Posted on 12/01/2003 8:16:39 AM PST by SwinneySwitch
Lawmakers want a say in pumping, selling of Texas groundwater
AUSTIN - For the second time in a decade, lawmakers are preparing to tackle major issues concerning water in Texas.
In the 1990s, lawmakers examined how much water the state would need for the next 50 years and how Texas would meet the demand.
Now, lawmakers seem ready to deal with more controversial water issues: water marketing, conservation, the century-old rule of capture, and deciding how much water should flow in a stream to maintain aquatic life and a healthy environment.
During the next 12 months, lawmakers will study water issues and prepare recommendations for the Legislature in 2005.
One of the most contentious water issues is the rule of capture - the unlimited, unregulated withdrawal of water under private or public lands.
Surface water is owned by the state and permits allocate use, but groundwater is owned by the landowner and is either locally regulated through groundwater conservation districts or unregulated on lands outside the districts.
More than 50 years ago, the state created locally controlled groundwater districts that regulate placement of wells and establish pumping limits.
In 2001, there were 87 groundwater districts covering 50 percent of Texas' land with the majority regulating Texas' nine major and 20 minor aquifers.
But many groundwater district boundaries follow county lines, not necessarily the boundaries of an aquifer.
A landowner just outside the groundwater district who shares the same aquifer can drill wells and pump unlimited amounts of water with no oversight or regulation.
"Often it requires a crisis to force legislators to make difficult decision," said Sen. Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock, a member of the interim Senate Select Committee on Water Policy. "The rule is great so long as Ozarka is not your neighbor."
The same people who advocated for the rule of capture years ago - farmers and ranchers - are now criticizing the idea of getting rid of it, said Rep. Robert Puente, D-San Antonio, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, which oversees water policy.
"We don't think we need statewide regulation of groundwater," said Billy Howe, state legislative director for the Texas Farm Bureau. "If you get rid of the rule of capture, what are you going to replace it with? Groundwater is a property right that belongs to the landowner."
Howe argued that if the rule of capture were so problematic, there would be more court cases.
"We aren't seeing a problem because groundwater districts are doing their job," Howe said.
Water for sale
While private investors are investigating how to make water the next big gold rush, lawmakers question whether an unfettered water marketplace, where the liquid resources are sold to the highest bidder, is in the public interest.
Water is like blood rather than a commodity, Duncan said, so it shouldn't be treated like oil or electricity.
Lawmakers might investigate whether private investors can play a role in the delivery of water from where it's plentiful to where there is none.
"They are much better at raising venture capital (to build water pipelines) but the problem comes because it is such a necessity, the state has to regulate it," Puente said. "That's what private industry doesn't like. With private enterprise, they won't do it unless there is a profit margin. You have to be careful. If you don't have a water source, your community won't grow."
In some parts of Texas, farmers are finding it more profitable to lease or sell water rights than to produce cotton or other irrigated crops, said Agriculture Commissioner Susan Combs.
While farmers still make money, agriculture-support businesses such as feed and equipment sales suffer as business is lost, which harms rural Texas, Howe said.
And as desalination test projects move forward on the Gulf Coast in Corpus Christi, Brownsville and Freeport, no one has decided where the water will go or who will pay for its transportation to places that lack water. In some cases, municipalities using desalination for seawater could sell or lease water rights they hold on rivers to aid in funding the desalination project.
Water conservation
In their 50-year water plans, cities said they would fulfill water needs partly through curbing demand through conservation. But few, if any cities, developed concrete conservation plans, which led lawmakers to pass a law mandating that municipalities articulate water conservation goals and devise plans on how they will achieve those goals.
The Legislature this year established a Water Conservation Task Force that will investigate and recommend water conservation practices. Mandating water conservation is not easy.
Puente said that few consumers conserve willingly and that there is an active business lobby that discourages conservation and argues that it's not cost-effective.
"If I don't see active movement by big cities in accepting the fact that they need to conserve water, I would push mandates on those cities," Puente said.
Governments could offer consumers incentives such as free low-flow showerheads or low-flush toilets as a way to get plumbing fixtures retrofitted, said Susan Kaderka, director of the regional office of the Virginia-based National Wildlife Federation, which advocates protecting wildlife and the environment. The state could offer agricultural users incentives to cut back on water just as the federal Farm Bill does, she said.
Debate over streams
When issuing water permits for streams and river usage, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality must consider in-stream water flow and the impact of diverting river water on aquatic life and the environment. Environmental groups worry that too many permits have already been issued and in-stream water flows are too low, which hurts aquatic life.
The National Wildlife Federation wants to increase stream flows by mandating that a portion of every water right that is transferred or sold be dedicated to in-stream water flow.
"You can't make money having people fish on your property if the river isn't flowing and doesn't have a fish population," Kaderka said.
While the Farm Bureau agrees that streams need water for aquatic life, there is no scientific evidence showing how much flow is needed in each stream, Howe said.
Limiting or regulating water rights transfers hurts agricultural users more than any other water user, Howe said, as agricultural users such as rice irrigators on the Lower Colorado River are least able to buy water lost to in-stream flows.
Contact Monica Wolfson at (512) 334-6642 or wolfsonm@scripps.com.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.