Habitat Conservation Plan for
the Endangered Species of the Edwards Aquifer System
Background
There are seven endangered species in the Edwards aquifer system. There is one threatened species. Federal law requires that the Edwards aquifer be managed for these species, as stated in the Endangered Species Act. Because of the unique geology of the Edwards Aquifer System, many of these species are endemic, that is, they do not occur anywhere else; therefore conservation of these species in the Edwards Aquifer is particularly crucial.
About 100 million years ago, the Edwards Aquifer began forming when Central Texas was covered by shallow seas. Thirty-five million years later, the seas receded inland and deposited layers of shells and coral, the remains of which are the porous, honeycombed limestone rock of the Edwards Aquifer that is known today.
The
Edwards Aquifer extends over 176 miles from Brackettville in Kinney County to
Kyle in Hays County. The limestone of
the Edwards Aquifer occurs in three distinct segments: the drainage area, the
recharge area, and the artesian/reservoir area (EAA brochure).
The drainage area is the
largest component of the aquifer system.
It spans over 4,400 square miles.
The drainage area is a catchment area where rainfall infiltrates the
cavernous water table aquifer which forms spring fed streams that flow
downhill, over older impermeable formations until they reach the recharge zone
(EUWD).
Geologically, the recharge zone is known as the Balcones fault line. It encompasses 1,500 square miles, and spans 7 counties. However, the Nueces River basin, the Frio-Sabinal basins and the Seco-Hondo-Medina basins (located in Medina, Uvalde, and Kinney Counties) supply about 70 percent of the total recharge to the aquifer. The surface of the recharge zone contains an abundance of permeable and porous limestone that provides the path for the water to reach the artesian area (EAA).
The artesian/reservoir area is sandwiched between relatively impermeable younger formations and relatively impermeable older formations. These formations confine the water in the porous Edwards limestone under pressure. Due to this pressure, some of the water is forced to the surface through geological faults, known as springs.
Water leaving the aquifer is
known as discharge. Water can be
discharged by natural springs or through flowing and pumped wells EAA. Most discharge occurs in the natural springs
in San Antonio, New Braunfels, and San Marcos.
Pumping accounts for the second largest amount of discharge.
There are seven species that
are listed endangered in the Edwards Aquifer system, and one is
threatened. The first endangered
species, the Texas Blind Salamander (Typhlomolge
rathbuni) was listed endangered on March 11, 1967. It is a sightless and troglobitic
salamander. It is white or pinkish in
color with a fringe of gills. It has a
flattened head and snout and long, slender limbs. It has four toes on the fore legs and five on the hind legs. Maximum length is 12-13 centimeters at
maturity (USFWS p. 46).
The
Texas Blind Salamander is aquatic and occupies the subterranean waters of the
Edward’s Aquifer. It is a neotenic
species that feeds on insects and other small invertebrates, such as amphipods
and blind shrimp, living in the water that are nourished by bat droppings. Gravid females have been found throughout
the year. Year-long sexual activity is
expected because there is little seasonal change in the aquifer (USFWS
48).
The
first Texas Blind Salamander found was in the artesian well of the Federal Fish
Hatchery in 1895. The species has been
found in several other locations since then, Ezell’s Cave, San Marcos Springs,
Rattlesnake Cave, Primer’s Fissure, Southwest Texas State University’s artesian
well, and Frank Johnson’s well.
Currently, there is only one population of the Texas Blind Salamander
that is known to biologists. The
population occurs in the Edward’s Aquifer around the city of San Marcos. The distribution may be limited to as small
as 10 km. Although the current
population is of limited numbers it appears to be stable. No critical habitat has been
designated.(USFWS p.48)
The
survival of the Texas Blind Salamander depends on the continued stability and
purity of the springflows. It is
threatened by diminished springflows, pollution of groundwater, and runoff
caused by excessive demand for water and development over the recharge zone
(Eckhardt).
Current
conservation measures include the purchase of Ezell’s cave in 1967, which has
since been designated as a National Natural Landmark by the National Park
Service. Captive breeding has been
successful at both the Cincinnati Zoo and the Dallas Aquarium. The Dallas Aquarium plans to develop a
captive breeding program which will include photodocumentation of embryological
and larval development to provide more information on the reproductive ecology
of the species. National Park Service
has funded the San Marcos NFH&TC to collect and distribute the Texas Blind
Salamander to one or two other facilities for captive breeding (USFWS 50).
The fountain darter (Eurycea nana) was listed endangered on
October 13, 1970. It is a reddish brown
darter that is usually less than 25 cm in length. It has dark, horizontal lines along the middle of the sides, and
three dark spots on the base of the tail (USFWS p.30).
The
fountain darter feeds on aquatic insect larvae, such as dipteran and
ephemeropteran larvae, and also small crustaceans. It feeds primarily in daylight and prefers moving prey. The darter spawns year round, peaking in
early spring and August. They deposit
their eggs in vegetation and then provide no further parental care to their
young (USFWS p.34).
The
fountain darter’s original range included the sources, headwaters and sections
of the San Marcos and Comal Rivers. Its
present distribution includes the
entire Comal aquatic ecosystem (Eckhardt).
Populations are also present from Spring Lake to the area between the
San Marcos treatment plant outfall and the Blanco River (USFWS p. 35). Critical habitat has been designated for the
fountain darter as “Texas, Hays County; Spring Lake and its outflow, the San
Marcos River, downstream approximately 0.5 miles below Interstate Highway 35
bridge” (FR 35:16047).
In
1976 Schenck and Whiteside estimated the fountain darter population in Spring
Lake to be about 103,000. In 1993,
Linam estimated fountain darter population in the San Marcos River to be 45,900
with a 90% confidence interval ranging from 15, 900 to 107,700. Either fountain darter populations are
declining, or the difference in population size is just due to different
sampling methods. In 1991, Janet Nelson
surveyed Spring Lake with scuba-aide and estimated at least 16,000 darters at
the spring opening, and another 15,000 in algae habitat. Also, in 1990 G. Linam did seven transect
samples in the Comal River and Landa Lake and estimated the population of
fountain darters to be 168,078 with a 95% confidence interval from
114,178-254,110 (USFWS p.33). With all
the different sampling methods used, and the variety of places samples, it is
difficult to reach a hard and fast number of the fountain darter
populations. It seems, pardon the pun,
to just muddy the waters.
If
the fountain darter is going to be protected, its requirements must be met. It
requires undisturbed stream floor habitats.
It requires a mix of submergent vegetation, in part for cover. Higher densities of the fish were found in
mats of green algae. The fountain
darter needs clean and clear water, and a food supply of living organisms. It requires constant water
temperatures. It can reproduce when
held to temperatures between 6 and 27 C.
Their critical thermal maximum was 34.8 C. The fountain dater is
threatened by destruction of the aquatic vegetation in Spring Lake and San
Marcos River (USFWS p.33). Divers and
swimmers disturb the algae and destroy habitat.
As
for current conservation measures, habitat use is being studied and models
created for instream flow requirements for the fountain darter. No information is currently available. Sampling of water temperature, DO, pH, and
specific conductivity is currently being done to model water temperature at
various spring and river discharges.
Genetic studies of the fountain darter populations in the San Marcos and
Comal Ecosystems are being researched to determine genetic variation within and
among darter populations. A preliminary
study is also being done to determine the toxicity of San Marcos wastewater
effluent and the herbicide Rodeo to fountain darters (USFWS p. 35).
The
San Marcos Gambusia (Gambusia georgei)
was listed endangered on July 14, 1980.
It is thought to be already extinct.
Its length averaged 2.5 to 4 cm.
It had a bluish tint, strongly hatched scales, and lemon yellow median
fins. It also had a diffuse mid-lateral
stripe along the length of its body (Eckhardt).
Food
habits are unknown, but it is presumed to have eaten insect larvae and other
invertebrates. It is a livebearer
(Eckhardt). The San Marcos Gambusia was
first recorded in 1884. In 1968, there
was a record of 119 collections of the San Marcos Gambusia. However, since then, the number sampled has
declined steadily. The last known
collection of the San Marcos Gambusia was in 1983. The San Marcos Gambusia populations have always been sparse, and
efforts are still being made to locate any populations in existence (USFWS p.
28).
The
Gambusia’s historic range was limited to a 1-kilometer section of the San
Marcos near the city of San Marcos. As
far as habitat, the San Marcos Gambusia requires, above all, thermally constant
waters, averaging about 23 C. It needs
quiet, shallow, and open water adjacent to sections of moving water. The San Marcos Gambusia was found mostly
over muddy substrates, but not silted habitats. It prefers partial shading from overhanging trees or
bridges. It needs clean and clear
water, and lastly, a food supply of moving organisms (USFWS p.29). The San Marcos Gambusia has had critical
habitat designated as “Texas, Hays County; San Marcos River from Highway 12
bridge downstream to approximately 0.5 miles below Interstate Highway 35
bridge” (FR 45: 47355-47364).
The
San Marcos Gambusia had extremely specific habitat requirements, and so very
sensitive to habitat alteration of any kind.
Changes in water temperatures from low springflows, water turbidity
changes from land clearing and construction runoff could have eliminated the
species (Eckhardt). There have also
been reports of hybridization between G.
georgei and G. affinis. It was not considered a threat because
hybrids were in low numbers compared to pure San Marcos Gambusia. However, between 1981-1983, collections
taken indicate that hybrids have become much more abundant than the pure G. georgei, indicating that it could
have been genetically swamped out of existence. It is also possible that these hybrids are competing with G. georgi and placing additional strain
on any remaining populations (USFWS p. 29).
Captive breeding was attempted in 1979 and 1980, however, both captive populations hybridized with another Gambusia, and the pure stocks were lost. From 1981-1984, a search ensued to reestablish a culture for captive refugia, but too few were found to reestablish it (USFWS p.30).
Texas
Wild Rice (Zizania texana) was listed
endangered on April 26, 1978. It is an aquatic, perennial grass. Its average height is 1-2 m. Its leaves are linear, elongate and
green. Flowering can occur throughout
the year in warm weather, but is most typical in spring and fall
(Eckhardt). The plant reproduces by seeds
or stolons. Studies indicate that it is
predominantly outbreeding and wind-pollinated.
Historically,
Texas Wild Rice was once abundant in the San Marcos River and in Spring Lake at
the river headwaters. Its current
distribution is located in the upper four miles of the San Marcos River Near
the city of San Marcos (Eckhardt).
Critical Habitat has been designated for Texas Wild Rice as “Texas, Hays
County; Spring Lake and its outflow, the San Marcos River, downstream to its
confluence with the Blanco River” (FR 45: 47355-47364).
Texas Wild Rice forms clones in the middle of the river in limestone sand and gravel shallows. It prefers swiftly flowing currents of high quality water. It also prefers the constant year-round temperatures that adequate springflows provide. It is threatened by silting, disturbance of the bottom and stagnant water (Eckhardt). It is possibly threatened by predation by nutria and waterfowl. There is also concern about the potential impact by recreationists, tubers and swimmers in particular (USFWS p.46).
. Texas Wild Rice is particularly threatened by decreased spring outflow because it exposes the shallows that make up its typical habitat. Dredging and damming of the river, bottomland cultivation, and riverside construction also threats to Texas Wild Rice because it destroys plants, alters stream flows and temperature or increases siltation (Eckhardt).
There have been attempts to cultivate
and transplant wild rice, but success has been limited. A new population was established in Salado
Creek in the 1970’s, but the plants were disturbed by recreationists. Nursery grown plants were transplanted to
several sites in central Texas between 1976 and 1982, but resulted in no new populations. Attempts are underway to begin a public
education program to minimize disturbance by recreationists in the San Marcos
River (Eckhardt).
