Texas Water Journal (TWJ - Texas Digital Library, TDL E-Journals)
Not a member yet
130 research outputs found
Sort by
83rd Texas State Legislature: Summaries of Water-related Legislative Action
No full textEditor’s Note: September 1 of every odd-numbered year is the date that new legislation from the Texas Legislature session that ended the previous spring typically goes into effect. With this in mind, the Texas Water Journal invited 4 organizations that work closely with the Texas Legislature to provide their take on the changes to Texas water policy and law that were made during the 2013 session. The opinions expressed in these summaries are the opinions of the individual organizations and not the opinion of the Texas Water Journal or the Texas Water Resources Institute.
Organizations:
Texas Water Conservation Association
Water Environment Association of Texas
Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter
Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts
Citation: Robbins D, Batterton C, Castleberry B, Kramer K, Steinbach SA. 2013. Commentary: 83rd Texas State Legislature: Summaries of Water-related Legislative Action. Texas Water Journal. 4(2):28-46. Available from: https://doi.org/10.21423/twj.v4i2.6999
Groundwater Conservation District Finance in Texas: Results of a Preliminary Study
No full textThe preferred method of groundwater management in Texas is by locally formed groundwater conservation districts (GCDs). However, not all of Texas groundwater is managed by a district; some areas have not voted to form a GCD. There are 99 GCDs in Texas with 2 pending; only 174 of the 254 counties are covered by a GCD. GCDs are financed by ad valorem taxes, fees, and grants. Not all GCDs have ad valorem tax support. Revenues from the responding GCDs in this study range from 2,632,982. Some cannot open their offices daily. All need money for research to determine the actual amount of groundwater in their district, its sources, and its characteristics. Tax rates for the GCDs with ad valorem tax authority in this study run from 100 valuation to 100 valuation, meaning a 10 to $70 annually, not as much as a few cups of Starbucks coffee cost annually. All Texans agree water is life and groundwater is one of our most precious resources, therefore GCDs deserve more financial resources. The Texas Water Code provides a number of tools for GCDs to finance their operations including ad valorem taxation levies, issuance of bonds, notes, and promulgation of fees to name a few. However, in many of the GCDs who responded to the study, these tools are not practical to use. Since ad valorem taxation and bond authority must be granted by local voter approval, these tools are unavailable in some GCDs as well.
Citation: Porter CR Jr. 2013. Groundwater conservation district finance in Texas: results of a preliminary study. Texas Water Journal. 4(1):55-77. Available from: https://doi.org/10.21423/twj.v4i1.6445
A New Day? Two Interpretations of the Texas Supreme Court’s Ruling in Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Day and McDaniel
No full textEditors’ Note: Many in Texas waited patiently for the Texas Supreme Court decision on Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Day and McDaniel, arguably the most important decision on Texas groundwater law in a generation. Regardless of which way the decision went, it undoubtedly would have a big impact on the management of groundwater resources in the state. We were not disappointed. The decision is complicated and, in places, seemingly contradictory. By opening groundwater management to regulatory takings, a door to another complicated area of law has been opened. Although the Day case answers some questions, others remain unanswered. And there are strong opinions on what Day means and doesn’t mean.
While the Texas Supreme Court considered the Day case, Russ Johnson and Greg Ellis regaled audiences at multiple venues on their views on the case and what the court would or should do. Johnson’s arguments leaned toward the landowner perspective while Ellis’s arguments leaned toward the groundwater conservation district perspective. With the Day case decided, we thought it would be informative to ask Johnson and Ellis what they thought Day meant. Given the topic and nature of the contributions, only the editorial board reviewed the papers before accepting them for publication. As expected, the papers are interesting and informative—and help set the stage for the path forward.
Citation: Johsnon RS, Ellis GM. 2013. A New Day? Two interpretations of the Texas Supreme Court’s ruling in Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Day and McDaniel. Texas Water Journal. 4(1):35-54. Available from: https://doi.org/10.21423/twj.v4i1.6990
Effects of an off-stream watering facility on cattle behavior and instream E. coli levels
No full textExcessive levels of fecal bacteria are the leading cause of water quality impairment in Texas, and livestock with direct access to water bodies are potentially a significant source of these bacteria. To help address this, the effect of providing alternative off-stream watering facilities to reduce manure, and thus bacterial, deposition in or near surface waters was evaluated from July 2007 to July 2009 in Clear Fork of Plum Creek in central Texas. An upstream-downstream, pre- and post-treatment monitoring design was used with off-stream water provided only during the second year of the study. Flow, Escherichia coli (E. coli) concentration, and turbidity were measured twice monthly. Cattle movements were tracked quarterly using global positioning system collars to assess the effect of providing alternative water on cattle behavior. Results showed that when alternative off-stream water was provided, the amount of time cattle spent in the creek was reduced 43%. As a result, direct deposition of E. coli into Clear Fork of Plum Creek was estimated to be reduced from 1.11 × 107 to 6.34 × 106 colony forming units per animal unit per day. Observed pre- and post-treatment instream E. coli loads suggested similar reductions; however, these reductions were not statistically significant.
