Groundwater Management Update Stacey A. Steinbach Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts TWCA Annual Meeting March 7, 2012
May 20, 2015
Groundwater Management Update
Stacey A. Steinbach
Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts
TWCA Annual Meeting
March 7, 2012
Topics for Discussion
• SB 660: Amendments to DFC Adoption Process
• Recent Rulemakings
• DFC Appeals
• Drought Update
• Looking Ahead
Senate Bill 660
SB 660 – Adoption of DFCs
• New DFC process allows for more public involvement and requires additional notice
• In proposing DFCs, GCDs must now consider 9 specific factors and a balancing test
• “District representatives” must meet at least annually and must establish propose for adoption DFCs at least every 5 years
New DFC Factors• DFC = quantitative description of desired condition of groundwater
resources in a GMA at one or more future times; adopted per 36.108• In establishing the Before voting on the proposed DFCs, GCDs must
consider:
Aquifer Uses or Conditions
State Water Plan
Hydrological Conditions
Private Property Rights*
Impacts on Subsidence
Socioeconomic Impacts*
Environmental Impacts*
Feasibility of achieving DFC*
Any other relevant
information*
New DFC Balancing Test
Conservation, preservation, protection, recharging and
prevention of waste of groundwater and control of subsidence
Highest practicable level of groundwater
production
New DFC Adoption Process
District reps meet & propose new DFCs for
adoption; 2/3 of all district reps must vote to
approve DFCs
Proposed DFCs mailed to GCDs; 90-day comment
period begins
Each GCD must hold a public hearing on
relevant DFCs & make copies available to public
GCD votes on DFCs; prepares summary of
comments & suggested revisions
GMA meeting(s) to consider GCD hearing
summaries & adopt DFCs (2/3 of all reps)
[Within 60 days,]* district reps must submit DFCs, proof of notice, &
explanatory report to TWDB (and GCDs)
GCD meeting to adopt DFCs asap after receipt of explanatory report;
[info to TWDB within 60 days of adoption]*
GCDs must update management plans
within 2 years of DFC adoption at GMA
GCDs must amend rules within 1 year of updating
management plan
New DFC Adoption Process
Notice of DFC Meetings – GMA Level
• 10-day and OMA notice required; must be posted at SOS, COs, and GCDs in GMA and must include:– Date, time, and location– Summary of proposed actions– List of GCDs in GMA and contact information
• Failure or refusal of one or more GCDs to post does not invalidate actions
• District reps may elect one GCD to be responsible for providing notice of a joint meeting
Notice of DFC Meetings – GCD Level
• 10-day notice of hearings on DFCs and meetings to adopt DFCs
• Notice must include:– Proposed DFCs and agenda items
– Date, time, and location
– List of GCDs in GMA and contact information
– Information on submitting comments
• DFC hearings must also be posted pursuant to GCD rulemaking hearing requirements (includes publication)
Explanatory Report
• Adopted DFCs
• Policy and technical justifications for each adopted DFC
• Documentation showing how DFC factors were considered
• List of DFCs considered but not adopted and reasons why
• Analysis of public comments received
Using the MAG
• Modeled is the new Managed
• Defined as the amount of water that may be produced on an average annual basis to achieve a DFC
• GCDs, to the extent possible, shall issue permits up to the point that the total volume of exempt and permitted groundwater production will achieve an applicable DFC [permitted equals the MAG, if administratively complete permit applications are submitted…]
Using the MAGIn issuing permits, GCDs must manage total groundwater production on a long-term basis to achieve an applicable DFC and consider:
MAG*Exempt
Use Estimates*
Previously Authorize
d Withdraw
als
Actual Productio
n Estimates
Yearly Precipitati
on & Production Patterns
Agency Rulemakings
TWDB Proposed Rules
• Dec. 2011: introduction to rulemaking plans for implementing SBs 660, 727, 737
• Jan. 2012: Stakeholder meeting; comments accepted through January 31
• April 2012: draft rules expected; informal public comment period before formal proposal by Board
TCEQ Proposed Rules
• SB 313 (creation of GCDs in PGMAs)
• SB 660 (Petitions for Inquiry)
• Considered by TCEQ March 7
• Comment period March 23 – April 23
• Public hearing April 17
RRC Hydraulic Fracturing Rules
• Implement HB 3328; wells permitted on or after January 2, 2012
• Require disclosure of hydraulic fracturing fluid ingredients and amount of water used; operator must post on FracFocus on/before submission of well completion report
• Exceptions: undisclosed, unintentional, and incidental ingredients and ingredients that are eligible for trade secret protection (can be challenged)
Joint Planning
• xcv
DFC Appeals
DFC Appeals - Currently
• Currently: person with a “legally defined interest in groundwater,” a GCD (in or adjacent to), or a RWPG in the GMA can file petition with TWDB to challenge reasonableness
• Appeals filed in 7 of the 16 GMAs• Challenges included:
Geographic area use Excessive economic/private property impacts
DFC Appeals – What’s Next?
