|
The framework in which we address issues surrounding the
Edwards Aquifer involves the facts that:
- all the issues are complex and emotional;
- the timelines required to solve the
problems are very long;
- the investments required are huge;
- the future is uncertain.
Most of the time, decision makers who face
an uncertain future tend to make the timeline as short as
possible and the investment as small as possible. In other words,
they look for a quick, cheap fix. But our water issues may not
give way to this approach - we have to make long term commitments
and very large investments. Moreover, it seems unlikely that we
can use a traditional structural approach to build ourselves out
of this mess with more surface water reservoirs and recharge
projects. We will have to THINK ourselves out of this one.
In general, water management issues for the
Edwards Aquifer can be broadly classified as technical,
legal, economic, and
institutional. However, few concerns fit neatly into one category.
For example,
reuse of water at first seems like a technical issue, but on
closer inspection it is clear this is mainly an institutional and
cultural issue revolving around overcoming negative attitudes
toward using recycled water.
Since the Edwards has been one of the most
studied aquifers in the world, most of the technical issues have
already been tackled and are in the past. Projects such as
baseline predictions, quantification of Edwards resources,
mapping of the catchment, recharge, and artesian zones have
already been performed. But some things are still unclear, even
after considerable study:
- How many recharge features exist and
where are they? Many are still unidentified.
- How does the "bad water
line" move in response to drought and pumping? Some
experts maintain that once the bad water line moves, it
will not return to its original position. Others
disagree. The bottom line is we don't know what will
happen if the Aquifer is drawn down below its historic
low.
- How does the granite intrusion known
as the Knippa Gap affect flowpaths and well levels? We
know the Gap is a natural barrier that affects the
direction of water flowing in the Aquifer, but very
little is known about how it works or even where it is.
- Will tracer analysis give us more
detailed information on flowpaths and velocities? It
seems likely, but the Edwards Aquifer Authority has had
to put research on hold because of a lack of funds.
- What are "ample" flows to
bays and estuaries?
- Will a structural approach, involving
building more surface water reservoirs and recharge dams,
solve our problem? If so, where will the money come from? In today's environmentally conscious environment, is it
reasonable to assume people will not object to flooding
any more of our beautiful Texas river valleys with lakes?
- Should we at least compare the
economics of reuse and conservation with the structural
approach and then decide if we should abandon the
structural approach?
- Will a cap on pumping to protect
springflows and endangered species actually work? Many
experts maintain the springs will periodically go dry
even if no one pumps a single drop.
To really get a grasp on the complicated legal issues
involved, you need to check out the legislative history in the
Laws
and Regs section! Some of the major legal issues for the aquifer are:
- How can we finally institute
conjunctive management of surface waters and
groundwaters? Given that surface water and groundwater
are connected and inseparable, isn't this the only
logical approach?
- How can we get laws in place that
explicitly recognize the link between surface water and
groundwater?
- Can the State or the federal
government seize ownership of groundwater? The Supreme
Court has said yes, but the battle is not over...ask a
farmer and he will probably tell you the State can have
his water when they pry his cold, dead finger from the
pump.
- How can we define ownership and
allocate out groundwater rights fairly when claims for
historical use are almost twice the amount the Aquifer can
make available? Who gets cut back?
- What kind of management institution
for the Aquifer will stand up against constitutional
challenges?
- Where can we get lawmakers with the
gumption and foresight to tackle these issues without
succumbing to pressure from special interests?
- How can we mitigate the political
costs of effective action? How can we convince people
their lawmakers are doing what is best for everyone in
the long run?
Any technical, legal, or institutional
change we make will have profound economic impacts. Some of the
economic questions and issues are:
- How can we determine the value of
water? Some say it is priceless, yet it has traditionally
been so cheap that people feel free to use as much as
they want whenever they want. What price should be put on
water?
- Who should pay for new or extra water
brought into the region? Should it be the new users or
everyone who benefits?
- What is the value of instream
usessuch as recreation?
- Do we want a water market where rights
are bought and sold? If so, what kind of market will be
efficient, fair, and effective?
- If we limit pumping to protect
springflows, who will pay? Doesn't this benefit certain
people at the expense of others?
- If we limit development in recharge
areas to protect water quality, who will pay to
compensate landowners for lowered land values?
- What costs have we already incurred or
encouraged because of lawmaker's failure to act and our
own failure to demand change?
Perhaps the most difficult and the most
important issues to deal with are institutional ones. These
include the institution of culture which is very hard to change. We also have to deal with the fact that currently there are
hundreds of management institutions, many of which care about an
area only as large as their borders. Some of the issues are:
- How can we overcome the notion that
use of groundwater is a God-given right and that every
landowner has a "right" to free water?
- How can we overcome regional
parochialisms and get everyone to see that we are all in
this together? The agricultural, urban, and recreational
users are often pitted one against the other, yet we
really have only one common resource.
- How can we change negative cultural
attitudes regarding the reuse of water? Will a simple
change in terminology help? If we call it
"reused", people feel it is secondhand and
inferior. However, those same people believe many things
can be "recycled" and are just as good as new. Water can certainly be recycled and made pure again, but
how do we convince people?
- Who will decide what our priorities
should be when water is scarce?
- What kind of management institution
can we design that people will trust and accept?
- Don't we need the boundaries of
management institutions to be defined along hydrogeologic
lines instead of political ones?
- How can we institute
conjunctive
managementof surface water
and ground water? The new Edwards Aquifer Authority is
being set up to manage groundwater only, but surface
waters and groundwaters are connected and inseparable. How can you effectively manage one and not the other?
- How can we build flexibility into any
institution we design?
|