Citation: Wagner KL, Redmon LA, Gentry TJ, Harmel RD, Knight R, Jones CA, Foster JL. 2013. Effects of an off-stream watering facility on cattle behavior and instream E. coli levels. Texas Water Journal. 4(2):1-13. Available from: https://doi.org/10.21423/twj.v4i2.6460
Freshwater inflow requirements for the Nueces Delta, Texas: Spartina alterniflora as an indicator of ecosystem condition
No full textEstuarine wetlands and salt marshes are fundamentally driven by variations in freshwater inflow. However, many estuaries have been subject to a heavily modified hydrology due to flood protection engineering and the construction of upstream dams for municipal water supply. Assessment of the impacts of these activities on the health of estuarine wetlands has traditionally focused on tracking the abundance of economically important shellfish and finfish species. In this study, we examine fluctuations in the abundance of selected salt marsh plants and use this information to develop estimates of freshwater inflow needs. The impact of freshwater inflow events on 3 common emergent plants in the Nueces River Delta (Spartina alterniflora, Borrichia frutescens, Salicornia virginica) was determined from long-term monitoring of permanent census plots. Of the 3 species examined, Spartina alterniflora was determined to be the best indicator species because its abundance most closely tracked variations in freshwater inflow. For example, under low salinity conditions S. alterniflora cover approached 66%. However, when salinities exceeded 25‰, S. alterniflora cover declined rapidly. Our results provide clear evidence that the presence or absence of key plant indicator species (in this case S. alterniflora) is reflective of overall estuarine hydrological condition over time scales exceeding 6 months.
Citation: Stachelek J, Dunton KH. 2013. Freshwater inflow requirements for the Nueces Delta, Texas: Spartina alterniflora as an indicator of ecosystem condition. Texas Water Journal. 4(2):62-73. Available from: https://doi.org/10.21423/twj.v4i2.6354
An evaluation of urban landscape water use in Texas
No full textIrrigated agriculture is the largest user of water in Texas, followed by urban-municipal uses, which has landscape irrigation as its largest component. Data from various sources were used to estimate the extent of the state’s urban landscaped area and its associated water use. The statewide area in golf courses is estimated at 115,000 acres, while 1,608,399 acres are ascribed to managed landscapes and lawns. While the total annual water use by golf courses is estimated at 0.364 million acre-feet, the volume projected for the landscape sector ranges from a low of 1.898 million acre-feet to a high of 4.021 million acre-feet. The sum of water use by golf courses with the low-end estimate for landscapes would represent 46.6% of the total use within the urban/municipal water sector and 12.6% of the total annual demand by all activities in Texas during 2010. This effectively positions urban irrigation as the state’s third largest water user, after agricultural irrigation and other urban uses. Strategies and practices that can significantly conserve (reduce) water use for urban landscape irrigation include water-conserving native and adaptive plant materials, weather- and sensor-guided irrigation, deficit irrigation practices, and use of alternative (saline/brackish, reclaimed, and graywater) water sources.
Citation: Cabrera RI, Wagner KL, Wherley B. 2013. An evaluation of urban landscape water use in Texas. Texas Water Journal. 4(2):14-27. Available from: https://doi.org/10.21423/twj.v4i2.6992
Floods in Central Texas, September 7–14, 2010
No full textSevere flooding occurred near the Austin metropolitan area in central Texas September 7–14, 2010, because of heavy rainfall associated with Tropical Storm Hermine. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Upper Brushy Creek Water Control and Improvement District, determined rainfall amounts and annual exceedance probabilities for rainfall resulting in flooding in Bell, Williamson, and Travis counties in central Texas during September 2010. We documented peak streamflows and the annual exceedance probabilities for peak streamflows recorded at several streamflow-gaging stations in the study area. The 24-hour rainfall total exceeded 12 inches at some locations, with one report of 14.57 inches at Lake Georgetown. Rainfall probabilities were estimated using previously published depth-duration frequency maps for Texas. At 4 sites in Williamson County, the 24-hour rainfall had an annual exceedance probability of 0.002. Streamflow measurement data and flood-peak data from U.S. Geological Survey surface-water monitoring stations (streamflow and reservoir gaging stations) are presented, along with a comparison of September 2010 flood peaks to previous known maximums in the periods of record. Annual exceedance probabilities for peak streamflow were computed for 20 streamflow-gaging stations based on an analysis of streamflow-gaging station records. The annual exceedance probability was 0.03 for the September 2010 peak streamflow at the Geological Survey’s streamflow-gaging stations 08104700 North Fork San Gabriel River near Georgetown, Texas, and 08154700 Bull Creek at Loop 360 near Austin, Texas. The annual exceedance probability was 0.02 for the peak streamflow for Geological Survey´s streamflow-gaging station 08104500 Little River near Little River, Texas. The lack of similarity in the annual exceedance probabilities computed for precipitation and streamflow might be attributed to the small areal extent of the heaviest rainfall over these and the other gaged watersheds.
