Climate Change, Bioenergy and ... - Texas A&M University€¦ · Management Alternative Plans for...
65
Climate Change, Bioenergy and Population Growth as they Stress the Food-Energy-Water Nexus B.A. McCarl, ChengCheng Fei, Yingqian Yang Department of Agricultural Economics Texas A&M University Presented at Nanjing Agricultural University May 2018
Transcript of Climate Change, Bioenergy and ... - Texas A&M University€¦ · Management Alternative Plans for...
Climate Change Bioenergy and Population Growth as they Stress the Food-Energy-Water Nexus
BA McCarl ChengCheng Fei Yingqian YangDepartment of Agricultural Economics
Texas AampM University
Presented at Nanjing Agricultural UniversityMay 2018
FEW Nexusbull Food-Energy-Water Nexus Analysis considers way sectors interact in the food energy
and water space and in cases ways in which actions by some parties in the FEW sectors can benefit total regional welfare
bull We are involved in Nexus Analysis in 2 settings
ndash Nexus analysis under Water scarcity Limited supply and increasing demand for waterare driving Nexus forces
ndash Nexus Analysis under major bioenergy decisions ndash US renewable fuel standard and whether we will expand cellulosic ethanol production plus use marginal land
bull Today I will mainly talk from the first project as that is one I am leading
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grants addressing Innovations at the Nexus of Food Energy and Water Systems numbered 1639327 and 1739977
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcitybull Water Scarcity FEW Nexus Analysis is stressed by evolving climate and
population ndash Climate
bull Increases water demand in form of desired water use per acre per household for electrical cooling and for some other industries
bull In study area lowers water supplies and increases variability bull In area lowers yields per unit land lessening food supply
ndash Population growthbull Increases household and supporting industry water demand bull Also increases demands for energy and food
bull Collectively makes Water scarcity worse ndash Lowering supply and increasing demand for water plus adding energy and food demands
while lowering food supply
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcitybull In our study we examine FEW Nexus actions in the form of new
water related sectoral investments and altered operating strategies-we collectively call these projects
bull We are working on defining projectsndash Agriculture related projectsndash Water related projectsndash Energy related projects
bull We also examine who gains and who loses as we feel Compensation and mechanisms to achieve it will be a big issue
Background on Regional Issues
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Water Sourcesbull 4 River Basins bull 5 Aquifers bull 2 Springs bull 5 LakesReservoirsUsersbull Agriculturebull Municipalitybull Industry bull Energy - power plants and
fracking)bull Recreationalbull Environmental
Limited water supply Riversbull Average precipitation in the region varies from 20 -30 inches (50-75 cm) per
year in the ag areas in west to about 40 inches (100 cm) per year in the eastbull Sufficient flows needed for
downstream water use and flows to Estuary to protect fishery and species
bull Interaction with ground waterbull Springs from Edwards Aquifer
provide 30-80 of base flow in eastern river under drought
bull Overpumping of groundwater will lower river flows
ndash Limited water supply (recharge)ndash Heavy discharge (pumping and
springs)ndash Environment concerns and
endangered species findingbull EAA solution
ndash Edwards Aquifer Authority (EAA) issued permits to limit pumping and regulated withdraw amount based on water level
ndash Permit trading is allowed in EAA (water market)
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
000
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
30000019
55
1958
1961
1964
1967
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
2015
Disc
harg
e an
d Re
char
ge
Discharge
Recharge
Unit is thousands of acft which is 1233 cubic meters)
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
58000
60000
62000
64000
66000
68000
70000
72000
000
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
1955
1958
1961
1964
1967
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
2015
J 17 Well Elevation (feet above
sea level)
Disc
harg
e an
d Re
char
ge
(tho
usan
ds o
f acf
t)
Recharge
Elevation
Edwards Aquifer does not retain water
Environmental Issue - Edwardsbull Aquifer supports Endangered species
Texas Blind Salamander Fountain Darter
San Marcos Gambusia San Marcos Salamander
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Wat
er E
leva
tion
(feet
)
Well 7708511
In Groundwater Management area 13 covering southern segment of Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer desired 2070 condition is no more than 48 feet average drawdown relative to 2012
-100-50
050
100150200250300
Elev
atio
n (F
eet)
Well 7738103
050
100150200250300350400450
95
2002
95
2003
95
2004
95
2005
95
2006
95
2007
95
2008
95
2009
95
2010
95
2011
95
2012
95
2013
95
2014
95
2015
95
2016
95
2017
Wat
er E
leva
tion
(Fee
t)
Well 7702509
Background on Demand and Population
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Municipal 68200
Industrial 12419
Mining 4646
Power Plant 28882
Irrigation 23674
Livestock 11261
Surface Water Usage (149k Acft)
Municipal 347889
Industrial 14129
Mining 47135
Power Plant 5357
Irrigation 210590
Livestock 18604
Ground Water Usage (643k Acft)
bull Heavy water usage by municipal sector bull Irrigation uses mainly groundwater
Rapid Population Growth
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Bexar County Historical and Projected Population (Million)
000
050
100
150
200
2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
South Central Texas Demand Supply and Gap (Million Acft)
Demands Existing Supplies Deficit
Population growth leads tobull Rapid municipal industrial and
electricity cooling demandbull Growing deficit
Challenges from Frackingbull Between 2000 and 2014 water used to drill a horizontal natural gas well
increased from 177000 to 51 million gallons per wellbull Fracking (mining) is largest water use in some countiesbull Heavy fracking in winter garden increased Carrizo-Wilcox drawdown
020406080
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Mining water usage as proportion of total usage
Dimmit LA Salle
-100-50
050
100150200250300
111
503
072
004
081
505
042
506
020
507
102
507
071
508
123
009
093
010
122
511
102
012
071
513
032
514
113
014
081
015
042
016
122
516
092
017
Elev
atio
n (F
eet)
Water Elevation of Well 7738103 on La Salle and Dimmit Boarder
Climate Change
Temperature historyYear Change from
20th Century Average
Rank out of 138 years
2014 074degC 135
2015 090degC 137
2016 094degC 138
2017 084degC 136
bull 2017 was the third warmest year in NOAAs 138-year series bull 41ht consecutive year (since 1977) that annual temperature is above 20th century average bull All 17 years of 21st century rank are among seventeen warmest on record (1998 is ninth) bull Six warmest years have all occurred since 2010 bull Four warmest have been last 4bull Temperatures in 2015-2016 were majorly influenced by strong El Nintildeobull Increased 007degC (013degF) per decade since 1880 and 017degC (031degF) since 1970
Climate Change is making things non stationary
y = 745x + 40704y = -48512x + 11293
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Rech
arge
in th
ousa
nd a
cre
feet
Year
Edwards Aquifer Recharge Over Time
Recharge 1934-1975 Recharge 1975-2015Linear (Recharge 1934-1975) Linear (Recharge 1975-2015)
httpwwwedwardsaquifernetdatahtml
Climate Change is making things non stationary
WaterCan we use 100 year floodMilly PCD J Betancourt M Falkenmark 2008 Climate Change Stationarity Is Dead WhitherWater Management Science Vol 319 No 5863 pp 573 ndash 574
McCarl Bruce A Xavier Villavicencio and Ximing Wu Climate change and future analysis is stationarity dying American Journal of Agricultural Economics 905 (2008) 1241-1247
Ag yieldsCan we history to assess risk
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Figure 1 Global temperature change and uncertainty From Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projectionsReto Knutti amp Jan Sedlaacuteček Nature Climate Change 3 369ndash373 (2013) doi101038nclimate1716
Climate Changebull Use data for 2030 and 2090
Canadian Climate Center Model (CCC)
Hadley Climate Center Model (HAD)
Average changes for the 10 year periods
Climate Change Scenarios Temperature (0F) Precipitation (Inches)
HAD 2030 32 -41
HAD 2090 901 -078
CCC 2030 541 -1436
CCC 2090 1461 -456
Less water in much of
Southwest region
(IPCC WH2 AR5 chapter 3)
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Results for EA Recharge Prediction( change from the BASE ) Hadley Canadian
Recharge in Drought Years -2059 - -2965
Recharge in Normal Years -1968 - -2899 -
Recharge in Wet Years -2364 - -3442 -
Municipal DemandForecasted that climate change will increase municipal water demand by 15 (HAD) to 35 (CCC)
Climate Changebull Edwards Aquifer is vulnerable under climate change much less recharge
under La Ninabull Decreasing precipitation in far future makes Groundwater more
vulnerable
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Precipitation Changing Rate Under Canadian GCM
0001020304050607080910
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1300 1800
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
Prob
abilit
y of
Rec
harg
e
Thousand Acre-Feet
Edwards Aquifer Recharge
newchart
Probability of Recharge
Thousand Acre-Feet
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
0
0
0
0
0
0
0125
04
02142857143
0375
06
02142857143
0375
06
05
05
08
06428571429
05
1
06428571429
05
07142857143
0625
07142857143
075
08571428571
075
08571428571
075
1
075
0875
1
1
cdf-graph1
ampA
Page ampP
Modeling
EDSIMR ndash the conceptUnify
bull Detailed aquifer hydrologic modelbull Regionalized economic Modelbull Surface water flow model bull Hydrology embedded in regional economic model via
regression (Keith Keplinger dissertation)1 Keith O Keplinger An investigation of Dry Year Options for the Edwards Aquifer PhD Thesis TAMU 1996 2 File Number 598 - Keplinger KO and BA McCarl Regression Based Investigation of Pumping Limits and Springflow Within the
Edwards Aquifer Texas A and M University 19953 File Number 829 - Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water
Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April ) 59-78 2001
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
RegionalCrop Mixinput use
Envloads
Crop and Env
Simulators(EPICSWAT)
Runoff Simulators(SWAT)
GIS
Non AgResourceDemand
GCMs
LivestockData
Simulator Bundle
PestRegressions
GroundwaterSimulator(GAM)
Water Quality
EDSIMR SWAT
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
What is contained in EDSIMR bull Simulation Model (GAM)
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
THIS DATA IS USED 3 PHASE SOI
THIS BLOCK IS USED TO GENERATED A GRAPH SHOWN IN cdf-chart
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (USGS)
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (HDR data)
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
0
0000
0000
0
0-100
00000
01000
00570
0-100
0
01
0
100
0000
0000
0
101-200
02500
04000
03430
101-200
0167
04
0229
200
0125
0400
0214
201-300
05830
06000
04570
201-300
0417
05
04
300
0375
0600
0214
301-400
05830
06000
06860
301-400
0583
08
0629
400
0375
0600
0500
401-500
06670
08000
07430
401-500
0667
09
0743
500
0500
0800
0643
501-600
06670
09000
07710
501-600
0667
09
08
600
0500
1000
0643
601-700
06670
09000
08290
601-700
075
1
0829
700
0500
0714
701-800
07500
10000
08570
701-800
075
0914
800
0625
0714
801-900
08330
09430
801-900
0917
0971
900
0750
0857
901-1000
08330
09710
901-1000
0917
1
1000
0750
0857
1001-1100
09170
10000
1001-1100
1
1200
0750
1000
1101-1714
10000
1300
0750
1500
0875
1800
1000
2000
1
0
0
0
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
300
300
400
400
400
500
500
500
600
600
600
700
700
700
800
800
800
900
900
900
1000
1000
1000
1200
1200
1200
1300
1300
1300
1500
1500
1500
1800
1800
1800
2000
2000
2000
FEW Nexusbull Food-Energy-Water Nexus Analysis considers way sectors interact in the food energy
and water space and in cases ways in which actions by some parties in the FEW sectors can benefit total regional welfare
bull We are involved in Nexus Analysis in 2 settings
ndash Nexus analysis under Water scarcity Limited supply and increasing demand for waterare driving Nexus forces
ndash Nexus Analysis under major bioenergy decisions ndash US renewable fuel standard and whether we will expand cellulosic ethanol production plus use marginal land
bull Today I will mainly talk from the first project as that is one I am leading
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grants addressing Innovations at the Nexus of Food Energy and Water Systems numbered 1639327 and 1739977
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcitybull Water Scarcity FEW Nexus Analysis is stressed by evolving climate and
population ndash Climate
bull Increases water demand in form of desired water use per acre per household for electrical cooling and for some other industries
bull In study area lowers water supplies and increases variability bull In area lowers yields per unit land lessening food supply
ndash Population growthbull Increases household and supporting industry water demand bull Also increases demands for energy and food
bull Collectively makes Water scarcity worse ndash Lowering supply and increasing demand for water plus adding energy and food demands
while lowering food supply
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcitybull In our study we examine FEW Nexus actions in the form of new
water related sectoral investments and altered operating strategies-we collectively call these projects
bull We are working on defining projectsndash Agriculture related projectsndash Water related projectsndash Energy related projects
bull We also examine who gains and who loses as we feel Compensation and mechanisms to achieve it will be a big issue
Background on Regional Issues
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Water Sourcesbull 4 River Basins bull 5 Aquifers bull 2 Springs bull 5 LakesReservoirsUsersbull Agriculturebull Municipalitybull Industry bull Energy - power plants and
fracking)bull Recreationalbull Environmental
Limited water supply Riversbull Average precipitation in the region varies from 20 -30 inches (50-75 cm) per
year in the ag areas in west to about 40 inches (100 cm) per year in the eastbull Sufficient flows needed for
downstream water use and flows to Estuary to protect fishery and species
bull Interaction with ground waterbull Springs from Edwards Aquifer
provide 30-80 of base flow in eastern river under drought
bull Overpumping of groundwater will lower river flows
ndash Limited water supply (recharge)ndash Heavy discharge (pumping and
springs)ndash Environment concerns and
endangered species findingbull EAA solution
ndash Edwards Aquifer Authority (EAA) issued permits to limit pumping and regulated withdraw amount based on water level
ndash Permit trading is allowed in EAA (water market)
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
000
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
30000019
55
1958
1961
1964
1967
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
2015
Disc
harg
e an
d Re
char
ge
Discharge
Recharge
Unit is thousands of acft which is 1233 cubic meters)
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
58000
60000
62000
64000
66000
68000
70000
72000
000
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
1955
1958
1961
1964
1967
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
2015
J 17 Well Elevation (feet above
sea level)
Disc
harg
e an
d Re
char
ge
(tho
usan
ds o
f acf
t)
Recharge
Elevation
Edwards Aquifer does not retain water
Environmental Issue - Edwardsbull Aquifer supports Endangered species
Texas Blind Salamander Fountain Darter
San Marcos Gambusia San Marcos Salamander
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Wat
er E
leva
tion
(feet
)
Well 7708511
In Groundwater Management area 13 covering southern segment of Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer desired 2070 condition is no more than 48 feet average drawdown relative to 2012
-100-50
050
100150200250300
Elev
atio
n (F
eet)
Well 7738103
050
100150200250300350400450
95
2002
95
2003
95
2004
95
2005
95
2006
95
2007
95
2008
95
2009
95
2010
95
2011
95
2012
95
2013
95
2014
95
2015
95
2016
95
2017
Wat
er E
leva
tion
(Fee
t)
Well 7702509
Background on Demand and Population
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Municipal 68200
Industrial 12419
Mining 4646
Power Plant 28882
Irrigation 23674
Livestock 11261
Surface Water Usage (149k Acft)
Municipal 347889
Industrial 14129
Mining 47135
Power Plant 5357
Irrigation 210590
Livestock 18604
Ground Water Usage (643k Acft)
bull Heavy water usage by municipal sector bull Irrigation uses mainly groundwater
Rapid Population Growth
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Bexar County Historical and Projected Population (Million)
000
050
100
150
200
2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
South Central Texas Demand Supply and Gap (Million Acft)
Demands Existing Supplies Deficit
Population growth leads tobull Rapid municipal industrial and
electricity cooling demandbull Growing deficit
Challenges from Frackingbull Between 2000 and 2014 water used to drill a horizontal natural gas well
increased from 177000 to 51 million gallons per wellbull Fracking (mining) is largest water use in some countiesbull Heavy fracking in winter garden increased Carrizo-Wilcox drawdown
020406080
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Mining water usage as proportion of total usage
Dimmit LA Salle
-100-50
050
100150200250300
111
503
072
004
081
505
042
506
020
507
102
507
071
508
123
009
093
010
122
511
102
012
071
513
032
514
113
014
081
015
042
016
122
516
092
017
Elev
atio
n (F
eet)
Water Elevation of Well 7738103 on La Salle and Dimmit Boarder
Climate Change
Temperature historyYear Change from
20th Century Average
Rank out of 138 years
2014 074degC 135
2015 090degC 137
2016 094degC 138
2017 084degC 136
bull 2017 was the third warmest year in NOAAs 138-year series bull 41ht consecutive year (since 1977) that annual temperature is above 20th century average bull All 17 years of 21st century rank are among seventeen warmest on record (1998 is ninth) bull Six warmest years have all occurred since 2010 bull Four warmest have been last 4bull Temperatures in 2015-2016 were majorly influenced by strong El Nintildeobull Increased 007degC (013degF) per decade since 1880 and 017degC (031degF) since 1970
Climate Change is making things non stationary
y = 745x + 40704y = -48512x + 11293
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Rech
arge
in th
ousa
nd a
cre
feet
Year
Edwards Aquifer Recharge Over Time
Recharge 1934-1975 Recharge 1975-2015Linear (Recharge 1934-1975) Linear (Recharge 1975-2015)
httpwwwedwardsaquifernetdatahtml
Climate Change is making things non stationary
WaterCan we use 100 year floodMilly PCD J Betancourt M Falkenmark 2008 Climate Change Stationarity Is Dead WhitherWater Management Science Vol 319 No 5863 pp 573 ndash 574
McCarl Bruce A Xavier Villavicencio and Ximing Wu Climate change and future analysis is stationarity dying American Journal of Agricultural Economics 905 (2008) 1241-1247
Ag yieldsCan we history to assess risk
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Figure 1 Global temperature change and uncertainty From Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projectionsReto Knutti amp Jan Sedlaacuteček Nature Climate Change 3 369ndash373 (2013) doi101038nclimate1716
Climate Changebull Use data for 2030 and 2090
Canadian Climate Center Model (CCC)
Hadley Climate Center Model (HAD)
Average changes for the 10 year periods
Climate Change Scenarios Temperature (0F) Precipitation (Inches)
HAD 2030 32 -41
HAD 2090 901 -078
CCC 2030 541 -1436
CCC 2090 1461 -456
Less water in much of
Southwest region
(IPCC WH2 AR5 chapter 3)
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Results for EA Recharge Prediction( change from the BASE ) Hadley Canadian
Recharge in Drought Years -2059 - -2965
Recharge in Normal Years -1968 - -2899 -
Recharge in Wet Years -2364 - -3442 -
Municipal DemandForecasted that climate change will increase municipal water demand by 15 (HAD) to 35 (CCC)
Climate Changebull Edwards Aquifer is vulnerable under climate change much less recharge
under La Ninabull Decreasing precipitation in far future makes Groundwater more
vulnerable
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Precipitation Changing Rate Under Canadian GCM
0001020304050607080910
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1300 1800
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
Prob
abilit
y of
Rec
harg
e
Thousand Acre-Feet
Edwards Aquifer Recharge
newchart
Probability of Recharge
Thousand Acre-Feet
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
0
0
0
0
0
0
0125
04
02142857143
0375
06
02142857143
0375
06
05
05
08
06428571429
05
1
06428571429
05
07142857143
0625
07142857143
075
08571428571
075
08571428571
075
1
075
0875
1
1
cdf-graph1
ampA
Page ampP
Modeling
EDSIMR ndash the conceptUnify
bull Detailed aquifer hydrologic modelbull Regionalized economic Modelbull Surface water flow model bull Hydrology embedded in regional economic model via
regression (Keith Keplinger dissertation)1 Keith O Keplinger An investigation of Dry Year Options for the Edwards Aquifer PhD Thesis TAMU 1996 2 File Number 598 - Keplinger KO and BA McCarl Regression Based Investigation of Pumping Limits and Springflow Within the
Edwards Aquifer Texas A and M University 19953 File Number 829 - Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water
Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April ) 59-78 2001
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
RegionalCrop Mixinput use
Envloads
Crop and Env
Simulators(EPICSWAT)
Runoff Simulators(SWAT)
GIS
Non AgResourceDemand
GCMs
LivestockData
Simulator Bundle
PestRegressions
GroundwaterSimulator(GAM)
Water Quality
EDSIMR SWAT
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
What is contained in EDSIMR bull Simulation Model (GAM)
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
THIS DATA IS USED 3 PHASE SOI
THIS BLOCK IS USED TO GENERATED A GRAPH SHOWN IN cdf-chart
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (USGS)
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (HDR data)
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
0
0000
0000
0
0-100
00000
01000
00570
0-100
0
01
0
100
0000
0000
0
101-200
02500
04000
03430
101-200
0167
04
0229
200
0125
0400
0214
201-300
05830
06000
04570
201-300
0417
05
04
300
0375
0600
0214
301-400
05830
06000
06860
301-400
0583
08
0629
400
0375
0600
0500
401-500
06670
08000
07430
401-500
0667
09
0743
500
0500
0800
0643
501-600
06670
09000
07710
501-600
0667
09
08
600
0500
1000
0643
601-700
06670
09000
08290
601-700
075
1
0829
700
0500
0714
701-800
07500
10000
08570
701-800
075
0914
800
0625
0714
801-900
08330
09430
801-900
0917
0971
900
0750
0857
901-1000
08330
09710
901-1000
0917
1
1000
0750
0857
1001-1100
09170
10000
1001-1100
1
1200
0750
1000
1101-1714
10000
1300
0750
1500
0875
1800
1000
2000
1
0
0
0
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
300
300
400
400
400
500
500
500
600
600
600
700
700
700
800
800
800
900
900
900
1000
1000
1000
1200
1200
1200
1300
1300
1300
1500
1500
1500
1800
1800
1800
2000
2000
2000
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcitybull Water Scarcity FEW Nexus Analysis is stressed by evolving climate and
population ndash Climate
bull Increases water demand in form of desired water use per acre per household for electrical cooling and for some other industries
bull In study area lowers water supplies and increases variability bull In area lowers yields per unit land lessening food supply
ndash Population growthbull Increases household and supporting industry water demand bull Also increases demands for energy and food
bull Collectively makes Water scarcity worse ndash Lowering supply and increasing demand for water plus adding energy and food demands
while lowering food supply
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcitybull In our study we examine FEW Nexus actions in the form of new
water related sectoral investments and altered operating strategies-we collectively call these projects
bull We are working on defining projectsndash Agriculture related projectsndash Water related projectsndash Energy related projects
bull We also examine who gains and who loses as we feel Compensation and mechanisms to achieve it will be a big issue
Background on Regional Issues
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Water Sourcesbull 4 River Basins bull 5 Aquifers bull 2 Springs bull 5 LakesReservoirsUsersbull Agriculturebull Municipalitybull Industry bull Energy - power plants and
fracking)bull Recreationalbull Environmental
Limited water supply Riversbull Average precipitation in the region varies from 20 -30 inches (50-75 cm) per
year in the ag areas in west to about 40 inches (100 cm) per year in the eastbull Sufficient flows needed for
downstream water use and flows to Estuary to protect fishery and species
bull Interaction with ground waterbull Springs from Edwards Aquifer
provide 30-80 of base flow in eastern river under drought
bull Overpumping of groundwater will lower river flows
ndash Limited water supply (recharge)ndash Heavy discharge (pumping and
springs)ndash Environment concerns and
endangered species findingbull EAA solution
ndash Edwards Aquifer Authority (EAA) issued permits to limit pumping and regulated withdraw amount based on water level
ndash Permit trading is allowed in EAA (water market)
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
000
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
30000019
55
1958
1961
1964
1967
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
2015
Disc
harg
e an
d Re
char
ge
Discharge
Recharge
Unit is thousands of acft which is 1233 cubic meters)
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
58000
60000
62000
64000
66000
68000
70000
72000
000
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
1955
1958
1961
1964
1967
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
2015
J 17 Well Elevation (feet above
sea level)
Disc
harg
e an
d Re
char
ge
(tho
usan
ds o
f acf
t)
Recharge
Elevation
Edwards Aquifer does not retain water
Environmental Issue - Edwardsbull Aquifer supports Endangered species
