Upload
duc
View
44
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Environmental Flows Under Texas Senate Bill 3: Did We Leave Enough Water for the Fishes? . Kirk Winemiller, Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University. • Texas Senate Bill 1 (1997) established regional water planning groups. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Environmental Flows Under Texas Senate Bill 3: Did We Leave Enough Water for the Fishes?
Kirk Winemiller, Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
• Texas Senate Bill 1 (1997) established regional water planning groups.
• Senate Bill 2 (2001) mandated environmental flows research by natural resource agencies (TWDB, TPWD, TCEQ)
– established the Texas Instream Flow Program
• Senate Bill 3 of the 80th Texas Legislature (2007) mandated formation of basin stakeholder groups and expert science teams to make environmental flow recommendations using best available information.
The focus is future water rights permitting.
Most rights were issued prior to 1985 and have no environmental protection.
Of the estimated 7500 rights, fewer than 15% include environmental restrictions.
So ….. the burden falls to post-1985 rights to protect environmental flows.
For the past 40 years, the state has relied upon simple desktop approaches for evaluating flow needs of rivers, streams and bays (Lyons Method, 7Q2, etc.).
The goal is to conserve the timing, magnitude & duration of flow components that are essential features
of the natural flow regime.
Texas SB 3 Process for Establishing Environmental Flows
Environmental Flows Advisory Group
9 members
Environmental Flows Science Advisory
Committee9 members
Basin and Bay Expert Science Team
Appoint
Governor- 3 Speaker- 3
Appoint TCEQ
Basin and Bay Area Stakeholders
Committee17+ Members
Lt. Governor- 3
E-flowStandards
Advise
Texas SB 3 Process for Establishing Environmental Flows
Environmental Flows Advisory Group
9 members
Environmental Flows Science Advisory
Committee9 members
Basin and Bay Expert Science Team
Appoint
Governor- 3 Speaker- 3
Appoint
Lt. Governor- 3
E-flowStandards
TCEQ
Basin and Bay Area Stakeholders
Committee17+ Members
Advise
Basin and Bay Expert Science Teams
– shall develop environmental flow analyses and a recommended environmental flow regime for the river basin and bay system through a collaborative process designed to achieve a consensus
Basin and Bay Expert Science Teams
– shall develop environmental flow analyses and a recommended environmental flow regime for the river basin and bay system through a collaborative process designed to achieve a consensus
– the science team must consider all reasonably available science, without regard to the need for the water for other uses
Science Team Biology Subcommittee Environmental Flows Recommendation
Subsistence flows: 83 cfs Winter 61 cfs Spring, Summer, Fall
Base flows: Dry year: Winter 240 cfs, Spring 106 cfs, Summer 70 cfs, Fall 89 cfs Average year: Winter 424 cfs, Spring 189 cfs, Summer 91 cfs, Fall 138 cfs Wet year: Winter 672 cfs, Spring 335 cfs, Summer 135 cfs, Fall 236 cfs
High flow pulses*: 2-per-season: Winter 2,010 cfs, Spring 1,380 cfs, Summer 341 cfs, Fall 712 cfs
1-per-season: Winter 2,070 cfs, Spring 2,070 cfs, Summer 814 cfs, Fall 2,070 cfs
1-per-2 years: 12,400 cfs
* high flow pulses have estimated volumes & durations; frequencies may not be attained every year.
