Keeping Water in Our Rivers

7/29/2019 Keeping Water in Our Rivers

1/45

Keeping Water in Our RiversStrategies for Conserving Limited Water Supplies


2/45

Keeping Water in Our RiversStrategies or Conserving Limited Water Supplies

Environment Texas Research & Policy Center

Elizabeth Ridlington and Judee Burr,Frontier Group

Luke Metzger,

Environment TexasResearch & Policy Center

March 2013


3/45

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Cyrus Reed with the Lone Star Chapter o the Sierra Club; Dr. Danny

Reible, Bettie Margaret Smith Chair o Environmental Health Engineering at the Uni-versity o Texas and Coordinator o Environmental and Water Resources in the Depart-ment o Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering; and Roxana Darvari at theDepartment o Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, University o Texas,or their review and insightul eedback on drats o this report. The authors would alsolike to thank Tony Dutzik and Jordan Schneider at Frontier Group or providing editorialsupport.

Environment Texas Research & Policy Center is grateul to the Cynthia and GeorgeMitchell Foundation or making this report possible.

The authors bear responsibility or any actual errors. The views expressed in this report

are those o the authors and do not necessarily reect the views o our unders or expertreviewers.

2013 Environment Texas Research & Policy Center

Environment Texas Research & Policy Center is a 501(c)(3) organization. We are dedicatedto protecting our air, water and open spaces. We investigate problems, crat solutions,educate the public and decision-makers, and help the public make their voices heard inlocal, state and national debates over the quality o our environment and our lives. Formore inormation about Environment Texas Research & Policy Center or or additionalcopies o this report, please visit www.environmenttexascenter.org.

Frontier Group conducts independent research and policy analysis to support a cleaner,healthier and more democratic society. Our mission is to inject accurate inormation andcompelling ideas into public policy debates at the local, state and ederal levels. For moreinormation about Frontier Group, please visit www.rontiergroup.org.

Cover photo: Colorado River rom the Kingsland overview. Photo by D Huss.Layout & Graphic Design: Harriet Eckstein Graphic Design


4/45

Table o Contents

Executive Summary 1

Introduction 5

Water Waste Is Harming Texas 6Drought Damage in Texas 6Texas Wastes Large Amounts o Water 8The Advantages o Water Efciency 9

Increasing Water Efciency and Reducing Consumption 10Saving Water in Agriculture 10Saving Water in Residential Areas through Water-Efcient Landscaping 17

Saving Water in Cities by Repairing Water Mains 19Saving Water in Electricity Production 21Saving Water in Oil and Gas Drilling 25

Conclusion 29

Methodology and Assumptions 32

Notes 35


5/45


6/45

Executive Summary 1

Executive Summary

Water levels in Texas rivers andstreams are dropping. The 2011drought was the worst in more

than a century, and conditions improvedlittle in 2012. Drought has reduced rec-reational opportunities, harmed wildlie,and threatened drinking water supplies. AsTexas population and economy continueto grow, demand or water will increase,making it more important than ever to use

water wisely.Wasteul water use in Texas remains

common. New residential landscaping otenrequires extensive watering to maintain.Cracked municipal water mains leak billionso gallons a year. Farms withdraw billionso gallons o water annually, much o whichis used in ways that do not support cropgrowth. Oil and gas racking companiesconsume reshwater or oil and gas pro-duction, recycling little o it. Coal, naturalgas and nuclear power plants withdraw and

consume vast volumes o water or cooling.In each sector, wasted water means that lessis immediately available or other purposes.Moreover, wasted water may evaporate orbecome contaminated, removing it romthe hydrological cycle altogether and per-

manently reducing the amount o wateravailable to recharge Texas aquiers.

Thank ul ly, there are many proventechnologies and approaches that canimprove the efciency o water use. De-ploying water conservation technolo-gies and implementing conservationprograms could reduce water demandby 500 billion gallons by 2020, enoughto meet the municipal water needs o 9

million Texans.Implementing more eicient ir-

rigation technologies and manage-ment practices in agriculturewhich

withdraws more water than any otherconsumer, especially in the most aridparts o the statecould reduce water

withdrawals by 400 billion gallons peryear by 2020, enough to meet the waterneeds o 7 million Texans.

Agricultural use is responsible or 56

percent o water demand in Texas, andmuch o that water is wasted. Evapo-ration rom overhead sprinklers andsoil; losses rom unlined, open irriga-tion canals; runo rom oversaturatedfelds; and water consumption by


7/45

2 Keeping Water in Our Rivers

weeds all use irrigation water withouthelping crops grow.

More widespread use o water meterswould allow armers to measure waterwithdrawals or irrigation and allow

better management o limited watersupplies. Metering can reduce on-armwater use by 10 to 20 percent.

Adoption o water-saving practicessuch as brush clearing and reducedtillage o soils would reduce waterconsumption by weeds and allow thesoil to retain more moisture.

Installation o more efcient irrigationtechnologies, such as drip irrigationinstead o overhead sprinklers or oodirrigation, can reduce evaporative loss-es and support greater plant growth.

Increasing the use o drought-toler-ant plants in landscaping instead o tra-ditional lawns could reduce withdrawalsby 14 billion gallons by 2020, or as muchas 260,000 Texans would use in a year.

Landscapes composed o grass and

plants rom wetter climates requireextensive watering in arid regions othe state. Exacerbating the problem,much o the water that is applied totur grass is lost through evaporationand permanently removed rom theTexas water supply.

Xeriscapinglandscaping designed toreduce the need or watercan reducewater use by 30 percent.

Detecting and repairing leaking mu-nicipal water mains would end the wasteo 20 billion gallons o water annually.

Broken water mains leak at least 35billion gallons o water per year. Loss-es may be higher now that drought

has accelerated the pace o water lineruptures.

Electronic leak detection equipment,already in use in cities such as Arling-ton and Grand Prairie, can fnd leaks

deep underground. Arlington esti-mates that with its equipment it hasidentifed leaks equal to 5 percent othe water owing through its system.

Increasing deployment o energytechnologies that require little or no

water could reduce the amount o wa-ter consumed by electricity generationby 43 billion gallons per year in 2020,more than enough or all the residentso Fort Worth.

Approximately 157 billion gallons owaterequivalent to the residentialwater needs o 3 million Texansareconsumed every year or cooling thestates coal, natural gas and nuclearpower plants and or turning the tur-bines to produce electricity. Electric-ity generation is projected to grow to7 percent o the states water use by2060.

Renewable energy technologies suchas wind power and solar power requirelittle to no water, while energy ef-ciency reduces the demand or powerrom power plants, thus cutting theirwater consumption. Strong energy e-fciency policies could reduce electric-ity consumption, while renewablescould deliver power without consum-ing water.

New natural gas or nuclear powerplants should use more efcient cool-ing technologies such as dry coolingor hybrid cooling systems, and shoulddemonstrate that adequate water sup-plies will be available or the plant,even during times o drought.


8/45

Executive Summary 3

Using brackish water or oil and gasdrilling processes would cut the amounto new reshwater withdrawn or thoseactivities. That could mean savings o23 billion gallons per year in 2020, withbenefts concentrated in the counties

where racking is widespread.

Oil and gas drilling, together withmining activities, are currentlyresponsible or 2 percent o Texaswater demand. Hydraulic racturing,commonly known as racking, is aast-growing, water-intensive pro-duction process or oil and gas, andit is concentrated in the Eagle Ford,Haynesville and Barnett shales andthe Permian Basin, imposing especial-ly high water demands in those areas.

Oil and gas drilling using rack-ing involves drilling a well and theninjecting a mixture o water, sand andchemicals to create fssures in therock to release the oil and gas trappedinside. Each well consumes largeamounts o reshwater. In the EagleFord shale, each well requires roughly5 million gallons o water to rack.

Recycling the water that returns tothe surace once racking is completewould reduce the need or reshwaterwithdrawals or each new rackingoperation. Replacing reshwater withbrackish water would largely eliminatethe need or reshwater in racking.

Reducing water waste is a key ele-ment o how Texas should address thegrowing gap between water supply

and demand. In the atermath o twoconsecutive years o drought that dam-aged ecosystems and the economy, Texasneeds a new plan or addressing the stateswater needs. The state has access to a fniteamount o water and should ensure that itis used efciently.

Texas should prioritize waterconservation above increasing sup-ply.The state should aim to reducestatewide per capita water use to 140gallons per day, and should establishefciency standards or buildings, ap-

pliances and irrigation equipment.

The state should adjust fnancialincentives to promote water e-fciency.Municipal users should bebilled under a conservation pricingstructure, creating fnancial signalsto reduce water consumption. Thepricing structure or agricultural usersshould also be adjusted, and coupledwith subsidies or efciency invest-ments or agricultural users.

Texas should adequately und waterconservation programs and ef-ciency investments.A one-time useo the Emergency Stabilization Fundor rainy day und would jumpstartinvestments in efciency programs.To provide ongoing unding, Texasshould collect a small ee on watersales. The small additional charge paidby consumers or each gallon o water

delivered would help provide reliableunding or fnancial and technicalassistance to cut water use.

