Agenda

Water Captains: How to Be Effective Advocates in the Regional Water Planning Process
Water Planning in Region L (South Central Texas Regional Water Planning Group)
Saturday, May 16, 2015 - 9 AM - 3 PM
William R. Sinkin Eco Centro (1802 North Main Avenue, San Antonio, Texas 78212)
9:15 AM: Check-in, networking with coffee & juice
10:00 AM: Welcome followed by:
Water in Our God-Drenched Universe - Linda Gibler, O.P., Ph.D., Assistant Professor
of Science and Religion & Associate Academic Dean, Oblate School of Theology
Opportunities and Innovations in Water Conservation - Calvin R. Finch, Ph.D.,
Horticulturist and Urban Water Program Director, Texas A&M Institute of Renewable
Natural Resources
Waterways - Kamala Platt, Ph.D., M.F.A., educator & author
Conserving Land Conserves Water: What Happens on the Land Has Everything to
Do with Our Future Water Supply - Charlie Flatten, Water Policy Program Manager,
Hill Country Alliance
Discussion
12:15 PM: Lunch & Presentation:
Water Planning in Texas: How Did We Get Here? - Norman Boyd, Region L
Member, San Antonio Bay Ecosystem Leader, Texas Parks & Wildlife
How Does the Regional Water Planning Process Work - John Kight, Region L
Member, former Kendall County Commissioner
Water Planning: Exclusion, Socializing Costs, and Unequal Influence: A Critical
Review - Carol Mendoza Fisher, Technical Director, Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance
Fracking and Water Planning - Meredith Miller, Senior Program Coordinator, The
Meadows Center for Water and the Environment
How Can Citizens Get Involved in the Water Planning Process - Sonia Jimenez,
Ximenes & Associates
2:45 PM: Next Steps and Adjourn
Join us on Thursday, May 21, 2015 at William R. Sinkin Eco Centro (1802 North
Main Avenue, San Antonio, Texas 78212) to draft a white paper & citizen's guide to
water planning in Region L at one of the following times. Please RSVP to Diane
Duesterhoeft at dduesterhoeft@gmail.com or 210-254-0245:
11 AM - 1 PM (lunch provided)
7 PM - 9 PM
Post follow up comments at https://www.facebook.com/events/461266597363418/

Useful Maps for Region L Water Planning

San Antonio Interfaith

Power & Light

Resources for Water Captains

Upcoming Hearings for Region L Water Plan. Each hearing will begin at 6 p.m.
o Monday, June 8: San Antonio Water System
Customer Service Building, Room CR C145, 2800 US Highway 281 North
San Antonio, Texas 78212
o Wednesday, June 10: City of San Marcos
San Marcos Activity Center, 501 E Hopkins St, San Marcos, TX 78666
o Thursday, June 11: City of Victoria
Victoria Community Center, 2905 E. North St., Victoria, TX 77902-1758

Region L: http://www.regionltexas.org/
o 2016 Initially Prepared (Draft) Region L Plan:
Vol I: http://www.regionltexas.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/2016-Region-L-IPP-Vol-I.pdf
Vol II: http://www.regionltexas.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/2016-Region-L-IPP-Vol-II.pdf

o 2011 Region L Water Plan:

Region L 2011 RWP (Volume 1):
http://www.twdb.texas.gov/waterplanning/rwp/plans/2011/L/Region_L_2011_RWPV1.pdf
Region L 2011 RWP (Volume 2):
http://www.twdb.texas.gov/waterplanning/rwp/plans/2011/L/Region_L_2011_RWPV2.pdf
Errata for Region L 2011 RWP:
http://www.twdb.texas.gov/waterplanning/rwp/plans/2011/L/Region_L_2011_RWP_Errata.pdf
Amendment to Region L 2011 RWP:
http://www.twdb.texas.gov/waterplanning/rwp/plans/2011/L/Region_L_2011_RWP_Amendment.pdf

Texas Water Development Board: http://www.twdb.texas.gov/

o Interactive 2010 Data for 2012 State Water Plan: http://texasstatewaterplan.org/#/demands/2010/state
o 2012 State Water Plan: http://www.twdb.texas.gov/waterplanning/swp/2012/index.asp
San Antonio River Authority: http://www.sara-tx.org/
Texas Water Captains: http://www.texasinterfaithcenter.org/article/texas-water-captains-program
Edwards Aquifer Authority: http://www.edwardsaquifer.org/
Edwards Aquifer Habitat Conservation Plan: http://www.eahcp.org/
Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance: http://www.aquiferalliance.net/
Gregg Eckhardts Edwards Aquifer Website: http://edwardsaquifer.net/
The Meadows Center for Water and the Environment: http://www.meadowscenter.txstate.edu/
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality: http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/
Texas Drought Project: http://texasdroughtproject.org/
Texas Living Waters Project: http://texaslivingwaters.org/
Free on-line courses: https://www.mooc-list.com/multiple-criteria,
https://www.edx.org/, https://www.coursera.org/, https://www.open2study.com/

San Antonio Interfaith

Power & Light

Notes and Next Steps for Region L Water Captains

In Our God-Drenched Universe

Water Captains: How to Be Effective Advocates
EcoCenter, San Antonio
May 16, 2015

Or

How Water Reveals God

Psalm 19
The heavens are telling the glory of God;
and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.
Day to day pours forth speech,
and night to night declares knowledge.
There is no speech, nor are there words;
their voice is not heard;
yet their voice goes out through all the earth,
and their words to the end of the world.

John 3:16-17
For God so loved the world
that he gave his only Son,
so that everyone who believes in him
may not perish but have eternal life.
Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world
to condemn the world,
but in order that the
world might be saved
through him.

