Joint Senate Natural Resources & Economic Development and Senate Water & Rural Affairs – January 22, 2020

Print 🖨

The Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Economic Development and Senate Committee on Water & Rural Affairs met jointly for the first time to take up interim committee charges. The Committees were charged with examining the current laws, processes, and water storage options available regarding future water supply. They were also asked to make recommendations promoting the state’s water supply, storage, availability, valuation, movement, and development of new sources. The second charge the Committees took up regarded studying the state’s groundwater regulatory framework and making recommendations to improve groundwater regulation, management, and permitting.

This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight of the discussions on the various topics the committee took up. It is not a verbatim transcript of the hearing but is based upon what was audible or understandable to the observer and the desire to get details out as quickly as possible with few errors or omissions.

Future Water Supply

Temple McKinnon, Texas Water Development Board (TWDB)

Presentation handouts were provided to the Committees
Provide overview of State Water Plan, aquifer storage and recovery (ASR), and produced water
Overview of state water planning process
Now have bottom up regionalized approach
The State Water Implementation Fund for Texas (SWIFT) has financed projects that will provide 1.8 million acres of water when completed
Regional Water Planning Groups
Self-governing groups that est. bylaws; largely self-paced in development of plans
Planning parameters
Public, consensus driven process with local interest input; respects water rights and uses TCEQ groundwater guidelines
Plan for 6 areas of use: livestock, irrigation, steam electric power, mining, manufacturing, municipal
Board’s adopt input for use in State Water Plan
Water management strategies to be considered for every water user group in planning
ASR, available water, inclusion of addressing why ASR might not be added must be included, desalination
ASR pros:
Less surface impacts from development, avoids majority of evaporative losses
ASR projects don’t refill as quickly as reservoir, requirement of having specific hydrology and geochemistry to be successful; HB 807 requires plans to provide ASR assessment to identify specific water needs identified by plans
Statewide water demands are expected to increase by 17% between 2020 and 2070
Statewide population growth of more than 70% from 2020-2070
Statewide water supplies expected to decline by 11% per year between 2020-2070
TX needs to provide 8.9 million acre-feet water supplies to meet demand by 2070
Perry- Municipal needs (2070 figures): Municipal areas will be largest consumer of water as we grow. Municipal needs will not be as great W of 1-35, but oil/gas, agriculture, and mining industry W of I-35 still exist. Water needs in W TX area are largest budget drivers of state water budget.
Taylor- Why has our existing supply decreased?
Depletion of significant aquifers in state and sedimentation of surface water reservoirs
Rodriguez- Is TWDB concerned about the tremendous water loss due to municipal utilities?
There are several planning groups that have recommended water management strategies to address water loss
Dupnik (TWDB)- Our agency requires water loss audits and annual reports of those entities. We require those and provide significant outreach on how to conduct audits and analyze
Rodriguez-Sometimes those audits are not accurately done, is there a 3^rd party involved?
Dupnik – some of the larger utilities are providing data validation exercises, water conservation advisory council is also discussing that
Perry- SWIFT funds are helping fix old leaky pipes in municipals. Some of the old rule cities aren’t doing as much. TWDB has been a tremendous resource to help municipalities see how much water they are losing
Alvarado- Can you give highlights of completed SWIFT projects, best practices, gone well?
Temple- Funds have been committed on Bois D’Arc Lake, defer question regarding best practices for administration of fund
State water plan categorization by type
Largest volume contributor is “other surface water” that isn’t currently connected to another source
2017 State Water Plan
Progress has been made on several projects, Bois D’Arc Lake, Ringgold Reservoirs by city of Wichita Falls, among others
Perry- Currently evaluating reservoirs in 2017 State Water Plan to see if they are still giving enough water?
Yes
Perry- They evaluate based on changed conditions so reservoirs could change. We will know more in about a month. Regional group met and said this is how we meet need. But not all reservoirs are on there are going to contribute, need re-evaluation
Johnson- Referring to “Irrigation Conservation” slide, does that include agricultural, municipal? Take into acct manufacturing and power conservation?
The “Irrigation Conservation” slide refers to agricultural. We are accounting for manufacturing conservation. We project for electric power generated demand moving forward and we plan for new facilities as well as those being retired
Approx. 5500 strategies recommended in State Water Plan, nearly all municipal needs are met
2500 strategy projects by 2070- $63 billion, $36 billion in state assistance needed to implement those strategies
Zaffirini: Charge before committees is to make recommendations regarding water supply, storage, availability, valuation, movement, and development of new sources. Do you have any recommendations regarding that charge?
I don’t have any specific recommendations but can offer resources as needed
Perry- SWIFT update: We have funded 3 SWIFT cycles, going on 4. We spend $200 million of $2 billion set aside to leverage local communities, to put about $6 billion-$8 billion of capital in the ground that adds 1.5 million acre-feet of water supply. It is well on its way to funding all the projects it has intended to fund
Rodriguez- Does TWDB take into acct climate change?
We use Drought of Record as benchmark and sync up with TCEQ. We don’t use global climate as an indicator. It regionally doesn’t adapt to the modeling scale we are using in this planning process
Rodriguez- Couldn’t that be scaled regionally? Why can we do nothing?
Regions are not prohibiting from planning in that way, but typically they plan around the Drought of Record
Perry- in the Drought of Record of the 50’s, no municipalities went without water supply. Drought of record is a good test, that’s why it’s the baseline

