76
DFCs Demystified and GMA Status Update Bill Hutchison, Ph.D., P.E., P.G. Independent Groundwater Consultant August 29, 2012
| Date post: | 20-May-2015 |
| Category: |
Technology |
| Upload: | txgroundwatersummit |
| View: | 359 times |
| Download: | 0 times |
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)
1
2
35
6
7
8 11
Groundwater
Management
Areas (GMAs)
3
45 7
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
Ogallala
GMA 1 & 2
Pecos Valley
GMA 3
Hueco &
Mesilla
Bolsons
GMA 5
Seymour
GMA 6
Edwards-
Trinity
Plateau
GMA 7 (3,4,9)
Trinity
GMA 8, 9, 10
Edwards
GMA 10 & 8
Carrizo-
Wilcox
GMA 11, 12,
13
Gulf Coast
GMA 14, 15,
16
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
4
7
10
5
2110 5
51
50 21
9
8
5
9
6
14
9
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
(MAG)
• 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
• Simulations of changes in:
– Groundwater pumping and/or
– Drought conditions– Drought conditions
• Output examples:
– Drawdown
– Spring Flows
– Storage Volumes
DFC
Model Runs
• Simulations of changes in:
– Groundwater pumping and/or
– Drought conditions MAG– Drought conditions
• Output examples:
– Drawdown
– Spring Flows
– Storage Volumes
MAG
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
3
2
4N/A
4
9
9 1
DFCs
Adopted
4
9N/A 9
5
9
5
3
10
1
1
Summary of DFCs
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
2
1
1
Petitions Filed
(2009 to 2011)
1
3
1
2
2
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….
• 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….
• The desired future conditions proposed must
provide a balance between the highest
practicable level of groundwater productionpracticable 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….
• 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.
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
Five Requirements of
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
Five Requirements of
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
• Consider 9 specific factors
• “Proposed” DFC
• Public comments and public hearings• Public comments and public hearings
• District summary reports
• “Final” DFC
• “Explanatory Report”
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”
Updated DFC Process
• Consider 9 specific factors
• “Proposed” DFC
• Public comments and public hearings
Before 4/9/2015
• Public comments and public hearings
• District summary reports
• “Final” DFC
• “Explanatory Report”
Updated DFC Process
• Consider 9 specific factors
• “Proposed” DFC
• Public comments and public hearings
Before 4/9/2015
• Public comments and public hearings
• District summary reports
• “Final” DFC
• “Explanatory Report”
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
