The Drop Water management & Hydrological science program, Texas A&M UNIVERSITY

By C. Fontanier

1

Volume 6 SPRING 2014

IN THIS ISSUE:

Cover Story: LRGV Drought, p. 1; Articles: ENSO and PDO, p. 3; Climate Change, p. 5; U.S.-Mexico Border, p. 6; Edwards Aquifer, p. 7; Sale: WMHS Apparel for Sale, p. 9; WMHS News: Recent Graduates, p. 10; AWRA, p. 10; Smart Meter Project, p. 10; Water Courses: Water Courses, p. 11

As of 2010, it is estimated that 10.5 million people live along the trans

-national Rio Grande (RGV) with 83% of the population residing in

Mexico and several of the fastest growing cities in the U.S. (Sandoval-

Solis et al., 2013). Historically, agricultural irrigation has been the larg-

est water consumer for each country accounting for 86% of total con-

sumption (Sandoval-Solis et al., 2013). Urbanization has been rapid on

both sides of the border as maquiladoras have spurred economic growth

in Mexican cities, and increased trade has caused similar changes in the

U.S. Severe freezes in 1983 and 1989 destroyed thousands of acres of

citrus, much of which were not re-planted, further encouraging the rural-

to-urban land use change (Stubbs et al., 2003)

Due to its semi-arid to arid climate and reliance on irrigated agricul-

ture, water scarcity is a significant issue which makes the region particu-

larly vulnerable to water shortages during periods of drought. Natural

drought events are departures from the normal climate of a region and

can be difficult to describe due to variation in intensity and duration of

events. In the RGV, drought can also be anthropogenic, when water

availability is limited due to pollution associated with the rapid industri-

alization of the region (Jones, 2000) or non-compliance of treaty mandat-

ed minimum flows (although the latter is due to management decisions

made in response to natural drought).

TREATY OF 1944 AND INTRA-NATIONAL ALLOCATION

SYSTEMS

Management of the waters of the lower Rio Grande are outlined by

the Treaty of 1944 which establishes that the U.S. receives approximate-

ly one third of historical naturalized inflows from named Mexican tribu-

taries to the two international reservoirs, Falcon and Amistad. The sys-

tem is operated by the International Boundary and Water Commission

(IBWC) which maintains and publishes records of storage levels, evapo-

ration rates, and reservoir inflows for each nation. Of future importance

and growing concern is the absence of groundwater from discussion in

the Treaty (Sanchez-Manguia, 2013). Overall, the two nations appear to

have cooperated at reasonable levels over the course of the Treaty’s his-

tory (Sanchez-Munguia, 2011). However, recent events may call into

question the validity of such a premise.

Water rights in the Texan RGV are unique to that region in compari-

son to the rest of the state. Leidner et al. (2011) describes the system as a

hybrid of ‘non-prioritized fixed-volume permits’ and ‘fractional flow set-

asides.’ Priority is given to domestic, municipal and industrial (DMI)

uses which are guaranteed their annual allotment, with any unused rights

to be reset each year (Stubbs et al., 2003). Irrigation water rights are not

guaranteed and reflect the residual after DMI and maintenance levels are

deducted. A unique aspect of this system is the flexibility to rollover un-

used irrigation rights (up to 1.4 times the annual total right) for the next

season. This enhances efficient irrigation practices and reduces year to

year variability common in ‘use it or lose it’ water rights systems

(Leidner et al., 2011). Future needs can be met by the transference of

irrigation rights to DMI at a cost of 40 to 50% of the right allocation.

In Mexico, federal agencies divide the country into hydrological-

administrative regions, of which Region VI represents the area neighbor-

ing the Rio Grande (Cortes and Maravilla, 2011). All waters are consid-

ered the property of the federal government, and the National Water

Commission (NWC) grants allowances to public and private users. Spe-

cific allocations from the Rio Grande are determined by CONAGUA by

deducting municipal allocations from available storage. Then a negotia-

tion between CONAGUA and the irrigation districts sets the irrigation

water allocation for the coming water year.

PAST INSTANCES OF DROUGHT AND BASIN RESPONSES

Drought planning has largely been an internal matter for each country.