Thomas Aquinas, OP
(1225 - 1274)
It is evident that the opinion is false of those
who asserted that it made no difference to the
truth of the faith what anyone holds about
creatures, so long as one thinks rightly about
God, For error concerning creatures, spills
over into false opinion about God.
Summa Contra Gentiles II:3:6

Two Books of Revelation:

Scripture and Creation

Augustine of Hippo
(354 - 430)
Some people, in order to discover God, read books.
But there is a great book: the very appearance of
created things. Look above you! Look below you!
Note it. Read it. God, whom you want to discover,
never wrote that book with ink. Instead He set
before your eyes the things that He had made. Can
you ask for a louder voice than that? Why, heaven
and earth shout to you: "God made me!"
De Civit. Dei, Book XVI

Maximus the Confessor

(580 - 662)
Creation is a bible whose letters and syllables
are the particular aspects of all creatures and
whose words are the more universal aspects of
creation.
Conversely, Scripture is like a cosmos constituted
of heaven and earth and things in between; that
is, the ethical, the natural, and the theological
dimension.
Ambiguum 10, PG 91. 1128-1129a

Meister Eckhart (1260 - 1327)

Apprehend God in all things,
for God is in all things.
Every creature is full of God
and is a book about God.
Every creature is a word of God.
If I spent enough time with the tiniest creature
even a caterpillar
I would never have to prepare a sermon,
so full of God is every creature.
Sermons

The Story of Water

Hydrogen Nuclei
13.8 Billion Years ago

First Hydrogen Atoms

380,000 years after the Beginning

Oxygen Formation
~1 Million Years ATB

Oxygen released from Stars

~100 Million Years ATB

Water Formation
~100 Million Years ATB

Stellar Nursery

Solar System
5 Billion Years Ago

Earth
4.6 Billion Years Ago

Comets

Out gassing

Oceans
4 Billion Years Ago

Early Life
3.8 Billion Years Ago

Waters Recede

Rivers Wash and Sculpt the Land

Animals to Land
~430 Million Years Ago

Amphibian Eggs
~370 Million Years Ago

Reptilian Eggs
~313 Million Years Ago

Flowers
~235 Million Years Ago

Mammalian Eggs
~216 Million Years Ago

Hominids
~3.9 Million Years Ago

Homo sapiens
~150 Thousand Years Ago

Internal Oceans

Aqua sapiens

Baptism

New Birth

Cleanses

Sustains

One River

Comprehensive Compassion

Global Impact

6 years ago
The Anthropocene Named

Credit: Mycao on Glogster

It is estimated that:
one-third of all reef-building corals,
a third of all fresh-water mollusks,
a third of sharks and rays,
a quarter of all mammals,
a fifth of all reptiles, and
a sixth of all birds
are headed toward oblivion."
Elizabeth Kolbert, The Sixth Extinction

Hosea 4:1-3
Hear the word of the Lord, O people of Israel;
for the Lord has an indictment against
the inhabitants of the land.
There is no faithfulness or loyalty,
and no knowledge of God in the land.
Swearing, lying, and murder,
and stealing and adultery break out;
bloodshed follows bloodshed.
Therefore the land mourns,
and all who live in it languish;
together with the wild animals
and the birds of the air,
even the fish of the sea are perishing.

We see quite clearly

that what happens
to the nonhuman,
happens to the
human.
What happens to the
outer world,
happens to the inner
world

The saints needed today

are people who can embrace
the beautiful
while not looking away
from the painful

Hieroglyphic Stairway
It's 3:23 in the morning,
and I'm awake
because my great, great, grandchildren
won't -let -me -sleep.
My great, great, grandchildren
ask me in dreams
what did you do,
while the planet was plundered?
What did you do,
when the Earth was unravelling?
Surely you did something
when the seasons started failing
as the mammals, reptiles, and birds
were all dying?
What did you do
once
you
knew?
Drew Dellinger Planetize the Movement

Why Advocate
for

Because:
Water Reveals a God-Drenched Universe
Gods presence flows in water
God Loves the World
Blessing of People and Creation are
interwoven
Humans are part of Earths salvation
We are called to love what God loves

Institute of Renewable Natural Resources, Urban

Water
Opportunities in Water Conservation
May 16,2015
Calvin Finch Ph.D.

Texas A&M IRNR

Urban Water

OpportunitiesNew and Old

Drought Survivability
Graywater
Lost Water
Municipal Conservation, SAWS Coupons

Drought Survivability
Horticultural Industry overestimates the
minimum water needs of landscape plants
Many Plants survive well on 30% of potential
evaporation rather than 60% or more currently
recommended

If it is True,
Water purveyors can reduce estimates of water
needed for landscapes if they convince (educate)
or regulate their constituents
Retail nurseries can market based on more
accurate water need data
Landscape plans can be developed with specific
reduced water needs reflected
Drought management rules can be imposed in
emergencies with more confidence and lower
landscape water allowances
4

Graywater Definitions
Graywater used water from the clothes washer,
shower, and bathroom sink 40 gallons/day person
Blackwater used water from toilet, kitchen sink and
washing machine if you wash diapers
Reuse water treated wastewater that is recycled for
use on landscapes, in manufacturing, and even for
potable water

Graywater Use
Simplest hose end moved around lawn
Mitchell Lake Demonstration Drip irrigation on raised beds
Depression areas use mulch to fill depression where water is
deposited.

How Safe is Graywater?

Used with certain precautions seems
very safe.

No spraying in the air

No runoff off your property
No puddling
Use to drip or flood irrigate
landscape plants and even
vegetables if no graywater on fruit.

Issues Preventing Graywater Use

Perceived fear of contamination of soils

It is not an expensive or glamorous source of water
It is in the hands of individual households
It is not a large supply 700 gallons / household / week
Perception that use may reduce revenues, or water
available for sewer flow or for recycling

Simplified Consideration of Law

State Law HB 2661, 2003 TCEQ Regulations - 400 gallons/day or
less and used without storage for landscape by surface application
no permit is required
International Plumbing Code Consistent with the HB above
Local ordinances can be more restrictive. It is common for local
ordinances or state law to be misinterpreted to offer restrictions
where none exist!