The
Comal Springs riffle beetle is small aquatic species. It is surface dwelling.
Average length is 1/8 of an inch long; females are slightly larger than
males. It has short and non-functional
wings.
It
is not subterranean, but prefers gravel substrate and shallow riffles and runs
that average 2 to 10 centimeters in depth.
Population density is greatest between February and April. It has been collected from Comal Springs in
Landa Park in runs 1,2, and 3. It is
also known to be found at San Marcos Springs.
It is not know whether it historically ranged to other springs as well
(Eckhardt).
The
Comal Springs Dryopid Beetle is a subterranean species that averages 1/8 of an
inch long. They are weakly pigmented,
translucent, and have vestigial eyes.
It
prefers flowing and uncontaminated water.
They are presumed to be associated with air-filled voids inside spring
orifices. The Comal Springs Dryopid
Beetle does not swim. It was first
discovered in 1987, and is now primarily found at run 2 at Comal Springs, and
also runs 3 and 4 from Comal and Fern
Bank Springs. Nothing is know about its
historic range. No specimens have been
found in collections from 22 artesian and pumped wells flowing from the
Edward’s Aquifer, suggesting that the species is likely confined to spring area
openings and not distributed within the aquifer itself (Eckhardt).
Peck’s
Cave Amphipod is an aquatic and subterranean species. It is unpigmented and
eyeless. It prefers crevices in rock
and gravel near spring orifices. Its
primary habitat seems to be in the underground aquifer feeding the
springs. This interconnected area
provides for feeding, growth, survival and reproduction of Peck’s Cave
Amphipod. It has been collected in
Comal Springs and Hueco Springs.
Despite effort, no other specimens have been found in other areas of the
aquifer, suggesting that the species is likely confined to spring area openings
and not distributed within the aquifer itself (Eckhardt).
The
conservation and recovery of the aquatic invertebrates is similar and involves
protecting and conserving springflow at Comal, Hueco, San Marcos and Fern Bank
Springs. The limited habitat for these
species could be easily lost through drought, and especially by increased
amount of human groundwater withdrawals.
Effects of reduced springflows include increases in temperature and
temperature fluctuations, or a decrease in velocity, and a subsequent increase
in siltation. Groundwater contamination
is another threat to these species made possible by pollutants such as human
sewage, leaking underground storage tanks, animal/feedlot waste, urban runoff,
and agricultural chemicals. Other
potential threats, especially in the urbanized areas of San Marcos and Comal
Springs are pipeline, railway, and highway transportation of hydrocarbons and
the possibility of accidents it brings.
All three require flowing water for respiration, and two of the species
are fully aquatic, but no low water limits for survival are known
(Eckhardt).
There
is one threatened species of the Edward’s Aquifer, the San Marcos
Salamander. It was listed as threatened
on July 14, 1980. The San Marcos
Salamander is lungless and neotenic. It
does not metamorphose into a terrestrial form, but sexually matures and breeds
in the water. It is small and slender
and light brown with a dorsolateral row of pale spots on either side of the
mid-line, and yellowish-white below. It
has relatively large eyes (Eckhardt).
Historically this species
was found in the sources and upper portions of the San Marcos River. This salamander is now represented only by
the San Marcos springs area populations.
Its limited range now compromises the San Marcos Springs, Spring Lake,
and a few hundred feet of the San Marcos River. The most recent population estimate is around 50,000 individuals
(USFWS p.38).
The San Marcos Salamander requires thermally constant waters. The salamanders become stressed at temperatures above 30 C. However their critical thermal maximum of adults was 37.2, and for juveniles was 35.8. It need flowing water for respiration. It needs clean and clear water (don’t we all!). The San Marcos Salamander prefers sand, gravel, and rock substrates with little mud or detritus. It needs vegetation for cover from predators such as that afforded by cyanophycean bacteria. The vegetation also supports a plentiful food supply for the salamander, also a requirement for the salamander (USFWS p.38).
Critical habitat has been
designated for the San Marcos salamander as “Texas, Hays County; Spring Lake
and its outflow, the San Marcos River, downstream approximately 50m from the
Spring Lake Dam” (FR 45:47355-47364).
Although the current population
appears stable, it is threatened by degradation or modification of its limited
habitat. Residential and agricultural
development and a rising demand for water may cause springs to run dry. Controlling the amount of water pumped from
the aquifer will be the key to preserving the San Marcos Salamander.
Current conservation measures include the development of captive breeding techniques at the Dallas Aquarium in the event that the population at San Marcos Springs is lost (USFWS p.41).
.
In
response to legal pressure by the Sierra Club, the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) researched and drafted the San Marcos and Comal Springs and Associated Aquatic Ecosystems
(Revised) Recovery Plan (1996) to delineate the steps necessary for the
effective management and recovery of the endangered species of the Edwards
Aquifer springs. The document reviews
the biological knowledge pertaining to the federally listed species at the
time: the San Marcos gambusia, fountain darter, Texas wild-rice, and Texas
blind salamander. Peck’s Cave amphipod,
Comal Springs riffle beetle, and the Comal Springs dryopid beetle were listed
in 1997, after the publication of the recovery plan.
Loss
of springflows from overpumping is the greatest threat to the endangered
species of the Edwards Aquifer. Human
disturbance such as recreation and impermeable cover over the recharge and
other factors that reduce water quality are also a threat. With these threats in mind, the USFWS
describes three recovery goals:
1) to secure the survival of
these species in their native ecosystems;
2) to develop an ecosystem
approach using strategies to address both local, site-specific, and broad
regional issues related to recovery;
3) to conserve the integrity
and function of the aquifer and spring-fed ecosystems that these species
inhabit. (USFWS, executive summary, vi)
These
goals result from the Endangered Species Act, which prohibits the take, or
unlicensed killing, directly or indirectly, of federally listed endangered
species; the critical habitat must be conserved and managed for these to
survive. Therefore, this plan is more
than just an effort to save the endangered species of the Edwards Aquifer. Of course, that is the main goal, driven by
the Endangered Species Act, but the USFWS hopes to protect all of the aquatic
ecosystems, subsequently protecting the other plant and animal species there,
as well as the water quality.
The
USFWS claims to take an ecosystem approach to address the conservation of the
endangered species. Ecosystems management has become a buzzword in the
conservation community that has never been clearly defined; each person who
uses it defines it slightly differently.
Meffe and Carrol, eds. of Principles of Conservation Biology
examine many of these different definitions and by taking their common thread,
define ecosystems management as follows:
Ecosystems management is an approach to maintaining or restoring the composition, structure, and function of natural and modified ecosystems for the goal of long-term sustainability. It is based on a collaboratively developed vision of future conditions that integrates ecological, socioeconomic, and institutional perspectives, applied within a geographic framework defined primarily by natural ecological boundaries (361-362).
An ecosystem approach involves decision-making by
the whole community, from biologists to businessmen, and in turn, should
benefit the whole community.
Community
benefit, in terms of human services, is one of the strongest arguments for the
USFWS recovery plan in particular, and management of the Edwards Aquifer in
general. San Antonio citizens will
often ask why we should care about an eyeless lizard or some cave bug so much
that we should stop watering our lawns.
Conservation biologists know the value of biodiversity, both
biologically and perhaps existentially, but the benefits of saving these
particular organisms can be made even more tangible to the citizenry. That blind salamander serves as an indicator
of the quality of the aquifer; it lives in the very water that San Antonians
drink. Therefore, if there is something
wrong with the aquifer, water levels drop too low or the water becomes
contaminated, we will know because the salamanders and other endangered species
will begin dying out. From a more
positive perspective, if we manage the aquifer so as to keep those species
alive, we will be protecting our own water supply. San Antonio will have responsibly manage the Edwards Aquifer to
maintain its long-term sustainability as a habitat and as a natural resource,
benefiting the endemic species as well as the human community.
Eventual delisting of federally listed organisms is the ultimate goal of the Endangered Species Act; however, in the case at hand, delisting is not possible due to the high degree of endemism in the Aquifer. None of the currently listed endangered species found in the San Marcos and Comal Springs, as well as associated aquatic ecosystems, occur elsewhere. A single catastrophic event such as a severe drought or large scale chemical spill could eliminate all the individuals of these species; therefore, these populations must always be managed to avoid their extinction. A more reasonable goal is the eventual downlisting, from endangered to threatened, of the fountain darter, Texas wild-rice, and the Texas blind salamander (USFWS, 53-57).
The
USFWS recovery plan delineates specific measures necessary for the recovery of
the endangered species. The plan is
divided into four sections: researching the biology of the endangered species,
managing the species’ populations and habitats, monitoring those populations
and habitats, and educating the public.
The Service’s recovery plan seems very provisional and preliminary. It calls for the development of more
specific water management plans and conservation plans. It does suggest some more tangible plans of
action, such as the establishment of captive breeding stocks in the case of a
catastrophic loss of habitat. The plan
also suggests that non-native species be removed, pollution be reduced, and
water quality be protected, although this seems rather vague. The plan includes which organizations need
to be involved, such as USFWS, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission, the Texas State Legislature, and the Edwards Aquifer Authority, and
how much it will cost each of them.
Overall, the plan would cost $3 million over the first three years, and
$6 million through 2025, when the Service estimates that the fountain darter
and TX wild rice can be downlisted if continual progress is made (USFWS,
executive summary, vii).
However, one of the plan’s
weaknesses is that it does not (and cannot) provide incentive for the
organizations mentioned to become involved.
The plan is fairly strong theoretically, but weak politically. The plan begins with the disclaimer:
Though the Service is responsible for developing this recovery plan, it cannot be implemented in its entirety without the assistance from other stakeholders... This plan does not commit any ‘responsible party’ to carry out a particular recovery task or expend funds. (USFWS, 58)
Since recovery in the Edwards Aquifer will require significant funds from responsible parties, recovery requires and incentive and legal backing. The Edwards Aquifer Authority (EAA) is currently working on drafting a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), slated for release in February 2001 (www.e-aquifer.com), which will be able to provide for such incentives. HCP’s facilitate management of the conservation of a habitat by requiring developers to compensate for taking endangered species. Perhaps the plan can include a tax on impermeable ground cover that would go toward paying for conservation and for a water treatment plant that will be necessary if impermeable ground cover continues to increase. The EAA should continue water price structuring such that increased water use results in higher water prices per gallon above a certain number of gallons per month. Furthermore, this structuring should be advertised such that people will realize that saving water will save them money. If we want people to conserve water, we must provide incentives, or they will not behave as though water is a limited resource. Just last week, when the Express-News ran a front-page article warning about upcoming drought-induced water restrictions, I saw everyone in my neighborhood watering their lawns in the middle of the day, before the restrictions became active. Such is the tragedy of the commons, where everyone tries to exploit a limited communal resource quickly, before others can get their hands on it.
Management of the Edwards Aquifer has been a controversial issue for over forty years. Conflicts between rural, urban, and industrial users have always been difficult to solve due to the unresolved issues of property rights and the question of who has the authority to set rules for distribution of this limited resource. Currently, the Edwards Aquifer Authority (EAA) has the power to manage the water of the aquifer. However, the State has declared the EAA unconstitutional then reversed this decision twice in its history since 1993. The first time it was declared unconstitutional because it consisted of an appointed body rather than an elected one and thus violated voting rights. The second time it was declared unconstitutional was due to the issue of property rights. Another problem in aquifer management is that by the time water emergency plans are devised, the rain falls, then everything goes back to normal until there is another drought the following summer (Vottleter, 1998). These events are just two examples of the frustration involved in water policy of the aquifer.
