Regionalization – A Proposed Alternative for Coordinated Groundwater Management in Texas, John...
description
Transcript of Regionalization – A Proposed Alternative for Coordinated Groundwater Management in Texas, John...
![Page 1: Regionalization – A Proposed Alternative for Coordinated Groundwater Management in Texas, John Dupnik, Masters Candidate at the Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052820/54b636774a795912118b45b8/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
S
Regionalization: An Alternative for Coordinated
Groundwater Management
John T. Dupnik, P.G.
TAGD Quarterly MeetingOctober 31, 2012
![Page 2: Regionalization – A Proposed Alternative for Coordinated Groundwater Management in Texas, John Dupnik, Masters Candidate at the Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052820/54b636774a795912118b45b8/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Outline
Evolution of GCDs
Challenges of Decentralized GW Governance
Regionalization in Texas
Policy Options
![Page 3: Regionalization – A Proposed Alternative for Coordinated Groundwater Management in Texas, John Dupnik, Masters Candidate at the Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052820/54b636774a795912118b45b8/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
S
Evolution of GCDs1904 - Houston and Texas Central Railroad Co. v. East
1917 – Art. 16, Sec.59, the Conservation Amendment Natural Resource Conservation – a public right and
duty
1934 - TBWE Reports to Legislature Called for declaring groundwater as waters of state
1937, 1941, 1947: Bills filed in each session to place water under state
control
![Page 4: Regionalization – A Proposed Alternative for Coordinated Groundwater Management in Texas, John Dupnik, Masters Candidate at the Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052820/54b636774a795912118b45b8/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
S
Evolution of GCDsQuotes of High Plainsmen during public meetings:
“This proposition [of creating a water district] should be met with 30-30's [rifles] and its sponsors not only driven back to the City of Austin, but on south across the San Jacinto battlefield and into the Gulf of Mexico where they can get their fill of water."
“You can say you prefer local control to state control or federal control. I don’t' want any control by anybody but the landowner. That's like asking who you'd rather be hanged by. I don't want to be hanged.”
“All the water under my land belongs to me… nobody can tell me how to use it…If my neighbor wants to drill wells right next to me, that’s all right with me. If the wells go dry, we will all run out together. I don't intend to live in a country full of Hitlerism laws."
“I favor no control, but if we must have it, let be local.”
![Page 5: Regionalization – A Proposed Alternative for Coordinated Groundwater Management in Texas, John Dupnik, Masters Candidate at the Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052820/54b636774a795912118b45b8/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Evolution of GCDsGCD Act of 1949
Political compromise
Modeled after WCIDs
GCD creation within designated reservoirs
Counties could opt out
GW is private property
Departure from SW
![Page 6: Regionalization – A Proposed Alternative for Coordinated Groundwater Management in Texas, John Dupnik, Masters Candidate at the Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052820/54b636774a795912118b45b8/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
S
Evolution of GCDs1997 – Senate Bill 1 GCDs – “Preferred” method of GW management Interbasin SW transfers limited GCDs may limit exports
1999 – Sipriano v Great Spring Waters of America GW management is legislative duty under
Conservation Amendment
1999 – 76th Legislative Session 30 GCDs, 13 created (SB 1911)
![Page 7: Regionalization – A Proposed Alternative for Coordinated Groundwater Management in Texas, John Dupnik, Masters Candidate at the Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052820/54b636774a795912118b45b8/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
S1/1/1
951
1/1/1
955
1/1/1
959
1/1/1
963
1/1/1
967
1/1/1
971
1/1/1
975
1/1/1
979
1/1/1
983
1/1/1
987
1/1/1
991
1/1/1
995
1/1/1
999
1/1/2
003
1/1/2
007
1/1/2
0110
20
40
60
80
100GCD Creation Dates
Num
ber o
f GCD
s
![Page 8: Regionalization – A Proposed Alternative for Coordinated Groundwater Management in Texas, John Dupnik, Masters Candidate at the Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052820/54b636774a795912118b45b8/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
S
![Page 9: Regionalization – A Proposed Alternative for Coordinated Groundwater Management in Texas, John Dupnik, Masters Candidate at the Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052820/54b636774a795912118b45b8/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Decentralization Why Local Control?