• Two separate concepts floated last session:– “Affected person” files petition with GCD; SOAH hearing; PFD;
GCD final order; appealable to district court in GMA– GCD’s adoption of DFC may be challenged in district court in
local venue in same manner as GCD rule (substantial evidence)• What about GCD appeal? Which vehicle is appropriate?• GCDs and TWCA members should consider consensus
language
GCDs and the Drought
Effects of the Drought
No13%
Yes87%
Has the Drought Affected Your District?
No24%
Yes76%
Are the Aquifers in Your District Showing Signs of the Drought?
Effects of the Drought
Increase in permit applications
Increase in well registrations
Increase in community outreach
Less time to focus on district administration
Implementation of mandatory restrictions
Implementation of voluntary restrictions
Increase of "dry" wells in the district
73%
52%
52%
33%
15%
21%
46%
Effects of the Drought
• No one-size-fits all solution to groundwater management challenges
• Determining full impact of drought may take years
• Encourages increased education and better planning
Looking Ahead
• House and Senate Interim Charges
• EAA v. Day and McDaniel
• The Drought
• Conservation Strategies & “New” Water Sources
Questions?Stacey A. Steinbach
Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts P.O. Box 152169
Austin, Texas [email protected]
(512) 809-7785www.texasgroundwater.org
EAA v. Day and McDaniel
GCDs in GMA meet at least annually &
propose new DFCs for
adoption every 5 years
OMA/10-day notice of GMA
meetings required; notice at SOS, COs, &
GCDs90-day comment period begins
when DFCs mailed to GCDs
OMA/10-day notice of GCD
meetings required; must
include proposed DFCsGCD must hold
public hearing on relevant DFCs &
make copies available to
public
GCD votes on DFCs,
summarizes comments from
hearing, & suggests any
revisions[Within 60
days,]* GCD reps must submit
DFCs, proof of notice, &
explanatory report
GCD meeting (notice per
above) to adopt relevant DFCs
asap after explanatory
report*GCDs must
update management plans within 2 years of DFC
adoption at GMA
GCDs must amend rules
within 1 year of updating
management plan
New DFC Adoption Process
DFC Appeals – GMA 1• July 2009: GCDs adopt DFCs• Aug. 2009: Mesa Water and G&J Ranch
appeal DFCs of Ogallala Aquifer• Feb. 2010: TWDB finds DFCs
reasonable• March 2010: Appellants file suit• Sept. 2010: Petition for Inquiry at TCEQ• Feb. 2012: Lawsuit dismissed – no
controversy
DFC Appeals – GMA 7• July 2010: GCDs adopt DFCs
• July 2011: Grass Valley Water appeals DFCs of the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer in Val Verde and Kinney Counties
• Jan. 2012: Public hearings
• April 2012: Petition to be presented to TWDB
DFC Appeals – GMA 9
• Aug. 2008: GCDs adopt DFCs
• Aug. 2009: Plateau RWPG, Kerr Co, and UGRA appeal DFCs for Edwards
• Jan. 2010: TWDB finds DFC unreasonable
• July 2010: GMA amends DFC for Edwards; adopts DFC for Trinity
• March/July 2011: Flying L Guest Ranch and WVWA appeal DFC of Trinity
• March 2012: TWDB finds DFCs reasonable
DFC Appeals – GMA 10
• Aug. 2008: GCDs adopt DFCs
• Jan 2010: Grass Valley Water appeals DFC of Edwards (Balcones Fault Zone) Aquifer in Kinney County
• Jan. 2012: Public hearing on DFC
• April 2012: Petition to be presented to TWDB
DFC Appeals – GMA 11
• April 2010: GCDs adopt DFCs
• April 2011: Crown Pine Timber 1 and Forestar appeal DFC of Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer
• Feb. 2012: Public hearing on DFC
• May 2012: Petition to be presented to TWDB
DFC Appeals – GMA 12• Aug. 2012: GCDs adopt DFCs
• July/Aug. 2011: End Op and Environmental Stewardship appeal DFCs of all or most aquifers
• March 2012: Public hearings
• June 2012: Petition to be presented to TWDB
DFC Appeals – GMA 13• April 2010: GCDs adopt DFCs
• Feb./April 2011: CRWA and Hays Caldwell Public Utility Agency appeal DFC of most aquifers
• Dec. 2011: Public hearing on DFCs
• March 2012: TWDB finds DFCs to be reasonable
Petition for Inquiry – SB 660
• Affected person:– A landowner in the GMA– A GCD in or adjacent to the GMA– A RWPG with a water management strategy in the GMA– A person who holds or is applying for a permit from a GCD
in the GMA– A person who has groundwater rights in the GMA– Any other person defined by TCEQ rule
Petition for Inquiry – SB 660• Submit a management plan to TWDB• Participate in joint planning• Adopt rules• Adopt applicable DFCs adopted by the GMA• Update the management plan within 2 years of adoption of new DFCs• Update rules to implement applicable DFCs within a year after updating
the management plan• Adopt rules designed to achieve DFCs*• Adopt rules that adequately protect groundwater*• Enforce rules for the adequate protection of groundwater*