John Dupnik, Texas Water Development Board

Provided handouts with presentation slides
ASR- water management strategy when water is available (wet times) in a suitable aquifer and recovery of water during times of need
Aquifer recharge- getting water into the ground. Recharge enhancement measures enhance amount of water that gets into the aquifer
ASR: widely applied strategy worldwide but not widely used in TX. Currently 3 in TX
One in El Paso Water Utilities, Kerrville project (surface water scalping project), San Antonio Water System in S Bexar county
We don’t have many operational ASR facilities, but we do have many identified in 2017 water plan (22). Majority source is surface water. If all projects developed in water plan by 2070, it would mean 123,000 acre-feet of supply
HB 721 tasked TWDB with two charges to evaluate ASR feasibility in TX
assess and report on state aquifers
Ongoing charge to conduct studies of all individual projects (22) in State Water Plan
First charge (statewide suitability of aquifer): following scope based on
1. Hydrogeological characteristics of aquifer, which are best suited for ASR
2. Proximity to source water for storage
3. Water supply and demand figures of State Water Plan
Deliverable will be suitability rating in a map produced by end of the year
Study shows 2.7 billion acre-feet of brackish (not fresh but not as salty as seawater) water in state
Brackish Resource Aquifer Characterization System (BRACS)-purpose to understand availability of the resource. Studies have been done on 12 aquifer systems to date
HB 30 designated brackish groundwater production zones. We apply statutory criteria to identify “sweet spots” in aquifer with the highest potential for long term production and lowest potential for adverse impact
When looking at criteria for HB 30, we are required to exclude certain areas from zone designations (areas where there is active management of source).

