Agenda Water Captains: How to Be Effective Advocates in the Regional Water Planning Process Water Planning in Region L (South Central Texas Regional Water Planning Group) Saturday, May 16, 2015 - 9 AM - 3 PM William R. Sinkin Eco Centro (1802 North Main Avenue, San Antonio, Texas 78212) 9:15 AM: Check-in, networking with coffee & juice 10:00 AM: Welcome followed by:

Water in Our God-Drenched Universe - Linda Gibler, O.P., Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Science and Religion & Associate Academic Dean, Oblate School of Theology

Opportunities and Innovations in Water Conservation - Calvin R. Finch, Ph.D., Horticulturist and Urban Water Program Director, Texas A&M Institute of Renewable Natural Resources

Waterways - Kamala Platt, Ph.D., M.F.A., educator & author Conserving Land Conserves Water: What Happens on the Land Has Everything to

Do with Our Future Water Supply - Charlie Flatten, Water Policy Program Manager, Hill Country Alliance

Discussion 12:15 PM: Lunch & Presentation:

Water Planning in Texas: How Did We Get Here? - Norman Boyd, Region L Member, San Antonio Bay Ecosystem Leader, Texas Parks & Wildlife

How Does the Regional Water Planning Process Work - John Kight, Region L Member, former Kendall County Commissioner

Water Planning: Exclusion, Socializing Costs, and Unequal Influence: A Critical Review - Carol Mendoza Fisher, Technical Director, Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance

Fracking and Water Planning - Meredith Miller, Senior Program Coordinator, The Meadows Center for Water and the Environment

How Can Citizens Get Involved in the Water Planning Process - Sonia Jimenez, Ximenes & Associates

2:45 PM: Next Steps and Adjourn

Join us on Thursday, May 21, 2015 at William R. Sinkin Eco Centro (1802 North Main Avenue, San Antonio, Texas 78212) to draft a white paper & citizen's guide to water planning in Region L at one of the following times. Please RSVP to Diane Duesterhoeft at dduesterhoeft@gmail.com or 210-254-0245:

11 AM - 1 PM (lunch provided) 7 PM - 9 PM

Post follow up comments at https://www.facebook.com/events/461266597363418/

Use

ful M

aps

for

Re

gio

n L

Wat

er

Pla

nn

ing

Resources for Water Captains

Upcoming Hearings for Region L Water Plan. Each hearing will begin at 6 p.m. o Monday, June 8: San Antonio Water System

Customer Service Building, Room CR C145, 2800 US Highway 281 North San Antonio, Texas 78212

o Wednesday, June 10: City of San Marcos San Marcos Activity Center, 501 E Hopkins St, San Marcos, TX 78666

o Thursday, June 11: City of Victoria Victoria Community Center, 2905 E. North St., Victoria, TX 77902-1758

Region L: http://www.regionltexas.org/ o 2016 Initially Prepared (Draft) Region L Plan:

Vol I: http://www.regionltexas.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/2016-Region-L-IPP-Vol-I.pdf Vol II: http://www.regionltexas.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/2016-Region-L-IPP-Vol-II.pdf

o 2011 Region L Water Plan: Region L 2011 RWP (Volume 1): http://www.twdb.texas.gov/waterplanning/rwp/plans/2011/L/Region_L_2011_RWPV1.pdf Region L 2011 RWP (Volume 2): http://www.twdb.texas.gov/waterplanning/rwp/plans/2011/L/Region_L_2011_RWPV2.pdf Errata for Region L 2011 RWP: http://www.twdb.texas.gov/waterplanning/rwp/plans/2011/L/Region_L_2011_RWP_Errata.pdf Amendment to Region L 2011 RWP: http://www.twdb.texas.gov/waterplanning/rwp/plans/2011/L/Region_L_2011_RWP_Amendment.pdf

Texas Water Development Board: http://www.twdb.texas.gov/

o Interactive 2010 Data for 2012 State Water Plan: http://texasstatewaterplan.org/#/demands/2010/state o 2012 State Water Plan: http://www.twdb.texas.gov/waterplanning/swp/2012/index.asp

San Antonio River Authority: http://www.sara-tx.org/ Texas Water Captains: http://www.texasinterfaithcenter.org/article/texas-water-captains-program Edwards Aquifer Authority: http://www.edwardsaquifer.org/ Edwards Aquifer Habitat Conservation Plan: http://www.eahcp.org/ Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance: http://www.aquiferalliance.net/ Gregg Eckhardts Edwards Aquifer Website: http://edwardsaquifer.net/ The Meadows Center for Water and the Environment: http://www.meadowscenter.txstate.edu/ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality: http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/ Texas Drought Project: http://texasdroughtproject.org/ Texas Living Waters Project: http://texaslivingwaters.org/ Free on-line courses: https://www.mooc-list.com/multiple-criteria,

https://www.edx.org/, https://www.coursera.org/, https://www.open2study.com/

San Antonio Interfaith

Power & Light

Notes and Next Steps for Region L Water Captains

San Antonio Interfaith

Power & Light

In Our God-Drenched Universe

Water Captains: How to Be Effective Advocates

EcoCenter, San Antonio

May 16, 2015

Or

How Water Reveals God

Psalm 19 The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night declares knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words; their voice is not heard; yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.

John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but have eternal life. Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

Thomas Aquinas, OP (1225 - 1274)

It is evident that the opinion is false of those who asserted that it made no difference to the truth of the faith what anyone holds about creatures, so long as one thinks rightly about God, For error concerning creatures, spills over into false opinion about God.

Summa Contra Gentiles II:3:6

Two Books of Revelation: Scripture and Creation

Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430)

Some people, in order to discover God, read books. But there is a great book: the very appearance of created things. Look above you! Look below you! Note it. Read it. God, whom you want to discover, never wrote that book with ink. Instead He set before your eyes the things that He had made. Can you ask for a louder voice than that? Why, heaven and earth shout to you: "God made me!"

De Civit. Dei, Book XVI

Maximus the Confessor (580 - 662)

Creation is a bible whose letters and syllables are the particular aspects of all creatures and whose words are the more universal aspects of creation.