Texas Blind Salamander Fountain Darter
San Marcos Gambusia San Marcos Salamander
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Wat
er E
leva
tion
(feet
)
Well 7708511
In Groundwater Management area 13 covering southern segment of Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer desired 2070 condition is no more than 48 feet average drawdown relative to 2012
-100-50
050
100150200250300
Elev
atio
n (F
eet)
Well 7738103
050
100150200250300350400450
95
2002
95
2003
95
2004
95
2005
95
2006
95
2007
95
2008
95
2009
95
2010
95
2011
95
2012
95
2013
95
2014
95
2015
95
2016
95
2017
Wat
er E
leva
tion
(Fee
t)
Well 7702509
Background on Demand and Population
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Municipal 68200
Industrial 12419
Mining 4646
Power Plant 28882
Irrigation 23674
Livestock 11261
Surface Water Usage (149k Acft)
Municipal 347889
Industrial 14129
Mining 47135
Power Plant 5357
Irrigation 210590
Livestock 18604
Ground Water Usage (643k Acft)
bull Heavy water usage by municipal sector bull Irrigation uses mainly groundwater
Rapid Population Growth
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Bexar County Historical and Projected Population (Million)
000
050
100
150
200
2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
South Central Texas Demand Supply and Gap (Million Acft)
Demands Existing Supplies Deficit
Population growth leads tobull Rapid municipal industrial and
electricity cooling demandbull Growing deficit
Challenges from Frackingbull Between 2000 and 2014 water used to drill a horizontal natural gas well
increased from 177000 to 51 million gallons per wellbull Fracking (mining) is largest water use in some countiesbull Heavy fracking in winter garden increased Carrizo-Wilcox drawdown
020406080
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Mining water usage as proportion of total usage
Dimmit LA Salle
-100-50
050
100150200250300
111
503
072
004
081
505
042
506
020
507
102
507
071
508
123
009
093
010
122
511
102
012
071
513
032
514
113
014
081
015
042
016
122
516
092
017
Elev
atio
n (F
eet)
Water Elevation of Well 7738103 on La Salle and Dimmit Boarder
Climate Change
Temperature historyYear Change from
20th Century Average
Rank out of 138 years
2014 074degC 135
2015 090degC 137
2016 094degC 138
2017 084degC 136
bull 2017 was the third warmest year in NOAAs 138-year series bull 41ht consecutive year (since 1977) that annual temperature is above 20th century average bull All 17 years of 21st century rank are among seventeen warmest on record (1998 is ninth) bull Six warmest years have all occurred since 2010 bull Four warmest have been last 4bull Temperatures in 2015-2016 were majorly influenced by strong El Nintildeobull Increased 007degC (013degF) per decade since 1880 and 017degC (031degF) since 1970
Climate Change is making things non stationary
y = 745x + 40704y = -48512x + 11293
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Rech
arge
in th
ousa
nd a
cre
feet
Year
Edwards Aquifer Recharge Over Time
Recharge 1934-1975 Recharge 1975-2015Linear (Recharge 1934-1975) Linear (Recharge 1975-2015)
httpwwwedwardsaquifernetdatahtml
Climate Change is making things non stationary
WaterCan we use 100 year floodMilly PCD J Betancourt M Falkenmark 2008 Climate Change Stationarity Is Dead WhitherWater Management Science Vol 319 No 5863 pp 573 ndash 574
McCarl Bruce A Xavier Villavicencio and Ximing Wu Climate change and future analysis is stationarity dying American Journal of Agricultural Economics 905 (2008) 1241-1247
Ag yieldsCan we history to assess risk
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Figure 1 Global temperature change and uncertainty From Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projectionsReto Knutti amp Jan Sedlaacuteček Nature Climate Change 3 369ndash373 (2013) doi101038nclimate1716
Climate Changebull Use data for 2030 and 2090
Canadian Climate Center Model (CCC)
Hadley Climate Center Model (HAD)
Average changes for the 10 year periods
Climate Change Scenarios Temperature (0F) Precipitation (Inches)
HAD 2030 32 -41
HAD 2090 901 -078
CCC 2030 541 -1436
CCC 2090 1461 -456
Less water in much of
Southwest region
(IPCC WH2 AR5 chapter 3)
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Results for EA Recharge Prediction( change from the BASE ) Hadley Canadian
Recharge in Drought Years -2059 - -2965
Recharge in Normal Years -1968 - -2899 -
Recharge in Wet Years -2364 - -3442 -
Municipal DemandForecasted that climate change will increase municipal water demand by 15 (HAD) to 35 (CCC)
Climate Changebull Edwards Aquifer is vulnerable under climate change much less recharge
under La Ninabull Decreasing precipitation in far future makes Groundwater more
vulnerable
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Precipitation Changing Rate Under Canadian GCM
0001020304050607080910
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1300 1800
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
Prob
abilit
y of
Rec
harg
e
Thousand Acre-Feet
Edwards Aquifer Recharge
newchart
Probability of Recharge
Thousand Acre-Feet
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
0
0
0
0
0
0
0125
04
02142857143
0375
06
02142857143
0375
06
05
05
08
06428571429
05
1
06428571429
05
07142857143
0625
07142857143
075
08571428571
075
08571428571
075
1
075
0875
1
1
cdf-graph1
ampA
Page ampP
Modeling
EDSIMR ndash the conceptUnify
bull Detailed aquifer hydrologic modelbull Regionalized economic Modelbull Surface water flow model bull Hydrology embedded in regional economic model via
regression (Keith Keplinger dissertation)1 Keith O Keplinger An investigation of Dry Year Options for the Edwards Aquifer PhD Thesis TAMU 1996 2 File Number 598 - Keplinger KO and BA McCarl Regression Based Investigation of Pumping Limits and Springflow Within the
Edwards Aquifer Texas A and M University 19953 File Number 829 - Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water
Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April ) 59-78 2001
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
RegionalCrop Mixinput use
Envloads
Crop and Env
Simulators(EPICSWAT)
Runoff Simulators(SWAT)
GIS
Non AgResourceDemand
GCMs
LivestockData
Simulator Bundle
PestRegressions
GroundwaterSimulator(GAM)
Water Quality
EDSIMR SWAT
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
What is contained in EDSIMR bull Simulation Model (GAM)
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
THIS DATA IS USED 3 PHASE SOI
THIS BLOCK IS USED TO GENERATED A GRAPH SHOWN IN cdf-chart
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (USGS)
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (HDR data)
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
0
0000
0000
0
0-100
00000
01000
00570
0-100
0
01
0
100
0000
0000
0
101-200
02500
04000
03430
101-200
0167
04
0229
200
0125
0400
0214
201-300
05830
06000
04570
201-300
0417
05
04
300
0375
0600
0214
301-400
05830
06000
06860
301-400
0583
08
0629
400
0375
0600
0500
401-500
06670
08000
07430
401-500
0667
09
0743
500
0500
0800
0643
501-600
06670
09000
07710
501-600
0667
09
08
600
0500
1000
0643
601-700
06670
09000
08290
601-700
075
1
0829
700
0500
0714
701-800
07500
10000
08570
701-800
075
0914
800
0625
0714
801-900
08330
09430
801-900
0917
0971
900
0750
0857
901-1000
08330
09710
901-1000
0917
1
1000
0750
0857
1001-1100
09170
10000
1001-1100
1
1200
0750
1000
1101-1714
10000
1300
0750
1500
0875
1800
1000
2000
1
0
0
0
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
300
300
400
400
400
500
500
500
600
600
600
700
700
700
800
800
800
900
900
900
1000
1000
1000
1200
1200
1200
1300
1300
1300
1500
1500
1500
1800
1800
1800
2000
2000
2000
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcitybull In our study we examine FEW Nexus actions in the form of new
water related sectoral investments and altered operating strategies-we collectively call these projects
bull We are working on defining projectsndash Agriculture related projectsndash Water related projectsndash Energy related projects
bull We also examine who gains and who loses as we feel Compensation and mechanisms to achieve it will be a big issue
Background on Regional Issues
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Water Sourcesbull 4 River Basins bull 5 Aquifers bull 2 Springs bull 5 LakesReservoirsUsersbull Agriculturebull Municipalitybull Industry bull Energy - power plants and
fracking)bull Recreationalbull Environmental
Limited water supply Riversbull Average precipitation in the region varies from 20 -30 inches (50-75 cm) per
year in the ag areas in west to about 40 inches (100 cm) per year in the eastbull Sufficient flows needed for
downstream water use and flows to Estuary to protect fishery and species
bull Interaction with ground waterbull Springs from Edwards Aquifer
provide 30-80 of base flow in eastern river under drought
bull Overpumping of groundwater will lower river flows
ndash Limited water supply (recharge)ndash Heavy discharge (pumping and
springs)ndash Environment concerns and
endangered species findingbull EAA solution
ndash Edwards Aquifer Authority (EAA) issued permits to limit pumping and regulated withdraw amount based on water level
ndash Permit trading is allowed in EAA (water market)
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
000
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
30000019
55
1958
1961
1964
1967
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
2015
Disc
harg
e an
d Re
char
ge
Discharge
Recharge
Unit is thousands of acft which is 1233 cubic meters)
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
58000
60000
62000
64000
66000
68000
70000
72000
000
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
1955
1958
1961
1964
1967
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
2015
J 17 Well Elevation (feet above
sea level)
Disc
harg
e an
d Re
char
ge
(tho
usan
ds o
f acf
t)
Recharge
Elevation
Edwards Aquifer does not retain water
Environmental Issue - Edwardsbull Aquifer supports Endangered species
Texas Blind Salamander Fountain Darter
San Marcos Gambusia San Marcos Salamander
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Wat
er E
leva
tion
(feet
)
Well 7708511
In Groundwater Management area 13 covering southern segment of Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer desired 2070 condition is no more than 48 feet average drawdown relative to 2012
-100-50
050
100150200250300
Elev
atio
n (F
eet)
Well 7738103
050
100150200250300350400450
95
2002
95
2003
95
2004
95
2005
95
2006
95
2007
95
2008
95
2009
95
2010
95
2011
95
2012
95
2013
95
2014
95
2015
95
2016
95
2017
Wat
er E
leva
tion
(Fee
t)
Well 7702509
Background on Demand and Population
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Municipal 68200
Industrial 12419
Mining 4646
Power Plant 28882
Irrigation 23674
Livestock 11261
Surface Water Usage (149k Acft)
Municipal 347889
Industrial 14129
Mining 47135
Power Plant 5357
Irrigation 210590
Livestock 18604
Ground Water Usage (643k Acft)
bull Heavy water usage by municipal sector bull Irrigation uses mainly groundwater
Rapid Population Growth
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Bexar County Historical and Projected Population (Million)
000
050
100
150
200
2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
South Central Texas Demand Supply and Gap (Million Acft)
Demands Existing Supplies Deficit
Population growth leads tobull Rapid municipal industrial and
electricity cooling demandbull Growing deficit
Challenges from Frackingbull Between 2000 and 2014 water used to drill a horizontal natural gas well
increased from 177000 to 51 million gallons per wellbull Fracking (mining) is largest water use in some countiesbull Heavy fracking in winter garden increased Carrizo-Wilcox drawdown
020406080
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Mining water usage as proportion of total usage
Dimmit LA Salle
-100-50
050
100150200250300
111
503
072
004
081
505
042
506
020
507
102
507
071
508
123
009
093
010
122
511
102
012
071
513
032
514
113
014
081
015
042
016
122
516
092
017
Elev
atio
n (F
eet)
Water Elevation of Well 7738103 on La Salle and Dimmit Boarder
Climate Change
Temperature historyYear Change from
20th Century Average
Rank out of 138 years
2014 074degC 135
2015 090degC 137
2016 094degC 138
2017 084degC 136
bull 2017 was the third warmest year in NOAAs 138-year series bull 41ht consecutive year (since 1977) that annual temperature is above 20th century average bull All 17 years of 21st century rank are among seventeen warmest on record (1998 is ninth) bull Six warmest years have all occurred since 2010 bull Four warmest have been last 4bull Temperatures in 2015-2016 were majorly influenced by strong El Nintildeobull Increased 007degC (013degF) per decade since 1880 and 017degC (031degF) since 1970
Climate Change is making things non stationary
y = 745x + 40704y = -48512x + 11293
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Rech
arge
in th
ousa
nd a
cre
feet
Year
Edwards Aquifer Recharge Over Time
Recharge 1934-1975 Recharge 1975-2015Linear (Recharge 1934-1975) Linear (Recharge 1975-2015)
httpwwwedwardsaquifernetdatahtml
Climate Change is making things non stationary
WaterCan we use 100 year floodMilly PCD J Betancourt M Falkenmark 2008 Climate Change Stationarity Is Dead WhitherWater Management Science Vol 319 No 5863 pp 573 ndash 574
McCarl Bruce A Xavier Villavicencio and Ximing Wu Climate change and future analysis is stationarity dying American Journal of Agricultural Economics 905 (2008) 1241-1247
Ag yieldsCan we history to assess risk
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Figure 1 Global temperature change and uncertainty From Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projectionsReto Knutti amp Jan Sedlaacuteček Nature Climate Change 3 369ndash373 (2013) doi101038nclimate1716
Climate Changebull Use data for 2030 and 2090
Canadian Climate Center Model (CCC)
Hadley Climate Center Model (HAD)
Average changes for the 10 year periods
Climate Change Scenarios Temperature (0F) Precipitation (Inches)
HAD 2030 32 -41
HAD 2090 901 -078
CCC 2030 541 -1436
CCC 2090 1461 -456
Less water in much of
Southwest region
(IPCC WH2 AR5 chapter 3)
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Results for EA Recharge Prediction( change from the BASE ) Hadley Canadian
Recharge in Drought Years -2059 - -2965
Recharge in Normal Years -1968 - -2899 -
Recharge in Wet Years -2364 - -3442 -
Municipal DemandForecasted that climate change will increase municipal water demand by 15 (HAD) to 35 (CCC)
Climate Changebull Edwards Aquifer is vulnerable under climate change much less recharge
under La Ninabull Decreasing precipitation in far future makes Groundwater more
vulnerable
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Precipitation Changing Rate Under Canadian GCM
0001020304050607080910
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1300 1800
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
Prob
abilit
y of
Rec
harg
e
Thousand Acre-Feet
Edwards Aquifer Recharge
newchart
Probability of Recharge
Thousand Acre-Feet
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
0
0
0
0
0
0
0125
04
02142857143
0375
06
02142857143
0375
06
05
05
08
06428571429
05
1
06428571429
05
07142857143
0625
07142857143
075
08571428571
075
08571428571
075
1
075
0875
1
1
cdf-graph1
ampA
Page ampP
Modeling
EDSIMR ndash the conceptUnify
bull Detailed aquifer hydrologic modelbull Regionalized economic Modelbull Surface water flow model bull Hydrology embedded in regional economic model via
regression (Keith Keplinger dissertation)1 Keith O Keplinger An investigation of Dry Year Options for the Edwards Aquifer PhD Thesis TAMU 1996 2 File Number 598 - Keplinger KO and BA McCarl Regression Based Investigation of Pumping Limits and Springflow Within the
Edwards Aquifer Texas A and M University 19953 File Number 829 - Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water
Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April ) 59-78 2001
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
RegionalCrop Mixinput use
Envloads
Crop and Env
Simulators(EPICSWAT)
Runoff Simulators(SWAT)
GIS
Non AgResourceDemand
GCMs
LivestockData
Simulator Bundle
PestRegressions
GroundwaterSimulator(GAM)
Water Quality
EDSIMR SWAT
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
What is contained in EDSIMR bull Simulation Model (GAM)
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
THIS DATA IS USED 3 PHASE SOI
THIS BLOCK IS USED TO GENERATED A GRAPH SHOWN IN cdf-chart
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (USGS)
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (HDR data)
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
0
0000
0000
0
0-100
00000
01000
00570
0-100
0
01
0
100
0000
0000
0
101-200
02500
04000
03430
101-200
0167
04
0229
200
0125
0400
0214
201-300
05830
06000
04570
201-300
0417
05
04
300
0375
0600
0214
301-400
05830
06000
06860
301-400
0583
08
0629
400
0375
0600
0500
401-500
06670
08000
07430
401-500
0667
09
0743
500
0500
0800
0643
501-600
06670
09000
07710
501-600
0667
09
08
600
0500
1000
0643
601-700
06670
09000
08290
601-700
075
1
0829
700
0500
0714
701-800
07500
10000
08570
701-800
075
0914
800
0625
0714
801-900
08330
09430
801-900
0917
0971
900
0750
0857
901-1000
08330
09710
901-1000
0917
1
1000
0750
0857
1001-1100
09170
10000
1001-1100
1
1200
0750
1000
1101-1714
10000
1300
0750
1500
0875
1800
1000
2000
1
0
0
0
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
300
300
400
400
400
500
500
500
600
600
600
700
700
700
800
800
800
900
900
900
1000
1000
1000
1200
1200
1200
1300
1300
1300
1500
1500
1500
1800
1800
1800
2000
2000
2000
Background on Regional Issues
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Water Sourcesbull 4 River Basins bull 5 Aquifers bull 2 Springs bull 5 LakesReservoirsUsersbull Agriculturebull Municipalitybull Industry bull Energy - power plants and
fracking)bull Recreationalbull Environmental
Limited water supply Riversbull Average precipitation in the region varies from 20 -30 inches (50-75 cm) per
year in the ag areas in west to about 40 inches (100 cm) per year in the eastbull Sufficient flows needed for
downstream water use and flows to Estuary to protect fishery and species
bull Interaction with ground waterbull Springs from Edwards Aquifer
provide 30-80 of base flow in eastern river under drought
bull Overpumping of groundwater will lower river flows
ndash Limited water supply (recharge)ndash Heavy discharge (pumping and
springs)ndash Environment concerns and
endangered species findingbull EAA solution
ndash Edwards Aquifer Authority (EAA) issued permits to limit pumping and regulated withdraw amount based on water level
ndash Permit trading is allowed in EAA (water market)
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
000
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
30000019
55
1958
1961
1964
1967
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
2015
Disc
harg
e an
d Re
char
ge
Discharge
Recharge
Unit is thousands of acft which is 1233 cubic meters)
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
58000
60000
62000
64000
66000
68000
70000
72000
000
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
1955
1958
1961
1964
1967
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
2015
J 17 Well Elevation (feet above
sea level)
Disc
harg
e an
d Re
char
ge
(tho
usan
ds o
f acf
t)
Recharge
Elevation
Edwards Aquifer does not retain water
Environmental Issue - Edwardsbull Aquifer supports Endangered species
Texas Blind Salamander Fountain Darter
San Marcos Gambusia San Marcos Salamander
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Wat
er E
leva
tion
(feet
)
Well 7708511
In Groundwater Management area 13 covering southern segment of Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer desired 2070 condition is no more than 48 feet average drawdown relative to 2012
-100-50
050
100150200250300
Elev
atio
n (F
eet)
Well 7738103
050
100150200250300350400450
95
2002
95
2003
95
2004
95
2005
95
2006
95
2007
95
2008
95
2009
95
2010
95
2011
95
2012
95
2013
95
2014
95
2015
95
2016
95
2017
Wat
er E
leva
tion
(Fee
t)
Well 7702509
Background on Demand and Population
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Municipal 68200
Industrial 12419
Mining 4646
Power Plant 28882
Irrigation 23674
Livestock 11261
Surface Water Usage (149k Acft)
Municipal 347889
Industrial 14129
Mining 47135
Power Plant 5357
Irrigation 210590
Livestock 18604
Ground Water Usage (643k Acft)
bull Heavy water usage by municipal sector bull Irrigation uses mainly groundwater
Rapid Population Growth
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Bexar County Historical and Projected Population (Million)
000
050
100
150
200
2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
South Central Texas Demand Supply and Gap (Million Acft)
Demands Existing Supplies Deficit
Population growth leads tobull Rapid municipal industrial and
electricity cooling demandbull Growing deficit
Challenges from Frackingbull Between 2000 and 2014 water used to drill a horizontal natural gas well
increased from 177000 to 51 million gallons per wellbull Fracking (mining) is largest water use in some countiesbull Heavy fracking in winter garden increased Carrizo-Wilcox drawdown
020406080
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Mining water usage as proportion of total usage
Dimmit LA Salle
-100-50
050
100150200250300
111
503
072
004
081
505
042
506
020
507
102
507
071
508
123
009
093
010
122
511
102
012
071
513
032
514
113
014
081
015
042
016
122
516
092
017
Elev
atio
n (F
eet)
Water Elevation of Well 7738103 on La Salle and Dimmit Boarder
Climate Change
Temperature historyYear Change from
20th Century Average
Rank out of 138 years
2014 074degC 135
2015 090degC 137
2016 094degC 138
2017 084degC 136
bull 2017 was the third warmest year in NOAAs 138-year series bull 41ht consecutive year (since 1977) that annual temperature is above 20th century average bull All 17 years of 21st century rank are among seventeen warmest on record (1998 is ninth) bull Six warmest years have all occurred since 2010 bull Four warmest have been last 4bull Temperatures in 2015-2016 were majorly influenced by strong El Nintildeobull Increased 007degC (013degF) per decade since 1880 and 017degC (031degF) since 1970
Climate Change is making things non stationary
y = 745x + 40704y = -48512x + 11293
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Rech
arge
in th
ousa
nd a
cre
feet
Year
Edwards Aquifer Recharge Over Time
Recharge 1934-1975 Recharge 1975-2015Linear (Recharge 1934-1975) Linear (Recharge 1975-2015)
httpwwwedwardsaquifernetdatahtml
Climate Change is making things non stationary
WaterCan we use 100 year floodMilly PCD J Betancourt M Falkenmark 2008 Climate Change Stationarity Is Dead WhitherWater Management Science Vol 319 No 5863 pp 573 ndash 574
McCarl Bruce A Xavier Villavicencio and Ximing Wu Climate change and future analysis is stationarity dying American Journal of Agricultural Economics 905 (2008) 1241-1247
Ag yieldsCan we history to assess risk
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Figure 1 Global temperature change and uncertainty From Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projectionsReto Knutti amp Jan Sedlaacuteček Nature Climate Change 3 369ndash373 (2013) doi101038nclimate1716
Climate Changebull Use data for 2030 and 2090
Canadian Climate Center Model (CCC)
Hadley Climate Center Model (HAD)
Average changes for the 10 year periods
Climate Change Scenarios Temperature (0F) Precipitation (Inches)
HAD 2030 32 -41
HAD 2090 901 -078
CCC 2030 541 -1436
CCC 2090 1461 -456
Less water in much of
Southwest region
(IPCC WH2 AR5 chapter 3)
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Results for EA Recharge Prediction( change from the BASE ) Hadley Canadian
Recharge in Drought Years -2059 - -2965
Recharge in Normal Years -1968 - -2899 -
Recharge in Wet Years -2364 - -3442 -
Municipal DemandForecasted that climate change will increase municipal water demand by 15 (HAD) to 35 (CCC)
Climate Changebull Edwards Aquifer is vulnerable under climate change much less recharge
under La Ninabull Decreasing precipitation in far future makes Groundwater more
vulnerable
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Precipitation Changing Rate Under Canadian GCM
0001020304050607080910
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1300 1800
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
Prob
abilit
y of
Rec
harg
e
Thousand Acre-Feet
Edwards Aquifer Recharge
newchart
Probability of Recharge
Thousand Acre-Feet
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
0
0
0
0
0
0
0125
04
02142857143
0375
06
02142857143
0375
06
05
05
08
06428571429
05
1
06428571429
05
07142857143
0625
07142857143
075
08571428571
075
08571428571
075
1
075
0875
1
1
cdf-graph1
ampA
Page ampP
Modeling
EDSIMR ndash the conceptUnify
bull Detailed aquifer hydrologic modelbull Regionalized economic Modelbull Surface water flow model bull Hydrology embedded in regional economic model via
regression (Keith Keplinger dissertation)1 Keith O Keplinger An investigation of Dry Year Options for the Edwards Aquifer PhD Thesis TAMU 1996 2 File Number 598 - Keplinger KO and BA McCarl Regression Based Investigation of Pumping Limits and Springflow Within the
Edwards Aquifer Texas A and M University 19953 File Number 829 - Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water
Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April ) 59-78 2001
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
RegionalCrop Mixinput use
Envloads
Crop and Env
Simulators(EPICSWAT)
Runoff Simulators(SWAT)
GIS
Non AgResourceDemand
GCMs
LivestockData
Simulator Bundle
PestRegressions
GroundwaterSimulator(GAM)
Water Quality
EDSIMR SWAT
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
What is contained in EDSIMR bull Simulation Model (GAM)
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
THIS DATA IS USED 3 PHASE SOI
THIS BLOCK IS USED TO GENERATED A GRAPH SHOWN IN cdf-chart
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (USGS)
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (HDR data)
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
0
0000
0000
0
0-100
00000
01000
00570
0-100
0
01
0
100
0000
0000
0
101-200
02500
04000
03430
101-200
0167
04
0229
200
0125
0400
0214
201-300
05830
06000
04570
201-300
0417
05
04
300
0375
0600
0214
301-400
05830
06000
06860
301-400
0583
08
0629
400
0375
0600
0500
401-500
06670
08000
07430
401-500
0667
09
0743
500
0500
0800
0643
501-600
06670
09000
07710
501-600
0667
09
08
600
0500
1000
0643
601-700
06670
09000
08290
601-700
075
1
0829
700
0500
0714
701-800
07500
10000
08570
701-800
075
0914
800
0625
0714
801-900
08330
09430
801-900
