bill hutchison
TRANSCRIPT
2016 DFC Planning:
Status Update
Bill Hutchison, Ph.D., P.E., P.G.
Independent Groundwater
Consultant
TAGD Groundwater Summit
August 26, 2015
Topics
• Background
• Status
– GMA 2
– GMA 7
– GMA 11
– GMA 13
Joint Planning
• Formalized the quantification of
“Groundwater Availability” (2005 Session)
• Prior to mandatory joint planning, Regional
Water Planning Groups established
“Groundwater Availability” using various
methods
Joint Planning
• Desired Future Condition (DFC)
– Adopted by Groundwater Conservation
Districts (GCD) within a Groundwater
Management Area (GMA)
• Modeled Available Groundwater (MAG)
– Calculated by Texas Water Development Board
Groundwater
Management
Areas (GMAs)
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Desired Future Condition (DFC)
• Quantified conditions of groundwater resources
• Specified time or times in the future
• Broad Policy Goal
– Drawdown
– Spring flow
– Storage volumes
• Updated at least every 5 years
Modeled Available Groundwater
(MAG)
• TWDB calculates based on DFC
– Models
– Water budget calculations
– District provided data and information
• Will be included in GCD Management Plans
• To be used in permitting decisions
Groundwater
Availability = DFC + MAG
Groundwater
Availability = DFC + MAG
Policy + ScienceGroundwater
Availability=
Desired Future Condition (DFC)
• Quantified conditions of groundwater resources
• Specified time or times in the future
• Broad Policy Goal
– Drawdown
– Spring flow
– Storage volumes
• Updated at least every 5 years
TWDB Rules after 2005 Session
• No statutory definition of DFC
• TWDB added definition of DFC
(quantified conditions)
– Resulted in the use of models
• Legislature later adopted TWDB’s
definition in 2011 legislation
Groundwater Availability Models
(GAMs)
• Program started in 2000 to model all aquifers in Texas
• Stakeholder involvement
• Continuous improvement of the models
• Objective of models: define groundwater availability
– Groundwater district management plans
– Regional water planning group plans
Model Runs
• Simulations of changes in:
– Groundwater pumping and/or
– Drought conditions
• Output examples:
– Drawdown
– Spring Flows
– Storage Volumes
Model Runs
• Simulations of changes in:
– Groundwater pumping and/or
– Drought conditions
• Output examples:
– Drawdown
– Spring Flows
– Storage Volumes
DFC
Model Runs
• Simulations of changes in:
– Groundwater pumping and/or
– Drought conditions
• Output examples:
– Drawdown
– Spring Flows
– Storage Volumes
MAG
Desired Future Conditions
• Model Results
– Important because TWDB uses the models to
calculate modeled available groundwater
• Data
– Important because models cannot provide “all”
the answers and cannot “make decisions”
• Common Sense
– Important because a DFC is essentially a policy
statement and needs to be rooted in practicality
New DFC Process
• Consider 9 specific factors
• “Proposed” DFC
• Public comments and public hearings
• District summary reports
• “Final” DFC
• “Explanatory Report”
New DFC Process
• Consider 9 specific factors
• “Proposed” DFC
• Public comments and public hearings
• District summary reports
• “Final” DFC
• “Explanatory Report”
Before 5/1/2016
New DFC Process
• Consider 9 specific factors
• “Proposed” DFC
• Public comments and public hearings
• District summary reports
• “Final” DFC
• “Explanatory Report”
Before 5/1/2016
After “Proposed”
DFC
GMA 2 Aquifers
• Dockum
• Edwards-Trinity (High Plains)
• Edwards-Trinity (Plateau)
• Ogallala
• Pecos Valley
• Seymour
GMA 2 Progress
• Ogallala, ETHP, and Dockum
– Completed review of draft HPAS
– Awaiting final model files to complete initial
model runs
• Other Aquifers
– No discussion to date
• Next meeting: October 2015
GMA 7 Aquifers
• Blaine
• Capitan Reef
• Dockum
• Edwards-Trinity
(Plateau)
• Ellenburger-San Saba
• Hickory
• Igneous
• Lipan
• Marble Falls
• Ogallala
• Pecos Valley
• Rustler
• Seymour
• Trinity
GMA 7 Progress
• Aquifers Not Relevant for Purposes of
Joint Planning (Tech Memos):
– Blaine
– Igneous
– Lipan
– Seymour
GMA 7 Progress
• Initial Model Runs Completed and Draft
Tech Memos:
– Edwards-Trinity (Plateau)
– Pecos Valley
– Rustler
– Trinity
GMA 7 Progress
• Awaiting model completion for Kinney
County portion of ETP
• Awaiting direction on approach and model
use for Val Verde county (ETP model or
local model)
GMA 7 Progress
• Awaiting Model Completion for
– Capitan Reef
– Dockum
– Ellenburger-San Saba
– Hickory
– Marble Falls
– Ogallala
GMA 7 Progress
• Next Meeting is November 19
– Update ETP model run
– Initial HPAS runs
– Initial Llano Uplift runs
– Initial Kinney runs
– Val Verde County discussion
GMA 11 Aquifers
• Carrizo-Wilcox
• Gulf Coast
• Nacatoch
• Queen City
• Sparta
• Trinity
• Yegua-Jackson
GMA 11 Progress
• Initial model runs for Carrizo-Wilcox,
Queen City and Sparta will be completed by
August 31
– Focused on IPP Strategies and Forestar Project
• Meeting on November 4, 2015 to discuss
next steps
GMA 13 Aquifers
• Carrizo-Wilcox
• Edwards (Balcones Fault Zone)
• Gulf Coast
• Queen City
• Sparta
• Trinity
• Yegua-Jackson
GMA 13 Progress
• Carrizo-Wilcox, Queen City, Sparta
– Several model runs
– Preliminary explanatory report completed
– Working on additional model runs with IPP
strategies
• All other aquifers
– No discussion to date
• Next meeting to be scheduled when
simulations are completed