We have designated 31 brackish water zones

HB 722: bill creates petition process where project developer can petition district to adopt rules for brackish groundwater permitting, creates general framework for permitting to provide uniformity
SB 1041: Extended deadline to 2032 for TWDB to identify and designate brackish groundwater production zones
HB 1- provided appropriations to do this work
HB 30: criteria requires us to buffer Class 2 injection wells (wells permitted by RRC for disposal of wastewater assoc. with oil/gas production, including produced water)
Map provided shows best spots for high productivity with minimal adverse impacts. Assign 15-mile default distance from these buffer zones
Key challenge is identifying interface between moderately saline and very saline. Any fresher water is protected by RRC as safe drinking water
We need to refine the buffers. We are scoping contract that will be funded by appropriation this biennium by legislature to improve study of injection wells and allow us to hopefully shrink buffer zones
Interagency Coordination: We work with RRC and both have responsibility to map groundwater salinity. We meet on a monthly basis to share data and compare methods and hope we can be consistent in how we determine salinity in these areas. It is now multi agency effort with TCEQ, Bureau of Economic Geology, and US Geological Survey
Perry- In areas that have brackish water opportunities, make sure communities know about your studies and people know to go to you as a resource in their water planning. Be clear resource exists and let them you know you have done the work.
Perry- Of completed BRACS aquifer studies, which ones met match to become a supply opportunity?
BRACS study provides overall evaluation. HB 30 identifies sweet spot zones. 31 production zones have been identified
Zaffirini- Can you compare advantages of using ASR vs. surface water reservoirs?
ASR doesn’t experience evaporative losses or sedimentation like surface water reservoirs. ASR doesn’t have impact on land surface since it’s underground
Zaffirini- Are they any plans for conservation in each region?
There are active conservation and outreach programs for utilities. Conservation is major part of State Water Plan
Zaffirini-Are there any plans for technical study regarding conservation by region?
Most of it is educational outreach programs where we work with teachers and students reinforcing conservation. On technical side, we provide workshops on how to conduct water loss audits, and how to utilize information that comes from those audits
Kolkhorst -There are plans for 22 ASR’s, with many using surface water. In high rains, they will pump water down into aquifer? Will they also pump down groundwater?
Yes to both questions
Kolkhorst-Interbasin transfers with ASR?
None happening that I know of, most of the ASR’s are getting water from sources near them
Rodriguez- What information gathered on brackish groundwater use is gathered in production zones?
Not aware of any projects that have currently been permitted in the production zones. Under 722, when projects are permitted, TWDB does technical review of application and makes recommendations. Once project is operational, we require submission of a report every year. We would review annual reports upon request of a groundwater district if there were unanticipated/adverse effects
Rodriguez- What specific uses are there going to be within the production zone for brackish groundwater?
It’s not fresh but still good enough to be used for production. It could be treated to whatever levels as needed for intended use
Birdwell- Is it cost prohibitive if you have to clean water to the drinking standard before injecting into groundwater (which could be brackish or worse)?
Statute is that it doesn’t have to be cleaned to Clean Water Standards before it’s injected
Birdwell- Is it a clear line in your mind between fresh, brackish, and saline or is it up to interpretation?
Quality is on a continuum. We try to create classes in water quality. Clear line would have to be in line with Clean Water Act standards. I think it’s variable based on location
Birdwell- Do projects already have technology in place (in their current location) to get water to Clean Water Standards before injection?
Some ASR existing projects were located based on necessity, EL Paso and SA Water Systems. They all have different standards because they are all using different sources of water before injection
Birdwell- Are there any prohibitions in statute that preclude an area that doesn’t have existing ASR projects from allowing them to join?
Nothing should preclude a study for feasibility of projects. TWC has specific standards for what would have to happen before a project would be permitted
Perry- Aquifer itself determines level of mixability. If you’re adding to it, it has to be equal to or better. Production zones were built around aquifer characteristic more than the surface that would be recharging it. Goal in production water discussions would be to see if we could get less brackish water below and not contaminate deeper because that is a potential source. We had trillions of gallons of freshwater hit the bay in Harvey. It was too much freshwater for the bay. It would be desirable to get that stored prior to something happening to it. Can’t use it after the fact due to TCEQ regulations. There are lots of standards preventing contamination and it’s based on aquifer itself. What’s too much when you run out-in terms of cost? We have to have water to survive
Rodriguez- Regarding future water supply, I had a bill on storm water infrastructure, SB 1381 that didn’t make it. It was to help with flood planning and storm water reuse. How can we do more to preserve storm water through gardens, green roofs, etc. to preserve storm water for reuse?
On the flood side of the equation, SB 7 and SB 8 require startup of new flood planning process. Possible mitigation measures include nature based (use open land, vegetation) to slow down and get water into the ground. Those projects are addressed in SB 8
Alvarado- SB 8: Where are you now in that process with meetings around the state?
We are very active. We are in open rule making stage of that bill
Perry- Public comments will be closed in Feb. TWDB has done a very good job with getting 7 and 8 up and running

