1. DFCs Demystified and
GMA Status Update
Bill Hutchison, Ph.D., P.E., P.G.
Independent Groundwater Consultant
August 29, 2012

2. Topics
• What are DFCs and GMAs?
• Groundwater Management in Texas
• Initial Round of Joint Planning
• Updated Joint Planning Process

3. Acronyms
• GMA = Groundwater Management Area
• GAM = Groundwater Availability Model
• GCD = Groundwater Conservation District
• DFC = Desired Future Condition
• MAG = Modeled Available Groundwater

4. 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
– Can limit, modify or discard Rule of Capture
• 1997 – SB 1
– Groundwater Conservation districts are the
preferred method of groundwater management

5. Groundwater Management in Texas
• 2001 – Groundwater Management Areas
– Part of SB 2
• 2005 – Joint Planning
– HB 1763

6. Groundwater Conservation
Districts
• Local management of groundwater resources
• Preferred method of groundwater
management
• Can limit, modify or discard the Rule of
Capture
• Currently – 99 districts

10. Groundwater Management Areas
• SB 2 (2001)
– TWDB designated 16 GMAs
– Groundwater Conservation Districts (GCD) share
management plans
– Voluntary joint planning (if a GCD called for it)

11. 1
2 6
8 11
3 7
5 12
4 9 14
Groundwater 15
10 13
Management 16
Areas (GMAs)

12. Ogallala
GMA 1 & 2

13. Pecos Valley
GMA 3

14. Hueco &
Mesilla
Bolsons
GMA 5

15. Seymour
GMA 6

16. Edwards-
Trinity
Plateau
GMA 7 (3,4,9)

17. Trinity
GMA 8, 9, 10

18. Edwards
GMA 10 & 8

19. Carrizo-
Wilcox
GMA 11, 12,
13

20. Gulf Coast
GMA 14, 15,
16

21. 19 Minor
Aquifers

22. HB 1763 (2005)
• Regionalized groundwater planning
• Required annual review of management
plans and accomplishments
• Required joint planning

23. Joint Planning
• GCDs within a GMA were required to
establish desired future conditions (DFC) by
September 1, 2010
• Each GCD has one vote

24. 4
7 5
10 5
1 21
0 5 5
9 6
Groundwater 9 14
8
Conservation
Districts in 9
Each GMA

25. Joint Planning
• Desired Future Condition (DFC)
– Adopted by Groundwater Conservation
Districts (GCD) within a Groundwater
Management Area (GMA)
• Modeled Available Groundwater (MAG)
– Calculated by Texas Water Development Board
– Pumping that will achieve a DFC

26. Desired Future Condition (DFC)
• Quantified conditions of groundwater
resources
• Specified time or times in the future
• Broad Policy Goal
– Drawdown
– Spring flow
– Storage volumes
• Updated at least every 5 years

27. Modeled Available Groundwater
(MAG)
• TWDB calculates based on DFC
– Models
– 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

28. Before HB 1763
• Groundwater Availability
– Groundwater Conservation Districts
– Regional Water Planning Groups
• Groundwater Availability Models
– Tools to assist in developing estimates of
groundwater availability

29. After HB 1763
• Groundwater Availability
– Desired Future Condition (DFC)
– Modeled Available Groundwater (MAG)
• Groundwater Availability Models
– Contribute to estimating MAG from DFC

30. Groundwater
Availability = DFC + MAG

31. Groundwater
= Policy + Science
Availability
Groundwater
Availability = DFC + MAG

32. Model Runs
• Simulations of changes in:
– Groundwater pumping and/or
– Drought conditions
• Output examples:
– Drawdown
– Spring Flows
– Storage Volumes

33. Model Runs
• Simulations of changes in:
– Groundwater pumping and/or
– Drought conditions
• Output examples:
– Drawdown
– Spring Flows DFC
– Storage Volumes

34. Model Runs
• Simulations of changes in:
– Groundwater pumping and/or
– Drought conditions MAG
• Output examples:
– Drawdown
– Spring Flows
– Storage Volumes

35. Role of Models
• Models will always be constrained by
computational limitations, assumptions, and
knowledge gaps
• They can best be viewed as tools to help
inform decisions rather than as machines to
generate truth or make decisions

36. Role of Models
• Models will always be constrained by
computational limitations, assumptions, and
knowledge gaps
• They can best be viewed as tools to help
inform decisions rather than as machines to
generate truth or make decisions

37. Role of Models
• Scientific advances will never make it
possible to build a perfect model that
accounts for every aspect of reality or to
prove that a given model is correct in all
respects for a particular regulatory
application

38. Takeaways
• Groundwater management is more than just
science
• Model results are not data
• Model results should be used by decision-
makers to understand range of conditions

39. Desired Future Conditions
• Deadline to adopt initial DFCs was
September 1, 2010
• 74 DFCs adopted
– First = December 17, 2007
– Last = August 30, 2010

