2

TWCA 71st ANNUAL CONVENTIONPresident Bob Brandes invites you to attend the

71ST ANNUAL CONVENTION of theTexas Water Conservation Association

Wednesday, March 4 - Friday, March 6, 2015, at theSheraton Austin Hotel at the Capitol, Austin, TX

FEATURED PRESENTERS

Christi Craddick,Chair, Texas Railroad

Commission

Glenn Hegar, TexasComptroller

Brigadier GeneralDavid Hill, SW Div.,US Army Corps of

Engineers

State SenatorCharles Perry

State RepresentativeJim Keffer

Stare RepresentativeWayne Smith

Tripp Doggett, CEOElectric ReliabilityCouncil of Texas

Robert Puente, CEO,San Antonio Water

Systems

This past year has really flown by. It seemslike only yesterday that we had our 70th AnnualConvention at The Woodlands. As we approach theAssociation’s next Annual Convention in March, wehave a lot to reflect on and a lot to look forward to.

The most earth-shattering thing that hashappened to TWCA recently has been theannouncement by General Manager Leroy Goodsonthat he plans to retire at the end of the year. This is amonumental event for TWCA considering that Leroyhas managed the day-to-day affairs of the Associationfor the past 33 years. I cannot begin to say whatLeroy has meant to the organization, but one cannotsurvive being involved with this diverse group forthat long and not have been successfully taking careof business. Leroy has done that. In his own way,he has kept things on track among a wide range ofdifferent interests of TWCA members, and he hasserved to keep the Association moving in the rightdirection to the point that TWCA now is recognizedas an important leader with regard to water matters,not only in this state, but also among all western statesthat face similar water issues and problems as Texas.Leroy has been a good leader and manager, andmost importantly, a good friend to a lot of peoplewithin and outside the Association. We are going tomiss him. Believe me, I will.

The Association is indebted to LeroyGoodson, and we are planning to show ourappreciation for his many years of service to TWCAat our Fall Meeting at the Wyndham Riverwalk Hotel

3

Messa ge fromthe Presiden t

Robert J. Brandes, TWCA President

Continued on page 4

TWCA 2014 Fall ConferenceOctober 15-17, 2014

Wyndham San AntonioRiverwalk Hotel

in San Antonio. We have a planning committeeappointed for this event, and it looks like we will havea special dinner to honor Leroy on Thursday evening,October 15th. So mark your calendars. This will be aspecial occasion that I know many present and pastmembers of the Association will want to attend andgive Leroy a sendoff in style to those lazy days ofretirement that he so richly deserves.

On another note, Leroy and Assistant GeneralManager Dean Robbins were authorized by theBoard of Directors at its December meeting to explorethe employment of a new staff member for theAssociation to assist with the transition process asLeroy phases out his tenure and to begin to assumesome of the management workload of the Associationalong with Dean.

I am excited to announce that they haveoffered a position to Stacey Steinbach, and presentplans are for Stacey to come on board in June of thisyear. Stacey is no stranger to the water business inTexas, particularly as it relates to TWCA, havingserved as the Executive Director of the Texas Allianceof Groundwater Districts since 2011. In this role, shehas effectively managed all aspects of the affairs ofTAGD, giving her valuable experience that shoulddirectly benefit the Association.

Stacey previously worked as an attorney atthe Texas General Land Office, where she representedthe agency on matters related to coastal law, stateboundaries, and natural resource issues. She also hasexperience working with numerous Texas waterdistricts on issues involving water quality, watersupply, water rights, and the laws governing localgovernment entities through her previous work asan attorney in private practice. Stacey holds a bachelorof science degree in biology and ecology from BaylorUniversity, a master of science in wildlife and fisheries

4

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGEContinued from page 3

Welcom e to theHorseshoe Ba y Resor t

TWCA 2014MID-YEAR CONFERENCE

Stacey Steinbach

sciences from Texas A&MUniversity, and a juris doctoratefrom the University of MontanaSchool of Law. I am happy towelcome Stacey to TWCA, andwe look forward to working withher in the future to advance theAssociation’s mission.

As many of you areacutely aware, we are in themidst of the 84th Legislativesession, actually about a third of the way through. Withnew leadership in the Senate, committee chairs havebeen named, with Senator Charles Perry the new chairof the Committee on Agriculture, Water and Rural Affairsand Senator Troy Fraser the chair of the Committee onNatural Resources and Economic Development. Theseare committees where most water-related bills will likelyemerge and be discussed. On the House side,Representative Jim Keffer will chair the Natural ResourcesCommittee, the committee most likely to address billsdealing with water issues.

Many water-related bills have been filed in bothchambers, and Dean has been monitoring these onbehalf of the Association through his periodic Legislative

Reports. At last count, Dean already had over130 bills on his watch list. Several of thegroundwater bills that TWCA’s groundwatercommittee crafted over the past year or so areamong those that have been filed. These includeHB655, HB930, HB950, HB1221, and HB1248.

Now is the time to begin to pay specialattention to the activities of the Legislature as billsare being discussed in committee meetings andformulated for consideration by the House andthe Senate. Dean already has attended severalcommittee meetings and discussed various water-related bills with legislative staffs. As these billsmove forward, Dean will continue to keep usadvised as to their status through his LegislativeReports. If you want to subscribe, feel free tocontact Dean directly.

On a closing note, I want to invite each ofyou to attend the Association’s 2015 AnnualConvention at the Sheraton Hotel at the Capitol inAustin during March 4 through 6. We have anexciting program planned, with presentations byTexas Comptroller Glenn Hager; Brigadier GeneralDavid Hill, Commander of the South-westernDivision of the Corps of Engineers; Christi Craddick,Chairman of the Texas Railroad Commission; StateSenator Charles Perry; State Representative JimKeffer; and State Representative Wayne Smith.

An update on TWCA’s groundwaterlegislation also will be presented by Brian Sledgeand Hope Wells, co-chairs of the Association’sgroundwater committee. We also have a dinnerprogram planned for Thursday evening whenspecial awards and recognition will be presentedto members and friends of the Association.

We look forward to seeing you there.

You are Cordially Invitedto a Reception

Thursday, March 56:00 to 7:00 pm

Capital View TerraceGenerously Sponsored by

5

Continued on page 6

These are questions being asked andimplicated in a quiet, but potentially raucous casecurrently awaiting the attention of the Supreme Courtof Texas in Coyote Lake Ranch, LLC v. City ofLubbock.

History of the disputeOver 60 years ago the Purtell family—owners

of a 26,000 acre-tract of land in rural Bailey County(the “Purtell Tract”)—sold the groundwater in placebelow the surface of the Purtell Tract, and severalrights of access across and within the Purtell Tract, tothe City of Lubbock, as memorialized in the followinglanguage from the 1953 deed reporting theconveyance:

“[A]nd by these presents do Grant, Sell andConvey unto the said CITY OF LUBBOCK, amunicipal corporation of Lubbock County,Texas, all of the percolating and undergroundwater in, under, and that may be produced from

What does it mean to purchase “full and exclusive” rights of access and use of the surface ofreal property for exploration and production of the groundwater below?

When the Supreme Court of Texas decided Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Day in 2012, did itintend to bring all of the antecedent legal concepts of mineral estates, and their relationshipswith the associated surface estates, over into Texas groundwater law as well?

If ownership of groundwater in Texas is now completely analogous to ownership (andpresumably appropriate management) of hydrocarbons, are the legal assumptionsunderpinning today’s groundwater regulation scheme that have been made over the pastcentury now flawed?

Case Spotlight:Coyote Lake Ranch, LLC

v City of LubbockBy Jason Hill and James Aldredge

the hereinafter described tracts of land, situatedin Bailey County, Texas, together with the exclusiveright to take such water from said tracts of landand to use the same for disposition to cities andtowns situated in Bailey, Cochran, Hockley, Lamband Lubbock Counties, Texas, together with thefull and exclusive rights of ingress and egress in,over, and on said lands, so that the Grantee ofsaid water rights may at any time and locationdrill water wells and test wells on said lands for thepurpose of investigating, exploring[,] producing,and gett ing access to percolating andunderground water; together with the rights tostring, lay, construct, and maintain water and fuelpipelines and trunk, collector, and distributionwater lines, power lines, communication lines, airvents with barricades, observation wells withbarricades, if required, not exceeding ten (10)square feet of surface area, reservoirs, booster

Photo of Purtell Tract in 2015courtesy of the City of Lubbock.

6

stations, houses for employees, and access roadson, over and under said lands necessary orincidental to any of said operations, togetherwith the right to erect necessary housing forwells, equipment and supplies, together withperpetual easements for all such purposes,together with the rights to use all that part of saidlands necessary or incidental to the taking ofpercolating and underground water and theproduction, treating and transmission of watertherefrom and delivery of said water to the watersystem of the City of Lubbock only.”1

Some years later, the Coyote Lake Ranch,LLC (or “CLR”) acquired what was left of theremaining surface property rights to the Purtell Tractand began using the property to purportedly grazecattle.