Graywater Handouts

Graywater Irrigation Primer, Mike Martin PE (Simple

to more complex)
Graywater Recycling, Forrest Cobb and others , $285
if plumber does work
Washing Machine Retrofit Diagram
Wctc.tamu.edu

10

Lost Water
Also called non-revenue water
Difference between water treated or pumped and
what is actually sold.
Classic loss is from leaks in pipes.
Just as likelymeters inaccurate, unmetered water
Other causesbad bookkeeping, stolen water, fires
11

Lost Water
Common 25% lost
Good 10% Lost
Remedies
Full metering and regular replacement
Leak Detection and repair
Accurate record keeping

12

Wheres the Water to

Conserve?
New emphasis at San Antonio Water System
Instead of Low Flow Toilets and other in house
technology.
Reduce peak use on landscape.

13

Where are we going

next?
This

Hint

Not This

14

Wheres the
Conservation?
Residential peak demand will rise without changes

Homes with
irrigation
systems use
51% more water

15

Program Focus:
Landscape Literacy

16

Conservation
Consultations
Our best resource is our people
Free to any SAWS water customer
Gives customers the confidence to make landscape changes

17

Benefits of Program
Our mantraGet our hands on the controller
Estimated average saving 4000 gals a month per consult
Recent review shows savings to hold over several years in
residential (not so much in commercial)
Customers now on the Conservation Team

18

Irrigation Systems
For improvements or removals
Pay $450 for the removal of irrigation in homes
Currently under review for larger rebates

19

Focus on Starter
Gardeners
Increase Landscape Literacy
Provides bed plans and limited plant choices
200 sf of turf removed15 plants to addirrigation capped in bed

20

Outdoor Living adds

value
Now you can enjoy your diverse landscape

21

Contact Information

Calvin.finch@tamu.edu
210 277- 0292 Ext 103 cell 210 382 4455
Website: wctc.tamu.edu
Includes archives of environmentally appropriate
gardening and water conservation articles
Website: plantanswers.com

22

Drought Survivability Study Bexar County

Volunteer Opportunity
Summer 2015
Value to Volunteers

Opportunity to perform the 50 hours of volunteer service over 20 weeks at 2 hrs/week plus 10
hours for team meetings and reviews
Part of an important Texas A&M study is to determine the minimum water requirements of 100
popular landscape plants
Work with Dr. Calvin Finch and the rest of the research team (Amy Truong, Forrest Cobb, Troy
Luepke) in topics of plant physiology, water conservation, horticulture, drop irrigation, and
sensor technology.
Work with a team of 20 or more volunteers with similar interests.
Facebook site and Communications are available.

Description of the Drought Survivability Study (DSS)

16 specimens each of 100 popular ornamental plants are subjected to 4 levels of irrigation to determine
their ability to survive low water situations and recover.
The planting and treatments are placed at 1304 Mauermann Road, adjacent to the Leon Creek
Wastewater Treatment Plant. The site is near the Mitchell Lake Audubon Center.
A major feature of the planting site is a drought simulator. The drought simulator is a moving 5000 sq ft
roof that responds to rain by moving over the treatment area. It insures that the only moisture that
identified treatments receive is irrigation.
The study is being conducted by Texas A&M IRNR (Institute of Renewable Natural Resources) with
funding from San Antonio Water System, City of Austin, City of Georgetown, and the San Antonio River
Authority through the Texas Water Foundation.
The study subjects (plants) were planted by MG and other volunteers January 31-February 14 2015.
After approximately 90 days of establishment period, treatments and data collection will begin
6/1/2015.
Treatments will be 60% of Eto, 40% of Eto, 20% of Eto and 0% of Eto. Eto is the amount of water that is
used and lost from the plant and its environment by evaporation and transpiration.
After October 31 we will begin irrigating at Eto to determine plant recovery capabilities. A new data
collection team will be recruited for that part of the study.

Data Collection:
Appearance RatingEvery week each plant will be rated by 3 members of the data collection team in
terms of appearance. There are five categories of appearance (1) lush (2) stable (3) wilt (4) leaf drop and
(5) dead. The definitions are attached as an appendix.
Appearance ratings will be made every Friday at 9AM beginning June 5 and continuing through October
30, 2015. A data collection note book will be provided.
There will be a team of 16 appearance raters. Fifteen of the volunteers will be assigned responsibility for
1 row of test subjects in each treatment. It is estimated that the rating will require 2 hours to complete
each week. The 16th team member will coordinate and serve as a temporary replacement as needed.
Training will be provided and a regular meeting with the research team will be available.
Sensor Data CollectionAn important part of the study result will be to relate soil moisture levels and
infrared foliar temperatures to changes in appearance due to water stress.
A team of five (5) volunteers will form the sensor data collection team. They will use soil meter sensors
and infrared temperature detecting instruments to record soil moisture levels and foliar temperatures
every week.
This data collection team will record data for 2 hours every Friday beginning in May and proceeding until
the end of October.
Site Maintenance TeamThe DSS is a one (1) acre site with 15,000 sq ft in the treatment area.

Tasks include spreading mulch, pulling weeds, string mowing, applying herbicide with a wick
applicator or a back pack sprayer, pruning and other tasks.
Generally completed on a once per month work day from 8:30-noon on a Saturday.
Volunteers will perform the tasks they prefer and which they are physically able.
Up to 20 volunteers can be utilized

DSS Products

Determination of the specific drought tolerance of the species/varieties

Relation of numerical data for soil moisture and foliar temperatures to appearance change
Peer reviewed articles presenting the findings
Sample landscape plans for several levels of drought tolerance and calculation as the water
needed to care for the low water need landscapes
Popular articles selecting the results
Result demonstration, result reports
Facebook site and communications
Relate the SA results to the Georgetown results

Attachment A
Appearance Ratings

Goal To determine what the response of 100 different ornamental plants is to 4 levels of irrigation
treatments by recording appearance characteristics once/week as the study progresses for 20 weeks.
The tentative appearance characteristics are:
Lush, Stable, Wilt, Leaf drop, Defoliated, dead

Definitions:
Lush The plant has the look of adequate moisture and new growth is occurring
Stable The plant does not have the look of high amounts of moisture but there is no wilting or new
growth
Wilt New growth or mature foliage is showing symptoms of flaccidity but no leaf drop has occurred
temporary leaf color change may be visible
Leaf Drop Leaves have started to drop and/or permanent color change appears on stems or leaves.
Stems are still alive.
Defoliated- Over 90% of the leaves have dropped but the stems are alive.
Dead Denotes the plant has died and will not have the capability to refoliate from existing stems.