Citation: Winters KE. 2012. Floods in Central Texas, September 7–14, 2010. Texas Water Journal. 3(1):14-25. Available from: https://doi.org/10.21423/twj.v3i1.3292
Estimating daily potential E. coli Loads in pural Texas watersheds using Spatially Explicit Load Enrichment Calculation Tool (SELECT)
No full textWhen developing a watershed protection plan (WPP) or a total maximum daily load (TMDL), it is often difficult to accurately assess pollutant loads and sources for a watershed because insufficient water quality monitoring data are available. According to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, there are 274 bacterial impairments in Texas water bodies out of a total of 438 impaired water bodies. Bacterial data are often sparse, which hinders the development of WPPs or TMDLs. To address this lack of data, the Spatially Explicit Load Enrichment Calculation Tool (SELECT) was used to develop WPPs for 3 rural watersheds in Texas that are impaired due to E. coli bacteria: Buck Creek, 5 subwatersheds of Little Brazos River, and Lampasas River. SELECT is an automated geographical information system tool that can assess potential bacteria sources and relative loads in watersheds using spatial factors such as land use, population density, and soil type. The results show how the SELECT methodology was applied and adapted to each watershed based on stakeholder concerns and data availability.
Citation: Borel KE, Karthikeyan R, Smith PK, Gregory LF, Srinivasan R. 2012. Estimating daily potential E. coli loads in rural Texas watersheds using Spatially Explicit Load Enrichment Calculation Tool (SELECT). Texas Water Journal. 3(1):42-58. Available from: https://doi.org/10.21423/twj.v3i1.6164
Spatial Distribution and Morphology of Sediments in Texas Southern High Plains Playa Wetlands
No full textPlayas are depressional geomorphic features on the U.S. High Plains. About 20,000 Southern High Plains playa wetlandsserve as runoff catchment basins, which are thought to be focal points of Ogallala aquifer recharge. Sediments in playas can alter biodiversity services, impede aquifer recharge, and increase evaporative water losses. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of watershed cultivation systems on post-cultural sediment deposition in 3 pairs of cropland/native grassland playas in Briscoe, Floyd, and Swisher counties of Texas. A hydraulic probe was used to collect soil cores to 2 m or to refusal depth at 25 possible locations in each playa. Particle size distribution and soil color effectively identified sediment additions to the playas. Soil color transitions with depth from very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) to very dark gray (10YR 3/1) were always found in cropland playas but not in grassland playas. Particle size distribution was more useful in identifying sediment distribution than type. Using a kriging model, sediment volume in each playa was calculated from sediment thicknesses at the sampling locations and from sediment thicknesses interpolated between sampling locations. Sediment volume was directly related to watershed land use with more accumulated sediment in cropped playas than in grassland playas. Erosion of cultivated watersheds near playas contributes sediments that decrease playa depth and can result in increased evaporative water losses and decreased aquifer recharge.
Citation: Villareal CJ, Zartman RE, Hudnall WH, Gitz D, Rainwater K, Smith LM. 2012. Spatial distribution and morphology ofsediments in Texas southern high plains playa wetlands. Texas Water Journal. 3(1):1-13. Available from: https://doi.org/10.21423/twj.v3i1.2070
Reservoir/River System Management Models
No full textThe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Texas Water Development Board, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, river authorities, regional planning groups, consulting firms, and university researchers model the development, control, allocation, and management of major river systems in Texas in support of a variety of water resources planning and management activities. This paper presents a comparative review of river/reservoir system modeling capabilities that integrates the Texas experience with nationwide endeavors to develop and implement generalized models. The enormous published literature on reservoir/river system models is complex. This state-of-the-art assessment begins with a broad general review of the massive literature and then focuses on generalized modeling systems that have been extensively applied by water management agencies in a broad spectrum of decision-support situations in Texas and elsewhere. Several modeling systems are suggested as being representative of the state-of-the-art from a practical applications perspective. Modeling capabilities are explored from the perspectives of types of applications, computational methods, model development environments, auxiliary analyses, and institutional support. The paper highlights advances in modeling complex river/reservoir system management issues that are significantly contributing to actual practical improvements in water management.
Citation: Wurbs RA. 2012. Reservoir/River System Management Models. Texas Water Journal. 3(1):26-41. Available from: https://doi.org/10.21423/twj.v3i1.1066