Lubbock began producing groundwater froma portion of the property soon after acquiring it fromthe Purtells. The City has since continually producedgroundwater from that field throughout the years.

However, in 2012 and 2013, Lubbock developed andproposed a well field plan to expand its groundwaterproduction to other parts of the Purtell Tract. Inpreparation for drilling test wells, the City mowed anumber of paths from existing ranch roads throughgrass to the proposed test well sites.

CLR protested the City’s effort. It complainedthat its cattle started using the newly mowed paths astrails instead of other livestock trails on the property,thus trampling what grass remained. It complainedthat that the surface of the Purtell Tract hosted nativegrasses that served as habitat for the endangeredLesser Prairie Chicken, and that the City’s efforts toexercise its property rights interfered with CLR’s plansto obtain a formal state designation of the Purtell Tractas a Lesser Prairie Chicken habitat. Moreover, CLRcomplained that the City’s exploration activities, suchas the installation of drilling rigs, mowing and bladingof grass, developing paths and roads to accommodateaccess to drill sites, and installation of power lines andother needed infrastructure,would damage thesurface of the Purtell Tract and interfere with CLR’sother uses of the property. CLR also complained thatthe creation of the High Plains Underground WaterConservation District upset all the assumptionsbehind the Purtell’s 1953 conveyance to the City,alleging that “[t]he formation of the [High Plains WaterDistrict] was neither anticipated nor expected at thetime of the 1953 conveyances.”2

CLR eventually sued the City in Bailey CountyDistrict Court in 2013. While CLR asserted variouscauses of action in its lawsuit—inverse condemnation,breach of contract, negligence, and declaratoryjudgment—the foundation of all CLR’s claims restedon a novel question to groundwater law in Texas: doesthe City of Lubbock have a common (or court-made)law obligation to accommodate CLR’s uses of thePurtell Track by implementing reasonable alternativemeans of producing groundwater from below thesurface? In other words, does CLR benefit from theoil and gas law concept of “accommodation”? The287th District Court in Bailey County said “yes” inDecember 2013 when it issued a temporaryinjunction prohibiting the City from mowing, blading,or destroying grass on the Purtell Tract, fromproceeding with any test well drilling without CLR’sprior approval, and from installing power lines on thePurtell Tract to power the City’s well productionactivities.

Lubbock filed an interlocutory appeal to theAmarillo Court of Appeals. Both the City of Lubbock

Coyote Lake Ranch CaseContinued from page 5

CRMWD’s Raw Water Production Facility

7

and Coyote Lake Ranch, LLC agreed that the courtof appeals needed to answer only one question forthe case to be resolved: does the oil and gas law“accommodation doctrine” apply to property owner-City of Lubbock when exercising its rights in thePurtell Tract in opposition to property owner-CLR?

The accommodation doctrine in Texas oil and gas law

Texas courts have long recognized that the feesimple estate of a single piece of property can beseparated vertically into a surface estate and a mineralestate. Texas has also long recognized that whenmineral estate ownership is separated from thesurface, the mineral estate becomes “the dominantestate in the sense that use of as much of the [surface]as is reasonably necessary to produce and removethe minerals is held to be impliedly authorized by [amineral] lease.”1 But as courts wrestled with disputesbetween mineral lessees and surface owners, thecommon law in Texas developed to say that thedominant rights of the mineral estate are not alwaysabsolute with regard to the surface estate.2 Out ofthis string of rationale was born the accommodationdoctrine, which says the broad production andexploration rights implied in leases of a dominantmineral estate must be exercised with “due regardfor”—i.e., by accommodating—the rights of theowner of the servient estate when suchaccommodation can be done by using otheravailable, non-interfering production and explorationmeans.

Under the accommodation doctrine, amineral lessee may be required to adopt alternativeproduction and exploration methods to accommodate

a surface owner’s use of the surface estate. Theburden is on the surface estate owner to show thatsuch alternative methods are available underestablished practices in the industry.

There is no accommodation doctrine in Texas groundwater law… yetCLR argued on appeal that because the

Supreme Court used oil and gas common law todescribe the fundamentals of groundwater ownershipunder the rule of capture in Edwards AquiferAuthority v. Day ,3 the court imposed theaccommodation doctrine on groundwater productionby implication.4 The City responded that the caseshould be governed by the express terms of thebargain reached between the Purcell’s and the Cityover 60 years ago—specifically through the 1953deed language cited above. And regardless, the Cityargued, nothing in Day, and nothing before thatdecision, creates a dominant and servient relationshipbetween a groundwater estate and a surface estate,respectively. Without such a distinction, the Cityclaimed, there is no basis for courts to create dutiesof accommodation.

The Amarillo Court of Appeals agreed withthe City that no court in Texas, including the SupremeCourt in Day, has completed the bridge between oiland gas ownership, on one hand, and groundwaterownership on the other hand, to the degree CLR hasasked it to do. The Amarillo Court noted that nothingin Day touches on any implied rights of a groundwaterestate owner, nor creates a dominant and subservientrelationship between groundwater estates and surfaceestates. Instead, the Amarillo Court of Appealsconcluded in its July 2014 decision that “[i]f Day isto be read to support such an extension of its analogybetween groundwater and oil and gas, then this Courtrespectfully defers to the Texas Supreme Court torecognize and pronounce such an extension,especially in light of the dramatic implications it couldhave in the area of water law in Texas.” The court ofappeals reversed the trial court’s order temporarilyenjoining the City and remanded the case for trial onany remaining issues.

Appeal is pending to the Supreme Court of Texas

On September 24, 2014, CLR appealed tothe Texas Supreme Court. CLR argues that becausethe Supreme Court based its decision in EdwardsAquifer Authority v. Day to apply an ownership-in-place doctrine to groundwater on the principle that

Continued on page 31

Photo of Purtell Tract in 2015

8

Wednesday, October 15,2014 The Quarry GolfC l u b

El Nino Update... On the Cusp

By Jeffrey Lindner, Meterologist Harris County Flood Control District

Photo by Barbara Payne

At this time last year, Texans were hopeful thata forecasted moderate to strong El Nino woulddevelop in the Pacific Ocean and help supply moistureto a parched state suffering from years of drought. ElNino, or the warming of the sea surface temperaturesin the equatorial Pacific Ocean generally from the westcoast of South America to the areas south of Hawaii,was forecast by several global forecast models todevelop and intensify last fall into the winter of 2014-2015. During the summer of 2014 forecast modelsbegan to suggest an increasing likelihood of a weakEl Nino instead of the initially predicted moderate tostrong El Nino.

Sea surface temperature anomalies across thecentral and eastern Pacific Ocean have been runningabove normal since late last spring and this trend hascontinued in early 2015. Sea surface temperatureanomalies generally peaked in the late fall and earlywinter of 2014 and have shown a gradual coolingtrend early in 2015 especially in the eastern PacificOcean off the coast of South America. Of the fourNino regions where sea surface temperature

anomalies are monitored, three of those regions haveshown anomalies near or above the El Nino thresholdof .5C above normal.

While sea surface temperatures have been ator near the threshold of El Nino during the past fewmonths, the coupling of the atmosphere to the warmerocean conditions have failed to completelymaterialize. This includes no significant weakeningof the easterly trade winds across the eastern or centralPacific Ocean which usually is an indicator of El Ninoand helps to build positive sea surface temperatureanomalies as upwelling off the western coast of Mexicois decreased. Additionally, thunderstorm activitywhich would normally increase over the central andeastern Pacific Ocean during El Nino conditions hasbeen minimal and focused across the western Pacific.While sea surface temperatures have been near theEl Nino threshold the atmosphere over the centraland eastern Pacific has not coupled with the oceanconditions. Generally for a full fledge El Nino episode,the ocean and atmosphere need to couple and worktogether which includes a weakening of the easterly

9

Continued on page 14

trade winds and repositioning of tropical thunderstorm activity over the central and eastern Pacific.While El Nino conditions have not officially developed in the Pacific, weather patterns across the

southwest United States and the southern plains including Texas have tended to favor an El Nino pattern fromlate fall into early 2015. Precipitation across much of southwest and west Texas into New Mexico and Arizonahas been averaging near to above normal over the past few months. Temperature departures averaged belownormal in November and January and above normal in December. El Nino generally brings cooler andwetter conditions to the southwest and southern United States during the fall, winter and spring month. Thefollowing table shows the monthly rainfall and departures from normal along with the temperature departurefrom normal for November, December, and January for Houston, Austin, and Brownsville:

In addition to the recent rainfall andtemperatures trends across the southwest andsouthern plains, the 2014 hurricane seasons in theboth the Atlantic and eastern Pacific basins closelycorrelated with El Nino. The eastern Pacific basinproduced 20 tropical storms of which 14 becamehurricanes while the Atlantic basin produced 8 tropicalstorms of which 6 became hurricanes. The 2014eastern Pacific hurricane season was the most activeon record since 1992 and the fourth most active sincereliable records have been kept El Nino typicallyproduced increased upper level wind shear acrossthe Atlantic basin reducing the number and intensityof tropical cyclones, while warmer than normal waters

across the tropical eastern Pacific help foster tropicalcyclone formation.