Cooperation between nations has typically been reactionary and only oc-

curs when a problem (i.e., a drought) arises. Perhaps, the best way to

address drought management options for the RGV is to examine previ-

ous drought periods and witness how each entity performed and to what

extent improvements are still needed. One of the more commonly dis-

cussed RGV droughts occurred during the period 1992 to 2003 which

Drought Management Options for the Lower Rio Grande Valley

LRGV Drought cont. on next page

If you have comments or questions, or if you would like to submit an article, please email us at TheDrop.WMHS@gmail.com.

2

The Drop

resulted in dramatic reductions in reservoir capacity and caused wide-

spread water shortages for agricultural production on both sides of the

border. The shortcomings of existing water management systems were

revealed: over-allocation of water rights, low water-use efficiencies, un-

coordinated water management between agencies and nations, and the

absence of environmental considerations for instream flows (Sandoval-

Solis et al., 2013). In Oct 2002, Mexico had defaulted on meeting their

Treaty obligations resulting in an estimated $0.6 billion in damages over

the prior 10 year period to the U.S. side of the lower RGV (Stubbs et al.,

2003). Interestingly, Mexico did not view themselves as being non-

compliant due to the presence of drought conditions within the Chihua-

hua state and a loophole in the Treaty regarding releases during extraor-

dinary drought conditions. Mexico had interpreted the Treaty to allow

the withholding of outflows under extraordinary drought conditions,

thus providing a mechanism to maintain irrigated agriculture, although

to a reduced capacity, in the Rio Conchos in lieu of meeting a maximal

fraction of the obligated releases each year (Aparicio and Hidalgo,

2004). This sort of ad hoc accounting of fractional broad-base reduc-

tions is more in agreement with the 1906 Convention agreements which

established allotments for waters of the Upper RGV and does not reflect

the U.S. interpretation of the Treaty. The conflict of interpretations elu-

cidated a major deficiency of the 1944 Treaty; namely, an ‘extraordinary

drought condition’ is not defined nor is the IBWC (or any other agency)

mandated to regulate such a definition (Mumme, 2003). Further, no con-

sideration is given for a drought which extends beyond a single five year

cycle. Although the Chihuahuan drought was defined by Mexican scien-

tists to have been of the magnitude of an 80 year event (Aparicio and

Hidalgo, 2004), the likely cause for the Mexican water debt was in-

creased demand on both sides of the border and resultant less reliability

in the system (Mumme, 2003). Less reliability coupled with poor man-

agement practices throughout much of the RGV, resulted in significant

shortages during the prolonged drought of the 1990’s.

In response to the conflicts arising from the 1990’s drought, two wa-

ter conservation measures have since been implemented in Mexico, pri-

marily in association with DR-005 irrigation district (the biggest Mexi-

can water user): permanent buy-back of water rights and improvements

in irrigation efficiency. Efforts have resulted in an improved efficiency

of 39% for the district (Sanchez-Munguia, 2013). In addition, well reha-

bilitation, land leveling, and irrigation forecasting tools have been im-

plemented within the Rio Conchos basin (Aparicio and Hidalgo, 2004).

In order to continue to bolster reliability in the lower RGV, Mexico has

investigated groundwater banking as a possible solution (Sanchez-

Munguia, 2013). During the latest cycle, Mexico has again gained a sig-

nificant water debt causing renewed bickering between the countries

(Rio Grande Regional Water Authority).

WATER RESOURCES PLANNING

Texas manages water resources through regional and state plans gen-

erated every five years (Region M contains much of the LRGV). Sur-

face water provides over 90% of Region M’s water supply (2011 Region

M Water Plan). In order to meet future expected demands and better

prepare the region for drought, the plan calls for 43% of unmet needs to

be achieved through conservation and efficiency methods. Texas irriga-

tion districts have extensive hydraulic systems including 24 major

pumping stations and lifts, 800 miles of large water mains and canals,

1700 miles of pipelines, and 700 miles of laterals; many sections of the

system are outdated (some are over 100 years old) and in need of repair

(Stubbs et al., 2003). The Lower Rio Grande Valley Water Resources

Conservation and Improvement Act of 2000 authorized the Bureau of

Reclamation to undertake conservation projects for irrigation districts in

Texas. This includes water meters, lining of canals, and using pipelines

where open canals were once used. In response to the drought of the

1990’s, several regional water authorities have been revived from inac-

tivity to pursue new water sources, namely desalination plants, and pro-

mote conservation of existing resources through education and projects.