Mark Houser, University Lands

Richard Brantley, University Lands

Provided written testimony and presentation
Manages surface of the Permanent University Fund (PUF) Lands
Water has increased in prominence and water use and hydraulic fracturing has increased, as has water cuts from producing wells
Trying to balance conservation with commerciality, to meet joint mission of generating revenue for these lands and being good stewards to ensure sustainable energy dev. over long term
Written testimony highlights 800 water wells on land designated for oil and gas use, 250 saltwater disposal wells, 1000 miles of freshwater pipelines, double that of produced water pipeline
Rolled out produced water frack pit specifications which allow operators to store produced water on the ground to increase recycling
Sells freshwater to Midland, Andrews CO, CO river municipal water district, and oil and gas operators. 170 million barrels of water, 22,000 acre-feet used per year
As recycling of oilfield water becomes more common, less freshwater is used
Increase in larger companies specializing in water in oil and gas industry (water midstream business)
There is a lot more capital becoming available for water midstream companies
Promote full cycle water management
Decreasing freshwater use in oil/gas
Promoting use of water for more brackish aquifers
Increasing recycling of produced water
Increasing disposal zones to alleviate pressure on any one well
Smart disposal networks: allow water to be moved around underground instead of transported by a truck
Seismic monitoring network- two seismic monitors on land
Preferred service water providers- XRI and UL Water Midstream work to provide consolidated water services in line with water management agenda outlined
University Lands is engaged in conversation and wants to continue to keep you updated
Perry- Selling 18 million barrels of water to municipal annually? Produced water you found a way to clean up?
That is freshwater. It’s not produced water cleaned up to meet a standard
Perry- You have cleaned up brackish water for producers. Is it in the 10,000 ppm or under or 1,000-3,000 ppm range?
Branley (University Lands): In last several years, oil and gas operators go through Dockum section. Delineation is 900-1800 ft university lands oversees. The water is greater than 3,000 ppm but not above 10,000 ppm. Dockum section is water that we will be used in the future, it’s not as brackish as we originally thought it would be
Perry- It is important we are clear on what water we are using. Dockum to me is freshwater. The committee needs to hear what production water is used for, is it being used to get to freshwater or is it being used for other purposes?
Branley- We have limited use of major aquifers over University Lands requiring operators to go after water that is deeper. It is water that could be used for municipalities
Zaffirini- On page 10, you ask questions capitalizing on use of PUF lands. How can we promote reuse of produced water?
Houser- We are promoting recycling of water to be used in hydraulic frack operations. Produced water that comes out of the ground can be stored to be reused
Perry- How many times can water be recycled back through?
There is no known baseline

Mark Havens, General Land Office

GLO tries to produce revenue for Texas Permanent School Fund
Our acreage is more spread out than the PUF Lands
We entered into a lease with Layne Midstream Water Resources and that is looking at groundwater rights that GLO owns. They are prohibited from using anything 2,000 ppm or less for bracking wells
We have generated $1 million in royalties from that lease, sold over 4 million barrels
2^nd part of lease is to allow them to put disposal wells on GLO property for produced water, then recycle the water for oil and gas use
RRC and TCEQ monitor disposal wells
Perry- Goal is to figure out what level of produced water can be used for other purposes other than reuse in oil and gas industry. If we do this, we minimize injection site. Injection wells are becoming more of a rarity. There are buffer zones around existing water supply because of injection wells. We clean it up to point of reuse for oil and gas purpose. Could people on your end become part of larger conversation to talk about how we could talk about how far we can take this?
It is a question of scale. Look at Delaware and Permian. Operators can bring it down to drinking water, but it is cost prohibitive. We are working with operators to see how far we take this and at what cost. We will share that info. as we get it
Perry- There are too many people spending money trying to figure out the same thing and we need to work together. We need to prepare for water supply needs and the cost decision can’t be made on front end to prohibit us from acting on it on the back end. I don’t want people to discount only because it is too expensive. Leg. will worry about how we get there and if we can get there
Alvarado- Are there opportunities to enter into similar lease agreements in other parts of the state?
Yes, we are working on similar lease covering Ward and Loving counties
Perry – Birdwell had asked if local communities take on their own initiative with recovery and finding water supply. They don’t have to wait on the state. They can start things and just have to abide by regulation. Our community put in some private well money to determine aspects of using Dockum

Commissioner Emily Lindley, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)

