In
California they have a saying: “Water flows uphill to money.” Around the turn
of the century, Los Angeles began buying up land in the Owens Valley east of
the Sierra Nevada and transporting water 233 miles south by aqueduct. Farms in the
Owens Valley dried up, while much of the imported water went to develop suburbs
in the San Fernando Valley north of L.A., where some of the city leaders
happened to own real estate. It was the beginning of a gargantuan network of
reservoirs, canals, aqueducts, and pipelines that now transfer water from the
thinly populated northern third of the state to the thirsty metropolitan areas
and farms of the south. Now Texas has begun a plan to emulate California; it’s
called the Trans-Texas Water Program.
The Trans-Texas Water Program is the brainchild of the Texas Water
Development Board (TWDB), which was created by constitutional amendment in 1957
to provide loans to low-income communities with water problems. In recent
years, the Legislature has broadly expanded the TWDB’s powers. The six-member
board, appointed by the governor, now controls three funds that provide
low-interest loans to all political subdivisions and non-profit water supply
corporations (including Municipal Utility Districts) for a wide range of water
supply, wastewater, and flood control projects. The board is authorized to
issue an unlimited amount of state-guaranteed bonds to fund eligible
projects.
Texas is divided into several river basins, and in the past, attempts to
transfer water from one basin to another have always aroused suspicion or
hostility in the basin-of-origin. That there is a potential for water transfers
to create wealth for the well placed is a fact which has not been lost on Texas
leaders. The TWDB now has the power to operate a Texas Water Bank to “encourage
marketing of water and/or water rights” between river authorities in one basin
and municipal users in another.
That there is also a potential for such a system to wreak havoc on the
environment is something that those leaders might choose to ignore. In 1991,
the Legislature removed the requirement that the TWDB consider the 50-year
water needs of a basin-of-origin before planning for interbasin transfers of
surface water.
Water and Growth
One of the TWDB’s most important powers is its authority to forecast wherepopulation increases will occur statewide and to plan for water supply to meet
the projected demands. The Trans-Texas Water Program is the outgrowth of two
major factors: the TWDB’s projections that state population will double in the
next 50 years, primarily in existing urban areas, and the increasing necessity
to convert from groundwater to surface water use in Texas.
In 1974, groundwater — primarily, water from aquifers and wells —
accounted for 75% of Texas’ water use. Since then, the state’s groundwater
reserves have declined and its usage has dropped 20%, but groundwater still
accounts for more than half of the water used statewide. Reasons for
groundwater decline include years of “mining” which has depleted
aquifers faster than rainfall can replenish them, sometimes causing
encroachment of poorer quality water as well; contamination of aquifers from
oil well drilling, leaking underground gasoline storage tanks, industrial
wastes, urban run-off, and farm chemical run-off; and withdrawal of irrigated
acreage by policy changes in the Federal Department of Agriculture. Aquifer
mining has dried up many of Texas’ springs. It has also caused land subsidence,
particularly in the Houston-Galveston area, which is increasingly in danger of
flooding from hurricanes and heavy rainfall.
The TWDB’s projections of a doubling of state population by 2045 are based on
existing trend assumptions that growth will take place primarily in urban areas
that lack sufficient water to meet future needs. That would mean that surface
water from reservoirs would have to be transported from other parts of the
state in order to fuel continued growth.
The Trans-Texas program identifies four metropolitan areas where population
growth demand is projected to soon exceed water supply: Houston, where land
subsidence prohibits continued reliance on groundwater; San Antonio, which is
totally dependent on the endangered Edwards Aquifer for its water; Corpus
Christi; and Austin. In this part of the state, surrounding communities are now
eyeing Austin’s water supply, to the consternation of the fast-growing city.
The TWDB is just completing Phase I of Trans-Texas, a study of available
supply, projected needs, and potential new sources of water for the four
metropolitan areas and the Hill Country. Phase II, which should take another
18-24 months, will select the most attractive alternatives from among the new
water sources identified in Phase I, evaluate them for cost, and make final
recommendations.
In Phase I, interbasin transfer of Colorado River water from the Highland
Lakes was listed as a potential solution for water shortages for San Antonio,
Williamson County, and the Hill Country. (Also, a pipeline transfer of water
from the lower Colorado River near the Gulf was identified as a likely new
source for Corpus Christi, and as a possible source for San Antonio.) Concerns
along the Highland Lakes about the possibility of a San Antonio pipeline
prompted State Representative Susan Combs (R-Austin) to introduce two bills in
the legislature that would have tightened rules on interbasin transfers. Both,
however, died in committee because of stiff opposition.
The Colorado River: Austin’s Water Source
The real battle over the Highland Lakes water is likely to erupt here inAustin. Almost all of Austin’s current water consumption of 120,000 acre-feet
per year is surface water from the Colorado River. (One acre-foot = 325,851
gallons.) The city has a firm commitment from the Lower Colorado River
Authority (LCRA) for up to 250,000 acre-feet per year, and in fact pays nothing
for its water consumption up to 150,000 acre-feet per year.