Conversely, Scripture is like a cosmos constituted of heaven and earth and things in between; that is, the ethical, the natural, and the theological dimension.

Ambiguum 10, PG 91. 1128-1129a

Meister Eckhart (1260 - 1327)

Apprehend God in all things, for God is in all things. Every creature is full of God and is a book about God. Every creature is a word of God. If I spent enough time with the tiniest creature even a caterpillar I would never have to prepare a sermon, so full of God is every creature. Sermons

The Story of Water

Hydrogen Nuclei 13.8 Billion Years ago

First Hydrogen Atoms 380,000 years after the Beginning

Oxygen Formation ~1 Million Years ATB

Oxygen released from Stars ~100 Million Years ATB

Water Formation ~100 Million Years ATB

Stellar Nursery

Solar System 5 Billion Years Ago

Earth 4.6 Billion Years Ago

Comets

Out gassing

Oceans 4 Billion Years Ago

Early Life 3.8 Billion Years Ago

Waters Recede

Rivers Wash and Sculpt the Land

Animals to Land ~430 Million Years Ago

Amphibian Eggs ~370 Million Years Ago

Reptilian Eggs ~313 Million Years Ago

Flowers ~235 Million Years Ago

Mammalian Eggs ~216 Million Years Ago

Hominids ~3.9 Million Years Ago

Homo sapiens ~150 Thousand Years Ago

Internal Oceans

Aqua sapiens

Baptism

New Birth

Cleanses

Sustains

One River

Comprehensive Compassion

Global Impact

Credit: Mycao on Glogster

6 years ago The Anthropocene Named

It is estimated that: one-third of all reef-building corals, a third of all fresh-water mollusks, a third of sharks and rays, a quarter of all mammals, a fifth of all reptiles, and a sixth of all birds are headed toward oblivion."

Elizabeth Kolbert, The Sixth Extinction

Hear the word of the Lord, O people of Israel;

for the Lord has an indictment against

the inhabitants of the land.

There is no faithfulness or loyalty,

and no knowledge of God in the land.

Swearing, lying, and murder,

and stealing and adultery break out;

bloodshed follows bloodshed.

Therefore the land mourns,

and all who live in it languish;

together with the wild animals

and the birds of the air,

even the fish of the sea are perishing.

Hosea 4:1-3

We see quite clearly that what happens to the nonhuman, happens to the human. What happens to the outer world, happens to the inner world

The saints needed today are people who can embrace

the beautiful while not looking away

from the painful

Hieroglyphic Stairway It's 3:23 in the morning, and I'm awake because my great, great, grandchildren won't -let -me -sleep. My great, great, grandchildren ask me in dreams what did you do, while the planet was plundered? What did you do, when the Earth was unravelling? Surely you did something when the seasons started failing as the mammals, reptiles, and birds were all dying? What did you do once you knew? Drew Dellinger Planetize the Movement

Why Advocate

for

Because:

Water Reveals a God-Drenched Universe

Gods presence flows in water

God Loves the World

Blessing of People and Creation are interwoven

Humans are part of Earths salvation

We are called to love what God loves

Institute of Renewable Natural Resources, Urban Water

Opportunities in Water Conservation

May 16,2015

Calvin Finch Ph.D.

1

Texas A&M IRNR Urban Water

OpportunitiesNew and Old Drought Survivability Graywater Lost Water Municipal Conservation, SAWS Coupons

2

Drought Survivability

Horticultural Industry overestimates the minimum water needs of landscape plants Many Plants survive well on 30% of potential evaporation rather than 60% or more currently recommended

3

If it is True,

Water purveyors can reduce estimates of water needed for landscapes if they convince (educate) or regulate their constituents

Retail nurseries can market based on more accurate water need data

Landscape plans can be developed with specific reduced water needs reflected

Drought management rules can be imposed in emergencies with more confidence and lower landscape water allowances

4

5

Graywater used water from the clothes washer, shower, and bathroom sink 40 gallons/day person Blackwater used water from toilet, kitchen sink and washing machine if you wash diapers Reuse water treated wastewater that is recycled for use on landscapes, in manufacturing, and even for potable water

Graywater Definitions

Graywater Use

Simplest hose end moved around lawn Mitchell Lake Demonstration Drip irrigation on raised beds Depression areas use mulch to fill depression where water is deposited.

6

How Safe is Graywater?

Used with certain precautions seems very safe. No spraying in the air No runoff off your property No puddling Use to drip or flood irrigate

landscape plants and even vegetables if no graywater on fruit.

7

Issues Preventing Graywater Use

Perceived fear of contamination of soils It is not an expensive or glamorous source of water It is in the hands of individual households It is not a large supply 700 gallons / household / week Perception that use may reduce revenues, or water

available for sewer flow or for recycling

8

Simplified Consideration of Law

State Law HB 2661, 2003 TCEQ Regulations - 400 gallons/day or

less and used without storage for landscape by surface application no permit is required

International Plumbing Code Consistent with the HB above Local ordinances can be more restrictive. It is common for local

ordinances or state law to be misinterpreted to offer restrictions where none exist!

9

Graywater Handouts

Graywater Irrigation Primer, Mike Martin PE (Simple to more complex)

Graywater Recycling, Forrest Cobb and others , $285 if plumber does work

Washing Machine Retrofit Diagram Wctc.tamu.edu

10

Lost Water

Also called non-revenue water

Difference between water treated or pumped and what is actually sold.

Classic loss is from leaks in pipes. Just as likelymeters inaccurate, unmetered water Other causesbad bookkeeping, stolen water, fires

11

Lost Water

Common 25% lost Good 10% Lost Remedies Full metering and regular replacement Leak Detection and repair Accurate record keeping

12

Wheres the Water to Conserve?

New emphasis at San Antonio Water System Instead of Low Flow Toilets and other in house technology. Reduce peak use on landscape.

13

Where are we going next?

14

This Hint Not This

Wheres the Conservation?