HB 2771- Requires TCEQ to submit delegation request to EPA to seek authority from EPA to issue federal permits for discharges of produced water, hydrostatic test water, and gas plant effluent discharges resulting from oil and gas activities in the state. Upon delegation of authority, state permitting authority for these discharges will be transferred from RRC to TCEQ.
TCEQ is ahead of schedule for submitting delegation request (due Sept. 1, 2021)
We are working on rule making, adopting federal effluent standards for oil and gas discharges
Working on revising MOU between TCEQ and RRC
To move process forward, we est. a stakeholder group for implementation of HB 2771 and est. multiagency task force to coordinate delegation of authority including TCEQ, EPA, RRC, OAG
EPA’s process: we have learned we need to submit partial program authorization submittal like a major modification request. With PPA, EPA acts within 90 days of determining submittal is complete.
Perry- For any produced water legislation to have impact or effect when we come out of next session, we have to have delegation of a large part of those aspects largely delegated to TCEQ which is currently under EPA. We must have regulatory framework. TCEQ is boots on the ground for EPA. Delegation will help us move forward with legislation

L’Oreal Stepney, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

EPA raised that for TX to get delegation it was important agency sought delegation for any discharge of any oil and gas wastewater, not just some sections of oil and gas water in the state
HB 2771 Rule Making: agency is seeking delegation for any discharge of oil/gas related water
When authority is issued from EPA, we will issue one consolidated permit
We have cleared up any conflicts with EPA regulations by renaming “produced water” to “produced wastewater”
Produced water, there are huge volumes and it is a tremendous source of water for the state. Quality varies
Treatment technologies need to be developed (reverse osmosis, other membrane technologies)
Texas surface water quality standards must be met for all wastewater streams permitted by TCEQ
Stakeholders talked about use of centralized wastewater treatment plants and reuse
Stakeholders have talked about need to review 98^th meridian in EPA rules. It’s a federal requirement and EPA is studying this to see if there needs to be any regulatory changes at federal level
Rodriguez- Regarding studies, produced water is challenging because of complexity. Are there ongoing or existing studies that are available regarding produced water in TX? Is there work being done to gather data?
Currently, produced water can be discharged W of 98^th meridian (West Texas). Stripper wells can discharge produced water. Staff will provide list of studies from academics, EPA’s study is at the forefront
Rodriguez (directed to Commissioner Lindley)- Are there existing regulatory programs that incorporate chemicals in water?
Stepney: Reuse of produced water is common; recipient of reuse water would need to make sure it was up to their standard. It would depend on the purpose it was used for
Rodriguez- Concerned about risk if produced water is used for a purpose without knowing what chemicals are in it and what impact they may have
Texas Surface water quality standards are a large chapter in Texas Water Code. EPA and RRC use in their regulation of discharges
Alvarado- Can we get a copy of list of stakeholders you referenced? What’s the best way for interested parties to submit comments?
Yes, and we can provide link to submit comments for rulemaking
Alvarado- what is status of desalination facilities rule making?
We are finalizing rulemaking of desalination bills that were passed. We can provide you with schedule