0917
0971
900
0750
0857
901-1000
08330
09710
901-1000
0917
1
1000
0750
0857
1001-1100
09170
10000
1001-1100
1
1200
0750
1000
1101-1714
10000
1300
0750
1500
0875
1800
1000
2000
1
0
0
0
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
300
300
400
400
400
500
500
500
600
600
600
700
700
700
800
800
800
900
900
900
1000
1000
1000
1200
1200
1200
1300
1300
1300
1500
1500
1500
1800
1800
1800
2000
2000
2000
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Water Sourcesbull 4 River Basins bull 5 Aquifers bull 2 Springs bull 5 LakesReservoirsUsersbull Agriculturebull Municipalitybull Industry bull Energy - power plants and
fracking)bull Recreationalbull Environmental
Limited water supply Riversbull Average precipitation in the region varies from 20 -30 inches (50-75 cm) per
year in the ag areas in west to about 40 inches (100 cm) per year in the eastbull Sufficient flows needed for
downstream water use and flows to Estuary to protect fishery and species
bull Interaction with ground waterbull Springs from Edwards Aquifer
provide 30-80 of base flow in eastern river under drought
bull Overpumping of groundwater will lower river flows
ndash Limited water supply (recharge)ndash Heavy discharge (pumping and
springs)ndash Environment concerns and
endangered species findingbull EAA solution
ndash Edwards Aquifer Authority (EAA) issued permits to limit pumping and regulated withdraw amount based on water level
ndash Permit trading is allowed in EAA (water market)
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
000
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
30000019
55
1958
1961
1964
1967
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
2015
Disc
harg
e an
d Re
char
ge
Discharge
Recharge
Unit is thousands of acft which is 1233 cubic meters)
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
58000
60000
62000
64000
66000
68000
70000
72000
000
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
1955
1958
1961
1964
1967
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
2015
J 17 Well Elevation (feet above
sea level)
Disc
harg
e an
d Re
char
ge
(tho
usan
ds o
f acf
t)
Recharge
Elevation
Edwards Aquifer does not retain water
Environmental Issue - Edwardsbull Aquifer supports Endangered species
Texas Blind Salamander Fountain Darter
San Marcos Gambusia San Marcos Salamander
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Wat
er E
leva
tion
(feet
)
Well 7708511
In Groundwater Management area 13 covering southern segment of Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer desired 2070 condition is no more than 48 feet average drawdown relative to 2012
-100-50
050
100150200250300
Elev
atio
n (F
eet)
Well 7738103
050
100150200250300350400450
95
2002
95
2003
95
2004
95
2005
95
2006
95
2007
95
2008
95
2009
95
2010
95
2011
95
2012
95
2013
95
2014
95
2015
95
2016
95
2017
Wat
er E
leva
tion
(Fee
t)
Well 7702509
Background on Demand and Population
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Municipal 68200
Industrial 12419
Mining 4646
Power Plant 28882
Irrigation 23674
Livestock 11261
Surface Water Usage (149k Acft)
Municipal 347889
Industrial 14129
Mining 47135
Power Plant 5357
Irrigation 210590
Livestock 18604
Ground Water Usage (643k Acft)
bull Heavy water usage by municipal sector bull Irrigation uses mainly groundwater
Rapid Population Growth
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Bexar County Historical and Projected Population (Million)
000
050
100
150
200
2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
South Central Texas Demand Supply and Gap (Million Acft)
Demands Existing Supplies Deficit
Population growth leads tobull Rapid municipal industrial and
electricity cooling demandbull Growing deficit
Challenges from Frackingbull Between 2000 and 2014 water used to drill a horizontal natural gas well
increased from 177000 to 51 million gallons per wellbull Fracking (mining) is largest water use in some countiesbull Heavy fracking in winter garden increased Carrizo-Wilcox drawdown
020406080
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Mining water usage as proportion of total usage
Dimmit LA Salle
-100-50
050
100150200250300
111
503
072
004
081
505
042
506
020
507
102
507
071
508
123
009
093
010
122
511
102
012
071
513
032
514
113
014
081
015
042
016
122
516
092
017
Elev
atio
n (F
eet)
Water Elevation of Well 7738103 on La Salle and Dimmit Boarder
Climate Change
Temperature historyYear Change from
20th Century Average
Rank out of 138 years
2014 074degC 135
2015 090degC 137
2016 094degC 138
2017 084degC 136
bull 2017 was the third warmest year in NOAAs 138-year series bull 41ht consecutive year (since 1977) that annual temperature is above 20th century average bull All 17 years of 21st century rank are among seventeen warmest on record (1998 is ninth) bull Six warmest years have all occurred since 2010 bull Four warmest have been last 4bull Temperatures in 2015-2016 were majorly influenced by strong El Nintildeobull Increased 007degC (013degF) per decade since 1880 and 017degC (031degF) since 1970
Climate Change is making things non stationary
y = 745x + 40704y = -48512x + 11293
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Rech
arge
in th
ousa
nd a
cre
feet
Year
Edwards Aquifer Recharge Over Time
Recharge 1934-1975 Recharge 1975-2015Linear (Recharge 1934-1975) Linear (Recharge 1975-2015)
httpwwwedwardsaquifernetdatahtml
Climate Change is making things non stationary
WaterCan we use 100 year floodMilly PCD J Betancourt M Falkenmark 2008 Climate Change Stationarity Is Dead WhitherWater Management Science Vol 319 No 5863 pp 573 ndash 574
McCarl Bruce A Xavier Villavicencio and Ximing Wu Climate change and future analysis is stationarity dying American Journal of Agricultural Economics 905 (2008) 1241-1247
Ag yieldsCan we history to assess risk
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Figure 1 Global temperature change and uncertainty From Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projectionsReto Knutti amp Jan Sedlaacuteček Nature Climate Change 3 369ndash373 (2013) doi101038nclimate1716
Climate Changebull Use data for 2030 and 2090
Canadian Climate Center Model (CCC)
Hadley Climate Center Model (HAD)
Average changes for the 10 year periods
Climate Change Scenarios Temperature (0F) Precipitation (Inches)
HAD 2030 32 -41
HAD 2090 901 -078
CCC 2030 541 -1436
CCC 2090 1461 -456
Less water in much of
Southwest region
(IPCC WH2 AR5 chapter 3)
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Results for EA Recharge Prediction( change from the BASE ) Hadley Canadian
Recharge in Drought Years -2059 - -2965
Recharge in Normal Years -1968 - -2899 -
Recharge in Wet Years -2364 - -3442 -
Municipal DemandForecasted that climate change will increase municipal water demand by 15 (HAD) to 35 (CCC)
Climate Changebull Edwards Aquifer is vulnerable under climate change much less recharge
under La Ninabull Decreasing precipitation in far future makes Groundwater more
vulnerable
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Precipitation Changing Rate Under Canadian GCM
0001020304050607080910
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1300 1800
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
Prob
abilit
y of
Rec
harg
e
Thousand Acre-Feet
Edwards Aquifer Recharge
newchart
Probability of Recharge
Thousand Acre-Feet
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
0
0
0
0
0
0
0125
04
02142857143
0375
06
02142857143
0375
06
05
05
08
06428571429
05
1
06428571429
05
07142857143
0625
07142857143
075
08571428571
075
08571428571
075
1
075
0875
1
1
cdf-graph1
ampA
Page ampP
Modeling
EDSIMR ndash the conceptUnify
bull Detailed aquifer hydrologic modelbull Regionalized economic Modelbull Surface water flow model bull Hydrology embedded in regional economic model via
regression (Keith Keplinger dissertation)1 Keith O Keplinger An investigation of Dry Year Options for the Edwards Aquifer PhD Thesis TAMU 1996 2 File Number 598 - Keplinger KO and BA McCarl Regression Based Investigation of Pumping Limits and Springflow Within the
Edwards Aquifer Texas A and M University 19953 File Number 829 - Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water
Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April ) 59-78 2001
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
RegionalCrop Mixinput use
Envloads
Crop and Env
Simulators(EPICSWAT)
Runoff Simulators(SWAT)
GIS
Non AgResourceDemand
GCMs
LivestockData
Simulator Bundle
PestRegressions
GroundwaterSimulator(GAM)
Water Quality
EDSIMR SWAT
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
What is contained in EDSIMR bull Simulation Model (GAM)
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
THIS DATA IS USED 3 PHASE SOI
THIS BLOCK IS USED TO GENERATED A GRAPH SHOWN IN cdf-chart
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (USGS)
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (HDR data)
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
0
0000
0000
0
0-100
00000
01000
00570
0-100
0
01
0
100
0000
0000
0
101-200
02500
04000
03430
101-200
0167
04
0229
200
0125
0400
0214
201-300
05830
06000
04570
201-300
0417
05
04
300
0375
0600
0214
301-400
05830
06000
06860
301-400
0583
08
0629
400
0375
0600
0500
401-500
06670
08000
07430
401-500
0667
09
0743
500
0500
0800
0643
501-600
06670
09000
07710
501-600
0667
09
08
600
0500
1000
0643
601-700
06670
09000
08290
601-700
075
1
0829
700
0500
0714
701-800
07500
10000
08570
701-800
075
0914
800
0625
0714
801-900
08330
09430
801-900
0917
0971
900
0750
0857
901-1000
08330
09710
901-1000
0917
1
1000
0750
0857
1001-1100
09170
10000
1001-1100
1
1200
0750
1000
1101-1714
10000
1300
0750
1500
0875
1800
1000
2000
1
0
0
0
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
300
300
400
400
400
500
500
500
600
600
600
700
700
700
800
800
800
900
900
900
1000
1000
1000
1200
1200
1200
1300
1300
1300
1500
1500
1500
1800
1800
1800
2000
2000
2000
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Water Sourcesbull 4 River Basins bull 5 Aquifers bull 2 Springs bull 5 LakesReservoirsUsersbull Agriculturebull Municipalitybull Industry bull Energy - power plants and
fracking)bull Recreationalbull Environmental
Limited water supply Riversbull Average precipitation in the region varies from 20 -30 inches (50-75 cm) per
year in the ag areas in west to about 40 inches (100 cm) per year in the eastbull Sufficient flows needed for
downstream water use and flows to Estuary to protect fishery and species
bull Interaction with ground waterbull Springs from Edwards Aquifer
provide 30-80 of base flow in eastern river under drought
bull Overpumping of groundwater will lower river flows
ndash Limited water supply (recharge)ndash Heavy discharge (pumping and
springs)ndash Environment concerns and
endangered species findingbull EAA solution
ndash Edwards Aquifer Authority (EAA) issued permits to limit pumping and regulated withdraw amount based on water level
ndash Permit trading is allowed in EAA (water market)
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
000
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
30000019
55
1958
1961
1964
1967
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
2015
Disc
harg
e an
d Re
char
ge
Discharge
Recharge
Unit is thousands of acft which is 1233 cubic meters)
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
58000
60000
62000
64000
66000
68000
70000
72000
000
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
1955
1958
1961
1964
1967
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
2015
J 17 Well Elevation (feet above
sea level)
Disc
harg
e an
d Re
char
ge
(tho
usan
ds o
f acf
t)
Recharge
Elevation
Edwards Aquifer does not retain water
Environmental Issue - Edwardsbull Aquifer supports Endangered species
Texas Blind Salamander Fountain Darter
San Marcos Gambusia San Marcos Salamander
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Wat
er E
leva
tion
(feet
)
Well 7708511
In Groundwater Management area 13 covering southern segment of Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer desired 2070 condition is no more than 48 feet average drawdown relative to 2012
-100-50
050
100150200250300
Elev
atio
n (F
eet)
Well 7738103
050
100150200250300350400450
95
2002
95
2003
95
2004
95
2005
95
2006
95
2007
95
2008
95
2009
95
2010
95
2011
95
2012
95
2013
95
2014
95
2015
95
2016
95
2017
Wat
er E
leva
tion
(Fee
t)
Well 7702509
Background on Demand and Population
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Municipal 68200
Industrial 12419
Mining 4646
Power Plant 28882
Irrigation 23674
Livestock 11261
Surface Water Usage (149k Acft)
Municipal 347889
Industrial 14129
Mining 47135
Power Plant 5357
Irrigation 210590
Livestock 18604
Ground Water Usage (643k Acft)
bull Heavy water usage by municipal sector bull Irrigation uses mainly groundwater
Rapid Population Growth
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Bexar County Historical and Projected Population (Million)
000
050
100
150
200
2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
South Central Texas Demand Supply and Gap (Million Acft)
Demands Existing Supplies Deficit
Population growth leads tobull Rapid municipal industrial and
electricity cooling demandbull Growing deficit
Challenges from Frackingbull Between 2000 and 2014 water used to drill a horizontal natural gas well
increased from 177000 to 51 million gallons per wellbull Fracking (mining) is largest water use in some countiesbull Heavy fracking in winter garden increased Carrizo-Wilcox drawdown
020406080
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Mining water usage as proportion of total usage
Dimmit LA Salle
-100-50
050
100150200250300
111
503
072
004
081
505
042
506
020
507
102
507
071
508
123
009
093
010
122
511
102
012
071
513
032
514
113
014
081
015
042
016
122
516
092
017
Elev
atio
n (F
eet)
Water Elevation of Well 7738103 on La Salle and Dimmit Boarder
Climate Change
Temperature historyYear Change from
20th Century Average
Rank out of 138 years
2014 074degC 135
2015 090degC 137
2016 094degC 138
2017 084degC 136
bull 2017 was the third warmest year in NOAAs 138-year series bull 41ht consecutive year (since 1977) that annual temperature is above 20th century average bull All 17 years of 21st century rank are among seventeen warmest on record (1998 is ninth) bull Six warmest years have all occurred since 2010 bull Four warmest have been last 4bull Temperatures in 2015-2016 were majorly influenced by strong El Nintildeobull Increased 007degC (013degF) per decade since 1880 and 017degC (031degF) since 1970
Climate Change is making things non stationary
y = 745x + 40704y = -48512x + 11293
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Rech
arge
in th
ousa
nd a
cre
feet
Year
Edwards Aquifer Recharge Over Time
Recharge 1934-1975 Recharge 1975-2015Linear (Recharge 1934-1975) Linear (Recharge 1975-2015)
httpwwwedwardsaquifernetdatahtml
Climate Change is making things non stationary
WaterCan we use 100 year floodMilly PCD J Betancourt M Falkenmark 2008 Climate Change Stationarity Is Dead WhitherWater Management Science Vol 319 No 5863 pp 573 ndash 574
McCarl Bruce A Xavier Villavicencio and Ximing Wu Climate change and future analysis is stationarity dying American Journal of Agricultural Economics 905 (2008) 1241-1247
Ag yieldsCan we history to assess risk
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Figure 1 Global temperature change and uncertainty From Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projectionsReto Knutti amp Jan Sedlaacuteček Nature Climate Change 3 369ndash373 (2013) doi101038nclimate1716
Climate Changebull Use data for 2030 and 2090
Canadian Climate Center Model (CCC)
Hadley Climate Center Model (HAD)
Average changes for the 10 year periods
Climate Change Scenarios Temperature (0F) Precipitation (Inches)
HAD 2030 32 -41
HAD 2090 901 -078
CCC 2030 541 -1436
CCC 2090 1461 -456
Less water in much of
Southwest region
(IPCC WH2 AR5 chapter 3)
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Results for EA Recharge Prediction( change from the BASE ) Hadley Canadian
Recharge in Drought Years -2059 - -2965
Recharge in Normal Years -1968 - -2899 -
Recharge in Wet Years -2364 - -3442 -
Municipal DemandForecasted that climate change will increase municipal water demand by 15 (HAD) to 35 (CCC)
Climate Changebull Edwards Aquifer is vulnerable under climate change much less recharge
under La Ninabull Decreasing precipitation in far future makes Groundwater more
vulnerable
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Precipitation Changing Rate Under Canadian GCM
0001020304050607080910
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1300 1800
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
Prob
abilit
y of
Rec
harg
e
Thousand Acre-Feet
Edwards Aquifer Recharge
newchart
Probability of Recharge
Thousand Acre-Feet
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
0
0
0
0
0
0
0125
04
02142857143
0375
06
02142857143
0375
06
05
05
08
06428571429
05
1
06428571429
05
07142857143
0625
07142857143
075
08571428571
075
08571428571
075
1
075
0875
1
1
cdf-graph1
ampA
Page ampP
Modeling
EDSIMR ndash the conceptUnify
bull Detailed aquifer hydrologic modelbull Regionalized economic Modelbull Surface water flow model bull Hydrology embedded in regional economic model via
regression (Keith Keplinger dissertation)1 Keith O Keplinger An investigation of Dry Year Options for the Edwards Aquifer PhD Thesis TAMU 1996 2 File Number 598 - Keplinger KO and BA McCarl Regression Based Investigation of Pumping Limits and Springflow Within the
Edwards Aquifer Texas A and M University 19953 File Number 829 - Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water
Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April ) 59-78 2001
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
RegionalCrop Mixinput use
Envloads
Crop and Env
Simulators(EPICSWAT)
Runoff Simulators(SWAT)
GIS
Non AgResourceDemand
GCMs
LivestockData
Simulator Bundle
PestRegressions
GroundwaterSimulator(GAM)
Water Quality
EDSIMR SWAT
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
What is contained in EDSIMR bull Simulation Model (GAM)
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
ndash Limited water supply (recharge)ndash Heavy discharge (pumping and
springs)ndash Environment concerns and
endangered species findingbull EAA solution
ndash Edwards Aquifer Authority (EAA) issued permits to limit pumping and regulated withdraw amount based on water level
ndash Permit trading is allowed in EAA (water market)
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
000
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
30000019
55
1958
1961
1964
1967
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
2015
Disc
harg
e an
d Re
char
ge
Discharge
Recharge
Unit is thousands of acft which is 1233 cubic meters)
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
58000
60000
62000
64000
66000
68000
70000
72000
000
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
1955
1958
1961
1964
1967
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
2015
J 17 Well Elevation (feet above
sea level)
Disc
harg
e an
d Re
char
ge
(tho
usan
ds o
f acf
t)
Recharge
Elevation
Edwards Aquifer does not retain water
Environmental Issue - Edwardsbull Aquifer supports Endangered species
Texas Blind Salamander Fountain Darter
San Marcos Gambusia San Marcos Salamander
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Wat
er E
leva
tion
(feet
)
Well 7708511
In Groundwater Management area 13 covering southern segment of Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer desired 2070 condition is no more than 48 feet average drawdown relative to 2012
-100-50
050
100150200250300
Elev
atio
n (F
eet)
Well 7738103
050
100150200250300350400450
95
2002
95
2003
95
2004
95
2005
95
2006
95
2007
95
2008
95
2009
95
2010
95
2011
95
2012
95
2013
95
2014
95
2015
95
2016
95
2017
Wat
er E
leva
tion
(Fee
t)
Well 7702509
Background on Demand and Population
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Municipal 68200
Industrial 12419
Mining 4646
Power Plant 28882
Irrigation 23674
Livestock 11261
Surface Water Usage (149k Acft)
Municipal 347889
Industrial 14129
Mining 47135
Power Plant 5357
Irrigation 210590
Livestock 18604
Ground Water Usage (643k Acft)
bull Heavy water usage by municipal sector bull Irrigation uses mainly groundwater
Rapid Population Growth
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Bexar County Historical and Projected Population (Million)
000
050
100
150
200
2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
South Central Texas Demand Supply and Gap (Million Acft)
Demands Existing Supplies Deficit
Population growth leads tobull Rapid municipal industrial and
electricity cooling demandbull Growing deficit
Challenges from Frackingbull Between 2000 and 2014 water used to drill a horizontal natural gas well
increased from 177000 to 51 million gallons per wellbull Fracking (mining) is largest water use in some countiesbull Heavy fracking in winter garden increased Carrizo-Wilcox drawdown
020406080
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Mining water usage as proportion of total usage
Dimmit LA Salle
-100-50
050
100150200250300
111
503
072
004
081
505
042
506
020
507
102
507
071
508
123
009
093
010
122
511
102
012
071
513
032
514
113
014
081
015
042
016
122
516
092
017
Elev
atio
n (F
eet)
Water Elevation of Well 7738103 on La Salle and Dimmit Boarder
Climate Change
Temperature historyYear Change from
20th Century Average
Rank out of 138 years
2014 074degC 135
2015 090degC 137
2016 094degC 138
2017 084degC 136
bull 2017 was the third warmest year in NOAAs 138-year series bull 41ht consecutive year (since 1977) that annual temperature is above 20th century average bull All 17 years of 21st century rank are among seventeen warmest on record (1998 is ninth) bull Six warmest years have all occurred since 2010 bull Four warmest have been last 4bull Temperatures in 2015-2016 were majorly influenced by strong El Nintildeobull Increased 007degC (013degF) per decade since 1880 and 017degC (031degF) since 1970
Climate Change is making things non stationary
y = 745x + 40704y = -48512x + 11293
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Rech
arge
in th
ousa
nd a
cre
feet
Year
Edwards Aquifer Recharge Over Time
Recharge 1934-1975 Recharge 1975-2015Linear (Recharge 1934-1975) Linear (Recharge 1975-2015)
httpwwwedwardsaquifernetdatahtml
Climate Change is making things non stationary
WaterCan we use 100 year floodMilly PCD J Betancourt M Falkenmark 2008 Climate Change Stationarity Is Dead WhitherWater Management Science Vol 319 No 5863 pp 573 ndash 574
McCarl Bruce A Xavier Villavicencio and Ximing Wu Climate change and future analysis is stationarity dying American Journal of Agricultural Economics 905 (2008) 1241-1247
Ag yieldsCan we history to assess risk
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Figure 1 Global temperature change and uncertainty From Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projectionsReto Knutti amp Jan Sedlaacuteček Nature Climate Change 3 369ndash373 (2013) doi101038nclimate1716
Climate Changebull Use data for 2030 and 2090
Canadian Climate Center Model (CCC)
Hadley Climate Center Model (HAD)
Average changes for the 10 year periods
Climate Change Scenarios Temperature (0F) Precipitation (Inches)
HAD 2030 32 -41
HAD 2090 901 -078
CCC 2030 541 -1436
CCC 2090 1461 -456
Less water in much of
Southwest region
(IPCC WH2 AR5 chapter 3)
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Results for EA Recharge Prediction( change from the BASE ) Hadley Canadian
Recharge in Drought Years -2059 - -2965
Recharge in Normal Years -1968 - -2899 -
Recharge in Wet Years -2364 - -3442 -
Municipal DemandForecasted that climate change will increase municipal water demand by 15 (HAD) to 35 (CCC)
Climate Changebull Edwards Aquifer is vulnerable under climate change much less recharge
under La Ninabull Decreasing precipitation in far future makes Groundwater more
vulnerable
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Precipitation Changing Rate Under Canadian GCM
0001020304050607080910
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1300 1800
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
Prob
abilit
y of
Rec
harg
e
Thousand Acre-Feet
Edwards Aquifer Recharge
newchart
Probability of Recharge
Thousand Acre-Feet
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
0
0
0
0
0
0
0125
04
02142857143
0375
06
02142857143
0375
06
05
05
08
06428571429
05
1
06428571429
05
07142857143
0625
07142857143
075
08571428571
075
08571428571
075
1
075
0875
1
1
cdf-graph1
ampA
Page ampP
Modeling
EDSIMR ndash the conceptUnify
bull Detailed aquifer hydrologic modelbull Regionalized economic Modelbull Surface water flow model bull Hydrology embedded in regional economic model via
regression (Keith Keplinger dissertation)1 Keith O Keplinger An investigation of Dry Year Options for the Edwards Aquifer PhD Thesis TAMU 1996 2 File Number 598 - Keplinger KO and BA McCarl Regression Based Investigation of Pumping Limits and Springflow Within the
Edwards Aquifer Texas A and M University 19953 File Number 829 - Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water
Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April ) 59-78 2001
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
RegionalCrop Mixinput use
Envloads
Crop and Env
Simulators(EPICSWAT)
Runoff Simulators(SWAT)
GIS
Non AgResourceDemand
GCMs
LivestockData
Simulator Bundle
PestRegressions
GroundwaterSimulator(GAM)
Water Quality
EDSIMR SWAT
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
What is contained in EDSIMR bull Simulation Model (GAM)
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
ndash Limited water supply (recharge)ndash Heavy discharge (pumping and
springs)ndash Environment concerns and
endangered species findingbull EAA solution
ndash Edwards Aquifer Authority (EAA) issued permits to limit pumping and regulated withdraw amount based on water level
ndash Permit trading is allowed in EAA (water market)
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
000
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
30000019
55
1958
1961
1964
1967
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
2015
Disc
harg
e an
d Re
char
ge
Discharge
Recharge
Unit is thousands of acft which is 1233 cubic meters)
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
58000
60000
62000
64000
66000
68000
70000
72000
000
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
1955
1958
1961
1964
1967
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
2015
J 17 Well Elevation (feet above
sea level)
Disc
harg
e an
d Re
char
ge
(tho
usan
ds o
f acf
t)
Recharge
Elevation
Edwards Aquifer does not retain water