Recent observations across the eastern andcentral Pacific Ocean suggest that El Nino may stillattempt to fully develop this spring and the currentNOAA outlook gives a 50-60% chance of thatoccurring. However the formation of El Nino andcoupling of the ocean and atmosphere becomesincreasingly less likely during the spring and summermonths suggesting that the current neutral conditionsin the Pacific may be the more likely outcome. Rainfallacross Texas for the next three months is forecast tobe near normal over the eastern part of the state and

10

Framework” to acknowledge and address theseconcerns.

For many years, communities contended thatEPA’s framework (produced in 1997) required anunaffordability case that was too rigid by focusingprimarily on utility costs as a percentage of medianhousehold income, and needed to portray moreaccurately the circumstances facing communities withcostly Clean Water Act obligations. After ongoinglobbying efforts by owners of Publicly-Owned TreatmentWorks (“POTWs”) and advocacy groups such as theU.S. Conference of Mayors, the EPA provided updatesto its affordability analysis in November 2014. Theseupdates should help regulated entities frame theircompliance obligations and financial pressures in amore tailored manner, and in a way that ultimately resultsin better flexibility for all Clean Water Act obligations.

Fundamentally, the framework represents thefederal government’s evaluation of a local government’s(and their citizens’) ability to pay, and thus may seempaternalistic. However, many of the updates reflect amore local government-centric perspective rather thana dismissive, top-down edict.

Several highlights of the revised guidance areworth attention. In support of their affordabilityapproach, regulated communities may present a varietyof information relevant both to the financial strength ofthe community as well as residential impacts. Theseinclude, among others: income distribution by geography, quintile, orother examples, such as background for unique ratestructures for lower income customers; water/wastewater usage rates by ratepayer classesor dwelling unit types; service area-based poverty rates/trends; customer payment delinquency rates; rate/revenue models;

What’s Affordable?EPA Issues Updated Water

Affordability Guidance By Nathan Vassar

Whether you run a business, government entity,or household, a variety of budgeting questions likelyarise on a regular basis: “Can I afford that?” “Is thisestimate too high?” “How much is ‘too much’ to payfor rent?” “If purchased, will others also bear the cost?”

There are opportunity costs associated withany purchase, and most of us use guidelines uniqueto our circumstances to decide whether certainpurchases are affordable and necessary, in light of allpriorities. A broken refrigerator should demand attentionbefore replacing aging windows; that 1990s pickuptruck may serve its purpose much longer so that youcan afford new shingles to help with that leaky roof.Most people logically make major purchasingdecisions by considering what fits within their budget;and which projects need attention f irst.

For government entities with Clean Water Actobligations, compliance costs, when considered in theaggregate (for wastewater collection, treatment,stormwater, and potable water), may seem unaffordable.Nevertheless, utility directors do not have an option topunt on permit compliance. For many, an unaffordability“escape hatch” would be welcomed, and could comein the form of extended schedules or more appropriatecompliance requirements when a community and itsratepayers are already bearing a significant burden.Fortunately, such relief is available as the EPA hasrecently updated its “Financial Capability Assessment

11

population trends/projections; and, historical rate increases.

In short, a community has a platform to presentmany of its unique challenges concerning the natureof its ratepayers and ratepayer classes.

Other considerations include a host of existingdebt circumstances (financing capabilities, debt ratios,debt service coverage, and similar), bonding health,and other “extraordinary stressors” such assusceptibility to natural disasters and particularlyunique capital market conditions, among others.Further, the guidance makes clear that EPA will alsoreview costs for stormwater and Safe Drinking WaterAct compliance when considering an affordability case.Thus, expensive Clean Water Act obligations will notbe reviewed in a vacuum (which, in the past may haveignored cumulative budgeting effects), but may bepresented comprehensively through the revisedframework.

What this new guidance means will varydepending upon one’s situation. If a MS4 or TPDESpermit renewal is on the horizon, you shouldcontemplate whether existing compliance costs plusadditional requirements will stretch your utility’s budget(and your ratepayers’ purses). A robust affordabilityanalysis along with an integrated compliance proposalacross all water-related obligations may result in greaterflexibility and longer schedules. By the same token,the affordability structure is useful in enforcementcontexts to demonstrate the need for a more customizedapproach to compliance requirements and schedules.The new guidance presents opportunities to show whyone’s financial circumstances are unique and mayresult in costs and schedules that are responsible toboth ratepayers and the environment.

Nathan Vassar is an Attorneyat Lloyd Gosselink Rochelle &Townsend P.C. Nathanpractices in the Firm’s Water andLitigation Practice Groups,focusing on regulatorycompliance, water quali tyissues, and water resourcesdevelopment. For inquiries

concerning the EPA affordability framework, IntegratedPlanning, or other enforcement issues, please contactNathan at nvassar@lglawfirm.com or (512) 322-5867

EnviroMedia2021 E. 5th St., Suite 150

Austin, TX 78702Contact: Valerie Salinas-Davis

vdavis@enviromedia.com

Jonathan Kleinman8705 Mountainwood Circle

Austin, TX 78759-7567jonathan.i.kleinman@gmail.com

Sutton County U.W.C.D.301 S. Crockett Ave.

Sonora, TX 76950-6818Contact: Jim Polonis

sutuwcd7@verizon.net

IDE Americas, Inc.106 E. 6th Street, Suite900

Austin, TX 78701Contact: Mark Ellison

Mark.ellison@ide-americas.com

Welcome New Members

When the Membership Services Commit-tee met during the October 2014 Conference in SanAntonio, among the topics discussed was, “How dowe learn more about what TWCA members want inthe way of meeting agendas and formats.” What pro-voked this question was the trial “concurrent session”format we had recommended for the October Confer-ence. Did members notice and appreciate the choice?Did it work out logistically? And is this expanded for-mat something that resonated with the attendees?

We ecognized that -- short of posting our com-mittee members outside the meeting room doors withclip boards to query exiting attendees -- getting a validsnapshot of reactions/opinions would be hit or miss atbest. Still, probing for opinions and suggestions wasgiven high priority by the Committee. While we were atit, we decided to include one or two general questionsabout TWCA meetings in general and to solicit sug-gestions.

Thanks to the assistance of TWCA’s LisaHenley, we obtained contact information for all attend-ees, and crafted an evaluation survey that we sent ourby e-mail following the meeting. We knew we wouldn’tget a 100 percent response, but felt the potential infor-mation to be gained was worth the effort.

The responses started coming in almost imme-diately, and ultimately we heard from just under 20 per-cent of the attendees. Not a record-breakingresponse...but a little better than the average for anexternal survey...and we got some very useful feed-back.

Here are the questions and responses....

we asked youto give us apiece of your

mindby David Harkins, Ph.D., P.E. , Chair

TWCA Membership Services CommitteeHow often do you attend TWC conferences?Rarely 0%Whenever my schedule permits 43.7%Always 56.2%

How much does the conference agenda influ-ence your decision to attend?Very little 23.4%Some influence 56.2%Agenda is my primary decision factor 20.3%

How would you rate the October 2014 Con-ference?Not many topics interested me 4.6%I attended some sessions but mainlyattended for the networking 34.3%This was an excellent meeting; enjoyedboth sessions and networking 60.9%

This meeting featured concurrent sessionson Thursday afternoon. How do you rate thisoption on a scale of 1 - 5? (1= I didn’t like it at all;2 = I didn’t notice the option; 3 = I found it hard tochoose between sessions; 4 = I would like to give itanother try; and 5 = A great option...please offer itagain.)

1 -- 3.1% 2 -- 4.7% 3 -- 17.2%4 -- 46.9% 5 -- 28.1%Many of the respondents added a comment or

suggestion. This provided some good insight into theoverall attitude of participants as well as some usefulsuggestions.

12

Do you have any suggestions to helpimprove TWCA conferences? I think the more we can offer diverse andrelevant continuing education topics we will beable to attract more members. It is also likely tohelp get agencies and organizations to sendyounger members; which is an important factor sothat TWCA is not left with a brain drain at anypoint.