Private property rights Aversion to
centralization Local autonomy
Why Single County GCDs? Reaction to Sipriano Prevent rural to urban
Transport Influence of county
governments Administrative
convenience “Path dependency”
![Page 10: Regionalization – A Proposed Alternative for Coordinated Groundwater Management in Texas, John Dupnik, Masters Candidate at the Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052820/54b636774a795912118b45b8/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Benefits of Local Control “One size does not fit all”
Allows “collective choice arrangements”
Administrative convenience
Local familiarity and expertise
![Page 11: Regionalization – A Proposed Alternative for Coordinated Groundwater Management in Texas, John Dupnik, Masters Candidate at the Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052820/54b636774a795912118b45b8/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Outline
Evolution of GCDs
Challenges of Decentralized GW Governance
Regionalization in Texas
Policy Options
![Page 12: Regionalization – A Proposed Alternative for Coordinated Groundwater Management in Texas, John Dupnik, Masters Candidate at the Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052820/54b636774a795912118b45b8/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Challenges: Importance of FitHydrologic Disconnects
![Page 13: Regionalization – A Proposed Alternative for Coordinated Groundwater Management in Texas, John Dupnik, Masters Candidate at the Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052820/54b636774a795912118b45b8/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
$0.00
$0.01
$0.10
GCD Tax Rates
$/$1
00 P
rope
rty
Valu
ation
N = 45
$0.5
$0.002
Challenges: Insufficient AreaFunding
![Page 14: Regionalization – A Proposed Alternative for Coordinated Groundwater Management in Texas, John Dupnik, Masters Candidate at the Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052820/54b636774a795912118b45b8/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Challenges: Insufficient Area Lack economies-of-scale
Affects Institutional Resilience
Myopic Local Politics Conflict of interest Self-regulation Dominant ideology
Conflicting Regulations
![Page 15: Regionalization – A Proposed Alternative for Coordinated Groundwater Management in Texas, John Dupnik, Masters Candidate at the Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052820/54b636774a795912118b45b8/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
S
Alternatives to Decentralization
Centralization (State Agency):
Pros: Uniform and equitable regulation Funding and resources Antidote to “decentralized dysfunction”
Cons Limited user input Less adaptable to variable conditions Limited local expertise
![Page 16: Regionalization – A Proposed Alternative for Coordinated Groundwater Management in Texas, John Dupnik, Masters Candidate at the Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052820/54b636774a795912118b45b8/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
S
Regionalization (Policy Proposal):
Definition: A scale of groundwater management designed to be: congruent with hydro-geographical boundaries scaled to minimize hydrologic disconnects provide sufficient funds, authority, and resources equitably accommodate all affected actors
Advantages of both centralized and decentralized
Alternatives to Decentralization
![Page 17: Regionalization – A Proposed Alternative for Coordinated Groundwater Management in Texas, John Dupnik, Masters Candidate at the Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052820/54b636774a795912118b45b8/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Outline
Evolution of GCDs
Challenges of Decentralized GW Governance
Regionalization in Texas
Policy Options
![Page 18: Regionalization – A Proposed Alternative for Coordinated Groundwater Management in Texas, John Dupnik, Masters Candidate at the Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052820/54b636774a795912118b45b8/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Regionalization in Texas1949 – GCD Act Coterminous GCDs
1995 - HB 2294 “GMAs” “most suitable for gw management” Boundaries coincide with aquifers
1997 – SB 1 Basin-oriented regional water
planning Stakeholders as members
2000 – HNRC Interim Charges County-based GCDs ineffective Joint management needed
![Page 19: Regionalization – A Proposed Alternative for Coordinated Groundwater Management in Texas, John Dupnik, Masters Candidate at the Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052820/54b636774a795912118b45b8/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Regionalization in Texas2001 - SB 2 GMAs created by TWDB Voluntary joint planning
2005 – SB 3 (failed) GMACs Coordinate joint planning Approve mgmt. plans Provide funding/tech. support
2005 – HB 1763 DFC/MAGS Weakened version of SB 3
![Page 20: Regionalization – A Proposed Alternative for Coordinated Groundwater Management in Texas, John Dupnik, Masters Candidate at the Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052820/54b636774a795912118b45b8/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Regionalization in Texas2011 - SB 660 More inclusive and transparent Increased process complexity More GCD responsibilities
2012 – SNRC Interim Charges
Remaining Challenges: Inadequate representation “Geographic areas” allow county-
based planning Unfunded mandates TWDB support unavailable Set up to fail??
