The document outlines the water management situation in Texas, particularly the emergency orders related to drought conditions impacting the Highland Lakes and the need for curtailments. It discusses the legal framework supporting these emergency measures and the considerations for appointing a watermaster to manage water rights more effectively. Key decisions include maintaining no interruptible releases and establishing specific triggers and caps on releases based on storage levels.

1. © 2014
Texas Drought and Watermaster
Update
Molly Cagle
March 5, 2014

2. 2014 LCRA Emergency Order

3. Look at the watershed above and the Highland Lakes

4. Key Points
 600,000 af storage is 2010 WMP cutoff
 100% curtailment for interruptible
 20% pro rata curtailment on firm
 Cutoff modified in '12 and '13 emergency orders
 Should cutoff be modified in 2014?
 If so, at what storage capacity should it be lifted?

5. Historical Trend

6. Inflows to Highland Lakes
Five of the
lowest inflow
years on
record
occurred within
the last six
years.

7. How did we get here?
LCRA applies for
Emergency Order
Commission
considers
ED's Order
ED issues
Emergency Order
Exceptions
Commission considers
Emergency Order
Dec. 10, 2013
Jan. 27, 2014
Feb. 12
Hearing on
the merits
Feb. 17
PFD
Feb. 21 Feb. 24
Feb. 26

8. ED Emergency Order
 No interruptible releases now
 1.1 trigger on future releases
 Automatic renewal if below 1.1 M AF on May 26
 Cap on total releases depends upon storage
If combined storage is… Interruptible releases up to…
< 1.1 M zero
≥ 1.1 M but < 1.2 M 100,000 AF
≥ 1.2 M but < 1.3 M 124,000 AF
≥ 1.3 M but < 1.4 M 148,000 AF
≥ 1.4 M 172,000 AF

9. How did we get here?
LCRA applies for
Emergency Order
Commission
considers
ED's Order
ED issues
Emergency Order
Exceptions
Commission issues
Modified Emergency
Order
Dec. 10, 2013
Jan. 27, 2014
Feb. 12
Hearing on
the merits
Feb. 17
PFD
Feb. 21 Feb. 24
Feb. 26

10. Legal Issue
 Texas Water Code 11.139
 "Emergency conditions exist which present an
imminent threat to the public health and safety and
which override the necessity to comply with established
statutory procedures"
 No feasible practicable alternatives to the
emergency authorization.
 Emergency Order has 120 day life; may be renewed
once for not longer than 60 days.
 Affirm, modify, or set aside the emergency
authorization.

11. "Imminent threat to public health and safety"
 Intake structures already out of water-more soon
 Wells already dry
 Firefighters unable to access lake water
 Urban tree canopy
 Concrete foundations
 No alternatives

12. Reality
 Concern about hitting 600,000 af -DWDR
 Concern about indoor water use restrictions
 Comfort zone
 Precedent of cap
 Precedent generally
 Economics and public perception

13. Future With Irrigation Release

14. Future Without Irrigation Release

15. Results
ALJ Recommends
 No interruptible
releases now
 1.4 M AF trigger
 172,000 AF cap on
releases
 Automatic renewal
TCEQ Adopts
 No interruptible
releases now
 No trigger level
 No automatic renewal
To be continued…

16. BRAZOS RIVER WATERMASTER

17. Brazos River Overview
• 840 miles long
• 42,620 sq. mi
watershed
• 19 major
reservoirs

18. Planning Regions G, H, and O

19. October Snapshot 2000 - 2013

20. Texas Water Code § 11.027
As Between Appropriators,
First in Time,
First in Right

21. Senior Priority Calls
 2009
 2011
 2012
 2013

22. Texas Watermaster Programs

23. Tex. Water Code § 11.325 - Water Divisions
 The commission shall divide the state into water
divisions for the purpose of administering
adjudicated water rights.
 Water divisions may be created from time to time
as the necessity arises.
 The divisions shall be constituted to secure the
best protection to the holders of water rights and
the most economical supervision on the part of
the state.

24. Sunset legislation, HB 2694 (2011)
 11.326(g) For a water basin in which a
watermaster is not appointed, the executive
director shall:
 (1) evaluate the water basin at least once every five
years to determine whether a watermaster should be
appointed; and
 (2) report the findings and make recommendations to
the commission.

25. Executive Director October 2012 Brazos Basin
Recommendation
 34 water right holders commented
 23 opposed
 7 in favor
 4 neutral
 ED recommendation: Threat to senior water rights
would be best articulated by those water rights
holders impacted
 Invited petition per §11.451

26. Tex. Water Code §11.451
 On petition of 25 or more holders of water rights in a
river basin or segment of a river basin or on its own
motion the commission may authorize the executive
director to appoint a watermaster for a river basin or
segment of a river basin if the commission finds that
the rights of senior water rights holders in the basin or
segment of the basin are threatened.

27. Tex. Water Code § 11.452
 (a) On receiving a petition for appointment of a watermaster or
on its own motion, the commission shall call and hold a hearing
to determine if a need exists for appointment of a watermaster
for the river basin or segment of the river basin.
 (b) At the hearing persons who hold water rights in the river
basin or segment of the river basin may appear before the
commission and submit testimony and evidence relating to the
need for appointment of a watermaster.
 (c) After the hearing, the commission shall make a written
determination as to whether a threat exists to the rights of
senior water rights holders in the river basin or segment of the
river basin and shall issue an order either finding that a threat
exists and directing appointment of a watermaster or denying
appointment of a watermaster.

28. Brazos River Watermaster Hearing
 Threat
 Need
 Appropriate Geographic Scope
January 2013
Petition Filed
April 2013
Preliminary Hearing
February 2013
Petition Considered at
Agenda
December 2013
Proposal for Decision
Sept. 23-26, 2013
Live Hearing
April or May ?
Agenda

29. Proponents Hearing Themes
 Prior appropriation is the law and it exists to deal
with shortages
 Recurring periods of shortage and increasing basin
demands
 Protection of vested property rights
 Planning tools assume implementation of prior
appropriation
 Reactive management to calls or complaints does
not negate existence of or sufficiently address threat
 Whole basin is hydrologically connected
 Watermaster is the tool provided by Legislature to
enable data collection and proactive management

30. Opponents Hearing Themes
 Priority Call implementation is sufficient
 Drought Tiger Teams
 Improvement from 40+ days to goal of less than 10 Days
 Limited occurrence
 Government intrusiveness
 "Upper Basin" is distinct in climate and hydrology
and Possum Kingdom is a sufficient divide
 Other carve outs

31. Jurisdictional challenge
 Particularly preyed upon by [supporters of the
watermaster] were the deceased, the cancer
ridden,the demented and elderly and their naïve
sullen survivors.
 Some Petitioners dropped out

32. Proposal for Decision
 Threat - Clearly exists
 Need - Evidence was overwhelming
 Geographic scope - Entire Basin is appropriate

33. Brazos Watermaster Outcome
 TCEQ Agenda
 Legislature