GMA JOINT PLANNING INTRODUCTION · 2019. 6. 18. · UPDATE OF JOINT PLANNING ACTIVITIES: CYCLE 2...

1

GMA JOINT PLANNING: INTRODUCTION

This paper provides an update on the status of the ongoing Groundwater

Management Area (GMA) Joint Planning required under Texas Water Code

§36.108.1 In order to comprehend the importance of GMA Joint Planning,

however, it must be considered in the context of the overall scheme of state

water planning. Overall state water planning, of course, is inextricably bound by

the legal distinction between groundwater and surface water. State water

planning considers all water, whether groundwater or surface water. GMA Joint

Planning considers groundwater. Texas' numerous aquifers are a critical source

of water for Texas, supplying 59 percent of the 15.6 million acre-feet of water

used in the state in 2003.2 Thus the efficacy of State water planning relies heavily

on the efficacy of groundwater planning.

THE CONTEXT: STATE WATER PLANNING

State water planning, driven by Texas Water Code, Chapter 16,

Subchapter C, is frequently referred to as a "bottom-up" process.3 Under State

planning, the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) established 16 Regional

Water Planning Areas (RWPAs).4 Beginning on January 5, 2001, and every five

years after, representatives from these geographic planning areas meet

periodically and must develop a Regional Water Plan (RWP) for their RWPA.5

Thus the next RWPs are due January 5, 2016 (the current "regional planning

cycle" ends on that date). The Plan must:

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 that particular region.6

1 "Groundwater Management Area Joint Planning" is a widely used euphemism for the activities groundwater

conservation districts (GCDs) must undertake under Texas Water Code § 36.108 in order to develop desired future conditions (DFCs) for relevant aquifers within each groundwater management area (GMA). See also, §§ 36.1081 - 36.1086. 2 See TWDB website at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/aquifer/index.asp (last visited October 28,

2013). 3 Because the process could “drive a person to drink,” should it be referred to instead as a “bottoms-up” process?

4 Texas Water Code § 16.053(b). These RWPAs are generally referred to by letter, such as "Region A."

5 Texas Water Code § 16.053(i).

6 Texas Water Code § 16.053(a).

http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/aquifer/index.asp

2

Once the Plans are adopted by the RWPGs they are used by the Texas Water

Development Board as the basis for the State Water Plan,7 which follows a year

after.8 The latest State Water Plan was issued in January 2012.9 The next State

water planning cycle ends January 2017 with issuance of the next State Water

Plan.

In order to help the State meet its goal to ensure "that sufficient water will

be available" the RWPs must evaluate and quantify current water supplies.10 In

order to do so, the RWPGs rely on various data including water availability. The

water availability data is included in the RWPs when submitted to the Texas

Water Development Board.11 Because Texas has separate legal systems for

surface water and groundwater, separate water availability and management

processes have developed for surface and groundwater.12 The GMA Joint

Planning process addresses groundwater availability and management.

During the Joint Planning process, each of the 16 GMAs13 established by

the TWDB14 develops desired future conditions (DFCs) for the relevant aquifers

within the geographic area of the GMA.15 Once the desired future conditions

are adopted, the TWDB calculates modeled available groundwater (MAG)

based on the DFCs.16 Ultimately the RWPGs use MAGs as groundwater

availability numbers when developing their Regional Water Plans.17 The RWPs

must be "consistent with the desired future conditions adopted under Texas

Water Code Section 36.108 for the relevant aquifers located in the regional

water planning area as of the date of the" TWDB's most recently adopted State 7 Under Texas Water Code § 16.051(a), "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." 8 Texas Water Code § 16.051(a).

9 Available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/waterplanning/swp/index.asp.

10 Texas Water Code § 16.053(e)(5).

11 31 Texas Admin. Code § 16.053(e)(3)(A).

12 Compare generally, Texas Water Code Chapters 11 and 16 to Chapters 35 and 36. See also, Eckstein and

Hardberger, "Scientific, Legal, and Ethical Foundations for Texas Water Law" in Essentials of Texas Water Resources (Sahs ed.) 2d ed. 2012. 13

Groundwater management areas are merely planning regions and have no legal or political status. Thus the statute is written to require GCDs within each GMA to participate in joint planning. See Texas Water Code §36.108. It is generally accepted practice, however, to refer to the "GMA" rather than to "GCDs wholly and partially located within the GMA." This practice is followed throughout this paper. 14

Texas Water Code § 35.004. See also, TWDB website containing links to various TWDB resources related to developing a DFC at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/DFC.asp. 15

Texas Water Code § 36.108(c). See also, 31 Texas Admin. Code Chapter 356. 16

Texas Water Code § 36.1084(b). 17

Texas Water Code § 16.053(e)(3)(A).