![Page 21: Regionalization – A Proposed Alternative for Coordinated Groundwater Management in Texas, John Dupnik, Masters Candidate at the Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052820/54b636774a795912118b45b8/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Outline
Evolution of GCDs
Challenges of Decentralized GW Governance
Regionalization in Texas
Policy Options
![Page 22: Regionalization – A Proposed Alternative for Coordinated Groundwater Management in Texas, John Dupnik, Masters Candidate at the Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052820/54b636774a795912118b45b8/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Regional Models: Nebraska
Natural Resource Districts (NDRs) Replaced smaller districts Basin-oriented
boundaries “Reservoir life”
management goals Multi-purpose authority Conjunctive sw/gw
management
![Page 23: Regionalization – A Proposed Alternative for Coordinated Groundwater Management in Texas, John Dupnik, Masters Candidate at the Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052820/54b636774a795912118b45b8/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Regional Models: Arizona
Active Management Areas (AMAs) Subdivisions based on gw
basins Safe-yield management
goals 100-year “assured water
supply” Governor-appointed
advisory councils State funding
![Page 24: Regionalization – A Proposed Alternative for Coordinated Groundwater Management in Texas, John Dupnik, Masters Candidate at the Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052820/54b636774a795912118b45b8/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Mission similar to GCDs Basin-oriented boundaries No taxing authority Mature governance model
Brazos River Authority Est. 1929 65 counties (1/6 of state) Self-funded
Regional Models: Texas River Authorities
![Page 25: Regionalization – A Proposed Alternative for Coordinated Groundwater Management in Texas, John Dupnik, Masters Candidate at the Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052820/54b636774a795912118b45b8/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Regional Models: Edwards Aquifer Authority
Expanded and replaced the EUWD
Aquifer-oriented boundaries
Self-funded by fees Board and Advisory
Committee Conjunctive sw/gw
management
![Page 26: Regionalization – A Proposed Alternative for Coordinated Groundwater Management in Texas, John Dupnik, Masters Candidate at the Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052820/54b636774a795912118b45b8/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
S
Policy Criteria: Hydro-geographical
Boundaries (AZ, NB, RA, EAA) Sufficient Areal Extent (AZ, NB, RA, EAA) Funding (EAA, RA) Politically Feasible (GCD) Representation (AZ,EAA,GCD) Authority (EAA) Conjunctive Use (EAA, NB) Sustainability Goals (EAA, AZ, NB) Regulatory Flexibility (AZ, EAA, GCD)
![Page 27: Regionalization – A Proposed Alternative for Coordinated Groundwater Management in Texas, John Dupnik, Masters Candidate at the Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052820/54b636774a795912118b45b8/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Groundwater Management Authorities
Consolidate GCDs into GM Authorities
Autonomous agencies Unified regulations Authority:
Custom rules Subdivisions for sub-basins State-agency level enforcement
Funding: Fees only
Governing Body: Appointed with loc.
gov/stakeholder members Elected with advisory body
Planning: Existing planning framework
![Page 28: Regionalization – A Proposed Alternative for Coordinated Groundwater Management in Texas, John Dupnik, Masters Candidate at the Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052820/54b636774a795912118b45b8/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Scorecard: GM Authorities
Criteria S PS US
Hydro-geographical Boundaries
X
Sufficient Areal Extent
X
Funding X
Politically Feasible X
Representation X
Authority X
Conjunctive Use X
Sustainability Goals X
Regulatory Flexibility
X
![Page 29: Regionalization – A Proposed Alternative for Coordinated Groundwater Management in Texas, John Dupnik, Masters Candidate at the Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052820/54b636774a795912118b45b8/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
GMA Councils
GCDs (managers) Funding: Both fees and taxes Authority: EAA
GMACs (planners) Authority
Subdivisions for sub-basins Adopt DFCs Approve GCD MPs Annual GCD reviews
Funding/Tech support: TWDB
Governing Body: GCDs RWPGs Stakeholders
![Page 30: Regionalization – A Proposed Alternative for Coordinated Groundwater Management in Texas, John Dupnik, Masters Candidate at the Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052820/54b636774a795912118b45b8/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Scorecard: GMACs
Criteria S PS US
Hydro-geographical Boundaries
X
Sufficient Areal Extent
X
Funding X
Politically Feasible X
Representation X
Authority X
Conjunctive Use X
Sustainability Goals X
Regulatory Flexibility
X
![Page 31: Regionalization – A Proposed Alternative for Coordinated Groundwater Management in Texas, John Dupnik, Masters Candidate at the Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052820/54b636774a795912118b45b8/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Conclusions Texas has committed to a decentralized system of groundwater
management via GCDs
Projected demands, diminishing supplies, and extreme drought compel reform of groundwater management system
The GCD system is imperfect and state control is not a viable alternative
Regionalization offers benefits of both centralized and decentralized governance.
However, true reform would require either: a new regional planning entity and increased funding and resources
for GCDs; or replacement of GCDs with regional authorities
![Page 32: Regionalization – A Proposed Alternative for Coordinated Groundwater Management in Texas, John Dupnik, Masters Candidate at the Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052820/54b636774a795912118b45b8/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
S
Questions?