This
section analyzes the water policy process using an approach adapted from
chapter 17 of our textbook (Meffe and Carroll, 1997). Since the past legislation over the aquifer is complex, involving
the entire city of San Antonio and the surrounding counties, this analysis will
identify only the major participants and their goals, list possible solutions
and their feasibilities, map social processes, and discuss current
regulations.
First, it is important to
determine who actually owns groundwater, and the pumping rights and
restrictions of property owners.
Historically, groundwater
policy was based on the “rule of free capture.” “This rule essentially allows, with some exceptions, a landowner
to pump as much groundwater as the landowner chooses, without liability to neighbors
who claim that the pumping has depleted their wells (Fambrough, 2000).” This is commonly referred to as the Big Pump
Theory. That is, the landowner with the
biggest pump gets most of the water.
The exceptions to the rule of capture include that a landowner may not
maliciously take water for the sole purpose of injuring a neighbor and that a
landowner cannot wantonly and willfully waste it. After the droughts of 1910 and 1917, the citizens of Texas
enacted Section 59, Article 16 of the Texas Constitution giving the legislature
the authority to pass laws in the interest of the “preservation and
conservation of all such natural resources of the State (Fambrough,
2000).” This article provided another
exception to the rule of capture: districts created in the state have the
authority to designate standards for the spacing of water wells and to regulate
the production of water wells. In 1978
another exception to the rule of capture was added: a landowner is liable for
the subsidence of another’s land caused by the negligent withdrawal of
groundwater (Fambrough, 2000).
In 1991 Living Waters
Artesian Springs Ltd. Began using as much as forty million gallons of aquifer
water a day to raise catfish. This
usage is equal to 25% of the City’s total pumpage. Under the rule of capture, the catfish farm could pump this much
water without penalty as long as the pumping of other parties was not
effected. This extreme example of
vulgar water use helped fuel the end to the rule of capture with the founding of
the EAA (Votteler, 1998). Texas property
owners do not own the water beneath their land. They own the right to drill and capture water as regulated by the
EAA (Fambrough, 2000).
B. History of the Aquifer with respect to these goals
The following section is a
summary of the major events in water legislation over the past fifty years. The
history of the aquifer's management is presented with respect to the goals of
the major participants as well as the strategies employed to achieve these
goals. This information will be
important in the following section, an analysis of the policy process. The following table summarizes the major
events in water politics as discussed in this section and the following
section.
Chronology
of Edwards Aquifer Controversy
|
Date/Time
|
Event/Condition
|
|
|
|
|
Prior
to Pumping |
Comal
and San Marcos Springs, the largest springs in the Southwest
United States, have strong, continuous springflows at all times, even during
major droughts. |
|
1900
|
Pumping
increases to approximately 30,000 acre-feet per year. |
|
1950-57
|
The
drought of record. Comal Springs dries up for five months in 1956. Bad water line moves. In 1956 annual
recharge is a record low 43,700 acre-feet and pumping reaches 321,000
acre-feet. |
|
1959
|
56th
Legislature creates the Edwards Underground Water District
(EUWD) to protect and preserve the Edwards Aquifer. |
|
1967-80
|
U.
S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists five aquatic species at Comal and
San Marcos Springs as endangered or threatened. |
|
1972-1984
|
EUWD
builds four small recharge dams over the Edwards Aquifer. |
|
1976
|
San
Antonio City Council rejects purchasing water from Canyon Reservoir. |
|
1980
|
USFWS
designates critical habitat for four of the species at San Marcos Springs. |
|
1984
|
Flow
at Comal and San Marcos Springs reaches critical levels during a brief
drought. |
|
1985
|
San
Marcos Recovery Plan adopted by USFWS. |
|
January
1989 |
Uvalde
and Medina Counties vote to pull out of the EUWD because of disagreement over
pumping limits and establish single-county underground water districts. |
|
June
15, 1989 |
Guadalupe-Blanco
River Authority (GBRA) gives notice of violation under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA). GBRA also files suit in State District Court to have the Aquifer
declared an underground river owned by the State of Texas. |
|
1989-1990
|
USFWS
warns of the need to respond to excessive pumping and threatens limits. |
|
1990
|
A
professional mediator is appointed by Texas Water Commission (TWC) to attempt
to form a consensus about Aquifer regulation among various interests. No
consensus emerges. |
|
April
12, 1990 |
Sierra
Club gives ESA notice of violation to USFWS. |
|
1991
|
The
catfish farm opens southwest of San Antonio, using as much as 40 million
gallons of water per day, by some estimates. In October, a suit filed in
state district court shuts down the farm pending approval of a wastewater
discharge permit. |
|
May
16, 1991 |
Sierra
Club, joined by GBRA and others, files a suit in the U. S. District Court in
Midland, Texas. The suit alleges the
Secretary of the Interior and USFWS failed to protect endangered species
dependent on the Aquifer. |
|
November
1991 |
Texas
Attorney General Dan Morales decides it is constitutional for the Texas
Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC), which replaced TWC, to
regulate groundwater. |
|
1992
|
Annual
recharge is a record high 2,486,000 acre-feet. |
|
March
1992 |
Attorney
General Morales reverses his opinion that TNRCC has sufficient authority to
regulate the use of groundwater. |
|
April-August
1992 |
TNRCC
adopts emergency rules finding that the Edwards Aquifer
is an underground river, subject to state regulation. A state district court
invalidates TNRCC's declaration that the Aquifer is an underground river and
voids the commission's new rules for the Aquifer. |
|
February
1993 |
Judge
Lucius Bunton finds for the plaintiffs, determining that if pumping from the
Aquifer continues unabated, endangered and threatened species will be taken.
TNRCC is directed to devise a plan by March 1, 1993 to limit pumping and
preserve springflows. The plaintiffs can seek regulation by USFWS. USFWS is
ordered to determine "take" and "jeopardy" flows for the
Springs. |
|
May
30, 1993 |
73rd
Legislature enacts Senate Bill 1477 (S. B. 1477), creating the Edwards
Aquifer Authority (EAA), to regulate groundwater use, abolishing EUWD. |
|
June
15, 1993 |
USFWS
determines takes and jeopardy flows for Comal and San Marcos Springs. |
|
September
1993 |
S.
B. 1477 takes effect, but implementation is delayed while the U.S. Department
of Justice (USDOJ) decides whether the abolition of the EUWD elected board
violates the Voting Rights Act. |
|
November
19, 1993 |
USDOJ
rules that S. B. 1477 does not meet the requirements of The Voting Rights Act
because it would abolish an elected board (the EUWD). |
|
June
6, 1994 |
Judge
Bunton orders a Court Monitor to prepare a plan to limit Pumping by August 1,
1994, and also orders USFWS to publish a proposed recovery plan for the
species by August 1, 1994. |
|
August
1, 1994 |
Emergency
Withdrawal Reduction Plan for the Edwards Aquifer is delivered to the court. |
|
August
13, 1994 |
San
Antonio voters decide in a referendum not to complete the Applewhite
Reservoir. |
|
September
25, 1994 |
Judge
Bunton orders the formation of a panel, chaired by the Court Monitor, to
draft a regional water management plan/habitat conservation plan to obtain an
ESA Section 10(A) permit. |
|
March
31, 1995 |
Revised
Emergency Withdrawal Reduction Plan for the Edwards Aquifer filed with court.
|
|
April
28, 1995 |
Sierra
Club files an ESA suit in Judge Bunton's court against USDA, alleging that
USDA is allowing agricultural activities to harm species. |
|
May
31, 1995 |
Governor
George Bush approves changes to S. B. 1477 adopted by the 74th Legislature to
give EAA an elected board to satisfy the concerns of USDOJ. |
|
June
23, 1995 |
Draft
Habitat Conservation Plan for the Edwards Aquifer (Balcones
Fault Zone-San Antonio Region) is distributed for comments. |
|
August
23, 1995 |
A
group led by the Medina and Uvalde County Underground Water Conservation
Districts challenge to the constitutionality of S. B. 1477 (EAA) in state
district court. |
|
October
18, 1995 |
Monitor's
activities are stayed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. |
|
October
27, 1995 |
The
state district court rules that S. B. 1477 is unconstitutional. |
|
February
14, 1996 |
USFWS
finishes the recovery plan, bringing the Sierra Club's suit against DOI to an
end. |
|
1996
|
Drought
returns to the region. Comal and San Marcos Springs rapidly drop to levels
below jeopardy. |
|
June
10, 1996 |
Sierra
Club files a second ESA suit in Judge Bunton's court. The suit alleges that
pumpers are causing takes of fountain darters as springflow declines. |
|
June
28, 1996 |
Undivided
Texas Supreme Court reverses state district court, and Finds that S. B. 1477
is constitutional. |
|
July
2, 1996 |
Judge
Bunton orders USDA to develop species conservation plan. |
|
July
31, 1996 |
EAA
board votes for a second time not to declare a water Emergency.
|
|
August
1, 1996 |
Judge
Bunton appoints the author as Special Master. The Special Master is ordered
to develop a new water conservation plan within ten days. |
|
August
23, 1996 |
After
a public comment period, the 1996 Emergency Withdrawal Reduction Plan for the
Edwards Aquifer is revised and adopted by the court. Judge Bunton declares a
water emergency and issues an order setting a date for the plan's activation.
|
|
September
11, 1996 |
Judge
Bunton's August 23, 1996 order is stayed by the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals. |
|
October
23, 1996 |
The
Fifth Circuit grants USDA's motion for a stay pending appeal. |
|
April
30, 1997 |
The
Fifth Circuit vacates Judge Bunton's August 23, 1996 order, finding that the
Court should have abstained from acting on a matter that the EAA could
potentially handle. |
|
December
18, 1997 |
USFWS
lists Comal Springs riffle beetle, Comal Springs dryopid beetle, and Peck's
cave amphipod as endangered. |
|
1998
|
After
significant rains in 1997, drought returns to the region. Comal Springs drops
to a level below take. |
|
August
5, 1998 |
A
State District Court issues a temporary injunction on behalf of the catfish
farm, enjoining EAA from implementing or enforcing its rules that pertain to
the filing and processing of permit applications. |
|
August
14, 1998 |
Sierra
Club notifies EAA and USFWS of intent to sue for violations of the ESA. |
|
September
11, 1998 |
A
second state district court enjoins EAA from enforcing its rules for issuing
permits. |
|
September
14, 1998 |
Environmental
Defense Fund notifies EAA of intent to sue for violations of the ESA. |
|
September
24, 1998 |
Ruling
on an appeal of Judge Bunton's order, the Fifth Circuit finds that the ESA
requires the USDA to develop programs to conserve endangered species. |
|
December
17, 1998 |
Travis
County court invalidates EAA permit rules and drought management plan. |
(Table adapted from table 4 of (Votteler, 1998)
For many years, the Edwards
Aquifer has become the battleground for a myriad of competing interests,
geographical, government, and corporate.
This section will provide a history of water use in South Texas and
outline the major events in legislation of the aquifer.
San Antonio and its
neighbors to the east and west sit on top of a rechargeable underground
aquifer. The aquifer's waters percolate
to the surface at springs in the central (Bexar County) and eastern expanses of
the aquifer (Hays and Comal Counties), which, in turn, have been sites of urban
population growth. Early settlements
both prehistoric and historic, took advantage of the springs in the eastern
part of the aquifer at San Marcos and in New Braunfels, as did the first
settlers of San Antonio de Bexar to their west. Water that traveled down the canals from San Pedro springs to San
Antonio provided ample water for the irrigated fields located between the
springs and what is today the city center.
