The future of the Edwards Aquifer

The Edwards Aquifer Website run by Gregg Eckhardrt does an amazing job of defining issues and unanswered questions facing the aquifer today. Some of these questions are technical, waiting to be answered by various scientists. Others are of legal, economic and institutional nature. Here are some of the highlights of these issues:

Technical

- The question of the "bad water line, which is actually a zone of the interface between the quickly-cycling fresh water and saline, heavier water that sits below and leeches out minerals from limestone, which makes not drinkable (1,000 ppm of total dissolved solids comparing to EPA suggested 500 ppm for drinking water). Some studies have suggested that this saline water line may move irreversibly if the aquifer  is overdrawn during a drought.

- Not all boundaries and separate pools of the aquifer have been defined. More studies are required to define those and identify the interactions (if any) between the pools.

- the geological and biological processes that turn muddy recharge water into clear, pristine springflows are not yet well studied. More knowledge on what the aquifer can handle and filter as far as contaminants and toxins would be important for regulating water quality in the future.

- what are the springflow requirements in order to support endangered species? These rates have changed since the Fish and Wildlife Service was first tasked with defining flow rates in 1990's. In times of drought these rates are important in order to define the amount allowed to be pumped from the aquifer by users.

Image courtesy of City of San Antonio website

Legal 

- Surface water is considered public property and managed by Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Groundwater is treated as a separate, unique resource and in the case of the Edwards Aquifer is managed by the Edwards Aquifer Authority. But ultimately, both surface and groundwater are inseparable and interconnected, so the laws and regulations should reflect that fact. And so one of the major legal issues facing the aquifer is the conjunctive management of surface and groundwater.

- To what extent (if any) can development over the Recharge and Contributing Zones be regulated and which authority is responsible for the task? Is compensation required and which entity would pay that?

Texas Hill Country. Image courtesy of Save Our Springs Alliance

Economical 

- What is the value of water? Historically it has been one of the cheapest and least appreciated resources in our country, but with our growing populations and changing climate what will happen if the price of this resource goes up?

- The economica value of environmental services that the Edwards Aquifer provides are not well defined. What is the price that the public is willing to pay in order to protect the aquifer?


Institutional 

- Groundwater is a resource used by many users - urban, agricultural, recreational and etc. How can these groups be bought together and made to realize that they are using a single, common resource and therefore need to work together to manage and protect it?

- The boundaries of management institutions such as the Edwards Aquifer Authority do not overlap with political boundaries. Should those boundaries be one and the same and will the growing numbers of groundwater conservation districts complicate things even more?

- There is still a negative cultural attitudes about recycling. Efforts need to be made in order to change those views and implement water reuse strategies as part of an effort to conserve groundwater.

There are some great organizations in Texas that are working to address some of there issues:

AGUA, is a San Antonio-based non-profit organization that focuses on preserving the Edwards Aquifer. Since its establishment in 1993 this coalition was able to limit or divert many development projects off the Recharge Zone. Here is full list of their accomplishments thus far.

Water IQ is a Texas public awareness program on water conservation.

Water Environment Association of Texas (WEAT) is a coalition of professionals whose goal is designing and implementing wastewater technologies and water programs in order to protect and enhance the state's water resources.

The Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance is a non-proft focused on education and protection of the Edwards Aquifer and surrounding Hill Country.

There are many other organizations at work in order to protect and enhance this unique Texan resource.  With growing populations, strong and influential interest groups, and changing climate the demand for high-quality groundwater is growing. But more and more people are joining the fight for the Edwards Aquifer and hopefully it will remain a steady source of drinking water, beautiful flowing springs and inspiration for many generations of Central Texans to come.

Murky waters and politics

While the Edwards Aquifer Authority has long been managing the quantity of water to be pumped from lands under its jurisdiction, the question of the quality of water remains unanswered and will likely become a major issue of concern in years to come.

Because the Edwards Aquifer is recharged through caves and large openings that lead directly into the subsurface of the aquifer any pollutants, sediments and toxins in recharge flow can quickly end up in the springs flow. Low water quality would effect human users, but could also devastate fragile ecosystems supported by the flow from the aquifer.

There had long been a connection established between fast development and local water quality. For example, construction areas create large plots of disturbed, loose soil. Texas is known for its unpredictable weather events. When it rains in Texas, it pours. These big rain events can carry a lot of soil sediments into the aquifer.

Image courtesy of the Edwards Aquifer Website

Once the construction is over, there is usually more impervious surface created over the recharge zone. Buildings, roads and parking lots take up precious areas of land where water could percolate down into the ground. These surfaces also collect oils, grease and other urban contaminants, that are taken up by rain water and eventually carried underground. Larger areas of impervious surface also create larger storm flows, which increase the risk of flooding and cause more erosion in creek banks and slopes.