Better knowledge about water useand savings opportunities can helpguide investments in water efcien-cy. The Texas Water DevelopmentBoard should conduct a statewideeasibility analysis o water efciencypotential, and should improve datacollection on water consumption.

Funding water education. Due toa lack o budget allocation, the TexasWater Development Board devel-oped but never implemented a watereducation and conservation programdesigned to teach Texans how to con-


9/45

Keeping Water in Our Rivers

serve their water supply. Previous es-timates suggest that a down paymento $16 million could spread the waterconservation message throughout thestate.

A st rong comm itment to water e-fciency improvements will help ensureaccess to water or all water users in Texas,including armers, residents, businessesand the environment.


10/45

Introduction 5

Texans know what a precious resourcewater is. During the drought thatstarted in 2011, citizens responded to

the water shortage by curtailing their wa-ter use. They abided by outdoor wateringrestrictions, watching lawns and landscapeswither and 5.6 million urban trees die dueto lack o water.1 In Midland, outdoor wa-tering use was restricted to just two hoursper week by hand.2 To reduce other water

use, the city increased rates fve-old orthe biggest water users.

Yet many o the ways in which we con-sume water are wasteul. Practices, habits andinrastructure that pre-date Texas droughtwaste billions o gallons o water each year.

Power companies have continued to useand consume billions o gallons o water orcooling instead o investing in technologiesthat use less water. Aging municipal watersystems leak billions o gallons o water.Most companies that engage in racking

to extract natural gas continue to discardwater by injecting water mixed with toxicchemicals undergroundnever to be usedagainater a single use instead o process-ing it or reuse.

Theres no need or continued waterwaste. In every sector o water use, new

technologies and better management prac-tices can enable us to get more out o a gallono water. Farmers can grow the same cropswith the same yields by choosing more e-fcient irrigation systems and applying waterexactly when it provides the greatest beneft.The state can promote technologiessuchas wind and solar power and energy efcien-cythat consume no water. Any new ossiluel power plants can be designed with air

cooling systems. Recycling and treatmenttechnologies allow racking companies torecycle some o the water they use, while useo brackish water unsuitable or drinking orirrigation could eliminate reshwater use indrilling altogether.

Adoption o these new technologies andpractices will be more widespread and rapidi Texas develops policies and incentives toreduce water use.

As Texas responds to the ongoingdrought and plans how to meet the states

water needs in the years to come, it needsto pursue a balanced solution that improvesthe efciency o water use and leaves morewater in rivers and aquiers to support theecosystems that depend on water.

We cant control when it rains, but wecan control how we use water.

Introduction


11/45


The availability o water aects thewell-being o Texas communities andwildlie. In the past two years, drought

has constrained this valuable resource.Wasteul water use makes the situat ionworse.

Drought Damage in TexasDuring the summer o 2011, Texas washit by the worst single-year drought inits history, with 97 percent o the statein extreme or exceptional drought.3 Thesituation has improved littlenearly 90percent o Texas continued to experiencedrought as o early 2013.4 West Texas, orexample, has continued to be in extremedrought with low rainall.5

Texas riversrom the Guadalupe tothe San Marcos to the Coloradoarestressed by this ongoing drought. Lowwater levels threaten wildlie, strain drink-ing water supplies, and disrupt outdoorrecreational activities.

There are 191,000 miles o rivers and

streams in Texas, which provide habitat orfsh and support diverse ecosystems.6 Theseecosystems become threatened when riversdry out, when lake and groundwater levelsdrop, or when the lack o rainall increaseswater salinity or leads to lower levels odissolved oxygen in waterways. At theheight o the drought in 2011, at least seveno Texas reservoirs were empty.7 Even in2012, the ongoing drought continued to

leave water levels in lakes and streams arbelow their capacity. For example, as oearly 2013 Lake Travis and Lake Buchanan,two o Texas major reservoirs, were at 41percent o capacity.8

Ecosystem impacts o water shortageshave been widespread:

The worlds last surviving ock owhooping cranes usually spends sev-eral months wintering in Texas, andtheir ood supply depends on reshwa-ter ows that support wetlands alongthe coast.9 The Fish and WildlieService reported a 12 percent drop inock size in the winter o 2011-2012compared to a year earlierone o themost dramatic declines recorded.10

Water Waste Is Harming Texas


12/45

Water Waste Is Harming Texas 7

Wetland species like the Americanalligator have relocated in the ace oincreasingly stressul conditions aswetlands dry up; during the summero 2011, alligators were seen mucharther north o their usual territory.11

Low water levels in the Brazos Riverled scientists to collect rare smalleyeshiners and sharpnose shiners, im-portant minnows at the bottom o theood chain, to protect the fsh romextinction.12

As trees and plants suer rom lack omoisture, mammals such as possums,deer and quail struggle to fnd suf-cient ood.13

Drought also threatens municipal watersystems as reservoirs dry up and inrastruc-ture becomes more prone to ailure. Water

shortages have orced communities to ra-tion water. As o early 2013, 1,028 publicwater systems were asking customers to ol-low water use restrictions.14 Water lines aremore prone to breakage during a droughtas soil shrinks and shits, creating the need

or expensive repairs or cities across Texas.In Houston, the city responded to andrepaired 17,756 water line breaks in 2011,40 percent more than in 2010.15

Water-based recreation, such as fshingand boating, is also impacted by decliningwater levels. This is signifcant in a statethat ranks second nationally in anglerdays and sixth or number o boats regis-tered or use.16 Low water levels in lakes,rivers and streams impede recreation,as many boat ramps close when waterlevels decrease and algal blooms disruptopportunities to fsh.17 The drought hasmeasurably reduced outdoor recreationby Texans: visitor ees paid at Texas state

Low water levels caused the death o these fsh in O.C. Fisher Lake near San Angelo. Photo: TravisDowell/USGS


13/45


parks declined by $4.2 million in 2011.18

Current water supplies are inadequateto meet demand in Texas, and water needsin the state are projected to increase inthe uture. According to projections romthe Texas Water Development Board

(TWDB), the states population will grow82 percent by 2060, increasing rom 25.4million to 46.3 million.19 The TWDB pre-dicts that water supply needs will increaseby 22 percent by 2060, assuming the stateadopts more efcient water use patterns.20

Global warming will urther exacerbateTexas water shortage. Climate projectionsindicate that temperatures will increase,making drought increasingly likely inTexas uture and putting urther strain

on water supplies.21 According to the U.S.Global Change Research Program, risingtemperatures are likely to cause more re-quent extreme drought events in the GreatPlains, including the Texas Panhandle,adding more stress to already strained

water resources.22

Texas Wastes LargeAmounts o WaterEfcient water use is critical to ensuringthat the water needs o Texas communi-ties are metespecially during times odrought. However, some o the largest

Quantiying Water Use

Texas aces two distinct but related water supply challenges. The frst is the chal-lenge o delivering enough water to the people, industries and ecosystems thatneed it at any particular moment. The second is the challenge o maintaining

adequate levels o water in aquiers, rivers and lakes to sustain needs in the medium

and long-term.Practices that waste water can exacerbate both o these challenges. Some practices

result in increased water withdrawalthat is, they strain the ability o Texas waterinrastructure to deliver enough water rom rivers, lakes and aquiers to meet imme-diate needs. Other practices result in increased water consumptionthat is, they takewater rom Texas rivers, lakes and aquiers that is never returned, exacerbating thestates long-term water challenges. Some practices exacerbate both the withdrawaland consumption challenges.

In the states long-term water planning document, the TWDB estimates totalwater use by all sectors o the economy, reerring to consumption in the power sec-tor and withdrawals by all other sectors as demand.

Some practices that increase withdrawals have only a minimal impact on overallwater consumption. For example, power plants withdraw huge volumes o water orcooling, running the water through the plant just once beore returning almost allo it to the source. Other practices, however, may result in relatively small increasesin water withdrawals, but signifcant consumption o water. For example, much othe water used in hydraulic racturing is lost to the water cycle orever.


14/45

Water Waste Is Harming Texas 9

water users in Texas are wasting billions ogallons o water. Land developers, energycompanies and industrial agribusinessesare responsible or the majority o wateruse in Texas, and yet they oten oregoconservation measures.

The largest users o water in Texas con-sume ar more water than residential users.Agriculture accounts or 56 percent o waterdemand, compared to 27 percent or mu-nicipal users, which include both residentialusers and commercial users on municipalsystems.23 Manuacturing activities accountor 10 percent and mining is responsible or2 percent. The electric sector also withdrawslarge amounts o water.24

Water is wasted in a number o sectors.In agriculture, much o the water with-drawn is wastednot helping to producecrops but evaporating rom the ground,being consumed by weeds, or seeping intothe ground rom unlined ditches or over-watered felds. Power plants withdraw largeamounts o water at a time when waterless,renewable energy technologies could beemployed to produce a much larger shareo the states electricity. Existing ossiluel power plants generally ail to employmore modern technologies that reduce the

use o water, such as dry or hybrid cool-ing, combined cycle or combined powerand heat technologies. Oil and gas drill-ingconducted in part to support water-consuming electricity generationalsouses a signifcant amount o water. Frackinga single gas well can consume as much as 8million gallons o water per year (enoughwater to supply about 150 homes), but verylittle recycling o racking water occurs inTexas.25

Water-efcient technologies can signif-

cantly reduce water waste. Applying thesetechnologies is an essential step towardscreating water-secure communities todayand into the uture.

