This document discusses the challenges of decentralized groundwater governance in Texas and proposes regionalization as an alternative approach. It outlines the evolution of groundwater conservation districts (GCDs) in Texas from their creation in 1949 to present day. While local control has benefits, the current system of single-county GCDs faces issues like hydrologic disconnects, insufficient funding, and conflicting regulations. The document examines regional groundwater management approaches in other states and proposes two options for Texas - consolidating GCDs into larger Groundwater Management Authorities or establishing Groundwater Management Area Councils to better coordinate planning across hydrogeological regions.

1. Regionalization:
An Alternative for Coordinated
Groundwater Management
John T. Dupnik, P.G.
TAGD Quarterly Meeting
October 31, 2012
S

2. Outline
Evolution of GCDs
Challenges of Decentralized GW Governance
Regionalization in Texas
Policy Options

3. Evolution of GCDs
1904 - Houston and Texas Central Railroad Co. v. East
1917 – Art. 16, Sec.59, the Conservation Amendment
S Natural Resource Conservation – a public right and
duty
1934 - TBWE Reports to Legislature
S Called for declaring groundwater as waters of state
1937, 1941, 1947:
S Bills filed in each session to place water under state
control
S

4. Evolution of GCDs
Quotes of High Plainsmen during public meetings:
“This proposition [of creating a water district] should be met with
30-30's [rifles] and its sponsors not only driven back to the City of
Austin, but on south across the San Jacinto battlefield and into the
Gulf of Mexico where they can get their fill of water."
“You can say you prefer local control to state control or federal
control. I don’t' want any control by anybody but the landowner.
That's like asking who you'd rather be hanged by. I don't want to
be hanged.”
“All the water under my land belongs to me… nobody can tell me
how to use it…If my neighbor wants to drill wells right next to
me, that’s all right with me. If the wells go dry, we will all run out
together. I don't intend to live in a country full of Hitlerism laws."
“I favor no control, but if we must have it, let be local.” S

5. Evolution of GCDs
GCD Act of 1949
S Political compromise
S Modeled after WCIDs
S GCD creation within
designated reservoirs
S Counties could opt out
S GW is private property
S Departure from SW

6. Evolution of GCDs
1997 – Senate Bill 1
S GCDs – “Preferred” method of GW
management
S Interbasin SW transfers limited
S GCDs may limit exports
1999 – Sipriano v Great Spring Waters of
America
S GW management is legislative duty under
Conservation Amendment
1999 – 76th Legislative Session
S 30 GCDs, 13 created (SB 1911)
S

7. GCD Creation Dates
100
80
Number of GCDs
60
40
20
0
S

8. S

9. Decentralization
S Why Local Control?
S Private property rights
S Aversion to
centralization
S Local autonomy
S Why Single County GCDs?
S Reaction to Sipriano
S Prevent rural to urban
Transport
S Influence of county
governments
S Administrative
convenience
S “Path dependency”

10. Benefits of Local
Control
S “One size does not fit all”
S Allows “collective choice
arrangements”
S Administrative
convenience
S Local familiarity and
expertise

11. Outline
Evolution of GCDs
Challenges of Decentralized GW Governance
Regionalization in Texas
Policy Options

12. Challenges: Importance of Fit
Hydrologic Disconnects

13. Challenges: Insufficient Area
Funding
$1.00
$0.5
$/$100 Property Valuation
$0.10
$0.01
$0.002
$0.00
N = 45
GCD Tax Rates

14. Challenges:
Insufficient Area
S Lack economies-of-scale
S Affects Institutional
Resilience
S Myopic Local Politics
S Conflict of interest
S Self-regulation
S Dominant ideology
S Conflicting Regulations

15. Alternatives to Decentralization
Centralization (State Agency):
S Pros:
S Uniform and equitable regulation
S Funding and resources
S Antidote to “decentralized dysfunction”
S Cons
S Limited user input
S Less adaptable to variable conditions
S Limited local expertise
S

16. Alternatives to Decentralization
Regionalization (Policy Proposal):
Definition: A scale of groundwater management
designed to be:
S congruent with hydro-geographical boundaries
S scaled to minimize hydrologic disconnects
S provide sufficient funds, authority, and resources
S equitably accommodate all affected actors
S Advantages of both centralized and decentralized
S

