DFC's Demystified and GMA Status Update, Bill Hutchison

transcript

DFCs Demystified and

GMA Status Update

Bill Hutchison, Ph.D., P.E., P.G.

Independent Groundwater Consultant

August 29, 2012

Topics

• What are DFCs and GMAs?

• Groundwater Management in Texas

• Initial Round of Joint Planning• Initial Round of Joint Planning

• Updated Joint Planning Process

Acronyms

• GMA = Groundwater Management Area

• GAM = Groundwater Availability Model

• GCD = Groundwater Conservation District• GCD = Groundwater Conservation District

• DFC = Desired Future Condition

• MAG = Modeled Available Groundwater

Groundwater Management in Texas

• 1904 – Rule of Capture

– Pumping a well and drying up a neighbors well results in no liability

• 1949 – Groundwater Conservation Districts• 1949 – Groundwater Conservation Districts

– Can limit, modify or discard Rule of Capture

• 1997 – SB 1

– Groundwater Conservation districts are the preferred method of groundwater management

Groundwater Management in Texas

• 2001 – Groundwater Management Areas

– Part of SB 2

• 2005 – Joint Planning• 2005 – Joint Planning

– HB 1763

Groundwater Conservation

Districts

• Local management of groundwater resources

• Preferred method of groundwater

managementmanagement

• Can limit, modify or discard the Rule of

Capture

• Currently – 99 districts

Groundwater Management Areas

• SB 2 (2001)

– TWDB designated 16 GMAs

– Groundwater Conservation Districts (GCD) share – Groundwater Conservation Districts (GCD) share

management plans

– Voluntary joint planning (if a GCD called for it)

Groundwater

Management

Areas (GMAs)

Ogallala

GMA 1 & 2

Pecos Valley

Hueco &

Mesilla

Bolsons

Seymour

Edwards-

Trinity

Plateau

GMA 7 (3,4,9)

Trinity

GMA 8, 9, 10

Edwards

GMA 10 & 8

Carrizo-

Wilcox

GMA 11, 12,

Gulf Coast

GMA 14, 15,

19 Minor

Aquifers

HB 1763 (2005)

• Regionalized groundwater planning

• Required annual review of management

plans and accomplishmentsplans and accomplishments

• Required joint planning

Joint Planning

• GCDs within a GMA were required to

establish desired future conditions (DFC) by

September 1, 2010September 1, 2010

• Each GCD has one vote

2110 5

Groundwater

Conservation

Districts in

Each GMA

Joint Planning

• Desired Future Condition (DFC)

– Adopted by Groundwater Conservation

Districts (GCD) within a Groundwater Districts (GCD) within a Groundwater

Management Area (GMA)

• Modeled Available Groundwater (MAG)

– Calculated by Texas Water Development Board

– Pumping that will achieve a DFC

Desired Future Condition (DFC)

• Quantified conditions of groundwater resources

• Specified time or times in the future• Specified time or times in the future

• Broad Policy Goal

– Drawdown

– Spring flow

– Storage volumes

• Updated at least every 5 years

Modeled Available Groundwater

• TWDB calculates based on DFC

– Models

– Water budget calculations– Water budget calculations

– District provided data and information

• Included in GCD Management Plans

• One factor in permitting decisions

• Replaces “Groundwater Availability” in

Regional Water Plans

Before HB 1763

• Groundwater Availability

– Groundwater Conservation Districts

– Regional Water Planning Groups– Regional Water Planning Groups

• Groundwater Availability Models

– Tools to assist in developing estimates of

groundwater availability

After HB 1763

• Groundwater Availability

– Desired Future Condition (DFC)

– Modeled Available Groundwater (MAG)– Modeled Available Groundwater (MAG)

• Groundwater Availability Models

– Contribute to estimating MAG from DFC

Groundwater

Availability = DFC + MAG

Policy + ScienceGroundwater

Availability=

Groundwater

Availability = DFC + MAG

Model Runs

• Simulations of changes in:

– Groundwater pumping and/or

– Drought conditions– Drought conditions

• Output examples:

– Drawdown

– Spring Flows

– Storage Volumes

Model Runs

– Drought conditions– Drought conditions

– Drawdown

– Spring Flows

– Storage Volumes

Model Runs

– Drought conditions MAG– Drought conditions

– Drawdown

– Spring Flows

– Storage Volumes

Role of Models

• Models will always be constrained by

computational limitations, assumptions, and

knowledge gapsknowledge gaps

• They can best be viewed as tools to help

inform decisions rather than as machines to

generate truth or make decisions

Role of Models

• Models will always be constrained by

computational limitations, assumptions, and

knowledge gapsknowledge gaps

• They can best be viewed as tools to help

inform decisions rather than as machines to

generate truth or make decisions

Role of Models

• Scientific advances will never make it

possible to build a perfect model that

accounts for every aspect of reality or to accounts for every aspect of reality or to

prove that a given model is correct in all

respects for a particular regulatory

application

Takeaways

• Groundwater management is more than just science

• Model results are not data• Model results are not data

• Model results should be used by decision-makers to understand range of conditions

Desired Future Conditions

• Deadline to adopt initial DFCs was September 1, 2010

• 74 DFCs adopted• 74 DFCs adopted

– First = December 17, 2007

– Last = August 30, 2010

Adopted

9N/A 9

Summary of DFCs

Petition Process

• Appeal the reasonableness of a DFC to TWDB

• Who can file?