The Advantages oWater EfciencyTexas can address the problem o waterwaste by pursuing water efciency mea-sures, or it can seek new supplies to cover

waste and satisy rising demand rom agrowing population and economy. Forboth environmental and economic reasons,water efciency should be the frst optionthat Texas pursues as it plans or its uturewater needs.

Projects to store or transer morewater wil l have negative environmentalconsequences. New reservoirs to holdadditional water supplies will ood criti-cal wildlie habitat. Transerring waterrom one region to another will reducethe amount o water available or wildliein the source basin. Water diversion maydecrease reshwater ows into estuaries,which are breeding grounds or birds andfsh. Desalination plants produce massiveamounts o waste in the orm o brine andare energy intensive, which adds to waterconsumption and produces air pollution.

In addition, water conservation mea-sures are less expensive than buildingnew inrastructure to augment water sup-

plies.26

For example, the Lower ColoradoRiver Authority, which serves Austin andCentral Texas, estimates that conserva-tion measures can cut water use at a costo $400 per acre-oot, versus importingwater or $1,900 per acre-oot, construct-ing a reservoir or $2,150 per acre-oot, orbuilding a desalination plant or $2,890 peracre-oot.27 Statewide, i all Texans reducetheir water consumption by 1 gallon perday, the state could avoid $407.2 millionworth o water supply and inrastructure

investment costs.28

For individual waterusers who participate in efciency pro-grams, conservation measures may alsohelp reduce their water bills.


15/45


Saving Water in Agriculture

Irrigation accounts or the largest shareo Texas current water use56 per-cent o total demand in 2010.29 Much

o that water fnds its way back to riversand aquiers, and is thereore able to beused again in Texas. However, some waterevaporates into the air, where it is lost toTexas consumers. The efciency o water

use in agriculture can be improved with:metering o water so armers better under-stand how and when water is being used;better management practices such as brushclearing and reduced tillage; inrastructureupgrades to limit water losses rom canals;and adoption o more efcient irrigationtechnologies.

How Current Irrigation MethodsWaste Water

Applying water to improve plant growthis a benefcial use, and providing adequatewater at the right time is essential to en-suring decent yields and arm proftability.Too oten, however, water is wasted whenit evaporates or seeps out o unlined canalsduring transport, when it evaporates rom

the soil in a feld, when so much is appliedthat it runs o or seeps deep into the soilbeyond where plants can reach it, or whenthe water supports weeds and unwantedvegetation.

EvaporationWater that evaporates during irrigationis a consumptive use o water, resultingin the permanent loss o that water to

the region. Evaporation can make a bigdierence in the amount o water neededor irrigation, and it becomes aster withwarmer and drier air, both o which arecommon in Texas.

Evaporation happens at every stage oirrigation. The frst losses occur rom thesurace o reservoirs and canals, which maybe used to carry water to nearby felds, oror long-distance transers rom regionswith water surpluses to water defcit re-gions. Some water evaporates as it is applied

to a crop. For example, sprinkler irrigationsystems, such as the common center pivotsystem that is used on circular felds, mayspray water high above plants, allowingwater to evaporate beore it even hits theground. The amount o evaporation de-pends in part on the type o sprinkler head

Increasing Water Efciency andReducing Consumption


16/45

Increasing Water Efciency and Reducing Consumption 11

used. Sprinklers are the most common ormo irrigation in Texas, used on 65 percento irrigated land.30

Irrigation water can evaporate romsoil, especially when the irrigation methodapplies water to an entire feld instead o

more precisely applying water at each plant.The most common irrigation methods inTexas are:31

Overhead sprinklers, which lose up to11 percent o their water to evaporation,

Surace irrigation, in which largeamounts o water are periodically

released rom an irrigation channel atone end o a feld, which has evapora-tion rates o roughly 4 percent, and

Subsurace irrigation, in which only 1percent o the water applied is lost to

evaporation.

Evaporation rom soil also occurs whenthere is no crop on the ield, reducingsoil moisture levels or the next crop tobe planted. Farm management practicesinuence how much moisture is lost roma allow feld. Removing all residue romthe previous crop and tilling the feld, or

Perverse Incentives Inhibit More EfcientAgricultural Water Use

Water use in the agricultural sector is inuenced by a number o economicand regulatory incentives that discourage efciency. These policies createan economic incentive or armers to use more water, not less.

The relatively low price o water charged to agricultural users encouragesoveruse. For example, the Lower Colorado River Authority charges armers$6.50 per acre-oot or water, versus $151 per acre-oot to cities.32 With water soinexpensive, it does not make sense fnancially or a armer to invest in equipment

that will improve the efciency o water use.33 A more efcient sprinkler system,or example, may produce signifcant water savings but such small cost savingsthat the armer doesnt recoup his or her investment or years.

Crop insurance policies may also spur unnecessary water use. In 2011, duringthe drought, cotton armers who wished to receive payments rom crop insurancecompanies had to continue to water their felds even when it was clear that theywould not yield a crop.34 Insurance companies, wary o alse claims, ask armersor evidence that they truly intended to grow a crop and are not claiming a losson an empty feld. That evidence oten includes electricity bills that show a armeroperated wells and sprinkler systems.

Use it or lose it rules still in place rom the earliest establishment o waterrights encourage armers to use all the water to which they are entitled, even ithey dont need it in a particular year. A arming operation that ails to withdraw allthe water it has permission to withdraw may lose the right to withdraw that muchwater in a uture year. Instead, access to that water will be assigned to somebodyelse, and the original arming operation will either have to do without the wateror fnd a way to lease water.


17/45


example, increases moisture loss and in-creases carbon loss rom the soil, addingto global warming pollution.

RunoOverwatering with sprinklers or the use

o surace irrigation methods can causewater loss through runo. Even i waterreturns to an irrigation canal or soaksinto the ground, runo increases waterwithdrawal rates. In addition, runo watertypically is more polluted with sediment,ertilizer and pesticides than it was whenit was withdrawn. Over time, runo cancarry enough soil away rom cropland tohurt its productivity. When the sediment isdeposited in rivers and lakes it can damagewater quality and aquatic ecosystems, andimpede navigability.

Deep SaturationWater is wasted when it soaks deep intothe ground where no plant can use it. Wa-ter can seep into the ground as it is beingtransported rom reservoirs or rivers tofelds through canals, which historicallyhave been little more than dirt ditches, butmore recently have been lined with con-crete or plastic to reduce seepage in some

places. As water travels along the canal,much seeps into the ground through thedirt or through gaps in the canal liner.

Deep saturation can also occur romoverwatering o felds. I too much wateris applied to a feld at once, it will saturatesoil to levels deeper than plant roots canreachincreasing the need or waterwithdrawals. Unortunately, water soakingdeep into the soil can carry ertilizers, pes-ticides and other chemicals into aquiers.In other cases, water cannot return to an

aquier because a layer o impermeable rockprevents recharge.

Unwanted TranspirationWater can also be wasted through transpi-ration by weeds. Transpiration is the losso water rom the leaves o plants. When it

occurs rom a planted crop, transpirationdoes not constitute a waste o water, sincetranspiration enables a plant to draw waterand nutrients rom the soil and helps coolthe plant in hot weather. It is also a sign oa growing plant that is opening its pores

to absorb carbon dioxide.Transpiration rom weeds, however, con-

sumes water without providing any beneftas weeds withdraw moisture rom the soiland release it into the atmosphere.

Agricultural EfciencyOpportunitiesWith changes to water inrast ructure,arming practices and irrigation technolo-gies, Texas could use water or agriculturemore efciently, saving billions o gal-lons each year. Metering devices can helparmers and water system managers bet-ter understand how much water is beingconsumed and identiy opportunities orreducing consumption. Changes to arm-ing practices, such as reducing tillage, canreduce water consumption without aect-ing crop yields. Other tools that can helpreduce water waste in agriculture are thelining o irrigation canals and adoption o

dierent irrigation technologies.

Metering Water UseMost irrigation water use in Texas is unme-tered. Farmers may be able to make a roughestimate o water use by monitoring howmuch energy their pumps consume, butstatewide only a small percent o irrigationwater is directly measured.35 A lack o frmknowledge o how much water is being usedmakes it difcult to identiy opportunitiesor reducing water consumption. More

widespread use o water meters wouldhelp armers, water development boardsand groundwater conservation districts byproviding accurate data on consumptionor irrigation and enable better planningor long-term availability o water or allusers.


18/45


Water meters are instal led at the pointwhere water is withdrawn rom the groundor diverted rom a surace water source,giving producers an accurate portrait otheir water use.36 This alerts agriculturaloperators o excessive water withdrawals.

