conservation technologies tailored to the specific urban and agricultural conservation needs of this region.

UTSA Center for Water Research.  The South Central Texas Regional Water Planning Group recommends funding for the UTSA Center for Water Research. Central Texas and the U.S./Mexico border region are areas of rapid population growth and of tremendous demands on limited natural resources, especially water. In order to meet and sustain growth, these areas must have access to the information, education, research capabilities, technology and highly trained individuals necessary to address current problems and provide professional management for the future.

The Center for Water Research at the University of Texas at San Antonio, a component of the university that is not funded by the State budget, has been providing these services on a limited basis for the past thirteen years. With adequate State funding the Center could be a resource for:

·        Water quality concerns, including public health issues, water treatment and water chemistry.

·        Water resource management, including the application of models to surface and groundwater resource management.

·        Education and technology transfer to other institutions and individuals in this region using state-of-the-art distance learning technologies and on-site education assets.

·        Land use, environmental issues, reclamation techniques, pollution prevention and control, especially as these issues relate to the rapid growth and resource demands of the border regions along the Rio Grande, in South Texas, and in the environmentally fragile Hill Country of Central Texas.

Edwards Aquifer Research and Data Center.  The South Central Texas Regional Water Planning Group supports funding for the Edwards Aquifer Research and Data Center at Southwest Texas State University in San Marcos. The Edwards Aquifer Research and Data Center (EARDC) was established in 1979 by special funding for Southwest Texas State University to provide a public service in the study, understanding and use of the very fragile

natural resource, the Edwards Aquifer. EARDC operations are organized around four major areas:

·        The Data Center, operating both statewide and nationally, collects, maintains, and makes available information on the Edwards Aquifer.

·        The Technical Services Center offers a variety of technical services to the public and various government offices. Most prominent at the present are the Laboratory Services for water analyses.

·        The Education Center seeks to improve public understanding of the Edwards Aquifer through the development and the dissemination of educational materials and through development and implementation of educational programs.

·        The Research Center conducts basic and applied research related to the Aquifer in the area of aquatic biology, geochemistry, and hydrogeology.

Public Education on Water.   The State should fund a state-wide program to educate the general public about water in coordination with the Agricultural Extension Service offices. The program should produce water-related materials with special components adapted for each water planning region and should also include a component comparable to the "Major Rivers" program that would be available to the public schools through the Regional Education Service Centers and by other means.

6.7.1.2     Other Implementation Issues

SB-1 Junior Water Rights Provision.  The Regional Water Planning Group has considered the positive and negative impacts of the Junior Water Rights provision. Among the negative impacts cited by some members are these:

·        It imposes limitations on surface water rights permits that have previously been issued, possibly diminishing the value of some permits to the owners.

·        It forces greater use of groundwater supplies, and potentially, encourages the mining of aquifers.

·        It can result in construction of new reservoirs that would not be needed if seniority of rights were preserved in interbasin transfers because of the need to provide reliable water supplies in the plans.

Other members of the Planning Group cite the following positive effects of the Junior Water Rights provision of SB-1.

·        The provision protects municipalities and other water users, especially in cases where the interbasin transfer of senior water rights would put junior rights at risk.

·        Bays and estuaries and instream flows have added protection from the impact of water exportation.

·        Establishing the seniority of basin-of-origin water rights over those used for export preserves the economic value of the resource for the future development of the basin.

The Regional Water Planning Group makes no specific recommendation for legislative change at this time.

County Authority.  Counties should have additional authority for land use planning and for regulating development based on availability and protection of water resources.

Water Withdrawn from Coastal Bays or the Gulf of Mexico.  The Legislature should clarify that water withdrawn from the coastal bays or the Gulf of Mexico for desalination projects does not constitute an Interbasin Transfer.

6.7.2    Changes in TWDB Planning Process

6.7.2.1     Notice of Projects with Impacts on Shared Groundwater Resources

In the event a Water User Group relies on a groundwater management strategy to meet the Water User Group's demand during the planning period and the strategy would have a significant impact on a groundwater resource shared with adjoining planning region(s), notice shall be provided to the adjoining region(s) of the proposed date of implementation and anticipated acre-feet per year demand on the shared groundwater resource.

6.7.2.2     Regional Boundaries

The boundaries of Region L should be adjusted to include the southern portion of Blanco County that is to be served by a Major Water Provider in Region L.

6.7.2.3     Population and Water Demand Projections

The RWPG recognizes that the TWDB bases its water demand projections on patterns of population and economic growth while also permitting revisions of state data to incorporate additional information developed by the planning regions. Nevertheless, some groups believe that the methodology puts an unfair limitation on access to water for future growth, particularly in areas that may experience more rapid change than they have in the past. The Legislature should modify the Regional Water Planning process to allow for greater flexibility and for earlier and more active involvement of the Regional Water Planning Groups in developing growth and water demand projection methodologies consistent with water availability strategies.