3

Water Plan.18 A RWPG may opt to use instead, DFCs established subsequent to

the adoption of the most recent State Water Plan.19 By considering both

groundwater and surface water availability, the RWPG can accomplish the ten

tasks assigned to them under Texas Water Code Chapter 16, Texas

Administrative Code Chapter 357, and the TWDB's guidelines on water

planning.20

INCONGRUENT PLANNING CYCLES

The incongruity between deadlines for regional water planning cycles

and GMA joint planning cycles poses challenges for both types of planning

groups because the RWPG must use the MAG and must be consistent with DFCs

within its RWPA.21 As mentioned above, the latest RWPs were adopted by

January 5, 2011. Because the deadline for adoption of initial DFCs was August

31, 2010, and TWDB calculation of MAGs was not accomplished until months

and sometimes years later, the touted benefits of having local GCDs develop

groundwater availability numbers was not realized for the current State Water

Plan. This incongruity remains a challenge despite amendments to section

36.108 in 2011 and 2013, as discussed below. Even though GMA representatives

have been added to RWPGs to help bridge the timing gap between the two

types of planning groups, it remains the case that the DFCs with which the RWP

must be consistent and the groundwater availability information upon which

water supply numbers in a RWP are based may be outdated by more than 5

years.22

It is generally agreed that the amendment to 36.108(d) in 2011

complicated the issue of GMA Joint Planning cycles. Section 36.108(d) was

already ambiguous about whether the current GMA joint planning cycle ends

September 1, 2015 for all GMAs and all DFCs (which would be similar to the set

five-year cycles for regional and state water plans), or whether the end of the

cycle varies from GMA to GMA and from DFC to DFC, based on the date a

particular DFC was adopted by the GMA. Prior to 2011, the statute stated that

"[n]ot later than September 1, 2010, and every five years thereafter, the districts .

. . shall establish desired future conditions for the relevant aquifers within the

18

Texas Water Code § 16.053(e)(2-a). 19


See "Water for Texas: Regional Water Planning in Texas,” available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/publications/shells/RegionalWaterPlanning.pdf. 21


Texas Water Code § 16.053(c).

http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/publications/

4

management area."23 The TWDB informally interpreted this to mean the latter:

different deadlines for different DFCs.

Greater complexity resulted from the 2011 amendment that changed

"shall establish" DFCs to "shall propose for adoption" DFCs.24 In its December 31,

2012 rules25 implementing the 2011 amendment to 36.108(d), the TWDB officially

interpreted the statute to mean that the “second cycle” ends five years from

the initial adoption date of each individual DFC. Additionally, it does not end

when another DFC is adopted; it ends when another DFC is proposed for

adoption. Thus going forward, there will be “cycle gaps” between when a DFC

is proposed, which ends the first cycle, and when the next cycle begins: the last

collective adoption of a DFC.26

While the DFC proposal deadline for the current joint planning cycle has

been clarified through a temporary change to section 36.108, the "cycle gap"

remains. Under section 36.108(d-5), which expires on January 1, 2018, all

proposals for DFCs under the current joint planning cycle are due before May 1,

2016.27 Even if all DFCs are proposed on the default deadline of April 30, 2016,

the incongruity between the regional water planning cycles and the

groundwater joint planning cycles poses challenges to the RWPGs. Likewise, the

use of outdated DFCs and MAGs by the RWPGs will continue to dog the

process.

23 Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 933, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1010,

Sec. 4.29, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 519, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 966, Sec. 2.48, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; and Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 970, Sec. 8, eff. Sept. 1, 2005. 24

Amended by Act of May 30, 2011, 82th Leg., R.S., ch. 1233, § 17, eff. September 1, 2011 (SB 660). 25

31 Texas Admin. Code § 356.31 adopted to be effective December 31, 2012 (37 TexReg 10238.). 26

31 Texas Admin. Code § 356.31(a). 27

Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., ch. ___ Sec.§. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2013, General and Special Laws of Texas.(SB 1282).

5

UPDATE OF JOINT PLANNING ACTIVITIES: CYCLE 2

What follows is a summary of GMA Joint Planning actions during cycle 1

and the status of planning during the current cycle 2. The information is

presented separately for each GMA. In order to put into context the location of

the various GMAs see Map 1, below.

Map 1: Groundwater Management Areas28

28

Available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/index.asp.

6

Groundwater Management Area 1

The boundaries of GMA-1 are shown on Map 2 in red (in a non-color

reproduction, they are the thickest boundary lines shown on the map).

Map 2: GMA-1 showing counties and RWPAs29

Groundwater Management Area-1 is located in Region A. In addition to

the counties within GMA-1, Region A includes Collingsworth, Hall, and Childress

counties (on a color reproduction all counties in Region A are shown in green)

Four GCDs are located within GMA-1: Hemphill, High Plains, North Plains, and

Panhandle. During the first planning cycle, GMA-1 adopted DFCs for the

Ogallala/Rita Blanca, Blaine, and Dockum aquifers. MESA Water LP challenged

29

The underlying map for all of the individual GMA maps presented in this paper is the TWDB "Regional Water Planning Area" map available at http://www.twdb.texas.gov/mapping/doc/maps/sb1_groups_8x11.pdf.

7

the Ogallala DFC, but the TWDB found it not unreasonable. The long and

tortured history of the challenge, however, is beyond the scope of this paper.30

As discussed, the Regional Water Plans must use DFCs and MAGs based

on approved DFCs. Unless a new DFC is adopted and a new MAG is issued, the

MAG data used for the DFC in the Region A plan due in January 2016 will be

outdated. If GMA-1 does not propose new DFCs in time for a MAG to be

developed and be used in the current regional planning cycle, Region A will use

the MAGS issued on the following dates:

Blaine issued June 22, 201131 based on DFC adopted June 3, 2010.32

Dockum issued August 30, 201133 based on DFC adopted June 3, 2010.34

Ogallala/Rita Blanca issued August 21, 201235 based on DFC adopted July

7, 2009.36

Thus some data could be nearly seven years old when the next State Water Plan

is issued. This situation is not unique to GMA-1.