Farmers who have access to data on theirwater use reduce water withdrawals by 10to 20 percent, even without adopting otherbest management practices.37

One obstacle to more widespread use owater meters in Texas is the cost o buyingand installing the meters, which can cost$600 to $1,000 per groundwater well.38However, this expense can be oset inseveral ways. By providing data to enablebetter water management practices andlower water withdrawals, the water metercan help reduce the cost o uel or operat-ing pumps. Improved data may also raisecrop yields and arm incomes.

Metering is being adopted in some Texaswater districts. Only six irrigation districtsrequire collection o data on water volumesrom wells. Those districts include: theBarton Springs/Edwards Aquier Con-servation District, the Edwards AquierAuthority, the Harris-Galveston CoastalSubsidence District, the North Plains

Groundwater Conservation District, theHudspeth County Underground WaterConservation District No. 1, and the HighPlains Underground Water ConservationDistrict.39 (Some o those districts relyon calculations based on energy use rompumps.) Irrigation districts in the LowerRio Grande Valley and El Paso Countyrequire water meters or surace water.40The Texas Water Development Board hasalso provided grants to some groundwaterconservation districts to install water me-

ters and report on their water use.41

Several other states that rely ongroundwater or irrigation require allarmers to meter their water use. Georgiarequires water meters on permittedwel ls, wit h the state pay ing to instal lmeters on wells permitted beore 2003

and armers responsible or installingmeters on newer wells.42 Colorado andNebraska meter all groundwater wells,while Kansas annually collects data on allgroundwater withdrawals or irrigation.More widespre ad metering o water

use in Texas would help reduce waterconsumption by providing armers withbetter data on consumption patterns andimproving the states planning capacity.

Improving Management PracticesChanges to arm management practicescan provide huge savings in water con-sumption. Decisions about when and howmuch water to apply to a crop; which irriga-tion system to use; how to manage a post-harvest feld; and how to control weedsand unwanted brush all have an impact onagricultural water use. Selecting the bestoptions can provide benefts, in terms oboth water use and arm proftability.

Providing water at the right time canimprove crop yield and reduce waterwithdrawals. A study o pecan arms inNew Mexico ound that armers tendedto give trees too much water during timeso low growth and too little water duringcritical periods o nut flling.43 Shiting to

a watering schedule more in line with cropneeds can improve the quality and quantityo the harvested crop. Irrigation schedul-ing improvements in Texas could producewater savings o 98,000 to 163,000 gallonso water per acre o cropland.44

For feld crops, proper managemento the feld ater harvest can allow morewater to be retained in the soil. Reducedtillage (also known as conservation tillage)is the practice o leaving crop residue onthe surace o a feld rather than plowing

it under. The crop residue helps protectmoisture in the soil rom evaporation, re-ducing irrigation needs or the next yearscrop. Other benefts include better soilstructure that is able to retain rainal l andnutrients, reduced run-o o pesticidesand sediment, and less energy use by arm


19/45


equipment.45 Conservation tillage has thepotential to result in increased pesticideuse, but with the right management prac-tices this does not have to be true.46 Watersavings rom conservation tillage in Texascould range rom 81,000 to 163,000 gal-

lons per acre.47

Removing unwanted brush can reducewater consumption in areas o the statethat receive at least 18 inches o rainallper year.48 Juniper and mesquite, nativeto Texas, have expanded ar beyond theirhistoric range thanks to overgrazing andwildfre suppression.49 Saltcedar, not na-tive to Texas, is o particular concernbecause o its ability to consume 1.3 to 2million gallons o water annually per acreo mature trees.50 Clearing brush can cutwater consumption, allow a more diverserange o vegetation to thrive, and improvehabitat or some species such as the Black-capped Vireo. In the right circumstances,brush clearing activity in Texas can save108,000 to 179,000 gallons o water per acrecleared.51 At a ranch near Johnson City,Texas, the water savings o brush clearingbecame obvious when water ow increasedin the creek owing through the ranch.52

To maintain any water savings, the clearedareas must be maintained and kept ree obrush in subsequent years.

Reducing Water Loss rom CanalsLining canals with an impervious barrier

can reduce water lost to ground seepageand protect water quality. Irrigation canalsare oten little more than dirt trenchesthat carry water rom major reservoirs toagricultural areas, where smaller canalsor ditches transport water to each feld.Lining canals with concrete overlaid withplastic provides a durable and impermeablelining that limits water loss.

Depending on the type o lining andthe size o the canal, lined canals save 70to 95 percent o the water that would seep

back into the ground in unlined irrigationcanals.54 Lower losses during transporta-tion mean that armers need to withdrawless water rom reservoirs or rivers.

Canal lining is uncommon in Texas.According to a survey o Texas irrigationdistricts published in 2004, canal liningwas occurring on only a small scale in oneo the 12 irrigation districts responding tothe survey.55

Agricultural Water Conservation Success rom the LowerColorado River

In 1999, the Texas Legislature approved a law that allows the Lower Colorado RiverAuthority (LCRA) to subsidize the cost o agricultural water conservation eortsand transer the saved water to Williamson County, on the north side o Austin.LCRA pays up to 20 percent o the cost o water efciency improvements or ricefelds served by the authority. Farmers can receive partial reimbursement or laser-guided leveling o felds irrigated with surace ooding, or adding inlets to ood a

feld more quickly, and or recovering runo water.53

The water conservation undingcomes rom consumers in Williamson County who pay a surcharge on their bills.

Conservation projects unded through the program cut agricultural water useby 3.3 billion gallons in 2011. With armers paying or the bulk o the efciencyimprovements, the public cost to save this water was $1.6 million rom 2006 to 2011,or $158 per acre-oot.


20/45


Even lined canals still experience signif-cant evaporative losses. Evaporative lossesrom canals can be nearly eliminated byreplacing open irrigation canals or ditcheswith pipelines. Limiting actors or makingthis switch include the time and money

needed to construct these pipelines andthe need or pipelines that can handle alarge quantity o water. Canals with smallerwater capacity are more easily replaced withpipeline; efciency improvements to largercanals may be limited to the addition o alining.

Adopting More Efcient IrrigationMethodsDepending on the crop and feld condi-tions, changing irrigation systems can helpimprove efciency and reduce water use.

The efciency o overhead sprinklersystems can be improved by installinglow-pressure equipment that reduces theamount o time water is airborne andespecially vulnerable to evaporation,but or many situations, microirrigationwill be more efcient than any overheadsprinkler system. Microirrigation applieswater directly to individual plants or rootsystems using narrow plastic tubing laid

throughout the planted area. The tubingsystems can either be laid on the suraceo the soil or be buried. Water comes outat a much lower pressure than sprinklersystems; microirrigation systems wherewater comes out drop by drop are calleddrip irrigation.

Microirrigation has the lowest evapo-ration rate o any irrigation system anddelivers benefts or armers. Because wateris applied directly to the plant in need,crops are better able to absorb water when

they need it, reducing risk o water stressand resulting in higher quality produce.56Fertilizers can also be added to irrigationwater, which allows a more precise appli-cation, reduces the cost o ertilizer, andreduces chemical runo. Finally, microir-rigation does not prevent feld work during

water application, unlike the other methodswhich leave the felds muddy.

However, microirrigation does notalways lead to lower water consumptionbecause plants watered with microirriga-tion may consume more water. A regular

supply o water, applied at key stages ocrop growth, may produce larger plantsrom which greater transpiration occursand a larger yielda beneft to the armer,though not a savings in total water con-sumption.57 Obtaining region-wide watersavings when using microirrigation mayrequire careul regional planning. Moreefcient use o water to produce crops mayprovide broader societal benefts, increas-ing ood production or allowing retiremento the least productive acreage.

Microirrigation can be used on the vastmajority o crops grown in Texas. Accord-ing to Dr. Freddie Lamm at Kansas StateUniversity, about 90 percent o all Americancrops may eventually be appropriate ormicroirrigation technology, which is beingtested and applied to new situations overtime.58 Even rice can be grown with subsur-ace irrigation instead o traditional suraceirrigation in which the feld is ooded. Oneexperiment used 80 percent less water to

irrigate rice via subsurace equipment, with-out any negative impact on yield.59

A ew actors have prevented armersrom taking advantage o microirrigationmore broadly. Since the price that armerspay or water is heavily subsidized, theyhave little incentive to save water. Ad-ditionally, microirrigation has not beenin use or as long as surace and sprinklerirrigation, and widespread adoption isslowed by the time and money requiredto learn and implement the new system.

Finally, the advantages o microirrigationare more pronounced with certain crops,while or others it has yet to be tried on alarge scale. To obtain the greatest watersavings rom microirrigation, armersneed appropriate guidance and incentivesto make the switch.


21/45


Total Savings rom IncreasedAgricultural Water EfciencyTexas can obtain large savings rom agri-cultural water use by pursuing changes toirrigation technology and inrastructure,and by helping armers adopt best practices

that balance water conservation and armoutput.