Homes with irrigation systems use 51% more water

15

Residential peak demand will rise without changes

Program Focus: Landscape Literacy

16

Conservation Consultations

Our best resource is our people Free to any SAWS water customer Gives customers the confidence to make landscape changes

17

Benefits of Program

Our mantraGet our hands on the controller Estimated average saving 4000 gals a month per consult Recent review shows savings to hold over several years in

residential (not so much in commercial) Customers now on the Conservation Team

18

Irrigation Systems

For improvements or removals Pay $450 for the removal of irrigation in homes Currently under review for larger rebates

19

Focus on Starter Gardeners

Increase Landscape Literacy Provides bed plans and limited plant choices 200 sf of turf removed15 plants to addirrigation capped in bed

20

Outdoor Living adds value

Now you can enjoy your diverse landscape

21

Contact Information

Calvin.finch@tamu.edu 210 277- 0292 Ext 103 cell 210 382 4455 Website: wctc.tamu.edu Includes archives of environmentally appropriate gardening and water conservation articles Website: plantanswers.com

22

Drought Survivability Study Bexar County

Volunteer Opportunity

Summer 2015

Value to Volunteers

Opportunity to perform the 50 hours of volunteer service over 20 weeks at 2 hrs/week plus 10 hours for team meetings and reviews

Part of an important Texas A&M study is to determine the minimum water requirements of 100 popular landscape plants

Work with Dr. Calvin Finch and the rest of the research team (Amy Truong, Forrest Cobb, Troy Luepke) in topics of plant physiology, water conservation, horticulture, drop irrigation, and sensor technology.

Work with a team of 20 or more volunteers with similar interests. Facebook site and Communications are available.

Description of the Drought Survivability Study (DSS)

16 specimens each of 100 popular ornamental plants are subjected to 4 levels of irrigation to determine their ability to survive low water situations and recover.

The planting and treatments are placed at 1304 Mauermann Road, adjacent to the Leon Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. The site is near the Mitchell Lake Audubon Center.

A major feature of the planting site is a drought simulator. The drought simulator is a moving 5000 sq ft roof that responds to rain by moving over the treatment area. It insures that the only moisture that identified treatments receive is irrigation.

The study is being conducted by Texas A&M IRNR (Institute of Renewable Natural Resources) with funding from San Antonio Water System, City of Austin, City of Georgetown, and the San Antonio River Authority through the Texas Water Foundation.

The study subjects (plants) were planted by MG and other volunteers January 31-February 14 2015. After approximately 90 days of establishment period, treatments and data collection will begin 6/1/2015.

Treatments will be 60% of Eto, 40% of Eto, 20% of Eto and 0% of Eto. Eto is the amount of water that is used and lost from the plant and its environment by evaporation and transpiration.

After October 31 we will begin irrigating at Eto to determine plant recovery capabilities. A new data collection team will be recruited for that part of the study.

Data Collection:

Appearance RatingEvery week each plant will be rated by 3 members of the data collection team in terms of appearance. There are five categories of appearance (1) lush (2) stable (3) wilt (4) leaf drop and (5) dead. The definitions are attached as an appendix.

Appearance ratings will be made every Friday at 9AM beginning June 5 and continuing through October 30, 2015. A data collection note book will be provided.

There will be a team of 16 appearance raters. Fifteen of the volunteers will be assigned responsibility for 1 row of test subjects in each treatment. It is estimated that the rating will require 2 hours to complete each week. The 16th team member will coordinate and serve as a temporary replacement as needed.

Training will be provided and a regular meeting with the research team will be available.

Sensor Data CollectionAn important part of the study result will be to relate soil moisture levels and infrared foliar temperatures to changes in appearance due to water stress.

A team of five (5) volunteers will form the sensor data collection team. They will use soil meter sensors and infrared temperature detecting instruments to record soil moisture levels and foliar temperatures every week.

This data collection team will record data for 2 hours every Friday beginning in May and proceeding until the end of October.

Site Maintenance TeamThe DSS is a one (1) acre site with 15,000 sq ft in the treatment area.

Tasks include spreading mulch, pulling weeds, string mowing, applying herbicide with a wick applicator or a back pack sprayer, pruning and other tasks.

Generally completed on a once per month work day from 8:30-noon on a Saturday. Volunteers will perform the tasks they prefer and which they are physically able. Up to 20 volunteers can be utilized

DSS Products

Determination of the specific drought tolerance of the species/varieties Relation of numerical data for soil moisture and foliar temperatures to appearance change Peer reviewed articles presenting the findings Sample landscape plans for several levels of drought tolerance and calculation as the water

needed to care for the low water need landscapes Popular articles selecting the results Result demonstration, result reports Facebook site and communications Relate the SA results to the Georgetown results

Attachment A

Appearance Ratings

Goal To determine what the response of 100 different ornamental plants is to 4 levels of irrigation treatments by recording appearance characteristics once/week as the study progresses for 20 weeks.

The tentative appearance characteristics are:

Lush, Stable, Wilt, Leaf drop, Defoliated, dead

Definitions:

Lush The plant has the look of adequate moisture and new growth is occurring

Stable The plant does not have the look of high amounts of moisture but there is no wilting or new growth

Wilt New growth or mature foliage is showing symptoms of flaccidity but no leaf drop has occurred temporary leaf color change may be visible

Leaf Drop Leaves have started to drop and/or permanent color change appears on stems or leaves. Stems are still alive.

Defoliated- Over 90% of the leaves have dropped but the stems are alive.

Dead Denotes the plant has died and will not have the capability to refoliate from existing stems.

Attachment B

Volunteer Interest Form

Drought Survivability Study

Appearance Rating (2hrs/week, June 5-October 31, Fridays at 9AM) ___________

Sensor Data Collection (2hrs/week, May 15-October 31, Fridays at 11AM)_______________

Site Care (4 hrs/month as needed May 15-October 31)_______________

Name____________________________ ___________

Phone #______________________________________

Email Address_________________________________

Address:

Any health or other issues?_______________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Dear Volunteer, 5-14-15

You expressed an interest in the Drought Survivability Study and helped us with the planting. By way of a progress report, we had a crew of 9 on May 9th and we finished half of the weeding. The research team (Calvin, Amy, Troy and Forrest) will work to complete the weeding on the mornings of May 15 and May 19. You are certainly welcome to join us (call me at 382 4455 to verify arrangements). The real target of this message is, however, to invite you join us on Saturday, May 30th to spread the mulch. We will begin at 8:30 am and end at noon. Please join us at the site if you can. Remember the address is 1302 Mauermann. My cell phone is 210-382-4455. Also attached is the information on the data collection opportunities. Data collection begins on June 5. Look it over and commit to a role if it looks like something you would enjoy. Until then like us on Facebook at The Drought Survivability Study page.