The TWDB, using the INTERA, Incorporated consulting firm, is developing a

new GAM combining the Ogallala and Dockum.37 Because High Plains, North

Plains, and Panhandle districts wanted improvements in addition to those

originally planned by TWDB, they each provided an extra $100,000 towards the

project.38 The project is expected to be completed in August 2015.39

30

Norman and Hutchison, "Groundwater Management Area Joint Planning," in Essentials of Texas Water Resources (Sahs ed.) 2d ed. 2012. 31

GAM Run 10-020 (Oliver) June 22, 2011, available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma1.asp. 32

DFC submittal available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/docs/DFC/GMA1_DFC_Adopted_2010-0603.pdf. 33

GAM Run 10-019 MAG Version 2 (Oliver) August 30, 2011, available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma1.asp. 34


GAM Run 12-005 MAG: Modeled Available Groundwater for the Ogallala Aquifer in Groundwater Management Area 1 (Jigmond) August 21, 2012, available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma1.asp. 36


October 15, 2013 telephone conversation with Larry French, TWDB. When a conversation is cited as support, the author encourages the reader to seek confirmation of the information. The author thanks all individuals for their assistance providing information and takes full responsibility for any miscommunication. 38

February 2013 conversation with Jim Conkwright (then General Manager of High Plains UWCD No. 1) and Stefan Schuster (then consultant with Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.). 39

October 28, 2013 telephone conversation with Cindy Ridgeway, TWDB.

8

GMA-1 must either propose new DFCs no later than the default deadline

of April 30, 2016 or re-propose the current DFCs. In either case, they will be

required to use different procedures than those used during the first cycle. The

GMA plans to meet in November and consider adopting a timeline and

checklist for needed consulting services based on the new procedures.40


GMA-2 is in the southwestern panhandle. The boundaries of GMA-2 are

shown on Map 3 in red (in a non-color reproduction, they are the thickest

boundary lines shown on the map). Map 3 shows that GMA-2 is in two RWPAs O

and F. The lighter counties shown within GMA-2 are in Region O (on a color

reproduction all counties in Region O are shown in yellow). The darker counties

shown in GMA-2 are in Region F (on a color reproduction all counties in Region F

are shown in purple).

Map 3: GMA-2 showing counties and RWPAs

40

October 15, 2013 telephone conversation with Kyle G. Ingham, Panhandle Regional Planning Commission, Local Government Services Director (GMA-1 Administrator).

9

GMA-2 contains eight GCDs: Garza, High Plains, Llano Estacado, Mesa,

Mesquite, Permian Basin, Sandy Land, and South Plains. GMA-2 adopted DFCs

for the Ogallala, Dockum, and Edwards- Trinity (High Plains) aquifers. For the

Ogallala aquifer, six of the eight GCDs developed DFCs based on an average

drawdown across the six GCDs, while Garza and High Plains effectively adopted

a 50/50 DFC (50% of the aquifer remaining after 50 years). At this time, both

Regions O and F plan to use MAGS from 2011 and 2012 during the current

regional planning cycle. The Dockum MAG was issued on July 9, 201241 and

Ogallala and Edwards-Trinity (High Plains) MAG is dated June 22, 2011.42

Currently GMA-2 is working with GMA-1 and the TWDB on the Ogallala

and Dockum GAM project described above. GMA-2 is also working closely with

Region O, because most of the State’s unmet water needs are in this Region

and its water supply is mostly groundwater. Thus it is critical that the GMA-2

DFCs and resulting MAGs accurately reflect the Region's water supply to allow

the RWPG O to make the most accurate demand estimates. The TWDB issued its

total estimated storage report for GMA-243 and the group continues to discuss

whether to re-propose the existing DFCs or propose new ones during this joint

planning cycle.44 At this time, there are no meetings scheduled.45


Moving south from GMA-2, still in West Texas but moving out of the

panhandle, GMA-3 is completely in Region F. Middle Pecos is the only GCD in

GMA-3, but much of GMA-3 is not covered by a GCD

41

GAM Run 10-035 MAG Version 3: Modeled Available Groundwater for the Dockum Aquifer (Oliver) July 9, 2012, available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma2.asp. 42

GAM Run 10-020 MAG (Oliver) June 22, 20112013, available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma1.asp. 43

GAM Task 13-026: Total Estimated Recoverable Storage for Aquifers in Groundwater Management Area 2 (Kohlrenken, Boghici, and Jones) September 19, 2013 available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma2.asp. 44 February 2013 conversation with Jim Conkwright (then General Manager of High Plains Underground Water

Conservation District No. 1) and Stefan Schuster (then a consultant with Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.) 45

October 18, 2013 telephone conversation with Robert Bradley, TWDB.