Estimates o water savings rom chang-ing a single technology or managementtechnique indicate large potential savings.An analysis o upgrading irrigation systemsrom the existing mix o irrigation systemsto very eicient precision applicationsystems and drip irrigation in the TexasPanhandle suggests a savings potential o18 to 20 percent.60 A study o agriculturalwater savings potential in Caliornias main

agricultural areas projected savings o 13percent just rom smart irrigation sched-uling.61 Implementing multiple changesat once would yield larger savings thanpursuing a single change.

With a concerted eort to help armersadopt better management practices and

with increased unding or water meter-ing and inrastructure upgrades, Texascould obtain signifcant agricultural watersavings. Based on the estimated beneftso better irrigation scheduling alone, weassume Texas could reduce agricultural

water withdrawals by 13 percent, or 400billion gallons by 2020. That volumeo water could provide or the residen-tial water needs o more than 7 millionpeople.62

Public Policies to ImproveAgricultural Water EfciencyPolicy makers have several tools availableto them to improve the efciency o agri-cultural water use. These policies would

enable Texas to prevent urther depletiono its water resources. Though many othese strategies require increased publicinvestment, reducing agricultural waterconsumption could help reduce the needto spend money on expensive new storagecapacity and interbasin transer projects.

Drip irrigation systems allow water to be applied to individual plants, thereby reducing evaporation.Photo: Je Vanuga/NRCS


22/45


Oer Financial IncentivesBuying new equipment and installingwater-saving devices can requ ire largefnancial investments rom irrigators andwater districts. This initial fnancial costcan be enough to deter improvements in

agricultural water use. Texas could oergrants, loans or tax credits to help addressthis problem.

The Texas Water Development Boardcurrently oers an Agricultural WaterLoan Program and an Agricultural WaterConservation Grants Program to helpderay the cost o water efciency invest-ments. However, current unding canachieve only a raction o potential e-fciency improvements. Greater undingto help deray the cost o water efciencyinvestments would reduce water use in theagricultural sector.

Provide Technical AssistanceFarmers trying to improve irrigationscheduling, transition to conservationtillage practices, identiy brush clearingopportunities, or adopt other best manage-ment practices to save water can beneftrom technical assistance programs. Expertadvice tailored to the conditions on each

arm can help ensure armers make thechanges that provide the greatest watersavings. Texas should expand its eorts toprovide guidance to armers.

Increase Water MeteringWhen irrigators monitor how much waterthey withdraw, they have the knowledgeto better manage their irrigation practicesand thus consume less water. Texas shouldencourage more widespread use o watermetering.

The state could mandate the use o watermeters on wells or pumping systems thatwithdraw more than a threshold level owater. Because the cost o purchasing andinstalling meters can add up or armerswho have multiple wells, a cost-sharingprogram could help alleviate inancial

concerns. For example, irrigation waterdistricts in the Lower Rio Grande Val-ley have paid or hal o the cost o watermeters.63

End Artifcially Low Rates Charged

or Agricultural Water UseRestructuring the price o water to betterreect the true cost o providing and con-suming it would encourage more efcientuse o water through better technologiesand practices. More sensible water pricingwould make investing in water efciencyupgrades more inancially attractive toarmers weighing the cost o water againstinvesting in more efcient equipment.

Allow the Leasing o Saved WaterAllowing or encouraging the leasing osurplus agricultural water to other userscan create appropriate incentives or water-saving techniques on armland while alsohelping armers overcome upront invest-ment costs in water-saving technologieslike microirrigation. Water saved througheiciency measures could be leased tomunicipalities or or environmental usessuch as instream ow. This will incentivizearmers to take steps to monitor water use,

increase water application efciency, andsave water where possible. Farmers shouldnot be orced to give up their water rightsi they choose to conserve water and leasesaved water to eager users.

Saving Water in ResidentialAreas through

Water-Efcient LandscapingLandscape watering accounts or hal oresidential water use.64 Texas home de-velopers can acilitate large reductions inwater use by xeriscaping the landscapeso new homes instead o installing water-thirsty lawns.


23/45


Xeriscaping Can ReduceWater UseXeriscaping is the art o creating and main-taining a landscape that reects the naturalvegetation and climate o the region. Useo succulent plants, or example, whichhave evolved to survive in arid climates bystoring moisture within the plant organ-ism, reduces the watering requirement ingardens. On the other hand, KentuckyBluegrass and St. Augustine grass, someo the most common types o lawn grasses,cannot survive in arid regions o Texaswithout copious amounts o water. Besideschoosing appropriate plants or gardens,xeriscaping techniques include landscapedesign and the use o microirrigation,

mulches and landscape maintenance tourther reduce watering needs.The frst step in xeriscaping is planning

out a yard in a way that reduces waterconsumption. Home developers and ho-meowners associations have signifcantinuence in this process. Where xeriscap-ing is not allowed by homeowners associa-tions, or where developers install tur-grassinstead o plants adapted to arid conditions,homeowners are orced to waste water onplants ill-suited or the climate. Planning

developments in a water-conscious wayincludes planning landscapes that will usewater efciently.

The Southern Nevada Water Author-ity (SNWA) completed a fve-year studyin which it looked at the water savings olawns and gardens converted to xeriscapes.The authority ound that homeowners cuttotal domestic water usage by 30 percent,and saved one-third o the labor and fnan-cial cost o irrigating a lawn.65 Additionalincentives or water savings could enable

Texas developers to take advantage o thesepotential water savings in their planningprocesses.

Assuming that Texas homes in the drierareas o the state can achieve savings simi-lar to the households studied in the SNWAstudy, Texas could save 14 billion gallons

o water annually in 2020 by applyingxeriscaping techniques to all new yards.66Thats enough water to meet the annualneeds o 260,000 Texans.67

Public Policies to Encourage

XeriscapingPolicy makers have several tools availableto them to increase the use o xeriscapingin new developments. These policies wouldenable Texas to prevent urther depletiono its water resources.

Establish New DevelopmentEfciency Standards

In order to help stop the growth in waterconsumption, Texas could adopt water

efciency requirements that new develop-ments would have to meet. Developerswould have to design homes and yards withwater efciency in mind.

One advantage o ocusing on newhomes is that many efciency improve-ments, both or landscaping and indoorwater use, are cheaper and easier to makeduring original planning and construction.The clear weakness in this policy is that itdoesnt address existing homes, which, inthe aggregate, will continue to be the big-

gest residential water users or many years.Combining this policy with xeriscaping inexisting homes would make it signifcantlystronger.

A number o communities in other stateshave already adopted residential landscapeefciency requirements. Tampa, Florida,limits tur grass in new development.When the standard was frst adopted, grasswatered with a permanent irrigation systemcould cover only 50 percent o a yard. Overtime, the standard has tightened so that

by 2013 just 25 percent o the landscapingin new development can be grass with apermanent irrigation system.68

Caliornia has adopted a Model WaterEfcient Landscape Ordinance establish-ing water efciency standards or residen-tial landscaping.69 All communities in the


24/45


state have to adopt a residential landscapewater efciency standard at least as strin-gent as the states model. A number ocities have opted or tighter standards,limiting tur to 25 percent o the land-scaped area or requiring that 80 percent

o plants selected require little or nowater.70 Salinas, Caliornia, requires thatall new homes use xeriscaping principles,and limits tur grass to 20 percent o thelandscaped area.71 In Texas, Austins waterutility has discussed limiting grass and

plants requiring irrigation to 2.5 timesthe ootprint o a new home.72

Saving Water in Cities byRepairing Water MainsMunicipal water utilities must maintainhundreds o miles o pipes and tens othousands o connections. Each joint andlength o pipe has the potential to leak.

Encouraging Xeriscaping in Existing Developments

Replacing lawns and water-thirsty landscaping in existing developments willrequire changes in policy and fnancial incentives.Local homeowners associations may need to change their policies. Existingguidelines may prevent the use o xeriscaping and require that homeowners installgrass or other water-intensive ora. These restrictions mandate water consump-tion and make water shortages in the region more intense. Forcing homeownersto grow grass when they preer a xeriscape or want to conserve water goes againstthe long-term interests o the state and puts a ceiling on the potential to save waterat home. When water use restrictions are imposed during droughts, the grass diesand lawns become an eyesore. Texas should prevent homeowners associationsrom enorcing anti-xeriscaping measures to allow individuals and communities toprotect their water resources.

Financial support or renovating existing landscapes could come rom develop-ers o new housing. With existing water sources already ailing to sustainably meetdemand, new developments could be required to make up or their new water de-

mand by using efcien-cy to decrease demandelsewhere. For example,a developer could payor enough xeriscapeconversions in a nearbyneighborhood to ree upthe water needed or anew development.