In comparison to Texas, Mexico’s regional planning appears to use a

top-down approach and is less grassroots. Mexico’s NWC has targeted

reductions in demand while increasing supplies in order to better miti-

gate effects of drought (Soto-Priante, 2010). To meet this goal, Mexico

hopes to modernize water distribution networks, utilize real-time irriga-

tion forecasts, improve agronomic and harvesting practices, introduce

low water use crops, and exclude low productivity lands. In order to in-

crease supply, Mexico aims to use integrated surface and groundwater

management to better make resource decisions. The creation of an aque-

duct from Lake Falcon to Matamoros will be used to carry treated

wastewater to agricultural fields in exchange for potable water storages.

ALTERNATIVES, SOLUTIONS OR PERSPECTIVES TO THE

ISSUE

To plan for drought, three broad approaches can be taken: 1) increase

supply, 2) increase conservation, and 3) reduce demand (or shift loca-

tions of demand). In reality, each of these is required to meet the needs

of the basin as planned for in the Regional Water Plan.

Increasing supply is perhaps the most difficult, but exploration of de-

salination technologies is making it a reality. Inter-basin transfers and

additional reservoir development have been discussed but do not appear

immediately feasible. The use of groundwater banking systems is more

appealing since land can continue under its current use. Combining

groundwater banking with a desalination plant could create the ideal

scenario for long-term supply increases and opportunities for treated ef-

fluent reuse.

Conservation efforts have been extensive in both irrigation and DMI

consumption. Lining irrigation canals, further removal of salt cedar and

hydrilla from waterways, and subsidizing high efficiency applicators are

perhaps the most obvious methods for measureable water savings. In-

centivizing municipalities to obtain their own extraction systems would

also eliminate the need for the wasteful process of using ‘push water’.

Funding entities such as the NAD Bank’s Water Conservation Invest-

ment Fund should be utilized to include both sides of the border in creat-

ing modernized irrigation conveyance and application systems.

Agricultural demand management can be accomplished through

shifts in crop selection to dryland production, low water use crops, or

cattle operations. Market dynamics may cause this to occur naturally.

Ward and Pulido-Velazquez (2012) suggest the creation a new benefi-

cial use category wherein a buyer such as the state of Texas could pur-

chase and retire rights in order to store ater or recharge aquifers. Since

the RGV behaves more closely to a water market system, such a practice

may be easier to implement than in strictly prior appropriation regions

of the state. Further developing the water markets to include ‘cap and

trade’ mechanisms might be a long-term solution to reducing demand

(Ward and Pulido-Velazquez, 2012).

For long-term health of the RGV, surface waters require a truly inte-

grated management system which takes into account the needs of stake-

holders on both sides of the border in a transparent manner. Thus far,

such a goal has been implausible, but movement towards such a system

could improve deficiencies from the top down. Perhaps an initial step

would be more frequent binational meetings with the IBWC and region-

al stakeholders. A long-term goal would be to utilize Treaty minutes to

LRGV Drought cont. from page 1

LRGV cont. on next page If you have comments or questions, or if you would like to submit an article, please email us at TheDrop.WMHS@gmail.com.

include a definition of ‘extraordinary drought conditions’, empower the

IBWC to make such declarations, and more fully elucidate proper allo-

cation responses (e.g., shift to a fractional reduction similar to that dis-

cussed by the 1906 Convention).

References

2011 Region M Water Plan. TCEQ.

Aparicio, J., J. Hidalgo. 2004. Water resources management at the Mexican borders.

Water Int. 29(3):362-374.

Jones, P. 2000. Compliance mechanisms of international water agreements a case of

U.S.-Mexico boundary waters. Int. W ater Resour. Assoc. 25 (4): 554-564.

