Editorial: Crucial choices face voters in EAA races

Web Posted: 10/14/2006 12:00 PM CDT (San Antonio Express-News)

Four contested Edwards Aquifer Authority races are as important for the San Antonio region as any elections on the Nov. 7 ballot.

Aquifer issues are likely to dominate San Antonio-related action in next year's legislative session.

The EAA is headed for major crossroads. Under state law, the aquifer pumping cap is scheduled to drop in 2008, but many area officials believe it must be increased.

Some want the EAA to exercise its power to regulate impervious cover over the aquifer recharge zone; others fear that conservative lawmakers who place a priority on private property rights would strip the agency of any power to regulate water quality if the EAA is too aggressive.

Balancing regional interests, protection of the aquifer and growth is a challenge, but one that must be successfully met to ensure the region's economic viability.

The EAA board is on the front line in the struggle to meet this challenge.

In Bexar County's EAA District 1, Carol Patterson is facing two opponents.

Patterson has studied water issues for decades and was a member of the old Edwards Underground Water District board. Her independence is unquestioned, and she views water issues entirely through her own paradigm, which makes her a noteworthy voice in complex debates.

Return to top of page

Comment: SAWS switches direction to keep its future afloat

Web Posted: 08/18/2005 12:00 AM CDT (San Antonio Express-News)

Carol Patterson

The 2006 draft 50-year Regional Water Plan identifies projects whose estimated yield is more than 800,000 acre-feet — about double the projected demand of 416,000 acre-feet in a drought of record.

San Antonio Water System ratepayers would have been expected to incur a quarter-billion dollars of capital, operation and maintenance costs per year, starting now and rising to more than $379 million in 2010, for pursuing double the necessary supply.

San Antonio would have had the highest water rates in Texas beginning in 2008.

Region L planners make clear in their plan that excess water was included because some projects might be dropped.

After five years of feasibility analysis since the first regional plan, SAWS staff behaved responsibly to compare its future water supply alternatives and to recommend dropping both the Simsboro and Lower Guadalupe projects that have high cost and the highest risk of supplying no water.

A Regional Planning Group report presented Aug. 3 shows there is still enough water in the SAWS staff's updated plan for SAWS to meet expected demand as determined by Region L, even with Region L's higher per capita consumption figures and different drought assumptions, and even if SAWS were to act as a regional wholesaler for an area that exceeds its present service area.

At the Aug. 3 meeting, it became clear that Region L had added some additional projects assuming Edwards Aquifer pumping would be reduced from the agreed-upon and adopted 340,000 acre-feet planning number by an additional 120,000 acre-feet to protect springflows.

But the statute of the Edwards Aquifer Authority provides that alternative management strategies, which include recharge and recirculation, may be substituted for pumping reductions to protect springflows.

Since cutting pumping does not result in a one-for-one benefit for springflow, the ability to substitute management strategies for pumping reductions is extremely important.

An evaluation done for EAA on its critical period rules showed that restricting pumping in drought by 100,000 acre-feet resulted in 32-35 cubic feet per second at the springs — about 25 percent of the amount of the pumping reduction.

In drought, 32 cfs flow at the springs would not even reach Seguin, much less Victoria.

Multiple evaluations for Trans Texas in 1998 show springs can be maintained cost-effectively in the drought of record with recirculation of a portion of the potential sources of recharge.

Again in 2005, a study for EAA on the new Edwards model showed Comal Springs could be kept from going dry in a drought of record with some recharge projects and the 340,000 acre-feet pumping limit originally adopted by Region L.

It is important for Region L to add these management strategies allowed in the Edwards statute to its plan so they may be eligible for state water permits.

It takes years to amend the plan, and the 2012 deadline for the EAA to assure continuous minimum springflow is not far away.

Evaluations and projects to maintain springflows must be completed before the next five-year regional plan is developed.

Our neighbors include those whose groundwater was threatened by the Lower Guadalupe project and those whose surface water was expected to be transferred to San Antonio if interbasin transfer law was changed.

It is time to change to a new paradigm of management that is more efficient, more environmentally friendly, affordable and that maintains high quality water in San Antonio.

This would be friendly to our neighbors — without drawing down their groundwater or pumping surface water long distances uphill.

Return to top of page

Web Posted: 12/06/2004 12:00 AM CST (San Antonio Express-News)

Carol Patterson

Seeking stakeholder agreement for an Edwards Aquifer Authority habitat conservation plan, as advocated in an Express-News editorial on Nov. 27, is an excellent idea ("EAA's habitat plan needs more discussion").

Those who are affected should hammer out a well-defined option that is effective in protecting species, springs, water supply and the public pocketbook. We can't just offer the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service a potpourri of expensive measures that don't work by our own admission, and then ask the agency to tell us how to solve the problem.

It is also important to compare options. Recharge and recirculation to provide continuous spring flows have been evaluated twice in the past. Initial comparisons can be made within months, not years.

Alternative 3, the "preferred option," in the proposed Edwards Aquifer Habitat Conservation Plan, allows for dry springs 6 percent of the time. Since the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cannot issue a permit for an action that would result in jeopardy to a species, there is dubious benefit in offering a plan that won't keep species alive in their habitat in drought.

Alternative 3 requires many expensive measures, including severe pumping reductions that will be difficult to attain; $9.44 million for an off-site refuge for species, monitoring and biological studies; and undetermined millions for specific actions, such as precipitation enhancement and a costly version of recharge that does not guarantee maintenance of spring flow.

The environmental impact section outlines costs for Alternative 3 that include a buydown of rights costing as much as $514 million.

Alternative 3 then has unlimited liability for adaptive management. After offering intermittent dry springs, it sets up a process by which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Texas Parks & Wildlife determine appropriate management responses to deal with droughts, floods, disease and other species-related catastrophes, and "the measures developed will be implemented."