Traditional lawn-basedlandscapes require extensivewatering. Photo: NRCS


25/45


Small leaks may go undetected or years,leaking thousands o gallons o water intothe soil. Larger leaks, though short-lived,can result in large volumes o water waste.A ter each leak is repaired, potential lycontaminated water must be ushed out

o the system, wasting more water. Detect-ing and repairing leaks in municipal waterinrastructure to cut water losses by halwould save 20 billion gallons in 2020.73

Water Loss rom LeakingWater MainsSince 2006, municipal utilities have beenrequired to audit their systems and reportwater losses once every fve years.74 Datareported or 2005 by utilities serving the

majority o the states population indicatebroken or leaking water mains result inthe loss o 27 billion gallons per year.75Thats equal to 2.2 percent o all waterprovided by those utilities. I that sameleakage rate holds true statewide, 35 bil-lion gallons currently are lost each year tobroken mains, enough to meet the needso 600,000 Texans.76

Actual losses rom leaking mains maybe larger. Utilities expressed a large degreeo uncertainty in their audits regarding all

the ways in which they lose water, includingaulty meters that undercount consumptionby customers, unmetered consumptionsuch as or frefghting, and unauthorizedconsumption. Adding to the uncertainty,broken water mains may waste more waterthan Texas utilities estimated: Texas waterutilities report an average leakage rate lessthan one-quarter o that reported by otherwater systems across North America.77 MarkMathis with the TWDB and Brian McDon-ald, a proessional engineer with expertise in

water management who reviewed the datasubmitted by utilities, concluded that mostutilities were underestimating their losses.78The results o more recent audits supportthis conclusion. Audit data rom 2010 sug-gest total system losses o 16.7 percent,versus 5.6 percent rom the 2005 audit.79

The ongoing drought may also causelosses to be even larger than when utili-ties reported the results o their 2005audits. Drought can cause pipes to ail asdry soil shrinks and shits. At the peak othe drought, Houston suered rom 1,200

water main breaks per day, up rom 200 perday during normal conditions.80 A singledrought-related water main break in SanAngelo, in West Texas, caused the loss o250,000 gal lons o water.81 Arlington esti-mates that the city loses 10,000 gallons owater ushing out water mains ater eachrepair to rid them o contamination.82

Public Policies to Reduce Wasterom Leaking Water Mains

Reducing leaks rom water mains requiresutilities to identiy leaks and to und repairs.

Use Leak-Detection EquipmentSmall water leaks can go undetected oryears i utilities dont employ monitoringdevices. Computerized monitors can lis-ten or leaks and accurately identiy theirlocation. All water utilities in the stateshould use leak monitoring equipment toexamine all their water mains each year.

Leak-detection equipment has enabled

Grand Prairie to identiy 1,000 waterleaks over our years. The water utilityoperations manager told the Star Telegram,Weve ound lots o leaks that we didntknow about.83 Arlington recently pur-chased $75,000 worth o leak-detectionequipment to identiy small leaks in its1,300 miles o water mains, water lossesthat add up to 5 percent o water owingthrough the system.84 The TWDB ownsleak detection equipment that it lends toutilities, enabling smaller utilities to exam-

ine the condition o their water mains. 85

Ensure Adequate Funding or WaterMain RepairThe cost o repairing and maintainingwater mains could reach into the millionso dollars statewide.


26/45


The U.S. Environmental Protect ionAgency est imates that Texas aces $15.95billion in repairs and replacements toits water transmission and distributionnetwork in the next 20 years.86 One-thirdo this expense is in cities with popula-

tions o less than 10,000. This expenseincludes installation, replacement andrepair o pipes that carry water rom adrinking water source to a treatmentplant and rom the treatment plant tocustomers. Leaking water mains will bea large part o the total anticipated repaircosts. For example, Houston spent at least$8.5 million repairing water mains thatbroke during the drought.87 Finding andrepairing all leaking mains will cost thecity ar more.

Typically, utilities are responsible orpaying or their inrastructure costs usingrevenues rom customers, though in someinstances ederal grants may be available.Larger cities may be able to spread the costo detecting and repairing water mains overtheir extensive customer base, but the costmay be too high or small cities to undthrough user ees. Additional unding inthe orm o grants or low-cost loans maybe needed.

Saving Water in ElectricityProductionElectricity generation in Texas was respon-sible or 4 percent o water consumptionin 2010.88 This share could rise i utureelectricity needs are met with similarlywater-intensive cooling systems. Futuredemand or electricity is expected to in-

crease 38 percent by 2020 and 58 percentby 2030. Increasing deployment o energytechnologies that require litt le or no waterwould reduce the need or water or coolingby 43 billion gallons o water per year in2020, more than enough or the populationo Fort Worth. Further savings could be

obtained by upgrading cooling technolo-gies to use less water.

Water Consumption in Power PlantsPower plants that use steam-driven tur-bines, such as nuclear and coal-fred power

plants, use water as a cooling mechanism toincrease their efciency. Ater steam passesthrough the turbine, it is exposed to coolwaterowing through a separate loopand condenses. The change rom gas toliquid shrinks the volume o the steam andpulls more steam rom the turbine behindit, thereby driving the turbine aster.

Depending on the power plants design,the water used or cooling may then bedischarged to a surace water body or becooled and recirculated through the plant.These systems have very dierent waterwithdrawal and consumption patterns. Thetwo most common cooling systems are:

Once-through or open loop coolingsystems,which withdraw water roma lake, river or ocean, pass it throughthe plant one time to condense steam,and then discharge the water back intothe original source. The discharge wa-ter is warmer than when it was with-

drawn, increasing evaporation romthe water source. This evaporation isconsidered consumption by the plant.

Recirculating systems, which maywithdraw water rom and return it toa reservoir, or use a cooling tower inwhich most o the water is recaptured.Ater cooling steam in the plant, waterreturned to a reservoir cools throughevaporation. In a cooling tower,water is cooled by air. Some water

will escape as steam but most alls tothe bottom o the cooling tower tobe used again. Recirculating systemswithdraw ar less water than once-through systems but consume morewater per unit o power produced, re-moving it rom the hydrologic system


27/45


and making it permanently unavail-able to other users.

Neither o the predominant cooling sys-tems used in Texas is ideal or protecting wa-ter supplies. Once-through systems impose

a huge water withdrawal burdenaccount-ing or 40 percent o reshwater withdrawalsnationwidewhile recirculating systemsconsume signifcant amounts o water.89In Texas, the majority o coal and naturalgas plants rely on recirculating coolingtechnology, which increases consumptionand removes water rom the states watercycle.90 Some nuclear power plants in Texasuse once-through cooling systems; othersuse recirculating systems.

Meeting Electricity Needswith Less WaterBy ar the most eective option or reduc-ing water withdrawal and consumptionor electricity production is to reducedemand or steam-generated power romcoal, natural gas and nuclear power plants.That can be accomplished by using energyefciency to reduce the total demand orelectricity and by replacing electricityrom steam-generated power plants with

electricity rom wind and solar power. Thesecond, less attractive option or reducingwater demand in electricity generation isto adopt cooling technologies that use lesswater, such as air cooling.

Energy efciencygetting more useulwork out o a unit o electricityrequiresno water. By reducing electricity consump-tion, energy efciency cuts the need togenerate electricity rom power plants thatuse water. Texas has abundant energy e-fciency potential that it could tap.

Another option or reducing water con-sumption in electricity generation is to usemore renewable energy, which consumeslittle water. Wind turbines and solar pho-tovoltaics do not require cooling and thusthey do not consume a signifcant amounto water.91

A third option is to make coal, naturalgas and nuclear power plants more wa-ter-efcient with dry cooling. Instead ocooling steam using cold water, air-cooledsystems use cool air to turn steam backinto liquid orm, much as a cars radiator

uses air to cool the engine.92 Air coolingdelivers water withdrawal and consumptionbenefts. A natural gas plant cooled with airwithdraws less than 1 percent o the waterthat an open-loop cooling system would re-quire, and water consumption is 40 percentless than an open-loop system.93

The disadvantage o air cooling is that itis less energy efcient. Air is less efcient atcooling than water, which makes the powerplant operate less efciently. In addition,air cooling may consume some electricityto power ans that move large volumes oair. When ambient air temperature risesin the summer months, efciency lossescan add up. For this reason, hybrid cool-ing systems that combine air cooling witha water-based cooling tower are used atsome power plants. This requires less wa-ter than a closed-loop cooling tower whileenabling the plant to continue operatingefciently on the hottest summer days.The other disadvantage o air cooling and

hybrid systems is that they are several timesmore expensive to build than water-basedcooling systems.

Figures 1 and 2 compare the water with-drawal and consumption rates or varioustechnologies and uels.

Public Policies to Reduce Water inElectricity ProductionTexas can meet the states electricity needswhile consuming ar less water by adoptingpolicies to boost energy efciency, increase

the use o renewable energy technologies,and reduce water use in power plants.

Improve Energy EfciencyTexas currently requires major utilitiesto meet part o the projected growth inelectricity demand with energy efciency.


28/45


Figure 1. Comparison of Water Withdrawals by Various Cooling Technologies andFuels94

Figure 2. Comparison of Water Consumption by Various Cooling Technologies andFuels95


29/45


However, the required savings are just araction o the energy efciency savingsavailable in Texas. Increasing the statesenergy efciency requirements would re-duce water consumption and create a neteconomic beneft or the state.