Bring in at least one or two national figures foreach conference to let folks know what is going onin the rest of the world....What innovative watermanagement strategies are being utilized elsewherethat might be of interest to Texas.

Provide the speaker bios in printed literatureinstead of reading them during the sessions. Thisonly takes time away from what could be used bythe speakers.

It is a very unique Conference focusing on bothtechnical and political aspects of the industry....

Keep up the good work. Your topics fordiscussion are always excellent.

TWCA’s Membership Services Committee willcontinue to solicit information about topics of interestto the general membership and to conduct periodic sur-veys and evaluations to measure how we’re doing. OurCommittee has grown significantly in size this pastyear, and we are delighted to have new and diverseinput into our planning and communications assign-ments.

Another of our ongoing efforts is to visit withother Committees and Panels during TWCA meetingsto invite dialogue and an exchange ofideas about the organization’s pro-grams and procedures. Look forred ribbons on the meetingbadges to identify MembershipServices members.

Visitors are alwayswelcome at our meetings!

Here are some of the remarks ...

13

TWCA Member Serves asNational WateReuse

Association PresidentBob Johnson, a member of the

TWCA Board of Directors since 2001 hasbeen elected to serve as the President ofthe WateReuse Association. Bob iscurrently a Principal with McManus &Johnson Consulting Engineers, LLC.McManus & Johnson is a Civil EngineeringFirm serving municipalities and wateragencies in Texas. The WRA is a tradeorganization that includes more than 400members in the U.S., Mexico, Canada,Europe, Asia, and Australia. TheWateReuse Association is a nonprofitorganization whose mission is to advancethe beneficial and efficient uses of high-quality, locally produced, sustainable watersources for the betterment of society andthe environment through advocacy,education and outreach, research, andmembership. Congratulations to Bob onthis achievement and best wishes.

14

El Nino UpdateContinued from page 9

slightly above normal across the central and westernareas with temperatures generally near to belownormal.

Currently 56% of the state of Texas isconsidered in drought which is down from 87% thistime last year. Drought conditions remain in placeacross much of the panhandle into north and centralTexas and the coastal bend. Drought conditions havegreatly improved over eastern Texas and west Texas

from the recent winter rainfall. The longer termhydrological drought continues to hold firm overmuch of central Texas and the highland lakes intonorth Texas. The current combined storage of bothlakes Travis and Buchanan is only 36%. 2014featured the second lowest inflow into the highlandlakes on record with only 209,023 acre-feet (17% ofaverage). The only lower inflow was in the devastatingdrought of 2011 with 127,082 acre-feet (11% ofaverage). Of the top ten lowest inflows into thehighland lakes, seven have occurred since 2006 withthe top three occurring in 2011, 2013, and 2014.

Time series of area-averaged sea surface temperatures(SST) anomalies (degrees C) in the Nino regions (Nino-1+2(O degrees-10 degrees, 90 degrees W-80 degreesW); Nino 3 (5 degrees N-5 degrees S, 150 degrees W -90 degrees W); Nino -3-4 (5 degrees N- 5 degrees S, 170degrees W-120 degrees W); Nino-4 (5 degrees N- 5degrees S, 150 degrees W - 160 degrees E). SSTanomalies are departures from thje 1981-2010 baseperiod weekly means.

METEOROLOGIST JEFF LINDNER

Joining the Harris CountyFlood Control District in2004 as the District’s firstmeteorologist is one ofmany precedents set byJeff Lindner. In hisprimary role as managerof the District’s FloodWatch Program, Jeff implements regularcommunication with the National WeatherService and the Harris County Office ofEmergency Management (HCOEM) during timesof flooding while monitoring 140 rainfall and stagegages and collecting data at over 400 bridgeslocated on many of Harris County’s 2,500 milesof channel. In addition he oversees the operationof the Harris County Flood Warning System andthe Regional Flood ALERT Partners group as wellas establishing flood levels for all 140 gage sitesin Harris County. Jeff also held the RegionalCoordinator for CoCoRaHS for six years insoutheast Texas and has developed multiplepresentations and preparedness materials onhurricane impacts, flooding, and drought and howto prepare and respond to these weather episodes.Jeff holds a Bachelor of Science degree inmeteorology from Texas A&M University. He is amember of the national and local chapters of theAmerican Meteorological Society and of the TexasGulf Coast Emergency Managers Association, theNational Hydrological Warning Council, Texas FlashFlood Coalition, and ALERT Users Group.

15

Three individuals representing the TexasWater Conservation Association (TWCA) receivedawards at the NWRA recent Annual Conference,November 12-14, 2014 in Coronado, California.

James M. “Jim” Parks and Jerry Clarkboth received Honorary Life Memberships for theirservice and participation with NWRA. In addition,Leroy Goodson received the John M. SayersLeadership Award.

Jim Parks recently retired as General Managerof the North Texas Municipal Water District. He wasvery active in NWRA and presented several programsat NWRA conventions and meetings. He also servedTWCA as an alternate Director to NWRA for manyyears.

Jerry Clark was a long-time NWRA Directorrepresenting TWCA and was very active in theactivities of NWRA. He recently retired as GeneralManager of the Sabine River Authority of Texas.

Both men are past presidents of TWCA andare members of the TWCA Board of Directors. Bothhave received Honorary Life Memberships in TWCA.

Leroy Goodson is the long-time GeneralManager of TWCA and had served on the Board ofDirectors of NWRA for the past nineteen (19) years.Leroy has previously received the NWRA’sDistinguished Service Award, the President’s Awardand Honorary Life Membership Award.

In addition to the awards, Texas WaterDevelopment Board (TWDB) Chairman CarlRubinstein presented an outstanding program on theTexas Water Plan and House Bill 4, the State WaterImplementation Fund, the procedures, methods, andmechanics of its implementation.

TWCA FOLKS RECEIVE NATIONAL WATER RESOURCESASSOCIATION (NWRA) AWARDS

PHOTOS...op right: Thomas Kula, General Manager, North TexasMunicipal Water district presenting James “Jim” Parkswith a plaque from National Water ResourcesAssociation (NWRA) for “Lifetime AchievementAward” Mr. Parks was unable to attend the NWRAmeeting, so Mr. Kula brought the plaque back andpresented it to Jim Parks (retired GM for North TexasMunicipal Water District).

Center right:Cliff Todd (Board member, Sabine RiverAuthority of Texas) presents the NRWA LifetimeAcievement award to Jerry Clark, retired GeneralManager of Sabine River Authority of Texas,

Above: Leroy Goodson, left, received the John SayerLeadership Award at NWRA recent Annual Confer-ence, November 12-14, 2014 in Coronado, Califor-nia.

16

By Barbara Elmore

At Canyon Lake Gorge, a deep schism in theground formed by flooding in 2002, educators tellthe story of water—where it comes from, where itgoes, its power to destroy and renew, and man’sattempts to harness it.

When funding flows in for construction of aneducational complex at this site in Comal County, thewater story will be enhanced, expanded and told foryears to come in a center overlooking this naturalwonder.

Important foundations are already in place: asystem of trails for students and the general public tohike on and learn about Mother Earth; a network ofvolunteers who nurture the area like their own backyard; ideas for educational displays and programs;and the gorge itself.

No ground will be broken for the learning centeruntil the nonprofit Guadalupe River Foundation,formed in 2012 to increase the public’s knowledgeof the Guadalupe River Basin, has banked enoughmoney to pay for the center’s estimated $5.5 millionto $6.5 million construction cost and ongoingmaintenance. But the center inches closer to reality

as the Guadalupe River Foundation applies for grants.The organization instrumental in planning the

learning center, Guadalupe Blanco River Authority,manages a 10-county district stretching from KendallCounty in Central Texas to Refugio and Calhouncounties on the Gulf Coast. The location for thelearning center in the upper part of the basin fell intoplace when the land adjacent to the gorge becameavailable, said LaMarriol Smith, GBRA’s executivemanager for Strategic Communications and PublicAffairs. “The beauty of that site is its location, nearboth the gorge and our primary water supply atCanyon Reservoir. It’s a location that made sense.”

When news broke about the gorge carved byflooding, people worldwide clamored to see it. It tooktime for the story to unfold, as historic rainfallproduced widespread, long-lasting devastation. TheGBRA and the Army Corps of Engineers, alreadyjointly managing Canyon Reservoir, extended theirpartnership to the gorge. GBRA assumed a 25-yearlease as manager, and by 2007 began offering toursinto the gorge.

Cinde Thomas-Jimenez, GBRA’s environ-mental education administrator, was the first person

New classroom planned at gorge to teach the story of water

17

to train guides and lead the tours. She also helpedestablish the nonprofit Gorge Preservation Society.

Then GBRA bought the 21 acres adjacent tothe gorge and prepared for development.