40. DFCs 3
Adopted
2 4
9 1
4 9
N/A 5
9 5 10
1
9 3
1

43. Summary of DFCs

44. Summary of DFCs

45. Petition Process
• Appeal the reasonableness of a DFC to TWDB
• Who can file?
– Person with a legally defined interest in
groundwater in the GMA
– GCD in or adjacent to the GMA
– RWPG in the GMA

46. Petitions Filed 2
(2009 to 2011)
1
1 2
3
1 2

47. 12 Petitions
• Part of one petition was withdrawn prior to
TWDB meeting after GMA 9 modified
DFC
• One petition was withdrawn prior to TWDB
meeting (GMA 11)

48. 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
TWDB recommendation nor the original DFC

49. Updated DFC Process
• 2011 Legislative Session (SB 660)
• TWDB Rules
– Preliminary Draft (Comments due on August
31, 2012)
– Draft Rules (September 2012)
– Final Rules (December 2012)
• No statutory changes to the TWDB petition
process

50. Updated DFC Process
• Consider 9 specific factors
• “Proposed” DFC
• Public comments and public hearings
• District summary reports
• “Final” DFC
• “Explanatory Report”

51. Nine Factors
1. Aquifer uses or conditions within the
management area, including conditions
that differ substantially from one
geographic area to another
2. The water supply needs and water
management strategies included in the
state water plan

52. Nine Factors
3. Hydrological conditions, including for
each aquifer in the management area the
• total estimated recoverable storage as
provided by the executive administrator,
• average annual recharge, inflows, and
discharge

53. Nine Factors
3. Hydrological conditions, including for
each aquifer in the management area the
• total estimated recoverable storage as
provided by the executive administrator,
• average annual recharge, inflows, and
discharge
Only Data/Information that is Provided by TWDB

54. Nine Factors
4. Other environmental impacts, including
impacts on spring flow and other
interactions between groundwater and
surface water
5. The impact on subsidence
6. Socioeconomic impacts reasonably
expected to occur

55. Nine Factors
7. The impact on the interests and rights in
private property, including ownership and
the rights of management area landowners
and their lessees and assigns in
groundwater as recognized under Section
36.002

56. Nine Factors
8. The feasibility of achieving the desired
future condition
9. Any other information relevant to the
specific desired future conditions

57. In Addition….
• The desired future conditions proposed must
provide a balance between the highest
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.

58. In Addition….
• The desired future conditions proposed must
provide a balance between the highest
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.

59. In Addition….
• The desired future conditions proposed must
provide a balance between the highest
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.

60. In Addition….
• The desired future conditions proposed must
provide a balance between the highest
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.

61. Nine Factors and Proposed DFC
• Statute requires that these nine factors (and
the “balancing”) be considered prior to
voting on a “proposed” DFC
– (i.e. prior to any of the public hearings at the
each of the Districts)

62. Observation
• GMA must consider the nine factors prior to
adopting a “proposed” DFC
• The final “explanatory” report requires
documentation of these factors
• Although not required in statute, a
“preliminary” explanatory report would
useful prior to adoption of the “proposed”
DFC

63. Recommendation
• Develop sections of “explanatory” report as
part of process
• Technical memoranda circulated ahead of
each GMA meeting

64. Five Requirements of
Explanatory Report
1. Identify each desired future condition
2. Provide the policy and technical
justifications for each desired future
condition

65. 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
each factor
4. List other desired future condition options
considered, if any, and the reasons why
those options were not adopted

66. 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
desired future conditions.

67. 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
shall propose for adoption desired future
conditions for the relevant aquifers within the
management area”

68. 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
shall propose for adoption desired future
conditions for the relevant aquifers within the
management area”

69. “Every Five Years”
• TWDB interpretation = five years from
adoption
• GMA 13 adopted DFCs on April 9, 2010
• “Proposed” DFC deadline = April 9, 2015

70. Updated DFC Process
• Consider 9 specific factors
• “Proposed” DFC
• Public comments and public hearings
• District summary reports
• “Final” DFC
• “Explanatory Report”

71. Updated DFC Process
• Consider 9 specific factors
• “Proposed” DFC
• Public comments and public hearings
• District summary reports
• “Final” DFC
• “Explanatory Report”

72. Updated DFC Process
Before 4/9/2015
• Consider 9 specific factors
• “Proposed” DFC
• Public comments and public hearings
• District summary reports
• “Final” DFC
• “Explanatory Report”

73. Updated DFC Process
Before 4/9/2015
• Consider 9 specific factors
• “Proposed” DFC
• Public comments and public hearings
• District summary reports
• “Final” DFC After 4/9/2015
• “Explanatory Report”

74. Proposed General Approach
• Late 2012 to early 2013
– Monitoring data (Task 0)
• Early 2013 to late 2014
– Technical memoranda covering “nine factors”
and “balancing”
– “Draft” explanatory report

75. Proposed General Approach
• Early 2015
– Vote on “Proposed” DFC
• After “proposed” DFC
– Public comment/hearings/summary reports

76. Questions?
Bill Hutchison
512-745-0599
billhutch@texasgw.com