http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma2.asp



10


The current DFCs are couched in terms of average drawdowns across the

GMA. A single DFC was adopted for the combined Edwards-Trinity (Plateau)

and Pecos Valley aquifers. Different DFCs were adopted for Rustler, for confined

and unconfined portions. Capitan Reef Complex and Dockum each have a

separate DFC. The Igneous formation was deemed not relevant.46 Region F

plans to use MAG data for Capitan and Rustler from November 3, 201147 and

Dockum and Edwards-Trinity (Plateau)/Pecos Valley dated November 18,

2011.48

GMA-3 has worked closely with Region F to develop DFCs. GMA-3 felt

that they did not have good production data except in northwestern Pecos

County, where the data came from a municipal water district. The oil & gas

industry participated in an effort to count rigs and average production usage to

estimate production for hydraulic fracturing. No data is available for the

46

DFC submittal46

August 9, 2010 available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma3.asp. 47

GTA Aquifer Assessment 10-36 (Bradley) November 3, 2011 available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma3.asp. 48

GAM Run 10-039 (Aschenbach) November 18, 2011 available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma3.asp.




11

Capitan Reef Complex, which is problematic because it is expected to be used

heavily in the future as a municipal water source.49 The TWDB issued the total

estimated recoverable storage for GMA-3 on September 19, 2013.50 As of this

date, GMA-3 has held no further meetings during this joint planning cycle.51


GMA-4 is further west from GMA-3, also spanning a portion of the border with

New Mexico. All of GMA-4 is in Region E, also known as the Far West Texas

Region.


The five GCDs within this GMA are: Brewster, Culberson, Hudspeth, Jeff

Davis, and Presidio. The current DFCs set county-by-county drawdown for Bone

Spring-Victorio Peak, Texas Bolsons, Edwards-Trinity (Plateau), and Igneous

49

February 2013 conversation with Paul Weatherby, General Manager, Middle Pecos GCD. 50

GAM Task 13-027: Total Estimated Recoverable Storage for Aquifers in Groundwater Management Area 3 (Jones, Boghici, Kohlrenken, and Shi) September 19, 2013, available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/docs/GAMruns/Task13-027.pdf. 51


12

formations,52 with a later DFC for the Brewster County portion of the Edwards-

Trinity (Plateau).53 Region E plans to use MAGS as follows: Texas Bolsons; and

Igneous issued June 22, 2011;54 Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) issued June 22, 2012;55

and Bone Spring-Victorio Peak issued December 6, 2011.56 There is no push to

change DFCs in GMA-4. The funding for this GMA is minimal.


Map 6 shows GMA-5. There are no GCDs in GMA-5, which is located in

RWPA E.

.


52

DFC submittal August 13, 2010 available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma4.asp. 53

DFC submittal May 19, 2011 available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma4.asp. 54

GAM Run 10-036 MAG (Oliver) June 22, 2011 available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma4.asp. 55

GAM Run 10-048 MAG: Modeled Available Groundwater for the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer in the Groundwater Management Area 4

55 GAM Run 10-048 (Oliver) June 22, 2012 available at

http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma4.asp. 56

GAM Run 10-061 MAG (Oliver) December 6, 2011 available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma4.asp.






13



South of GMA-1 in the panhandle is GMA-6. It is located in five RWPAs: A,

B, C, G, and O. This GMA has four GCDs: Clear Fork, Mesquite, Gateway, and

Rolling Plains, plus large areas not located in a GCD because, overall, they have

very little groundwater. The DFCS are set county-by-county as drawdowns in the

following aquifers: Dockum, Ogallala,57 Blaine, and Seymour.58 Regions A, B,

and O plan to use the MAGS as follows: Blaine issued on December 6, 2011;59

57

DFC submittal July 22, 2010 available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma6.asp. 58


GAM Run 10-056 MAG: Modeled Available Groundwater for the Blaine Aquifer in Groundwater Management Area 6 (Oliver, Thorkildsen, and Backhouse) December 6, 2011 available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma6.asp.




14

Dockum issued on December 7, 2011;60 Ogallala issued on December 7, 2011;61

and Seymour issued on December 7, 2011.62 GMA-6 plans to meet in January or

February 2014.63 The total estimated recoverable storage report was issued in

September 2013.64 The primary source of groundwater for GMA-6 is the Seymour

aquifer. Several major surface water suppliers are turning to groundwater for

their supply. Water from Blaine and Dockum is shallow, sporadic, and high in

nitrates.65


GMA-7 is largely in Region F, but also has a county in Region E, several

counties in Region J, and three counties in Region K.


60

GAM Run 10-057 MAG (Hassan and Oliver) December 7, 2011 available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma6.asp. 61

GAM Run 10-031 MAG (Shi) December 7, 2011 available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma6.asp. 62

GAM Run 10-058 MAG: Modeled Available Groundwater for the Seymour Aquifer in Groundwater Management Area 6 (Oliver) December 7, 2011 available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma6.asp. 63

October 18, 2013 telephone conversation with Robert Bradley, TWDB. 64

GAM Task 13-029: Total Estimated Recoverable Storage for Aquifers in Groundwater Management Area 6 (Kohlrenken, Boghici, and Shi) September 19, 2013 available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma6.asp. 65

March 1, 2013 telephone conversation with Mike McGuire (General Manager of Rolling Plains GCD).