Attachment B

Volunteer Interest Form

Drought Survivability Study
Appearance Rating (2hrs/week, June 5-October 31, Fridays at 9AM) ___________
Sensor Data Collection (2hrs/week, May 15-October 31, Fridays at 11AM)_______________
Site Care (4 hrs/month as needed May 15-October 31)_______________
Name____________________________ ___________
Phone #______________________________________
Email Address_________________________________
Address:

Any health or other issues?_______________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Dear Volunteer,

5-14-15

You expressed an interest in the Drought Survivability Study and helped us with the planting. By way of
a progress report, we had a crew of 9 on May 9th and we finished half of the weeding. The research
team (Calvin, Amy, Troy and Forrest) will work to complete the weeding on the mornings of May 15 and
May 19. You are certainly welcome to join us (call me at 382 4455 to verify arrangements). The real
target of this message is, however, to invite you join us on Saturday, May 30th to spread the mulch. We
will begin at 8:30 am and end at noon. Please join us at the site if you can. Remember the address is
1302 Mauermann. My cell phone is 210-382-4455. Also attached is the information on the data
collection opportunities. Data collection begins on June 5. Look it over and commit to a role if it looks
like something you would enjoy. Until then like us on Facebook at The Drought Survivability Study
page.
Hope to see you on the 30th!
Calvin Finch and the D.S.S research team

When the respondents were asked to consider

what is unique about Kerrville or its source(s) of
greatest appeal, their codified answers reflected
inherent rather than introduced traitsthe
areas topography, its scenery, and the
quaintness of the city as it exists todayPretty
location/landscape/ scenery; Small
town/Country town/Not busy/Quaint; Hill
country.

Imagine the Hill Country

future generations will
inherit.

Water

http://homeownerbob.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/lawn-sprinklers3.jpg

Land

Better land
development
practices

Conserve
Land

Better land
Stewardship
practices

In many instances, there are no

enforceable guidelines to protect
this irreplaceable region
and valuable asset to the
State of Texas.

Vast majority
of the land is outside of
a city or town

Prosperity and Quality of Life

Todays Forum Sponsor

hillcountryalliance.org

Water Planning in Texas:

How did we get here?

Norman Boyd
Texas Parks & Wildlife Department
Port OConnor

This will be fast!

Texas has been involved in

water planning for over a half
century

Selected Historical Dates

1957: Texas Water Planning Act enacted in response to
severe statewide drought. TWDB created and charged
with state water planning after drought of 50s.
1959: Edwards Underground Water Conservation District
created to "protect and recharge the Edwards
Aquifer.
1967: The Water Rights Ajudacation Act unified civil,
riparian, and prior appropriation surface water rights to
prior appropriations, and created structure for reviewing
all claims to surface water. Reaffirmed prior
appropriation doctrine.

1968: First TWDB state water plan.

1984: First modern state water plan. Included B&E
needs and discussed conservation and reuse

More Selected Historical Dates

1985: HB2: Water Commission required to asses permit
affects on environment and make
accommodations as deemed necessary to protect
environment. [Since superseded by environmental
flows.]
1993: SB1477 replaced the Edwards Underground
Water Conservation District with The Edwards
Aquifer Authority; ended the rule of capture for
the Edwards Aquifer; created transferable
permits.
1997: SB1: state directed planning -> communitybased planning. Until 1997 the TWDB issued a
state water plan periodically. Interbasin transfers
also clarified.

Even More Selected Historical Dates

2001: SB2: Instream Flow Program initiated
2005: MAG based on DFC established by GMAs

2007: SB3: Environmental Flows process initiated.

2013: Voters approved Proposition 6 which created two
funds: the State Water Implementation Fund for
Texas (SWIFT) and the State Water
Implementation Revenue Fund for Texas
(SWIRFT)that will help finance projects in the
state water plan.

Who Owns the Water?

Surface Water
First in time, first in right
Groundwater
The biggest straw wins

http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/permitting/water_supply/water_rights/eflows/group.html

1904
Recognized in 1904 by Texas Supreme
Court in finding that the movement of
groundwater was so secret, occult, and
concealed that an attempt to administer any
set of legal rules would be involved in
hopeless uncertainty and would, therefore, be
practically impossible.

(Houston & Texas City Railway Company vs. East (81 S.W. 279 [Tex., 1904])

75th Legislature
Senate Bill 1 (1997):
The state water plan shall provide for the
orderly development, management, and
conservation of water resources and preparation
for and response to drought conditions, in order
that sufficient water will be available at a
reasonable cost to ensure public health, safety,
and welfare; further economic development;
and protect the agricultural and natural
resources of the entire state.

Results of SB1
Created the regional water planning
process and
Transformed water planning in Texas
from a state-directed process to one
guided by community-based decisionmaking
16 Regional Water Planning Groups
established
Groups assess and predict water needs
in their regions during drought-of-record
conditions and develop a Regional
Water Plan

Interests:
Municipalities
Industries
Agriculture
Counties
River Authorities
Small Businesses
Environmental
Public
Water Districts
Water Utilities
Electric
Generating
Utilities

Regional
Planning
Process

50-year planning period

Project population and water demand
Begins with existing supplies
Evaluate need for additional water
Recommend strategies (water supply options)

SB 2
Texas Instream
Flow Program
2001
The Texas Legislature directed TPWD,
TWDB and TCEQ to:
Establish a data collection and evaluation
program
Determine flow conditions necessary to
support a sound ecological environment
in Texas rivers and streams

Priority Studies Map

SB 3/HB 3
80th Texas Legislature

Environmental Flows
2007
Senate Bill 3 and House Bill 3 set out a new
regulatory system for protecting
environmental flows; consensus-based
regional approach involving a balanced
representation of stakeholders.