17. Outline
Evolution of GCDs
Challenges of Decentralized GW Governance
Regionalization in Texas
Policy Options

18. Regionalization in
Texas
1949 – GCD Act
S Coterminous GCDs
1995 - HB 2294
S “GMAs”
S “most suitable for gw
management”
S Boundaries coincide with aquifers
1997 – SB 1
S Basin-oriented regional water
planning
S Stakeholders as members
2000 – HNRC Interim Charges
S County-based GCDs ineffective
S Joint management needed

19. Regionalization in
Texas
2001 - SB 2
S GMAs created by TWDB
S Voluntary joint planning
2005 – SB 3 (failed)
S GMACs
S Coordinate joint planning
S Approve mgmt. plans
S Provide funding/tech. support
2005 – HB 1763
S DFC/MAGS
S Weakened version of SB 3

20. Regionalization in
Texas
2011 - SB 660
S More inclusive and transparent
S Increased process complexity
S More GCD responsibilities
2012 – SNRC Interim Charges
Remaining Challenges:
S Inadequate representation
S “Geographic areas” allow
county-based planning
S Unfunded mandates
S TWDB support unavailable
S Set up to fail??

21. Outline
Evolution of GCDs
Challenges of Decentralized GW Governance
Regionalization in Texas
Policy Options

22. Regional Models:
Nebraska
Natural Resource Districts
(NDRs)
S Replaced smaller districts
S Basin-oriented
boundaries
S “Reservoir life”
management goals
S Multi-purpose authority
S Conjunctive sw/gw
management

23. Regional Models:
Arizona
Active Management Areas
(AMAs)
S Subdivisions based on gw
basins
S Safe-yield management
goals
S 100-year “assured water
supply”
S Governor-appointed
advisory councils
S State funding

24. Regional Models: Texas
River Authorities
S Mission similar to GCDs
S Basin-oriented boundaries
S No taxing authority
S Mature governance model
Brazos River Authority
S Est. 1929
S 65 counties (1/6 of state)
S Self-funded

25. Regional Models: Edwards
Aquifer Authority
S Expanded and replaced
the EUWD
S Aquifer-oriented
boundaries
S Self-funded by fees
S Board and Advisory
Committee
S Conjunctive sw/gw
management

26. Policy Criteria:
S Hydro-geographical
Boundaries (AZ, NB, RA, EAA)
S Sufficient Areal Extent (AZ, NB, RA, EAA)
S Funding (EAA, RA)
S Politically Feasible (GCD)
S Representation (AZ,EAA,GCD)
S Authority (EAA)
S Conjunctive Use (EAA, NB)
S Sustainability Goals (EAA, AZ, NB)
S Regulatory Flexibility (AZ, EAA, GCD)
S

27. Groundwater
Management Authorities
S Consolidate GCDs into GM
Authorities
S Autonomous agencies
S Unified regulations
S Authority:
S Custom rules
S Subdivisions for sub-basins
S State-agency level
enforcement
S Funding:
S Fees only
S Governing Body:
S Appointed with loc.
gov/stakeholder members
S Elected with advisory body
S Planning:
S Existing planning framework

28. Scorecard: GM Authorities
Criteria S PS US
Hydro-geographical
Boundaries
X
Sufficient Areal
X
Extent
Funding X
Politically Feasible X
Representation X
Authority X
Conjunctive Use X
Sustainability Goals X
Regulatory
X
Flexibility

29. GMA Councils
GCDs (managers)
S Funding: Both fees and taxes
S Authority: EAA
GMACs (planners)
S Authority
S Subdivisions for sub-basins
S Adopt DFCs
S Approve GCD MPs
S Annual GCD reviews
S Funding/Tech support:
S TWDB
S Governing Body:
S GCDs
S RWPGs
S Stakeholders

30. Scorecard: GMACs
Criteria S PS US
Hydro-geographical X
Boundaries
Sufficient Areal X
Extent
Funding X
Politically Feasible X
Representation X
Authority X
Conjunctive Use X
Sustainability Goals X
Regulatory X
Flexibility

31. Conclusions
S Texas has committed to a decentralized system of groundwater
management via GCDs
S Projected demands, diminishing supplies, and extreme drought compel
reform of groundwater management system
S The GCD system is imperfect and state control is not a viable alternative
S Regionalization offers benefits of both centralized and decentralized
governance.
S However, true reform would require either:
S a new regional planning entity and increased funding and resources
for GCDs; or
S replacement of GCDs with regional authorities

32. Questions?
S