Environmental Issue - Edwardsbull Aquifer supports Endangered species
Texas Blind Salamander Fountain Darter
San Marcos Gambusia San Marcos Salamander
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Wat
er E
leva
tion
(feet
)
Well 7708511
In Groundwater Management area 13 covering southern segment of Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer desired 2070 condition is no more than 48 feet average drawdown relative to 2012
-100-50
050
100150200250300
Elev
atio
n (F
eet)
Well 7738103
050
100150200250300350400450
95
2002
95
2003
95
2004
95
2005
95
2006
95
2007
95
2008
95
2009
95
2010
95
2011
95
2012
95
2013
95
2014
95
2015
95
2016
95
2017
Wat
er E
leva
tion
(Fee
t)
Well 7702509
Background on Demand and Population
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Municipal 68200
Industrial 12419
Mining 4646
Power Plant 28882
Irrigation 23674
Livestock 11261
Surface Water Usage (149k Acft)
Municipal 347889
Industrial 14129
Mining 47135
Power Plant 5357
Irrigation 210590
Livestock 18604
Ground Water Usage (643k Acft)
bull Heavy water usage by municipal sector bull Irrigation uses mainly groundwater
Rapid Population Growth
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Bexar County Historical and Projected Population (Million)
000
050
100
150
200
2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
South Central Texas Demand Supply and Gap (Million Acft)
Demands Existing Supplies Deficit
Population growth leads tobull Rapid municipal industrial and
electricity cooling demandbull Growing deficit
Challenges from Frackingbull Between 2000 and 2014 water used to drill a horizontal natural gas well
increased from 177000 to 51 million gallons per wellbull Fracking (mining) is largest water use in some countiesbull Heavy fracking in winter garden increased Carrizo-Wilcox drawdown
020406080
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Mining water usage as proportion of total usage
Dimmit LA Salle
-100-50
050
100150200250300
111
503
072
004
081
505
042
506
020
507
102
507
071
508
123
009
093
010
122
511
102
012
071
513
032
514
113
014
081
015
042
016
122
516
092
017
Elev
atio
n (F
eet)
Water Elevation of Well 7738103 on La Salle and Dimmit Boarder
Climate Change
Temperature historyYear Change from
20th Century Average
Rank out of 138 years
2014 074degC 135
2015 090degC 137
2016 094degC 138
2017 084degC 136
bull 2017 was the third warmest year in NOAAs 138-year series bull 41ht consecutive year (since 1977) that annual temperature is above 20th century average bull All 17 years of 21st century rank are among seventeen warmest on record (1998 is ninth) bull Six warmest years have all occurred since 2010 bull Four warmest have been last 4bull Temperatures in 2015-2016 were majorly influenced by strong El Nintildeobull Increased 007degC (013degF) per decade since 1880 and 017degC (031degF) since 1970
Climate Change is making things non stationary
y = 745x + 40704y = -48512x + 11293
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Rech
arge
in th
ousa
nd a
cre
feet
Year
Edwards Aquifer Recharge Over Time
Recharge 1934-1975 Recharge 1975-2015Linear (Recharge 1934-1975) Linear (Recharge 1975-2015)
httpwwwedwardsaquifernetdatahtml
Climate Change is making things non stationary
WaterCan we use 100 year floodMilly PCD J Betancourt M Falkenmark 2008 Climate Change Stationarity Is Dead WhitherWater Management Science Vol 319 No 5863 pp 573 ndash 574
McCarl Bruce A Xavier Villavicencio and Ximing Wu Climate change and future analysis is stationarity dying American Journal of Agricultural Economics 905 (2008) 1241-1247
Ag yieldsCan we history to assess risk
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Figure 1 Global temperature change and uncertainty From Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projectionsReto Knutti amp Jan Sedlaacuteček Nature Climate Change 3 369ndash373 (2013) doi101038nclimate1716
Climate Changebull Use data for 2030 and 2090
Canadian Climate Center Model (CCC)
Hadley Climate Center Model (HAD)
Average changes for the 10 year periods
Climate Change Scenarios Temperature (0F) Precipitation (Inches)
HAD 2030 32 -41
HAD 2090 901 -078
CCC 2030 541 -1436
CCC 2090 1461 -456
Less water in much of
Southwest region
(IPCC WH2 AR5 chapter 3)
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Results for EA Recharge Prediction( change from the BASE ) Hadley Canadian
Recharge in Drought Years -2059 - -2965
Recharge in Normal Years -1968 - -2899 -
Recharge in Wet Years -2364 - -3442 -
Municipal DemandForecasted that climate change will increase municipal water demand by 15 (HAD) to 35 (CCC)
Climate Changebull Edwards Aquifer is vulnerable under climate change much less recharge
under La Ninabull Decreasing precipitation in far future makes Groundwater more
vulnerable
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Precipitation Changing Rate Under Canadian GCM
0001020304050607080910
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1300 1800
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
Prob
abilit
y of
Rec
harg
e
Thousand Acre-Feet
Edwards Aquifer Recharge
newchart
Probability of Recharge
Thousand Acre-Feet
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
0
0
0
0
0
0
0125
04
02142857143
0375
06
02142857143
0375
06
05
05
08
06428571429
05
1
06428571429
05
07142857143
0625
07142857143
075
08571428571
075
08571428571
075
1
075
0875
1
1
cdf-graph1
ampA
Page ampP
Modeling
EDSIMR ndash the conceptUnify
bull Detailed aquifer hydrologic modelbull Regionalized economic Modelbull Surface water flow model bull Hydrology embedded in regional economic model via
regression (Keith Keplinger dissertation)1 Keith O Keplinger An investigation of Dry Year Options for the Edwards Aquifer PhD Thesis TAMU 1996 2 File Number 598 - Keplinger KO and BA McCarl Regression Based Investigation of Pumping Limits and Springflow Within the
Edwards Aquifer Texas A and M University 19953 File Number 829 - Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water
Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April ) 59-78 2001
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
RegionalCrop Mixinput use
Envloads
Crop and Env
Simulators(EPICSWAT)
Runoff Simulators(SWAT)
GIS
Non AgResourceDemand
GCMs
LivestockData
Simulator Bundle
PestRegressions
GroundwaterSimulator(GAM)
Water Quality
EDSIMR SWAT
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
What is contained in EDSIMR bull Simulation Model (GAM)
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
THIS DATA IS USED 3 PHASE SOI
THIS BLOCK IS USED TO GENERATED A GRAPH SHOWN IN cdf-chart
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (USGS)
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (HDR data)
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
0
0000
0000
0
0-100
00000
01000
00570
0-100
0
01
0
100
0000
0000
0
101-200
02500
04000
03430
101-200
0167
04
0229
200
0125
0400
0214
201-300
05830
06000
04570
201-300
0417
05
04
300
0375
0600
0214
301-400
05830
06000
06860
301-400
0583
08
0629
400
0375
0600
0500
401-500
06670
08000
07430
401-500
0667
09
0743
500
0500
0800
0643
501-600
06670
09000
07710
501-600
0667
09
08
600
0500
1000
0643
601-700
06670
09000
08290
601-700
075
1
0829
700
0500
0714
701-800
07500
10000
08570
701-800
075
0914
800
0625
0714
801-900
08330
09430
801-900
0917
0971
900
0750
0857
901-1000
08330
09710
901-1000
0917
1
1000
0750
0857
1001-1100
09170
10000
1001-1100
1
1200
0750
1000
1101-1714
10000
1300
0750
1500
0875
1800
1000
2000
1
0
0
0
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
300
300
400
400
400
500
500
500
600
600
600
700
700
700
800
800
800
900
900
900
1000
1000
1000
1200
1200
1200
1300
1300
1300
1500
1500
1500
1800
1800
1800
2000
2000
2000
Limited water supply Edwards Aquiferbull Problems
ndash Limited water supply (recharge)ndash Heavy discharge (pumping and
springs)ndash Environment concerns and
endangered species findingbull EAA solution
ndash Edwards Aquifer Authority (EAA) issued permits to limit pumping and regulated withdraw amount based on water level
ndash Permit trading is allowed in EAA (water market)
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
000
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
30000019
55
1958
1961
1964
1967
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
2015
Disc
harg
e an
d Re
char
ge
Discharge
Recharge
Unit is thousands of acft which is 1233 cubic meters)
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
58000
60000
62000
64000
66000
68000
70000
72000
000
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
1955
1958
1961
1964
1967
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
2015
J 17 Well Elevation (feet above
sea level)
Disc
harg
e an
d Re
char
ge
(tho
usan
ds o
f acf
t)
Recharge
Elevation
Edwards Aquifer does not retain water
Environmental Issue - Edwardsbull Aquifer supports Endangered species
Texas Blind Salamander Fountain Darter
San Marcos Gambusia San Marcos Salamander
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Wat
er E
leva
tion
(feet
)
Well 7708511
In Groundwater Management area 13 covering southern segment of Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer desired 2070 condition is no more than 48 feet average drawdown relative to 2012
-100-50
050
100150200250300
Elev
atio
n (F
eet)
Well 7738103
050
100150200250300350400450
95
2002
95
2003
95
2004
95
2005
95
2006
95
2007
95
2008
95
2009
95
2010
95
2011
95
2012
95
2013
95
2014
95
2015
95
2016
95
2017
Wat
er E
leva
tion
(Fee
t)
Well 7702509
Background on Demand and Population
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Municipal 68200
Industrial 12419
Mining 4646
Power Plant 28882
Irrigation 23674
Livestock 11261
Surface Water Usage (149k Acft)
Municipal 347889
Industrial 14129
Mining 47135
Power Plant 5357
Irrigation 210590
Livestock 18604
Ground Water Usage (643k Acft)
bull Heavy water usage by municipal sector bull Irrigation uses mainly groundwater
Rapid Population Growth
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Bexar County Historical and Projected Population (Million)
000
050
100
150
200
2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
South Central Texas Demand Supply and Gap (Million Acft)
Demands Existing Supplies Deficit
Population growth leads tobull Rapid municipal industrial and
electricity cooling demandbull Growing deficit
Challenges from Frackingbull Between 2000 and 2014 water used to drill a horizontal natural gas well
increased from 177000 to 51 million gallons per wellbull Fracking (mining) is largest water use in some countiesbull Heavy fracking in winter garden increased Carrizo-Wilcox drawdown
020406080
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Mining water usage as proportion of total usage
Dimmit LA Salle
-100-50
050
100150200250300
111
503
072
004
081
505
042
506
020
507
102
507
071
508
123
009
093
010
122
511
102
012
071
513
032
514
113
014
081
015
042
016
122
516
092
017
Elev
atio
n (F
eet)
Water Elevation of Well 7738103 on La Salle and Dimmit Boarder
Climate Change
Temperature historyYear Change from
20th Century Average
Rank out of 138 years
2014 074degC 135
2015 090degC 137
2016 094degC 138
2017 084degC 136
bull 2017 was the third warmest year in NOAAs 138-year series bull 41ht consecutive year (since 1977) that annual temperature is above 20th century average bull All 17 years of 21st century rank are among seventeen warmest on record (1998 is ninth) bull Six warmest years have all occurred since 2010 bull Four warmest have been last 4bull Temperatures in 2015-2016 were majorly influenced by strong El Nintildeobull Increased 007degC (013degF) per decade since 1880 and 017degC (031degF) since 1970
Climate Change is making things non stationary
y = 745x + 40704y = -48512x + 11293
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Rech
arge
in th
ousa
nd a
cre
feet
Year
Edwards Aquifer Recharge Over Time
Recharge 1934-1975 Recharge 1975-2015Linear (Recharge 1934-1975) Linear (Recharge 1975-2015)
httpwwwedwardsaquifernetdatahtml
Climate Change is making things non stationary
WaterCan we use 100 year floodMilly PCD J Betancourt M Falkenmark 2008 Climate Change Stationarity Is Dead WhitherWater Management Science Vol 319 No 5863 pp 573 ndash 574
McCarl Bruce A Xavier Villavicencio and Ximing Wu Climate change and future analysis is stationarity dying American Journal of Agricultural Economics 905 (2008) 1241-1247
Ag yieldsCan we history to assess risk
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Figure 1 Global temperature change and uncertainty From Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projectionsReto Knutti amp Jan Sedlaacuteček Nature Climate Change 3 369ndash373 (2013) doi101038nclimate1716
Climate Changebull Use data for 2030 and 2090
Canadian Climate Center Model (CCC)
Hadley Climate Center Model (HAD)
Average changes for the 10 year periods
Climate Change Scenarios Temperature (0F) Precipitation (Inches)
HAD 2030 32 -41
HAD 2090 901 -078
CCC 2030 541 -1436
CCC 2090 1461 -456
Less water in much of
Southwest region
(IPCC WH2 AR5 chapter 3)
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Results for EA Recharge Prediction( change from the BASE ) Hadley Canadian
Recharge in Drought Years -2059 - -2965
Recharge in Normal Years -1968 - -2899 -
Recharge in Wet Years -2364 - -3442 -
Municipal DemandForecasted that climate change will increase municipal water demand by 15 (HAD) to 35 (CCC)
Climate Changebull Edwards Aquifer is vulnerable under climate change much less recharge
under La Ninabull Decreasing precipitation in far future makes Groundwater more
vulnerable
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Precipitation Changing Rate Under Canadian GCM
0001020304050607080910
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1300 1800
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
Prob
abilit
y of
Rec
harg
e
Thousand Acre-Feet
Edwards Aquifer Recharge
newchart
Probability of Recharge
Thousand Acre-Feet
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
0
0
0
0
0
0
0125
04
02142857143
0375
06
02142857143
0375
06
05
05
08
06428571429
05
1
06428571429
05
07142857143
0625
07142857143
075
08571428571
075
08571428571
075
1
075
0875
1
1
cdf-graph1
ampA
Page ampP
Modeling
EDSIMR ndash the conceptUnify
bull Detailed aquifer hydrologic modelbull Regionalized economic Modelbull Surface water flow model bull Hydrology embedded in regional economic model via
regression (Keith Keplinger dissertation)1 Keith O Keplinger An investigation of Dry Year Options for the Edwards Aquifer PhD Thesis TAMU 1996 2 File Number 598 - Keplinger KO and BA McCarl Regression Based Investigation of Pumping Limits and Springflow Within the
Edwards Aquifer Texas A and M University 19953 File Number 829 - Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water
Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April ) 59-78 2001
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
RegionalCrop Mixinput use
Envloads
Crop and Env
Simulators(EPICSWAT)
Runoff Simulators(SWAT)
GIS
Non AgResourceDemand
GCMs
LivestockData
Simulator Bundle
PestRegressions
GroundwaterSimulator(GAM)
Water Quality
EDSIMR SWAT
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
What is contained in EDSIMR bull Simulation Model (GAM)
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
THIS DATA IS USED 3 PHASE SOI
THIS BLOCK IS USED TO GENERATED A GRAPH SHOWN IN cdf-chart
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (USGS)
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (HDR data)
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
0
0000
0000
0
0-100
00000
01000
00570
0-100
0
01
0
100
0000
0000
0
101-200
02500
04000
03430
101-200
0167
04
0229
200
0125
0400
0214
201-300
05830
06000
04570
201-300
0417
05
04
300
0375
0600
0214
301-400
05830
06000
06860
301-400
0583
08
0629
400
0375
0600
0500
401-500
06670
08000
07430
401-500
0667
09
0743
500
0500
0800
0643
501-600
06670
09000
07710
501-600
0667
09
08
600
0500
1000
0643
601-700
06670
09000
08290
601-700
075
1
0829
700
0500
0714
701-800
07500
10000
08570
701-800
075
0914
800
0625
0714
801-900
08330
09430
801-900
0917
0971
900
0750
0857
901-1000
08330
09710
901-1000
0917
1
1000
0750
0857
1001-1100
09170
10000
1001-1100
1
1200
0750
1000
1101-1714
10000
1300
0750
1500
0875
1800
1000
2000
1
0
0
0
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
300
300
400
400
400
500
500
500
600
600
600
700
700
700
800
800
800
900
900
900
1000
1000
1000
1200
1200
1200
1300
1300
1300
1500
1500
1500
1800
1800
1800
2000
2000
2000
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
000
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
30000019
55
1958
1961
1964
1967
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
2015
Disc
harg
e an
d Re
char
ge
Discharge
Recharge
Unit is thousands of acft which is 1233 cubic meters)
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
58000
60000
62000
64000
66000
68000
70000
72000
000
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
1955
1958
1961
1964
1967
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
2015
J 17 Well Elevation (feet above
sea level)
Disc
harg
e an
d Re
char
ge
(tho
usan
ds o
f acf
t)
Recharge
Elevation
Edwards Aquifer does not retain water
Environmental Issue - Edwardsbull Aquifer supports Endangered species
Texas Blind Salamander Fountain Darter
San Marcos Gambusia San Marcos Salamander
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Wat
er E
leva
tion
(feet
)
Well 7708511
In Groundwater Management area 13 covering southern segment of Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer desired 2070 condition is no more than 48 feet average drawdown relative to 2012
-100-50
050
100150200250300
Elev
atio
n (F
eet)
Well 7738103
050
100150200250300350400450
95
2002
95
2003
95
2004
95
2005
95
2006
95
2007
95
2008
95
2009
95
2010
95
2011
95
2012
95
2013
95
2014
95
2015
95
2016
95
2017
Wat
er E
leva
tion
(Fee
t)
Well 7702509
Background on Demand and Population
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Municipal 68200
Industrial 12419
Mining 4646
Power Plant 28882
Irrigation 23674
Livestock 11261
Surface Water Usage (149k Acft)
Municipal 347889
Industrial 14129
Mining 47135
Power Plant 5357
Irrigation 210590
Livestock 18604
Ground Water Usage (643k Acft)
bull Heavy water usage by municipal sector bull Irrigation uses mainly groundwater
Rapid Population Growth
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Bexar County Historical and Projected Population (Million)
000
050
100
150
200
2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
South Central Texas Demand Supply and Gap (Million Acft)
Demands Existing Supplies Deficit
Population growth leads tobull Rapid municipal industrial and
electricity cooling demandbull Growing deficit
Challenges from Frackingbull Between 2000 and 2014 water used to drill a horizontal natural gas well
increased from 177000 to 51 million gallons per wellbull Fracking (mining) is largest water use in some countiesbull Heavy fracking in winter garden increased Carrizo-Wilcox drawdown
020406080
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Mining water usage as proportion of total usage
Dimmit LA Salle
-100-50
050
100150200250300
111
503
072
004
081
505
042
506
020
507
102
507
071
508
123
009
093
010
122
511
102
012
071
513
032
514
113
014
081
015
042
016
122
516
092
017
Elev
atio
n (F
eet)
Water Elevation of Well 7738103 on La Salle and Dimmit Boarder
Climate Change
Temperature historyYear Change from
20th Century Average
Rank out of 138 years
2014 074degC 135
2015 090degC 137
2016 094degC 138
2017 084degC 136
bull 2017 was the third warmest year in NOAAs 138-year series bull 41ht consecutive year (since 1977) that annual temperature is above 20th century average bull All 17 years of 21st century rank are among seventeen warmest on record (1998 is ninth) bull Six warmest years have all occurred since 2010 bull Four warmest have been last 4bull Temperatures in 2015-2016 were majorly influenced by strong El Nintildeobull Increased 007degC (013degF) per decade since 1880 and 017degC (031degF) since 1970
Climate Change is making things non stationary
y = 745x + 40704y = -48512x + 11293
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Rech
arge
in th
ousa
nd a
cre
feet
Year
Edwards Aquifer Recharge Over Time
Recharge 1934-1975 Recharge 1975-2015Linear (Recharge 1934-1975) Linear (Recharge 1975-2015)
httpwwwedwardsaquifernetdatahtml
Climate Change is making things non stationary
WaterCan we use 100 year floodMilly PCD J Betancourt M Falkenmark 2008 Climate Change Stationarity Is Dead WhitherWater Management Science Vol 319 No 5863 pp 573 ndash 574
McCarl Bruce A Xavier Villavicencio and Ximing Wu Climate change and future analysis is stationarity dying American Journal of Agricultural Economics 905 (2008) 1241-1247
Ag yieldsCan we history to assess risk
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Figure 1 Global temperature change and uncertainty From Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projectionsReto Knutti amp Jan Sedlaacuteček Nature Climate Change 3 369ndash373 (2013) doi101038nclimate1716
Climate Changebull Use data for 2030 and 2090
Canadian Climate Center Model (CCC)
Hadley Climate Center Model (HAD)
Average changes for the 10 year periods
Climate Change Scenarios Temperature (0F) Precipitation (Inches)
HAD 2030 32 -41
HAD 2090 901 -078
CCC 2030 541 -1436
CCC 2090 1461 -456
Less water in much of
Southwest region
(IPCC WH2 AR5 chapter 3)
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Results for EA Recharge Prediction( change from the BASE ) Hadley Canadian
Recharge in Drought Years -2059 - -2965
Recharge in Normal Years -1968 - -2899 -
Recharge in Wet Years -2364 - -3442 -
Municipal DemandForecasted that climate change will increase municipal water demand by 15 (HAD) to 35 (CCC)
Climate Changebull Edwards Aquifer is vulnerable under climate change much less recharge
under La Ninabull Decreasing precipitation in far future makes Groundwater more
vulnerable
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Precipitation Changing Rate Under Canadian GCM
0001020304050607080910
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1300 1800
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
Prob
abilit
y of
Rec
harg
e
Thousand Acre-Feet
Edwards Aquifer Recharge
newchart
Probability of Recharge
Thousand Acre-Feet
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
0
0
0
0
0
0
0125
04
02142857143
0375
06
02142857143
0375
06
05
05
08
06428571429
05
1
06428571429
05
07142857143
0625
07142857143
075
08571428571
075
08571428571
075
1
075
0875
1
1
cdf-graph1
ampA
Page ampP
Modeling
EDSIMR ndash the conceptUnify
bull Detailed aquifer hydrologic modelbull Regionalized economic Modelbull Surface water flow model bull Hydrology embedded in regional economic model via
regression (Keith Keplinger dissertation)1 Keith O Keplinger An investigation of Dry Year Options for the Edwards Aquifer PhD Thesis TAMU 1996 2 File Number 598 - Keplinger KO and BA McCarl Regression Based Investigation of Pumping Limits and Springflow Within the
Edwards Aquifer Texas A and M University 19953 File Number 829 - Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water
Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April ) 59-78 2001
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
RegionalCrop Mixinput use
Envloads
Crop and Env
Simulators(EPICSWAT)
Runoff Simulators(SWAT)
GIS
Non AgResourceDemand
GCMs
LivestockData
Simulator Bundle
PestRegressions
GroundwaterSimulator(GAM)
Water Quality
EDSIMR SWAT
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
What is contained in EDSIMR bull Simulation Model (GAM)
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
THIS DATA IS USED 3 PHASE SOI
THIS BLOCK IS USED TO GENERATED A GRAPH SHOWN IN cdf-chart
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (USGS)
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (HDR data)
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
0
0000
0000
0
0-100
00000
01000
00570
0-100
0
01
0
100
0000
0000
0
101-200
02500
04000
03430
101-200
0167
04
0229
200
0125
0400
0214
201-300
05830
06000
04570
201-300
0417
05
04
300
0375
0600
0214
301-400
05830
06000
06860
301-400
0583
08
0629
400
0375
0600
0500
401-500
06670
08000
07430
401-500
0667
09
0743
500
0500
0800
0643
501-600
06670
09000
07710
501-600
0667
09
08
600
0500
1000
0643
601-700
06670
09000
08290
601-700
075
1
0829
700
0500
0714
701-800
07500
10000
08570
701-800
075
0914
800
0625
0714
801-900
08330
09430
801-900
0917
0971
900
0750
0857
901-1000
08330
09710
901-1000
0917
1
1000
0750
0857
1001-1100
09170
10000
1001-1100
1
1200
0750
1000
1101-1714
10000
1300
0750
1500
0875
1800
1000
2000
1
0
0
0
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
300
300
400
400
400
500
500
500
600
600
600
700
700
700
800
800
800
900
900
900
1000
1000
1000
1200
1200
1200
1300
1300
1300
1500
1500
1500
1800
1800
1800
2000
2000
2000
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
58000
60000
62000
64000
66000
68000
70000
72000
000
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
1955
1958
1961
1964
1967
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
2015
J 17 Well Elevation (feet above
sea level)
Disc
harg
e an
d Re
char
ge
(tho
usan
ds o
f acf
t)
Recharge
Elevation
Edwards Aquifer does not retain water
Environmental Issue - Edwardsbull Aquifer supports Endangered species
Texas Blind Salamander Fountain Darter
San Marcos Gambusia San Marcos Salamander
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Wat
er E
leva
tion
(feet
)
Well 7708511
In Groundwater Management area 13 covering southern segment of Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer desired 2070 condition is no more than 48 feet average drawdown relative to 2012
-100-50
050
100150200250300
Elev
atio
n (F
eet)
Well 7738103
050
100150200250300350400450
95
2002
95
2003
95
2004
95
2005
95
2006
95
2007
95
2008
95
2009
95
2010
95
2011
95
2012
95
2013
95
2014
95
2015
95
2016
95
2017
Wat
er E
leva
tion
(Fee
t)
Well 7702509
Background on Demand and Population
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Municipal 68200
Industrial 12419
Mining 4646
Power Plant 28882
Irrigation 23674
Livestock 11261
Surface Water Usage (149k Acft)
Municipal 347889
Industrial 14129
Mining 47135
Power Plant 5357
Irrigation 210590
Livestock 18604
Ground Water Usage (643k Acft)
bull Heavy water usage by municipal sector bull Irrigation uses mainly groundwater
Rapid Population Growth
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Bexar County Historical and Projected Population (Million)
000
050
100
150
200
2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
South Central Texas Demand Supply and Gap (Million Acft)
Demands Existing Supplies Deficit