While the Edwards Aquifer provides some filtration due to the porous structure of its limestone, little is known about the true extent of its capabilities to filter. It is likely that the aquifer could filter out large particles like sediment, but could do very little for chemical toxins and pollutants. The biological structure of the aquifer and the action of microbiological communities in filtering groundwater is not well studied. And while no major toxic spill events have occurred in the area to this day, it could just be a tragedy waiting to happen.

A solution to low quality of groundwater could be building water processing plants, but unlike surface water that in Texas is processed in very large water facilities and from there delivered to customers, groundwater sources are not concentrated. For example, the city of San Antonio that relied on the Edwards Aquifer for most of its water has many small wells, which pump and deliver water to local communities. So if it was necessary to process all the water from the aquifer many small processing plants would have to be built, which may not be economical.

Another, more reasonable and therefore more difficult solution would be to begin regulating development in the Recharge and Contributing Zones of the aquifer. But there are obstacles to overcome. One is a cultural one - Texans like and respect their private property and regulation of development could be a difficult idea to convince citizens. The second obstacle is powerful development interests. Texas has been trying to bring in large industries by creating incentives and currently has some of the fastest growing cities in the country. This movement is not likely to not likely to slow down any time soon. But so far, there has only been push-back from communities and cities on a case-by-case basis.

Texas will soon have to find a balance between respecting private property, yet still protecting a resource that ultimately belongs to everyone, even if it is not so on paper. Without water quality regulation and growing populations and development it could only be time before a serious spill or event will cause a serious drop in water quality in the aquifer. If that were to happen today there would be no responsible authority to mitigate the effects.

Digging deep, in all the wrong ways

Image courtesy of Statesman.com

Recent droughts in Texas have caused a surge in private water well drilling in parts of Austin and the rest of the state. Homeowners are tapping into the northern parts of the Edwards Aquifer and most of the drilling happens in the wealthier neighborhoods such as Pemberton Heights, Tarrytown and Old Enfield. These areas are outside of any water conservation district and therefore the previously mentioned law of the "biggest pump" applies. The number of new wells drilled more than doubled from 19 to more than 47 in the last two years. The seemingly good news is that these new wells are used primarily for watering lawns and therefore decrease the use of city water from Lady Bird Lake. But with little knowledge of that particular area of the aquifer and no restrictions on pumping negative effects are bound to appear.

No efforts have been started to control the drilling of new wells or the amount of pumping. But, authorities are taking notice of the trend, and as Assistant Director of Austin Water Utility Daryl Slusher said "we're definitely watching it. We are definitely concerned about the impact of folks doing this." Any attempts to limit this pumping on private land will also be halted by Supreme Court's landmark ruling this February.

For the homeowner, the economics of drilling a well make sense - initial cost of the well is around $20,000, but it allows the user to save about $500 a month on the water bill. Counting just the hotter months of the year (May-September) and the well pays for itself in less than a decade. And this is just for your regular half-acre lot. But according to the same homeowner, the amount of water that went into his lawn jumped by about 30% since the installment of the well. This is the scary part.

Drilling private wells undermines the water conservation culture that some groups in Texas are trying so hard to instill. Once the well goes in, the owner has no incentive to limit the pumping, in contrary, the more water they pump the fast the investment will pay for itself. With more water available the owners are also less likely to switch to more drought-resistant, native landscaping techniques. With no way to monitor the amounts of water that people are pumping onto their land and no end to droughts in sight this new trend may cause serious depletion of the precious resource.

Image courtesy of Austin Daily Photo

Since groundwater in Texas is not considered to be a public resource and in areas outside of groundwater conservation districts the pumping of water is not controlled may this resource suffer from a case of tragedy of the commons? With climate change intensifying droughts throughout the state and ongoing population growth the demand for water will continue to increase over time. It seems that converting groundwater to a public resource may be the only logical step in mitigating future issues and providing enough water for all citizens of Texas.

A win for Texas Property Owners

A new landmark ruling this year solidified the rights of Texas landowners over their groundwater.

Historically, the "rule of capture" governed the use of groundwater by Texas landowners. This means that anyone can capture as much water under their land as they need, as long as they do not so wastefully or with ill intent. The owner holds no liability to his or her neighbors whose wells might be depleted by this pumping.  This "law of the biggest pump" went uncontested until the formation of groundwater conservation districts and groundwater management organizations. One of such organizations is the Edwards Aquifer Authority (EAA), established in 1993, to "manage, enhance and protect the Edwards Aquifer system".