Hope to see you on the 30th!

Calvin Finch and the D.S.S research team

When the respondents were asked to consider what is unique about Kerrville or its source(s) of greatest appeal, their codified answers reflected inherent rather than introduced traitsthe areas topography, its scenery, and the quaintness of the city as it exists todayPretty location/landscape/ scenery; Small town/Country town/Not busy/Quaint; Hill country.

Imagine the Hill Country future generations will inherit.

Water

http://homeownerbob.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/lawn-sprinklers3.jpg

Land

Better land development

practices

Conserve Land

Better land Stewardship

practices

In many instances, there are no enforceable guidelines to protect

this irreplaceable region and valuable asset to the

State of Texas.

Vast majority of the land is outside of

a city or town

Prosperity and Quality of Life

Todays Forum Sponsor

hillcountryalliance.org

Water Planning in Texas:

How did we get here?

Norman Boyd

Texas Parks & Wildlife Department

Port OConnor

This will be fast!

Texas has been involved in

water planning for over a half

century

Selected Historical Dates 1957: Texas Water Planning Act enacted in response to

severe statewide drought. TWDB created and charged

with state water planning after drought of 50s.

1959: Edwards Underground Water Conservation District

created to "protect and recharge the Edwards

Aquifer.

1967: The Water Rights Ajudacation Act unified civil,

riparian, and prior appropriation surface water rights to

prior appropriations, and created structure for reviewing

all claims to surface water. Reaffirmed prior

appropriation doctrine.

1968: First TWDB state water plan.

1984: First modern state water plan. Included B&E

needs and discussed conservation and reuse

More Selected Historical Dates

1985: HB2: Water Commission required to asses permit affects on environment and make

accommodations as deemed necessary to protect

environment. [Since superseded by environmental

flows.]

1993: SB1477 replaced the Edwards Underground Water Conservation District with The Edwards

Aquifer Authority; ended the rule of capture for the Edwards Aquifer; created transferable

permits.

1997: SB1: state directed planning -> community- based planning. Until 1997 the TWDB issued a

state water plan periodically. Interbasin transfers

also clarified.

Even More Selected Historical Dates

2001: SB2: Instream Flow Program initiated

2005: MAG based on DFC established by GMAs

2007: SB3: Environmental Flows process initiated.

2013: Voters approved Proposition 6 which created two funds: the State Water Implementation Fund for

Texas (SWIFT) and the State Water

Implementation Revenue Fund for Texas

(SWIRFT)that will help finance projects in the state water plan.

Who Owns the Water?

http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/permitting/water_supply/water_rights/eflows/group.html

Surface Water

First in time, first in right

Groundwater

The biggest straw wins

1904

Recognized in 1904 by Texas Supreme Court in finding that the movement of groundwater was so secret, occult, and concealed that an attempt to administer any set of legal rules would be involved in hopeless uncertainty and would, therefore, be practically impossible.

(Houston & Texas City Railway Company vs. East (81 S.W. 279 [Tex., 1904])

75th Legislature

Senate Bill 1 (1997):

The state water plan shall provide for the

orderly development, management, and

conservation of water resources and preparation

for and response to drought conditions, in order

that sufficient water will be available at a

reasonable cost to ensure public health, safety,

and welfare; further economic development;

and protect the agricultural and natural

resources of the entire state.

Results of SB1

Created the regional water planning process and

Transformed water planning in Texas from a state-directed process to one guided by community-based decision-making

16 Regional Water Planning Groups established

Groups assess and predict water needs in their regions during drought-of-record conditions and develop a Regional Water Plan

Interests:

Municipalities

Industries

Agriculture

Counties

River Authorities

Small Businesses

Environmental

Public

Water Districts

Water Utilities

Electric

Generating

Utilities

Regional

Planning

Process

50-year planning period

Project population and water demand

Begins with existing supplies

Evaluate need for additional water

Recommend strategies (water supply options)

SB 2

Texas Instream

Flow Program

2001

The Texas Legislature directed TPWD, TWDB and TCEQ to:

Establish a data collection and evaluation program

Determine flow conditions necessary to support a sound ecological environment in Texas rivers and streams

Priority Studies Map

SB 3/HB 3

80th Texas Legislature

Environmental Flows

2007

Senate Bill 3 and House Bill 3 set out a new

regulatory system for protecting

environmental flows; consensus-based

regional approach involving a balanced

representation of stakeholders.

Environmental

Flows

Watersheds

The Rio Grande is the

only river I know of in

need of irrigating.

Will Rogers

Groundwater Management Areas

Legislation passed in 2005 (HB 1763) established a

framework for regional collaboration among local

groundwater conservation district managers on

shared aquifers.

Texas Living Waters

HISTORIC AND PROJECTED TEXAS

POPULATION GROWTH

3.0 3.94.7

5.8 6.47.7

9.611.2

14.217.0

20.9

25.4

29.7

33.7

37.7

41.9

46.3

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Texa

s Po

pu

lati

on

(mill

ions

)

Cities: 971 (>500 pop)

Utilities: 362

County-Others: 254

Manufacturing: 174

Steam-Electric: 85

Livestock: 254

Mining: 229

Irrigation: 239

3,000 Water user groups

2012 State Water Plan

DO WE HAVE ENOUGH WATER

FOR THE FUTURE?