The states existing energy efciency re-source standard requires that utilities meeteither 30 percent o the annual growthin electricity demand, or 0.4 percent opeak demand through energy efciency,beginning in 2013.96 Thats less than one-hal o one percent o total demand eachyear.97 By 2030, this is expected to reduceelectricity demand by just 3.5 percent, rela-tive to demand i there were no efciencyrequirement. The American Council or anEnergy-Efcient Economy estimates thatTexas could increase its energy efciencysavings to hold residential and commer-cial electricity consumption steady anddecrease industrial consumption.98 Thatwould reduce electricity consumption by18 percent rom projected levels in 2030,while providing net savings or householdsand creating 45,200 jobs in 2030.

Achieving this level o energy efciencysavings is easible. It would require energyefciency savings equal to a 1.1 percent an-

nual reduction in projected demand eachyear, less than the savings rate requiredin a number o other states. Arizona, orexample, requires utilities to achieve en-ergy efciency savings equal to 2 percento projected demand each year starting in2013, and 2.5 percent per year in 2016.99 Toobtain a 1.1 percent annual reduction romprojected demand, utilities would need tohelp their consumers reduce energy useand the state would need to adopt strongbuilding codes.

Austin Energy has already used energy e-fciency to reduce water consumption. From2001 to 2006, Austin Energy saved an esti-mated 62 million gallons o water by reduc-ing electricity consumption through energyefciency investments such as installing moreefcient lights in trafc signals.100

Increase Use o Renewable EnergyTexas should increase its requirement orhow much electricity should be generatedrom renewable sources. The states exist-ing renewable generation requirement callsor installation o 5,880 MW o wind, solar

and other renewable generating capacity by2015.101 Texas has already exceeded theserequirements, reaching more than 10,900MW o wind generating capacity.102 Thestate should set new, stronger goals.

The state should aim to get 20 percento its electricity rom wind power and toinstall 4,000 MW o solar photovoltaiccapacity by 2020. Existing projections orwind power assume that Texas will obtainnearly 15 percent o its electricity romwind turbines by 2020, provided that trans-mission lines are constructed to connectthe states competitive renewable energyzones to consumers.103 Reaching the 20percent by 2020 goal would require acceler-ated construction o wind capacity that isalready anticipated or later years.104

To encourage construction o solarenergy capacity, Texas should establisha goal or solar energy generation andcreate inancial and policy supports toacilitate rapid expansion o solar technol-

ogy. Financial incentives or solar powerinstallations will help consumers deraythe cost o purchasing solar panels, a costthat has been declining dramatically andconsistently. The average residential andcommercial installed cost o a watt o solarenergy ell by almost hal rom 1998 to2011.105 Consumers should be allowed tosell any excess power generated by theirsolar panels and to receive a air marketvalue or that power.

Improve the Water Efciency oCoal, Natural Gas and

Nuclear Power PlantsNew natural gas or coal-fred power plantsshould meet efciency standards or wateruse. Texas could set a technology require-ment, such as that all new plants must use


30/45


air cooling technology (already in use inmore than 60 power plants in the UnitedStates), or, i the energy penalty o aircooling is ound to be too great in Texas,hybrid-cooling technology.106 Alternative-ly, the state could establish a perormance

standard or the amount o cooling waterwithdrawn per megawatt-hour o electric-ity generated. The perormance o water-based cooling systems varies tremendously:the withdrawal rate or water-cooled natu-ral gas plants can vary more than 50-oldand the consumption rate can vary by 80percent.107 In addition, proposed new powerplants should demonstrate that coolingwater supplies will be adequate over thelietime o the plant, even during severedrought. Ideally, to the extent that newpower plants require water, they shouldseek to use brackish water so as to not com-pete with other users or reshwater.

Saving Water in Oil andGas DrillingOil and gas dril ling, together with mining

activities, is currently responsible or 2percent o water demand statewide.108 Thatlow statewide percentage belies the impacto oil and gas extraction on water suppliesin the ew areas o the state where oil andgas production is most prevalent.

Water use or mining is a much biggershare o water use in regions where drill-ing is most common. In the Coastal Bendregion overlying the Eagle Rock shaleormation, or instance, mining accountsor 6.5 percent o water demand.109 Water

demand or mining is predicted to increaseby 26 percent rom 2010 to 2060 or theregion.110

Most importantly, almost all the waterused in rackingby which we mean allo the activities needed to bring a wellinto production using hydraulic racturing

and to operate that wellis permanentlyconsumed. Unlike most water withdrawnor irrigation, manuacturing or domesticuse, water withdrawn or racking is mixedwith toxic chemicals and injected deepunderground. The volume that returns to

the surace is heavily contaminated.Fracking is undamentally bad or water

availability and quality, and even the bestmeasures to reduce water consumptioncan mitigate just a small part o rackingsimpact on water. Nonetheless, there aremultiple actions that drillers can pursueto reduce water consumption: recyclingand reusing o racking water, using brack-ish water, and investigating water-reealternatives all have the potential to cutwater use.

Water Consumption in Oil andGas DrillingLarge amounts o water are used or drill-ing and hydraulic racturing o each well.Ater a borehole is established, a mixtureo water, sand and chemicals is injected intoa well at high pressure in order to createfssures in the rock to release trapped oilor gas deposits.

Water use varies by the size and condi-

tions o the shale ormation, with wells inthe Haynesville Shale ormation requiringthe most water per wellclose to 8 milliongallons per wellollowed by Eagle Fordat 5 million and then the Barnett Shale atmore than 4 million gallons.111

As a well is drilled and ractured andas it starts to produce gas or oil, watercomes to the surace. Flowback water iswater that was injected during hydraulicracturing that returns to the surace,while produced water is water that was

already underground. Flowback and pro-duced water are both considered wastewa-ter: owback water is contaminated withchemicals and produced water is otensaline. The amount o wastewater variesby ormation.

Well operators have several options or


31/45


how to deal with this wastewater. Treatedor untreated water can be disposed o viaunderground injection wells; in the BarnettShale region, some disposal wells inject6.3 million gallons o water per month.112Wastewater can be returned to surace wa-

ters i it has been treated. Another option isto reuse a bit o the water in racking.

Industrial water recycling technologygives oil and gas drilling companies thecapability to recycle and reuse owbackwater instead o withdrawing additionalwater or each new racking operation.113However, very little owback water is re-cycled in Texas, in part because o the highcost o treating it. Currently, an estimated5 percent o owback in the Barnett Shaleis recycled and reused.114 Little to no recy-cling occurs in the Eagle Ford Shale andin the Texas portion o the HaynesvilleShale.115 (See Table 1.) Even less recyclingo produced water occurs because its poorquality makes it more expensive to treat.

Water ConservationOpportunities in FrackingFracking operations can reduce water con-sumption through several approaches.

Conserving Water by Reusing andRecycling Flowback WaterRecycling or reusing the water used inracking would reduce the need to draw onreshwater resources or additional rack-ing operations.

Some owback water can be reusedbymixing it with resh water, in a ratio o 5to 10 percent owback water to 90 to 95percent clean water.117Recyclingis a moreinvolved process that requires treating theowback water beore reusing it.

From a practical standpoint, only waterthat returns to the surace within the frst10 days ater a well is racked can be reusedor recycled.118 Ater 10 days, the inra-structure or dealing with large volumes o

Source of Water

Recycled Total WaterBrackish or Reused Used

Region Water Water Freshwater (acre-feet/year)

PermianBasin-FarWest 80% 0% 20%14,440

PermianBasin-Midland 30% 2% 68%

AnadarkoBasin 30% 20% 50% 6,520

BarnettShale 3% 5% 92% 25,750

EagleFordShale 20% 0% 80% 23,760

EastTexasShale 0% 5% 95% 7,540

Statewide NA NA 79% 81,500

Table 1. Most Water Used in Fracking Is Freshwater116


32/45


water typically is removed. Approximately5 percent o the uid injected in Haynes-ville Shale wells during racking returnsto the surace in the frst 10 days; in theBarnett Shale, 16 percent o injected waterreturns in that time, limiting recycling

potential.119In selected areas, recycling is greater.

Currently, the highest rate o recyclingin the state is 20 percent, in the AnadarkoBasin. (See Table 1.) Projections or theTWDB suggest that recycling rates in thePermian Basin could climb to 50 percent by2020, in part because reshwater suppliesare so limited and there is competition orbrackish water.120

Recycling or reusing owback waterreduces the volume o water that requiresdisposal. In most cases, water has to betrucked away rom the racking well ordisposal, a cost that adds up quickly.

Alternatives to FreshwaterFracking operations can reduce their resh-water use by seeking alternatives, such asbrackish water or water-ree methods.

