Print 🖨

This report covers the responses Natural Resources received for their RFI Interim Charge #3, relating to the monitoring and planning for groundwater and conditions for aquifers by groundwater conservation districts. The RFI for this charge can be found here, and the full list of responses can be found here.

The HillCo report below is a summary of information intended to give you an overview and highlight of the various topics included in the responses. This report does not cover the entirety of each response, but aims to provide an overview of the testimony submitted.

Bandera County River Authority & Groundwater District et al.

  • Amendments to Sec. 36.1132, Water Code in 2011 replaced MAG as a permit limit and instead with provisions using MAG as a consideration
    • Reduces MAG significance in permit process, MAG becomes one of several considerations
  • Outlines Sec. 36.1132, Water Code, the process for establishing DFC (Desired Future Conditions) and the process for appeal of DFC adoption
  • Goal is not to limit permits to MAG, but limit production enough to get DFC; lessens the need to challenge DFCs
  • Permit decisions should be based on and litigated around facts surrounding applications
  • Suggests challenging planning numbers is counter-productive, a waste of resources and likely unhelpful
  • Outlines specific timing behind code and appeals process
  • Appeals become irrelevant because of the extended deadline and timings currently outlined by the code
  • There are issues surrounding what DFC applies to a district if they successfully appeal

Dr. Curtis Chubb

  • TWDB uses DFC to determine MAG, or how much groundwater can be pumped to achieve the DFC
  • Adoption of DFCs every five years requires time and money
  • Post Oak Savannah Groundwater District does not seem to consider DFCs and MAGs
  • States by 2017 POSGCD approved pumping permits equal to 231% of MAG
  • POSGCD has an “approve all permits” policy and argues over pumping will continue while the drawdowns continue to dramatically exceed the DFCs
  • Requests that State step in because citizen and landowner requests to protect groundwater have not been considered by POSGCD
  • Contacted Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to enforce rules
  • State seems to have no authority to prevent districts from exceeding DFCs and MAGs
  • Requests legislation to give the State authority to prevent groundwater districts from exceeding DFCs and MAGs

Steve Box, Environmental Stewardship

  • Environmental Stewardship has been an active participant in joint planning process for GMA-12 and participating in the third review of DFCs for Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Group
  • Concerned about the steady decline of groundwater outflows due to increased pumping
  • In third DFC review GAM was significantly improved; outlines specific revisions
  • Administrative Law Judges determined New GAM is the better model to use to predict effect of LCRA’s pumping; practices used to create better model should continue and expand
  • ALJs found that changes to Revised Draft Operating Permits are required for the District to examine impacts to surface water
  • Request Legislature to fund field studies in Groundwater Management Areas as the GMA-12 GAM was successful in these districts
  • This funding is urgently needed to inform decisions regarding permitting, establishing future conditions, and determining regulatory actions
  • Recommends Basin and Bay Area Stakeholder Committees be tasked with giving recommendations to Legislature regarding monitoring of groundwater production impacts on rivers and tributaries to protect environmental flows

Meredith Allen, Groundwater Management Area 7

  • Current joint planning process and regional planning allows for flexibility to accommodate vast differences in districts
  • Joint planning also encourages communication between GCDs, stakeholders, and the TWDB
  • Collaboration protects private property interest, environmental concerns, and socio-economic impacts
  • Biggest hurdle members of GMA 7 face are incorporating significant areas of water planning without a groundwater district
  • No district means no local management strategies, research, or monitoring of local water resources
  • Makes it difficult for GMA 7 to assess hydrologic conditions and examine the effects of the set DFC on the area

Groundwater Management Area 12

  • HB 1763 passed in 2005, required GCDs to establish DFCs for each managed aquifer; DFCs must be feasible and compatible with other districts
  • GMA 12 members allow groundwater models by TWDB to determine MAG for each district
  • Districts manage aquifers based on the DFC not the MAG
  • Outlines State Water Plan and GMA Joint planning; for stakeholders to develop groundwater strategies to meet guidelines of the SWP is dependent on the GMA MAGs, calculated by TWDB
  • Each joint planning round by GMA 12 was affirmed by TWDB