The springs fed the San Antonio River, whose waster was tapped for
irrigation as it moved south from the city center. West of San Antonio were farmers
and ranchers who drew much of their water form shallow wells, using
wind-driven pumps. There seemed to be
adequate water for all, humans and animals alike (Votteler, 1998, Donahue,
1998).
The groundwater policy during the frontier period was based on the "English rule" of free capture, meaning property owners could pump water from beneath their land as long as they did not waste it. The rule of free capture never gave priorities of water usage, and thus never resolved conflicting interests among farmers, city-dwellers, recreationists, and industrialists across the region supplied by the Edwards Aquifer (Votteler, 1998, Donahue, 1998).
The severe drought that occurred in 1950 and persisted till 1957 forced San Antonio to rethink the rule of capture and consider urban versus rural interests of the Aquifer. Soon a regional government agency under state authority was created to plan for and acquire sources of water to recharge those found in the aquifer. In 1959 the Texas legislature established, and voters approved, the creation of the Edwards Underground Water District. All counties were represented in the district, but rural interests dominated. The EUWD was authorized "to conserve, preserve, protect and increase the recharge of and prevent the pollution of the underground water (Donahue, 1998)," but it was not authorized to give the authority to restrict the rights of landowners to pump underground water from their lands (Votteler, 1998, Donahue, 1998).
In 1965, Congress passed the national Water Quality
Act. Two years later, Texas created the
Texas Water Quality Board consisting of members appointed by the governor. The head of the board "sided with rural
interests and prevented urban interests from establishing pumping limits, as a
supposed conservation measure (Donahue, 1998)."
The first initiative for preserving water quality
from a group of citizens opposed to development over the recharge zone. Developers, led by former governor John
Conally, proposed the construction of Ranch Town, a large suburban development
over the aquifer's recharge zone designed to house 88,000 people. Opponents led by an urban planner at a local
private university and a family with banking interests on the south side of San
Antonio began to warn citizens that the development would threaten water
quality (Donahue, 1998).
Then in 1973, the La Quinta
chief executive officer Sam Bishop proposed construction of the Southwest's
largest mall of the aquifer recharge zone.
Citizens for a Better Environment (the same citizens who fought Conally,
now organized) joined with Citizens Organized for Public Service (COPS) and
brought up the issue of a moratorium on development over the aquifer to a
public vote. The public voted in favor
of the moratorium and the developers sued.
The vote was overturned by Texas Supreme Court because the Texas
Constitution does not allow the overturning of a city council zoning decision
by referendum (Donahue, 1998).
A new group of citizens, the
Aquifer Protection Association (APA) collected signatures for county
commissioners and city council to purchase for the public trust 6-8 thousand
hectares over the aquifer recharge zone in order to prevent further
development. The developer-controlled
city council rejects the petition. However,
in 1974 Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez was able to amend the Safe Drinking Water
Act, which propitiated federal assistance to any project that might pollute
urban groundwater supplies (Donahue, 1998).
By 1970s it is clear to
developers that if growth of city to north continues over the recharge zone an
alternative to the Edwards Aquifer as the city's sole water supply had to be
found. Mayor Henry Cisneros strongly
promoted a city council vote on July 19, 1979 to approve the three-part water
management plan that included conservation, recycling, and the construction of
a surface water reservoir called Applewhite.
Opponents feared that construction of the reservoir would eventually
lead to increased development over the recharge zone. Others saw the reservoir as a way to increase taxes and provide
construction firms and land developers with work. Opponents argued for a management plan for the aquifer that could
satisfy the region's water needs without the expensive alternative sources
(Donahue, 1998).
When presented with the
petition to stop construction of Applewhite, the city council placed the
proposition to stop construction of the Applewhite Reservoir on the ballot of a
citywide election to be held on May 4, 1991. However, construction continued anyway
and the city Water Board awarded a $37.5 million contract to a local contractor
to complete the reservoir and create a plant to treat surface water (Donahue,
1998).
In April of 1991, the Guadalupe-Blanco River
Authority (GBRA) announced that a lawsuit would be filed under the Endangered
Species Act. The GBRA represents
economic interests of Hays and Comal Counties.
Springs that feed the Comal and Guadalupe Rivers are major tourist
attractions and the water from the springs sold to downstream industrial users
is an important source of income for the GBRA.
Also, the springs house many endangered species. In the meantime, Mayor Lila Cockrell formed
a political action committee called Water Now! because she feared federal
imposed pumping limits (Donahue, 1998).
The advice of Hans Helland
and Carol Patterson of the Edwards Underground Water District swayed voters to
vote down the Applewhite reservoir.
They advised that since the aquifer holds 31-68 billion cubic meters of water,
it makes no sense to build a reservoir that holds only 50.2 million cubic
meters, much of which would evaporate in the Texas sun. Instead, a better alternative would be to
build recharge dams to ensure that more runoff returned to the aquifer.
Construction on the Applewhite reservoir ceased (Donahue, 1998).
On May 19, 1991 a lawsuit was filed by the Lone Star chapter of the Sierra Club and the GBRA in Midland Texas alleging that the Secretary of the Interior and USFWS failed to protect endangered species dependent on the Aquifer. On the 13th of August, 1994 voters reject Applewhite a second time by greater margin (Donahue, 1998, Votteler, 1998).
In February of 1992 TWC
presented a plan for the state to manage the Edwards and other aquifer and
called for mandatory cutbacks when the aquifer drops to certain levels. The city of SA objected to the TWC's plan
contending that downstream users would pay nothing yet reap the benefits of the
city's conservation efforts. Hence, the
city called for a feasibility study of augmentation of the springs in Comal and
Hay counties in the hopes of avoiding pumping limits. However, augmentation was deemed infeasible because pumping water
from greater depths of the aquifer into these springs would change both the
chemistry and temperature of the springs that the endangered species depend on
for survival (Donahue, 1998).
On April 16, 1992, the TWC declared that the aquifer was really an underground river. TWC changed the name of the aquifer to the Edwards Underground River, which would then according to Texas law, be under the TWC's control. However, State District Judge Pete Lowry of Austin found that the aquifer was not an underground river as the TWC had claimed and thus the TWC did not have the authority to take it over (Donahue, 1998, Votteler, 1998).
On January 30, 1993 Judge Bunton ruled in favor of the Sierra Club and GBRA and urged the Texas legislature to reduce pumping from the Aquifer in times of drought by at least 60% to ensure the survival of endangered fish, salamanders, and plants by the 31 of May 1993. The Legislature was given until May 31, 1993 to enact a regulatory plan. If the legislature had failed to accomplish this, the plaintiffs could seek regulation by USFWS. The state legislature considered three bills, then made a compromise on them: the elected Edwards Underground Water District would be replaced by an appointed board called the Edwards Aquifer Authority (EAA). A larger advisory committee would bring together the various river authorities and downstream industrial users. The authority would install meters and be responsible for monitoring and protecting water quality. This bill (Senate Bill 1477) was passed on May 30, 1993 (Donahue, 1998, Votteler, 1998).
When the bill is fully implemented, the EAA must enforce pumping limits of 450,000 acre-feet before December 31, 2007, and 400,000 acre-feet after that, unless drought conditions require more severe restrictions. "The EAA shall ensure that the continuous minimum springflows of the Comal Springs and the San Marcos Springs are maintained to protect endangered and threatened species to the extent required by federal law (Votteler, 1998)."
The Justice Department ruled that the state plan to replace the elected board with an appointed one violated Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Also, Medina County Underground Water Conservation District argued that the regulation of groundwater was a violation of private property rights and that the S.B.1477 must be declared unconstitutional because no other water regulations existed in Texas. Later Judge Bunton called S.B. 1477 dead and declared that new legislation would be needed to meet the Justice Department's demand. A week after this ruling mayor Nelson Wolff of SA named a twenty-six member citizen committee to study city water needs through the year 2050 and, since the city would face pumping limits, to suggest new sources of water including the Applewhite reservoir. This committee represents a range of city power brokers and notably absent were opponents to the Applewhite Reservoir and vocal supporters of aquifer recharge and spring augmentation (Donahue, 1998, Votteler, 1998).
In the summer of 1994 the Sierra Club requested from the district court that a monitor be appointed for the case and prepare an emergency plan to reduce pumping from the aquifer due to extreme decreases in Comal Springs flow. The Emergency Withdrawal Reduction Plan for the aquifer was researched and developed in thirty days. It provided for staged reductions of pumping for municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses of groundwater. The plan was developed in order to maintain flow at Comal Springs above the 200 cubic feet per second jeopardy level for fountain darters, established by the USFWS. However, it rained in the fall, and although the need for such an emergency plan did not dissipate, the immediate political impetus for the creation of one did (S4, Votteler, 1998).
In May the 2050 Water
Committee presented its report (2050 Water Plan, for a summary of the water
plan see appendix), which recommended the Applewhite Reservoir to the city
council. As described by its
proponents, Applewhite would hold water only for discharge downstream, not for
drinking. The water discharged
downstream, via a diversion canal to petrochemical users in the Victoria area,
would be exchanged for aquifer water captured form the Guadalupe River, stored
in Canyon Lake, and brought via pipeline to SA. The total cost was estimated to $300 million, including $76
million to complete the Applewhite Reservoir, $21.5 million for the diversion
canal to deliver Applewhite water traded to petrochemical plants, $32 million
of the Canyon Lake pipeline and $130 million of the treatment plant to purify
Guadalupe River water, and also called for monies to enhance conservation measures,
construction of recharge dams over the aquifer "if feasible" and
reuse of wastewater for non-drinking purposes on local military bases and golf
courses (Donahue, 1998).
Opponents on and off the
council quickly noted that there were other alternatives to Applewhite and the
rest of the 2050 Plan that would be more efficient and cost-effective than
building an expensive surface water system and ultimately, critics argued that
the building of Applewhite would do nothing to address the springflow problem. Also,
the opponents suggested augmentation, the pumping of aquifer water into the
springs. This possibility was dismissed
by Applewhite supporters even though there seemed to be ample water in the
aquifer to augment the springs in time of drought without the need to limit
pumping across the entire region (University of Texas Bureau of Economic
Geology revealed that the total storage of the aquifer was 265 billion cubic
meters, four times what the U.S. Geological Survey had estimated in 1978). Opponents of augmentation suggested that the
quality of water changes with the depth of the aquifer. The water lying deep in the aquifer is too
cold to sustain the endangered species of the springs (Donahue, 1998).
Two weeks before election
the pro-Applewhite forces drew from a $700,000 budget to buy television time to promote the 2050 Water Plan. Their funding was provided by local
businesses, including several construction and contracting firms. Opponents disputed the plan price tag for
the project and predicted that construction of the reservoirs and pipelines
could cost residents more than $7 billion in bonds and increased water rates
(Donahue, 1998).
In July of 1994, the
University of Texas engineering study on augmentation of the Comal and San
Marcos Springs was released. The study
indicated that augmentation was feasible.
Opponents of the Applewhite Reservoir demonstrated on steps of City Hall
to argue that augmentation was viable, cheaper alternative the Applewhite. Also, 22 geologists, hydrologists, engineers,
and academics attached their names to a prepared press release stating that the
Applewhite site had "major technical flaws and problems" from a
scientific point of view. Finally, on
August 13 1994, voters turned down Applewhite by a greater majority than in the
first referendum in 1991 (Donahue, 1998).