The study of waterWater is only one subject that people would

study at the proposed learning center, but it plays thebiggest part in this story. Water created the gorge,scooping out giant boulders and dirt to unearthancient fossils. The excavation formed by the floodingreaches 50 feet deep in some places and extends forabout a mile. When people were able to explore thegorge, they found dinosaur tracks from more than100 million years ago.

The site for the learning center features a hillthat overlooks the gorge and is within walking distanceto the Canyon Reservoir and dam, said Thomas-Jimenez. “With Canyon as our major reservoir, wecan pull in a lot of concepts that we want people to befamiliar with, such as why we built the dam, the Trinityand Edwards aquifers that feed into the river system,and Comal Springs in New Braunfels. Comal Countyis very water-rich, so this spot is ideal.”

She sees the gorge as an outdoor laboratoryfor people to view the aquifer system, which includesnatural falls and areas in which streams and pondsform, disappear, then reappear. “It is interesting tosee the emergence of water. Then it disappears andcomes out again.” Some of the water moves fromthe lake, but it also emerges from natural seeps thatare part of the groundwater system, she said.

Her wish list for future educational exhibitsincludes a model of the river basin, which would

demonstrate the drop in elevation and how watersflow to the bay in the 10 counties that GBRA manages.She envisions a map on the ground with actual waterflowing through it, turned off when no one is there tosee it. “This would show how Canyon Lake is astorage reservoir for the water supply, and how thewaters flow to the bay,” she said.

She also envisions an exhibit hall dedicatedto water conservation and a rainwater harvestingsystem attached to the building, collecting water touse for landscaping. “In the grand scheme of things,we would be able to host classes for adults,” with topicslike well maintenance, rainwater harvesting, septictank maintenance for water quality, and landownerworkshops to offer ideas for protecting the watersupply.

This education would build on ongoingprograms for children. A recent grant from the NewBraunfels-based McKenna Foundation allowed threeorganizations—the Gorge Preservation Society,GBRA, and the Heritage Museum of the Texas HillCountry—to bring fifth graders from Comal Countyschools to the gorge and the museum for a hands-onfield day. Four schools visited in October 2014 withtwo more scheduled in March 2015.

The grant paid for school buses to bring about 500students as well as an additional restroom, picnictables, and safety improvements in the gorge. Thestudents gathered fossils for identification and learnedabout erosion, Thomas-Jimenez said, getting ahands-on earth science education.

Continued on page 20

18

A wave of retirements is approaching manywater districts in Texas. Some of the transitions havebeen anticipated and well planned. Other changescould occur suddenly and tragically. In all cases thesuccession of the general manager poses certain risksto the district that may not be completely eliminated,but can be reduced or mitigated. One important riskmanagement tool to reduce the risk to water districtsfrom the planned or unplanned loss of key leaders orknowledge positions is a comprehensive successionplan.

Risks associated with the loss of leadershipin management or technical areas usually involve theloss of opportunity, momentum and relationships.Planning and implementation processes grind to a haltfor a while as new leadership is emplaced. Prioritiesand projects change. Knowledge about who to call forhelp or what to do to fix a technical issue vanishes.Though not fatal, disruptions like these can result indiminished effectiveness, loss of morale and lostincome. These are significant risks when a district isoperating in an environment where every drop of wateris in demand and new supplies and infrastructure arecritical.

District Boards of Trustees have one employeewhose replacement they must plan for and that is thegeneral manager. Although it may seem awkward tobegin a discussion years in advance of a plannedretirement, the need for a fully developed successionplan can arise at any time. The plan also worksextremely well if it is implemented according to thetiming of a retirement. In addition to the Trustees, thedistrict itself has the need for succession planning forthe leadership and knowledge positions that make thedistrict function effectively for its clients andcommunity.

Courtesy of TWCA Risk Management Fund

Succession Risk Succession Risk

19

The elements of an effective succession planinclude:• Identification of positions for which successionplanning is essential• A process to identify potential for advancement intoleadership or knowledge positions of people in thecurrent organizational chart – a kind of depth chart orbench of talent• Enumeration of the knowledge and qualitiesnecessary to assume leadership positions• A mentoring and educational process for the peopleidentified with potential• Ιnvolvement of all levels of management in theprocess• Consideration of succession potential in theevaluations given to staff• Consideration of the cascade effect when a leaderleaves the organization. Where do the duties andresponsibilities go after a departure?

The Board of Trustees should also work withthe current general manager to develop a philosophyof succession based on the leadership potential ofexisting staff, grooming of a replacement, the use of asearch firm or an open application process.

For more information about

important Risk Management topics,

please visit

http://www.twcarmf.org/

For Sponsoring thePresident’s Breakfast

Our Appreciation and Thanks tothe Following Sponsors:

For Sponsoring the Thursday Evening Reception

For Sponsoring the Ice Cream/Treats Break

For Sponsoring the Coffee Breaks

For Sponsoring the Name Badges

20

GBRA offers free award-winning educationalmaterials to schools. Through the GRF, the learningcenter will support and expand upon conceptspresented in those curriculum materials.

Wish listThomas-Jimenez and Smith spent about six

months investigating learning centers beforedeveloping a wish list for the GBRA complex.Architectural drawings show the area adjacent to thegorge off of the South Access Road near HiddenValley Sports Park. Native gardens, oak trees, acourtyard basin, rainwater cisterns and nature trailssurround three buildings. One building would houseoffices, another classrooms, and a third, exhibits.

The educational staff considered state-mandated education requirements that teachers mustmeet and looked at big picture concepts. “We visitedquite a few centers in Central Texas,” said Thomas-Jimenez. “We want people to walk away with anunderstanding of the r iver system and the

interconnectedness between ground and surfacewater.”

Another piece of education shows the differenttypes of land through which water travels, she said.Giving people a more complete water pictureillustrates Texas’ future challenges in terms of waterquality and quantity. She hopes the knowledge willlead to people using water wisely on an everydaybasis.

Planners also included community ideas andneeds and added key local residents to the GuadalupeRiver Foundation board of directors. RustyBrockman, a GBRA board member for ComalCounty, is one of the appointees to the GRF board.As director of economic development for the NewBraunfels Chamber of Commerce and a retirededucator, Brockman has a stage for gathering supportfor the learning center. He likes the idea of sharingboth ancient history and today’s lake with visitorsworldwide. “The gorge and the history are part ofthe reason we have been able to garner so muchattention. It’s nice to have that. When people cometo take the tour, they will enjoy a world-classeducational facility as well.”

Other members of the volunteer GRF boardare David Welsch of Seguin, the executive managerof Business Development and Resource Managementfor GBRA; Thomas-Jimenez; and Smith, who is theboard’s interim executive director. “We want to addmore people who have community connections andare interested in development of the environmentallearning center,” Smith said.

Volunteers crucialVolunteers are instrumental in building a trail

system that links with other nearby trails. The previouslandowner had cleared cedar from the property andleft behind dozens of large debris piles. “We wantedto do something with the branches,” Thomas-Jimenez said. A contractor mulched the trees and thevolunteers formed the mulch into trails, then definedthe trails with logs.

“In the long run, the trails will be used by thegeneral public and school groups when we get theproperty open,” Thomas-Jimenez said. The trailsconnect with those at the nearby Tye Preston

Gorge Education Center PlannedContinued from page 17

21

Memorial Library and with others developed by theGorge Preservation Society adjacent to the gorge.

Workers are members of the LindheimerChapter of Texas Master Naturalists in New Braunfels,coordinated by Art Williams. Between five to 10volunteers work an average of three hours a week atthe site, said Thomas-Jimenez. “Many of them havedone work in the gorge and at the library, so they arefamiliar with the site,” she said. Some of them havevolunteered hundreds of hours in the adjacent sites.This key group of volunteers has expressed an interestin continuing their association with the site by lendingtheir expertise in nature to visitors when the ELC iscomplete.

Planners created them with safety andemergency rescue in mind, Thomas-Jimenez said.“If someone sprains an ankle in the gorge, we wantedto be able to get an ATV in and get that person out.We incorporated an emergency trail within thesystem.”

Susan Bogle, a volunteer gorge guide andboard member for the Tye Preston Memorial Library,participated in early community discussions andhelped pull together the future learning center’sneighbors — the library, the GPS and a nearbyrecreation center, said Thomas-Jimenez. Acommunity meeting attracted many people whocontributed ideas, but GBRA already had done a lotof research, Bogle said. “From that perspective I sawhow committed GBRA is to this endeavor.”

When it came to choosing an architect, thecommunity wanted a firm that would respect the

environment. “There is unique topography on theproperty. We wanted to work with that, not recreateit,” Bogle said. “Also, the access to it is important.The access has to consider cars and school busesand has to minimize the impact on the property.”

