Print 🖨

 Below is the HillCo client report from the September 23 House Agriculture and Livestock Committee

This report focuses on the Water Supply Enhancement Program (WSEP) testimony.
 
Rex Isom, Executive Director, TSSWCB

  • WSEP functions through the soil and water conservation districts; those districts are led by local landowner/conservationists
  • WSEP requires a conservation plan on all treated acres
  • The majority of previous funding was directed by bill pattern Riders; since HB 1808 current funding is allocated through the ranking process
  • The WSEP is in full compliance with all program requirements

 
Aaron Wendt, TSSWCB

  • The primary goal of WSEP is to enhance domestic and municipal uses by improving environmental water flows through brush control management plans; the budget for WSEP in the FY 2014 is $2,135,413
  • Rep. Anderson wanted to know if any input on hydrological connectivity has been received from the federal government in regards to water use and endangered species
    • WSEP hasn’t had to address the EPA Clean Water Act
    • Endangered species issues are addressed with the assistance of TPWD
  • Stakeholder committee and Science Advisory consulting committee essential to help provide insight
  • Goals recommended by the Stakeholder Committee include that funds should be directed to enhance municipal water supplies most in need
  • This fall will hold public hearings and will be releasing details on those meetings soon
  • HB 1808 new requirement on feasibility studies further defined on slide 11
  • Rep. Anderson asked what ratio of feasibility studies are put on property owners in terms of cost and timeframe
    • Initially Rider required 12 feasibility studies to be conducted by Texas A&M at a cost of $1.5 million, with none of the cost being put on private landowners
  • All 12 feasibility studies conducted by Texas A&M
  • Feasibility study of Wichita River above Lake Kemp was reviewed as an example
    • The price tag for full implementation is $43.4 million – $285 per acre-foot of water
    • For comparison ASR projects cost in the range of $675 to $2,500 per acre-foot
  • WSEP is addressed differently by the 16 Regional Water Planning Groups – which presents challenges
  • Use a competitive grant process to rank feasible projects and allocated Program grant funds
    • Priority given to projects that manage critical need and highest yield
    • Applications are based on rank order priorities that the workgroup established
  • During public comment period for WSEP several issues have been raised on brush control soil erosion potential; four answers to these comments were provided and in conclusion the TSSWCB conducted studies of the Honey Creek sediment which showed brush control programs help to alleviate erosion rather than worsen it
  • 10 year contracts are in statute –legislature will have to address if want longer period of contracts
  • What is landowner compliance rate with the 10 year land management contracts
    • Of 180 landowners under status review, only 1 was out of compliance with the management contract
  • Members discuss there is guarantee with brush control to yield a certain amount of water
    • Discussion on down-stream senior right holders – who benefits from program
    • If not for mesquite beans, cattle would have starved to death said Chair

 
Ken Rainwater, Professor of Environmental Engineering Texas Tech University

  • They have a process in place to determine which parts of stream should be approached, a holistic view of the water shed should be taken
  • Numerous criteria discussed – they take an do an overlay of all criteria and then do a calculation to determine best places to get water for the dollar
  • The best method of estimating water yield is to observe runoff flows before and after rainfall; a drawback to observation is the time periods required for observation
    • Alternative method- ecological-hydrologic models that characterize site-specific conditions to demonstrate the impact of vegetation management (simulations are done using SWAT assessment tool)
  • Discussion on North Concho – witness would have not done it that way it was done – Chair asked if this program works the way they want to do it now because they are picking and choosing their targets?
    • Yes
  • Rep. Kleinschmidt inquired about how not to repeat poor land practices after improvements – sees need for more long term management practices – long term conservation easements
    • The key is education – once an area is treated, follow up is still needed or it will revert back
    • This is a voluntary program pointed out Isom – so there needs to be some type of incentive program to have landowner participate
  • Rep. Gonzalez asked about resource collaboration (State and Federal, etc)
    • Working with USDA collaboration and local soil water conservation districts
    • Three partners are all critical components (Federal, State and local) 

 
Dr. Brad Wilcox,Professor at Texas A&M University

  • Reviewed list of individuals who are well known –prestigious academic experts who share sentiment of his testimony
  • Brush management may have benefits but is not a viable strategy for addressing water problems within the state – funding to recognize this solution came from NSF
  • Ecologic/hydrological models – allow to characterize site specific conditions and demonstrate impacts of vegetation models and SWAT (slow water assessment tool) also been used
  • North Concho project has had no perceptible increase in the region despite previous predictions – brush management is beneficial but not a viable option; this is not in step with current scientific thinking
  • Chair asked if brush management should be pursued if following a specifically detailed plan laid out by agricultural experts
    • No, there are much better alternatives to invest tax dollars – there is a lot of anecdotal support but the increases are quite local and provide no evidence for a statewide solution     
  • Rep. Gonzalez noted the scientific consensus has shifted in recent decades – USDA has utilized research data and is considering adapting agricultural plans
  • Texas A&M and Texas Tech suggestions do not align with one another – there has not been any collaboration
  • Rep. White asked if Texas is creating or conserving water
    • Cannot create water – goal is to create more liquid water by reducing evaporation; programs that attempt to increase water flow tend to create more erosion and damage the ecosystem