We do not have enough existing water supplies today to meet the demand for

water during times of drought. In the

event of severe drought conditions, the

state would face an immediate need for

additional water supplies of 3.6 million

acre-feet per year

2012 State Water Plan

Region L

PECO S

WEB B

BREWSTER

HUDS PETH

PRESI DI O

REEVE S

CULBER SON

VAL V ERDE

DUVAL

TERRE LL

CROC KETT

FRIO

HARR IS

HILL

BELL

BEE

KENED Y

CLAY

POLK

EDWARDS

JE FF D AVIS

GAI NES

LE ON

KERR

UVALDE

HALE

DALLAM

KING

IRI ON

LA MB

DIM MI T

BEXAR

KINN EY

STARR

HALL

JA CK

CASS

WI SE

SUTTO N

OLDHA M

HID ALGO

ELLIS

UPTON

ZAVALA

MEDI NA

KIM BLE

RUSK

LE E

LY NNKENT

GRAY

LA SA LLE

COKE

MILA M

ERATH

HARTLEY

HUNT

SMI TH

KNOX

FLOYD

LLA NO

TYLER

BRAZO RIA

ANDR EWS

TRAVI S LI BER TY

REAG AN

JO NES

ZAPATA

LA MAR

BOWIE

NUEC ES

WAR D

REAL

NOLAN

TERRYGARZA

COLEM AN

MILLS

ECTOR

YOUN G

TOM GR EEN

MASO N

FALLS

MAVE RIC K

BURN ET

HAYS

DEAF SMI TH

JA SPER

LA VACA

HOUS TON

COO KE

FISH ER

BROWN

COLLI N

MOO RE

MOTLE Y

FANNI N

MART IN

EL PA SO

BAILE Y

DALLAS

LI VE OAK

BOSQ UE

HARD IN

JI M HO GG

TAYLOR

CAME RON

POTTER

GOLI AD

CRAN E

COTTLE

DONLE Y

ATASCO SA

SAN SABA

DENTO N

CORY ELL

BAYLOR

CONC HO

BROO KS

RUNN ELS

PARKE R

NAVAR RO

ARCH ER

DE WI TT

CARSO N

SCUR RY

MATAG ORD A

CROS BY

KLEBERG

FAYETTE

SHELBY

WO OD

CASTR O

BORD EN

MENA RD

WH ARTON

NEWTON

PARM ER

GILLE SPIE

MCM ULLEN

DIC KENS

SCHLEI CHE R

FOARD

HASKE LL

PANO LA

GRI MES

MID LAND

WI LSON

RAND ALL

BRIS COESWI SHE R

DAWSON

GRAY SON

GON ZALES

HOWARD

RED RI VER

ROBE RTS

HOCK LEY

TARRA NT

ANDER SON

MCLEN NAN

LU BBO CK

CALHO UN

CHER OKEE

VICT ORI A

BASTRO P

WALK ER

SHERM AN

YOAKU M

MIT CHELL

STERLI NG

HEMP HILL

WH EELER

KARNE S

TRIN ITY

WI NKLER

JA CKSO N

LI PSC OMB

LO VI NG

WI LLIAM SON

AUSTI N

EASTLAN D

REFUG IO

HOPK INS

HARR ISO N

BLANCO

CALLAHA N

COLO RADO

ANGE LINA

MCC ULLOCH

STEPHE NS

WI LLACY

JE FFERSO N

KAUFM AN

BANDE RA

HANSF ORD

COM ANCH E

MON TAGU E

PALO PIN TO

JI M WELLS

LI ME STON E

COM AL

HAMI LTON

OCHI LTREE

WI LBARG ER

SABI NE

COCH RAN

CHAM BERS

FORT BEND

VAN ZANDT

HEND ERSO N

STONE WA LL

JO HNS ON

FREESTO NE

MON TGOM ERY

GLASSC OCK

KENDA LL

TITUS

BRAZO S

HOO D

WI CHI TA

ARMS TRON G

UPSHU R

ROBE RTSON

HUTCH INS ON

LA MPAS AS

CHI LDRESS

WALLER

NACO GDO CHES

SHACK ELFOR D

BURLES ON

HARD EMAN

GUAD ALUPE

GALVES TON

MARI ON

THRO CKMO RTO N

COLLI NGSWO RTH

MADI SON

CALDWELL

SAN PATRI CI O

SAN JACI NTO

ARANS AS

WAS HIN GTO N ORAN GE

DELTA

RAIN S

GREG G

SA

N AU

GUS

TINE

CAMP

MOR

RIS

FRAN

KLIN

SOM ER-

VELL

ROCK -

WALL

?

1

STATEWIDE REGIONAL WATER PLANNING The Texas Legislature created the Texas Water Development Board in 1957 to develop plans to meet

future statewide water needs. The wake-up call for long-term water planning was the record drought of

the l950s. That action by the legislature resulted in a top down government knows best plan not

necessarily supported by the public at large. In 1997 Senate Bill 2 created a new bottom up water

planning process comprised of 16 regional statewide water planning groups. Our area is known as

Regional L South Central Texas Regional Water Planning Group comprised of 21 counties.

Regional Planning Groups are made up of members representing a variety of interest groups including

agriculture, counties, electric generation, environmental, industries, municipalities, public, river

authorities, small business, water districts, water utilities and regional groundwater management area

representatives. The initially prepared plan submitted to the Texas Water Development Board by each

region is done so and updated on a 5-year basis based on the consensus of the representative membership

and with consideration of public input and involvement.

For each regional planning area the process for developing a long-term 50-year plan assessing future

water needs would consist of the following:

Determine current and projected population and estimate the future water demands over a moving

50-year period.

Estimate existing water supplies including surface water and groundwater

Determine where projected future demands can be met by existing water supplies and where

future shortages will occur.

At this point an intensive effort is initiated to model and gather data on estimated firm yields for both

surface water and groundwater. There are two terms used to describe future water supplies that are very

conflictive in my opinion. Available water supply is the maximum amount of water available from a

source during drought-of-record conditions regardless of whether or not the supply is physically or legally

available for use. It doesnt make sense to count that as a source of dependable water to meet your needs

during a repeat of drought-of-record conditions. Existing water supply is the maximum amount of water

available from existing sources for use during drought-of-record conditions that is physically and legally

available for use.