Even though the gorge is known worldwide, saidBogle, some local residents still have not gone to seeit. “It’s not on their radar yet. Once the learning centeris built, it will be a wonderful piece of the puzzle to tellpeople more about the Canyon Lake area — theheritage, history, geology and paleontology.”

To learn more about environmental educationalprogramming available through the GRF and GBRApartnership, please contact Thomas-Jimenez at 830-379-5822. People who want to offer financialassistance for the center or nominate a person forthe GRF board may contact LaMarriol Smith at thesame number.

Barbara Elmore is a freelance writer for theGuadalupe-Blanco River Authority

By J. Tom Ray, Lockwood, Andrews, Newnam, Inc.,Chair, TWCA Federal Affairs Committee

22

FEDERAL AFFAIRS

TWCA Carries Texas Priority Water Issues to Congress

It would be nice to ignore the consternationand politics rampant in Washington, DC right nowand just stay in Texas, but that also means that ourTexas Delegation, not hearing of our TWCA-selectedpriority issues, may also overlook helping addressTexas water issues. Texas Water Day 2015 broughtthe Texas water priorities to the Texas Delegation, keyCongressional Committee Members and staff as wellas the leadership of the USGS, U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and EPA.With every issue being debated, the Texas messagehinged on the recognition that water and watersupplies are vital to the nation’s interest.

Through persistence in delivering adependable message on the impacts of federal actionson Texas water management, the influence of TWCAat the federal level has increased. Each Water Day,we gain the interest and participation of additionalTexas Delegation Members; each year we have hadthe strong support of federal water resources agenciesat the top management levels. It is a willingness tocommunicate our Texas issues and a willingness toexplain, listen in return, and follow-up that has builtparticipation. As a result, TWCA has establishedinfluential contacts not only within the Texasdelegation and with key water-related Committee staffbut also with Corps of Engineers, USGS, and Bureauof Reclamation. Those contacts are now paying off.

Those TWCA members who participate hearfrom but also have occasion to be heard. Particularlyduring the evening Reception, Members, their staff,

leadership of the USACE and USGS are available ina relaxed atmosphere to visit one-on-one. We wereprivileged again this year, to have LG Thomas Bostick,53rd Chief of Engineers of the United States Armyand Commanding General of the USACE, and hissecond in command for Civil Works, MG JohnPeabody, Deputy Commanding General for Civil andEmergency Operations, as well as the SouthwestDivision Commander BG David Hill not onlyattended, they stayed and enjoyed the Texashospitality.

Texas Water Day over the YearsEach year, Texas Water Day participants were

equipped with the Texas’ federal priority water issues,a short-list of the contemporary federal issues, ventedthrough the TWCA Federal Affairs Committee andthe Texas Water Day Steering Committee challengedTexas’ water operations or future development.TWCA and Texas Water Day participants encourageCongressional members and staff to help Texasimplement the Texas Water Plan. Implementationsupport in all forms—recognizing restricted federalfunds but encouraging regulatory relief, soundscience, and Congressional involvement in the federalselection and support for new federal water projectsand modifications to existing ones.

Tenth Annual Water Day, Texas Water Day 2015

With a full program of issue briefings, talks byTexas Delegation Members, and a well-attendedCongressional Reception, Texas Water Day 2015

23

enjoyed the success of prior Texas Water Day events. Briefings

The issues and concerns were reviewed atgroup meetings at the hotel on Tuesday afternoonand Wednesday morning. L’Oreal Stepney and DanDelich reported on federal issues at the TCEQ andthe new FFRMS, respectively. On Wednesdaymorning, Bob Slockbower and Ray Russo withSouthwest Division gave an update on the status ofthe USACE’s Infrastructure Strategy.

Speaker Series — Hearing from Texas Members, Committee Directors, and Federal Agency Mangers

Coincidentally, a ‘rare’ joint hearing with theHouse Transportation and Infrastructure Committeeand the Senate Environment and Public Works onthe proposed Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS), one ofTexas’ key priority water issues, took place literallyacross the hall from our Speakers’ room. There wasa full agenda of speakers—Texas House Membersincluded Pete Session, who keynoted the event, KayGranger, John Carter, Kevin Brady, MichaelConaway, Roger Williams, Henry Cuellar, MarcVeasey and Brian Babin.

After the lead-off presentation by AssociateDirector Bill Werkheiser, a special recognition of theUSGS was presented by Kevin Ward, GeneralManager of the Trinity River Authority. Bob Joseph,the Texas Director and long-time supporter of TexasWater Day, was given special recognition for hissupport of Texas water.

Chairman Carlos Rubinstein of the TexasWater Development Board discussed the Mexico

water delivery situation and federal priorities of theTWDB. The leadership of both the USACE and theUS Bureau of Reclamation spoke: Steve Stockton,USACE Director of Civil Works, and the newlyconfirmed Commissioner, Estevan R. Lopez of theBureau of Reclamation.

We also heard from Keil Weaver, Senior StaffDirector of the Natural Resources newly organizedSubcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans. DanDelich provided more details on the concerns, statusand future response to the FFRMS.

Congressional ReceptionPacked with Texas water managers, Corps

military commanders and staff, Congressional staff,and many others supporting Texas water, theReception hosted a number of Texas Delegationmembers with Senator John Cornyn headlining arespected group of Texas Representatives—BillFlores, Rubin Hinojosa, Dr. Bill Burgess, and RandyWeber that greeted the group and gave brief remarks.LG Thomas Bostick, MG John Peabody, andSouthwest Division Commander Paul Hill addressedthe group.

Join Us in Follow-up EffortsWith Congress and the federal agencies, a

one-time event is only a start. Even the best efforts atpresenting the federal issues, require follow-up to keepthe message current and out-front. For just thatpurpose, TWCA is planning a follow-up event. Moreon this later, as it develops, but please consider joiningus either for the follow-up effort or for Texas WaterDay 2016 or both!

Continued on page 24

FEDERAL AFFAIRS...Continued from page 23

Highlighting the Texas Priority Water IssuesFederal issues, whether long-standing such

as USGS funding support or emerging such as recentproposed changes to the Federal Flood RiskManagement Standard (FFRMS), are classified eachyear as related either as “Federal Support,” helpingfund project or providing important federal servicesthat support Texas water programs and projects, oras “Federal Regulatory Threats, Delays andExpense,” having the potential to delay project, affectTexas water primacy, or other negatives.

This year’s priority issues are summarizedin the margin boxes. Each Texas Delegation Memberreceived a Briefing Paper that summarized theeleven issues, which were separated into a groupthat were supported and a group that considered tobe threats. The “treat” group was substantially larger.

Because of concerns with federal regulatorsworking openly with Congress, the Texas Water DaySteering Committee added a postscript to this year’spriority issues:

“In implementing federal statutesrelated to water resources,Congress, in exercising its oversightauthority, should not be a footnoteto the process. TWCA is concernedwith some federal agencies’ lack oftransparency and reluctance torespond openly to Congressionaloversight. The following sectionidentifies several regulatory issuesthat have caused delays or threatentimely implementation or currentoperations of Texas water resourcesprojects. We urge the regulatoryagencies to openly cooperate withCongress on such concerns and weask Congress to demand theagencies do so.”

Issues Related to RegulatoryThreats, Delays, and Expense

1. Floodplain IssuesTWCA members are working to ensure thatimplementation of the recently issued FFRMS bedelayed until the American public and Congressare informed.We ask for the Texas Delegation torecognize these issues and work withTexas water managers to produce open,balanced results.

2. EPA’s Clean Water Act RulemakingTWCA is concerned that the CWA Rulemaking isanother step by EPA to erode Texas’ primacyover its waters. We urge Congress to statutorilydefine the extent of federal jurisdiction under theClean Water Act.We urge Congress to exert its oversightwith regard to the future implementationof the WOTUS rule and to work toward astatutory definition of CWA jurisdiction

3. Invasive SpeciesUS Fish and Wildlife Service enforcement of theLacey Act must not be used as a pretext forinterrupting long-established water supplyarrangements. .We ask the Texas Delegation to supportlegislation that prevent federal actionsunder the Lacey Act from restricting watersupply transfers.

4. Endangered SpeciesCitizen and special interest group lawsuits underthe ESA threaten Texas’ long-established watermanagement.We ask for continued efforts for reasonableESA legislation to address these issuessuch as the previously introduced S. 19/HR 1314.5. Mexico Deficit Water DeliveriesMexico’s water deliveries to the Rio Grande havefallen short of Treaty requirements resulting in awater crisis for the Rio Grande Valley. We urgelegislation to ensure deliveries from Mexico beintroduced and supported as a bipartisan issueby the Texas Delegation.We ask Congress to monitor the StateDepartment’s compliance in reporting onimproving water deliveries from Mexico.