15

There are twenty-one GCDs in GMA-7: Coke, Crockett, Edwards Aquifer

Authority, Glasscock, Hickory, Hill Country, Irion, Kimble, Kinney, Lipan-Kickapoo,

Lone Wolf, Menard, Middle Pecos, Plateau, Real-Edwards, Santa Rita, Sterling

County, Sutton, Terrell, Uvalde, and Wes-Tex.

GMA-7 adopted DFCs as average drawdowns GMA-wide for the

Ogallala, Edwards-Trinity (Plateau), Pecos Valley, Trinity, Dockum, and Lipan

aquifers.66 The Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) is the main aquifer. A petition was filed

challenging the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) DFCs and TWDB found them to be not

unreasonable. The other eight aquifers are considered minor. During this

current joint planning cycle the GMA may ask the TWDB to designate some of

the minor aquifers as irrelevant. There is no push to change DFCs for the current

regional planning cycle.67 Regions E, F, J, and K plan to use MAGS as follows:

Lipan issued February 28, 2012;68 Dockum issued June 22, 2012;69 Ogallala issued

November 18, 2011;70 and Edwards-Trinity (Plateau), Pecos Valley, and Trinity

issued November 12, 2012.71


GMA-8 is located in Regions B, C, D, G, with a few counties in K, and one

county in F. See Map 9. There are twelve GCDs within this GMA: Central Texas,

Clearwater, Fox Crossing, Middle Trinity, North Texas, Northern Trinity, Post Oak

Savannah, Prairielands, Red River, Saratoga, Southern Trinity, and Upper Trinity.

GMA-8 adopted DFCs for the Trinity, Woodbine, Edwards (Balcones Fault Zone),

and Nacatoch aquifers.72 Regions B, C, D, F, G and K plan to use MAGS as

follows: Trinity Aquifer issued December 14, 2011;73 Woodbine Aquifer issued

66


March 4, 2013 telephone conversation with Paul Tybor, General Manager of Hill Country Underground Water Conservation District and October 18, 2013 telephone conversation with Robert Bradley, TWDB. 68

GAM Run 10-062 MAG Version 2 (Oliver) June 29, 2012 available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma7.asp. 69

GAM Run 10-040 MAG Version 2 (Hassan) June 22, 2012 available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma7.asp. (Incorrect date on hyperlink.) 70

GAM Run 10-033 MAG (Oliver) November 18, 2011 available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma7.asp. 71

GAM Run 10-04371

GAM Run 10-043 MAG (Version 2): Modeled Available Groundwater for the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau), Trinity, and Pecos Valley Aquifers in Groundwater Management Area 7

71 GAM Run 10-043 (Shi)

November 12, 2012 available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma7.asp. 72

DFC submittals available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma8.asp. 73

GAM Run 10-063 MAG (Oliver and Bradley) December 14, 2011 available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma8.asp.








16

June 29, 2012;74 Edwards (Balcones Fault Zone) Aquifer issued December 14,

2011;75 and Nacatoch Aquifer issued December 14, 2011.76

MAP 9: GMA-8 showing counties and RWPAs

GMA-8 does not expect to make an immediate change in DFCs. The

DFCs were set as county-by-county drawdowns for each aquifer. These were

originally adopted in 2008 when many areas had no GCD. Because so many

GCDs were created near the end of the first GMA planning cycle, all of the

74

GAM Run 10-064 MAG (Oliver and Wade) June 29, 2012 available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma8.asp. 75

GAM Run 10-065 MAG (Hassan) December 14, 2011 available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma8.asp. 76

GAM Run 11-011 MAG: Modeled Available Groundwater for the Nacatoch Aquifer in Groundwater Management Area 8 (Oliver) December 14, 2011 available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma8.asp.




17

DFCs were re-adopted in 201177 to push back next due date.78 This was done

prior to enactment of the legislation setting a default deadline of April 30, 2016.

North Texas, Northern Trinity, Prairielands, and Upper Trinity are working on

a new GAM combining the Trinity and Woodbine. The work on this $1.6 million

project is being done by LBG-Guyton Associates and the Bureau of Economic

Geology. INTERA Incorporated recently completed a conceptual model for the

Trinity Aquifer. Members of GMA-8 retained this consultant with their own

funding, and they are waiting for the model to be completed before they begin

meeting for the second joint planning cycle.79


Map

10: GMA-9 showing counties and RWPAs

GMA-9 is in Regions J, K and L, with nine GCDs: Bandera, Barton Springs/

Edwards Aquifer, Blanco-Pedernales, Cow Creek, Edwards Aquifer Authority,

Hays Trinity, Headwaters, Medina, and Trinity-Glen Rose. The DFC adopted for

the Edwards Group of the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) was challenged. The TWDB

found that the DFC for the Edwards (Balcones Fault) was unreasonable because

the DFC did not take into account exempt wells. Although TWDB

77


March 1, 2013 telephone conversation with Jerry Chapman, North Texas GCD. 79



18

recommended changes, GMA-9 left the DFC the same for 2 counties and

deemed the aquifer not relevant for the remaining two counties.80

Meanwhile, the TWDB revised the Trinity GAM to more accurately reflect

Cibolo Creek recharge. The DFC for Trinity, all layers, is set at less than 30 feet