Recharge and recirculation need to be taken seriously as a possible solution with regional benefits. Two prior versions, modeled for Trans Texas and Region L, showed that recharge and recirculation could provide spring flows in the driest month of the drought of record at a reasonable cost and with dependable added water supply.

If these results are confirmed in the evaluation under way for EAA, recharge and recirculation should replace many expensive, ineffective measures, not just serve as a possible add-on in adaptive management. A promising first phase of the study was presented to the EAA board in September. The second phase is due in mid-April.

Building a demonstration recirculation project to verify spring-flow effects would be a good idea. This could likely be done faster than the downstream, out-of-basin, water projects whose costs are very high, whose water is only temporary and whose environmental effects, possibly affecting whooping cranes, are also a subject of study and concern.

A pilot recirculation project designed specifically to support spring flow, species and enhanced dependable water supply would be a good candidate for federal matching dollars instead of just putting it on the backs of local ratepayers.

We need an effective plan, whose obligations are clearly spelled out and not open-ended and whose benefits are regional.

It comes down to a simple proposition: Why even pursue Alternative 3 with a version of recharge that the model says doesn't work to guarantee spring flow? Why not pursue recharge and recirculation? A small delay might save us hundreds of millions and give us a regional plan that works.

Return to top of page

Web Posted: 04/15/2004 12:00 AM CDT  (San Antonio Express-News)

San Antonio Express-News

The Edwards Aquifer Authority board wisely has launched a study of the controversial theory of recharge and recirculation as an alternative method of providing access to more water for the region.

The procedure involves pumping water into the aquifer at strategic locations to increase spring flows during periods of drought. Water potentially could be transported from regions of the aquifer far from the springs or brought in from other sources.

EAA board member Carol Patterson has long promoted the plan as a method to avoid spending huge sums of money on large water projects for this area.

Nobody knows whether recharge and recirculation will work. But the EAA can't afford to ignore any possibility as it strives to protect the crucial underground water resource while using as much of it as is reasonable.

The two-year, $330,000 study will be conducted in four phases.

San Antonio Water System lawyer Steve Kosub urged the board to pursue the study now because his agency already is spending millions of dollars on projects to bring additional water into the city.

As time passes and the projects move toward completion, it will be more difficult to divert funds toward recharge and recirculation efforts if the concept is shown to be viable.

The region's growing population will require more water in the future. Officials must stay focused on the search for more water and the effort to manage the aquifer for its utmost potential.

The recharge and recirculation study will be worthwhile regardless of its findings because it will answer important questions.

Return to top of page

Web Posted: 04/23/2005 12:00 AM CDT   (San Antonio Express-News)

Carol Patterson

Cities that depend directly on the Edwards Aquifer lose half their historic water use during drought under existing Edwards Aquifer Authority legislation and rules. Article 5 of Senate Bill 3 specifies major additional reductions for Edwards users.

Such a proposal would do serious damage to the pumping region and have very little benefit downstream. It needs revision. We need a bill that is fair, regional, cost-effective and preserves springflow in a way that optimizes water resources.

Present law takes pumping in the Edwards Aquifer region down to 340,000 acre-feet per year in drought. Committee Amendment No. 80 to SB 3 specifies further reductions during drought to 320,000 acre-feet per year in 2012 and 288,000 acre-feet per year in 2020 during proposed new Stage IV reductions.

The effect would be to add an additional billion-dollar water replacement project.

While taking away more than 50,000 additional acre-feet from the pumping region in the depth of drought (about a third of the amount the San Antonio Water System pumps in an average year), it does not provide one-for-one benefits downstsream.

Computer simulations evaluating EAA critical period rules showed that 100,000 acre-feet of drought reduction to the pumping region would produce only 25,000 acre-feet at Comal Springs. The effect 150 river miles downstream is much less. This is unacceptable.

A Senate committee amendment would raise the cap on pumping to the total of minimum permits vested by the 1993 statute, about 570,000 acre-feet per year. This is a good amendment that would prevent an expensive buydown of vested rights — it would cost more than $200 million to make them go away — and eliminate the $50 million downstream contribution.

It could also assist Edwards recharge, while leaving downstream interests in surplus.

A Senate committee amendment would modify troubling additional pumping restrictions proposed for wet years. This also is a good amendment.

Pumping reductions in years of above-average rainfall would only add to the 50-year downstream surplus identified by the Region L Planning Group in the official Texas Water Plan. This water could have a valuable benefit in a regional solution.

Past evaluation for Region L and Trans Texas has shown that floodwaters, if managed, stored and recirculated in the Edwards Aquifer through recharge projects, could benefit pumpers and ensure springflow in drought at a reasonable cost.

The unused portions of regular permits during wet years could be a valuable source of water for recharge projects as well, which could be constructed in western counties where water is retained in the aquifer longer.

The flexibility to solve our regional problems cooperatively and cost-effectively by managing floodwaters for recharge should be preserved by the 79th Legislature and not hindered by prescriptive additional reductions.

Research on recharge systems is in progress at the EAA, evaluating how recharge enhancement and existing drought restrictions might be combined to the best advantage of all who depend on the Edwards Aquifer.

SB 3, Article 5, would also create additional appointed advisory committees. These are additional bureaucracies with instructions to focus on aquifer restrictions.

The more we restrict the size of the pie by reducing pumping and ignoring floodwater harvesting for recharge, the more fighting is inevitable. Increasing the pie by harvesting floods as well as managing droughts would be much more productive.

It's time to back the evaluation and comparison of our most promising productive alternatives that create a win-win for both the pumping region and the downstream region, not to foreclose options.

Return to top of page

Return to Links page