Paul Dubois, Railroad Commission of Texas

Provided handouts
Produced water volumes are not directly reported to the RRC, produced water estimates are made through indirect methods; trends for reported and estimated are similar
10.7 billion barrels of water produced from oil and gas wells in TX
Produced water has salt and other substances that can pose pollution threats to environment and freshwater
RRC has authority to enforce rules to prevent pollution in all phases of the process (say in permitting of waste haulers, injecting wastewater back into ground, rules for recycling)
Produced water generated in Texas is managed by underground injection wells
Underground Injection Program (UIC):
Injected fluids must remain in permitted zone
Using nearby wells, well logs and available sample data, commission staff and groundwater advisory unit track to ensure protection of fresh and brackish groundwater during injection
Injection wells are subject to mechanical integrity testing, injection well operators must report injected volumes and pressures on an annual basis
TWDB has implemented BRACS but has different standards than RRC. RRC provides TWDB injection well data, GIS data and access to well log library. TWDB has given commission staff opportunity to review/comment on BRACS
Underground injection has been backbone of water production in TX
Reuse of produced water is fraught with challenges
Treatment: Not all produced water is the same. No one size fits all approach
Reliability: Likelihood produced water volumes and substances change over time. Treatment must then be adapted
Infrastructure: Location and production, treatment and reuse is not all in one place. Requires pipelines, land, transportation, etc.
Produced Water Report created by Groundwater Protection Council is provided to committee and may be a valuable resource: http://www.gwpc.org/producedwater
Rodriguez- Industry uses a lot of freshwater for production purposes. If we can reduce industry reliance on water supply, we could make water supply last longer. How is industry recycling water for its purposes and lessening waste?
Water is cost to industry. Water is a carrier of several agents and has to meet a certain specification depending on the purpose it’s used for. Operators are trying to use as little as possible
Rodriguez- If we are talking about conserving freshwater, it is incumbent on the industry to conserve
Operators with large tracts of land are developing infrastructure on their lease holes to manage water use by moving water as needed and facilitating centralized treatment facilities to treat water
Perry- Is there a commitment by industry to work with all stakeholders to take what’s currently being produced and not waste as much? Does the industry want to find solutions and is working with producer groups going forward to make sure everyone is on the same page? Economics drive a lot of these discussions
Hancock- legislation was passed to encourage reuse of those waters and it was used by the industry
Perry- Cost of cleaning up produced water is prohibitive. Those working with produced water need to work with stakeholders to figure out cost recovery for benefit of producer group.
Flores- What’s the closest replacement to water in the process? Are the processes too diverse?
It would be differing and varying grades of water, not necessarily something other than water

Public Testimony

Russ Concer, Individual

Worked in oil and gas industry, and now in agriculture industry
Founder and CEO of Standard Soil and Blue Nest Beef
Specialty was measuring properties of sediments in the earth
Examined soil and found farmers were putting carbon back in earth in same place it had been taken out of (oil/gas industry) through grazing
We need to implement different grazing methods to help with water conservation
Healthy soil holds water better

Kermit Heaton, Individual

Analysis paralysis-figure out pertinent information
Simple principle’s: government is not solution; individuals make TX great
How do we keep government agencies from exceeding power? SAWS exceeded power with Vista Ridge
Require transparency

Andrew Weir, Local Landowner

1 of 58 landowners contesting permit by LCRA in Lost Pines groundwater district
2004-2011 rainwater collection systems served family needs, after drought they drilled well and now that well is in a contested case. Well levels are dropping, it will cost a significant amt without mitigation
Recommendations: Implement State Water Plan. Don’t let it be undermined by venture capitalists

Henry Busse, Individual

Live in hill country near Lake Medina that is now dry. 250,000 acre-feet lost due to water mismanagement
Loss of water created inability to provide irrigators downstream water, eliminated source of recharge to aquifer, property values dropped by almost 50%, 50-75% small businesses in area went out of business
Policy recommendations:
Surface water permit should prevent water loss to the farmer, existing permits do nothing to prevent draining.
State Water Plan should be adjusted over time as demographics and residential changes
Rate of inflow into river is not considered, 1 foot lost every 20 days

Mark Friesenhagh, Individual

Handed out notes
Growth of aggregate production industry (APO) and has water use and supply issue in Comal County area
Aggregate industry requiring 12,000-15,000 houses over 7 years
Recommendations:
Study future water supply
Dictate regulatory framework
withdraw limits on heavily used water sources

Nicole Sanders, Environmental Defense Fund

Supportive of efforts for oil and gas industry to reuse water and reduce use of freshwater
There are regulatory gaps and science related to produced water- Recent analysis:
50% of chemicals found in produced water have not been studied
How can we make produced water clean enough for new uses? We cannot do this correctly without more research
Before we incentivize programs for reuse, we need to know more
Agree with RRC with that Produced Groundwater Report is a fantastic resource. EDF was part of that process

Ken Kramer, Individual

Handed out written testimony and booklet “Best Bets for Texas Water” https://texaslivingwaters.org/bestbets/
Need water conservation and effective drought management
2017 water plan: 30% of future water supplies will come from conservation and demand management like drought management plans. Figure out how to stretch existing water supplies first