Since no supplemental water source was available to reduce San Antonio's dependence on the aquifer, the court Monitor suggested that the city and other pumpers apply for an ESA section 10 (a) Incidental Take Permit (ITP). The ITP would allow the inadvertent taking of federally listed species during an otherwise legal activity. This permit requires a Habitat Conservation Plan. The development of the HCP was used to secure a twenty-year permit allowing inadvertent takes. Permit holders were expected to implement the plan. Under the ITP, the take and jeopardy levels of springflows fell from 200 to 150 cubic feet per second and 150 to 60 cubic feet per second (for short durations) respectively. The difference between these jeopardy flows is 90 cubic feet per second, which has been estimated to allow additional pumping of approximately 65,000 acre-feet per year in dry years for those who rely on withdrawals form the aquifer. Judge Bunton created the Incidental Take Permit Panel to review and discuss the available water supply and conservation options to preserve the endangered species. Information collected at panel meetings was used as the foundation of the HCP (Donahue, 1998, Votteler, 1998).
In June 1995 HCP was released. The plan included themes of conservation and reuse of existing water supplies, and the introduction of 250,000 to 350,000 acre-feet of additional water supplies to substitute for withdrawals form the aquifer. Some alternatives were proposed to protect the species, and assure minimum flows in the springs during droughts (Votteler, 1998).
In March of the same year the Revised Emergency Withdrawal Reduction Plan was produced for the court from information collected during Panel meetings. This plan was produced in anticipation of decreased springflows for that year. However, Judge Bunton chose to appoint lawyers representing various interests in water policy to develop recommendations for maintaining springflow above the 150 cubic feet per second jeopardy level at Comal Springs. The Lawyer's Panel Plan was created. However, it rained again, and again, water conservation was avoided (Votteler, 1998).
In May of 1995, Governor George Bush approved the changes to S.B. 1477 to give EAA an elected board to satisfy the concerns of the court. Later this was again deemed unconstitutional due to violation of private property rights. However, the State successfully argued that the power to create entities to regulate the groundwater is an established fact in Texas law. Alas, the Texas Supreme Court deemed S.B.1477 constitutional (Votteler, 1998).
Finally in February of 1996, the Sierra Club vs. Secretary of Interior case was resolved after the USFWS published a recovery plan for the threatened and endangered species at Comal and San Marcos Springs resulting in the end to the rule of free capture for the Edwards Aquifer and the creation of a state entity specifically designed to regulate pumping (Votteler, 1998).
In April of 1995 the Sierra Club filed another lawsuit. This time it was against the U.S. Department of Agriculture alleging that the USDA allowed agricultural activities to harm species. In July of 1996 Bunton ruled in favor of the Sierra Club. The USDA was ordered to develop and implement a program to protect water quality and to preserve natural resources and protect fish and wildlife through land conservation (Votteler, 1998).
Then again in May 1996 the Sierra Club filed a lawsuit concerning the preservation of the endangered species. The lawsuit was against the city of San Antonio. Pumpers of the aquifer (including over a thousand individuals, organizations, and corporations) were charged with causing takes of endangered species. This occurred in a time of drought. In July, both springs were well below jeopardy levels and there was a possibility of total cessation of flows at Comal Springs. However, the EAA did not declare a water emergency. Instead, Judge Bunton ruled that the Monitor produce a draft of a regional plan to reduce pumping from the aquifer. The plan was developed within the ten-day deadline and then revised and adopted by Bunton as the 1996 Emergency Withdrawal Reduction Plan for the Edwards Aquifer. This plan contained a schedule of staged reductions of municipal pumping of discretionary water use from the aquifer. This plan was activated on August 23, 1996 (Votteler, 1998). For an outline of this plan see appendix 2.
Ironically, on August 23, 1996 it San Antonio experienced heavy rains. Then on April 30, 1997 Bunton's ruling was vacated due to the rains and also because the EAA could have handled the situation (Votteler, 1998).
The next cycle began in 1998. The USFWS threatened to bring criminal charges against pumpers in order to protect the species in danger of dying from diminished springflow. In response to the drought, EAA implemented the USFWS's Critical Period Management Plan, which restricted certain uses of water. However, this plan was later invalidated because improperly adopted. Also, the EAA sought a permit from the State for a $500,000 cloud-seeding program to increase rain in selected areas. Around this time, the flow of Comal Springs did in fact drop below take levels. USFWS did not file charges against pumpers. August rainfall again raised springflow significantly above take levels (Votteler, 1998).
Travis County issued a temporary injunction against the EAA that same August disputing the rules that relate to the processing of permit applications. The EAA notified permit applicants on April 29, 1998 that it was proposing to approve permits for withdrawals form the aquifer totaling 484,600 acre-feet after receiving applications for 852.800 acre-feet. The EAA was to begin enforcing the new 484,600 pumping cap by January 1, 2000 (Votteler, 1998).
In December of 1998 the San Antonio Water System board of trustees gave preliminary approval for the purchase of a large amount of groundwater form the Aluminum Company of America. About 50%, or 90,000 acre-feet of SAWS's current pumping from the aquifer could be transferred annually from the Aluminum Company operation northeast of Austin by piping it to San Antonio through the recharge zone. Alternatively, it could be traded in exchange for allowing SAWS to receive additional commitments of water form the Guadalupe River. A pipeline could potentially be adapted to serve as a conveyance facility for future transfers of additional ground and surface water from the east to San Antonio (Votteler, 1998).
In January of 1999, the annual legal limit on pumping was 792,000 acre-feet. This amount is 250,000 acre-feet above the record year of pumping in 1989. In addition, no regional drought management plan was in place (Votteler, 1998).
Finally, on April 27th 2000 an article appeared on the cover of the San Antonio Express News discussing a new drought management plan and also a management plan to be enacted in times of a water emergency. The EAA is drawing up a long-term drought plan and stands ready to adopt an emergency plan when the aquifer level falls to 650 feet. The three-stage drought plan requires aquifer pumping cutbacks of 5% in stage I, 10% for stage II, and 15% for stage III. The plan will include cutbacks on waters used for landscaping. Also, landscape watering will be restricted to certain times. For more specific details on these pumping restrictions see appendix 3 (Needham, 200).
The
foremost hazard to the critical habitat in the San Marcos and Comal Rivers is a
lack of water. The Comal springs went
dry for nearly five months (144 days) in 1956 and the San Marcos came very
close, dropping to only 45.5 cubic feet per second (Eckhardt). The Edwards aquifer is currently solely
dependent on rainfall for its recharge, which means in times of drought the
water table falls. Problems occur when
the water table falls below the level of the springs and the springs go
dry. In a natural setting a drought
long enough to cause both springs to go dry would be very rare, in fact the San
Marcos springs have never gone dry as long as humans in the area have kept
records. The hazards are all human
based and occur because this area is no longer in its ”natural” state. Because of this, the solutions must also be
human based.
Besides natural springflow, there are several other
sources discharging water out of the aquifer.
Humans use the water for municipal purposes such as drinking, showering,
and washing, for agricultural and lawn irrigation, for commercial processes
such as beer making and power plant coolant, and for tourism and recreational
purposes. The water pulled out by
humans is water not available for natural springflow. Here is the problem: humans have used the aquifer throughout
human inhabitation, but now our pumping activities could jeopardize the endangered
animals that depend on its springflow. There are several man made solutions to
our man made problems, and one of the most important solutions is through water
conservation.
The Edwards Aquifer
Authority began operation on June 28, 1996 with the mission to manage and
protect the Edwards Aquifer system, and with a mandate to limit
withdrawals. They are the organization
with “powers, rights, and privileges necessary to manage, conserve, preserve,
and protect the aquifer” (EAA Act
article 1 section 1.08, 1999). They
have authority over eight of the counties that lie over the Edwards Aquifer
recharge and artesian zones; Atascosa, Bexar, Caldwell, Comal, Guadalupe, Hays,
Medina, and Uvalde (EAA Act article 1 section 1.02, 1999). The EAA Act does not list some counties;
therefore, the EAA does not have authority over Edwards, Real, Kerr, Bandera,
or Kendall counties, even though they are located over the drainage area of the
aquifer system. Kinney County is also not governed by the EAA even though more
than a quarter of the county lies over the aquifer system. All of the county to the north and east of
Brackettville lie on either the artesian zone, recharge zone or the drainage
zone. One would expect the EAA to have
authority over that part of the county similar to the way that they only have
authority over parts of Comal, Caldwell, Hays, Guadalupe, and Atascosa
counties. The reason this might prove
important is that a long section of the West Nueces River flows through Kinney
county section of the recharge zone. (EUWD, Water Resources of the Edwards
Aquifer Region map).
The
first and most obvious solution lies in conservation. The human animal needs to drink less than one gallon of water per
day to survive, but in today’s culture we consume on average 176 times that
personally for all uses including drinking
(Bock, 1990). This figure
doesn’t include the water used to grow the food we eat, the water used in
manufacturing the things we use every day, or the water we use to irrigate our
lawns. The differences between the
amount we use and the amount we need represents a significant portion of water
and therefore educating people about how to conserve water could reduce overall
consumption dramatically. Resource
planners estimate that easy common sense conservation efforts can reduce water
use by at least 10% to 15% (EUWD pamphlet 1992).
Both E.A.A. and San Antonio Water System are supplying money and personnel to an education program that shows people how they can conserve water and save money too. The Edwards Aquifer Authority tells the public ways in which water can be conserved and why the water is so important in this region. S.A.W.S. goes beyond educational means and offers the public incentives to reduce their water use. S.A.W.S. offers a refund up to 500 dollars for installing a qualifying Watersaver Landscape using drought tolerant plants rather than St. Augustine grass, (EUWD, Xeriscape) a percentage discount for purchasing low flow toilets, free water saving devices like toilet dams, low-flow shower heads, free leak detection, and information packets with much more detailed information on how to conserve water (SAWS water saver).
Education alone is typically
not enough to significantly reduce water usage. To “encourage” users to be more conservative, other more direct
measures must be taken. Two such
measures are pumping limits and a higher price for water. The E.A.A. has the authority by statute to
issue pumping permits and therefore limiting the amount of total water being
pumped. The water pumping permits are
given out according to several factors such as historical use, level of
beneficial use and proportional adjustment factors. With these pumping limits in place and with the aid of meters in
place on all Edwards’ wells, the Edwards Aquifer Authority can make sure the
pumping does not exceed the pumping limits put in place by the E.A.A. act. To reduce the consumption of water
throughout metropolitan areas, one solution would be to raise the price of the
water. Right now San Antonio has one of
the lowest water prices in the state, which means that it does not cost much to
waste water. The April 2000 water bill
for San Antonio Water System users shows that the cost for residential water
use is 72.2 cents per thousand gallons (authors water bill). The average price for water in the United
States is $1.30 for every thousand gallons (Bock p.14). This shows that San
Antonio’s water rate is almost half of the U.S. average. The higher prices will
cause people to try and save money and therefore water too.
Another method to reduce the
water pulled from the aquifer is to recycle it. Sewage treatment plants are used around the world to treat sewage
to a point at which the water can be released into surrounding watersheds. The treated water is usually clean enough to
be discharged into lakes, rivers, and streams, without causing a dramatic
change in water quality. This water is
often used by down stream users. In
other places around the world, they take this even further. In Germany, for example, the waste water is
treated and purified to a level at which it is re-introduced into the public
water system for all uses, including drinking (Interview with Sabine Thomas,
March 2000). San Antonio doesn’t want
to go that far, but San Antonio is willing to use the treated water for other
uses such as irrigation and industrial purposes. Mitchell Lake was an oxidation pond for San Antonio’s sewage
until the first treatment plant was constructed. Braunig Lake constructed in
1963 and Calavaras Lake constructed in 1968 are both cooling lakes for San
Antonio’s electrical power plants. All
three lakes currently receive water from the San Antonio sewage plants.