increase in average drawdown (based on 2008) during next 40 years. Dueling

petitions were filed with the TWDB challenging the Trinity DFC arguing that the

DFC was too low and too high. These were rejected when TWDB found the DFC

was not unreasonable. There is no push to change DFCs. GMA-9 is focused on

reviewing GCDs’ Management Plans.81

Regions J, K, and L will use MAGS as follows: Edwards Group of the

Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer issued March 28, 2012;82 and Trinity Aquifer

issued March 30, 2012.83 The GMA is planning to meet on November 18th, 2013,

to review and discuss their total estimated recoverable storage report.84


Map 11: GMA-10 showing counties and RWPAs 80


March 1, 2013 telephone conversation with Ron Fieseler, General Manager of the Blanco-Pedernales GCD. 82

GAM Run 10-049 MAG Version 2 (Hassan) March 28, 2012 available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma9.asp. 83

GAM Run 10-050 MAG Version 2(Hassan) March 30, 2012 available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma9.asp. 84

GAM Task 13-032: Total Estimated Recoverable Storage for Aquifers in Groundwater Management Area 9 (Jones and Bradley) October 2, 2013 available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma9.asp.





19

GMA-10 covers the Edwards Aquifer Authority boundaries. It is in Regions

J, K, and L. Seven GCDs are located in GMA-10: Barton Springs/Edwards

Aquifer, Edwards Aquifer Authority, Guadalupe, Kinney, Medina, Plum Creek,

and Uvalde. The DFCs for this GMA include: Fresh and Saline Edwards Aquifer

(Edwards set by statute), Trinity, Austin Chalk, Buda Limestone, and Leona Gravel

Aquifer.85 A petition was filed on the DFCs challenging the western subdivision

of the Edwards (Balcones Fault Zone) Aquifer in Kinney County, but the TWDB

found the DFCs not unreasonable.86

Regions J, K, and L plan to use MAGS as follows: Edwards (Balcones Fault

Zone) Aquifer in Kinney County issued July 24, 2012;87 Edwards (Balcones Fault

Zone) Aquifer in the Northern Subdivision of GMA-10 issued December 7, 2011;88

Saline Edwards issued November 20, 2011;89 Trinity issued November 29, 2011;90

Leona Gravel in Uvalde County issued February 4, 2013;91 Buda Limestone and

Austin Chalk in Uvalde County issued August 19, 2011;92 and Leona Gravel in

Medina County issued August 20, 2012.93

The Edwards Aquifer DFC is set by statute at 572,000 acre-feet/year.

GMA-10 adopted the Trinity DFC as a GMA-wide average drawdown. There is

no push to change the DFC in order to get a new MAG into the RWP during the

current planning cycle. Currently there is good communication between the

85



GAM Run 12-002 MAG: Modeled Available Groundwater for the Edwards (Balcones Fault Zone) Aquifer in Groundwater Management Area 10 for Kinney County (Shi) July 24, 2012 available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma10.asp. 88

GAM Run 10-059 MAG Version 2: Groundwater Management Area 10 Model Runs to Estimate Springflow Under Assumed Future Pumping and Charge Conditions for the Northern Subdivision of the Edwards (Balcones Fault Zone) Aquifer (Hutchison and Oliver) December 7, 2011 available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma10.asp. 89

GTA Aquifer Assessment 10-35 MAG (Bradley) November 20, 2011 available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma10.asp. 90

GTA Aquifer Assessment 10-29 MAG (Thorkildsen and Backhouse) November 29, 2011 available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma10.asp. 91

Aquifer Assessment 10-28 MAG: Aquifer Assessment for the Leona Gravel Aquifer Within Uvalde County in Groundwater Management Area 10 (Bradley) February 4, 2013 available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma10.asp. 92

GTA Aquifer Assessment 10-26 MAG (Thorkildsen and Backhouse) August 19, 2011 available at GTA Aquifer Assessment 10-07 MAG (Bradley) August 20, 2012 available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma10.asp. 93

GTA Aquifer Assessment 10-07 MAG (Bradley) August 20, 2012 available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma10.asp.










20

GMA and the RWPGs.94 The GMA has taken steps to hire a consultant to assist

with the explanatory report95 and other required activities.96


GMA-11 is set on the eastern border of the State spanning Regions D and

I, with part of one county in Region H and one county in Region C. It has five

GCDs: Anderson, Neches & Trinity Valleys, Panola, Pineywoods, and Rusk. GMA-

11 adopted four DFCs: Carrizo Wilcox, Queen City, Sparta, and Yegua- Jackson

aquifers. A challenge to the DFCs by lumber companies was later dropped.

Regions C, D, H, and I plan to use MAGS dated June 7, 2012 for Carrizo-Wilcox,

Queen City, Sparta, and Yegua-Jackson.97


94

March 1, 2013 telephone conversation with Rick Illgner, Government Affairs Officer for the Edwards Aquifer Authority and GMA-10 Administrator. 95

Texas Water Code § 36.108(d-3). 96

October 18, 2013 telephone conversation with Robert Bradley, TWDB. 97

GAM Run 10-016 MAG (Version 2): Model Run for the Yegua-Jaskson, Sparta, Queen City, and Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifers in Groundwater Management Area 11 (Jones, Shi, and Wade) June 7, 2012 available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma11.asp.


