S

Regionalization: An Alternative for Coordinated

Groundwater Management

John T. Dupnik, P.G.

TAGD Quarterly MeetingOctober 31, 2012

Outline

Evolution of GCDs

Challenges of Decentralized GW Governance

Regionalization in Texas

Policy Options

S

Evolution of GCDs1904 - Houston and Texas Central Railroad Co. v. East

1917 – Art. 16, Sec.59, the Conservation Amendment Natural Resource Conservation – a public right and

duty

1934 - TBWE Reports to Legislature Called for declaring groundwater as waters of state

1937, 1941, 1947: Bills filed in each session to place water under state

control

S

Evolution of GCDsQuotes of High Plainsmen during public meetings:

“This proposition [of creating a water district] should be met with 30-30's [rifles] and its sponsors not only driven back to the City of Austin, but on south across the San Jacinto battlefield and into the Gulf of Mexico where they can get their fill of water."

“You can say you prefer local control to state control or federal control. I don’t' want any control by anybody but the landowner. That's like asking who you'd rather be hanged by. I don't want to be hanged.”

“All the water under my land belongs to me… nobody can tell me how to use it…If my neighbor wants to drill wells right next to me, that’s all right with me. If the wells go dry, we will all run out together. I don't intend to live in a country full of Hitlerism laws."

“I favor no control, but if we must have it, let be local.”

Evolution of GCDsGCD Act of 1949

Political compromise

Modeled after WCIDs

GCD creation within designated reservoirs

Counties could opt out

GW is private property

Departure from SW

S

Evolution of GCDs1997 – Senate Bill 1 GCDs – “Preferred” method of GW management Interbasin SW transfers limited GCDs may limit exports

1999 – Sipriano v Great Spring Waters of America GW management is legislative duty under

Conservation Amendment

1999 – 76th Legislative Session 30 GCDs, 13 created (SB 1911)

S1/1/1

951

1/1/1

955

1/1/1

959

1/1/1

963

1/1/1

967

1/1/1

971

1/1/1

975

1/1/1

979

1/1/1

983

1/1/1

987

1/1/1

991

1/1/1

995

1/1/1

999

1/1/2

003

1/1/2

007

1/1/2

0110

20

40

60

80

100GCD Creation Dates

Num

ber o

f GCD

s

S

Decentralization Why Local Control?

Private property rights Aversion to

centralization Local autonomy

Why Single County GCDs? Reaction to Sipriano Prevent rural to urban

Transport Influence of county

governments Administrative

convenience “Path dependency”

Benefits of Local Control “One size does not fit all”

Allows “collective choice arrangements”

Administrative convenience

Local familiarity and expertise

Outline

Evolution of GCDs

Challenges of Decentralized GW Governance

Regionalization in Texas

Policy Options

Challenges: Importance of FitHydrologic Disconnects

$0.00

$0.01

$0.10

GCD Tax Rates

$/$1

00 P

rope

rty

Valu

ation

N = 45

$0.5

$0.002

Challenges: Insufficient AreaFunding

Challenges: Insufficient Area Lack economies-of-scale

Affects Institutional Resilience

Myopic Local Politics Conflict of interest Self-regulation Dominant ideology

Conflicting Regulations

S

Alternatives to Decentralization

Centralization (State Agency):

Pros: Uniform and equitable regulation Funding and resources Antidote to “decentralized dysfunction”

Cons Limited user input Less adaptable to variable conditions Limited local expertise

S

Regionalization (Policy Proposal):

Definition: A scale of groundwater management designed to be: congruent with hydro-geographical boundaries scaled to minimize hydrologic disconnects provide sufficient funds, authority, and resources equitably accommodate all affected actors

Advantages of both centralized and decentralized

Alternatives to Decentralization

Outline

Evolution of GCDs

Challenges of Decentralized GW Governance

Regionalization in Texas

Policy Options

Regionalization in Texas1949 – GCD Act Coterminous GCDs

1995 - HB 2294 “GMAs” “most suitable for gw management” Boundaries coincide with aquifers

1997 – SB 1 Basin-oriented regional water

planning Stakeholders as members

2000 – HNRC Interim Charges County-based GCDs ineffective Joint management needed

Regionalization in Texas2001 - SB 2 GMAs created by TWDB Voluntary joint planning

2005 – SB 3 (failed) GMACs Coordinate joint planning Approve mgmt. plans Provide funding/tech. support

2005 – HB 1763 DFC/MAGS Weakened version of SB 3

Regionalization in Texas2011 - SB 660 More inclusive and transparent Increased process complexity More GCD responsibilities

2012 – SNRC Interim Charges

Remaining Challenges: Inadequate representation “Geographic areas” allow county-

based planning Unfunded mandates TWDB support unavailable Set up to fail??

Outline

Evolution of GCDs

Challenges of Decentralized GW Governance

Regionalization in Texas

Policy Options

Regional Models: Nebraska

Natural Resource Districts (NDRs) Replaced smaller districts Basin-oriented

boundaries “Reservoir life”

management goals Multi-purpose authority Conjunctive sw/gw

management

Regional Models: Arizona

Active Management Areas (AMAs) Subdivisions based on gw

basins Safe-yield management

goals 100-year “assured water

supply” Governor-appointed

advisory councils State funding

Mission similar to GCDs Basin-oriented boundaries No taxing authority Mature governance model

Brazos River Authority Est. 1929 65 counties (1/6 of state) Self-funded

Regional Models: Texas River Authorities

Regional Models: Edwards Aquifer Authority

Expanded and replaced the EUWD

Aquifer-oriented boundaries

Self-funded by fees Board and Advisory

Committee Conjunctive sw/gw

management

S

Policy Criteria: Hydro-geographical

Boundaries (AZ, NB, RA, EAA) Sufficient Areal Extent (AZ, NB, RA, EAA) Funding (EAA, RA) Politically Feasible (GCD) Representation (AZ,EAA,GCD) Authority (EAA) Conjunctive Use (EAA, NB) Sustainability Goals (EAA, AZ, NB) Regulatory Flexibility (AZ, EAA, GCD)

Groundwater Management Authorities

Consolidate GCDs into GM Authorities

Autonomous agencies Unified regulations Authority:

Custom rules Subdivisions for sub-basins State-agency level enforcement

Funding: Fees only

Governing Body: Appointed with loc.

gov/stakeholder members Elected with advisory body

Planning: Existing planning framework

Scorecard: GM Authorities

Criteria S PS US

Hydro-geographical Boundaries

X

Sufficient Areal Extent

X

Funding X

Politically Feasible X

Representation X

Authority X

Conjunctive Use X

Sustainability Goals X

Regulatory Flexibility

X

GMA Councils

GCDs (managers) Funding: Both fees and taxes Authority: EAA

GMACs (planners) Authority

Subdivisions for sub-basins Adopt DFCs Approve GCD MPs Annual GCD reviews

Funding/Tech support: TWDB

Governing Body: GCDs RWPGs Stakeholders

Scorecard: GMACs

Criteria S PS US

Hydro-geographical Boundaries

X

Sufficient Areal Extent

X

Funding X

Politically Feasible X

Representation X

Authority X

Conjunctive Use X

Sustainability Goals X

Regulatory Flexibility

X

Conclusions Texas has committed to a decentralized system of groundwater

management via GCDs

Projected demands, diminishing supplies, and extreme drought compel reform of groundwater management system

The GCD system is imperfect and state control is not a viable alternative

Regionalization offers benefits of both centralized and decentralized governance.

However, true reform would require either: a new regional planning entity and increased funding and resources

for GCDs; or replacement of GCDs with regional authorities

S

Questions?