There are four water
recycling centers in San Antonio; Leon creek WRC, Dos Rios WRC, Medio Creek
WRC, and Salado Creek WRC. The Dos Rios
Treatment facility produces the most treated water, about 60 million gallons of
effluent per day. A majority of this
water is places into the creeks by which they are named and eventually make it
to the San Antonio River system. These
plants have recently started to pump their treated water out to some
non-potable water users. Trinity
University and several other large water users have taken part in the city’s
water recycling program (Purple Pipe Program).
This water is used to water lawns, trees, and often golf courses
(Eckhardt). The amount of treated water
that is used is theoretically water that no longer needs to be drawn directly
from the aquifer. The Purple Pipe
Program is not inexpensive to set up nor maintain, but nearly all of the
options that actively conserve aquifer water are more expensive than direct
withdrawal from the aquifer. The costs
to the users however, must remain the same as the normal water or none would
take part in the program. The program
is still in the beginning stages, but there are plans to expand in order to
reach new users Eventually, the SAWS recycled water program will supply
non-potable water for beneficial use at 20% of the volume that San Antonio
currently withdraws from the aquifer annually
(http://www.edwardsaquifer.net/reusehtml).
Another
obvious solution is to increase the amount of water in the aquifer. This can be accomplished in several
ways. One of the most productive ways
to increase the water recharged into the aquifer is through the construction of
recharge dams. Title 31 of Texas
Administrative Code Chapter 711 under ground water withdrawal allows for
recharge under the following methods.
First, injection of source
water directly into the confined or recharge zone of the aquifer through
aquifer storage injection wells, as defined in section 713.1 of this
title. Second, infiltration from the
surface into and through the unsaturated zone to the water table portion of the
aquifer through the impoundment of source water behind a dam in a reservoir
located on a watercourse in the recharge zone of the aquifer. Lastly, any other artificial method
determined by order of the board to recharge the aquifer consistent with the
Act or this subchapter.
Four
of these structures have been constructed in the late 1970s and early 1980s and
have proven to be very effective on a small scale. The Seco Creek Dam (1982) provides the most annual recharge at
2960 acre-feet. This is in part due to
a 10-foot wide and 15-foot deep Diversion channel extending 685 feet from the
main stream to a large 50-foot diameter sinkhole. Seco creek structure recharged 13,000 acre-feet in 1987. The Parker Creek Dam (1974) averages 519
acre-feet and is the oldest of the four structures. Middle Verde Creek Dam (1978) has average annual recharge of 904
acre-feet and the San Geronimo Creek Dam (1979) recharges 744 acre-feet
annually (EUWD, annual report 1993 to 1994).
These structures are built on typically dry creeks and only temporarily
capture flood waters and hold them over the recharge zone so the water is
allowed more time to percolate through cracks and seep into the aquifer.
This
form of recharge enhancement has been known for years, but has not always been
considered a reasonable solution. It is
gaining strength again with recent rules in the Texas Administrative Code on
ground water withdrawals. This new
legislation allows for the parties involved in construction of recharge
structures on approved sites to have credit for the water recharged from their
facility. This is a much less expensive
method to obtain extra water because the users do not have to transport the
water they collect; the aquifer does that.
The conditions for suitable sites are quite selective, and for good reason. The sites must meet all water quality
standards for the life of the project, which includes surface development
activity proximate to point of recharge, and over the place of storage. There are twenty such criteria for aquifer
recharge and storage permits to ensure water of the highest quality (TAC
chapter 711.228).
Recharge to Edwards Aquifer
is derived mainly from streams that cross the outcrop of the Balcones
escarpment. Some is derived form direct
infiltration of precipitation on the outcrop (EUWD Bulletin 42, March
1985). Recharge structures increase
recharge if constructed over this area.
Type I “catch and release” structures occur above the outcrop and have
recharge release rates generally specified for reservoirs located upstream of
recharge zone and equal to threshold rate at which Edwards Aquifer will accept
recharge from the streambed crossing the outcrop. Direct recharge comes from Type II structures where percolation
occurs through the bottom of the reservoir and enter the aquifer through the
unsaturated zone (TAC chapter 711.270).
These structures can also have a diversion rate for direct or indirect
injection to Edwards in adjacent watershed or directly through a sinkhole as at
Seco Creek Dam. Type II structures are
located over recharge structures and the entire volume of water usually drains
within one month. Soil Conservation
Service Flood Retardation Structures (SCS/FRS) recharge 70-100% of stored water
with little losses due to evaporation (HDR Engineering, Inc. 1993). Some possible recharge sites are SCS/FRS at
Leon, Helotes, and Government Creek watersheds (similar to Salado Creek
watershed), Cibolo Dam number 1 on Cibolo Creek near Selma, one additional
SCS/FRS in dry Comal Creek watershed, the Lower Blanco River project on Blanco
River near Kyle and Coptin Crossing Type I recharge. The Lower Blanco River Project is the largest in structural
program, with a maximum storage of 35,230 acre-feet. It was large enough that evaporation was taken into account when
figuring recharge. With these 4
structures, the Guadalupe-San Antonio River Basin recharge enhancement would
total approximately an additional 123,060 acre-feet per year (HDR Engineering,
Inc. June 1994).
Headwaters of Nueces River
Basin contribute about 51% of total volumes of surface water recharged to the
San Antonio portion of Edwards Aquifer (HDR Engineering, Inc. 1993). Storms cause creek levels to rise well above
natural recharge rates. Therefore
recharge dams would capture and recharge these floodwaters. The Nueces River Authority, city of Corpus
Christi, and South Texas Water Authority sponsored the studies due to the
possible effects on “their water”. The
study was undertaken to in part evaluate the potential enhancement of aquifer
recharge and the impact to other users of Nueces River Basin studies began
spring 1990. Findings indicated, “a
significant potential exists for enhancing recharge through construction of
dams on major streams crossing the recharge zone.” Six projects were suggested when Phase III was completed in late
1991. All of these projects would
include dams located near the downstream boundary of the recharge zone. Listed from East to West: lower Verde, lower
Hondo, lower Sabinal, lower Frio, lower Dry Frio, and Indian Creek
projects. No fatal geologic,
geotechnical, or environmental flaws are believed to exist at these project
sites.
Lower Verde, lower Hondo,
lower Sabinal, and lower Frio were (1994) to be moved to permitting phase. The lower Sabinal project has the lowest
unit cost of recharge enhancement capacity of 8,750 acre-feet yearly at optimum
size (see Table ES-1a). Recommended
recharge enhancement program is comprised of Lower Verde, Hondo, Sabinal, and
Frio projects each constructed at optimum size. Increase natural recharge 14% for average rainfall and 6% during
drought. The program would provide
45,135 acre-feet a year at $142 per acre-foot ($0.44 per 1,000 gallons). Under drought conditions 9,250 acre-feet per
year at $692 per acre-feet per year ($2.12 for every 1000 gallons). With Indian Creek project, recharge
increases to 23% under average and 18% in drought conditions (1947-1956).
The Indian Creek project is
not suggested for the permitting stage, because downstream water would be
affected. Choke Canyon and Lake Corpus
Christi would receive an inflow reduction of 0.1-0.7% based on operating policy
of reservoir system which equals 170-1,229 acre-feet/year. Nueces Estuary average annual inflow would
reduce by 0.1-0.5%, which equals 728-2,594 acre-feet/year. The estimated cumulative impact on inflow is
about 7,022 acre-feet per year or 1.4%.
These percentages are small, but they are enough to have the plan
delayed (HDR Engineering, Inc. June 1994).
Without getting too deeply
rooted in the geology of the aquifer, there is a bottleneck type formation near
Uvalde. The Kinippa Gap formation slows
water and to the west of the formation the water level is significantly higher
and more stable. To the East the water
level is lower and more fluctuating.
The gap also creates a significant lag time of about 2 years between
water recharged on the west and when it passes the gap and can be withdrawn in
the east. This time lag can be used to
humans advantage. If Water is added to
the aquifer west of the gap, it takes 2 to 4 years to reach the springs. This puts a 2 to 4 year delay between large
rains and large springflow rates. This
is good news for the springs in the first few years of a drought. This lag time feature could be enhanced even
further if a pipe carried water from surface water east of the gap and
transported it to a recharge structure west of the gap. The pipeline would be expensive, but it
makes good sense. If for example the
springflow exceeded its average output, you could collect the extra water just
before it entered the Guadalupe River system and not affect down stream water
rights. If this surplus water was
shipped to a recharge structure west of the Kinippa Gap, it would essentially
provide recharge in times of plenty, and this would be discharged in 2 to 4
years. The pipeline would probably cost
around the same as the one proposed to bring water to San Antonio from ALCOA,
about 450 million dollars (Express News March 18,2000). There would be a further benefit if the
pipeline were designed to be two ways.
This could allow for water to be shipped from a well west of the gap
back down to an injection site near the springs. Since the springs will go dry again even under minimum
withdrawals, this could be used as a way to keep the springs running. At the injection site, there would be the
opposite of a cone of depression (a pyramid of water) that may raise the water
table enough to keep the springs flowing at or near the minimum levels to avoid
take. This Idea is very new (so new
that my source didn’t want to be quoted on this topic), and still needs a lot
of research as to the viability of several aspects of this potential
option.
The Edwards Aquifer
authority has also adopted a controversial plan to increase recharge. Since 1998, they have received a permit from
TNRCC and have been paying for precipitation enhancement commonly referred to
as cloud seeding. The cost is about 4
cents an acre and it is estimated that rainfall is increased 10-20% above
normal. The total project costs are
$500,000 and it is carried out by Weather Modification, Inc. The target area is
about 6 million acres. This could
theoretically increase recharge by the same percentage as rainfall increase.
(EAA, unaudited first quarter financial statements March 2000)
To
provide water to the springs even when the level of the aquifer fell; a method
of augmentation could be implemented.
All of the initial tests on springflows suggested that springflow
augmentation was necessary to ensure the flow of the springs with another
long-term drought. According to the
Texas Water Resources Institute, there is no proposed water plan (as of 1993)
that predicted Comal Springs would flow with a repeat of the 1950s
drought. With this information, it
seems dangerous to leave the springs without a back up, when we know they will
go dry again.
Springflow augmentation is a
way to allow the water to flow from the springs, even if the aquifer levels
temporarily drop below the levels at which the springs would naturally stop
flowing. This is accomplished by
pumping water from a lower aquifer depth and placing it at or near the point of
natural springflow. In San Marcos, the
ranges in total dissolved solids were 8,800-10,500 mg/L. The specific conductivity values were
between 14,000 and 16,405 ms/cm. Thus, the characteristics of the water did
not vary significantly from well to well, nor did it vary vertically within a
particular well (Poteet, Collier, and Maclay. P.1-17). This suggests that augmentation of the San
Marcos Springs would not change the characteristics of the spring water and
therefore the artificial supplementation could provide some level of protection
for the endangered species during times of drought (McKinney and Sharp, 1995).
For New Braunfels, specific
conductance values ranged from 498 to 4,190 ms/cm (290-3,640 mg/L). The specific conductance varied from high
values at the bottom of the test wells to low values at the top. The highest values were found in the A-1 well
furthest form the fresh water zone. The
C-1 well had the lowest specific conductance values between 578 and 1,850 ms/cm.
This test well may have lower specific conductance because it is closest
to the fresh water zone (Poteet, Collier, and Maclay. P.1-17). The water quality near Comal Springs varies
both vertically and geographically and therefore may not be suitable for
springflow augmentation, but a site specific study could show otherwise.