– Person with a legally defined interest in – Person with a legally defined interest in

groundwater in the GMA

– GCD in or adjacent to the GMA

– RWPG in the GMA

Petitions Filed

(2009 to 2011)

12 Petitions

• Part of one petition was withdrawn prior to

TWDB meeting after GMA 9 modified

DFCDFC

• One petition was withdrawn prior to TWDB

meeting (GMA 11)

12 Petitions

• TWDB found 10 DFCs to be “reasonable”

• TWDB found 1 DFC to be “unreasonable”

– GMA 9 adopted a DFC that was neither the – GMA 9 adopted a DFC that was neither the

TWDB recommendation nor the original DFC

Updated DFC Process

• 2011 Legislative Session (SB 660)

• TWDB Rules

– Preliminary Draft (Comments due on August – Preliminary Draft (Comments due on August

31, 2012)

– Draft Rules (September 2012)

– Final Rules (December 2012)

• No statutory changes to the TWDB petition

process

Updated DFC Process

• Consider 9 specific factors

• “Proposed” DFC

• Public comments and public hearings• Public comments and public hearings

• District summary reports

• “Final” DFC

• “Explanatory Report”

Nine Factors

1. Aquifer uses or conditions within the

management area, including conditions

that differ substantially from one that differ substantially from one

geographic area to another

2. The water supply needs and water

management strategies included in the

state water plan

Nine Factors

3. Hydrological conditions, including for

each aquifer in the management area the

• total estimated recoverable storage as • total estimated recoverable storage as

provided by the executive administrator,

• average annual recharge, inflows, and

discharge

Nine Factors

3. Hydrological conditions, including for

each aquifer in the management area the

• total estimated recoverable storage as • total estimated recoverable storage as

provided by the executive administrator,

• average annual recharge, inflows, and

discharge

Only Data/Information that is Provided by TWDB

Nine Factors

4. Other environmental impacts, including

impacts on spring flow and other

interactions between groundwater and

surface watersurface water

5. The impact on subsidence

6. Socioeconomic impacts reasonably

expected to occur

Nine Factors

7. The impact on the interests and rights in

private property, including ownership and

the rights of management area landowners the rights of management area landowners

and their lessees and assigns in

groundwater as recognized under Section

36.002

Nine Factors

8. The feasibility of achieving the desired

future condition

9. Any other information relevant to the 9. Any other information relevant to the

specific desired future conditions

In Addition….

• The desired future conditions proposed must

provide a balance between the highest

practicable level of groundwater production and practicable level of groundwater production and

the conservation, preservation, protection,

recharging, and prevention of waste of

groundwater and control of subsidence in the

management area.

In Addition….

management area.

In Addition….

practicable level of groundwater productionpracticable level of groundwater production

and the conservation, preservation, protection,

management area.

In Addition….

management area.

Nine Factors and Proposed DFC

• Statute requires that these nine factors (and

the “balancing”) be considered prior to

voting on a “proposed” DFCvoting on a “proposed” DFC

– (i.e. prior to any of the public hearings at the

each of the Districts)

Observation

• GMA must consider the nine factors prior to adopting a “proposed” DFC

• The final “explanatory” report requires documentation of these factorsdocumentation of these factors

• Although not required in statute, a “preliminary” explanatory report would useful prior to adoption of the “proposed” DFC

Recommendation

• Develop sections of “explanatory” report as

part of process

• Technical memoranda circulated ahead of • Technical memoranda circulated ahead of

each GMA meeting

Five Requirements of

Explanatory Report

1. Identify each desired future condition

2. Provide the policy and technical 2. Provide the policy and technical justifications for each desired future condition

Explanatory Report

3. Include documentation that the nine factors listed above were considered by the districts and a discussion of how the adopted desired future conditions impact adopted desired future conditions impact each factor

4. List other desired future condition options considered, if any, and the reasons why those options were not adopted

Explanatory Report

5. Discuss reasons why recommendations made by advisory committees and relevant public comments received by the districts were or were not incorporated into the were or were not incorporated into the desired future conditions.

Timing

• “Not later than September 1, 2010, and every

five years thereafter, the districts shall consider

groundwater availability models and other data

or information for the management area and or information for the management area and

shall propose for adoption desired future

conditions for the relevant aquifers within the

management area”

Timing

• “Not later than September 1, 2010, and every

five years thereafter, the districts shall consider

groundwater availability models and other data

or information for the management area and or information for the management area and

shall propose for adoption desired future

conditions for the relevant aquifers within the

management area”

“Every Five Years”

• TWDB interpretation = five years from

adoption

• GMA 13 adopted DFCs on April 9, 2010

• “Proposed” DFC deadline = April 9, 2015

Updated DFC Process

• “Final” DFC

Updated DFC Process

• “Final” DFC

Updated DFC Process

• Public comments and public hearings

Before 4/9/2015

• “Final” DFC

Updated DFC Process

Before 4/9/2015

• “Final” DFC

After 4/9/2015

Proposed General Approach

• Late 2012 to early 2013

– Monitoring data (Task 0)

• Early 2013 to late 2014• Early 2013 to late 2014

– Technical memoranda covering “nine factors”

and “balancing”

– “Draft” explanatory report

Proposed General Approach

• Early 2015

– Vote on “Proposed” DFC

• After “proposed” DFC• After “proposed” DFC

– Public comment/hearings/summary reports

Questions?

Bill Hutchison

512-745-0599512-745-0599

billhutch@texasgw.com

DFC's Demystified and GMA Status Update, Bill Hutchison

Technology