Upload
txtagd
View
326
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
S
Regionalization: An Alternative for Coordinated
Groundwater Management
John T. Dupnik, P.G.
TAGD Quarterly MeetingOctober 31, 2012
Outline
Evolution of GCDs
Challenges of Decentralized GW Governance
Regionalization in Texas
Policy Options
S
Evolution of GCDs1904 - Houston and Texas Central Railroad Co. v. East
1917 – Art. 16, Sec.59, the Conservation Amendment Natural Resource Conservation – a public right and
duty
1934 - TBWE Reports to Legislature Called for declaring groundwater as waters of state
1937, 1941, 1947: Bills filed in each session to place water under state
control
S
Evolution of GCDsQuotes 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.”
Evolution of GCDsGCD Act of 1949
Political compromise
Modeled after WCIDs
GCD creation within designated reservoirs
Counties could opt out
GW is private property
Departure from SW
S
Evolution of GCDs1997 – Senate Bill 1 GCDs – “Preferred” method of GW management Interbasin SW transfers limited GCDs may limit exports
1999 – Sipriano v Great Spring Waters of America GW management is legislative duty under
Conservation Amendment
1999 – 76th Legislative Session 30 GCDs, 13 created (SB 1911)
S1/1/1
951
1/1/1
955
1/1/1
959
1/1/1
963
1/1/1
967
1/1/1
971
1/1/1
975
1/1/1
979
1/1/1
983
1/1/1
987
1/1/1
991
1/1/1
995
1/1/1
999
1/1/2
003
1/1/2
007
1/1/2
0110
20
40
60
80
100GCD Creation Dates
Num
ber o
f GCD
s
S
Decentralization Why Local Control?
Private property rights Aversion to
centralization Local autonomy
Why Single County GCDs? Reaction to Sipriano Prevent rural to urban
Transport Influence of county
governments Administrative
convenience “Path dependency”
Benefits of Local Control “One size does not fit all”
Allows “collective choice arrangements”
Administrative convenience
Local familiarity and expertise
Outline
Evolution of GCDs
Challenges of Decentralized GW Governance
Regionalization in Texas
Policy Options
Challenges: Importance of FitHydrologic Disconnects
$0.00
$0.01
$0.10
GCD Tax Rates
$/$1
00 P
rope
rty
Valu
ation
N = 45
$0.5
$0.002
Challenges: Insufficient AreaFunding
Challenges: Insufficient Area Lack economies-of-scale
Affects Institutional Resilience
Myopic Local Politics Conflict of interest Self-regulation Dominant ideology
Conflicting Regulations
S
Alternatives to Decentralization
Centralization (State Agency):
Pros: Uniform and equitable regulation Funding and resources Antidote to “decentralized dysfunction”
Cons Limited user input Less adaptable to variable conditions Limited local expertise
S
Regionalization (Policy Proposal):
Definition: A scale of groundwater management designed to be: congruent with hydro-geographical boundaries scaled to minimize hydrologic disconnects provide sufficient funds, authority, and resources equitably accommodate all affected actors
Advantages of both centralized and decentralized
Alternatives to Decentralization
Outline
Evolution of GCDs
Challenges of Decentralized GW Governance
Regionalization in Texas
Policy Options
Regionalization in Texas1949 – GCD Act Coterminous GCDs
1995 - HB 2294 “GMAs” “most suitable for gw management” Boundaries coincide with aquifers
1997 – SB 1 Basin-oriented regional water
planning Stakeholders as members
2000 – HNRC Interim Charges County-based GCDs ineffective Joint management needed
Regionalization in Texas2001 - SB 2 GMAs created by TWDB Voluntary joint planning
2005 – SB 3 (failed) GMACs Coordinate joint planning Approve mgmt. plans Provide funding/tech. support
2005 – HB 1763 DFC/MAGS Weakened version of SB 3
Regionalization in Texas2011 - SB 660 More inclusive and transparent Increased process complexity More GCD responsibilities
2012 – SNRC Interim Charges
Remaining Challenges: Inadequate representation “Geographic areas” allow county-
based planning Unfunded mandates TWDB support unavailable Set up to fail??
Outline
Evolution of GCDs
Challenges of Decentralized GW Governance
Regionalization in Texas
Policy Options
Regional Models: Nebraska
Natural Resource Districts (NDRs) Replaced smaller districts Basin-oriented
boundaries “Reservoir life”
management goals Multi-purpose authority Conjunctive sw/gw
management
Regional Models: Arizona
Active Management Areas (AMAs) Subdivisions based on gw
basins Safe-yield management
goals 100-year “assured water
supply” Governor-appointed
advisory councils State funding
Mission similar to GCDs Basin-oriented boundaries No taxing authority Mature governance model
Brazos River Authority Est. 1929 65 counties (1/6 of state) Self-funded
Regional Models: Texas River Authorities
Regional Models: Edwards Aquifer Authority
Expanded and replaced the EUWD
Aquifer-oriented boundaries
Self-funded by fees Board and Advisory
Committee Conjunctive sw/gw
management
S
Policy Criteria: Hydro-geographical
Boundaries (AZ, NB, RA, EAA) Sufficient Areal Extent (AZ, NB, RA, EAA) Funding (EAA, RA) Politically Feasible (GCD) Representation (AZ,EAA,GCD) Authority (EAA) Conjunctive Use (EAA, NB) Sustainability Goals (EAA, AZ, NB) Regulatory Flexibility (AZ, EAA, GCD)
Groundwater Management Authorities
Consolidate GCDs into GM Authorities
Autonomous agencies Unified regulations Authority:
Custom rules Subdivisions for sub-basins State-agency level enforcement
Funding: Fees only
Governing Body: Appointed with loc.
gov/stakeholder members Elected with advisory body
Planning: Existing planning framework
Scorecard: GM Authorities
Criteria S PS US
Hydro-geographical Boundaries
X
Sufficient Areal Extent
X
Funding X
Politically Feasible X
Representation X
Authority X
Conjunctive Use X
Sustainability Goals X
Regulatory Flexibility
X
GMA Councils
GCDs (managers) Funding: Both fees and taxes Authority: EAA
GMACs (planners) Authority
Subdivisions for sub-basins Adopt DFCs Approve GCD MPs Annual GCD reviews
Funding/Tech support: TWDB
Governing Body: GCDs RWPGs Stakeholders
Scorecard: GMACs
Criteria S PS US
Hydro-geographical Boundaries
X
Sufficient Areal Extent
X
Funding X
Politically Feasible X
Representation X
Authority X
Conjunctive Use X
Sustainability Goals X
Regulatory Flexibility
X
Conclusions Texas has committed to a decentralized system of groundwater
management via GCDs
Projected demands, diminishing supplies, and extreme drought compel reform of groundwater management system
The GCD system is imperfect and state control is not a viable alternative
Regionalization offers benefits of both centralized and decentralized governance.
However, true reform would require either: a new regional planning entity and increased funding and resources
for GCDs; or replacement of GCDs with regional authorities
S
Questions?