The
results of the EUWD study also show that the specific conductance is several
orders of magnitude greater at San Marcos than near New Braunfels. This may account for differences in
springflow and show why Comal Springs went dry while San Marcos springs did
not. It also shows that San Marcos has
much higher dissolved solids. These
elevated levels of dissolved solids are not seen in the natural springflow at
San Marcos. Another difference is that the temperature at both sites varied
slightly from 25.0°C to 27.5°C, while at the springs the water
temperatures are 23.3°C at Comal Springs and 22°C at upper San Marcos (USFWS p.9). These discrepancies may suggest that the
project’s results do not directly correlate to natural springflow. The performing of these tests requires
several wells to be drilled into the aquifer so even obtaining this data may
potentially disrupt the aquifer and the nearby springs. It is a touchy topic that needs further
research before conclusive results can be drawn on a site-by-site basis.
The ability for these endangered species to live under
these man-altered conditions is evident in two ways. The first is that most of these species have been kept and bred
in captivity under totally artificial conditions. The second condition occurred in 1956 when the Comal Springs went
dry. The San Marcos Springs were still
flowing under reduced rates, but were receiving supplemental water from a
man-made water well from Spring Lake area.
This supplemental augmentation may have added just enough water to keep
these species alive and therefore their existence may already be due to a form
of springflow augmentation.
There
is another form of augmentation that has been discussed. This form of augmentation is really a form
of water recycling where water from downstream is collected and pumped back
upstream to the spring site to allow for greater flow. This method is not as good as the first
because it does change the water. The
water from the Edwards is pure, clean, pollution-free, and thermally
constant. Water recycled from
downstream has had time to warm up, collect pollutants, and collect
sediments. This recycled water may be
altered to a point, which one or more of the endangered species cannot live in
it. The problem intensifies when the
springs go dry and there is no cool spring water to feed the rivers. The river is just recirculated until the
springs return to normal. If the
springs again went dry for five months, the river water that would be
recirculated for five months would heat up in the Texas sun and become too warm
to sustain life if it had not entirely evaporated by then. The recycle method of augmentation is much
less desirable, but is included because it is still discussed in today’s
literature.
Surface
water structures could be constructed as a supplemental water source. Several of these surface water structures
have been proposed, but they have all been rejected as sources for surface
drinking water. One highly publicized
proposed structure was voted down twice.
Without getting into economics (yet), there are several inherent
problems with the proposed reservoirs.
First, surface water is exposed to evaporation losses, which can become
quite significant in hot Texas summers.
Secondly, all of the proposed surface water reservoirs are below San
Antonio where the land is fairly flat and reservoirs would be large and
shallow. There are several
environmental impacts occurring from large shallow lakes as compared to deeper
ones, including higher surface area to volume ratios, which increase
evaporation and temperature fluctuation.
The flat terrain also means that more land has to be flooded for an
equivalent amount of water. On top of being shallow and evaporating, the water
would have to be pumped up-hill to the treatment plant.
Surface
water reservoirs are not all bad however.
The bad part is that none of the good ones are being proposed. The environmental impacts of daming rivers
and evaporation losses cannot be avoided, but with proper placement, they can
be lessened. One example is Median Lake
to the Northwest of San Antonio. It is
up-hill from San Antonio, so water would not have to be pumped to a treatment
plant. It is deeper so the surface area
to volume ratio is less and therefore less evaporation. The greatest benefit is because of
placement. Some parts of Medina Lake
fall over the recharge zone and therefore have provided an extra 40,000
acre-feet of annual recharge since 1912 when it was constructed. A structure such as this is not only a
potential source for surface waters, but because of placement, it also acts as
a recharge structure and provides the equivalent of about 10% of current
aquifer water usage. In November 1999,
BMA (Bexar-Medina-Atascosa Counties Water Control and Improvement District 1)
approved a contract with Bexar Metropolitan Water District to supply 10,000
acre-feet annually from Medina Lake.
The water will be picked up downstream at a new surface water treatment
plant opened in February 2000. The
costs to Bexar Metropolitan are $ 500,000 annually, and a 5 million dollar
expansion project of Pearson Lake just below Medina. Another surface water reservoir is Canyon Lake to the North of
San Antonio. Canyon is a large
reservoir on the Guadalupe River, but it does not recharge the aquifer. San Antonio had several chances to buy significant
portions of water from the lake, but turned them down due to the higher costs
when compared to the Edwards water. Now
all Canyon Lake water is fully committed to the Guadalupe River Basin.
Water
users could buy water from other non-Edwards sources, or buy the water rights
from an Edwards user who does not use all they are allowed to use. These two methods both serve to lessen the
total amount withdrawn from the Edwards.
The first scenario would be similar to a recently proposed project reviewed
by SAWS (Express News. March 18, 2000).
San Antonio Water Systems is trying to decide if it makes sense to buy
55,000 acre-feet of water from a company East of Austin and pump it back more
than 100 miles to San Antonio. There
are three options for the project.
First is 107 miles pipeline to bring spring water from the Simsboro vein
of Carrizo Aquifer to a treatment plant to be built near downtown. The second is 137 miles of pipe that would
pick up an additional 40,000 acre-feet from a well in the Carrizo Aquifer. The final option is similar to the first,
but the pipeline would extend to small recharge dam over the recharge zone
instead of going to a treatment plant.
High cost is the main drawback of this proposed plan (Express News March
18, 2000). Others include the fact that
water is being depleted from one area to feed a growing demand in another
area. Another problem is that ALCOA
owns the lignite mine which water is pumped out of. ALCOA is one of the top polluters in the state, producing more
pollution than 1 million cars a day.
Doing business with such an environmentally destructive company
indirectly condones environmentally destructive practices.
A
similar project is to pump water out of the Guadalupe River and up-hill a short
distance to the source of a creek flowing into Medina Lake. This would keep Medina Lake full more of the
time and therefore increase annual recharge.
There is less information on this project, and the authors do not know
what opposition is to this project. A
similar project is the contract between BMA and Bexar Met as mentioned
above. It takes farmers irrigation
rights to the water, and sends the water downstream to Bexar Met users. It is similar to the trading of water rights
as discussed in the following paragraph, but involves surface water. The problem with this plan is that it will provide
surface water at the expense of water recharged by the full lake.
The
other method mentioned was the trading of water permits between Edwards
users. With governmental regulation
coming fast, Edwards users are going to be given permits for the amount of
water they can use based on several factors such as historical use and
beneficial use. Since users cannot pump
more water than they are permitted to pump from the aquifer, they can try to
purchase water from other sources, build recharge structures to get withdrawal
credits, or purchase water-pumping rights from other Edwards users who are
willing to use less water and get paid for their surplus. Under this market approach to trading water
rights, the sellers would not sell until they thought that they could get more
money for the water than they could get by using it themselves. The buyers would think along similar lines
and this would lead the water to be used by the most efficient user. Also, the market system would put a higher
price on the water that is now limited in supply. This pumping limit effectively put a cap on what had been seen as
an unlimited resource, and put an end to the “Tragedy of the commons.” This price would be a better representation
of actual value than the suppressed value under the rule of free capture. This would keep water use under the
acceptable pumping limits, allow for some users to obtain more water, and
reward those users who can get by with less water.
II. Mapping of the social processes
A.
Participants, their demands, and their base
values.
USFWS, Sierra Club, and GBRA
demand that Comal and San Marcos springs flow above the take levels at all
times. Their strategy is to sue EAA for
neglecting the ESA. Their base value is
conservation. Pumpers (municipal, industrial,
agricultural) demand adequate water for their persistence. The base value here is the desire for an
abundant supply of cheap water. Their
strategy is to defend their pumping as a right as a property owner as outlined
in the Texas State Constitution.
Currently, the EAA demands cutbacks on pumping.
The Edwards Aquifer has
reached the point where the aquifer is unable to provide for the needs of all
those dependent on it during dry years.
The aquifer can be visualized as a large bucket of water. Comal and San Marcos Springs can be
visualized as holes in the bucket towards the top of the bucket. After the water level drops below the level
of the holes in the bucket, there is still enough water in the bucket to
satisfy pumpers. However, the springs
have run dry and biodiversity is lost, and Hays and Comal counties lose out on
money earned by tourist attractions of Comal Springs and the Guadalupe River. The loss of the biodiversity and money earned
by tourism does not directly affect the pumpers.
In addition to decreased levels in springflow, another threat to endangered species survival is pollution. There are also other hazards to the endangered species that are not tied directly to the aquifer and those will be discussed later. All of the potential hazards must be addressed in order to achieve the goals of the 1996 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Ecosystem Recovery Plan.
Pollution
is a second issue of paramount importance to all the organisms that rely on
Edwards’s water. Regardless of water
quantity, it would become unusable if it were to fall below a certain quality
due to pollution. Pollution can come
from many sources including pesticide and fertilizer runoff, street runoff, gas
stations and other forms of chemical storage.
The same structures that allow this aquifer such an exceptional recharge
capacity also allow a direct conduit for pollution. Again these problems occur as a direct result of modern humans.
One of the main threats for pollution is through the development of the areas in the drainage and recharge areas. This is simple because if there were no humans above the recharge and drainage zones, there would be no real threat of pollution. In residential developments, pesticides and fertilizers are common, especially with commercial lawn care companies. It is estimated that residential developments use 5-8 times as many fertilizers and pesticides than agricultural usage does. Some suggestions to reduce run-off include vegetative buffers between developments and creeks (not on home owners lots), which would be maintained by SAWS. These possible restrictions can be avoided with the competition of a water pollution abatement plan. Water pollution abatement plans can be applied for by developers with unfriendly practices such as building subdivisions, strip malls, and golf courses. EUWD did and now the EAA reviews the documents and sends them to Texas Water Commission.
Other possible sources for pollution come from the transport of
hazardous (even nuclear) waste on roads that cross the recharge and drainage
areas, gas stations, EUWD suggests hazardous materials traps and vegetative
channels along highways to catch some of the hydrocarbons, radiator fluids, and
metal dust from brake linings.
Increased traffic increases risk of accidental spills of hazardous
materials. It also allows more access
for commercial development activities such as gas stations, parking lots, and
retail facilities. Two known cases
(1993) of leaking underground storage tanks resulted in localized contamination
of aquifer and necessitated closure of private wells. Events that would be hard to track back to the source are called
non-point source pollution and are considered to be one of the greatest threats
to our water system and the species of concern (EUWD Urban Development 1993
p.40).
Non-native
invasive species play a major role in the survival of these endangered aquatic
species. Like many terrestrial or
aquatic ecosystems around the world, the introduction of non-native species
leads to a loss of bio-diversity in these Edwards springs. Invasive species disrupt the natural balance
that evolved over thousands of years, directly compete for food resources,
alter the ecosystem directly or indirectly, or consume the native species. Some harmful species that have invaded the
springs are Tilapia, common carp, rock bass, sail fin mollies, Hydrilla,
rams-horn snails, elephant ear, and nutria (USFWS p.21).
Hydrilla verticillata is a very hardy
and extremely adaptive aquatic plant that has choked up rivers and lakes across
Texas and surrounding states. Its
aggressive growth has overgrown much of the Texas wild rice (Zizania texana) habitat. Colocasia
esculenta has invaded the shorelines and out-competed native plants. These huge elephant ear shaped leaves and
tuberous roots change the shoreline habitat and may decrease suitability for
the San Marcos Gambusia.
Marisa cornvarietis (giant rams-horn snails)
graze on aquatic plants of the rivers.
When the snail population grown too large, which often occurs when flow
rates fall, the aquatic plants are all eaten up. This reduces or eliminates the cover vital for many species,
including the fountain darter. The
snails are so harmful to the spring ecosystems that the springflow rates vary
drastically with and without snails when defining flow to avoid take of these
species. In San Marcos springs for
example, a minimum flow of 150 cfs is needed to avoid jeopardy, but if the snails
were controlled, the flow rate would fall to 60 cfs.