Leidner, A., M. Rister, R. Lacewell, A. Sturdivant, 2011. The water market for the

middle and lower portions of the Texas Rio Grande Basin. JAW RA . 47(3):597

-610.

Mumme, S. 2003. Revising the 1944 Water Treaty: Reflections on the Rio Grande

Drought Crises and Other Matters. J. of the Southwest. 45 (4):649-670.

Sanchez-Munguia, V. 2011. The US-Mexico border: conflict and cooperation in water

management. Int. J. of W ater Resour. Development. 27(3): 577-593.

Sandoval-Solis, S., R. Teasley, D. McKinney, G. Thomas, C. Patino-Gomez. 2013.

Collaborative modeling to evaluate water management scenarios in the Rio

Grande basin. JAW RA . 49 (3): 639-653.

Sandoval-Solis, S., D. McKinney, D. Loucks. 2011. Sustainability index for water re-

sources planning and management. J. W ater Resour. Plann. Manage. 137

(5):381–390.

Soto-Priante, S. 2010. Hydrological cycle management to reduce the effects of drought

in the rio grande basin. UC Riverside W ater Science and Policy Center. Policy

Note 06-1010.

Stubbs, M., M. Rister, R. Lacewell, J. Ellis, A. Sturdivant, J. Robinson, L. Fernandez.

2003. Evolution of irrigation districts and operating institutions: Texas, Lower

Rio Grande Valley. TW RI. TR-228.

Ward, F., M. Pulido-Velazquez. 2012. Economic costs of sustaining water supplies:

findings from the Rio Grande. W ater Resour. Manage. 26:2883-2909.

3

The Drop

Texas cont. on next page

Introduction

Texas is the second largest and second most populous (25.67 million in

2012) state in the United States. Of the 50 states, it registered the larg-

est population growth between 2000 and 2010, and the population is

further projected to increase by 82% to 43.6 million by 2060. A lack of

water can lead to serious social, economic, and environmental conse-

quences across the state. The drought of the 1950s, once considered the

drought of record, caused an estimated annual loss of $3.5 billion

(adjusted to 2008 dollars) [Texas Water Development Board, 2012] and

recently, in 2011, the state suffered the worst single year drought and

harshest drought in recorded history. Economic losses to the agricultur-

al sector alone have been evaluated at $7.62 billion, making it the cost-

liest drought on record [Fannin, 2012].

Precipitation or the lack thereof, in the state has often been linked to

conditions in the Pacific Ocean, namely the El Niño-Southern Oscilla-

tion (ENSO) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).

El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO)

ENSO is the most dominant large-scale circulation pattern. It affects

local meteorological conditions across the globe and may lead to hy-

drological extremes such as floods and droughts. El Niño refers to

anomalously warm conditions in the Pacific Ocean and its counterpart,

La Niña, is the reverse. Several indices are available to measure the

state of ENSO: the Niño indices, the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI),

etc.

Pacific Decadal Oscillation

PDO is a long-lived El Niño-like pattern of Pacific climate variability

with a cycle of about 20 to 30 years. The PDO index is defined as the

leading principal component of the North Pacific, poleward of 20°N,

mean monthly sea surface temperature anomaly.

Interdecadal Modulation of ENSO

It is believed that PDO modulates the effect of ENSO; i.e. El Niño (La

Niña) coincident with the positive (negative) phase of the PDO may

have stronger effect than when these climate conditions are evolving in

opposite phases.

Objective of Study

In this study, we developed a statistical model to investigate the de-

pendence structure between (i) ENSO and precipitation and (ii) ENSO,

PDO, and precipitation. We also used the statistical model for precipi-

tation forecasting.

A Precipitation Forecasting Model for Texas Based on the State

of ENSO and PDO

LRGV Drought cont. from page 2

By P. Khedun

Figure 1. Plots of correlation coefficients between average June0 – No-

vember0 NSOI and mean cold season (October0 – March+) precipita-

tion anomalies and average cold season PDO index and mean cold sea-

son precipitation anomalies

If you have comments or questions, or if you would like to submit an article, please email us at TheDrop.WMHS@gmail.com.

