Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Regionalization – A Proposed Alternative for Coordinated Groundwater Management in Texas, John Dupnik, Masters Candidate at the Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas at Austin
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Regionalization – A Proposed Alternative for Coordinated Groundwater Management in Texas, John Dupnik, Masters Candidate at the Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas at Austin

173
views

Published on


0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
173
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • ROC marked divergence of surface water and gwEast used Acton v. Blundell which considered gw to be private propertyCons amendment after droughts in 1910 and 1917Prior to 1949, several attempts to:declare groundwater property of the stateGuarantee vested rights of those using waterExercise proper control over future development
  • Prior to 1949, several attempts to declare groundwater property of the state
  • GCD act prepared by Farm Bureea as a counter bill to the anticpated bill to be filed by the TWCA
  • Prior to 1949, several attempts to declare groundwater property of the stateAccepting local control was political necessity to get any gw management
  • Texas Special District Local Laws code - Nearly 600 chapters governing and enabling special districts
  • Those affected have a say in the rulesAdaptable to diversity of conditions including climate, water use, growth projections, aquifer charactoristics.
  • Inconsistent management of shared aquifersMany sets of regulations
  • GCD act prepared by Farm Bureea as a counter bill to the anticpated bill to be filed by the TWCA
  • GCD act prepared by Farm Bureea as a counter bill to the anticpated bill to be filed by the TWCA
  • Texas Special District Local Laws code - Nearly 600 chapters governing and enabling special districts
  • Texas Special District Local Laws code - Nearly 600 chapters governing and enabling special districts
  • 1911 Bill analysis - Senator Brown stated concern that SC GCDs would interfere with regional water planning2000 – found that county based GCDs may be ineffective and new GCDs should be along GMA boundaries
  • GMACsFunding Stakeholder representation Technical support from TWDBHB1763 – good concept weakened by political compromise and holding fast to local control
  • GMACsFunding Stakeholder representation Technical support from TWDB1755 filed bycalligari to affirm DFC on hydrologic basis
  • GMACsFunding Stakeholder representation Technical support from TWDB1755 filed bycalligari to affirm DFC on hydrologic basis
  • GMACsFunding Stakeholder representation Technical support from TWDB1755 filed bycalligari to affirm DFC on hydrologic basis
  • GMACsFunding Stakeholder representation Technical support from TWDBHB1763 – good concept weakened by political compromise and holding fast to local control
  • GMACsFunding Stakeholder representation Technical support from TWDB1755 filed bycalligari to affirm DFC on hydrologic basis
  • 1989 – SB 1212Repealed coterminous requirement for legislatively created GCDs
  • GMACsFunding Stakeholder representation Technical support from TWDB1755 filed bycalligari to affirm DFC on hydrologic basis
  • Representation provided to “white areas”Planning becomes much simpler eliminating need for complex processSustainable goal to extend to 100 years or a generation like AZ model
  • Clearly defined GCDS/GMAC roles
  • Insufficient Areal Extent – will continue to suffier from operational inefficiencies and myopic local politicsPolitical feasibility – requires:Legislative amendmentsA new level of government (GMACs)Increased GCD authorityNew taxes, fees, and state funding
  • Transcript