While Austin seems well-positioned to meet water needs with its access to the
Colorado River, forecasts of explosive growth predict that demand will exceed
current dependable supply by 2021. In addition, two-thirds of the metropolitan
area growth is slated to take place in relatively water-poor Williamson and
Hays counties, both of which are outside the Colorado River Basin. (Hays is in
the Guadalupe River basin; Williamson, where half the metro growth will occur,
is in the Brazos.) Bastrop County, another area projected to boom as part of
Austin’s metropolitan growth, currently depends on groundwater and may require
surface water from the Colorado by 2000.
Williamson County
According to Herb Grubb, the engineer who prepared the Phase I study of Austinfor the Trans-Texas program, the factors driving Williamson County growth are
greater availability of land for industry, lower taxes and housing costs, and
easier environmental regulations. “One of the things that people are failing to
put into the equation,” says Grubb, “is that that area is not well endowed with
water resources, and they are going to have to pay a lot to get water brought
either from the south or from the north.”
In fact, though Williamson County derives some surface water from Lake
Georgetown, it is still quite dependent on groundwater from the northern
portion of the Edwards Aquifer. Georgetown gets 60% of its water from the
aquifer, Round Rock 40%, and Leander 100%. Unfortunately, the Edwards Aquifer
in Williamson County is shallow and particularly vulnerable to drought and
contamination. Last summer’s drought underlined the area’s vulnerability as
wells dried up, sending municipalities and MUDs scrambling to make new water
deals.
In spite of last summer’s chaotic situation, Williamson County has contracts
that should provide water for immediate growth. While countywide water use is
projected to jump from 1990’s 24,000 acre-feet per year to 64,000 acre-feet by
2010, Round Rock and Georgetown have a commitment for 22,000 acre-feet per year
from Stillhouse Hollow Lake near Killeen, pending construction of a 33-mile
pipeline from it to Lake Georgetown. But this won’t suffice for the county’s
long-term growth plans, which means that Williamson developers and officials
will likely cast covetous glances at the Highland Lakes.
There are several ways that Williamson County might access Colorado River
water. One would be direct interbasin transfer. The LCRA has 50,000 acre-feet
per year of uncommitted dependable yield that it is willing to sell, and
Trans-Texas might relax the rules, smoothing the path for the LCRA to make
interbasin transfers. Cedar Park — which is in the Brazos River Basin though
it sits barely five miles from Lake Travis — already depends heavily on Lake
Travis water and might become the conduit from the Colorado Basin to other
parts of the county. Cedar Park has a pipeline to Lake Travis built with a
temporary interbasin transfer permit from the Texas Water Commission, good
until 2014. And they are near completion of a larger pipeline to Lake Travis
that will allow the town to better access the annual 7,000 acre-feet of water
permitted under its contract with the LCRA. Under new rules coming from the
Trans-Texas program, Cedar Park might be allowed to purchase more water from
the LCRA to sell to other Williamson County municipalities and MUDs.
Another means of access would be through the City of Austin. Much of
Williamson County’s growth corridor is in Austin’s extraterritorial
jurisdiction (ETJ), the five-mile-wide area surrounding the city limits. Water
supplied by Austin to this area would not be considered interbasin transfer
because it is treated in the Colorado Basin, and thus returns to there. But
this would mean development under Austin’s stricter regulations.
On April 27, Austin announced that Round Rock would build a pipeline that
would allow the town to purchase 5.5 million gallons of water per day (or 6,000
acre-feet a year) from Austin for the next three years. According to Round Rock
Public Works Director Jim Nuse, the Austin interconnect will allow Round Rock
to put off building the $20 million pipeline to Stillhouse Hollow until 2007,
thereby saving Round Rock from paying interest on premature excess capacity.
Nuse envisions the entire metropolitan area being interconnected by a grid of
pipelines allowing all municipalities to back up each other’s water supplies
during droughts.
At this point, Austin has nothing to lose by selling its excess water
capacity, and Round Rock is a natural partner (unlike Cedar Park, whose
legislator engaged in a bit of Austin-bashing this session). A three-year deal
with Round Rock won’t put the city in any danger of hitting its limits, and the
extra cash, of course, makes it worthwhile.
Hill Country
If last summer’s drought exposed Williamson County’s vulnerability togroundwater dependence, it revealed the Hill Country in northern Hays and
southwestern Travis County to be a potential basket case. Due to declining well
levels, the Barton Springs-Edwards Aquifer Conservation District declared a
drought alarm last June 25, placing pumping limits on its 91 permit holders,
including 42 public water suppliers with 32,000 customers. Drillers stayed busy
lowering water pumps in private wells (which have no pumping restrictions),
chasing the declining water levels.
In spite of this region’s dependence on scarce groundwater, population is
increasing rapidly, from 30,000 in 1985 to an estimated 116,000 by 2000. A 1992
TWDB report attributes the population boom to an expanding commuter labor force
and a growing retirement population, and predicts that the annual sustainable
groundwater yield of 46,000 acre-feet in a nine-county Hill Country area west
of Austin will be exceeded by 2010.