24

Tom Ray, of Lockwood,Andrews & Newnam, has

followed national water issuesfor more than 20 years.He can be reached atj-tray@lan-inc.com.

Issues Related to Federal Support

1. Adequate and Continued Funding forthe National Groundwater andStreamflow Information Program

The USGS National Streamflow Program(NSIP) and Cooperative Water Program (CWP)provide scientific information—accurate, reliableinformation critical to Texas water management.The USGS cost-sharing partnerships with thestate and local governments are long-establishedand effective.

We urge our Texas CongressionalDelegation to continue federal-partnership funding of the NSIP and CWPprograms.

2. Water Resources Reform andDevelopment Act (WRRDA) andContinued Biennial Re-authorizations

TWCA supported the bipartisan efforts lastCongress to pass the first comprehensive waterresources bill since 2007 and further supportsresumption of the regular, biennial WRDA re-authorization.

We ask our Congressional Delegation tosupport (1) bi-annual or more frequentWRDA legislation and (2) oversightthrough the Transportation &Infrastructure Committee of prompt andbalanced implementation of the recentlyenacted WRRDA.

3. Budget issues for Corps of Engineers(USACE), Bureau of Reclamation(BOR), and EPA State Revolving Fund(SRF)

TWCA is appreciative of the modest increasesfor water resources investments in the FY15Omnibus Appropriations bill for the Corps ofEngineers; the Bureau of Reclamation; and forEPA’s Drinking Water and Clean Water SRFprograms.

We ask for the Texas CongressionalDelegation’s continued support for waterinvestments of the USACE, USGS, BORand the EPA’s SRF programs.

Top to bottom: Congressman Pete Session, Keynoteremarks; Congressman Bill Flores and USACE Com-manding General Thomas Bostick; and Senator JohnCornyn addresses attendees at the CongressionalReception Continued on page 26

25

26

Tom Ray and Congressman John“Judge” Carter

Congressman Ruben Hinojosa Congresswoman Kay Granger

Congressman Henry Cuellar Congressman Kevin Brady Congressman Bruce Babin

27

Congressman Marc Veasey Kevin Ward, TRA, presents award to Bob Joseph, TX Director USGS

Commissioner Estevan R.Lopez, Bureau of Reclamation

Guests enjoy the Congressional Reception USACE Commanding General Thomas Bostick addresses Reception guests

28

With record-breaking droughts on the WestCoast and in the southwestern United States, manystates must respond to water shortages of unparalleledmagnitude. The recent drought in the Southwestregion began in 2008. By 2011, Texas wasexperiencing its worst single-year drought in history,devastating ranchers and other agricultural users withan estimated $7.62 billion in losses for that year alone.The drought also caused a record number of wildfiresthat destroyed more than 3,000 homes, and left manycommunities that rely on surface water within daysof running out of water.

Traditionally, US drinking water comes fromtwo sources—two-thirds from surface water (rivers,lakes, and man-made reservoirs) and the remainderfrom groundwater. Across the Southwest, theseresources have been stretched to their limits. Watersystems had been straining to keep up with thedemands of growing communities, even in theabsence of record-breaking drought.

Conservation as a first drought management strategy

The intuitive and correct initial reaction to alimited water supply is to find ways to eliminate wastethrough water efficiency and conservation. Waterefficiency is achieved by adopting measures thatrequire less water for existing uses. For example, a10-minute shower uses less water with a water-efficient showerhead, and native vegetation uses lesswater than an emerald-green lawn.

Conservation, achieved through behavioralchanges, can be implemented quickly duringconditions of acute drought. For example, stagedwater use restrictions triggered by drought severitycan serve to reduce water demands in the short-term.These can include prohibitions on car washing,irrigation, and fi ll ing swimming pools.

But for some communities, this incrementalapproach isn’t enough. Water conservation andefficiency measures may reduce water needstemporarily, but acute drought and/or a fast-growingcommunity requires a wholesale paradigm shiftregarding water supply.

Examining Alternative Water SuppliesWater supply planning for communities under

water stress must now include a variety of options.Conventional options include dam construction,water-rights purchases, development of additional wellfields, and pipeline and pumping infrastructure to getwater from point A to point B. However, none of theseconventional methods constitute additional supply;they simply move existing supplies from one locationto another, and some already have been fully used.

Water-supply horizons must be broader andinclude alternatives that, until recently, might haveseemed too expensive, complicated, or unappealing.These include developing previously undesirablegroundwater sources (brackish or contaminated),seawater desalination, or the beneficial reuse of waterreclamation plant effluent (much of which is releasedto surface water systems or the ocean).Compared withpulling water from a nearby lake, river, or well, theseoptions may seem expensive and complex. However,when a well field is 60 miles away and downhill froma community or the river is across a mountain rangefrom the point of intended use, the complexity andcost of traditional options often surpass those of newalternatives.

The Purple Pipe EvolutionBeneficial water reuse isn’t a recent

development. Early US cities fertilized nearby farmswith untreated sewage until synthetic fertilizersreplaced its use. Agricultural use of water reclamation

WANTED: DROUGHT-RESISTANT WATER SOURCESBy Eva Steinle-Darling, Ph.D., P.E., Water Reuse Lead Technologist, Carollo Engineers, Inc.*

29

plant effluent still represents a significant portion ofthe beneficially reused flow, such as the “city farms”maintained many Nor th and West Texascommunities. In addition, many progressive utilitieshave developed networks of a dedicated infrastructure(purple pipe) to deliver treated, nonpotable reclaimedwater to golf courses, cooling towers, car washes, andother commercial, industrial, and irrigation users. Forexample, the cities of Austin and El Paso operate largepurple pipe systems to distribute reclaimed water toindustrial, commercial, and irrigation users.

In many places, reuse infrastructure hasreached a saturation point. The large users (golfcourses, other irrigation users, and cooling towers)already have been connected, and the cost ofreaching additional users becomes too great to justifyfurther purple pipe system expansion. This meansthat, although additional wastewater effluent isavailable, it’s being discharged (lost) because thereisn’t sufficient demand for nonpotable water or it isn’tpossible to implement more nonpotable reuse. Thisrealization has let El Paso Water Utilities, for example,to move away from any further expansion of their

purple pipe system and develop a new direct potablereuse program instead.

The Direct Potable Reuse RevolutionFor decades, large utilities in Arizona,

California, Texas, Virginia, and elsewhere havepracticed indirect potable reuse (IPR) in whichreclaimed water is used to augment natural waterbodies or groundwater serving as drinking watersupplies. In addition, billions of gallons of treatedeffluent are discharged to water bodies by upstreamcommunities and reused by downstreamcommunities as a water supply source.

With IPR limited to locations with access to asuitable natural water body, the industry is movingtoward more direct reuse of reclaimed water forpotable purposes. The WateReuse ResearchFoundation’s California DPR Initiative, sponsored byutilities and industry partners, has collected more than$6 million to support DPR research regarding publichealth goals, treatment technology, risk management,storage, water blending, monitoring, and publicoutreach. As a result of their own severe drought,many large California utilities are now consideringDPR as their next significant water supply. Utilitiesthat don’t already have active IPR projects areconsidering leapfrogging IPR in favor of DPR.

The forefront of DPR implementation in theUnited States, however, is in Texas, where severalprojects are under way. The communities describedin the case studies below are achieving DPR indifferent ways. By the end of the decade, many morecities and towns in Texas and beyond will likely realizewater supply reliability improvements through DPR.

CASE STUDIES: Direct Potable Reuse Supplements Dwindling Water Supplies

Direct potable reuse (DPR) has been discussedfor decades, but new water demands and technologyadvances are making it a reality. Here are a fewexamples of communities that have taken advantageof or will implement DPR as traditional water sourcesdry up.

Big Spring. The city of Big Spring, Texas,and several surrounding communities serving nearlya half million people get their water from the Colorado

Continued on page 30

NorthgateCountry Club, Houston, TX

30

River Municipal Water District, which owns andoperates three large reservoirs in West Texas. Becauseperiodic droughts have reduced stored water volumesin area reservoirs to a minimum level, the district isactively developing additional water sources.

Projects include a recently completed well fieldto supply water during droughts and the Raw WaterProduction Facility (RWPF) at Big Spring, whichbegan operating in May 2013. RWPF treats filteredeffluent from the city’s conventional wastewatertreatment plant through microfiltration (MF), reverseosmosis (RO), and an advanced oxidation process(AOP) that results from the combined application ofultraviolet (UV) light and hydrogen peroxide. Thefinished water is delivered directly into the district’sraw-water pipeline system and sent to conventionalwater treatment plants for further treatment andsubsequent delivery to customers’ homes. Thedistrict’s motto for this project is “100 percent reuse,100 percent of the time.”