6.7.2.4     "County Other" Water User Group

The Planning Regions should have the option and the resources required to disaggregate the "County Other" Water User Group and to develop water demand projections and water management strategies in cooperation with the entities included within this group on an individual basis, according to an agreed-upon methodology.

6.7.2.5     Ecosystem Health, Quality of Life, and Growth Management for Texas

The rapid growth occurring in South Central Texas has the potential to negatively impact quality of life. Human demands for water and infrastructure development may outstrip the ability of all of the region's resources to respond and to be sustainable. Texas should focus on these issues and evaluate land use and the health of its ecosystem in order to prepare for the future and support a sustainable quality of life for all Texans.

6.7.2.6     Coastal Basins

Coastal basins adjacent to major river basins are considered part of the major basins. The RWPG recommends eliminating the requirement to tabulate data for these areas by county and basin boundary since the result is a set of essentially empty tables.

6.7.2.7     Planning Requirements

There should be no changes in the planning process or additional planning requirements except through the formal rule-making procedure. Contract requirements should be established and in place prior to submission of grant proposals.

6.7.2.8     Volunteer Travel Expenses

Many members of Planning Groups do not receive any compensation or reimbursement for expenses. These volunteer members of Regional Water Planning Groups must often travel significant distances to attend meetings and should receive state-funded reimbursement for travel expenses. The lack of travel expense reimbursement has created an undue hardship in some regions.

6.7.2.9     Regional Boundaries Should Foster Collaboration

The Planning Group recommends that the Legislature make it very clear to all Texans that the boundaries of the regional water planning regions were drawn only to define water planning regions and that the boundaries are not intended to be barriers to prevent water transport from one region to another – nor to pit one region against another for any reason.

6.7.3    Proposals for Other Legislative Changes

6.7.3.1     Proposal to Support the Recommendations of the Texas Groundwater
Collaborative Process

The South Central Texas Regional Water Planning Group commends the effort of participants in the Texas Groundwater Collaborative Process to address important and difficult issues pertaining to groundwater management in the state. The SCTRWPG supports their recommendations as recorded in the report, Future of Groundwater Management in Texas, except for the recommendation supporting repeal of the Junior Water Rights Provision of SB-1. As noted above, the South Central Texas Regional Water Planning Group takes no position on that issue.

6.7.3.2     Groundwater District Management Plans

Current law [36.1071 (e)(4)] requires groundwater district management plans to "address water supply needs in a manner that is not in conflict with the appropriate approved regional water plan if a regional water plan has been approved under Section 16.053". The Legislature should amend 36.1071 (e)(4) by substituting a requirement that groundwater district management plans and regional water plans use the same data, provided by TWDB under the applicable regional water planning rules, regarding water demand projections.

6.7.3.3     State Position in Federal Permitting

In the context of the federal permitting processes pertaining to water resources, all state agencies should present a single position consistent with the State's position as articulated in the State Water Plan.

6.7.4    Ecologically Unique Stream Segments and Unique Reservoir Sites

The South Central Texas Regional Water Planning Group asks the Legislature to provide further definition and clarification of the legal implications it intends by the designation of stream segments as either "ecologically unique" or as "unique reservoir sites". Until that definition and clarification occurs, the RWGP recommends that there be no designation of sites in this round of planning. However, the RWPG recognizes the great importance of the issue for the protection of sites of high ecological value as well as future reservoir sites.

The RWPG has ample evidence of the existence in this region of many streams that may deserve recognition and protection, including the list prepared by the Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife identifying 20 stream segments meeting one or more of the criteria specified in
S.B-1. There have been additional suggestions of sites made by members of the RWPG, by many individuals through our public involvement process and by such organizations as the San Antonio River Basin Alliance, the Texas Rivers Protection Association, the San Marcos River Foundation, and the Wimberley Valley Watershed Association.

The RWPG believes there should be a clear process for the development of recommendations on site designation. Such a process should include extensive public involvement and ample opportunity and resources for the assessment of all potential impacts.

The RWPG should address any conflict between water supply strategies and the candidate sites for designation as ecologically unique within the context of the regional water planning process. In addressing this task, the RWPG will work with TPWD on refinement of candidate stream segments that are also potential sites for recharge structures.

The group urges all advocates of river protection and potential site designation to provide whatever relevant documentation they possess during the plan development process. The RWPG will use this documentation in its consideration of alternative plans and possible modification of specific water supply strategies.

 


[1] As noted in Section 5 of the Regional Water Plan, the RWPG agreed to use the pumping level of 340,000 acre-feet per year for planning purposes only. Also, see Section 6.3, "Guiding Principles and Assumptions; and  Section 6.3.6, "Protection of Edwards Aquifer Springflow and Downstream Water Rights."