EAA manages the use and conservation of groundwater and awards usage permits based on historic "beneficial use" - the amount of water put to use by the landowner in the past. Beneficial uses most often means irrigation, stock water in the case of ranching and general house water consumption. This historic use was the primary issue in the Edwards Aquifer Authority vs. Day case.

The story of the case began in 1994, when two ranchers B. Day and J. McDaniel bought a large, 381-acre ranch in Bexar County. This property is within the jurisdiction of EAA. At the time of purchase the property contained an old, abandoned well that still flowed under artesian pressure and was previously used to irrigate about 7 acres of land.

The new owners of the property intended to drill a new well and sought a permit from the EAA. The EAA based the allowance of water on a 20-year period before the purchase of the ranch, and therefore limited water use to irrigating 7-acres. And thus a long legal battle began.

Texas Supreme Court's decision reaffirmed that landowners have the right to the groundwater beneath their property and that the EAA must compensate the ranchers for the regulations that controlled the amount of water that could be pumped from their land. 

Groups that support property rights were delighted by the court's decision, saying it was "better than they had hoped for". Susan Durham, the Executive Director of South Texans' Property Right Association applauded the court's decision and said: “Recognition of this right will allow property owners to preserve groundwater in the ground, instead of forcing them to pump water just to establish ‘historical use,’ to protect their right to use groundwater in the future.” 

But not all rejoiced at the decision. Ken Kramer, Director of the Lonestar Chapter of the Sierra Club noted that: "The court has done a huge disservice to everyone who has been working for proper management of the groundwater resources needed for our state's people and our environment."  

The Supreme Court's decision does not limit EAA's ability to manage groundwater under its jurisdiction, but only states that the EAA must compensate property owners for any "takings". The problem lies primarily in how the EAA determines the amount of water permitted for use. The historical beneficial use may not be the best way to determine the amount of water permitted for use, especially in the cases of change of property ownership such as this one. 

This ruling will probably lead to more litigation and possibly a big change in the way that the EAA manages and assigns permits. Groundwater continues to be a property right and not managed as a public resource. But with intensifying droughts and growing demand for fresh water this definition of groundwater might need to be reconsidered in order for the state of Texas to continue to provide water to its citizens. 

The little salamander that could...

Eurycea sosorum, or simply the Barton Springs Salamander wasn't formally described until 1993. It doesn't get bigger than 3 inches, never outgrows juvenile characteristics such as gills and only occupies four springs (Parthenia, Eliza, Sunken Garden and Upper Barton) that collectively comprise the Barton Springs in Austin, Texas. It does not sound like much, but this creature is a sort-of poster child for conservation in South Central Texas. 

                                                     Image courtesy of Texas Parks and Wildlife

Because E.sosorum never develops lungs and therefore lives in water its whole life the species is especially susceptible to changes in the quality and quantity of water in its habitat, as a result of urban expansion over the watershed. Sediment run-off into the springs harms the salamander by "clogging of the gills of aquatic species, causing asphyxiation; smothering their eggs and reducing the availability of spawning sites; filling interstitial spaces and voids, thereby reducing water circulation and oxygen availability; filling and blocking of recharge features and underground conduits, restricting recharge and groundwater storage volume and movement; reducing light transmission needed for photosynthesis, food production, and the capture of prey by sight-feeding  predators; and exposing aquatic life to contaminants that readily bind to sediments (such as petroleum hydrocarbons and heavy metals).” (62 Fed. Reg. 23385) 

A few short years after first being described in scientific literature, E. sosorum was listed as Endangered in 1997, following a lawsuit by the Save Our Springs Alliance. 

The salamander's habitat is not only a natural feature, but one of the most popular recreation sites in the city of Austin. The Barton Springs Pool is a 3-acre natural pool that cools off(or warms up, depending on the time of year) over 400,000 people a year in its nearly constant 68 degree waters. If you are ever in Austin, you have to go. Because this habitat is also the pride and joy of Austinites conservation of the salamander not only saved this unique creature, but also improved the condition of the pool. In the early  '90s closings of the pool due to unsafe water conditions were a frequent reality. Run-off from nearby developments and construction made the waters murky and increased bacteria counts. 

                                                                          Image courtesy of City of Austin website 
Under the Habitat Conservation Plan that went in effect in 1998 and will expire in 2013 the city of Austin has to: use special measures when cleaning the pool (no more bleach and high pressure hoses!), control surface water run-off into the springs, prevent introduction of exotic plants and animals into the habitat and surrounding area, reduce loadings of pollutants and sediment from development and much more. Because of one, small amphibian species many good things are happening - a limit has been put on development around the Barton Springs area, which is also the recharge zone for the Edwards Aquifer, and more control has been put on possible introduction of exotic species in the immediate ecosystem.