Public involvement can become very intense in the planning process in determining a reasonably accurate

method of projecting future population growth since these population figures also determine future water

demand needs. This is important since if the future population figure estimates are incorrect then the

2

particular region of concern may wind up with an excess amount of water or wind up with a water

shortage. This issue, and rightly so, can become a hot topic in the public involvement arena.

As mentioned previously, there are a number of interest groups vying for existing and future water

supplies. Each one is competing to have its water needs recognized and addressed as a project in the

regional water plan and then approved in the overall State Water Plan. Without a project being included

in the approved State Water Plan there can be no State or Federal funding available to proceed with the

project completion. Everything rotates around money. The voters passed a $2 billion bill recently to

kick-start the identification of high priority projects for development. The public needs to know the real

need and effectiveness of each project to determine just where in the order of project priority it needs to

be placed for funding.

Projects that identify needs starting 30 or 40 years down the road dont have the urgency of projects

showing needs that need to be met now. Problems also exist where two or more projects needing future

water supplies identify the same water supply source. One or the other will go without meeting their

needs.

Other problems exist where the major water users, like SAWS, want water from mostly rural counties.

Several issues are involved. The residents of those targeted counties dont want to lose the water which

could stymie their future growth and economy. In some cases the Groundwater Conservation Districts

indicate that the amount of water targeted is not in existence based on computer modeling or the District

does not want to permit the total amount requested.

The third issue is in areas where no groundwater district exist then the rule of capture prevails with no

pumping limits. The large water users will find landowners willing to sell or lease land for well fields to

transport water to the major users without any restrictions. The only protection from this is through

groundwater conservation districts with the ability to manage and protect groundwater resources.

Unregulated rule of capture users will indiscriminately lower the water level in an area and dry up wells

and springs. The water these major users are obtaining not only comes from properties where the well

fields are located, but also from all the other properties in the area. The major users call it voluntary

redistribution. The only ones voluntarily giving up their water rights are the one being paid for it, the rest

are losing their water without compensation. STOLEN

Currently SAWS has underway a $3.4 billion, 142 mile pipeline project bringing in water from counties

east of San Antonio. SAWS has secured the water rights from 3,400 lease holders to bring in 16.3 billion

gallons annually. The construction of this facility is projected to be completed by the year 2020.

3

Where are the funds coming from to pay for this project? Of course the SAWS rate payers will pay their

fair share. But, SAWS doesnt need but a portion of the total amount now or in the near future. They will

be able to reduce their dependence on Edwards Aquifer water currently being relied on which is good.

In order to pay for this project SAWS needs to find interim buyers of the water not needed by SAWS

now. So they will sell the surplus water to cities and developers along the pipe line in order to pass off

the cost to help pay for the project.

My question is has SAWS grossly over-designed the water demands required by SAWSs customers in

order to have enough surplus water to sell off to others so that SAWSs rate-payers wont have to absorb

the whole cost of the pipeline project? Does this unnecessarily deplete an aquifer for monetary purposes?

What if someday SAWS needs the water contracted out to others along the pipeline? And finally what if

the long-term estimate for the sustainability of this aquifer falls short? WITHOUT WATER YOU HAVE

NOTHING.

There are issues with surface water also. Surface water (rain) is the property of the landowner until it

runs into a defined creek, stream or river at which time it becomes waters of the State of Texas under the

control of TCEQ. Withdrawal water rights are issued by TCEQ for a set amount of Acre Feet annually

with provisions to reduce permitted withdrawal amounts based on drought conditions. Persons who

established their water rights many years ago are known as senior water rights holders while the more

recent water rights holders are known as junior water rights holders. During drought conditions with low

flow in the rivers the junior water rights holders allocation for withdrawal will be reduced or even

eliminated. Senior water rights holders will continue to receive their full allocation until no water

remains.

The above water rights issue is causing some consternation among municipalities holding junior water

rights permits. They feel that since their permits deal with public water supplies their junior water rights

should take precedence over senior water rights holders. The courts have held that the senior water rights

permits stand.

There are several proposals under consideration to increase the firm yield of surface water supplies. One

proposal is when river flow rates exceed permitted demands and consistent with environmental flow rates

then the excess flow can be diverted into off channel reservoirs stored for future use to supplement low

flow rates.

4

Another proposal is to divert excess stream flows into aquifer storage and recovery facilities. Storing

water underground for future use eliminates large losses due to evaporation experienced by surface water

reservoirs. Water must be treated to drinking water standards before being stored.

Another proposal is the recycling of waste water. This is already being done now for non-potable uses,

but in the future it needs to be a source of potable water also. DIRECT REUSE. Since we have a limited

supply of water period, we need to figure out a way to increase our available supply of water through

reusing what we already have. By reusing what water we have we could multiply our available supply by

two or three times. This is already happening in parts of West Texas.

The largest and most cost effective method to increase our available water supply is through proven water

conservation methods.

Lets digress for a moment and see whats happening today. There is H.B. 3298 known as the water grid

bill that wants to control and move water statewide from areas that have water to areas that are short of

water generally from east to west. Will the state take over once more and be the bureaucratic ruler of all

the water in the State? That would pretty well destroy the years of efforts of the Regional Water Planning

Groups. We would be back under the government knows best authority.

The other fallacy in these plans whether it be the regional plans or the desired future condition

agreements, there is no enforcement mechanism to monitor or control the stated planning goals. Since the

thousands of domestic and livestock wells are not currently metered how would one know how much

water is being used. The only way to establish some reasonable control and over site in the management

and protection of groundwater is by way of a local groundwater conservation district. They do have

authority to manage groundwater withdrawals and fine abusers.

All of these water issues are very complex with some rules inconsistent with other rules. It is a very

serious subject with disastrous consequences if not done wisely and correctly.

At our rural home we have no well or other public source of water to our home. We have the most

reliable and sustainable source of quality water known thru rainwater harvesting. A properly designed

system will provide an adequate supply of domestic water through drought-of-record conditions.