The project was the first operating facility inwhich treated wastewater effluent isn’t discharged intoa natural water body before being reused as a watersupply source, making it the first operating DPRscheme in the western hemisphere. Extensive testingand analysis of the system, funded by the Texas WaterDevelopment Board, is ongoing.

* Updated based on an article (byAndrew Salveson, Eva Steinle-Darling, and Guy Carpenter, Carollo)published in June 2014 OpflowMagazine.

Drought-Resistant Water SuppliesContinued from page 27

Wichita Falls. The city of Wichita Falls,Texas, is located in a corner of Texas that has yet tosee recovery from ongoing drought. In response toits severe water shortage conditions, the citydeveloped an emergency supply project thatrepurposes existing water treatment infrastructure tocreate a DPR system, which came online in July 2014.

Treated wastewater effluent is sent via atemporary pipeline to the inlet of a former brackishsurface water treatment plant, which treats the watervia MF and RO. The water is then sent directly to anadjacent conventional surface water treatment plantwhere it’s mixed 50/50 with raw surface water, treatedagain, and then sent to the distribution system.

El Paso. Located in one of the driest cornersof the state, and subject to curtailment of surface waterrights from the Rio Grande, the El Paso Water Utilities(EPWU) has been at the forefront of alternative watersupplies for many years. This includes the Kay BaileyHutchison Desalination Plant, which at 27.5 mgd isthe largest inland desalination facility in the world,the Hueco Bolson Recharge Project, an IPR projectin which reclaimed water from the Fred Hervey WaterReclamation Plant is introduced into a drinking wateraquifer, and a large purple pipe program, amongstothers. In further pursuit of drought-proof watersupplies, El Paso has embarked on a DPR projectthat would take water from the Roberto BustamanteWWTP, apply advanced treatment to produce“purified water” and introduce this water into thefinished water clearwell of the adjacent JonathanRogers WTP. Construction of this facility would makeit the first project to bypass conventional watertreatment and introduce advanced-treated “purified”water directly into the distribution system. Despitebeing only at the feasibility study stage, EPWU hasundertaken a significant public education campaignin support of the project.

A microfiltration unit at the CRMWD Raw Water Production facility in Big Spring, Texas.

31

groundwater is analogous to oil and gas, it must alsoapply the oil and gas law “accommodation doctrine”to groundwater as well.

The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is the firstitem it must resolve. The Supreme Court usuallylacks jurisdiction to hear appeals of temporaryinjunctions. However, CLR has argued that theAmarillo Court’s refusal to apply the accommodationdoctrine in this case conflicts with the SupremeCourt’s decision in Day analogizing oil and gasownership-in-place to groundwater ownership inplace, and because of this conflict, the Supreme Courtdoes have jurisdiction to hear its appeal.

All briefing in Coyote Lake Ranch, LLC v. Cityof Lubbock was completed on December 19, 2014.As of the time of the publication of this article, theSupreme Court had yet to decide whether to take upthe case. By taking the Coyote Lake Ranch appeal,though, the Supreme Court may be signaling thatmore changes are on their way with respect togroundwater ownership in Texas.

1 City of Lubbock v. Coyote Lake Ranch, LLC, 440S.W.3d 267, 269-270 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2014).2 Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition andApplication for Temporary Restraining Order, CoyoteLake Ranch, LLC v. City of Lubbock, Cause No.9245, in the 287th District Court, Bailey County,Texas. In fact, the 1949 legislation creating what aretoday known as groundwater conservation districtswas authored by Representative I. B. Holt ofneighboring Lamb County. Green, D. (1973). Landof the Underground Rain: Irrigation on the TexasHigh Plains, 1910-1970. Austin, TX: Univ. of TexasPress. The High Plains Underground WaterConservation District No. 1 was created soonthereafter in 1951. http://www.hpwd.org.1 Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Williams, 420 S.W.2d133 (Tex. 1967).2 Getty Oil Co. v. Jones, 470 S.W.2d 618 (Tex.1971).3 369 S.W.3d 814 (Tex. 2012).4 City of Lubbock v. Coyote Lake Ranch, LLC, 440S.W.3d 267 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2014, pet. filed).

Footnotes:Coyote Lake Ranch CaseContinued from page 7

Jason Hill is a litigationand water rights attorney atLloyd Gosselink Rochelle &Townsend, P.C. He can becontacted at (512) 322-5855or jhill@lglawfirm.com.

James Aldredge is alitigation and environmentalattorney at Lloyd GosselinkRochelle & Townsend, P.C.He can be contacted at(512) 322-5859 orjaldredge@lglawfirm.com.

TWCA OCTOBER 2014 CONFERENCE, SAN ANTONIO

Left to right: Alan Plummer, Carlos Rubinstein, Chair-man TWDB, and Dean Robbins.

Left to right: Alia Vinson, Allen Boone HumphriesRobinson, Amy Beussink. Chief, Gulf Coast ProgramUSGS Texas Water Science Center, and TWCA GMLeroy Goodson.

TWCA General Manager Leroy Goodson visited withthe NO WIPES IN THE PIPES spokesperson, PattyPotty (San Jacinto River Authority’s MichelleSimpson).

Left to right: Yvonne Forrest, City of Houston; StateRepresentative Lyle Larson; Kathy Turner Jones,Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District,Carole Baker, and Dean Robbins, TWCA.

LEFT: Stephanie Bergeron Per-due, TCEQ and Dean Robbins,Assistant General Manger,TWCA.

RIGHT: Texas Water FoundationExecutive Director, CaroleBaker with Dominique Gomez,Water Smart Software.

TWCA RISK MANAGEMENT FUND SAFETY AWARDS

Left to right: Sonny Hinojosa, Hidalgo County Irrigation District #2; Kathy Berrek, TarrantRegional Water District; Ricky Clifton, Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority; John Grant,Colorado River Municipal Utility District; Kyle Miller, Wichita County Irrigation District;and Sonia Lambert, Cameron County Ittigation District #2.

On July 1, 2014, the TWCA Risk Management Fund began its 27th year of operations. The Fund’s foundingin the mid-1980’s put TWCA members in control of their insurance and risk management destiny; membersare no longer at the mercy of the commercial insurance market. Over the years, the Fund has not onlyprovided stability in coverage and rates, but has worked with member districts to develop quality lossprevention programs that help members control risks as well as support district missions.

Safety and loss prevention are very important to the Fund. At the October Conference, several Fundmembers were recognized for their effective safety and loss control programs, and for providing safe workenvironments for their most valuable resources, their employees. Two of the awards also recognize districts’attention to liability issues that affect the public. Each of these members is to be commended for theiraccomplishments, especially since the performance standards to win the awards are now considerably higher.Most Improved Safety Record in Workers’ Compensation: This recognition is awarded to those membersthat have improved by greater than 10 percent from their 2013-14 experience modifier with a resultingmodifier less than 1.00. There are four winners in this category: Brown County Water ImprovementDistrict #1; Colorado River Municipal Water District; Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority; andWichita County Water Improvement District #2.Outstanding Safety Record in Workers’ Compensation: This recognition is awarded to those membersthat had superior experience in workers’ compensation claims as reflected by their workers’ compensationexperience modifier of less than 80 percent. The experience modifier reflects how well a district or authorityhas controlled its losses over the past four years. The three winners are: Chambers-Liberty CountiesNavigation District; Galveston County Consolidated Drainage District; and Tarrant RegionalWater District.Outstanding Safety Record in Liability: This recognition is awarded to those district and authoritieswith the best liability loss history in General Liability, Automobile Liability and Errors and Omission with acombined underwriting factor of less than .75. The two winners are: Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority;and Tarrant Regional Water District.

32

TWCA Gratefully AcknowledgesThe 2015 CONFLUENCESponsors Who Make ThisCommunication Among

Members Possible

PLATINUMBickerstaff Heath

Delgado Acosta LLPHalff Associates, Inc.

Carollo Engineers, Inc.HDR Engineering, Inc.

Lloyd Gosselink Rochelle & Townsend, P. CMcCall, Parkhurst & Horton L.L.P.Sabine River Authority of TexasTWCA Risk Management FundTrinity River Authority of Texas

GOLDBrazoria Drainage District #4Brown & Gay Engineers, Inc.

Colorado River Municipal Water DistrictJefferson County Drainage District #6

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.North Harris County Regional

Water AuthorityNortheast Texas Municipal Water District

Nueces River AuthoritySan Jacinto River Authority

Upper Neches River MunicipalWater Authority

SILVERBarton Springs/Edwards Aquifer

Conservation DistrictCanadian River Municipal

Water AuthorityFranklin County Water District

BRONZE

Blanton & Associates, Inc.Klotz Associates, Inc.

The Woodlands Joint Powers Agency

Photo by Alex Roszko - www.roszkophoto.com

34