Steve kosub

2015 Texas Groundwater Summit

Steve KosubSenior Water Resources CounselSan Antonio Water System

A Proposal for Regional Management of Groundwater

August 27, 2015

August 27, 2015

2015 Texas Groundwater SummitPage 2

Regional Management of Groundwater

• Local management of groundwater has not evolved as planned by Legislature in 1949

• Proliferation of local districts based on politics with secondary regard for hydrology

• Aquifer-based districts would enhance groundwater management and facilitate conjunctive management with surface water

Introduction

August 27, 2015


Regional Management of GroundwaterIntroduction

August 27, 2015


Regional Management of GroundwaterIntroduction

August 27, 2015


Regional Management of GroundwaterBackground

• Legislature in 1949 provided for the creation and organization of underground water conservation districts to provide for the conservation, preservation, protection and recharging and the prevention of waste of underground water (Acts, 51st Leg. Chapter 306, H. B. No. 162, 1949)

August 27, 2015



• Prescribed powers, functions, limitations, and standards to govern the operation of such districts

• Recognized individual ownership of groundwater

• Authorized State Board of Water Engineers to designate underground water reservoirs and subdivisions thereto

August 27, 2015



• Recognized the importance of hydrology for regulatory jurisdiction– “No petition for the creation of a District…shall be

considered by a Commissioners Court or the Board, as the case may be, unless the area to be included therein is coterminous with an underground reservoir or subdivision thereof which theretofore has been defined and designated by the Board…

August 27, 2015



• Recognized the importance of hydrology for regulatory jurisdiction– (cont.) as an underground water reservoir or

subdivision thereof. Such district, in conforming to a defined reservoir or subdivision, may include all or parts of a county or counties, municipal corporations or other political subdivisions, including but not limited to Water Control and Improvement Districts.”

August 27, 2015



• Provided that the “administrative and procedural provisions” of laws governing WCIDs would apply to the newly authorized groundwater districts

• WCID law provided that a district created in more than one county must be confirmed by a vote of the qualified resident property tax paying voters

August 27, 2015



• Requirement that district be coterminous with an underground reservoir or subdivision thereof remained in law for 36 years

• Major change in 1985 with HB No. 2, a 122 page omnibus water bill– Struck existing authorization for Texas Water

Commission to designate underground water reservoirs and subdivisions of reservoirs

August 27, 2015



• Major change (cont.)– Replaced with authorization for designation of

underground water management areas– In making designation, commission could consider

non-hydrological factors including boundaries of political subdivisions

– Struck prohibition on creation of a district unless proposed boundaries were coterminous with boundaries of underground reservoir

August 27, 2015



• Further change in 1989– Eliminated administration of groundwater districts

by reference to law governing WCIDs– Further encouraged creation of districts without

hydrological foundation by authorizing district boundaries coterminous with or inside the boundaries of a management area designated by commission

• Reflected today in TWC §36.012(c)

August 27, 2015



• Legislative preference in 1949 for local management of groundwater was qualified

• Local voters could determine if groundwater would be managed at all

• If so, legislature required that management be based on aquifers

• Surely not managing groundwater at all is no longer an option for the State of Texas

August 27, 2015


Regional Management of GroundwaterIssue

• Can we agree that– groundwater should be managed; and– it is better to manage groundwater on the basis of

hydrology than politics? • If so, how do we get from where we are to

where we want to be?• Action by districts or action by state?

August 27, 2015


Regional Management of GroundwaterVoluntary Consolidation of Districts

• TWC Chapter 36, subchapter K, provides for voluntary consolidation of groundwater districts

• Two or more districts may consolidate into one district

• Adjacent districts may consolidate portions of either district if one district relinquishes land within that district to the other

August 27, 2015



• Process– To initiate a consolidation, the board of a district

shall adopt a resolution proposing a consolidation and deliver a copy of the resolution to the board of each district with which consolidation is proposed

– A consolidation occurs if the board of each involved district adopts a resolution containing the terms and conditions of the consolidation

August 27, 2015



• Process (cont.)– Terms and conditions shall include• Adoption of a name• Number and apportionment of directors• Effective date of consolidation• An agreement on finances• Transfer of all permits to the consolidated district• An agreement on governing the districts during the

transition period, including selection of officers

August 27, 2015



• Process (cont.)– Terms and conditions may include• Assumption by each district of the other district’s

bonds, notes, voted but unissued bonds, or other obligations• An agreement to levy taxes to pay for bonds• Any other terms of conditions agreed upon by the

board of each district

August 27, 2015



• Process (cont.)– Each board shall publish notice and hold a public

hearing within that district on the terms and conditions for consolidation of the districts

– After the hearing, the board may, by resolution, approve the terms and conditions for consolidation and enter an order consolidating the districts

August 27, 2015



• Process (cont.)– An election to ratify the consolidation is required

in each district that initiates consolidation– An election is not required in a district that does not initiate consolidation

– The board of each district that is required to conduct an election shall order an election in the district only after the board of each district to be consolidated has agreed on the terms and conditions of the consolidation

August 27, 2015



• Process (cont.)– A district may be consolidated only if a majority of

the electors in each district required to have an election vote in favor of the consolidation

– If more than two districts are consolidating, failure of any one district to ratify the consolidation shall not prevent the consolidation of the other districts

– After consolidation, districts become one district and are governed as one district

August 27, 2015



• Advantages of consolidation– Aquifer-based management of groundwater– Better funded districts– Enhanced role for professional staff– Efficiencies in district operations– Better and more efficient interaction with TWDB,

TCEQ, river authorities and other districts– Opportunity for elimination of unregulated areas

August 27, 2015



• Consolidation could create sixteen districts based on groundwater management areas– Upper Ogallala GCD– Lower Ogallala GCD– Pecos Valley GCD– West Texas Bolsons GCD– Hueco-Mesilla Bolson GCD– Seymour GCD

August 27, 2015



• Sixteen districts (cont.)– Edwards Trinity Plateau GCD– Upper Trinity GCD– Lower Trinity GCD– Lower Trinity GCD– Upper Carrizo Wilcox GCD– Middle Carrizo Wilcox GCD– Lower Carrizo Wilcox GCD

August 27, 2015



• Sixteen districts (cont.)– Upper Gulf Coast GCD– Middle Gulf Coast GCD– Lower Gulf Coast GCD

• All unregulated areas added to most appropriate district by state in conforming legislation

August 27, 2015



August 27, 2015


Regional Management of GroundwaterState Consolidation of Districts

• Local groundwater conservation districts are creatures of statute and could be consolidated by legislative action

• Transition could occur over time in steps beginning with newest districts with least permitting history

• Legislative merger of SAWS and Bexar Metropolitan Water District offers model

August 27, 2015


Regional Management of GroundwaterConclusion

• Legislature’s concept of local aquifer-based groundwater management was lost in 1985

• Return to aquifer-based management would benefit both local and state interests

• Opportunity exists for districts to lead effort to consolidate and improve local management

• Delay will make voluntary consolidation more difficult and increase pressure for state action

Education

Steve kosub