In summary, I hope I have given you a thumbnail sketch of the water planning process and some of the

issues to be considered and flushed out. All of these issues will affect you either by way of water cost or

availability. Face it, future water is going to cost more. The major water purveyors have a huge financial

interest in the water planning process and tend to rule the roost. Unless the public gets involved the 800

5

pound gorilla with their lawyers and lobbyist will walk all over you. Attend the Regional Planning

Meetings and public meetings in June to review the proposed 2016 Initially Prepared Plan for Region L.

June 8, 2015 at 6:00 P.M. SAWS Customer Service Building, Room CRC145 2800 US Highway 281 North San Antonio, Texas

Water Planning Exclusion, socializing costs, and unequal influence- A critical review

Process is politicized Regulatory agencies

Economics and externalities

Circumventing public Exclusion- example of Contested Case Hearingsand SB1907/HB3298 Non-transparency Placating

SA is 1st nationwide for segregation by income of largest metropolitan areas.

The Subsidizing of growth

Context 1. Systemic Racism

Context 2. Inequality in distribution of services

Region L demographics

Education of congregationsAwareness of systemic racismCampaigning for awareness, for political change and against specific issuesParticipatory budgeting and planningParadigm shift

Ethical Action

Thank youThe right to dream is not among the 30 human rights the UN proclaimed in 1948, but if it wasnt for the right to dream and the waters it gives to drink all the other rights would die thirsty.- Eduardo Galeano

Water Captains How to Be Effective Advocates in the Regional Water

Planning Process

Water Planning Process in Region L Workshop

Fracking & Water Planning

Meredith Miller,

The Meadows Center for Water and the Environment

Fracking & Water Planning

What is fracking?

Whats happening in Region L?

How does the water planning process account for fracking?

Next steps and concerns?

Notable Headlines

In Texas Oil Town, Early Signs Of Economic Strain As Drilling Slows

Texas Town Passes Ban On Fracking

Texas Family Wins $3 Million Judgment Against Fracking Company

EPA Probe Demands More Water Testing In Texas

Study Finds High Levels Of Arsenic In Groundwater Near Fracking Sites

Researchers Find Elevated Levels Of Heavy Metals Near Natural Gas Extraction

Environmental Group Says Illegal Diesel Fracking Used in Texas

What's causing Texas earthquakes? Fracking 'most likely,' report says

Texas: Bill Stops Cities From Banning Fracking

What is Fracking?

Frack: frak/ (verb) To inject liquid into (a subterranean rock formation, borehole, etc.) at high pressure so as to force open existing fissures and extract oil or gas.

Fracking: frakiNG/ (noun) the process of injecting liquid at high pressure into subterranean rocks, boreholes, etc., so as to force open existing fissures and extract oil or gas.

What is Fracking?

Hydraulic fracturing is a technique designed to recover gas and oil from shale rock.

Water, sand and chemicals are injected into drilled wells at high pressure, allow gas to flow out to the head of the well.

The process is carried out vertically or, more commonly, by drilling horizontally to the rock layer.

Water returns to the surface as flowback or wastewater, which needs to be recycled, treated or disposed of through underground injection.

What Chemicals are Used in Fracking?

650+ chemicals are used in fracking fluid, including known carcinogens and toxins.

Chemicals make up only 2-5% of total volume of fracking fluid.

40,000+ gallons of chemicals can be used per fracking process.

Propublica, Business Insider, Nature, Hazen and Sawyer, 2009.

Some of the fracking chemicals listed on www.fracfocusdata.orgs

chemical database

How Much Water Does Fracking Use?

1-8 million gallons per fracture per well (200-400 tanker trucks).

10 to 30% of the water injected can be recovered. The rest of the water stays in the formation and cannot be reused.

Flowback contains minerals, oil, salt and chemicals that must be removed before reuse.

Where Does the Wastewater Go?

Disposal wells are located thousands of feet underground, encased in layers of concrete.

Typically store wastewater from several different fracking wells.

The culprit of earthquakes near fracking sites is not believed to be the act of drilling and fracturing the shale itself, but rather the disposal wells.

Environmental Impacts

Air quality impacted by methane, PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons).

Land deposition of chemicals contributes to nonpoint source pollution of surface waters.

Groundwater can be contaminated by leaching of methane gas and chemicals.

Natural gas generates electricity at 1/2 the CO2 emissions of coal.

Science Daily, Oregon State University, U.S. Energy Information Administration

Economic Impacts

Gas bills dropped $13 billion per year (2007 to 2013) as a result of increased fracking, equaling $200 per year for gas-consuming households.

$12 billion in TX taxes in 2012.

2 million jobs, 13.9% of TX job force.

Increased road infrastructure and pollution mitigation costs borne by counties, cities.

Fracking is simply distracting energy firms and governments from investing in renewable sources of energy, and encouraging continued reliance on fossil fuels.

Brookings Institution, Texas Tribune, Energyfromshale.org, Texas Oil and Gas Association

Fracking in Texas

Eagle Ford Shale the south of Texas and the states coastline, 3000 sq. miles.

Estimated to have 20.81 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 3.351 billion barrels of oil.

More than 50,000 disposal wells in Texas service more than 216,000 active drilling wells.

U.S. Energy Information Administration, TX Railroad Commission

Compounding Water Issues

Drought.

Increasing population, environmental flows and competing water users.

Costs of infrastructure.

Interconnectedness of groundwater and surface water.

http://www.texastribune.org/tribpedia/environmental-problems-and-policies/?page=5

Who Regulates Fracking?

Railroad Commission of Texas - drilling, well spacing and design, groundwater protection and operational safety at large.

Texas Commission of Environmental Quality - air quality and emissions, off-site impacts and depth of steel casing and cement drilling for wells.

USEPA Clean Water Act (only for disposal of flowback into surface waters) and Safe Drinking Water Act (power limited by Energy Policy Act of

2005)

No Mention of Water Supply, Few

Requirements in RRC Rules

Pre-drilling and Baseline, Groundwater and Surface Water, Solid waste

There are no additional testing regulations specific to shale/fracking operations.

Liquid waste and fracking fluids

There are no additional testing regulations specific to shale/fracking operations. Handling of wastes generally falls under standard state or Clean

Water Act requirements.