Population growth leads tobull Rapid municipal industrial and
electricity cooling demandbull Growing deficit
Challenges from Frackingbull Between 2000 and 2014 water used to drill a horizontal natural gas well
increased from 177000 to 51 million gallons per wellbull Fracking (mining) is largest water use in some countiesbull Heavy fracking in winter garden increased Carrizo-Wilcox drawdown
020406080
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Mining water usage as proportion of total usage
Dimmit LA Salle
-100-50
050
100150200250300
111
503
072
004
081
505
042
506
020
507
102
507
071
508
123
009
093
010
122
511
102
012
071
513
032
514
113
014
081
015
042
016
122
516
092
017
Elev
atio
n (F
eet)
Water Elevation of Well 7738103 on La Salle and Dimmit Boarder
Climate Change
Temperature historyYear Change from
20th Century Average
Rank out of 138 years
2014 074degC 135
2015 090degC 137
2016 094degC 138
2017 084degC 136
bull 2017 was the third warmest year in NOAAs 138-year series bull 41ht consecutive year (since 1977) that annual temperature is above 20th century average bull All 17 years of 21st century rank are among seventeen warmest on record (1998 is ninth) bull Six warmest years have all occurred since 2010 bull Four warmest have been last 4bull Temperatures in 2015-2016 were majorly influenced by strong El Nintildeobull Increased 007degC (013degF) per decade since 1880 and 017degC (031degF) since 1970
Climate Change is making things non stationary
y = 745x + 40704y = -48512x + 11293
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Rech
arge
in th
ousa
nd a
cre
feet
Year
Edwards Aquifer Recharge Over Time
Recharge 1934-1975 Recharge 1975-2015Linear (Recharge 1934-1975) Linear (Recharge 1975-2015)
httpwwwedwardsaquifernetdatahtml
Climate Change is making things non stationary
WaterCan we use 100 year floodMilly PCD J Betancourt M Falkenmark 2008 Climate Change Stationarity Is Dead WhitherWater Management Science Vol 319 No 5863 pp 573 ndash 574
McCarl Bruce A Xavier Villavicencio and Ximing Wu Climate change and future analysis is stationarity dying American Journal of Agricultural Economics 905 (2008) 1241-1247
Ag yieldsCan we history to assess risk
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Figure 1 Global temperature change and uncertainty From Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projectionsReto Knutti amp Jan Sedlaacuteček Nature Climate Change 3 369ndash373 (2013) doi101038nclimate1716
Climate Changebull Use data for 2030 and 2090
Canadian Climate Center Model (CCC)
Hadley Climate Center Model (HAD)
Average changes for the 10 year periods
Climate Change Scenarios Temperature (0F) Precipitation (Inches)
HAD 2030 32 -41
HAD 2090 901 -078
CCC 2030 541 -1436
CCC 2090 1461 -456
Less water in much of
Southwest region
(IPCC WH2 AR5 chapter 3)
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Results for EA Recharge Prediction( change from the BASE ) Hadley Canadian
Recharge in Drought Years -2059 - -2965
Recharge in Normal Years -1968 - -2899 -
Recharge in Wet Years -2364 - -3442 -
Municipal DemandForecasted that climate change will increase municipal water demand by 15 (HAD) to 35 (CCC)
Climate Changebull Edwards Aquifer is vulnerable under climate change much less recharge
under La Ninabull Decreasing precipitation in far future makes Groundwater more
vulnerable
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Precipitation Changing Rate Under Canadian GCM
0001020304050607080910
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1300 1800
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
Prob
abilit
y of
Rec
harg
e
Thousand Acre-Feet
Edwards Aquifer Recharge
newchart
Probability of Recharge
Thousand Acre-Feet
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
0
0
0
0
0
0
0125
04
02142857143
0375
06
02142857143
0375
06
05
05
08
06428571429
05
1
06428571429
05
07142857143
0625
07142857143
075
08571428571
075
08571428571
075
1
075
0875
1
1
cdf-graph1
ampA
Page ampP
Modeling
EDSIMR ndash the conceptUnify
bull Detailed aquifer hydrologic modelbull Regionalized economic Modelbull Surface water flow model bull Hydrology embedded in regional economic model via
regression (Keith Keplinger dissertation)1 Keith O Keplinger An investigation of Dry Year Options for the Edwards Aquifer PhD Thesis TAMU 1996 2 File Number 598 - Keplinger KO and BA McCarl Regression Based Investigation of Pumping Limits and Springflow Within the
Edwards Aquifer Texas A and M University 19953 File Number 829 - Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water
Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April ) 59-78 2001
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
RegionalCrop Mixinput use
Envloads
Crop and Env
Simulators(EPICSWAT)
Runoff Simulators(SWAT)
GIS
Non AgResourceDemand
GCMs
LivestockData
Simulator Bundle
PestRegressions
GroundwaterSimulator(GAM)
Water Quality
EDSIMR SWAT
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
What is contained in EDSIMR bull Simulation Model (GAM)
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
THIS DATA IS USED 3 PHASE SOI
THIS BLOCK IS USED TO GENERATED A GRAPH SHOWN IN cdf-chart
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (USGS)
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (HDR data)
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
0
0000
0000
0
0-100
00000
01000
00570
0-100
0
01
0
100
0000
0000
0
101-200
02500
04000
03430
101-200
0167
04
0229
200
0125
0400
0214
201-300
05830
06000
04570
201-300
0417
05
04
300
0375
0600
0214
301-400
05830
06000
06860
301-400
0583
08
0629
400
0375
0600
0500
401-500
06670
08000
07430
401-500
0667
09
0743
500
0500
0800
0643
501-600
06670
09000
07710
501-600
0667
09
08
600
0500
1000
0643
601-700
06670
09000
08290
601-700
075
1
0829
700
0500
0714
701-800
07500
10000
08570
701-800
075
0914
800
0625
0714
801-900
08330
09430
801-900
0917
0971
900
0750
0857
901-1000
08330
09710
901-1000
0917
1
1000
0750
0857
1001-1100
09170
10000
1001-1100
1
1200
0750
1000
1101-1714
10000
1300
0750
1500
0875
1800
1000
2000
1
0
0
0
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
300
300
400
400
400
500
500
500
600
600
600
700
700
700
800
800
800
900
900
900
1000
1000
1000
1200
1200
1200
1300
1300
1300
1500
1500
1500
1800
1800
1800
2000
2000
2000
Environmental Issue - Edwardsbull Aquifer supports Endangered species
Texas Blind Salamander Fountain Darter
San Marcos Gambusia San Marcos Salamander
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Wat
er E
leva
tion
(feet
)
Well 7708511
In Groundwater Management area 13 covering southern segment of Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer desired 2070 condition is no more than 48 feet average drawdown relative to 2012
-100-50
050
100150200250300
Elev
atio
n (F
eet)
Well 7738103
050
100150200250300350400450
95
2002
95
2003
95
2004
95
2005
95
2006
95
2007
95
2008
95
2009
95
2010
95
2011
95
2012
95
2013
95
2014
95
2015
95
2016
95
2017
Wat
er E
leva
tion
(Fee
t)
Well 7702509
Background on Demand and Population
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Municipal 68200
Industrial 12419
Mining 4646
Power Plant 28882
Irrigation 23674
Livestock 11261
Surface Water Usage (149k Acft)
Municipal 347889
Industrial 14129
Mining 47135
Power Plant 5357
Irrigation 210590
Livestock 18604
Ground Water Usage (643k Acft)
bull Heavy water usage by municipal sector bull Irrigation uses mainly groundwater
Rapid Population Growth
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Bexar County Historical and Projected Population (Million)
000
050
100
150
200
2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
South Central Texas Demand Supply and Gap (Million Acft)
Demands Existing Supplies Deficit
Population growth leads tobull Rapid municipal industrial and
electricity cooling demandbull Growing deficit
Challenges from Frackingbull Between 2000 and 2014 water used to drill a horizontal natural gas well
increased from 177000 to 51 million gallons per wellbull Fracking (mining) is largest water use in some countiesbull Heavy fracking in winter garden increased Carrizo-Wilcox drawdown
020406080
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Mining water usage as proportion of total usage
Dimmit LA Salle
-100-50
050
100150200250300
111
503
072
004
081
505
042
506
020
507
102
507
071
508
123
009
093
010
122
511
102
012
071
513
032
514
113
014
081
015
042
016
122
516
092
017
Elev
atio
n (F
eet)
Water Elevation of Well 7738103 on La Salle and Dimmit Boarder
Climate Change
Temperature historyYear Change from
20th Century Average
Rank out of 138 years
2014 074degC 135
2015 090degC 137
2016 094degC 138
2017 084degC 136
bull 2017 was the third warmest year in NOAAs 138-year series bull 41ht consecutive year (since 1977) that annual temperature is above 20th century average bull All 17 years of 21st century rank are among seventeen warmest on record (1998 is ninth) bull Six warmest years have all occurred since 2010 bull Four warmest have been last 4bull Temperatures in 2015-2016 were majorly influenced by strong El Nintildeobull Increased 007degC (013degF) per decade since 1880 and 017degC (031degF) since 1970
Climate Change is making things non stationary
y = 745x + 40704y = -48512x + 11293
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Rech
arge
in th
ousa
nd a
cre
feet
Year
Edwards Aquifer Recharge Over Time
Recharge 1934-1975 Recharge 1975-2015Linear (Recharge 1934-1975) Linear (Recharge 1975-2015)
httpwwwedwardsaquifernetdatahtml
Climate Change is making things non stationary
WaterCan we use 100 year floodMilly PCD J Betancourt M Falkenmark 2008 Climate Change Stationarity Is Dead WhitherWater Management Science Vol 319 No 5863 pp 573 ndash 574
McCarl Bruce A Xavier Villavicencio and Ximing Wu Climate change and future analysis is stationarity dying American Journal of Agricultural Economics 905 (2008) 1241-1247
Ag yieldsCan we history to assess risk
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Figure 1 Global temperature change and uncertainty From Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projectionsReto Knutti amp Jan Sedlaacuteček Nature Climate Change 3 369ndash373 (2013) doi101038nclimate1716
Climate Changebull Use data for 2030 and 2090
Canadian Climate Center Model (CCC)
Hadley Climate Center Model (HAD)
Average changes for the 10 year periods
Climate Change Scenarios Temperature (0F) Precipitation (Inches)
HAD 2030 32 -41
HAD 2090 901 -078
CCC 2030 541 -1436
CCC 2090 1461 -456
Less water in much of
Southwest region
(IPCC WH2 AR5 chapter 3)
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Results for EA Recharge Prediction( change from the BASE ) Hadley Canadian
Recharge in Drought Years -2059 - -2965
Recharge in Normal Years -1968 - -2899 -
Recharge in Wet Years -2364 - -3442 -
Municipal DemandForecasted that climate change will increase municipal water demand by 15 (HAD) to 35 (CCC)
Climate Changebull Edwards Aquifer is vulnerable under climate change much less recharge
under La Ninabull Decreasing precipitation in far future makes Groundwater more
vulnerable
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Precipitation Changing Rate Under Canadian GCM
0001020304050607080910
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1300 1800
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
Prob
abilit
y of
Rec
harg
e
Thousand Acre-Feet
Edwards Aquifer Recharge
newchart
Probability of Recharge
Thousand Acre-Feet
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
0
0
0
0
0
0
0125
04
02142857143
0375
06
02142857143
0375
06
05
05
08
06428571429
05
1
06428571429
05
07142857143
0625
07142857143
075
08571428571
075
08571428571
075
1
075
0875
1
1
cdf-graph1
ampA
Page ampP
Modeling
EDSIMR ndash the conceptUnify
bull Detailed aquifer hydrologic modelbull Regionalized economic Modelbull Surface water flow model bull Hydrology embedded in regional economic model via
regression (Keith Keplinger dissertation)1 Keith O Keplinger An investigation of Dry Year Options for the Edwards Aquifer PhD Thesis TAMU 1996 2 File Number 598 - Keplinger KO and BA McCarl Regression Based Investigation of Pumping Limits and Springflow Within the
Edwards Aquifer Texas A and M University 19953 File Number 829 - Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water
Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April ) 59-78 2001
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
RegionalCrop Mixinput use
Envloads
Crop and Env
Simulators(EPICSWAT)
Runoff Simulators(SWAT)
GIS
Non AgResourceDemand
GCMs
LivestockData
Simulator Bundle
PestRegressions
GroundwaterSimulator(GAM)
Water Quality
EDSIMR SWAT
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
What is contained in EDSIMR bull Simulation Model (GAM)
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
THIS DATA IS USED 3 PHASE SOI
THIS BLOCK IS USED TO GENERATED A GRAPH SHOWN IN cdf-chart
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (USGS)
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (HDR data)
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
0
0000
0000
0
0-100
00000
01000
00570
0-100
0
01
0
100
0000
0000
0
101-200
02500
04000
03430
101-200
0167
04
0229
200
0125
0400
0214
201-300
05830
06000
04570
201-300
0417
05
04
300
0375
0600
0214
301-400
05830
06000
06860
301-400
0583
08
0629
400
0375
0600
0500
401-500
06670
08000
07430
401-500
0667
09
0743
500
0500
0800
0643
501-600
06670
09000
07710
501-600
0667
09
08
600
0500
1000
0643
601-700
06670
09000
08290
601-700
075
1
0829
700
0500
0714
701-800
07500
10000
08570
701-800
075
0914
800
0625
0714
801-900
08330
09430
801-900
0917
0971
900
0750
0857
901-1000
08330
09710
901-1000
0917
1
1000
0750
0857
1001-1100
09170
10000
1001-1100
1
1200
0750
1000
1101-1714
10000
1300
0750
1500
0875
1800
1000
2000
1
0
0
0
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
300
300
400
400
400
500
500
500
600
600
600
700
700
700
800
800
800
900
900
900
1000
1000
1000
1200
1200
1200
1300
1300
1300
1500
1500
1500
1800
1800
1800
2000
2000
2000
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Wat
er E
leva
tion
(feet
)
Well 7708511
In Groundwater Management area 13 covering southern segment of Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer desired 2070 condition is no more than 48 feet average drawdown relative to 2012
-100-50
050
100150200250300
Elev
atio
n (F
eet)
Well 7738103
050
100150200250300350400450
95
2002
95
2003
95
2004
95
2005
95
2006
95
2007
95
2008
95
2009
95
2010
95
2011
95
2012
95
2013
95
2014
95
2015
95
2016
95
2017
Wat
er E
leva
tion
(Fee
t)
Well 7702509
Background on Demand and Population
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Municipal 68200
Industrial 12419
Mining 4646
Power Plant 28882
Irrigation 23674
Livestock 11261
Surface Water Usage (149k Acft)
Municipal 347889
Industrial 14129
Mining 47135
Power Plant 5357
Irrigation 210590
Livestock 18604
Ground Water Usage (643k Acft)
bull Heavy water usage by municipal sector bull Irrigation uses mainly groundwater
Rapid Population Growth
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Bexar County Historical and Projected Population (Million)
000
050
100
150
200
2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
South Central Texas Demand Supply and Gap (Million Acft)
Demands Existing Supplies Deficit
Population growth leads tobull Rapid municipal industrial and
electricity cooling demandbull Growing deficit
Challenges from Frackingbull Between 2000 and 2014 water used to drill a horizontal natural gas well
increased from 177000 to 51 million gallons per wellbull Fracking (mining) is largest water use in some countiesbull Heavy fracking in winter garden increased Carrizo-Wilcox drawdown
020406080
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Mining water usage as proportion of total usage
Dimmit LA Salle
-100-50
050
100150200250300
111
503
072
004
081
505
042
506
020
507
102
507
071
508
123
009
093
010
122
511
102
012
071
513
032
514
113
014
081
015
042
016
122
516
092
017
Elev
atio
n (F
eet)
Water Elevation of Well 7738103 on La Salle and Dimmit Boarder
Climate Change
Temperature historyYear Change from
20th Century Average
Rank out of 138 years
2014 074degC 135
2015 090degC 137
2016 094degC 138
2017 084degC 136
bull 2017 was the third warmest year in NOAAs 138-year series bull 41ht consecutive year (since 1977) that annual temperature is above 20th century average bull All 17 years of 21st century rank are among seventeen warmest on record (1998 is ninth) bull Six warmest years have all occurred since 2010 bull Four warmest have been last 4bull Temperatures in 2015-2016 were majorly influenced by strong El Nintildeobull Increased 007degC (013degF) per decade since 1880 and 017degC (031degF) since 1970
Climate Change is making things non stationary
y = 745x + 40704y = -48512x + 11293
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Rech
arge
in th
ousa
nd a
cre
feet
Year
Edwards Aquifer Recharge Over Time
Recharge 1934-1975 Recharge 1975-2015Linear (Recharge 1934-1975) Linear (Recharge 1975-2015)
httpwwwedwardsaquifernetdatahtml
Climate Change is making things non stationary
WaterCan we use 100 year floodMilly PCD J Betancourt M Falkenmark 2008 Climate Change Stationarity Is Dead WhitherWater Management Science Vol 319 No 5863 pp 573 ndash 574
McCarl Bruce A Xavier Villavicencio and Ximing Wu Climate change and future analysis is stationarity dying American Journal of Agricultural Economics 905 (2008) 1241-1247
Ag yieldsCan we history to assess risk
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Figure 1 Global temperature change and uncertainty From Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projectionsReto Knutti amp Jan Sedlaacuteček Nature Climate Change 3 369ndash373 (2013) doi101038nclimate1716
Climate Changebull Use data for 2030 and 2090
Canadian Climate Center Model (CCC)
Hadley Climate Center Model (HAD)
Average changes for the 10 year periods
Climate Change Scenarios Temperature (0F) Precipitation (Inches)
HAD 2030 32 -41
HAD 2090 901 -078
CCC 2030 541 -1436
CCC 2090 1461 -456
Less water in much of
Southwest region
(IPCC WH2 AR5 chapter 3)
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Results for EA Recharge Prediction( change from the BASE ) Hadley Canadian
Recharge in Drought Years -2059 - -2965
Recharge in Normal Years -1968 - -2899 -
Recharge in Wet Years -2364 - -3442 -
Municipal DemandForecasted that climate change will increase municipal water demand by 15 (HAD) to 35 (CCC)
Climate Changebull Edwards Aquifer is vulnerable under climate change much less recharge
under La Ninabull Decreasing precipitation in far future makes Groundwater more
vulnerable
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Precipitation Changing Rate Under Canadian GCM
0001020304050607080910
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1300 1800
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
Prob
abilit
y of
Rec
harg
e
Thousand Acre-Feet
Edwards Aquifer Recharge
newchart
Probability of Recharge
Thousand Acre-Feet
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
0
0
0
0
0
0
0125
04
02142857143
0375
06
02142857143
0375
06
05
05
08
06428571429
05
1
06428571429
05
07142857143
0625
07142857143
075
08571428571
075
08571428571
075
1
075
0875
1
1
cdf-graph1
ampA
Page ampP
Modeling
EDSIMR ndash the conceptUnify
bull Detailed aquifer hydrologic modelbull Regionalized economic Modelbull Surface water flow model bull Hydrology embedded in regional economic model via
regression (Keith Keplinger dissertation)1 Keith O Keplinger An investigation of Dry Year Options for the Edwards Aquifer PhD Thesis TAMU 1996 2 File Number 598 - Keplinger KO and BA McCarl Regression Based Investigation of Pumping Limits and Springflow Within the
Edwards Aquifer Texas A and M University 19953 File Number 829 - Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water
Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April ) 59-78 2001
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
RegionalCrop Mixinput use
Envloads
Crop and Env
Simulators(EPICSWAT)
Runoff Simulators(SWAT)
GIS
Non AgResourceDemand
GCMs
LivestockData
Simulator Bundle
PestRegressions
GroundwaterSimulator(GAM)
Water Quality
EDSIMR SWAT
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
What is contained in EDSIMR bull Simulation Model (GAM)
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
THIS DATA IS USED 3 PHASE SOI
THIS BLOCK IS USED TO GENERATED A GRAPH SHOWN IN cdf-chart
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (USGS)
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (HDR data)
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
0
0000
0000
0
0-100
00000
01000
00570
0-100
0
01
0
100
0000
0000
0
101-200
02500
04000
03430
101-200
0167
04
0229
200
0125
0400
0214
201-300
05830
06000
04570
201-300
0417
05
04
300
0375
0600
0214
301-400
05830
06000
06860
301-400
0583
08
0629
400
0375
0600
0500
401-500
06670
08000
07430
401-500
0667
09
0743
500
0500
0800
0643
501-600
06670
09000
07710
501-600
0667
09
08
600
0500
1000
0643
601-700
06670
09000
08290
601-700
075
1
0829
700
0500
0714
701-800
07500
10000
08570
701-800
075
0914
800
0625
0714
801-900
08330
09430
801-900
0917
0971
900
0750
0857
901-1000
08330
09710
901-1000
0917
1
1000
0750
0857
1001-1100
09170
10000
1001-1100
1
1200
0750
1000
1101-1714
10000
1300
0750
1500
0875
1800
1000
2000
1
0
0
0
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
300
300
400
400
400
500
500
500
600
600
600
700
700
700
800
800
800
900
900
900
1000
1000
1000
1200
1200
1200
1300
1300
1300
1500
1500
1500
1800
1800
1800
2000
2000
2000
Background on Demand and Population
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Municipal 68200
Industrial 12419
Mining 4646
Power Plant 28882
Irrigation 23674
Livestock 11261
Surface Water Usage (149k Acft)
Municipal 347889
Industrial 14129
Mining 47135
Power Plant 5357
Irrigation 210590
Livestock 18604
Ground Water Usage (643k Acft)
bull Heavy water usage by municipal sector bull Irrigation uses mainly groundwater
Rapid Population Growth
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Bexar County Historical and Projected Population (Million)
000
050
100
150
200
2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
South Central Texas Demand Supply and Gap (Million Acft)
Demands Existing Supplies Deficit
Population growth leads tobull Rapid municipal industrial and
electricity cooling demandbull Growing deficit
Challenges from Frackingbull Between 2000 and 2014 water used to drill a horizontal natural gas well
increased from 177000 to 51 million gallons per wellbull Fracking (mining) is largest water use in some countiesbull Heavy fracking in winter garden increased Carrizo-Wilcox drawdown
020406080
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Mining water usage as proportion of total usage
Dimmit LA Salle
-100-50
050
100150200250300
111
503
072
004
081
505
042
506
020
507
102
507
071
508
123
009
093
010
122
511
102
012
071
513
032
514
113
014
081
015
042
016
122
516
092
017
Elev
atio
n (F
eet)
Water Elevation of Well 7738103 on La Salle and Dimmit Boarder
Climate Change
Temperature historyYear Change from
20th Century Average
Rank out of 138 years
2014 074degC 135
2015 090degC 137
2016 094degC 138
2017 084degC 136
bull 2017 was the third warmest year in NOAAs 138-year series bull 41ht consecutive year (since 1977) that annual temperature is above 20th century average bull All 17 years of 21st century rank are among seventeen warmest on record (1998 is ninth) bull Six warmest years have all occurred since 2010 bull Four warmest have been last 4bull Temperatures in 2015-2016 were majorly influenced by strong El Nintildeobull Increased 007degC (013degF) per decade since 1880 and 017degC (031degF) since 1970
Climate Change is making things non stationary
y = 745x + 40704y = -48512x + 11293
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Rech
arge
in th
ousa
nd a
cre
feet
Year
Edwards Aquifer Recharge Over Time
Recharge 1934-1975 Recharge 1975-2015Linear (Recharge 1934-1975) Linear (Recharge 1975-2015)
httpwwwedwardsaquifernetdatahtml
Climate Change is making things non stationary
WaterCan we use 100 year floodMilly PCD J Betancourt M Falkenmark 2008 Climate Change Stationarity Is Dead WhitherWater Management Science Vol 319 No 5863 pp 573 ndash 574
McCarl Bruce A Xavier Villavicencio and Ximing Wu Climate change and future analysis is stationarity dying American Journal of Agricultural Economics 905 (2008) 1241-1247
Ag yieldsCan we history to assess risk
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Figure 1 Global temperature change and uncertainty From Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projectionsReto Knutti amp Jan Sedlaacuteček Nature Climate Change 3 369ndash373 (2013) doi101038nclimate1716
Climate Changebull Use data for 2030 and 2090
Canadian Climate Center Model (CCC)
Hadley Climate Center Model (HAD)
Average changes for the 10 year periods
Climate Change Scenarios Temperature (0F) Precipitation (Inches)
HAD 2030 32 -41
HAD 2090 901 -078
CCC 2030 541 -1436
CCC 2090 1461 -456
Less water in much of
Southwest region
(IPCC WH2 AR5 chapter 3)
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Results for EA Recharge Prediction( change from the BASE ) Hadley Canadian
Recharge in Drought Years -2059 - -2965
Recharge in Normal Years -1968 - -2899 -
Recharge in Wet Years -2364 - -3442 -
Municipal DemandForecasted that climate change will increase municipal water demand by 15 (HAD) to 35 (CCC)
Climate Changebull Edwards Aquifer is vulnerable under climate change much less recharge
under La Ninabull Decreasing precipitation in far future makes Groundwater more
vulnerable
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Precipitation Changing Rate Under Canadian GCM
0001020304050607080910
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1300 1800
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
Prob
abilit
y of
Rec
harg
e
Thousand Acre-Feet
Edwards Aquifer Recharge
newchart
Probability of Recharge
Thousand Acre-Feet
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
0
0
0
0
0
0
0125
04
02142857143
0375
06
02142857143
0375
06
05
05
08
06428571429
05
1
06428571429
05
07142857143
0625
07142857143
075
08571428571
075
08571428571
075
1
075
0875
1
1
cdf-graph1
ampA
Page ampP
Modeling
EDSIMR ndash the conceptUnify
bull Detailed aquifer hydrologic modelbull Regionalized economic Modelbull Surface water flow model bull Hydrology embedded in regional economic model via
regression (Keith Keplinger dissertation)1 Keith O Keplinger An investigation of Dry Year Options for the Edwards Aquifer PhD Thesis TAMU 1996 2 File Number 598 - Keplinger KO and BA McCarl Regression Based Investigation of Pumping Limits and Springflow Within the