21

There is no significant groundwater in Region C although overall, GMA-11

has abundant groundwater. The DFC is set at a 17-foot average drawdown

across all relevant aquifers and across the GMA (based on 177 different

drawdowns for specific counties, aquifers, and pumping). Thus the GMA-wide

drawdown is a “useless number” because current drawdown water levels are as

deep as 300 feet and the GMA has artesian water. The City of Athens and

timber companies want to use more groundwater, which may lead to a change

in the DFC in the future.98 GMA-11 met recently and is just beginning joint

planning cycle 2.99



98

March 1, 2013 telephone conversation with Roy Rogers, Neches & Trinity Valleys GCD. 99


22

GMA-12 is primarily in Region G, but it has one country in Region C, one

county in Region H, one county completely in Region K, and another county

partially in Region K. There are five GCDs located in this GMA: Brazos Valley,

Fayette County, Lost Pines, Mid-East Texas, and Post Oak Savannah. It has DFCs

for: Carrizo-Wilcox, Queen City, Sparta, and Yegua-Jackson aquifers. Regions C,

G, H, and K plan to use the MAGS from July 9, 2012.

A petition filed with the TWDB side-tracked the joint planning process for a

time. The challenge was resolved in July 2012, however. Consultants for Lost

Pines, Post Oak Savannah, Mid-East Texas, and Brazos Valley are meeting to

formulate inputs for GAM runs. The goal is to address each GCD’s unique issues.

Some outside entities are seeking groundwater in the GMA because of the

drought.100 Although GMA-12 has not met recently, they are using district

consultants to work on the process.101



100

February 2013 conversation with David Bailey, General Manager of the Mid-East Texas GCD... 101


23

GMA-13 is primarily in Regions L and M with a partial county in Region N. It

has nine GCDs: Edwards Aquifer Authority, Evergreen, Gonzales County,

Guadalupe County, McMullen, Medina, Plum Creek, Uvalde County, and

Wintergarden. GMA-13 adopted four DFCs, as follows: Yegua-Jackson, Carrizo-

Wilcox, Queen City, and Sparta aquifers. A petition challenged the Sparta,

Weches, Queen City, Reklaw, Carrizo, and Wilcox DFCs; however, the TWDB

found them not unreasonable.102 Regions L, M, and N plan to use the following

MAGs: Yegua-Jackson issued December 7, 2011;103 and the Carrizo-Wilcox,

Queen City, and Sparta issued August 2, 2012,104 although it is possible that new

MAGs could be available. See discussion of projected schedule in the following

paragraph.

The DFCs set during the first cycle were GMA-wide average drawdowns

for Carrizo-Wilcox, Queen City, and Sparta aquifers. Gonzales and Plum Creek

districts face high municipal demand along the IH35 corridor. The southern

portion of the GMA has increased groundwater use for hydraulic fracturing. The

DFC will need to be adjusted for this activity. The GMA is using the central

Carrizo GAM and 2010 pumping data for new model runs.105 GMA 13 is in the

process of revising DFCs for the Carrizo-Wilcox, Queen City, and Sparta aquifers.

Their consultant, Dr. Bill Hutchison, provided a draft version of the explanatory

report at the GMA’s October meeting and discussed the nine factors that must

be considered for before adopting a DFC.106 The GMA will discuss various DFC

scenarios at their November meeting, and in January the GMA plans to vote on

a proposed DFC.107

102

March 1, 2013 telephone conversation with Mike Mahoney, General Manager of the Evergreen Underground Water Conservation District and GMA-13 Administrator. 103

GAM Run 10-041 MAG (Hassan) December 8, 2011 available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma13.asp. 104

GAM Run 10-012 MAG: Modeled Available Groundwater for the Carrizo-Wilcox, Queen City, and Sparta Aquifers in Groundwater Management Area 13 (Wade) August 2, 2012 available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma13.asp. 105

March 1, 2013 telephone conversation with Mike Mahoney, General Manager of the Evergreen Underground Water Conservation District and GMA-13 Administrator. 106

Texas Water Code § 36.108(d). 107

October 18, 2013 telephone conversation with Sarah Backhouse, TWDB.



24



GMA-14 is primarily in Region H and Region I with two counties in Region

G. It has six GCDs: Bluebonnet, Brazoria County, Brazos Valley, Lone Star, Lower

Trinity, and Southeast Texas. Regions G, H, and I plan to use the following MAGS:

Gulf Coast Aquifer issued November 18, 2011;108 Sparta Aquifer issued February

18, 2011;109 Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer issued November 18, 2011;110 Yegua-Jackson

Aquifer issued July 9, 2012;111 and Queen City Aquifer issued July 9, 2012.112

108

GAM Run 10-038 MAG (Hussan) November 18, 2011 available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma14.asp. 109

GAM Run 10-054 MAG Version 2: Model Run for the Sparta Aquifer in Groundwater Management Area 14 (Shi) November 18, 2011 available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma14.asp. 110

GAM Run 10-038 MAG (Hassan) November 18, 2011 available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma14.asp. 111

GAM Run 10-055 MAG Version 2: Modeled Available Groundwater for the Yegua- Jackson Aquifer in Groundwater Management Area 14 (Oliver) July 9, 2012 available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma14.asp. 112

GAM Run 10-053 MAG Version 3: Modeled Available Groundwater for the Queen City Aquifer in Groundwater Management Area 14 (Shi) July 9, 2012 available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma14.asp.