Myocaster coypus were imported from
South America as a living aquatic lawnmower and have successfully invaded a
number of waterways in Texas. In the
San Marcos and Comal Rivers, this common rodent often snacks on Texas wild
rice. With pressures from both plant
(hydrilla) and animal (nutria and human) sources, it is no wonder large areas
of Texas wild rice are being lost (USFWS p. 21).
There
are a number of other invasive fish that harm the endangered species. The common carp, Tilapia, and sailfin
mollies compete with fountain darter (and Gambusia?) for food and good
habitat. Other species such as the rock
bass just feed on small aquatic animals regardless of their endangered status.
One
final group of invasive species is human beings. Humans use the areas for recreational purposes, which often have
a negative impact on the ecosystem.
Just walking on the bottoms disturbs the hiding places for the animals
and the rooting medium for the Texas wild rice. Some areas have been modified for recreational activities. The shoreline may be modified into more of a
smooth beach and vegetation may be removed to make the water more
appealing. Both of these habitat
changes are harmful to the native species, while immediately beneficial to
recreation. Invasive species are not
good for these ecosystems and humans are not helping the situation.
Now for a quick look at some
of the economics of various plans. To
reduce water usage in the city, the water rate should be raised or heavily
taxed. A percentage rate increase
across the board would not be the best solution. A better solution would be a progressive price schedule. This would allow light users to keep their
low water bills, while charging higher prices per gallon to users who use more
than a certain set amount. There could
be several levels of price increase to further discourage high water use. If the water was taxed, the revenues
acquired could be used for various projects such as, a water treatment plant,
research on the endangered species, or feasibility studies of areas acceptable
for recharge structures. This would be
one way to lower consumption. Another
way would to be set regulations that only allow lawn watering on certain days.
One of the least expensive
options to get more water is through recharge structures so this section is on
recharge economics. While current value
of an acre-foot of water is assessed at about $45.00 (in 1990), the estimated
average cost of water artificially recharged by these structures over a 30-year
period would be less than $15 per acre-foot.
These figures are calculated by taking the project costs, the Parker
Creek, Verde Creek, San Geronimo Creek, and Seco Creek Dams cost a total of $
1,879,494, and spreading that amount out over a certain number of years. To stay consistent with other figures, we
will use 30 years. The average cost for
the first 30 years would be approximately 62,650 per year. If the cost per year
is divided by the amount of recharge (5127 acre-feet per year) the answer is
the cost per acre-foot of recharge.
About $12.21 per acre-foot of recharge for the Four existing recharge
structures.
The EUWD has participated in the funding of other soil
conservation service flood retardation structures. The average recharge from these structures is about 13,000
acre-feet annually (The Water Source. March 1990). Lower Verde, Hondo, Sabinal, and Frio projects each constructed
at optimum size would increase natural recharge 14% for average rainfall and 6%
during drought. The program would
provide 45,135 acre-feet a year at $142 per acre-foot ($0.44 per 1,000
gallons). Under drought conditions
9,250 acre-feet per year at $692 per acre-feet per year ($2.12 for every 1000
gallons). With Indian Creek project,
recharge increases to 23% under average and 18% in drought conditions
(1947-1956)(HDR Engineering, Inc. June 1994).
These SCS/FRS structures may at first seem expensive, but take a look at
some of the other options.
For the SAWS arrangement
with ALCOA, the water would carry a price tag of about 696 to 2,000 dollars per
acre foot on top of the pipeline investment of 300 million to 457.2 million
dollars (Express News March 18, 2000).
The transfer of Irrigation rights costs an average of $94 per acre-foot,
but does not reduce pumping or increase recharge. To purchase Medina Lake Irrigation rights for recharge
enhancement would cost $159 per acre-foot.
To divert Guadalupe River water near Comfort to the Edwards Aquifer
would cost about $ 2,079 per acre-foot.
To divert some flood flow of Canyon Lake to the recharge zone along
Cibalo Creek would cost $10,471 per acre-foot (Comprehensive Water Management
Plan p.2). Although the 30-year lease
of irrigation permits is the least expensive, it does nothing to help the
springs situation. The water market has
come about since the EAA Act put a limit on pumping limits and ended the
tragedy of the commons. Trading water
rights doesn’t decrease the total withdrawal, or increase the total amount of
water in the aquifer, therefore the next least expensive Item, recharge
Structures are the better option.
The Edwards Aquifer Authority is also spending money in
other realms not directly related to quantitative prices per acre-foot. In March 2000, according to the Unaudited
Finacial Statement, the EAA spent significant sums of money on the development
of a Habitat Conservation plan, around 2 million dollars in the first quarter
alone. They spent $50,000 to help the
Nature Conservancy purchase 3,057 acres on the Annandale Ranch in Uvalde
County. $30,722 was spent installing
meters on Edwards Aquifer Wells.
$117,025 (approximately 1 quarter of the fixed costs) associated with
the precipitation enhancement program.
Other money is spent on data collection. For example, Chemron Incorporated is getting paid 7,000 dollars
for the analysis related to a diesel spill.
All of these expenditures are important in gathering new information,
which will help conservation efforts in the future due to a larger pool of
data. The money is in the same
predicament as the water of the aquifer: There is just not enough to make
everyone happy.
The fundamental reason for
the conflicts over the aquifer lie in the different value system of the
participants. Each participant places a
different value on water, and thus a different definition of water. According to Donahue, “people endow water
with cultural meanings, which are embedded in the institutional contexts within
which people interact (Donahue, 1998).”
Therefore, water is a social construction as well as a physical
resource. The right of free capture of
the aquifer's waters suited agricultural interests. The Sierra Club envisioned water as an environment for endangered
species only if pumping were limited even though it was not clearly established
that such limits would ensure that the springs would continue flowing. Homeowner-Taxpayer Association of Bexar
County evaluated plans to manage water in terms of their financial impact on
residential rates. Other water activists
defined the aquifer as a natural resource to be managed through increased
recharge in times of abundant rainfall and increased drawdowns during times of
drought.
Hydrological estimates of
aquifer capacity tended to support the position that the scarcity was an
artifact created by political and corporate interests whose objective was
pipeline and reservoir construction at public expense. Finally, some of the political elite
characterized those who promoted management of the aquifer through augmentation
as "radicals" who would "mine the aquifer" and jeopardize
future growth and development in the city.
Meanwhile the elected
Edwards Aquifer Authority is at work drafting plans to manage the aquifer that
include licensing of all pumping from the aquifer and provision of compensation
to some farmers in the western counties for not irrigating during the coming
season. Since governments in democratic
societies ultimately have the responsibility of protection of the commons the
state will be a major actor in managing such scarce resources as water. Bureaucratic control becomes, then one
cultural definition of water. A
solution to the issue of water management depends upon the ability of all major
participants to debate the different definitions of water held by the
participants and the construction of a common definition of water to be held by
all participants.
Management
of endangered species in the Edwards Aquifer will continue to be complicated
far into the future. There are so many
interested parties, many of whom have money and political clout, that there is
no simple answer. Thousands of people
have spent millions of hours addressing this issue, and no one answer has
emerged. Rather, it has become apparent
that continual dialogue and compromise will be necessary to manage the precious
resource of the Edwards Aquifer.
Compromise will result from the interested parties realizing that
everyone has a common vested interest in the conservation of the Edwards Aquifer.
There is promise for the
future. The most direct and effective
approach is to conserve water. If we
pull less water out of the Aquifer, the springs will be less likely to stop
flowing. Beyond strict conservation of
water, we have discussed many water management possibilities to manage for the
endangered species. Adding water to the
Aquifer, possible through recharge dams, or even augmentation, are possibly
feasible options, which will be debated far into the feature. The Edwards Aquifer Authority is currently
drafting a Habitat Conservation Plan, which will provide more structure in the
conservation effort over the recharge zone.
Historically, water rights have been approached in a very
anthropocentric fashion, only giving consideration to the water needs of the
human population of San Antonio and surrounding areas. However, a fundamental philosophical change
is necessary; every organism has a fundamental right to a place on the
planet. It is self-serving to act
otherwise.
Bibliography
Bock, Leslie. The
Story of Drinking Water. American Water Works Association, Denver. 1990.
Donahue, J.M. 1998 “Water Wars in South Texas: Managing the Edwards Aquifer.” Water, Culture, and Power: Local Struggles in a Global Context. Island Press: Washington D.C
Eckhardt, G. A. 2000. The Edwards Aquifer Home Page. www.edwardsaquifer.net.
Edwards Aquifer Authority. 1996. The Edwards Aquifer: A Texas Treasure. San Antonio, TX.
Edwards Aquifer Authority
Act, 1999 Texas General Laws (as found on http://www.e-aquifer.com/SALLY/STATUTE.html)
Edwards Underground Water District. Water Resources of the Edwards Aquifer Region. San Antonio, TX.
Edwards Underground Water
District. Water Resources of the Edwards
Aquifer Region Map. No Date.
Edwards Underground Water
District. Xeriscape, Water Conservation
Through Creative Landscaping.
Edwards Underground Water
District. Records of Ground Water
Recharge, Discharge, Water Levels, and Chemical Quality of Water for Edwards
Aquifer in the San Antonio Area, Texas, 1934-1982. Bulletin 42, March 1985.
Edwards Underground Water
District. The Water Source, a Quarterly
Publication of Edwards Underground Water District. March 1990.
Edwards Underground Water District.
Pamphlet, Edwards Underground Water
District, 1992.
Edwards Underground Water
District. Urban Development on Edwards
Aquifer Recharge Zone. Prepared by Planning and Environmental Management
Division. August 1993.
Edwards Underground Water
District. Annual Report, 1993-1994.
Fambrough, J. Who
Owns Groundwater? Tierra Grande,
April 2000.
HDR Engineering, Inc. Recharge Enhancement Study Guadalupe-San
Antonio River Basin. Volume II
Technical Report. EUWD, 1993.
HDR Engineering, Inc. Edwards Aquifer recharge enhancement project
phase IVA. Nueces River Basin. EUWD,
June 1994.
Http://www.e-aquifer.com/weathermod/factsheet.html
Illgner, Rick. Comprehensive Water Management Plan
General Managers Report. EAA 2000.
McKinney, Daene C., and
Sharp, John M. Springflow Augmentation of
Comal springs and San Marcos Springs, Texas: Phase I. Center for Research
in water Resources, Technical Report CRWR 247. Austin, 1995.
Meffe, G.K, and Carrol, C.R.,
eds. 1997. Principles of Conservation Biology. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates.
Needham, J. “Water-use restrictions looming.” San Antonio Express New. 4/27/00.
Poteet, Collier, and Maclay. Investigation of the Fresh/Saline-Water Interface
in the Edwards Aquifer In New Braunfels and San Marcos, Texas. EUWD Report, 1992.
San Antonio Express-News, SAWS Mulling its Options, Saturday March
18, 2000.
San Antonio
Express-News. Subdivision OK’d for Comal Springs Ranch. March 25-2000.
San Antonio Water
System. Watersaver Landscape Rebate Planning Guide. 1998.
Texas Administrative Code.
Title 31, chapter 711 on groundwater withdrawal.
Texas Senate Bill 1477, bill
number TX73RSB 1477. (5/31/1993)
Thomas, Sabine F. Division of Earth and Physical
Sciences. The University of Texas San
Antonio. Texas 78249-00663.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. San Marcos/Comal (Revised) Recovery Plan. Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Votteler, T. 1998. The little fish that roared: the Endangered Species Act, state groundwater law, and private property rights collide over the Texas Edwards Aquifer. Environmental Law.