Return to TFB Main Page
Return to Current Edition
Texas Agriculture Archive

March 21, 2003

Second of three parts

By Lana Robinson
Field Editor

It's a fact. Texas is increasing its water consumption faster than any other state, which has put farmers, industries, cities and suburbs in competition for this valuable, liquid asset. By 2050, Texas water planners say the state's population will spring to 40 million people, almost double the population at the turn of this century. Municipal water use is expected to rise by nearly 67 percent during that period, while Texas' supply of water from existing sources will shrink by 19 percent.

Speaking at the Texas Farm Bureau Leadership Conference in Austin, Feb. 4, State Rep. Robert Puente (D-San Antonio), said, "With current dependable water supplies meeting only 72 percent of the projected water demand by 2050, and now even instream flows competing for those limited supplies, an important part of narrowing the gap between projected supply and demand is conservation. SB 2 requires regional plans to include conservation and drought management measures in their plans. However, conservation has always been somewhat of a local issue in terms of finance and organization. I feel this session is the time to push statewide conservation measures that will ensure every community does their part to reduce water demand."

Puente suggests that conservation must be viewed as a viable long-term supply option, the same as any other supply project.

"In San Antonio, we have made the commitment to true conservation efforts and have seen identifiable results—namely, one of the lowest per capita usages in the state. This session, we must look at ways of making our conservation efforts as effective and efficient as possible statewide," he said.

San Antonio gets its water from the Edwards Aquifer, the primary source of water for Central Texas. It stretches for over 8,000 square miles only 500 feet below the surface and supplies over 1.3 million people with high-quality drinking water. By implementing water saving programs, including plumbing fixture retrofits, water saver landscapes, along with other incentives and educational programs, personal water use in the Alamo City dropped from 212 in 1984 to 147 gallons per day per person in 2001. By comparison, water usage in most Texas cities is over 200 gallons per day per person.

Dry northwest Texas depends on the waning Ogallala Aquifer for water. Fifty years ago, the Ogallala, which spans eight states, stood 95 feet below the surface in the Panhandle. Today, it stands at 335 feet, with only a 65-foot reserve. Farmers in the region have done their share to conserve by installing high-efficiency center-pivot sprinklers, designed to eliminate losses to evaporation. But, after years of conserving groundwater, many now worry that whatever savings they have achieved will only be lost to competition from the state's fast-growing population centers, which are occupied by the voting majority.

In the Rio Grande Valley, Texans are faced with yet another water competitor—Mexico. In 1996 and subsequent years, much-needed water was taken from farmers and ranchers in this drought-prone region of the state for the agricultural needs south of the Border.

Mexico's 1.5 million acre feet water debt to the United States has caused an estimated $1 billion loss to the Lower Rio Grande Valley economy during the past 10 years, according to a Texas A&M University study.

In late January, Mexico agreed to deliver 350,000 acre feet of water to the Rio Grande by Sept. 30, 2003 and an additional 50,000 acre feet if weather conditions permit, with 200,000 to have been paid by the end of January. However, LRGV producers said they needed a minimum of 600,000 acre feet at the beginning of the year. Also, the repayment amounts did not take into account conveyance and evaporative losses.

Combs and other Texas officials have contended that Mexico can afford to pay more water because it has almost 3.2 million acre feet of water in storage in border-area reservoirs.

"The agreed payment is only 23 percent of the 1.5 million acre feet owed by Mexico, and amounts to only 11 percent of the water Mexico has in storage and could deliver to our struggling farmers," Combs said.

According to statistics compiled by the Texas Agricultural Statistics Service, cotton and grain production in the Rio Grande Valley declined in 2002 largely due to Mexico's failure to deliver the required water. Grain sorghum production was down 29 percent, while cotton production dropped 40 percent.

There was no corn acreage planted in the Valley in 2002. Most of the corn in the Valley is irrigated, and in 2001 producers planted 54,000 acres.

Rio Grande Valley citrus production also dropped significantly in both 2001 and 2002 because of the lack of irrigation water.

Moreover, Mexico's "watered down" treaty is costing all Americans. In January, TDA distributed 1,862 federal agricultural assistance fund checks to farmers in the Rio Grande Valley who applied for and were certified to receive a portion of $10 million in aid approved for the 2001 crop year.

Farmers in Cameron, Hidalgo, Kinney, Maverick, Starr, Val Verde, Webb, Willacy and Zapata counties were asked to apply for the federal aid if they had acreage that was eligible for water allocations for agricultural use in the Rio Grande Water- master system through irrigation water rights either individually or through a water irrigation district during the 2001 crop year.

Rural Texans not only feel they may be unfairly required to sacrifice groundwater for their urban counterparts, but in some instances, may be forced to give up their homes and farms for the building of surface water projects that benefit the big cities.

Case in point: rural landowners are currently embroiled in a battle with the City of Dallas over the $1.7 billion Marvin Nichols reservoir proposed along the Sulphur River in Northeast Texas.

Opponents, including the Texas Farm Bureau, environmentalists and loggers, are making the same point as Rep. Puente. They argue that the urban areas of North Texas—the highest per capita water users in the state—should implement water conservation measures in their own backyards to meet water needs rather than damming a distant river at the expense of rural landowners. The reservoir itself would cover about 72,000 acres of river, bottomland and timber—some of the best hardwood in the region. Environmental mitigation would require adjacent landowners to give up an additional 200,000 acres. A grassroots effort has been organized to stop the project, pitting regional planning groups against one another. Even if the reservoir is built, Dallas can't count on any water before 2030.

According to Billy Howe, Texas Farm Bureau state legislative director, Texas is one of the more pro-active states when it comes to water and conservation planning. However, six to eight other states already tie conservation planning to real reporting triggers and enforcement vehicles, such as water rights permits, wastewater discharge permits, or loans and grants.

"Texas lacks any workable linkage between the numerical data (per capita usage) and the conservation plans. There is also a breakdown in the process from the design of the conservation plan to actual accountability or implementation of the plan," Howe noted.

Texas Farm Bureau supports the establishment by the Texas Legislature of water conservation goals, and a requirement to meet those goals, for municipalities and water utilities. The organization also believes water-guzzling municipalities should use their current resources wisely before pursuing other water development projects that will negatively impact the environment, agriculture and rural Texas (i.e. reservoirs and mining groundwater resources).

But Puente, who served on the Legislature's Joint Committee on Water Resources during the interim between sessions, warned that conservation can only go so far.

"While conservation is imperative, it won't do the trick alone. In order to develop and maintain an adequate water supply, our communities must have access to sufficient financing for the capital costs associated with new water supply projects," Puente said. "According to the TWDB's recent Infrastructure Financing Report, there is $18 billion in key water management strategies and projects needed to meet Texas' water supply needs through 2050. While local governments, regional authorities, and other political subdivisions will play an important role in paying for these projects, they cannot do it alone. Consequently, the Report recommends that the state broaden its current role in providing funding. Despite the expected budget shortfall, we must continue to look at funding mechanisms because as we all know, if we can't implement our supply projects or reach our conservation goals, we can't meet our water needs."

The current legislative session is awash with water legislation. One significant bill, backed by Texas Farm Bureau, is HB 803 by Rep. Charlie Geren (R-Fort Worth), which would protect landowners from the condemnation of surface water rights. The final segment of this series plunges into other water-related legislation and matters, including water marketing.