Environmental
Flows
Watersheds

The Rio Grande is the

only river I know of in
need of irrigating.
Will Rogers

Groundwater Management Areas

Legislation passed in 2005 (HB 1763) established a
framework for regional collaboration among local
groundwater conservation district managers on
shared aquifers.

Texas Living Waters

HISTORIC AND PROJECTED TEXAS

POPULATION GROWTH
46.3
50.0
45.0

41.9

Texas Population (millions)

40.0

37.7

33.7

35.0

29.7

30.0

25.4
25.0

20.9
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0

4.7
3.0 3.9

5.8 6.4

7.7

9.6

17.0
14.2
11.2

0.0
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

 3,000 Water user groups

Cities: 971 (>500 pop)
Utilities: 362
County-Others: 254
Manufacturing: 174
Steam-Electric: 85
Livestock: 254
Mining: 229
Irrigation: 239

2012 State Water Plan

DO WE HAVE ENOUGH WATER

FOR THE FUTURE?
We do not have enough existing water
supplies today to meet the demand for
water during times of drought. In the
event of severe drought conditions, the
state would face an immediate need for
additional water supplies of 3.6 million
acre-feet per year

2012 State Water Plan

Region L

DALLAM

SHERM AN

HANSF ORD

OCHI LTREE

MOO RE

HUTCH INS ON

ROBE RTS

HARTLEY

OLDHA M

POTTER

DEAF SMI TH

PARM ER

CARSO N

RAND ALL

CASTR O

ARMS TRON G

SWI SHE R

I PSC OMB
L

HEMP HILL

GRAY

WH EELER

DONLE Y

COLLI NGSWO RTH

BRIS COE

HALL

CHI LDRESS

HARD EMAN
BAILE Y

A MB
L

HALE

FLOYD

MOTLE Y

U BBO CK
L

CROS BY

DIC KENS

COTTLE

WI LBARG ER
WI CHI TA
FOARD
CLAY

A MAR
L
MON TAGU E

COCH RAN

HOCK LEY

KING

KNOX

BAYLOR

COO KE

GRAY SON

RED RI VER
FANNI N

ARCH ER

BOWIE

DELTA

Y NN
L

GARZA

KENT

STONE WA LL

HASKE L

THRO CKMO RTO N

WI SE

DENTO N

COLLI N

YOUN G

HUNT

TITUS

HOPK INS

M OR RIS

TERRY

FRAN KLIN

JA CK
YOAKU M

CAMP

CASS

ROCK WALL

RAIN S

MARI ON
WO OD

GAI NES

DAWSON

ANDR EWS

MART IN

BORD EN

SCUR RY

FISH ER

JO NES

SHACK ELFOR D

PARKE R

PALO PIN TO

STEPHE NS

TARRA NT

UPSHU R

DALLAS
KAUFM AN

HARR ISO N

VAN ZANDT
GREG G

HOO D

SMI TH

JO HNS ON
HOWARD

MIT CHELL

NOLAN

ELLIS

EASTLAN D
TAYLOR

CALLAHA N

SOM ERVELL

ERATH

PANO LA

HEND ERSO N
RUSK
NAVAR RO

HILL
COM ANCH E
BOSQ UE
ELPA SO

O VI NG
L

WI NKLER

ECTOR

MID LAND

GLASSC OCK

BROWN

HAMI LTON

WAR D

FREESTO NE

MCLEN NAN

MILLS

NACO GDO CHES

INE
SA NAU GUS T

CULBER SON

SHELBY

ANDER SON

RUNN ELS
COLEM AN

HUDS PETH

CHER OKEE

COKE
STERLI NG

I ME STON E
L

CRAN E
UPTON

REAG AN

HOUS TON

CORY ELL

TOM GR EEN

ANGE LINA

E ON
L

CONC HO

IRI ON

REEVE S

SABI NE

FALLS
A MPAS AS
L

MCC ULLOCH

SAN SABA

TRIN ITY
BELL

ROBE RTSON

MADI SON
JA SPER

SCHLEI CHE R

POLK

MENA RD
MILA M

JE FFD AVIS
PECO S

MASO N

CROC KETT

NEWTON

WI LLIAM SON
GRI MES

SUTTO N

TYLER

WALK ER
BRAZO S

BURN ET

LA NO

SAN JACI NTO

BURLES ON

KIM BLE

HARD IN
MON TGOM ERY
EE
L

GILLE SPIE

TRAVI S

TERRE L

AUSTI N

R
LLE
WA

BASTRO P
HAYS

EDWARDS

I BER TY
L

WAS HIN GTO N

BLANCO
KERR

PRESI DI O
VALV ERDE
REAL
BREWSTER

HARR IS

FAYETTE

CALDWELL

COM AL

CHAM BERS

BANDE RA
COLO RADO
GUAD ALUPE

FORT BEND

BEXAR
KINN EY

UVALDE

GON ZALES

GALVES TON
A VACA
L

MEDI NA

WH ARTON
BRAZO RIA

WI LSON
DEWI TT
JA CKSO N
ZAVALA

KARNE S

ATASCO SA

FRIO

VICT ORI A
MAVE RIC K

GOLI AD
CALHO UN
I VE OAK
L

DIM MI T
A SA LL
L
E

BEE

MCM ULLEN

REFUG IO

ARANS AS
SAN PATRI CI O

DUVAL

WEB B

NUEC ES
JIM WELLS

KLEBERG

JIM HO GG
BROO KS
ZAPATA

KENED Y

STARR
HID ALGO

WI LLACY

CAME RON

ORAN GE

JE FFERSO N

KENDA LL

MATAG ORD A

STATEWIDE REGIONAL WATER PLANNING

The Texas Legislature created the Texas Water Development Board in 1957 to develop plans to meet
future statewide water needs. The wake-up call for long-term water planning was the record drought of
the l950s. That action by the legislature resulted in a top down government knows best plan not
necessarily supported by the public at large. In 1997 Senate Bill 2 created a new bottom up water
planning process comprised of 16 regional statewide water planning groups. Our area is known as
Regional L South Central Texas Regional Water Planning Group comprised of 21 counties.
Regional Planning Groups are made up of members representing a variety of interest groups including
agriculture, counties, electric generation, environmental, industries, municipalities, public, river
authorities, small business, water districts, water utilities and regional groundwater management area
representatives. The initially prepared plan submitted to the Texas Water Development Board by each
region is done so and updated on a 5-year basis based on the consensus of the representative membership
and with consideration of public input and involvement.
For each regional planning area the process for developing a long-term 50-year plan assessing future
water needs would consist of the following:
Determine current and projected population and estimate the future water demands over a moving
50-year period.
Estimate existing water supplies including surface water and groundwater
Determine where projected future demands can be met by existing water supplies and where
future shortages will occur.
At this point an intensive effort is initiated to model and gather data on estimated firm yields for both
surface water and groundwater. There are two terms used to describe future water supplies that are very
conflictive in my opinion.