    • 1. Regionalization:An Alternative for Coordinated Groundwater Management John T. Dupnik, P.G. TAGD Quarterly Meeting October 31, 2012 S
    • 2. Outline Evolution of GCDs Challenges of Decentralized GW Governance Regionalization in Texas Policy Options
    • 3. Evolution of GCDs1904 - Houston and Texas Central Railroad Co. v. East1917 – Art. 16, Sec.59, the Conservation AmendmentS Natural Resource Conservation – a public right and duty1934 - TBWE Reports to LegislatureS Called for declaring groundwater as waters of state1937, 1941, 1947:S Bills filed in each session to place water under state control S
    • 4. Evolution of GCDsQuotes of High Plainsmen during public meetings:“This proposition [of creating a water district] should be met with30-30s [rifles] and its sponsors not only driven back to the City ofAustin, but on south across the San Jacinto battlefield and into theGulf of Mexico where they can get their fill of water."“You can say you prefer local control to state control or federalcontrol. I don’t want any control by anybody but the landowner.Thats like asking who youd rather be hanged by. I dont want tobe hanged.”“All the water under my land belongs to me… nobody can tell mehow to use it…If my neighbor wants to drill wells right next tome, that’s all right with me. If the wells go dry, we will all run outtogether. I dont intend to live in a country full of Hitlerism laws."“I favor no control, but if we must have it, let be local.” S
    • 5. Evolution of GCDsGCD Act of 1949S Political compromiseS Modeled after WCIDsS GCD creation within designated reservoirsS Counties could opt outS GW is private propertyS Departure from SW
    • 6. Evolution of GCDs1997 – Senate Bill 1S GCDs – “Preferred” method of GW managementS Interbasin SW transfers limitedS GCDs may limit exports1999 – Sipriano v Great Spring Waters ofAmericaS GW management is legislative duty under Conservation Amendment1999 – 76th Legislative SessionS 30 GCDs, 13 created (SB 1911) S
    • 7. GCD Creation Dates 100 80Number of GCDs 60 40 20 0 S
    • 8. S
    • 9. DecentralizationS Why Local Control? S Private property rights S Aversion to centralization S Local autonomyS Why Single County GCDs? S Reaction to Sipriano S Prevent rural to urban Transport S Influence of county governments S Administrative convenience S “Path dependency”
    • 10. Benefits of LocalControlS “One size does not fit all”S Allows “collective choice arrangements”S Administrative convenienceS Local familiarity and expertise
    • 11. Outline Evolution of GCDs Challenges of Decentralized GW Governance Regionalization in Texas Policy Options
    • 12. Challenges: Importance of Fit Hydrologic Disconnects
    • 13. Challenges: Insufficient Area Funding $1.00 $0.5$/$100 Property Valuation $0.10 $0.01 $0.002 $0.00 N = 45 GCD Tax Rates
    • 14. Challenges:Insufficient AreaS Lack economies-of-scaleS Affects Institutional ResilienceS Myopic Local Politics S Conflict of interest S Self-regulation S Dominant ideologyS Conflicting Regulations
    • 15. Alternatives to DecentralizationCentralization (State Agency):S Pros: S Uniform and equitable regulation S Funding and resources S Antidote to “decentralized dysfunction”S Cons S Limited user input S Less adaptable to variable conditions S Limited local expertise S
    • 16. Alternatives to DecentralizationRegionalization (Policy Proposal):Definition: A scale of groundwater managementdesigned to be:S congruent with hydro-geographical boundariesS scaled to minimize hydrologic disconnectsS provide sufficient funds, authority, and resourcesS equitably accommodate all affected actorsS Advantages of both centralized and decentralized S
    • 17. Outline Evolution of GCDs Challenges of Decentralized GW Governance Regionalization in Texas Policy Options
    • 18. Regionalization inTexas1949 – GCD ActS Coterminous GCDs1995 - HB 2294S “GMAs”S “most suitable for gw management”S Boundaries coincide with aquifers1997 – SB 1S Basin-oriented regional water planningS Stakeholders as members2000 – HNRC Interim ChargesS County-based GCDs ineffectiveS Joint management needed
    • 19. Regionalization inTexas2001 - SB 2S GMAs created by TWDBS Voluntary joint planning2005 – SB 3 (failed)S GMACsS Coordinate joint planningS Approve mgmt. plansS Provide funding/tech. support2005 – HB 1763S DFC/MAGSS Weakened version of SB 3
    • 20. Regionalization inTexas2011 - SB 660S More inclusive and transparentS Increased process complexityS More GCD responsibilities2012 – SNRC Interim ChargesRemaining Challenges:S Inadequate representationS “Geographic areas” allow county-based planningS Unfunded mandatesS TWDB support unavailableS Set up to fail??
    • 21. Outline Evolution of GCDs Challenges of Decentralized GW Governance Regionalization in Texas Policy Options
    • 22. Regional Models:NebraskaNatural Resource Districts(NDRs)S Replaced smaller districtsS Basin-oriented boundariesS “Reservoir life” management goalsS Multi-purpose authorityS Conjunctive sw/gw management
    • 23. Regional Models:ArizonaActive Management Areas(AMAs)S Subdivisions based on gw basinsS Safe-yield management goalsS 100-year “assured water supply”S Governor-appointed advisory councilsS State funding
    • 24. Regional Models: TexasRiver AuthoritiesS Mission similar to GCDsS Basin-oriented boundariesS No taxing authorityS Mature governance modelBrazos River AuthorityS Est. 1929S 65 counties (1/6 of state)S Self-funded
    • 25. Regional Models: EdwardsAquifer AuthorityS Expanded and replaced the EUWDS Aquifer-oriented boundariesS Self-funded by feesS Board and Advisory CommitteeS Conjunctive sw/gw management
    • 26. Policy Criteria:S Hydro-geographical Boundaries (AZ, NB, RA, EAA)S Sufficient Areal Extent (AZ, NB, RA, EAA)S Funding (EAA, RA)S Politically Feasible (GCD)S Representation (AZ,EAA,GCD)S Authority (EAA)S Conjunctive Use (EAA, NB)S Sustainability Goals (EAA, AZ, NB)S Regulatory Flexibility (AZ, EAA, GCD) S
    • 27. GroundwaterManagement AuthoritiesS Consolidate GCDs into GM AuthoritiesS Autonomous agenciesS Unified regulationsS Authority: S Custom rules S Subdivisions for sub-basins S State-agency level enforcementS Funding: S Fees onlyS Governing Body: S Appointed with loc. gov/stakeholder members S Elected with advisory bodyS Planning: S Existing planning framework
    • 28. Scorecard: GM Authorities Criteria S PS USHydro-geographicalBoundaries XSufficient Areal XExtentFunding XPolitically Feasible XRepresentation XAuthority XConjunctive Use XSustainability Goals XRegulatory XFlexibility
    • 29. GMA CouncilsGCDs (managers)S Funding: Both fees and taxesS Authority: EAAGMACs (planners)S Authority S Subdivisions for sub-basins S Adopt DFCs S Approve GCD MPs S Annual GCD reviewsS Funding/Tech support: S TWDBS Governing Body: S GCDs S RWPGs S Stakeholders
    • 30. Scorecard: GMACs Criteria S PS USHydro-geographical XBoundariesSufficient Areal XExtentFunding XPolitically Feasible XRepresentation XAuthority XConjunctive Use XSustainability Goals XRegulatory XFlexibility
    • 31. ConclusionsS Texas has committed to a decentralized system of groundwater management via GCDsS Projected demands, diminishing supplies, and extreme drought compel reform of groundwater management systemS The GCD system is imperfect and state control is not a viable alternativeS Regionalization offers benefits of both centralized and decentralized governance.S However, true reform would require either: S a new regional planning entity and increased funding and resources for GCDs; or S replacement of GCDs with regional authorities
    • 32. Questions? S