Edwards Aquifer Texas A and M University 19953 File Number 829 - Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water
Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April ) 59-78 2001
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
RegionalCrop Mixinput use
Envloads
Crop and Env
Simulators(EPICSWAT)
Runoff Simulators(SWAT)
GIS
Non AgResourceDemand
GCMs
LivestockData
Simulator Bundle
PestRegressions
GroundwaterSimulator(GAM)
Water Quality
EDSIMR SWAT
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
What is contained in EDSIMR bull Simulation Model (GAM)
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
THIS DATA IS USED 3 PHASE SOI
THIS BLOCK IS USED TO GENERATED A GRAPH SHOWN IN cdf-chart
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (USGS)
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (HDR data)
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
0
0000
0000
0
0-100
00000
01000
00570
0-100
0
01
0
100
0000
0000
0
101-200
02500
04000
03430
101-200
0167
04
0229
200
0125
0400
0214
201-300
05830
06000
04570
201-300
0417
05
04
300
0375
0600
0214
301-400
05830
06000
06860
301-400
0583
08
0629
400
0375
0600
0500
401-500
06670
08000
07430
401-500
0667
09
0743
500
0500
0800
0643
501-600
06670
09000
07710
501-600
0667
09
08
600
0500
1000
0643
601-700
06670
09000
08290
601-700
075
1
0829
700
0500
0714
701-800
07500
10000
08570
701-800
075
0914
800
0625
0714
801-900
08330
09430
801-900
0917
0971
900
0750
0857
901-1000
08330
09710
901-1000
0917
1
1000
0750
0857
1001-1100
09170
10000
1001-1100
1
1200
0750
1000
1101-1714
10000
1300
0750
1500
0875
1800
1000
2000
1
0
0
0
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
300
300
400
400
400
500
500
500
600
600
600
700
700
700
800
800
800
900
900
900
1000
1000
1000
1200
1200
1200
1300
1300
1300
1500
1500
1500
1800
1800
1800
2000
2000
2000
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Municipal 68200
Industrial 12419
Mining 4646
Power Plant 28882
Irrigation 23674
Livestock 11261
Surface Water Usage (149k Acft)
Municipal 347889
Industrial 14129
Mining 47135
Power Plant 5357
Irrigation 210590
Livestock 18604
Ground Water Usage (643k Acft)
bull Heavy water usage by municipal sector bull Irrigation uses mainly groundwater
Rapid Population Growth
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Bexar County Historical and Projected Population (Million)
000
050
100
150
200
2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
South Central Texas Demand Supply and Gap (Million Acft)
Demands Existing Supplies Deficit
Population growth leads tobull Rapid municipal industrial and
electricity cooling demandbull Growing deficit
Challenges from Frackingbull Between 2000 and 2014 water used to drill a horizontal natural gas well
increased from 177000 to 51 million gallons per wellbull Fracking (mining) is largest water use in some countiesbull Heavy fracking in winter garden increased Carrizo-Wilcox drawdown
020406080
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Mining water usage as proportion of total usage
Dimmit LA Salle
-100-50
050
100150200250300
111
503
072
004
081
505
042
506
020
507
102
507
071
508
123
009
093
010
122
511
102
012
071
513
032
514
113
014
081
015
042
016
122
516
092
017
Elev
atio
n (F
eet)
Water Elevation of Well 7738103 on La Salle and Dimmit Boarder
Climate Change
Temperature historyYear Change from
20th Century Average
Rank out of 138 years
2014 074degC 135
2015 090degC 137
2016 094degC 138
2017 084degC 136
bull 2017 was the third warmest year in NOAAs 138-year series bull 41ht consecutive year (since 1977) that annual temperature is above 20th century average bull All 17 years of 21st century rank are among seventeen warmest on record (1998 is ninth) bull Six warmest years have all occurred since 2010 bull Four warmest have been last 4bull Temperatures in 2015-2016 were majorly influenced by strong El Nintildeobull Increased 007degC (013degF) per decade since 1880 and 017degC (031degF) since 1970
Climate Change is making things non stationary
y = 745x + 40704y = -48512x + 11293
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Rech
arge
in th
ousa
nd a
cre
feet
Year
Edwards Aquifer Recharge Over Time
Recharge 1934-1975 Recharge 1975-2015Linear (Recharge 1934-1975) Linear (Recharge 1975-2015)
httpwwwedwardsaquifernetdatahtml
Climate Change is making things non stationary
WaterCan we use 100 year floodMilly PCD J Betancourt M Falkenmark 2008 Climate Change Stationarity Is Dead WhitherWater Management Science Vol 319 No 5863 pp 573 ndash 574
McCarl Bruce A Xavier Villavicencio and Ximing Wu Climate change and future analysis is stationarity dying American Journal of Agricultural Economics 905 (2008) 1241-1247
Ag yieldsCan we history to assess risk
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Figure 1 Global temperature change and uncertainty From Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projectionsReto Knutti amp Jan Sedlaacuteček Nature Climate Change 3 369ndash373 (2013) doi101038nclimate1716
Climate Changebull Use data for 2030 and 2090
Canadian Climate Center Model (CCC)
Hadley Climate Center Model (HAD)
Average changes for the 10 year periods
Climate Change Scenarios Temperature (0F) Precipitation (Inches)
HAD 2030 32 -41
HAD 2090 901 -078
CCC 2030 541 -1436
CCC 2090 1461 -456
Less water in much of
Southwest region
(IPCC WH2 AR5 chapter 3)
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Results for EA Recharge Prediction( change from the BASE ) Hadley Canadian
Recharge in Drought Years -2059 - -2965
Recharge in Normal Years -1968 - -2899 -
Recharge in Wet Years -2364 - -3442 -
Municipal DemandForecasted that climate change will increase municipal water demand by 15 (HAD) to 35 (CCC)
Climate Changebull Edwards Aquifer is vulnerable under climate change much less recharge
under La Ninabull Decreasing precipitation in far future makes Groundwater more
vulnerable
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Precipitation Changing Rate Under Canadian GCM
0001020304050607080910
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1300 1800
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
Prob
abilit
y of
Rec
harg
e
Thousand Acre-Feet
Edwards Aquifer Recharge
newchart
Probability of Recharge
Thousand Acre-Feet
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
0
0
0
0
0
0
0125
04
02142857143
0375
06
02142857143
0375
06
05
05
08
06428571429
05
1
06428571429
05
07142857143
0625
07142857143
075
08571428571
075
08571428571
075
1
075
0875
1
1
cdf-graph1
ampA
Page ampP
Modeling
EDSIMR ndash the conceptUnify
bull Detailed aquifer hydrologic modelbull Regionalized economic Modelbull Surface water flow model bull Hydrology embedded in regional economic model via
regression (Keith Keplinger dissertation)1 Keith O Keplinger An investigation of Dry Year Options for the Edwards Aquifer PhD Thesis TAMU 1996 2 File Number 598 - Keplinger KO and BA McCarl Regression Based Investigation of Pumping Limits and Springflow Within the
Edwards Aquifer Texas A and M University 19953 File Number 829 - Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water
Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April ) 59-78 2001
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
RegionalCrop Mixinput use
Envloads
Crop and Env
Simulators(EPICSWAT)
Runoff Simulators(SWAT)
GIS
Non AgResourceDemand
GCMs
LivestockData
Simulator Bundle
PestRegressions
GroundwaterSimulator(GAM)
Water Quality
EDSIMR SWAT
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
What is contained in EDSIMR bull Simulation Model (GAM)
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
THIS DATA IS USED 3 PHASE SOI
THIS BLOCK IS USED TO GENERATED A GRAPH SHOWN IN cdf-chart
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (USGS)
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (HDR data)
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
0
0000
0000
0
0-100
00000
01000
00570
0-100
0
01
0
100
0000
0000
0
101-200
02500
04000
03430
101-200
0167
04
0229
200
0125
0400
0214
201-300
05830
06000
04570
201-300
0417
05
04
300
0375
0600
0214
301-400
05830
06000
06860
301-400
0583
08
0629
400
0375
0600
0500
401-500
06670
08000
07430
401-500
0667
09
0743
500
0500
0800
0643
501-600
06670
09000
07710
501-600
0667
09
08
600
0500
1000
0643
601-700
06670
09000
08290
601-700
075
1
0829
700
0500
0714
701-800
07500
10000
08570
701-800
075
0914
800
0625
0714
801-900
08330
09430
801-900
0917
0971
900
0750
0857
901-1000
08330
09710
901-1000
0917
1
1000
0750
0857
1001-1100
09170
10000
1001-1100
1
1200
0750
1000
1101-1714
10000
1300
0750
1500
0875
1800
1000
2000
1
0
0
0
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
300
300
400
400
400
500
500
500
600
600
600
700
700
700
800
800
800
900
900
900
1000
1000
1000
1200
1200
1200
1300
1300
1300
1500
1500
1500
1800
1800
1800
2000
2000
2000
Rapid Population Growth
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Bexar County Historical and Projected Population (Million)
000
050
100
150
200
2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
South Central Texas Demand Supply and Gap (Million Acft)
Demands Existing Supplies Deficit
Population growth leads tobull Rapid municipal industrial and
electricity cooling demandbull Growing deficit
Challenges from Frackingbull Between 2000 and 2014 water used to drill a horizontal natural gas well
increased from 177000 to 51 million gallons per wellbull Fracking (mining) is largest water use in some countiesbull Heavy fracking in winter garden increased Carrizo-Wilcox drawdown
020406080
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Mining water usage as proportion of total usage
Dimmit LA Salle
-100-50
050
100150200250300
111
503
072
004
081
505
042
506
020
507
102
507
071
508
123
009
093
010
122
511
102
012
071
513
032
514
113
014
081
015
042
016
122
516
092
017
Elev
atio
n (F
eet)
Water Elevation of Well 7738103 on La Salle and Dimmit Boarder
Climate Change
Temperature historyYear Change from
20th Century Average
Rank out of 138 years
2014 074degC 135
2015 090degC 137
2016 094degC 138
2017 084degC 136
bull 2017 was the third warmest year in NOAAs 138-year series bull 41ht consecutive year (since 1977) that annual temperature is above 20th century average bull All 17 years of 21st century rank are among seventeen warmest on record (1998 is ninth) bull Six warmest years have all occurred since 2010 bull Four warmest have been last 4bull Temperatures in 2015-2016 were majorly influenced by strong El Nintildeobull Increased 007degC (013degF) per decade since 1880 and 017degC (031degF) since 1970
Climate Change is making things non stationary
y = 745x + 40704y = -48512x + 11293
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Rech
arge
in th
ousa
nd a
cre
feet
Year
Edwards Aquifer Recharge Over Time
Recharge 1934-1975 Recharge 1975-2015Linear (Recharge 1934-1975) Linear (Recharge 1975-2015)
httpwwwedwardsaquifernetdatahtml
Climate Change is making things non stationary
WaterCan we use 100 year floodMilly PCD J Betancourt M Falkenmark 2008 Climate Change Stationarity Is Dead WhitherWater Management Science Vol 319 No 5863 pp 573 ndash 574
McCarl Bruce A Xavier Villavicencio and Ximing Wu Climate change and future analysis is stationarity dying American Journal of Agricultural Economics 905 (2008) 1241-1247
Ag yieldsCan we history to assess risk
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Figure 1 Global temperature change and uncertainty From Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projectionsReto Knutti amp Jan Sedlaacuteček Nature Climate Change 3 369ndash373 (2013) doi101038nclimate1716
Climate Changebull Use data for 2030 and 2090
Canadian Climate Center Model (CCC)
Hadley Climate Center Model (HAD)
Average changes for the 10 year periods
Climate Change Scenarios Temperature (0F) Precipitation (Inches)
HAD 2030 32 -41
HAD 2090 901 -078
CCC 2030 541 -1436
CCC 2090 1461 -456
Less water in much of
Southwest region
(IPCC WH2 AR5 chapter 3)
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Results for EA Recharge Prediction( change from the BASE ) Hadley Canadian
Recharge in Drought Years -2059 - -2965
Recharge in Normal Years -1968 - -2899 -
Recharge in Wet Years -2364 - -3442 -
Municipal DemandForecasted that climate change will increase municipal water demand by 15 (HAD) to 35 (CCC)
Climate Changebull Edwards Aquifer is vulnerable under climate change much less recharge
under La Ninabull Decreasing precipitation in far future makes Groundwater more
vulnerable
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Precipitation Changing Rate Under Canadian GCM
0001020304050607080910
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1300 1800
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
Prob
abilit
y of
Rec
harg
e
Thousand Acre-Feet
Edwards Aquifer Recharge
newchart
Probability of Recharge
Thousand Acre-Feet
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
0
0
0
0
0
0
0125
04
02142857143
0375
06
02142857143
0375
06
05
05
08
06428571429
05
1
06428571429
05
07142857143
0625
07142857143
075
08571428571
075
08571428571
075
1
075
0875
1
1
cdf-graph1
ampA
Page ampP
Modeling
EDSIMR ndash the conceptUnify
bull Detailed aquifer hydrologic modelbull Regionalized economic Modelbull Surface water flow model bull Hydrology embedded in regional economic model via
regression (Keith Keplinger dissertation)1 Keith O Keplinger An investigation of Dry Year Options for the Edwards Aquifer PhD Thesis TAMU 1996 2 File Number 598 - Keplinger KO and BA McCarl Regression Based Investigation of Pumping Limits and Springflow Within the
Edwards Aquifer Texas A and M University 19953 File Number 829 - Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water
Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April ) 59-78 2001
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
RegionalCrop Mixinput use
Envloads
Crop and Env
Simulators(EPICSWAT)
Runoff Simulators(SWAT)
GIS
Non AgResourceDemand
GCMs
LivestockData
Simulator Bundle
PestRegressions
GroundwaterSimulator(GAM)
Water Quality
EDSIMR SWAT
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
What is contained in EDSIMR bull Simulation Model (GAM)
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
THIS DATA IS USED 3 PHASE SOI
THIS BLOCK IS USED TO GENERATED A GRAPH SHOWN IN cdf-chart
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (USGS)
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (HDR data)
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
0
0000
0000
0
0-100
00000
01000
00570
0-100
0
01
0
100
0000
0000
0
101-200
02500
04000
03430
101-200
0167
04
0229
200
0125
0400
0214
201-300
05830
06000
04570
201-300
0417
05
04
300
0375
0600
0214
301-400
05830
06000
06860
301-400
0583
08
0629
400
0375
0600
0500
401-500
06670
08000
07430
401-500
0667
09
0743
500
0500
0800
0643
501-600
06670
09000
07710
501-600
0667
09
08
600
0500
1000
0643
601-700
06670
09000
08290
601-700
075
1
0829
700
0500
0714
701-800
07500
10000
08570
701-800
075
0914
800
0625
0714
801-900
08330
09430
801-900
0917
0971
900
0750
0857
901-1000
08330
09710
901-1000
0917
1
1000
0750
0857
1001-1100
09170
10000
1001-1100
1
1200
0750
1000
1101-1714
10000
1300
0750
1500
0875
1800
1000
2000
1
0
0
0
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
300
300
400
400
400
500
500
500
600
600
600
700
700
700
800
800
800
900
900
900
1000
1000
1000
1200
1200
1200
1300
1300
1300
1500
1500
1500
1800
1800
1800
2000
2000
2000
Challenges from Frackingbull Between 2000 and 2014 water used to drill a horizontal natural gas well
increased from 177000 to 51 million gallons per wellbull Fracking (mining) is largest water use in some countiesbull Heavy fracking in winter garden increased Carrizo-Wilcox drawdown
020406080
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Mining water usage as proportion of total usage
Dimmit LA Salle
-100-50
050
100150200250300
111
503
072
004
081
505
042
506
020
507
102
507
071
508
123
009
093
010
122
511
102
012
071
513
032
514
113
014
081
015
042
016
122
516
092
017
Elev
atio
n (F
eet)
Water Elevation of Well 7738103 on La Salle and Dimmit Boarder
Climate Change
Temperature historyYear Change from
20th Century Average
Rank out of 138 years
2014 074degC 135
2015 090degC 137
2016 094degC 138
2017 084degC 136
bull 2017 was the third warmest year in NOAAs 138-year series bull 41ht consecutive year (since 1977) that annual temperature is above 20th century average bull All 17 years of 21st century rank are among seventeen warmest on record (1998 is ninth) bull Six warmest years have all occurred since 2010 bull Four warmest have been last 4bull Temperatures in 2015-2016 were majorly influenced by strong El Nintildeobull Increased 007degC (013degF) per decade since 1880 and 017degC (031degF) since 1970
Climate Change is making things non stationary
y = 745x + 40704y = -48512x + 11293
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Rech
arge
in th
ousa
nd a
cre
feet
Year
Edwards Aquifer Recharge Over Time
Recharge 1934-1975 Recharge 1975-2015Linear (Recharge 1934-1975) Linear (Recharge 1975-2015)
httpwwwedwardsaquifernetdatahtml
Climate Change is making things non stationary
WaterCan we use 100 year floodMilly PCD J Betancourt M Falkenmark 2008 Climate Change Stationarity Is Dead WhitherWater Management Science Vol 319 No 5863 pp 573 ndash 574
McCarl Bruce A Xavier Villavicencio and Ximing Wu Climate change and future analysis is stationarity dying American Journal of Agricultural Economics 905 (2008) 1241-1247
Ag yieldsCan we history to assess risk
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Figure 1 Global temperature change and uncertainty From Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projectionsReto Knutti amp Jan Sedlaacuteček Nature Climate Change 3 369ndash373 (2013) doi101038nclimate1716
Climate Changebull Use data for 2030 and 2090
Canadian Climate Center Model (CCC)
Hadley Climate Center Model (HAD)
Average changes for the 10 year periods
Climate Change Scenarios Temperature (0F) Precipitation (Inches)
HAD 2030 32 -41
HAD 2090 901 -078
CCC 2030 541 -1436
CCC 2090 1461 -456
Less water in much of
Southwest region
(IPCC WH2 AR5 chapter 3)
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Results for EA Recharge Prediction( change from the BASE ) Hadley Canadian
Recharge in Drought Years -2059 - -2965
Recharge in Normal Years -1968 - -2899 -
Recharge in Wet Years -2364 - -3442 -
Municipal DemandForecasted that climate change will increase municipal water demand by 15 (HAD) to 35 (CCC)
Climate Changebull Edwards Aquifer is vulnerable under climate change much less recharge
under La Ninabull Decreasing precipitation in far future makes Groundwater more
vulnerable
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Precipitation Changing Rate Under Canadian GCM
0001020304050607080910
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1300 1800
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
Prob
abilit
y of
Rec
harg
e
Thousand Acre-Feet
Edwards Aquifer Recharge
newchart
Probability of Recharge
Thousand Acre-Feet
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
0
0
0
0
0
0
0125
04
02142857143
0375
06
02142857143
0375
06
05
05
08
06428571429
05
1
06428571429
05
07142857143
0625
07142857143
075
08571428571
075
08571428571
075
1
075
0875
1
1
cdf-graph1
ampA
Page ampP
Modeling
EDSIMR ndash the conceptUnify
bull Detailed aquifer hydrologic modelbull Regionalized economic Modelbull Surface water flow model bull Hydrology embedded in regional economic model via
regression (Keith Keplinger dissertation)1 Keith O Keplinger An investigation of Dry Year Options for the Edwards Aquifer PhD Thesis TAMU 1996 2 File Number 598 - Keplinger KO and BA McCarl Regression Based Investigation of Pumping Limits and Springflow Within the
Edwards Aquifer Texas A and M University 19953 File Number 829 - Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water
Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April ) 59-78 2001
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
RegionalCrop Mixinput use
Envloads
Crop and Env
Simulators(EPICSWAT)
Runoff Simulators(SWAT)
GIS
Non AgResourceDemand
GCMs
LivestockData
Simulator Bundle
PestRegressions
GroundwaterSimulator(GAM)
Water Quality
EDSIMR SWAT
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
What is contained in EDSIMR bull Simulation Model (GAM)
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
THIS DATA IS USED 3 PHASE SOI
THIS BLOCK IS USED TO GENERATED A GRAPH SHOWN IN cdf-chart
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (USGS)
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (HDR data)
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
0
0000
0000
0
0-100
00000
01000
00570
0-100
0
01
0
100
0000
0000
0
101-200
02500
04000
03430
101-200
0167
04
0229
200
0125
0400
0214
201-300
05830
06000
04570
201-300
0417
05
04
300
0375
0600
0214
301-400
05830
06000
06860
301-400
0583
08
0629
400
0375
0600
0500
401-500
06670
08000
07430
401-500
0667
09
0743
500
0500
0800
0643
501-600
06670
09000
07710
501-600
0667
09
08
600
0500
1000
0643
601-700
06670
09000
08290
601-700
075
1
0829
700
0500
0714
701-800
07500
10000
08570
701-800
075
0914
800
0625
0714
801-900
08330
09430
801-900
0917
0971
900
0750
0857
901-1000
08330
09710
901-1000
0917
1
1000
0750
0857
1001-1100
09170
10000
1001-1100
1
1200
0750
1000
1101-1714
10000
1300
0750
1500
0875
1800
1000
2000
1
0
0
0
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
300
300
400
400
400
500
500
500
600
600
600
700
700
700
800
800
800
900
900
900
1000
1000
1000
1200
1200
1200
1300
1300
1300
1500
1500
1500
1800
1800
1800
2000
2000
2000
Climate Change
Temperature historyYear Change from
20th Century Average
Rank out of 138 years
2014 074degC 135
2015 090degC 137
2016 094degC 138
2017 084degC 136
bull 2017 was the third warmest year in NOAAs 138-year series bull 41ht consecutive year (since 1977) that annual temperature is above 20th century average bull All 17 years of 21st century rank are among seventeen warmest on record (1998 is ninth) bull Six warmest years have all occurred since 2010 bull Four warmest have been last 4bull Temperatures in 2015-2016 were majorly influenced by strong El Nintildeobull Increased 007degC (013degF) per decade since 1880 and 017degC (031degF) since 1970
Climate Change is making things non stationary
y = 745x + 40704y = -48512x + 11293
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Rech
arge
in th
ousa
nd a
cre
feet
Year
Edwards Aquifer Recharge Over Time
Recharge 1934-1975 Recharge 1975-2015Linear (Recharge 1934-1975) Linear (Recharge 1975-2015)
httpwwwedwardsaquifernetdatahtml
Climate Change is making things non stationary
WaterCan we use 100 year floodMilly PCD J Betancourt M Falkenmark 2008 Climate Change Stationarity Is Dead WhitherWater Management Science Vol 319 No 5863 pp 573 ndash 574
McCarl Bruce A Xavier Villavicencio and Ximing Wu Climate change and future analysis is stationarity dying American Journal of Agricultural Economics 905 (2008) 1241-1247
Ag yieldsCan we history to assess risk
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Figure 1 Global temperature change and uncertainty From Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projectionsReto Knutti amp Jan Sedlaacuteček Nature Climate Change 3 369ndash373 (2013) doi101038nclimate1716
Climate Changebull Use data for 2030 and 2090
Canadian Climate Center Model (CCC)
Hadley Climate Center Model (HAD)
Average changes for the 10 year periods
Climate Change Scenarios Temperature (0F) Precipitation (Inches)
HAD 2030 32 -41
HAD 2090 901 -078
CCC 2030 541 -1436
CCC 2090 1461 -456
Less water in much of
Southwest region
(IPCC WH2 AR5 chapter 3)
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Results for EA Recharge Prediction( change from the BASE ) Hadley Canadian
Recharge in Drought Years -2059 - -2965
Recharge in Normal Years -1968 - -2899 -
Recharge in Wet Years -2364 - -3442 -
Municipal DemandForecasted that climate change will increase municipal water demand by 15 (HAD) to 35 (CCC)
Climate Changebull Edwards Aquifer is vulnerable under climate change much less recharge
under La Ninabull Decreasing precipitation in far future makes Groundwater more
vulnerable
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Precipitation Changing Rate Under Canadian GCM
0001020304050607080910
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1300 1800
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
Prob
abilit
y of
Rec
harg
e
Thousand Acre-Feet
Edwards Aquifer Recharge
newchart
Probability of Recharge
Thousand Acre-Feet
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
0
0
0
0
0
0
0125
04
02142857143
0375
06
02142857143
0375
06
05
05
08
06428571429
05
1
06428571429
05
07142857143
0625
07142857143
075
08571428571
075
08571428571
075
1
075
0875
1
1
cdf-graph1
ampA
Page ampP
Modeling
EDSIMR ndash the conceptUnify
bull Detailed aquifer hydrologic modelbull Regionalized economic Modelbull Surface water flow model bull Hydrology embedded in regional economic model via
regression (Keith Keplinger dissertation)1 Keith O Keplinger An investigation of Dry Year Options for the Edwards Aquifer PhD Thesis TAMU 1996 2 File Number 598 - Keplinger KO and BA McCarl Regression Based Investigation of Pumping Limits and Springflow Within the
Edwards Aquifer Texas A and M University 19953 File Number 829 - Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water
Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April ) 59-78 2001
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
RegionalCrop Mixinput use
Envloads
Crop and Env
Simulators(EPICSWAT)
Runoff Simulators(SWAT)
GIS
Non AgResourceDemand
GCMs
LivestockData
Simulator Bundle
PestRegressions
GroundwaterSimulator(GAM)
Water Quality
EDSIMR SWAT
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
What is contained in EDSIMR bull Simulation Model (GAM)
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
THIS DATA IS USED 3 PHASE SOI
THIS BLOCK IS USED TO GENERATED A GRAPH SHOWN IN cdf-chart
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (USGS)
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (HDR data)
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
0
0000
0000
0
0-100
00000
01000
00570
0-100
0
01
0
100
0000
0000
0
101-200
02500
04000
03430
101-200
0167
04
0229
200
0125
0400
0214
201-300
05830
06000
04570
201-300
0417
05
04
300
0375
0600
0214
301-400
05830
06000
06860
301-400
0583
08
0629
400
0375
0600
0500
401-500
06670
08000
07430
401-500
0667
09
0743
500
0500
0800
0643
501-600
06670
09000
07710
501-600
0667
09
08
600
0500
1000
0643
601-700
06670
09000
08290
601-700
075
1
0829
700
0500
0714
701-800
07500
10000
08570
701-800
075
0914
800
0625
0714
801-900
08330
09430
801-900
0917
0971
900
0750
0857
901-1000
08330