Available water supply is the maximum amount of water available from a

source during drought-of-record conditions regardless of whether or not the supply is physically or legally
available for use. It doesnt make sense to count that as a source of dependable water to meet your needs
during a repeat of drought-of-record conditions. Existing water supply is the maximum amount of water
available from existing sources for use during drought-of-record conditions that is physically and legally
available for use.
Public involvement can become very intense in the planning process in determining a reasonably accurate
method of projecting future population growth since these population figures also determine future water
demand needs. This is important since if the future population figure estimates are incorrect then the

particular region of concern may wind up with an excess amount of water or wind up with a water
shortage. This issue, and rightly so, can become a hot topic in the public involvement arena.
As mentioned previously, there are a number of interest groups vying for existing and future water
supplies. Each one is competing to have its water needs recognized and addressed as a project in the
regional water plan and then approved in the overall State Water Plan. Without a project being included
in the approved State Water Plan there can be no State or Federal funding available to proceed with the
project completion. Everything rotates around money. The voters passed a $2 billion bill recently to
kick-start the identification of high priority projects for development. The public needs to know the real
need and effectiveness of each project to determine just where in the order of project priority it needs to
be placed for funding.
Projects that identify needs starting 30 or 40 years down the road dont have the urgency of projects
showing needs that need to be met now. Problems also exist where two or more projects needing future
water supplies identify the same water supply source. One or the other will go without meeting their
needs.
Other problems exist where the major water users, like SAWS, want water from mostly rural counties.
Several issues are involved. The residents of those targeted counties dont want to lose the water which
could stymie their future growth and economy. In some cases the Groundwater Conservation Districts
indicate that the amount of water targeted is not in existence based on computer modeling or the District
does not want to permit the total amount requested.
The third issue is in areas where no groundwater district exist then the rule of capture prevails with no
pumping limits. The large water users will find landowners willing to sell or lease land for well fields to
transport water to the major users without any restrictions. The only protection from this is through
groundwater conservation districts with the ability to manage and protect groundwater resources.
Unregulated rule of capture users will indiscriminately lower the water level in an area and dry up wells
and springs. The water these major users are obtaining not only comes from properties where the well
fields are located, but also from all the other properties in the area. The major users call it voluntary
redistribution. The only ones voluntarily giving up their water rights are the one being paid for it, the rest
are losing their water without compensation. STOLEN
Currently SAWS has underway a $3.4 billion, 142 mile pipeline project bringing in water from counties
east of San Antonio. SAWS has secured the water rights from 3,400 lease holders to bring in 16.3 billion
gallons annually. The construction of this facility is projected to be completed by the year 2020.

Where are the funds coming from to pay for this project? Of course the SAWS rate payers will pay their
fair share. But, SAWS doesnt need but a portion of the total amount now or in the near future. They will
be able to reduce their dependence on Edwards Aquifer water currently being relied on which is good.
In order to pay for this project SAWS needs to find interim buyers of the water not needed by SAWS
now. So they will sell the surplus water to cities and developers along the pipe line in order to pass off
the cost to help pay for the project.
My question is has SAWS grossly over-designed the water demands required by SAWSs customers in
order to have enough surplus water to sell off to others so that SAWSs rate-payers wont have to absorb
the whole cost of the pipeline project? Does this unnecessarily deplete an aquifer for monetary purposes?
What if someday SAWS needs the water contracted out to others along the pipeline? And finally what if
the long-term estimate for the sustainability of this aquifer falls short? WITHOUT WATER YOU HAVE
NOTHING.
There are issues with surface water also. Surface water (rain) is the property of the landowner until it
runs into a defined creek, stream or river at which time it becomes waters of the State of Texas under the
control of TCEQ. Withdrawal water rights are issued by TCEQ for a set amount of Acre Feet annually
with provisions to reduce permitted withdrawal amounts based on drought conditions. Persons who
established their water rights many years ago are known as senior water rights holders while the more
recent water rights holders are known as junior water rights holders. During drought conditions with low
flow in the rivers the junior water rights holders allocation for withdrawal will be reduced or even
eliminated. Senior water rights holders will continue to receive their full allocation until no water
remains.
The above water rights issue is causing some consternation among municipalities holding junior water
rights permits. They feel that since their permits deal with public water supplies their junior water rights
should take precedence over senior water rights holders. The courts have held that the senior water rights
permits stand.
There are several proposals under consideration to increase the firm yield of surface water supplies. One
proposal is when river flow rates exceed permitted demands and consistent with environmental flow rates
then the excess flow can be diverted into off channel reservoirs stored for future use to supplement low
flow rates.