And the plan in working. The year that the species was described the Biological survey only counted 27 Barton Springs salamanders. Since then the populations have been slowly recovering in the four springs, but the recent droughts and continuous interest in development around the area keeps the fate of the species in limbo.

There is, however, opposition to further conservation of this species, and listing other similar species (like the Jollyville Plateau Salamander) as endangered. As early as this summer U.S. Senator John Cornyn and U.S. Representative John Carter stated that "classifying the amphibians as endangered could hinder area job growth and economic development". The next Habitat Conservation Plan for Barton Springs Salamander is currently in draft by the city of Austin.

What happens with the Barton Springs Salamander in the future remains to be seen, but in the 15 years that it has been listed as endangered and protected it helped save "crown jewel" of Austin. It helped prove that we can conserve a species even while sharing its habitat. Protecting the species helped the city to stall development, keep more of the recharge zone of the Edwards Aquifer and sustain the ecosystem around Barton Springs.

What is the Edwards Aquifer and Why should we care?

Image courtesy of Edwards Aquifer Website

Water is essential to human life. We drink, we bathe, we water our lawns, we swim and play in water, we eat food that took a lot of water to produce, all without giving much thought to where that water came from and if it will be there tomorrow. But with our growing populations and changing climate the availability of water is becoming a critical issue in the public eye, especially in the more arid areas of United States. One of such relatively arid areas is South Central Texas, which receives an average of 26-34 inches of rainfall annually. The area, similarly to the rest of Texas, relies heavily on groundwater for its agriculture, municipal, industrial and other uses.
The Edwards Aquifer is located in South Central Texas and is an underground layer of porous, water-bearing limestone. It runs for some 160 miles from N.Austin, through San Antonio and West toward the Rio Grande. The water from the aquifer maintains the flow of many streams and rivers in the area that provide habitat to a variety of plant and animal life, some of which are threatened or endangered. It is essential to sustaining the local ecosystem.
One of such endangered species is the Barton Springs Salamander, Eurycea sosorum. This aquatic salamander inhabits the spring flows of Barton Springs in Austin, TX and was first described in 1993. By 1997 the species was listed as Endangered and major recovery programs were started by the City of Austin and Austin's Parks and Recreation Department. 

The Aquifer also provides water to 1.5-2 million people of South Central Texas. Most of the water pumped from the aquifer is used for municipal purposes. Municipal uses include residential, commercial (retail stores, office buildings and etc.) and institutional (schools, prisons and etc.). Total water distribution from the Aquifer looks something like this: 

Image courtesy of Edwards Aquifer Authority

The water reaches and "recharges" the aquifer from rain runoff in the Contributing Zone (see image above) that collects and percolates through the ground. In the Recharge Zone the Edwards limestone is exposed and so the water enters the aquifer through caves, sinkholes and cracks in the ground. Building and developing the land within the Recharge Zone limits the amount of water that can penetrate through the ground into the aquifer. 

It is possible to deplete the aquifer by pumping water out at a rate higher than its recharge rate. Overdrafting can lead to higher water costs, degradation of water quality and can have a negative impact on springs and steam flows. This becomes a critical issue at times of drought when the rate the recharge is well below normal. 

The state of Texas is separated into 16 Regional Water Planning Groups. Each of these groups consists of at least 11 members that represent various water interest or user - public, water counties, water utilities, river authorities, cities, industry, environmental, electric generating utilities, agriculture and etc. All of these groups together with Texas Water Development Board come up with the State Water Plan which directs state funding for water development. 

Groundwater in particular is managed through Groundwater Management Areas. There are also 16 of these areas in the state, but they are geographically different from the Regional Water Planning Areas. The Texas Water Development Board is in charge of approval of groundwater management plans. 

In recent years Texas has been plagued by major droughts, which are likely to continue and intensify with climate change. Similar to other areas in the Southwestern U.S. water availability and quality are becoming critical issues in the public eye in South Central Texas. Adding to the pressure is the fast growth and development of the city of Austin and its surrounding area. This year the city was first on Forbes' lists of America's Fastest-Growing Cities. More growth and development means more concrete - an impermeable material that will cover more and more of Edward Aquifer's recharge zone and prevent the return of water into the ground. More development means more industry and more cars and therefore more pollutants that will get washed down with the rain and into the public's water sources. 

A multitude of water conservation programs focusing on education and technological solutions started throughout South Central Texas in the last decade. But the effectiveness of these programs with growing demand for water and intensifying droughts remain to be seen.