09710
901-1000
0917
1
1000
0750
0857
1001-1100
09170
10000
1001-1100
1
1200
0750
1000
1101-1714
10000
1300
0750
1500
0875
1800
1000
2000
1
0
0
0
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
300
300
400
400
400
500
500
500
600
600
600
700
700
700
800
800
800
900
900
900
1000
1000
1000
1200
1200
1200
1300
1300
1300
1500
1500
1500
1800
1800
1800
2000
2000
2000
Temperature historyYear Change from
20th Century Average
Rank out of 138 years
2014 074degC 135
2015 090degC 137
2016 094degC 138
2017 084degC 136
bull 2017 was the third warmest year in NOAAs 138-year series bull 41ht consecutive year (since 1977) that annual temperature is above 20th century average bull All 17 years of 21st century rank are among seventeen warmest on record (1998 is ninth) bull Six warmest years have all occurred since 2010 bull Four warmest have been last 4bull Temperatures in 2015-2016 were majorly influenced by strong El Nintildeobull Increased 007degC (013degF) per decade since 1880 and 017degC (031degF) since 1970
Climate Change is making things non stationary
y = 745x + 40704y = -48512x + 11293
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Rech
arge
in th
ousa
nd a
cre
feet
Year
Edwards Aquifer Recharge Over Time
Recharge 1934-1975 Recharge 1975-2015Linear (Recharge 1934-1975) Linear (Recharge 1975-2015)
httpwwwedwardsaquifernetdatahtml
Climate Change is making things non stationary
WaterCan we use 100 year floodMilly PCD J Betancourt M Falkenmark 2008 Climate Change Stationarity Is Dead WhitherWater Management Science Vol 319 No 5863 pp 573 ndash 574
McCarl Bruce A Xavier Villavicencio and Ximing Wu Climate change and future analysis is stationarity dying American Journal of Agricultural Economics 905 (2008) 1241-1247
Ag yieldsCan we history to assess risk
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Figure 1 Global temperature change and uncertainty From Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projectionsReto Knutti amp Jan Sedlaacuteček Nature Climate Change 3 369ndash373 (2013) doi101038nclimate1716
Climate Changebull Use data for 2030 and 2090
Canadian Climate Center Model (CCC)
Hadley Climate Center Model (HAD)
Average changes for the 10 year periods
Climate Change Scenarios Temperature (0F) Precipitation (Inches)
HAD 2030 32 -41
HAD 2090 901 -078
CCC 2030 541 -1436
CCC 2090 1461 -456
Less water in much of
Southwest region
(IPCC WH2 AR5 chapter 3)
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Results for EA Recharge Prediction( change from the BASE ) Hadley Canadian
Recharge in Drought Years -2059 - -2965
Recharge in Normal Years -1968 - -2899 -
Recharge in Wet Years -2364 - -3442 -
Municipal DemandForecasted that climate change will increase municipal water demand by 15 (HAD) to 35 (CCC)
Climate Changebull Edwards Aquifer is vulnerable under climate change much less recharge
under La Ninabull Decreasing precipitation in far future makes Groundwater more
vulnerable
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Precipitation Changing Rate Under Canadian GCM
0001020304050607080910
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1300 1800
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
Prob
abilit
y of
Rec
harg
e
Thousand Acre-Feet
Edwards Aquifer Recharge
newchart
Probability of Recharge
Thousand Acre-Feet
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
0
0
0
0
0
0
0125
04
02142857143
0375
06
02142857143
0375
06
05
05
08
06428571429
05
1
06428571429
05
07142857143
0625
07142857143
075
08571428571
075
08571428571
075
1
075
0875
1
1
cdf-graph1
ampA
Page ampP
Modeling
EDSIMR ndash the conceptUnify
bull Detailed aquifer hydrologic modelbull Regionalized economic Modelbull Surface water flow model bull Hydrology embedded in regional economic model via
regression (Keith Keplinger dissertation)1 Keith O Keplinger An investigation of Dry Year Options for the Edwards Aquifer PhD Thesis TAMU 1996 2 File Number 598 - Keplinger KO and BA McCarl Regression Based Investigation of Pumping Limits and Springflow Within the
Edwards Aquifer Texas A and M University 19953 File Number 829 - Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water
Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April ) 59-78 2001
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
RegionalCrop Mixinput use
Envloads
Crop and Env
Simulators(EPICSWAT)
Runoff Simulators(SWAT)
GIS
Non AgResourceDemand
GCMs
LivestockData
Simulator Bundle
PestRegressions
GroundwaterSimulator(GAM)
Water Quality
EDSIMR SWAT
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
What is contained in EDSIMR bull Simulation Model (GAM)
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
THIS DATA IS USED 3 PHASE SOI
THIS BLOCK IS USED TO GENERATED A GRAPH SHOWN IN cdf-chart
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (USGS)
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (HDR data)
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
0
0000
0000
0
0-100
00000
01000
00570
0-100
0
01
0
100
0000
0000
0
101-200
02500
04000
03430
101-200
0167
04
0229
200
0125
0400
0214
201-300
05830
06000
04570
201-300
0417
05
04
300
0375
0600
0214
301-400
05830
06000
06860
301-400
0583
08
0629
400
0375
0600
0500
401-500
06670
08000
07430
401-500
0667
09
0743
500
0500
0800
0643
501-600
06670
09000
07710
501-600
0667
09
08
600
0500
1000
0643
601-700
06670
09000
08290
601-700
075
1
0829
700
0500
0714
701-800
07500
10000
08570
701-800
075
0914
800
0625
0714
801-900
08330
09430
801-900
0917
0971
900
0750
0857
901-1000
08330
09710
901-1000
0917
1
1000
0750
0857
1001-1100
09170
10000
1001-1100
1
1200
0750
1000
1101-1714
10000
1300
0750
1500
0875
1800
1000
2000
1
0
0
0
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
300
300
400
400
400
500
500
500
600
600
600
700
700
700
800
800
800
900
900
900
1000
1000
1000
1200
1200
1200
1300
1300
1300
1500
1500
1500
1800
1800
1800
2000
2000
2000
Climate Change is making things non stationary
y = 745x + 40704y = -48512x + 11293
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Rech
arge
in th
ousa
nd a
cre
feet
Year
Edwards Aquifer Recharge Over Time
Recharge 1934-1975 Recharge 1975-2015Linear (Recharge 1934-1975) Linear (Recharge 1975-2015)
httpwwwedwardsaquifernetdatahtml
Climate Change is making things non stationary
WaterCan we use 100 year floodMilly PCD J Betancourt M Falkenmark 2008 Climate Change Stationarity Is Dead WhitherWater Management Science Vol 319 No 5863 pp 573 ndash 574
McCarl Bruce A Xavier Villavicencio and Ximing Wu Climate change and future analysis is stationarity dying American Journal of Agricultural Economics 905 (2008) 1241-1247
Ag yieldsCan we history to assess risk
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Figure 1 Global temperature change and uncertainty From Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projectionsReto Knutti amp Jan Sedlaacuteček Nature Climate Change 3 369ndash373 (2013) doi101038nclimate1716
Climate Changebull Use data for 2030 and 2090
Canadian Climate Center Model (CCC)
Hadley Climate Center Model (HAD)
Average changes for the 10 year periods
Climate Change Scenarios Temperature (0F) Precipitation (Inches)
HAD 2030 32 -41
HAD 2090 901 -078
CCC 2030 541 -1436
CCC 2090 1461 -456
Less water in much of
Southwest region
(IPCC WH2 AR5 chapter 3)
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Results for EA Recharge Prediction( change from the BASE ) Hadley Canadian
Recharge in Drought Years -2059 - -2965
Recharge in Normal Years -1968 - -2899 -
Recharge in Wet Years -2364 - -3442 -
Municipal DemandForecasted that climate change will increase municipal water demand by 15 (HAD) to 35 (CCC)
Climate Changebull Edwards Aquifer is vulnerable under climate change much less recharge
under La Ninabull Decreasing precipitation in far future makes Groundwater more
vulnerable
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Precipitation Changing Rate Under Canadian GCM
0001020304050607080910
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1300 1800
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
Prob
abilit
y of
Rec
harg
e
Thousand Acre-Feet
Edwards Aquifer Recharge
newchart
Probability of Recharge
Thousand Acre-Feet
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
0
0
0
0
0
0
0125
04
02142857143
0375
06
02142857143
0375
06
05
05
08
06428571429
05
1
06428571429
05
07142857143
0625
07142857143
075
08571428571
075
08571428571
075
1
075
0875
1
1
cdf-graph1
ampA
Page ampP
Modeling
EDSIMR ndash the conceptUnify
bull Detailed aquifer hydrologic modelbull Regionalized economic Modelbull Surface water flow model bull Hydrology embedded in regional economic model via
regression (Keith Keplinger dissertation)1 Keith O Keplinger An investigation of Dry Year Options for the Edwards Aquifer PhD Thesis TAMU 1996 2 File Number 598 - Keplinger KO and BA McCarl Regression Based Investigation of Pumping Limits and Springflow Within the
Edwards Aquifer Texas A and M University 19953 File Number 829 - Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water
Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April ) 59-78 2001
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
RegionalCrop Mixinput use
Envloads
Crop and Env
Simulators(EPICSWAT)
Runoff Simulators(SWAT)
GIS
Non AgResourceDemand
GCMs
LivestockData
Simulator Bundle
PestRegressions
GroundwaterSimulator(GAM)
Water Quality
EDSIMR SWAT
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
What is contained in EDSIMR bull Simulation Model (GAM)
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
THIS DATA IS USED 3 PHASE SOI
THIS BLOCK IS USED TO GENERATED A GRAPH SHOWN IN cdf-chart
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (USGS)
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (HDR data)
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
0
0000
0000
0
0-100
00000
01000
00570
0-100
0
01
0
100
0000
0000
0
101-200
02500
04000
03430
101-200
0167
04
0229
200
0125
0400
0214
201-300
05830
06000
04570
201-300
0417
05
04
300
0375
0600
0214
301-400
05830
06000
06860
301-400
0583
08
0629
400
0375
0600
0500
401-500
06670
08000
07430
401-500
0667
09
0743
500
0500
0800
0643
501-600
06670
09000
07710
501-600
0667
09
08
600
0500
1000
0643
601-700
06670
09000
08290
601-700
075
1
0829
700
0500
0714
701-800
07500
10000
08570
701-800
075
0914
800
0625
0714
801-900
08330
09430
801-900
0917
0971
900
0750
0857
901-1000
08330
09710
901-1000
0917
1
1000
0750
0857
1001-1100
09170
10000
1001-1100
1
1200
0750
1000
1101-1714
10000
1300
0750
1500
0875
1800
1000
2000
1
0
0
0
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
300
300
400
400
400
500
500
500
600
600
600
700
700
700
800
800
800
900
900
900
1000
1000
1000
1200
1200
1200
1300
1300
1300
1500
1500
1500
1800
1800
1800
2000
2000
2000
Climate Change is making things non stationary
WaterCan we use 100 year floodMilly PCD J Betancourt M Falkenmark 2008 Climate Change Stationarity Is Dead WhitherWater Management Science Vol 319 No 5863 pp 573 ndash 574
McCarl Bruce A Xavier Villavicencio and Ximing Wu Climate change and future analysis is stationarity dying American Journal of Agricultural Economics 905 (2008) 1241-1247
Ag yieldsCan we history to assess risk
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Figure 1 Global temperature change and uncertainty From Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projectionsReto Knutti amp Jan Sedlaacuteček Nature Climate Change 3 369ndash373 (2013) doi101038nclimate1716
Climate Changebull Use data for 2030 and 2090
Canadian Climate Center Model (CCC)
Hadley Climate Center Model (HAD)
Average changes for the 10 year periods
Climate Change Scenarios Temperature (0F) Precipitation (Inches)
HAD 2030 32 -41
HAD 2090 901 -078
CCC 2030 541 -1436
CCC 2090 1461 -456
Less water in much of
Southwest region
(IPCC WH2 AR5 chapter 3)
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Results for EA Recharge Prediction( change from the BASE ) Hadley Canadian
Recharge in Drought Years -2059 - -2965
Recharge in Normal Years -1968 - -2899 -
Recharge in Wet Years -2364 - -3442 -
Municipal DemandForecasted that climate change will increase municipal water demand by 15 (HAD) to 35 (CCC)
Climate Changebull Edwards Aquifer is vulnerable under climate change much less recharge
under La Ninabull Decreasing precipitation in far future makes Groundwater more
vulnerable
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Precipitation Changing Rate Under Canadian GCM
0001020304050607080910
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1300 1800
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
Prob
abilit
y of
Rec
harg
e
Thousand Acre-Feet
Edwards Aquifer Recharge
newchart
Probability of Recharge
Thousand Acre-Feet
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
0
0
0
0
0
0
0125
04
02142857143
0375
06
02142857143
0375
06
05
05
08
06428571429
05
1
06428571429
05
07142857143
0625
07142857143
075
08571428571
075
08571428571
075
1
075
0875
1
1
cdf-graph1
ampA
Page ampP
Modeling
EDSIMR ndash the conceptUnify
bull Detailed aquifer hydrologic modelbull Regionalized economic Modelbull Surface water flow model bull Hydrology embedded in regional economic model via
regression (Keith Keplinger dissertation)1 Keith O Keplinger An investigation of Dry Year Options for the Edwards Aquifer PhD Thesis TAMU 1996 2 File Number 598 - Keplinger KO and BA McCarl Regression Based Investigation of Pumping Limits and Springflow Within the
Edwards Aquifer Texas A and M University 19953 File Number 829 - Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water
Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April ) 59-78 2001
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
RegionalCrop Mixinput use
Envloads
Crop and Env
Simulators(EPICSWAT)
Runoff Simulators(SWAT)
GIS
Non AgResourceDemand
GCMs
LivestockData
Simulator Bundle
PestRegressions
GroundwaterSimulator(GAM)
Water Quality
EDSIMR SWAT
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
What is contained in EDSIMR bull Simulation Model (GAM)
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
Figure 1 Global temperature change and uncertainty From Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projectionsReto Knutti amp Jan Sedlaacuteček Nature Climate Change 3 369ndash373 (2013) doi101038nclimate1716
Climate Changebull Use data for 2030 and 2090
Canadian Climate Center Model (CCC)
Hadley Climate Center Model (HAD)
Average changes for the 10 year periods
Climate Change Scenarios Temperature (0F) Precipitation (Inches)
HAD 2030 32 -41
HAD 2090 901 -078
CCC 2030 541 -1436
CCC 2090 1461 -456
Less water in much of
Southwest region
(IPCC WH2 AR5 chapter 3)
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Results for EA Recharge Prediction( change from the BASE ) Hadley Canadian
Recharge in Drought Years -2059 - -2965
Recharge in Normal Years -1968 - -2899 -
Recharge in Wet Years -2364 - -3442 -
Municipal DemandForecasted that climate change will increase municipal water demand by 15 (HAD) to 35 (CCC)
Climate Changebull Edwards Aquifer is vulnerable under climate change much less recharge
under La Ninabull Decreasing precipitation in far future makes Groundwater more
vulnerable
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Precipitation Changing Rate Under Canadian GCM
0001020304050607080910
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1300 1800
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
Prob
abilit
y of
Rec
harg
e
Thousand Acre-Feet
Edwards Aquifer Recharge
newchart
Probability of Recharge
Thousand Acre-Feet
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
0
0
0
0
0
0
0125
04
02142857143
0375
06
02142857143
0375
06
05
05
08
06428571429
05
1
06428571429
05
07142857143
0625
07142857143
075
08571428571
075
08571428571
075
1
075
0875
1
1
cdf-graph1
ampA
Page ampP
Modeling
EDSIMR ndash the conceptUnify
bull Detailed aquifer hydrologic modelbull Regionalized economic Modelbull Surface water flow model bull Hydrology embedded in regional economic model via
regression (Keith Keplinger dissertation)1 Keith O Keplinger An investigation of Dry Year Options for the Edwards Aquifer PhD Thesis TAMU 1996 2 File Number 598 - Keplinger KO and BA McCarl Regression Based Investigation of Pumping Limits and Springflow Within the
Edwards Aquifer Texas A and M University 19953 File Number 829 - Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water
Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April ) 59-78 2001
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
RegionalCrop Mixinput use
Envloads
Crop and Env
Simulators(EPICSWAT)
Runoff Simulators(SWAT)
GIS
Non AgResourceDemand
GCMs
LivestockData
Simulator Bundle
PestRegressions
GroundwaterSimulator(GAM)
Water Quality
EDSIMR SWAT
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
What is contained in EDSIMR bull Simulation Model (GAM)
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
THIS DATA IS USED 3 PHASE SOI
THIS BLOCK IS USED TO GENERATED A GRAPH SHOWN IN cdf-chart
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (USGS)
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (HDR data)
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
0
0000
0000
0
0-100
00000
01000
00570
0-100
0
01
0
100
0000
0000
0
101-200
02500
04000
03430
101-200
0167
04
0229
200
0125
0400
0214
201-300
05830
06000
04570
201-300
0417
05
04
300
0375
0600
0214
301-400
05830
06000
06860
301-400
0583
08
0629
400
0375
0600
0500
401-500
06670
08000
07430
401-500
0667
09
0743
500
0500
0800
0643
501-600
06670
09000
07710
501-600
0667
09
08
600
0500
1000
0643
601-700
06670
09000
08290
601-700
075
1
0829
700
0500
0714
701-800
07500
10000
08570
701-800
075
0914
800
0625
0714
801-900
08330
09430
801-900
0917
0971
900
0750
0857
901-1000
08330
09710
901-1000
0917
1
1000
0750
0857
1001-1100
09170
10000
1001-1100
1
1200
0750
1000
1101-1714
10000
1300
0750
1500
0875
1800
1000
2000
1
0
0
0
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
300
300
400
400
400
500
500
500
600
600
600
700
700
700
800
800
800
900
900
900
1000
1000
1000
1200
1200
1200
1300
1300
1300
1500
1500
1500
1800
1800
1800
2000
2000
2000
Yet more could happen
What could happen
What we have seen so far
Figure 1 Global temperature change and uncertainty From Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projectionsReto Knutti amp Jan Sedlaacuteček Nature Climate Change 3 369ndash373 (2013) doi101038nclimate1716
Climate Changebull Use data for 2030 and 2090
Canadian Climate Center Model (CCC)
Hadley Climate Center Model (HAD)
Average changes for the 10 year periods
Climate Change Scenarios Temperature (0F) Precipitation (Inches)
HAD 2030 32 -41
HAD 2090 901 -078
CCC 2030 541 -1436
CCC 2090 1461 -456
Less water in much of
Southwest region
(IPCC WH2 AR5 chapter 3)
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Results for EA Recharge Prediction( change from the BASE ) Hadley Canadian
Recharge in Drought Years -2059 - -2965
Recharge in Normal Years -1968 - -2899 -
Recharge in Wet Years -2364 - -3442 -
Municipal DemandForecasted that climate change will increase municipal water demand by 15 (HAD) to 35 (CCC)
Climate Changebull Edwards Aquifer is vulnerable under climate change much less recharge
under La Ninabull Decreasing precipitation in far future makes Groundwater more
vulnerable
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Precipitation Changing Rate Under Canadian GCM
0001020304050607080910
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1300 1800
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
Prob
abilit
y of
Rec
harg
e
Thousand Acre-Feet
Edwards Aquifer Recharge
newchart
Probability of Recharge
Thousand Acre-Feet
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
0
0
0
0
0
0
0125
04
02142857143
0375
06
02142857143
0375
06
05
05
08
06428571429
05
1
06428571429
05
07142857143
0625
07142857143
075
08571428571
075
08571428571
075
1
075
0875
1
1
cdf-graph1
ampA
Page ampP
Modeling
EDSIMR ndash the conceptUnify
bull Detailed aquifer hydrologic modelbull Regionalized economic Modelbull Surface water flow model bull Hydrology embedded in regional economic model via
regression (Keith Keplinger dissertation)1 Keith O Keplinger An investigation of Dry Year Options for the Edwards Aquifer PhD Thesis TAMU 1996 2 File Number 598 - Keplinger KO and BA McCarl Regression Based Investigation of Pumping Limits and Springflow Within the
Edwards Aquifer Texas A and M University 19953 File Number 829 - Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water
Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April ) 59-78 2001
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
RegionalCrop Mixinput use
Envloads
Crop and Env
Simulators(EPICSWAT)
Runoff Simulators(SWAT)
GIS
Non AgResourceDemand
GCMs
LivestockData
Simulator Bundle
PestRegressions
GroundwaterSimulator(GAM)
Water Quality
EDSIMR SWAT
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
What is contained in EDSIMR bull Simulation Model (GAM)
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
THIS DATA IS USED 3 PHASE SOI
THIS BLOCK IS USED TO GENERATED A GRAPH SHOWN IN cdf-chart
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (USGS)
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (HDR data)
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
0
0000
0000
0
0-100
00000
01000
00570
0-100
0
01
0
100
0000
0000
0
101-200
02500
04000
03430
101-200
0167
04
0229
200
0125
0400
0214
201-300
05830
06000
04570
201-300
0417
05
04
300
0375
0600
0214
301-400
05830
06000
06860
301-400
0583
08
0629
400
0375
0600
0500
401-500
06670
08000
07430
401-500
0667
09
0743
500
0500
0800
0643
501-600
06670
09000
07710
501-600
0667
09
08
600
0500
1000
0643
601-700
06670
09000
08290
601-700
075
1
0829
700
0500
0714
701-800
07500
10000
08570
701-800
075
0914
800
0625
0714
801-900
08330
09430
801-900
0917
0971
900
0750
0857
901-1000
08330
09710
901-1000
0917
1
1000
0750
0857
1001-1100
09170
10000
1001-1100
1
1200
0750
1000
1101-1714
10000
1300
0750
1500
0875
1800
1000
2000
1
0
0
0
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
300
300
400
400
400
500
500
500
600
600
600
700
700
700
800
800
800
900
900
900
1000
1000
1000
1200
1200
1200
1300
1300
1300
1500
1500
1500
1800
1800
1800
2000
2000
2000
Climate Changebull Use data for 2030 and 2090
Canadian Climate Center Model (CCC)
Hadley Climate Center Model (HAD)
Average changes for the 10 year periods
Climate Change Scenarios Temperature (0F) Precipitation (Inches)
HAD 2030 32 -41
HAD 2090 901 -078
CCC 2030 541 -1436
CCC 2090 1461 -456
Less water in much of
Southwest region
(IPCC WH2 AR5 chapter 3)
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Results for EA Recharge Prediction( change from the BASE ) Hadley Canadian
Recharge in Drought Years -2059 - -2965
Recharge in Normal Years -1968 - -2899 -
Recharge in Wet Years -2364 - -3442 -
Municipal DemandForecasted that climate change will increase municipal water demand by 15 (HAD) to 35 (CCC)
Climate Changebull Edwards Aquifer is vulnerable under climate change much less recharge
under La Ninabull Decreasing precipitation in far future makes Groundwater more
vulnerable
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Precipitation Changing Rate Under Canadian GCM
0001020304050607080910
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1300 1800
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
Prob
abilit
y of
Rec
harg
e
Thousand Acre-Feet
Edwards Aquifer Recharge
newchart
Probability of Recharge
Thousand Acre-Feet
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
0
0
0
0
0
0
0125
04
02142857143
0375
06
02142857143
0375
06
05
05
08
06428571429
05
1
06428571429
05
07142857143
0625
07142857143
075
08571428571
075
08571428571
075
1
075
0875
1
1
cdf-graph1
ampA
Page ampP
Modeling
EDSIMR ndash the conceptUnify
bull Detailed aquifer hydrologic modelbull Regionalized economic Modelbull Surface water flow model bull Hydrology embedded in regional economic model via
regression (Keith Keplinger dissertation)1 Keith O Keplinger An investigation of Dry Year Options for the Edwards Aquifer PhD Thesis TAMU 1996 2 File Number 598 - Keplinger KO and BA McCarl Regression Based Investigation of Pumping Limits and Springflow Within the
Edwards Aquifer Texas A and M University 19953 File Number 829 - Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water
Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April ) 59-78 2001
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
RegionalCrop Mixinput use
Envloads
Crop and Env
Simulators(EPICSWAT)
Runoff Simulators(SWAT)
GIS
Non AgResourceDemand
GCMs
LivestockData
Simulator Bundle
PestRegressions
GroundwaterSimulator(GAM)
Water Quality
EDSIMR SWAT
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
What is contained in EDSIMR bull Simulation Model (GAM)
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
THIS DATA IS USED 3 PHASE SOI
THIS BLOCK IS USED TO GENERATED A GRAPH SHOWN IN cdf-chart
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (USGS)
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (HDR data)
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
0
0000
0000
0
0-100
00000
01000
00570
0-100
0
01
0
100
0000
0000
0
101-200
02500
04000
03430
101-200
0167
04
0229
200
0125
0400
0214
201-300
05830
06000
04570
201-300
0417
05
04
300
0375
0600
0214
301-400
05830
06000
06860
301-400
0583
08
0629
400
0375
0600
0500
401-500
06670
08000
07430
401-500
0667
09
0743
500
0500
0800
0643
501-600
06670
09000
07710
501-600
0667
09
08
600
0500
1000
0643
601-700
06670
09000
08290
601-700
075
1
0829
700
0500
0714
701-800
07500
10000
08570
701-800
075
0914
800
0625
0714
801-900
08330
09430
801-900
0917
0971
900
0750
0857
901-1000
08330
09710
901-1000
0917
1
1000
0750
0857
1001-1100
09170
10000
1001-1100
1
1200
0750
1000
1101-1714
10000
1300
0750
1500
0875
1800
1000
2000
1
0
0
0
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
300
300
400
400
400
500
500
500
600
600
600
700
700
700
800
800
800
900
900
900
1000
1000
1000
1200
1200
1200
1300
1300
1300
1500
1500
1500
1800
1800
1800
2000
2000
2000
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Results for EA Recharge Prediction( change from the BASE ) Hadley Canadian
Recharge in Drought Years -2059 - -2965
Recharge in Normal Years -1968 - -2899 -
Recharge in Wet Years -2364 - -3442 -
Municipal DemandForecasted that climate change will increase municipal water demand by 15 (HAD) to 35 (CCC)
Climate Changebull Edwards Aquifer is vulnerable under climate change much less recharge
under La Ninabull Decreasing precipitation in far future makes Groundwater more
vulnerable
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Precipitation Changing Rate Under Canadian GCM
0001020304050607080910
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1300 1800
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