Brackish water is unsuitable or drinkingor irrigation because o its salt content, butit can be used or racking. Some o the salt

must be removed beore the water can beused or racking, an expensive process.121In regions where reshwater is scarce, suchas in West Texas, brackish water providesup to 80 percent o the total water used inracking.122 Aquiers containing brackishwater exist throughout Texas, and TWDBis in the process o mapping and assessingthose supplies.123

Some companies have been experi-menting with using propane gel insteado water to rack wells. The well still

must be dril led using water, but instead oinjecting water laced with chemicals andsand to hydraulically racture the well,the companies use propane gel to trans-port chemicals and sand.124 In the EagleFord Shale, the use o gel racking hashalved the water intensity o the racking

process.125 The technique has been used inmore than 1,000 wells in North America,but data on the saety o the method arenot available.126

Public Policies to Reduce WaterConsumption in Fracking

Require Recycling and Reuse oFlowback WaterThough several drilling companies haveinvested in water recycling inrastructureand other businesses ocused solely on wa-ter recycling technology have sprung up,only a raction o the owback water romracking that could be recycled is actuallyrecycled. Texas could boost the recyclingrate or owback water by mandating recy-

cling and limiting the amount o reshwaterthat drillers can withdraw rom aquiersand surace water sources.

Even i racking operations achievethe maximum potential recycling rate orowback water, unconventional oil andnatural gas extraction will continue toconsume large amounts o reshwater inTexas, permanently removing much o itrom the states hydrologic cycle. In theinterest o protecting long-term access toclean water, Texas should establish limitson how much water can be contaminated byracking and disposed o in deep injectionwells. Better tracking is also needed to givethe public and water planners individualand aggregate inormation on the sourceo water used in racking, rates o recyclingand waste disposal.

Investigate AlternativesTexas should require companies to usebrackish water instead o reshwater,

thereby cutting reshwater demand romracking by 23 billion gallons in 2020,enough or 400,000 Texans. Companieswould need to invest in new equipment totreat brackish water beore they could use itand would still need to collect and disposeo owback water.


33/45


I racking companies in Texas wantto use propane gel or racking instead owater, the ull implications o the techniquemust be better understood. An environ-

mental impact analysis should evaluatethe risksin addition to the water-savingbeneftso the approach.


34/45

Conclusion 29

In the atermath o two consecutive yearso drought that damaged ecosystems andthe economy, Texas needs a new plan

or addressing the states water needs. Thestate has access to a fnite amount o water,and trying to capture and use more o thiswater is an expensive and environmentallyharmul proposition. The state should de-velop strategies to do more with the waterthat it has.

The water conservation technologiesand efciency measures discussed in thisreport could reduce water demand by 500billion gallons by 2020, equal to 31 percento the shortall identifed in the state waterplan in 2020 and enough to meet the waterneeds o 9 million Texans. Achieving thislevel o water savings will leave more wa-ter in Texas streams, rivers and aquiers,making it available to other users and toecosystems. Water conservation measuresrequire strong and consistent state policies

and investments.

Texas should prioritize water conser-vation above increasing supply.

The State o Texas should adopt apolicy that efciency improvements

should precede development o sup-ply side resources. This clarity willmotivate regional water authorities toevaluate and invest in water efciencyopportunities.

The Texas Water DevelopmentBoards recommended statewide goalo limiting municipal water use to 140gallons per capita per day should be

ormalized. Average statewide munici-pal water use currently is 154 gallonsper person per day.127

Setting statewide efciency standardsor water-using products wouldhelp ensure that investments in newbuildings, appliances and landscapeirrigation equipmentall long-livedproducts that will inuence water useor years to comedo not undermineeorts to improve water efciency.

Strong water efciency standards willpromote market transormation andnew innovations.

Energy planning decisions should bestrongly inuenced by water impacts.Texas should set higher goals or

Conclusion


35/45


meeting the states electricity needswith energy efciency and renewableenergy, helping to cut water demand.

Texas should adjust fnancial incen-tives to promote water efciency.

Municipal water users should besubject to a conservation pricingstructure, in which the price o waterincreases as the volume consumedincreases. This means that consumerswho use an above-average amount owater would pay substantially more,while those who use average or below-average amounts would continue topay lower prices. Such a pricing struc-ture encourages more efcient wateruse.

Water agencies should work to de-couple sales rom revenue so that highwater sales are not essential or anagencys fscal stability. Even i watersales all, the agency should be able torecover adequate money rom custom-ers. With income separated rom thevolume o water sold, water agencieswill be able to promote efciency

more aggressively.

Pricing structures or agricultural us-ers should promote efciency. Higherwater prices coupled with access totechnical assistance and fnancialsupport to identiy and implementwater efciency improvements wouldencourage conservation. In addition,armers should be allowed to sell orlease saved water to others.

Provide adequate unding or waterconservation programs.

A one-time use o the EmergencyStabilization Fund or rainy day undwould jumpstart investments in e-fciency programs.

To provide ongoing unding, Texasshould collect a small ee on watersales. The small additional charge paidby consumers or each gallon o waterdelivered would help provide reliableunding or fnancial and technical

assistance to cut water use.

Funding could also be provided byimposing a one-time ee on each newhome construction permit issued.

Energy utilities and water agenciesshould coordinate energy efciencyand water efciency programs. Waterand energy use oten are closelyrelated. Services such as audits toidentiy efciency opportunities andprograms to replace inefcient equip-ment may be more cost-eective iwater and energy use are evaluatedjointly. Any state unding to promotelocal agency work on energy or waterefciency could prioritize unding orsuch partnerships.

Texas should amend and strengthen itsproperty-assessed clean energy (PACE)program to include water conservation

measures. PACE allows the owner oa building to obtain a loan or cleanenergy investments that deliver costsavings, and to repay that loan througha special property tax assessment. I theowner sells the building beore the debtis repaid, the debt remains with theproperty and is assumed by the nextowner. This allows owners to makecost-eective upgrades even i thebuilding might be sold soon. Thoughresidential PACE fnancing is altering

due to opposition rom ederal mortagelenders, Texas should press orward toallow commercial PACE fnancing orwater conservation.

Improve knowledge o water use andsavings opportunities.


36/45

Conclusion 31

Better data are needed on how wateris used and what opportunities exist toreduce consumption. Water authori-ties should collect uniorm data onwater use or compilation into a data-base on statewide water use to provide

easier comparison between regionsand to identiy opportunities and bestpractices. All municipal water utilitiesshould submit an annual water lossaudit.

The Railroad Commission o Texasshould require oil and gas companiesto report water use and the watersource or each racking well.

The TWDB should conduct a state-wide easibility analysis o water ef-ciency potential. The state water planincludes regional estimates o water

conservation possibilities, but con-ducting a statewide easibility analysiswould provide a comprehensive tallyo water-saving opportunitiesand aclear vision or what the state mightachieve i it prioritized conservation.

Adequate unding o the Water Con-servation Education Program wouldimprove public knowledge o watersavings opportunities. The WaterDevelopment Board developed a com-prehensive water conservation educa-tion program in 2007. However, lacko unding has meant the program hasbeen used by just one utility in north-ern Texas. A statewide basic educationprogram about the benefts and thestrategies o water conservation couldhelp reduce water use.


37/45


We started with data or a business-as-usual scenario, using baselineconsumption data rom the Texas

Water Development Board,Water or Texas:2012 State Water Plan, January 2012. Wethen estimated potential efciency sav-ings or each sector, as explained below,and tallied those total savings. We assumesavings are additive because the TWDBssector totals do not overlap.

Savings rom AgricultureThe baseline data or agricultural water useshows an 8 percent decline in consumptionrom 2010 to 2030, due to a reduction inthe number o acres under cultivation andassumed improvements in efciency. Weassume greater savings are possible.

Our estimate o potential water savingsrom improved efciency in the agriculturalsector is based on data rom Heather Cooley,et al., Pacifc Institute,More with Less: Ag-ricultural Water Conservation and Efciencyin Caliornia, September 2008. That studyestimates that smart irrigation scheduling

alone could reduce water use in Caliorniasmain agricultural areas by 13 percent. Ourestimate is conservative: savings would beeven greater with the addition o other poli-cies to reduce water use.

Savings rom XeriscapingIn order to estimate the potential watersavings rom xeriscaped landscapes, wecompared water use in xeriscaped yards totraditional tur landscapes. We estimatednew outdoor domestic water use in 2020and then calculated how much o thatnew consumption could be avoided byrequiring xeriscaping in new residentialdevelopments.

We assumed that 67 percent o munici-pal water use is or residential purposes,

per Joan Kenny, et al., U.S. GeologicalSurvey, U.S. Department o the Interior,Estimates o Water Use in the United Statesin 2005, 2009, and that this percentageremains steady over time. O residentialwater use, we assumed that 31 percent isused outdoors and that approximately 85

Methodology and Assumptions


38/45

Methodology and Assumptions 33

percent o outdoor water use is or water-ing lawns, plants and gardens, per SamMarie Hermitte and Robert Mace, TexasWater Development Board, Technical Note12-01: The Grass Is Always GreenerOut-door Residential Water Use in Texas, Novem-

ber 2012. These data points allowed us tocalculate the percent o new municipalwater use that wil l occur on lawns in aresidential setting.

To calculate how much o this could besaved through xeriscaping, we used datarom Kent Sovocol, Southern NevadaWater Authority, Xeriscape Convers ionStudy,

Keeping Water in Our Rivers

Documents

Transcript of Keeping Water in Our Rivers