Another proposal is to divert excess stream flows into aquifer storage and recovery facilities. Storing
water underground for future use eliminates large losses due to evaporation experienced by surface water
reservoirs. Water must be treated to drinking water standards before being stored.
Another proposal is the recycling of waste water. This is already being done now for non-potable uses,
but in the future it needs to be a source of potable water also. DIRECT REUSE. Since we have a limited
supply of water period, we need to figure out a way to increase our available supply of water through
reusing what we already have. By reusing what water we have we could multiply our available supply by
two or three times. This is already happening in parts of West Texas.
The largest and most cost effective method to increase our available water supply is through proven water
conservation methods.
Lets digress for a moment and see whats happening today. There is H.B. 3298 known as the water grid
bill that wants to control and move water statewide from areas that have water to areas that are short of
water generally from east to west. Will the state take over once more and be the bureaucratic ruler of all
the water in the State? That would pretty well destroy the years of efforts of the Regional Water Planning
Groups. We would be back under the government knows best authority.
The other fallacy in these plans whether it be the regional plans or the desired future condition
agreements, there is no enforcement mechanism to monitor or control the stated planning goals. Since the
thousands of domestic and livestock wells are not currently metered how would one know how much
water is being used. The only way to establish some reasonable control and over site in the management
and protection of groundwater is by way of a local groundwater conservation district. They do have
authority to manage groundwater withdrawals and fine abusers.
All of these water issues are very complex with some rules inconsistent with other rules. It is a very
serious subject with disastrous consequences if not done wisely and correctly.
At our rural home we have no well or other public source of water to our home. We have the most
reliable and sustainable source of quality water known thru rainwater harvesting. A properly designed
system will provide an adequate supply of domestic water through drought-of-record conditions.
In summary, I hope I have given you a thumbnail sketch of the water planning process and some of the
issues to be considered and flushed out. All of these issues will affect you either by way of water cost or
availability. Face it, future water is going to cost more. The major water purveyors have a huge financial
interest in the water planning process and tend to rule the roost. Unless the public gets involved the 800

pound gorilla with their lawyers and lobbyist will walk all over you. Attend the Regional Planning
Meetings and public meetings in June to review the proposed 2016 Initially Prepared Plan for Region L.
June 8, 2015 at 6:00 P.M.
SAWS Customer Service Building, Room CRC145
2800 US Highway 281 North San Antonio, Texas

Water Planning
Exclusion, socializing costs, and unequal influenceA critical review

Process is politicized
Regulatory agencies

Economics and
externalities

Circumventing public
Exclusion- example of
Contested Case Hearings
and SB1907/HB3298
Non-transparency
Placating

SA is 1st nationwide for segregation by income of

largest metropolitan areas.
The Subsidizing of growth

Context 1. Systemic Racism

Context 2. Inequality in distribution of services

Region L demographics

Ethical Action
Education of congregations
Awareness of systemic racism
Campaigning for awareness, for political
change and against specific issues
Participatory budgeting and planning
Paradigm shift

Thank you
The right to dream is not among the 30 human
rights the UN proclaimed in 1948, but if it wasn
t for the right to dream and the waters it gives
to drink all the other rights would die thirsty.
- Eduardo Galeano

Water Captains
How to Be Effective Advocates in the Regional Water
Planning Process
Water Planning Process in Region L Workshop
Fracking & Water Planning
Meredith Miller,
The Meadows Center for Water and the Environment

Fracking & Water Planning

What is fracking?
Whats happening in Region L?
How does the water planning process
account for fracking?
Next steps and concerns?

Notable Headlines

In Texas Oil Town, Early Signs Of Economic Strain As Drilling Slows

Texas Town Passes Ban On Fracking
Texas Family Wins $3 Million Judgment Against Fracking Company
EPA Probe Demands More Water Testing In Texas
Study Finds High Levels Of Arsenic In Groundwater Near Fracking Sites
Researchers Find Elevated Levels Of Heavy Metals Near Natural Gas Extraction
Environmental Group Says Illegal Diesel Fracking Used in Texas
What's causing Texas earthquakes? Fracking 'most likely,' report says
Texas: Bill Stops Cities From Banning Fracking

What is Fracking?
Frack: frak/ (verb)
To inject liquid into (a subterranean rock formation, borehole, etc.) at high pressure so
as to force open existing fissures and extract oil or gas.

Fracking: frakiNG/ (noun)

the process of injecting liquid at high pressure into subterranean rocks, boreholes, etc.,
so as to force open existing fissures and extract oil or gas.

What is Fracking?
Hydraulic fracturing is a technique designed to recover gas and oil from shale rock.

Water, sand and chemicals are injected into drilled wells at high pressure, allow gas
to flow out to the head of the well.

The process is carried out vertically or, more commonly, by drilling horizontally to
the rock layer.

Water returns to the surface as flowback or wastewater, which needs to be

recycled, treated or disposed of through underground injection.

What Chemicals are Used in Fracking?

650+ chemicals are used in fracking fluid, including known
carcinogens and toxins.

Chemicals make up only 2-5% of total volume of fracking fluid.

40,000+ gallons of chemicals can be used per fracking process.
Propublica, Business Insider, Nature, Hazen and Sawyer, 2009.

Some of the fracking chemicals listed on www.fracfocusdata.orgs

chemical database

How Much Water Does Fracking Use?

1-8 million gallons per fracture per well (200-400 tanker trucks).
10 to 30% of the water injected can be recovered. The rest of the water stays
in the formation and cannot be reused.

Flowback contains minerals, oil, salt and chemicals that must be removed
before reuse.

Where Does the Wastewater Go?

Disposal wells are located thousands of feet underground, encased in layers
of concrete.

Typically store wastewater from several different fracking wells.

The culprit of earthquakes near fracking sites is not believed to be the act
of drilling and fracturing the shale itself, but rather the disposal wells.

Environmental Impacts
Air quality impacted by methane, PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons).
Land deposition of chemicals contributes to nonpoint source pollution of
surface waters.

Groundwater can be contaminated by leaching of methane gas and chemicals.

Natural gas generates electricity at 1/2 the CO2 emissions of coal.
Science Daily, Oregon State University, U.S. Energy Information Administration

Economic Impacts
Gas bills dropped $13 billion per year (2007 to 2013) as a result of increased fracking,
equaling $200 per year for gas-consuming households.

$12 billion in TX taxes in 2012.

2 million jobs, 13.9% of TX job force.
Increased road infrastructure and pollution mitigation costs borne by counties, cities.
Fracking is simply distracting energy firms and governments from investing in

renewable sources of energy, and encouraging continued reliance on fossil fuels.