Prob
abilit
y of
Rec
harg
e
Thousand Acre-Feet
Edwards Aquifer Recharge
newchart
Probability of Recharge
Thousand Acre-Feet
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
0
0
0
0
0
0
0125
04
02142857143
0375
06
02142857143
0375
06
05
05
08
06428571429
05
1
06428571429
05
07142857143
0625
07142857143
075
08571428571
075
08571428571
075
1
075
0875
1
1
cdf-graph1
ampA
Page ampP
Modeling
EDSIMR ndash the conceptUnify
bull Detailed aquifer hydrologic modelbull Regionalized economic Modelbull Surface water flow model bull Hydrology embedded in regional economic model via
regression (Keith Keplinger dissertation)1 Keith O Keplinger An investigation of Dry Year Options for the Edwards Aquifer PhD Thesis TAMU 1996 2 File Number 598 - Keplinger KO and BA McCarl Regression Based Investigation of Pumping Limits and Springflow Within the
Edwards Aquifer Texas A and M University 19953 File Number 829 - Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water
Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April ) 59-78 2001
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
RegionalCrop Mixinput use
Envloads
Crop and Env
Simulators(EPICSWAT)
Runoff Simulators(SWAT)
GIS
Non AgResourceDemand
GCMs
LivestockData
Simulator Bundle
PestRegressions
GroundwaterSimulator(GAM)
Water Quality
EDSIMR SWAT
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
What is contained in EDSIMR bull Simulation Model (GAM)
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
THIS DATA IS USED 3 PHASE SOI
THIS BLOCK IS USED TO GENERATED A GRAPH SHOWN IN cdf-chart
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (USGS)
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (HDR data)
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
0
0000
0000
0
0-100
00000
01000
00570
0-100
0
01
0
100
0000
0000
0
101-200
02500
04000
03430
101-200
0167
04
0229
200
0125
0400
0214
201-300
05830
06000
04570
201-300
0417
05
04
300
0375
0600
0214
301-400
05830
06000
06860
301-400
0583
08
0629
400
0375
0600
0500
401-500
06670
08000
07430
401-500
0667
09
0743
500
0500
0800
0643
501-600
06670
09000
07710
501-600
0667
09
08
600
0500
1000
0643
601-700
06670
09000
08290
601-700
075
1
0829
700
0500
0714
701-800
07500
10000
08570
701-800
075
0914
800
0625
0714
801-900
08330
09430
801-900
0917
0971
900
0750
0857
901-1000
08330
09710
901-1000
0917
1
1000
0750
0857
1001-1100
09170
10000
1001-1100
1
1200
0750
1000
1101-1714
10000
1300
0750
1500
0875
1800
1000
2000
1
0
0
0
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
300
300
400
400
400
500
500
500
600
600
600
700
700
700
800
800
800
900
900
900
1000
1000
1000
1200
1200
1200
1300
1300
1300
1500
1500
1500
1800
1800
1800
2000
2000
2000
Climate Changebull Edwards Aquifer is vulnerable under climate change much less recharge
under La Ninabull Decreasing precipitation in far future makes Groundwater more
vulnerable
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Precipitation Changing Rate Under Canadian GCM
0001020304050607080910
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1300 1800
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
Prob
abilit
y of
Rec
harg
e
Thousand Acre-Feet
Edwards Aquifer Recharge
newchart
Probability of Recharge
Thousand Acre-Feet
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
0
0
0
0
0
0
0125
04
02142857143
0375
06
02142857143
0375
06
05
05
08
06428571429
05
1
06428571429
05
07142857143
0625
07142857143
075
08571428571
075
08571428571
075
1
075
0875
1
1
cdf-graph1
ampA
Page ampP
Modeling
EDSIMR ndash the conceptUnify
bull Detailed aquifer hydrologic modelbull Regionalized economic Modelbull Surface water flow model bull Hydrology embedded in regional economic model via
regression (Keith Keplinger dissertation)1 Keith O Keplinger An investigation of Dry Year Options for the Edwards Aquifer PhD Thesis TAMU 1996 2 File Number 598 - Keplinger KO and BA McCarl Regression Based Investigation of Pumping Limits and Springflow Within the
Edwards Aquifer Texas A and M University 19953 File Number 829 - Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water
Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April ) 59-78 2001
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
RegionalCrop Mixinput use
Envloads
Crop and Env
Simulators(EPICSWAT)
Runoff Simulators(SWAT)
GIS
Non AgResourceDemand
GCMs
LivestockData
Simulator Bundle
PestRegressions
GroundwaterSimulator(GAM)
Water Quality
EDSIMR SWAT
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
What is contained in EDSIMR bull Simulation Model (GAM)
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
THIS DATA IS USED 3 PHASE SOI
THIS BLOCK IS USED TO GENERATED A GRAPH SHOWN IN cdf-chart
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (USGS)
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (HDR data)
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
0
0000
0000
0
0-100
00000
01000
00570
0-100
0
01
0
100
0000
0000
0
101-200
02500
04000
03430
101-200
0167
04
0229
200
0125
0400
0214
201-300
05830
06000
04570
201-300
0417
05
04
300
0375
0600
0214
301-400
05830
06000
06860
301-400
0583
08
0629
400
0375
0600
0500
401-500
06670
08000
07430
401-500
0667
09
0743
500
0500
0800
0643
501-600
06670
09000
07710
501-600
0667
09
08
600
0500
1000
0643
601-700
06670
09000
08290
601-700
075
1
0829
700
0500
0714
701-800
07500
10000
08570
701-800
075
0914
800
0625
0714
801-900
08330
09430
801-900
0917
0971
900
0750
0857
901-1000
08330
09710
901-1000
0917
1
1000
0750
0857
1001-1100
09170
10000
1001-1100
1
1200
0750
1000
1101-1714
10000
1300
0750
1500
0875
1800
1000
2000
1
0
0
0
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
300
300
400
400
400
500
500
500
600
600
600
700
700
700
800
800
800
900
900
900
1000
1000
1000
1200
1200
1200
1300
1300
1300
1500
1500
1500
1800
1800
1800
2000
2000
2000
newchart
Probability of Recharge
Thousand Acre-Feet
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
0
0
0
0
0
0
0125
04
02142857143
0375
06
02142857143
0375
06
05
05
08
06428571429
05
1
06428571429
05
07142857143
0625
07142857143
075
08571428571
075
08571428571
075
1
075
0875
1
1
cdf-graph1
ampA
Page ampP
Modeling
EDSIMR ndash the conceptUnify
bull Detailed aquifer hydrologic modelbull Regionalized economic Modelbull Surface water flow model bull Hydrology embedded in regional economic model via
regression (Keith Keplinger dissertation)1 Keith O Keplinger An investigation of Dry Year Options for the Edwards Aquifer PhD Thesis TAMU 1996 2 File Number 598 - Keplinger KO and BA McCarl Regression Based Investigation of Pumping Limits and Springflow Within the
Edwards Aquifer Texas A and M University 19953 File Number 829 - Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water
Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April ) 59-78 2001
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
RegionalCrop Mixinput use
Envloads
Crop and Env
Simulators(EPICSWAT)
Runoff Simulators(SWAT)
GIS
Non AgResourceDemand
GCMs
LivestockData
Simulator Bundle
PestRegressions
GroundwaterSimulator(GAM)
Water Quality
EDSIMR SWAT
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
What is contained in EDSIMR bull Simulation Model (GAM)
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
THIS DATA IS USED 3 PHASE SOI
THIS BLOCK IS USED TO GENERATED A GRAPH SHOWN IN cdf-chart
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (USGS)
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (HDR data)
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
0
0000
0000
0
0-100
00000
01000
00570
0-100
0
01
0
100
0000
0000
0
101-200
02500
04000
03430
101-200
0167
04
0229
200
0125
0400
0214
201-300
05830
06000
04570
201-300
0417
05
04
300
0375
0600
0214
301-400
05830
06000
06860
301-400
0583
08
0629
400
0375
0600
0500
401-500
06670
08000
07430
401-500
0667
09
0743
500
0500
0800
0643
501-600
06670
09000
07710
501-600
0667
09
08
600
0500
1000
0643
601-700
06670
09000
08290
601-700
075
1
0829
700
0500
0714
701-800
07500
10000
08570
701-800
075
0914
800
0625
0714
801-900
08330
09430
801-900
0917
0971
900
0750
0857
901-1000
08330
09710
901-1000
0917
1
1000
0750
0857
1001-1100
09170
10000
1001-1100
1
1200
0750
1000
1101-1714
10000
1300
0750
1500
0875
1800
1000
2000
1
0
0
0
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
300
300
400
400
400
500
500
500
600
600
600
700
700
700
800
800
800
900
900
900
1000
1000
1000
1200
1200
1200
1300
1300
1300
1500
1500
1500
1800
1800
1800
2000
2000
2000
cdf-graph1
ampA
Page ampP
Modeling
EDSIMR ndash the conceptUnify
bull Detailed aquifer hydrologic modelbull Regionalized economic Modelbull Surface water flow model bull Hydrology embedded in regional economic model via
regression (Keith Keplinger dissertation)1 Keith O Keplinger An investigation of Dry Year Options for the Edwards Aquifer PhD Thesis TAMU 1996 2 File Number 598 - Keplinger KO and BA McCarl Regression Based Investigation of Pumping Limits and Springflow Within the
Edwards Aquifer Texas A and M University 19953 File Number 829 - Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water
Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April ) 59-78 2001
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
RegionalCrop Mixinput use
Envloads
Crop and Env
Simulators(EPICSWAT)
Runoff Simulators(SWAT)
GIS
Non AgResourceDemand
GCMs
LivestockData
Simulator Bundle
PestRegressions
GroundwaterSimulator(GAM)
Water Quality
EDSIMR SWAT
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
What is contained in EDSIMR bull Simulation Model (GAM)
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
THIS DATA IS USED 3 PHASE SOI
THIS BLOCK IS USED TO GENERATED A GRAPH SHOWN IN cdf-chart
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (USGS)
RECHARGE (1000 acre-feet) JAN - JULY (HDR data)
El Nino Phase
La Nina Phase
Neutral Phase
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3
0
0000
0000
0
0-100
00000
01000
00570
0-100
0
01
0
100
0000
0000
0
101-200
02500
04000
03430
101-200
0167
04
0229
200
0125
0400
0214
201-300
05830
06000
04570
201-300
0417
05
04
300
0375
0600
0214
301-400
05830
06000
06860
301-400
0583
08
0629
400
0375
0600
0500
401-500
06670
08000
07430
401-500
0667
09
0743
500
0500
0800
0643
501-600
06670
09000
07710
501-600
0667
09
08
600
0500
1000
0643
601-700
06670
09000
08290
601-700
075
1
0829
700
0500
0714
701-800
07500
10000
08570
701-800
075
0914
800
0625
0714
801-900
08330
09430
801-900
0917
0971
900
0750
0857
901-1000
08330
09710
901-1000
0917
1
1000
0750
0857
1001-1100
09170
10000
1001-1100
1
1200
0750
1000
1101-1714
10000
1300
0750
1500
0875
1800
1000
2000
1
Modeling
EDSIMR ndash the conceptUnify
bull Detailed aquifer hydrologic modelbull Regionalized economic Modelbull Surface water flow model bull Hydrology embedded in regional economic model via
regression (Keith Keplinger dissertation)1 Keith O Keplinger An investigation of Dry Year Options for the Edwards Aquifer PhD Thesis TAMU 1996 2 File Number 598 - Keplinger KO and BA McCarl Regression Based Investigation of Pumping Limits and Springflow Within the
Edwards Aquifer Texas A and M University 19953 File Number 829 - Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water
Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April ) 59-78 2001
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
RegionalCrop Mixinput use
Envloads
Crop and Env
Simulators(EPICSWAT)
Runoff Simulators(SWAT)
GIS
Non AgResourceDemand
GCMs
LivestockData
Simulator Bundle
PestRegressions
GroundwaterSimulator(GAM)
Water Quality
EDSIMR SWAT
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
What is contained in EDSIMR bull Simulation Model (GAM)
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
EDSIMR ndash the conceptUnify
bull Detailed aquifer hydrologic modelbull Regionalized economic Modelbull Surface water flow model bull Hydrology embedded in regional economic model via
regression (Keith Keplinger dissertation)1 Keith O Keplinger An investigation of Dry Year Options for the Edwards Aquifer PhD Thesis TAMU 1996 2 File Number 598 - Keplinger KO and BA McCarl Regression Based Investigation of Pumping Limits and Springflow Within the
Edwards Aquifer Texas A and M University 19953 File Number 829 - Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water
Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April ) 59-78 2001
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
RegionalCrop Mixinput use
Envloads
Crop and Env
Simulators(EPICSWAT)
Runoff Simulators(SWAT)
GIS
Non AgResourceDemand
GCMs
LivestockData
Simulator Bundle
PestRegressions
GroundwaterSimulator(GAM)
Water Quality
EDSIMR SWAT
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
What is contained in EDSIMR bull Simulation Model (GAM)
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
bull Diversion ConstraintAmount of water diverted from river by one permit +Sold to others-Buy from otherslt= Permitted Capacity
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
bull Integer variables in most casesbull Capacity Constraint
ndash Water from projects lt= the project capacity if the project is built0 otherwise
bull Project capacity may be stochasticbull Operating cost per acre footbull Fixed amortzed construction costs per projectbull State of nature (stage 2) operationbull Injection Balance
ndash Water could only be recovered in the Hdry statendash Water recovered in the Injection projects in Hdry state lt= water injected into
aquifer in other state of nature
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Stochastics
bull Temp and precipitationbull Crop Yields and Water Requirements and pest costsbull Livestock stocking ratebull Livestock performancebull MampI demandbull Cooling requirementsbull Water available
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
Includes friction in mkt ($50 in Edwards)
Water use and rights
Municipal
Water use and rights
Agricultural
Water use andrights
Industrial
Water Market
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochasticsbull Discrete Stochastic Model 9 weather statesbull 2 Stage Decision bull Stage 1
bull Water and energy projectsbull Crop mixbull Livestock numbersbull Initial levels of aquifers and reservoirs
bull Stage 2 bull Crop water use strategy bull Recharge and surface inflowsbull Pumpingdiversionbull Water flows
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Resultsbull Projects builtbull Water Use Pattern and Tradingbull Economic Effect by party
bull regional ag farm income + non-ag net surplusbull regional water prices and costs
bull Hydrologic Effectbull EA elevation at the J-17 well index and river flows
bull Environmental Effectbull spring flows river flows and the Estuary bay flows
bull Social Effect
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
Projects
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting pointIrrigation methods and practices Alternative crops
Ag Land to dryland or grazing Removing minimum limitsDegraded water use Crop mixDry year option
Water Use of more distant aquifers Injection amprecoveryReservoirs Saline sourcesEnhanced recharge ConservationReuse Broader markets and leasingInterbasin transfer
Energy Alternative cooling Coal to Natural GasRenewable sources wind solar Import moreFracking water reuse Fracking technology
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
Water Projects Examples
Out-of-Region Water Project Vista Ridgebull 143 miles pipelinesbull Yield 50000 acftyrbull Water cost full operation $1976 acftbull Total cost of facility $493 millionbull Pumping Energy 156691 MWhyear
ASR Project Luiling ASRbull Total cost of facility $23 millionbull Annual cost of water $1086 acftbull Energy Consumption for pumping
1617 MWhyear
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
Power Plant Retrofitbull Boiler retrofit (coal to natural gas)bull Cooling retrofit
ndash (Once-through to Recirculating to Dry-cooling)
bull Switch to renewable source Wind solar and Nuclearbull Add new capacity in or outside region
ndash Could export water usendash Wind and solar reliability are issue
bull Retrofit and new capacity cost will be in first stage of the model
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
Public Goods Concernbull Some Nexus actions will not be adopted by private
individuals as they benefit the public not just the individual In such cases the public may need to get directly involved in adoption
bull Water Projects in our projects are public goods
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
Compensation Reallocationbull When an entity like a Power plant could retrofit to
save water but donrsquot do it because of cost
bull We need provide subsidy or compensation to the power plants to increase their incentive of cooling and heating retrofit
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
Preliminary Result
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectivesbull Evaluate the economic and environmental
consequences of a set of water management and energy project plans
bull Determine the ldquobestrdquo mix of water and energy retrofit options for a given demand and environmental constraints
bull Undertake a comparative assessment of the model ldquobestrdquo set of water management and energy project plans
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
Base run -Agriculture Landbull Land transfers from irrigated land to dry land and sprinkler
irrigation is preferred to save water even with higher costbull Few crop lands transfers to pasture
0
20
40
60
80
100
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Cropland Shares
Dryland Furrow Sprinkler
0
5
10
15
base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Land
Are
a (M
illio
n Ac
res)
Crop Land vs Pasture
cropland Pasture
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
Agriculture Production Index
08
085
09
095
1
105
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Prec
ipita
tion
Chan
ging
Rat
e
Prod
uctio
n In
dex
Ag Production Index
All Ag Products Vegetable Field Crops
Livestock Precipitation
bull Vegetable production is very sensitive to precipitation It is preferred during wet years (2020s 2030s) but spurned in the dry years (2050s 2060s)
bull Production index of all ag products also varies with precipitation
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
Water Source by Sectorbull Demand increases over time with the growing population bull Municipal water needs driving expensive water projects proposed by Texas Water
Development Board or being implemented bull Municipal sector owns less surface water permits than agriculture and industrial sector in the
region Plus has means of financingbull Industrial water relies more on surface water over time due to the shortage of water
projects and groundwater drawdown
0200400600800
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Municipal Water Source
Surface Ground Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Wat
er (T
hous
and
Acft
)
Industrial Water Source
Water Source by Sectorbull Agriculture use less water under climate change because the increasing
demand of groundwater draw down the aquifer and make the water too expensive for agriculture usage
bull Mining relies on ground water due to the shortage of surface water permits
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Resultsbull There is a distinct tradeoff in the EA region between the economic well being of
pumping users and regional environmental attributes bull Leaving behind the rule of capture to take on the highest of the HCP motivated
pumping limits reduces regional pumping user related welfare by $246 million per year The most extreme limit examined (175000 acft) under the emerging HCP raises the welfare loss to $633 million per year
bull The emergence of the EA water market improves regional welfare to pumping users but worsens environmental attributes unless the East-West pools could somehow be factored into its design
bull Water development from alternative sources will be stimulated greatly by HCP related EA use restrictions
bull The EA region will have to develop an expanded set of water development alternatives if the severe Habitat Conservation Plan based restrictions are imposed
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
2050 Basea
Optimal400
Optimal200
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base ----------------------------- Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land NA 404 279
284 451 282 311 592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA 19 04 15 15 03 15 86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear) 1960 -460 1256
-87 719 1287 -169 -445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft) 10257 -47 -16
55 76 04 -381 -92
The EA ag sector is worse off
The economic gain accrues to the EA non-agricultural sector but is basically offset by the water development costs
Gillig D BA McCarl and FO Boadu An Economic Hydrologic and Environmental Assessment of Water Management Alternative Plans for the South-Central Texas Region Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33 1 (April) 59-78 2001
Table 2 Economic and Hydrologic Effects of Water Management Plans
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
----------------------------- change from the 2050 Base -----------------------------
Average Welfare Measures (Mil$)
Agricultural Income
191
-315
-98
-127
-412
-100
-169
-723
Non-agricultural Surplus
8780
22
09
-57
-72
-121
-82
20
Other Regional Agricultural Income
591
002
002
-21
-21
-21
002
-23
Other Regional Non-Agricultural Surplus
2165
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Total Regional Welfare
12328
11
05
-42
-59
-88
-61
02
Agricultural Activity Measures (103 acres)
Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Acres Harvested
745
-357
-216
-219
-454
-218
-251
-644
Edwards Aquifer Dry Land
172
-59
-66
-81
-16
-69
-76
-58
Purchased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
404
279
284
451
282
311
592
Leased Edwards Aquifer Irrigated Land
NA
19
04
15
15
03
15
86
Average Hydrologic Measures
Comal Spring Flow (cfsyear)
1960
-460
1256
-87
719
1287
-169
-445
Corpus Bay Inflow (103 acft)
10257
-47
-16
55
76
04
-381
-92
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis ResultsTable 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan
1
Plan
2
Plan
3
Plan
4
Plan
5 Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion X X X X
Colorado River in Colorado County X
Colorado River in Bastrop X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir X X X X X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs X X X X X
Cibolo Reservoir X
Lockhart Reservoir X X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers X X X X X X X
EA recharge Type 2 X X X X X X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort X
Springflow recirculation X X X X
Table 1 Water Management Options Used in the Alternative Plans
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Water Option
Optimal400
Optimal 200
Plan 1
Plan2
Plan3
Plan4
Plan5
Surface Water DiversionTransfer
Lower Guadalupe River diversion
X
X
X
X
Colorado River in Colorado County
X
Colorado River in Bastrop
X
Joint development of water supply with CCCLCC system
X
Medina Lake
Canyon Reservoir
X
X
X
X
X
Wimberley amp Woodcreek Reservoirs
X
X
X
X
X
Cibolo Reservoir
X
Lockhart Reservoir
X
X
Purchaselease surface water irrigation rights
X
X
Groundwater PumpingRechargeRecovery
EA irrigation transfers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA recharge Type 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guadalupe River diversion near Comfort
X
Springflow recirculation
X
X
X
X
Medina Lake irrigation reduction and recharge enhancement
Conclusionbull Agriculture transfer land from furrow irrigation to sprinkler
irrigation to dryland to save fresh water and avoid high pumping cost
bull Building more water projects could destress water scarcity and increase social welfare
bull More water projects are built over time ASR and Groundwater projects are preferred due to extra water source and lower fixed and operating cost
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Future Researchbull Enhance the preliminary electrical energy part improving
data and modeling on cooling alternatives and the use of electricity when developing the water projects
bull Add Edwards Aquifer Authority water management strategiesregulation and water marketing into the model
bull Add alternative strategies via which fracking can reduce its usage of fresh water
bull Develop information on how water supply crop yield and irrigated crop water use are affected by climate change scenarios in interaction with the SWAT hydrological modeling group
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
Slide Number 32
Slide Number 33
EDSIMR ndash Objective function terms
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorLand Modeling
EDSIMR ndash River flow detail
Stochastic Model
Slide Number 38
EDSIMR ndash Agriculture SectorCrop Mix Modeling
EDSIMR ndashWater rights and Markets
EDSIMR ndash ProjectsWater Power Fracking
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Incorporating Water Markets
EDSIMR ndash Basics of Stochastics
EDSIMR ndash Conceptual Results
Slide Number 46
WEF Alternatives ndash a starting point
Water Projects Examples
Power Plant Retrofit
Public Goods Concern
Compensation Reallocation
Slide Number 52
EDSIMR ndash Example Analysis Objectives
Base run -Agriculture Land
Agriculture Production Index
Water Source by Sector
Water Source by Sector
Average Water Cost by Sector
Water Projects Selection
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
EDSIMR ndash Sample Analysis Results
Conclusion
Future Research
Slide Number 65
Preliminary Result
Slide Number 1
FEW Nexus
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
FEW Nexus ndash Water Scarcity
Slide Number 5
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Study Region - Geographic amp Hydrologic Scope
Limited water supply Rivers
Limited water supply Aquifers
Limited water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Edwards Aquifer
Stochastic water supply Aquifers
Environmental Issue - Edwards
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Level falling
Slide Number 15
Regional Water Usage by Sector - 2015
Rapid Population Growth
Challenges from Fracking
Slide Number 19
Temperature history
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationary
Climate Change is making things non stationaryUSGS 05054000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH AT FARGO ND
Yet more could happen
Climate Change
Projections ndash Edwards Aquifer
Climate Change
Slide Number 28
EDSIMR ndash the concept
EDSIMR ldquoSystemrdquo(and friendsancestors)
EDSIMR ndash ComponentsEdwards Aquifer Groundwater and River System Simulation Model