Village Creek near Kountze, USGS gage 08041500
SB3 Accomplishments for the Sabine & Neches Basins
Flow Pulses for the Neches River at Evadale
Pulse
/yr (
acre
feet
x 1
05 )
Scie
nce
team
Stak
ehol
der c
omm
ittee
decli
ned
to p
ropo
se
TCEQ
dra
ft sta
ndar
d
Stak
ehol
der c
omm
ittee
late
subm
issio
n
TCEQ
fina
l sta
ndar
d
5
1
4
3
2
0 X
SB3 Accomplishments for the Trinity & San Jacinto Basins
Flow Pulses for the Trinity River near Romayor
Pulse
/yr (
acre
feet
x 1
05 )
Scie
nce
team
- re
gime
grou
p
Stak
ehol
der c
omm
ittee
(regim
e)
TCEQ
dra
ft sta
ndar
d
TCEQ
fina
l sta
ndar
d
5
1
4
3
2
0 X
Scie
nce
team
- co
nditi
onal
grou
p
Stak
ehol
der c
omm
ittee
(cond
ition
al)
X
SB3 Accomplishments for the Colorado & Lavaca Basins
Flow Pulses for the Colorado River at Wharton
Pulse
/yr (
acre
feet
x 1
05 )
Scie
nce
team
Stak
ehol
der c
omm
ittee
TCEQ
dra
ft sta
ndar
d
TCEQ
fina
l sta
ndar
d
5
1
4
3
2
0
SB3 Accomplishments for the Guadalupe & San Antonio Basins
Flow Pulses for the Guadalupe River at Victoria
Pulse
/yr (
acre
feet
x 1
05 )
Scie
nce
team
&
Stak
ehol
der c
omm
ittee
TCEQ
dra
ft sta
ndar
d
TCEQ
fina
l sta
ndar
d
5
1
4
3
2
0
SB3 Accomplishments for the Brazos BasinFlow Pulses for the Brazos River at Richmond
Pulse
/yr (
acre
feet
x 1
05 )
Scie
nce
team
Stak
ehol
der
Com
mitt
ee
TCEQ
stan
dard
5
1
4
3
2
0
617,000
?
1,019,000
SB3 Accomplishments for the Brazos BasinFlow Pulses for the Brazos River at Richmond
Pulse
/yr (
acre
feet
x 1
05 )
Scie
nce
team
Stak
ehol
der
Com
mitt
ee
TCEQ
stan
dard
5
1
4
3
2
0
617,000
?
1,019,000
pulse required to connect a young oxbow in the region
Arguments for setting environmental flow standards lower than those advised by science teams and stakeholder committees:
Arguments for setting environmental flow standards lower than those advised by science teams and stakeholder committees:
• Water project X has been planned for my region, so the standards need to be low enough to allow that to go forward.
Arguments for setting environmental flow standards lower than those advised by science teams and stakeholder committees:
• Water project X has been planned for my region, so the standards need to be low enough to allow that to go forward.
• We can’t be sure these are the exact values that will satisfy environmental needs, but we know for sure we will need more water for municipal and industrial growth.
Arguments for setting environmental flow standards lower than those advised by science teams and stakeholder committees:
• Water project X has been planned for my region, so the standards need to be low enough to allow that to go forward.
• We can’t be sure these are the exact values that will satisfy environmental needs, but we know for sure we will need more water for municipal and industrial growth.
• It doesn’t matter if we set them too low, because, except during prolonged drought, it is impossible to divert all of the water from a river.
Arguments for setting environmental flow standards lower than those advised by science teams and stakeholder committees:
• Water project X has been planned for my region, so the standards need to be low enough to allow that to go forward.
• We can’t be sure these are the exact values that will satisfy environmental needs, but we know for sure we will need more water for municipal and industrial growth.
• It doesn’t matter if we set them too low because, except during prolonged drought, it is impossible to divert all of the water from a river.
• We don’t have to worry if we set standards too low right now, because we can adjust them later under the adaptive management plan.
SB3 definition of environmental flow regime:
“A schedule of flow quantities that reflects seasonal and yearly fluctuations that typically would vary geographically, by specific location in a watershed, and that are shown to be adequate to support a sound ecological environment and to maintain the productivity, extent, and persistence of key aquatic habitats in and along the affected water bodies.”
Saltwater barrieron Lower NechesRiver
Big Thicket PreserveLower Cypress Tract
City of Beaumont
MeadeWestvacopaper mill effluentreceiving pond
Conclusion:
• SB3 seemed like a reasonable attempt at a stakeholder-driven, science-based process to produce improved standards for environmental protection during water rights permitting.
Conclusion:
• But the process broke down at nearly every step as powerful economic/political interests leveraged their positions to ensure that environmental flow protections were set as low as possible, thus having more water available for future appropriations.
Conclusion:
• Certain stakeholders invoked adaptive management as an insurance policy –– mistakes can be corrected as new information comes forth.
Conclusion:
• However, the promise of adaptive management also can be used to justify bad decisions that can result in severe and long-lasting impacts.
Rio Grande at Big Bend National Park