Kathy Harris, Holistic Management International

Started farming 20 years ago
Program director for HMI, teaching programs to farmers and ranchers
Programs taught to farmers are paying off, they are saving water, and have more financially viable options
Perry- Brush control helps with water supply. When Mesquites are brushed off, springs return within a week. They suck a lot of water

David Foster, Clean Water Action

Referenced: https://www.cleanwateraction.org/publications/report-clean-water-act-regulation-oil-and-gas-wastewater-discharges
We want more chemical disclosure on produced water by oil companies
Need more research

Groundwater Regulatory Framework

Larry French, Texas Water Development Board

Texas manages groundwater on 2 levels, local (GCD) & regional level (consider entire aquifers) Regional planning is referred to as “joint planning” and is based on desired future conditions
Regional water planning groups must use groundwater numbers from joint planning process
Determining groundwater availability comes from science and policy
Desired future conditions are quantitative description of desired condition of a groundwater resource in a management area at one or more times. DFC are policy goals at which each district must manage groundwater resource. Can be expressed through water level changes, spring flows, storage volumes, subsidence
Groundwater availability models are where the science comes in. Mimics behavior of aquifer (model on the chart)
Numerous GCD’s in each groundwater management area
District boundaries are mostly drawn along political boundaries
How districts adopt DFC: districts required by law to consider desired future conditions (aquifer conditions, state water plan, possible impacts on private property rights)
Desired future conditions can be appealed/protested
Groundwater management plans- shows district effort to manage groundwater resources in area and sets forth districts policies which are in turn implemented by rules.
TWDB reviews each plan to see if it’s administratively complete, must address statutory management goals. State law identifies those goals
If there are deficiencies in the plan, district can revise and resubmit, or appeal to the TWDB board members
Science of monitoring aquifers depends on direct information from aquifers and indirect using computer modeling
Computer models can be used to develop groundwater plans. Dependent on DFC
TWDB coordinates with groundwater districts to coordinate data, assists districts in developing plans with desired future conditions, develop models
9 factors GCD’s are asked to consider
checklist is mandatory, every issue needs to be addressed
Perry- has TWDB ever rejected a DFC based on a scientific model?
Not that I know of. If we go to a meeting and see there are incompatibilities, we will have a discussion and offer recommendations
Perry- have you denied a management plan for a GCD?
Yes, we are approaching mediation in resolving some of those conflicts
Kolkhorst- In well testing, do you look at ASR?
As an agency, we cooperate with technical consultants looking at the aspects of ASR’s
Perry- 49% of Edwards Aquifer permitted to 1 user. Policy does matter, but they have acquired those rights over time. Subject to DFC’s in both systems, could people move between aquifers? Could someone transfer aquifers if they were in proximity to a DFC?
If you move between the two, it is a local issue

Kelly Mills, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Priority groundwater management area (PGMA)- area designated by TCEQ expected to experience in the next 50 years, critical groundwater issues. 18 PGMA studies have been done, TCEQ have designated 7 PGMA’s.
PGMA study areas identified by TCEQ and TWDB. Requires TCEQ executive director to identify and solicit stakeholders in the study area. Request area study from TDA, TPW, and TDA-then a report is compiled with PGMA designation and GCD creation recommendations
If PGMA designation is recommended, a contested case hearing is conducted by State Office of Administrative Hearings. After, commissioner will consider matter and then can issue order for PGMA and GCD
TWC Ch. 36: TCEQ creates GCD’s in response to landowner petition, maintains GCD boundary info., GCD performance review, registration of GCD board members
GCD performance and compliance is tracked by TCEQ, review must happen in accordance with TWC Ch. 36. Section 301-303
Perry: PGMA is a state imposed GCD?
Yes.
Perry: If a PGMA tries to move GCD, are they allowed? That did happen in my district
Unsure
Perry: PGMA is serious. Often it takes litigation to solve disputes
Alvarado: Appeal and adoption process sounds pretty cumbersome; can it be changed?
The law would have to be changed
Alvarado: Do districts struggle to achieve the administratively complete groundwater plan?
It is a long process, but it can be done. We are in the 3^rd cycle and many of the districts are now very familiar
Zaffirini- As growth in state continues to cover land in recharge zone, do we need to set aside land for recharge?
At this time, it is a local and not state issue
Zaffirini: charge is to study groundwater framework, what are your recommendations?
No recommendations, willing to be resources
Perry: People need to elect water district boards