So far, development has occurred on only about 4% of the 155 square mile
Barton Springs Recharge Zone. Future development increases the odds that water
quality in the Barton Springs portion of the Edwards Aquifer will decline
because of urban run-off. Engineers warn that in dry periods, a lowered level
in the aquifer could make it vulnerable to infiltration of poor quality water
from the Trinity formations, or that Barton Springs could dry up.
Hays County
Hays County is entirely dependent on groundwater. About 90% of its water comesfrom the southern part of the Edwards Aquifer, which is extremely vulnerable to
declining levels caused by pumping from the booming population of San Antonio.
Much of Hays County still uses septic tanks for waste disposal, and a 1986
engineering study warns that they are a major concern as a source of
contamination for the aquifer. Even so, demographers predict Hays County will
double in population in the next 20 years — mostly due to Austin commuters —
and surface water sources will have to meet this growth demand. And though the
prime growth area is almost entirely in the Guadalupe River Basin, it too is
eyeing the Colorado.
A study of new water sources for Hays is under way, but a study funded by the
TWDB in 1986 has already identified 15 alternatives, most of them heavily
dependent on piping water from Canyon Lake to the south and/or from Lake Travis
to the north. One option would supply the entire county with Lake Travis water,
while another would feed only the northern half. Another alternative calls for
construction of a reservoir on Onion Creek near Dripping Springs, to supply
Hill Country development until 2015, at which time a pipeline would be built to
the reservoir to supply additional water from Lake Travis.
Things may look bleak for those who depend on the Edwards Aquifer for their
water (not to mention for Barton Springs swimmers), but they have it made in
comparison with folks with wells in parts of the Trinity Aquifer. Test wells in
the Middle Trinity near Dripping Springs declined 108 feet from 1975 to 1986.
Engineers predict that as the Middle Trinity further declines, lower quality
water will leak downward from the Upper Trinity, which is increasingly polluted
by nitrates from human and cattle waste. The situation got so bad for many
people living along FM 1826 and US 290, that, in a foreshadowing of things to
come, the TWDB rode to the rescue. Two years ago the TWDB provided a $4.5
million loan to bankroll the construction of 50 miles of pipeline to pump City
of Austin water to the area under the auspices of the Hill Country Water Supply
Corporation. The system has signed up 1,500 households, but has still been
losing $22,000 a month, and the Austin City Council was recently advised to
expand the service to “protect the investment.” The city once again finds
itself in the position of encouraging growth in the Barton Creek watershed to
try to improve the return on infrastructure.
Conclusion
The competition for Colorado River water could pit Austin against surroundingMUDs and municipalities, but a likelier scenario is that the battle will take
place within the Austin city limits, between those who see Austin’s access to
water as a tool to direct compact growth, and those who favor the Edge City
pattern of sprawl into neighboring counties that they believe necessary to
attract high tech industry. The latter, under the banner of “regional
cooperation,” will likely advocate subsidizing infrastructure and wholesaling
water to outlying areas to fuel local growth and keep San Antonio from
“stealing our water.”
While the Trans-Texas Water Program has focused most of its attention so far
on Houston, San Antonio, Corpus Christi, and Austin, other areas of the state
have their own schemes. There is talk of sending Oklahoma water to Dallas, and
of piping water to the Rio Grande Valley from East Texas. While the TWDB
studies ways to change state laws that currently restrict what the agency calls
“the market-oriented approach” to water transfers, critics warn of the dangers
of tying water to politics and real estate money.
It may be praiseworthy for the TWDB to supply enough surface water to wean
Texans away from further depletion of our groundwater, but the agency’s goals
go far beyond that: They want to provide enough surface water to fuel a
doubling of the state’s population. The massive manipulation of state
ecosystems required to achieve this goal is fraught with hazards, which include
maintaining enough river flow to protect water quality, fish, and wildlife both
in the rivers and in the estuaries of the Gulf of Mexico, minimizing impacts on
ecosystems from pipelines, canals or aqueducts, and pitting water-rich areas
against water-poor areas, as well as rural farming communities against cities.
Can the same attitude of control over nature that squandered groundwater and
brought us to our current predicament be trusted to lead us out of it with
grandiose dam and pipeline schemes?
Environmentalists say that water transfers will encourage growth in areas like
the Hill Country, where population is rapidly exceeding environmental capacity,
and will promote more suburban sprawl in Texas’ already sprawling cities. In
response to criticism that growth should occur only where water is readily
available, the TWDB replies that other factors besides water availability
determine growth — factors such as transportation and other infrastructure,
trade corridors and skilled labor force. While this may be true, the TWDB never
questions the central assumption that economic and population growth are
universal benefits to be vigorously pursued. But in a state where water is
precious, our leaders might consider concentrating more on protecting existing
water resources and less on developing new resources for unlimited economic
expansion.
This article appears in June 2 • 1995 and June 2 • 1995 (Cover).