25

Lone Star GCD and the subsidence districts participated in updating the

Upper Gulf Coast GAM, in the hope of having a new MAG to be used in current

regional planning cycle. The GMA will need to address Catahoula aquifer,

which is being developed in Montgomery County.113 GMA- 14 is in the process

of revising DFCs for the Gulf Coast Aquifer. The GMA has requested that TWDB

approve the updated Houston Area Groundwater Model (HAGM), developed

by the USGS, as either an updated groundwater availability model for the

northern part of the Gulf Coast Aquifer System, or as an alternative model to use

for the GMA 14 joint planning process. TWDB reviewed the HAGM and

requested revisions, which the USGS is in the process of making. After the

revised HAGM is submitted to the TWDB, it will hold a 30-day comment period

prior to accepting the HAGM as an updated groundwater availability model.

The GMA has begun discussing the factors required for consideration prior to

proposing a DFC for adoption. The consultants for GMA 14 are Freese and

Nichols, Inc., and Mullican & Associates.114



113

March 1, 2013 telephone conversation with Kathy Jones, General Manager, Lone Star GCD, and GMA-14 Administrator. 114


26

GMA-15 is in Regions K, L, and P, with a small area in Region N. There are

14 GCDs located either fully or partially in GMA-15: Bee, Calhoun, Coastal Bend,

Coastal Plains, Colorado, Corpus Christi Aquifer Storage and Recovery District,

Lavaca, Evergreen, Fayette, Goliad, Pecan Valley, Refugio, Texana, and

Victoria. The Gulf Coast Aquifer underlies GMA-15. The MAG issued for the Gulf

Coast Aquifer on November 18, 2011 must be used in RWP. The group set this

DFC as a GMA-wide average drawdown based on the GCD pumping input

and used Central Gulf Coast GAM.115 GMA 15 recently selected a consultant,

INTERA, Incorporated, to assist with development of DFCs.116



115

March 1, 2013 telephone conversation with Tim Anders, General Manager of the Victoria County GCD and GMA-15 Administrator. 116


27

GMA-16 is in Regions M and N. It has ten GCDs: Bee, Brush Country,

Corpus Christi Aquifer Storage and Recovery District, Duval, Kenedy, Live Oak,

McMullen, Red Sands, San Patricio, and Starr. The DFC for the Gulf Coast

Aquifer was established as a GMA-wide average drawdown based on each

GCD's pumping input. The RWPGs are expected to use the MAG issued on

December 8, 2011117 during this planning cycle.

GMA-16 started second cycle planning as soon as the MAG was issued.

They are working with Randy Williams of Bar W Groundwater Exploration, LLC to

develop DFCs. Yegua-Jackson and Carrizo-Wilcox, Queen City, and Sparta

aquifers were deemed irrelevant during the first planning cycle. Because of

their use as a water supply for hydraulic fracturing, GMA-16 expects to set

DFC(s) for these aquifers during the current joint planning cycle.

GMA 16 is the in the process of revising DFCs for the Gulf Coast Aquifer.

They will be considering results from a model run at their October meeting. The

GMA has started discussing the nine factors required for consideration prior to

proposing a DFC for adoption.118

GMA JOINT PLANNING: CONCLUSION

Overall, it appears that the 2016 RWPs will be based on groundwater

availability data developed during the first joint planning cycle, despite the

temporary extension of the second joint planning cycle to May 1, 2016. While

some GMAs appear ready to propose new DFCs for adoption prior to the April

30, 2016 deadline, it is unlikely that there will be sufficient time for full adoption

and calculation of MAGs before the 2016 RWPs are due. The planning cycle

gap caused by ending a cycle at proposal for adoption of a DFC will continue

to complicate the co-ordination between the regional water planning and the

groundwater management area planning.

Many GMAs exhibited "planning fatigue" after the first joint planning cycle

and its rounds of DFC challenges, as well as delays in TWDB calculation of MAGs

due to underfunding and understaffing. Nevertheless, all GMAs will have to go

117

GAM Run 10-047 MAG: Groundwater Management Area 16 Model Runs to Estimate Drawdowns Under Assumed Future Pumping for the Gulf Coast Aquifer (Hassan) December 8, 2011 available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management_areas/gma16.asp. 118



28

through the more time-consuming and expensive process put in place in 2011,

even those who do not intend to change DFCs adopted during the first cycle.

Under section 36.108(d), all DFCs must be changed or re-adopted using that

process.

There is the old axiom: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Many stakeholders

across the State may be wondering whether there is an equally apt maxim for

when it is "broke."

GMA JOINT PLANNING INTRODUCTION · 2019. 6. 18. · UPDATE OF JOINT PLANNING ACTIVITIES: CYCLE 2...

Documents

Transcript of GMA JOINT PLANNING INTRODUCTION · 2019. 6. 18. · UPDATE OF JOINT PLANNING ACTIVITIES: CYCLE 2...