Mary Sahs P.C., Kennedy County Groundwater Conservation District

  • Board of Directors initiated rulemaking under HB 722 for GMA-16
  • Have had difficulty drafting rules that meet goals of HB 722 while addressing provisions specific to the intersection of production from Zones and GMA-16 joint planning process
  • Outlines some of the specific issues that have emerged from meeting goals of HB 722
  • There is a disconnect in joint planning and brackish permitting under HB 722 that results in double counting of groundwater
  • Asks Legislature to direct the TWDB to reconcile existing GAM models for all aquifers containing a Zone and to appropriate funds to allow this work to happen in a timely manner

Schertz Seguin Local Government Corporation

  • Finds issue with HB 200 (84R), states the process to determine the desired future conditions and new standard or review is not working as it was envisioned
  • Future conditions are too arbitrary, giving more power to districts to restrict access for those who own water rights
  • States bill did not set up a true appeals process; only requires a review of reasonableness instead of thorough review of future conditions
  • Recommends altering the future conditions and appeals process to give more transparency and clarity
  • Future conditions need to be well-defined and the appeals process should provide clarity and more thorough review
  • TWDB needs to provide supporting science for desired future conditions
  • Appeals process should include TWDB and they should have final decision

Leah Martinsson, Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts

  • Overall Groundwater Conservation Districts report that joint planning process has had a positive impact
    • Has improved coordination among GCDs, promoted open dialogue, encouraged data sharing, and supported aquifer science progress by GMAs
  • Outlines definitions for common terminology in groundwater management
  • Outlines the expression of DFCs and differences in GCDs and choice in expressing their DFC
  • Part of current joint planning involves GMAs evaluating potential DFCs with nine factors through an open process with public input
  • Responding GCDs give feedback on DFCs
    • Outlines some of the practices in GCDs establishing DFCs
    • GCDs suggest expanded monitoring of well networks and increased availability of recharge data to improve DFCs
    • Many GCDs acknowledged GMA as beneficial for establishing protocols for monitoring DFCs
  • Over 95% of responding GCDs indicate that joint planning increased cooperation and coordination; outlines positive impacts in science and data sharing, rule evaluations,
  • Suggested improvements and challenges were identified by some GCDs:
    • 10-year cycle for joint planning
    • Improve timing between joint planning process and the regional water planning process
    • Examine challenges with establishing a DFC for areas within the GMA where no GCD exists
    • GCDs reported aggregate spending more than $3.3M to complete last joint planning cycle, expect $2M in aggregate spending to complete current cycle
    • GMAs do not receive state funding
    • Costs for joint planning create larger burdens on smaller GCDs

Texas Water Development Board

  • Outlines background for joint planning process and Groundwater Management Areas established by legislation
  • Provides diagram to illustrate the Desired Future Conditions process for districts
  • Results of joint planning establishment have been two five-year cycles completed
  • First cycle adopted 415 individual desired future conditions for 72 major and minor aquifers and subdivisions
  • Second cycle resulted in 511 desired future conditions adopted by districts in 71 major and minor aquifers and subdivisions of these aquifers
  • Third cycle of joint planning continues through 2021, with a deadline of January 5, 2022

West Texas Regional Groundwater Alliance

  • Outlines processes that GCDs go through in the development of DFCs
  • Local GCDs complete these state processes and planning through judicious expenditures of local dollars and are very careful in the ways that they spend tax dollars
  • Outlines membership in WTRGA and the joint planning that occurs between districts to be able to afford to complete projects and planning; districts coordinate and combine resources
  • Appreciates the level of independence GCDs are given and provides examples of their work and coordination to show their ability to operate without intense state oversight and regulation