Leah Martinsson, Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts

Handed out resource materials that are also available to the public
Created by GCD’s, promote good science and sound management of groundwater
Collect data from members, reg. frameworks, demographic data
Distributed survey, 69 responded. Provided in written testimony
GCD’s issue permits, survey showed that in last 10 years, excess 45,000 permits have been granted. Very few turned down
Contested case hearing process, in last 10 years, 73% of them had no contested case requests. Of those reported, the majority were resolved before the contested case phase
Ch 36- when GCD’s go to a lawsuit, the attorney fees are recoverable
GCD’s work collaboratively to help violations be resolved
More than 3,000 permit/rule violations in the past 10 years, resolved without a lawsuit
GCD’s use good science to manage groundwater. The written testimony shows the types of science that GCD’s are using (Aquifer mapping, GIS development, etc.)
The science informs GCD rules and management plans
Joint planning between GCD’s and GMA, GCD’s report they find it helpful; there is a cost
TAG has 3 legislative subcommittees in interim
Perry- Current system, landowner bears brunt of attorney fees if they prevail?
That is correct. Due to the small number of disputes, it seems they feel like they are being treated fairly
Perry- Potentially, many people don’t contest because of those fees

Zachary Yanta, Texas Farm Bureau

Karnes County Farmer in Evergreen GCD
Discriminatory rules that affect groundwater rights: members have concerns about rules that allow existing users to take water from other people.
Does not support regulations that take private property rights
Concern on discriminatory rights, allowing public entities to pump a large amount of water while others must have hundreds of acres
Highlighting regulations that allow someone to drain water from another neighbor groundwater
Support creating a formal process where landowner can petition their district on right or rule
Landowners deserve to receive notice of permit application that could affect their groundwater
Attorney fees must be addressed – Groundwater Conservation District’s only ones where you are mandated to pay if you lose but if you win the district does not have to pay
Zaffirini – What effect have these rules had?
- A large impact on landowners not willing to go to court, having to pay even if they win is a big road block

Public Testimony

Andrew Weir, Local landowner

Need for changes to groundwater regulation
Over last year seen many changes in groundwater marketing
Emphasis should be on sustainability and groundwater water rights
Does not believe first hurdle is attorney cost
Recommends amending Ch 36 to include water rights from real property, then can really honor people’s water rights
Unless you have a direct well, you’re not allowed into contested case, needs to be addressed
Registered exempt wells should be included in permit process, resurrect bill that died in committee last session
Require mitigation as part of process, can’t sue water company and can only sue GCD, there could be a non-fault mitigation fund that could be established

Kermit Heaton, Individual

Expands upon earlier simple solutions
Simple solutions often provide best results

Travis Brown, Individual

Alcoa example, they were able to stop the plan and it died
Believes LCRA wants to get on groundwater selling businesses
Problem is there is more business than water under the aquifer to pump
Clear that water markets are gaming the system and this needs to be fixed
Preservation of aquifer is critical priority
Landowners need to take part in hearings

League of Independent Voters

Provides packet to committee
Discusses SAWS and Vista Ridge water situation, notes thanks for Rep. Larson for stepping into this discussion
Would like to know how they can be of help

Vanessa Williams, Attorney

Works with landowners
People in industry and agriculture all have needs that create complex water challenges
EDF’s work will address groundwater conservative districts and hope to work with wide range of stakeholders
Suggest additional investment in groundwater data and to look for agreement on the science
EDF will release a study on groundwater management in the next couple months

Mark Freishenhagh, Individual

Industry should cite source of water
Part of team that is studying water issues in Comal area
Water regulatory framework, not clear enough segregation between Edward’s Aquifer and Trinity
Look hard at other regulatory agencies – need to empower them to set limits on production and withdrawals from aquifers
DFCs are slow depletion strategy

Birdwell thinks there will be two more interim hearings, next one later April or early May followed by one in August Adjourn subject to call of chair