ALSglobal.com, www.rrc.state.tx.us/legal/rules/current-rules/

Fracking in Region L

~ 80% of Eagle Ford Shale activity

Use of Available water in 2020:

42% municipal use.

30% irrigation.

5% total mining.

2.5% fracking.

TWRI & Dr. Darrell Brownlow

Water Planning - Fracking

Total water use for fracking in Texas 125% (36,000 acre-feet in 2008 to = 81,500 acre-feet in 2011). For comparison, the city of Austin used about

107,000 acre-feet in 2011.

1/5 of current total comes from recycled or brackish water.

The total amount of water used in fracking in Texas is expected to level off in the 2020 decade at about 125,000 acre-feet, per year.

Bureau of Economic Geology/University of Texas

Water Demand Mining in Region L

Water deficits in municipal, mining and irrigation categories.

Principal uses for mining are extraction of stone, clay, and petroleum (including fracking) and sand/gravel washing.

Projected demand (acft/yr): 2020 - 48,738 & 2070 - 41,209

Projected supplies (acft/yr): 2020 - 37,919 & 2070 - 40,692

Projected needs (acft/yr): 2020 -10,822 & 2070 666

Region L 2016 Initially Prepared Plan

Water Demand Mining in Region L

Future shortages projected for Dimmit, Karnes, Dewitt and La Salle counties.

The target aquifer is the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifers in Dimmit and La Salle Counties.

For the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer, the project yield is set to zero because of the lack of groundwater availability. As an alternative and if one assumes there is

groundwater availability in the Carrizo-Wilcox, Table 5.2.7-6 provides a project

yield, annual cost, and unit cost for all the users in this category.

Region L 2016 Initially Prepared Plan

Demand Management Strategies

Increase use of recycle, reuse and reclaimed water in some industries, steam-electric power generation, and mining.

Evaluate estimates of total Mining system capacities/ability to meet projected water supply requirements.

If additional supplies are needed, prepare a county-wide estimate of target aquifers, number new well(s), and total cost for new or system expansions.

Local Carrizo Conversions water management strategy: purchasing, leasing existing irrigation or mining groundwater permits for municipal use.

Region L 2016 Initially Prepared Plan

Next Steps and Concerns

How do we address?

Gaps in research (environmental, economic, safety).

Environmental and economic issues.

New technology to increase efficiency.

Planning for population increase, drought and cost of fracking water.

Piecemeal planning approach.

Resources

Fractracker.org

Fracfocus.org

Energy.usgs.gov/OilGas/UnconventionalOilGas/HydraulicFracturing.aspx

Frack.mixplex.com/fracking

Earthworks.org

Regionltexas.org

Thank you!

S

Sonia Jimenez, JD

Ximenes & Associates, Inc.

Regional Water Planning

The plan is submitted to TWDB after 4 years of meetings and

public hearings.

TWDB spends one year incorporating it into the

statewide plan.

It takes 5 years!!!

The Water Plan

S 2016 Initially Prepared Plan (IPP) submitted May 1, 2015 to TWDB

http://www.regionltexas.org

Current Planning Effort

4th Cycle (2016 RWP)

2016 Initially Prepared Plan

S Public Hearings in June 2015

S Planning Meetings in September and November

S Regional Water Plan (RWP) - due December 1, 2015 to TWDB

S TWDB Review and Inclusion in Statewide Plan

Public Hearings

S Monday, June 8

San Antonio Water

System

Customer Service Building, CR

C145

2800 US Hwy 281 N

San Antonio, Texas 78212

S Wednesday, June 10

City of San Marcos

San Marcos Activity Center

501 E Hopkins St,

San Marcos, TX 78666

S Thursday, June 11

City of Victoria

Victoria Community Center

2905 E. North St.

Victoria, TX 77902-1758

Presentation

Citizens to be Heard

Written/Verbal Comments

Public Comment

Steven J. Raabe, Administrative Agent for Region L

San Antonio River Authority

PO Box 839980

San Antonio, TX 78283-3692

Written comments must be received by

5 p.m. on August 14, 2015

Public Participation

Region L Quarterly Planning Meetings

S September 3, 2015

S November 5, 2015

San Antonio Water System

Customer Service Building

Room CR-145

2800 US Highway 281 North

San Antonio, TX 78212

Public comment at beginning and end of the meetings

Public comment usually accepted after each agenda item

Public Participation

S White Paper and Citizens Guide To Water Planning in Region L

S Thursday, May 21, 2015 at William R. Sinkin Eco Centro

S 11 AM - 1 PM (lunch provided)

S 7 PM - 9 PM

S Please RSVP to Diane Duesterhoeft

S 210-254-0245

S dduesterhoeft@gmail.com

S # WaterRegionL

S facebook.com/events/461266597363418

LindaGibler WaterInOurGodDrenchedUniverseCalvinFinch OpportunitiesInnovationsWaterConservationSlide Number 1Texas A&M IRNR Urban WaterDrought SurvivabilityIf it is True,Graywater DefinitionsGraywater UseHow Safe is Graywater?Issues Preventing Graywater UseSimplified Consideration of LawGraywater HandoutsLost WaterLost WaterWheres the Water to Conserve?Where are we going next?Wheres the Conservation?Program Focus: Landscape LiteracyConservation ConsultationsBenefits of ProgramIrrigation SystemsFocus on Starter GardenersOutdoor Living adds valueContact Information

CalvinFinch DSS Data Collection Volunteer InfoCalvinFinch Mulch Day 5-30CharlieFlatten ConservingLandConservesWaterNormanBoyd WaterPlanningTXHowDidWeGetHereJohnKight HowDoesRegionalWaterPlanningProcessWorkCarolMendozaFisher MarginalizationWater PlanningMeredithMiller FrackingWaterPlanningSoniaJimenez HowCitizensGetInvolvedRegionLWaterCaptainWorkshopPacket (from Diane-pc).pdfWaterCaptainsRegionLWorkshop-PublicAgendaUseful Maps-Region LResources for Water CaptainsNotes_Next Steps