Brookings Institution, Texas Tribune, Energyfromshale.org, Texas Oil and Gas Association

Fracking in Texas
Eagle Ford Shale the south of Texas and the states coastline, 3000 sq. miles.
Estimated to have 20.81 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 3.351 billion
barrels of oil.

More than 50,000 disposal wells in Texas service more than 216,000 active
drilling wells.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, TX Railroad Commission

Compounding Water Issues

Drought.
Increasing population, environmental flows and competing water users.
Costs of infrastructure.

Interconnectedness of groundwater and surface water.

http://www.texastribune.org/tribpedia/environmental-problems-and-policies/?page=5

Who Regulates Fracking?

Railroad Commission of Texas - drilling, well spacing and design,
groundwater protection and operational safety at large.

Texas Commission of Environmental Quality - air quality and emissions, offsite impacts and depth of steel casing and cement drilling for wells.

USEPA Clean Water Act (only for disposal of flowback into surface
waters) and Safe Drinking Water Act (power limited by Energy Policy Act of
2005)

No Mention of Water Supply, Few

Requirements in RRC Rules
Pre-drilling and Baseline, Groundwater and Surface Water, Solid waste

There are no additional testing regulations specific to shale/fracking

operations.
Liquid waste and fracking fluids

There are no additional testing regulations specific to shale/fracking

operations. Handling of wastes generally falls under standard state or Clean
Water Act requirements.
ALSglobal.com, www.rrc.state.tx.us/legal/rules/current-rules/

Fracking in Region L
~ 80% of Eagle Ford Shale activity

Use of Available water in 2020:

42% municipal use.
30% irrigation.
5% total mining.
2.5% fracking.
TWRI & Dr. Darrell Brownlow

Water Planning - Fracking

Total water use for fracking in Texas 125% (36,000 acre-feet in 2008 to =
81,500 acre-feet in 2011). For comparison, the city of Austin used about
107,000 acre-feet in 2011.

1/5 of current total comes from recycled or brackish water.

The total amount of water used in fracking in Texas is expected to level off
in the 2020 decade at about 125,000 acre-feet, per year.
Bureau of Economic Geology/University of Texas

Water Demand Mining in Region L

Water deficits in municipal, mining and irrigation categories.
Principal uses for mining are extraction of stone, clay, and petroleum
(including fracking) and sand/gravel washing.

Projected demand (acft/yr): 2020 - 48,738 & 2070 - 41,209

Projected supplies (acft/yr): 2020 - 37,919 & 2070 - 40,692
Projected needs (acft/yr): 2020 -10,822 & 2070 666
Region L 2016 Initially Prepared Plan

Water Demand Mining in Region L

Future shortages projected for Dimmit, Karnes, Dewitt and La Salle counties.
The target aquifer is the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifers in Dimmit and La Salle
Counties.

For the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer, the project yield is set to zero because of the
lack of groundwater availability. As an alternative and if one assumes there is
groundwater availability in the Carrizo-Wilcox, Table 5.2.7-6 provides a project
yield, annual cost, and unit cost for all the users in this category.

Region L 2016 Initially Prepared Plan

Demand Management Strategies

Increase use of recycle, reuse and reclaimed water in some industries, steam-electric
power generation, and mining.

Evaluate estimates of total Mining system capacities/ability to meet projected water

supply requirements.
If additional supplies are needed, prepare a county-wide estimate of target aquifers, number
new well(s), and total cost for new or system expansions.

Local Carrizo Conversions water management strategy: purchasing, leasing existing

irrigation or mining groundwater permits for municipal use.

Region L 2016 Initially Prepared Plan

Next Steps and Concerns

How do we address?

Gaps in research (environmental, economic, safety).

Environmental and economic issues.
New technology to increase efficiency.
Planning for population increase, drought and cost of fracking water.
Piecemeal planning approach.

Resources

Fractracker.org

Fracfocus.org
Energy.usgs.gov/OilGas/UnconventionalOilGas/HydraulicFracturing.aspx
Frack.mixplex.com/fracking
Earthworks.org
Regionltexas.org

Thank you!

Sonia Jimenez, JD
Ximenes & Associates, Inc.

Regional Water Planning

It takes 5 years!!!

The plan is submitted to TWDB

after 4 years of meetings and
public hearings.
TWDB spends one year
incorporating it into the
statewide plan.

The Water Plan

S 2016 Initially Prepared Plan (IPP) submitted May 1, 2015 to TWDB

http://www.regionltexas.org
Current Planning Effort

4th Cycle (2016 RWP)

2016 Initially Prepared Plan

S Public Hearings in June 2015

S Planning Meetings in September and November
S Regional Water Plan (RWP) - due December 1, 2015 to TWDB
S TWDB Review and Inclusion in Statewide Plan

Public Hearings

Monday, June 8
San Antonio Water
System
Customer Service Building, CR
C145
2800 US Hwy 281 N
San Antonio, Texas 78212

Wednesday, June 10
City of San Marcos

San Marcos Activity Center

501 E Hopkins St,
San Marcos, TX 78666

Thursday, June 11
City of Victoria

Victoria Community Center

2905 E. North St.
Victoria, TX 77902-1758

Presentation
Citizens to be Heard
Written/Verbal Comments

Public Comment

Steven J. Raabe, Administrative Agent for Region L

San Antonio River Authority
PO Box 839980
San Antonio, TX 78283-3692
Written comments must be received by
5 p.m. on August 14, 2015

Public Participation
Region L Quarterly Planning Meetings
S September 3, 2015
S November 5, 2015

San Antonio Water System

Customer Service Building
Room CR-145
2800 US Highway 281 North
San Antonio, TX 78212
Public comment at beginning and end of the meetings
Public comment usually accepted after each agenda item

Public Participation
S White Paper and Citizens Guide To Water Planning in Region L
S Thursday, May 21, 2015 at William R. Sinkin Eco Centro
S

11 AM - 1 PM (lunch provided)

7 PM - 9 PM

S Please RSVP to Diane Duesterhoeft

S

210-254-0245

dduesterhoeft@gmail.com

# WaterRegionL

facebook.com/events/461266597363418