 
Jule Richmond, Association of Texas Soil and Water Conservation Districts

  • Effective conservation should be identified at the local grassroots level; these locations need to be addressed and analyzed – brush control may not have anything to do with state funds
  • Brush control is yielding water based on district feasibility study – not removing invasive species would be a mistake since the methods put in place are working
  • Needs to be incentive driven since water is created on the land that moves downstream into a body of water
  • Rep. Kleinschmidt asked if there have been  property taxes reductions to pay for expenses
    • No, they have the stayed the same – would be beneficial to look at ad velorum tax for landowners to remove brush infested areas
    • Rep. Kleinschmidt said it may be more beneficial to look more closely at these incentives
    • Could see a dis-incentive to enter into extensive brush clearing program if land is improved so that it becomes pasture and received a higher property tax value

 
Con Mims, Executive Director of Nueces River Authority

  • HB 1808 institutes an abrupt change in the function of the board from managing brush to support livestock and wildlife  to eliminating brush on large scales to enhance public water supplies
  • Concern the legislative committee is moving in the wrong direction – funds should be directed towards directing funds towards municipalities that need and can produce the most water
  • Enhancement plan will direct funds towards acreage that will yield the most water – the agricultural community suggests for more time to determine if adequate safeguards are in the legislative plan
  • 2011 Water Plan in Region L looked at brush control efforts and realized significant participation would be required of landowners and specific agencies to yield results – more research needed before public investment
  • For water supply control already permitted, brush control may augment but may not be enough to allow for change in permit use

 
Lewis Layman, farmer and participant in program

  • Land owner for over 50 years
  • Program has been good for his farm and for Lake Brownwood

 
Georgianne Moore, Professor at Texas A&M

  • Research in last 15years has revealed little to any evidence that brush management will yield enhanced water supply
  • The underlying assumption of WSEP is flawed – recent evidence refuting earlier claims were left out of the report
    • Example – loss of canopy cover has not been adequately accounted for in yield
  • Yield increases are inflated and do not take into account diminished effect over time
  • Results are grossly overestimated
  • Rep. Gonzalez asked about being a part of the Science Advisory committee/stakeholder committee or if witness has been active in advisory council
    • Was not aware until recently and had not been asked to participate
  • Field based studies can feed into models and have historically worked together

 
Steven Diebel, Cattle Ranchers Association and in various other positions such as member of his Water Conservation District

  • Would like to commend efforts of water supply enhancement program
  • Have seen producers who have benefited
  • Believes it is extremely beneficial – there may need to be tweaks but willing to sit down in a collaborative effort to find some solutions

 
Greg Simons, President of the Texas Wildlife Association

  • Supporter and advocate of brush management as landowner tool
  • TWA is not opposed – neutral to the plan
  • There are leaders in the organization that do have some concerns of taking tax payer dollars to increase municipal water supply – water that benefits the public
  • Taking that model used on North Concho and applying to other water sheds that may have different characteristics and could have damaging ecological effects (erosion, sedimentation issues)
  • In regards to question about why the North Concho project not successful
    • Arguably in long term drought and have had some rainfall since project was completed but even by third weekend of Sep 11 had a 8” rainfall event and still did not see what some would say is significant stream flow

 
Steven Salmon, Texas Sheep and Goat Raisers Committee

  • This is not Texas’ water plan – it is a small segment of water for Texas
  • Field studies show water will not penetrate with heavy enough brush cover
  • No one simple solution or answer – need multitude of solutions
  • Reviewed several benefits of brush control (ie fire suppression) – program works

 
Bob Turner, former House member, Texas Sheep and Goat Raisers' , Texas Poultry Federation, Independent Cattle Association

  • Today committee heard the program is not working and too costly
    • Points out there has not been said what would be in lieu of program
  • Urgency is great and all possibilities need to be explored
  • In support of continuation for the program
  • Agrees there were some dry conditions in Concho but does not know if intent at time was to flow water

C A Breshears of the Upper Nueces Soil and Water Conservation

  • In support of program
  • First year have applied for and participated in the program
  • Studies show they will benefit aquifer and river

 
Rex Isom, Executive Director TSSWCB (testified earlier)

  • There was earlier inference that the agency may be “sitting on numbers” out of Concho area
    • Study done in 2009 by Rider and numbers were publish 
    • State board is not sitting on any numbers
  • Rep. Gonzalez asked about committee memberships and invitation
    • Committee is open and welcomes everyone even opposing views
    • Aaron Wendt, TSSWCB, also testified saying that committees were established based on legislative language, and answers that were needed so they solicited advice of stakeholders they had relationships and board concurred
    • balance has to be there in regards to how many people are on the committee but they are open to including others that need to be on the committee
    • Wendt stated those who want to be on the committee just need to approach him

 
Tom Arsuffi – Texas Tech

  • Leading efforts to conduct a watershed protection plan
  • Key personnel involved in those efforts have identify brush control as one of their major efforts
  • Some studies conducted will come up with different results
  • Brush control with water supply is seen as a good program by some and it is known if we clear brush that water will go somewhere
  • Eco system services – being able to communicate with policy makers – economic analysis on the free stuff that natures provides – $125 trillion a year
  • Recommends calling the program “brush eco system services enhancement program”

 
Bob Brockman, Edwards Plateau Soil and Water Conservation Board

  • Water will still run even with good grass cover and it will infiltrate into aquifer clean
  • In support of program

 
Ward Whitworth, Upper Llanos Soil and Water Conservation District

  • Support of program
  • It benefits area as well as those downstream
  • Brush invasion is not always about bad management

Chair concludes that brush control is good but there is disagreement on how to justify it