4

The Drop

Texas on next page

Methodology

Establishing the Correlation of ENSO and PDO with precipitation

Texas, by virtue of its size and geographical location, spans a wide

range of climatic regions with a multitude of microclimates. The east-

ern third of the state is classified as subtropical humid and the middle

third as subtropical subhumid and subtropical steppe, while the western

region is subtropical arid and the north western panhandle area is conti-

nental steppe. The state is divided into 10 climate divisions. Pearson

correlation was used to determine the magnitude and sign of the corre-

lation coefficient between climate indices and gauged seasonal precipi-

tation in each climate division (Figure 1).

Precipitation Simulation and Forecasting

Simulating and predicting the influence of large scale circulation phe-

nomena on precipitation requires multidimensional modeling of ran-

dom variables. Multidimensional analyses have traditionally been ex-

pressed using classical multivariate families which assume that the

marginals describing the behavior of the individual random variables

are from the same family as the multivariate distributions. NSOI

(Negative Southern Oscillation Index is used in this study as an index

for ENSO) and PDO have been found to follow GEV (Generalized Ex-

treme Value) and Weibull distributions respectively while the probabil-

ity distributions for precipitation vary across climate divisions. To cir-

cumvent the constraints in traditional multivariate analysis, copula,

which is due to Sklar [1959], was used to model dependence structure.

The most appropriate copula was selected from a suite of 10 copulas.

Once the most appropriate copula was selected, random values were

generated from the chosen copula to assess how the model simulates

precipitation for different cases and ranges of NSOI and PDO. The bi-

variate case, between ENSO and precipitation anomaly was first con-

sidered, and the influence of PDO, in a trivariate model, was then ex-

plored. The predictive capabilities of the selected bivariate models

were compared against the trivariate models for each climate division.

Results and Discussion

Copulas were used to capture the dependence structure between (i)

ENSO and precipitation, and (ii), ENSO, PDO, and precipitation, in

each of the 10 climate divisions. Different copulas were deemed suita-

ble for each climate division. The choice of copula was influenced by

the climatologic regime prevailing in each climate division. Most cop-

ulas exhibit similar forms in their central part but differ significantly in

the tails, where extreme values are located. Given that each climate

division is subject to different climatologic conditions and subject to a

number of small- and large-scale meteorological regimes, the nature

and degree of dependence with ENSO varies, hence the difference in

the selected copula.

A comparison of observed precipitation with random values simulated

from the bivariate copula and trivariate copula (illustrated here using

results from climate division 8, Figure 2) reveals that PDO does indeed

influence precipitation conditions in Texas, especially when ENSO is

negative (i.e. La Niña). For climate division 8 the absolute difference

in mean and median between observed and simulated precipitation val-

ues, during La Niña, was 6.05 mm and 7.43 mm respectively. When

PDO was included, this difference was significantly reduced to 0.77

mm and 4.56 mm respectively.

Precipitation Forecasting

To assess the predictive capabilities of the two models, the observation

dataset (ENSO, PDO, and precipitation time series) was divided into

two sets: modeling (70% of the data) and validation (30%). Copulas

were fitted to the modeling dataset and values predicted from the fitted

models were compared against that from the validation dataset. Again,

it was found that inclusion of PDO improved forecasting, especially

during La Niña and when PDO is negative.

Conclusions

Precipitation in the state of Texas is influenced by climatic conditions

in the Pacific Ocean. Statistical models were developed for precipita-

tion forecasting based on the state of ENSO and PDO. The prediction

skill of (i) a bivariate model that captures the dependence between EN-

SO and precipitation, and (ii) a trivariate model that includes PDO

were compared. It was found the inclusion of PDO greatly improve

prediction skills.

References

Fannin, B. (2012), Updated 2011 Texas agricultural drought losses to-

tal $7.62 billion, AgriLife Today.

Sklar, A. (1959), Fonctions de repartition à n dimensions et leurs marg-

es, Publications de l'Institut de Statistique de l'Université de

Paris, 8, 229-231.

Texas Water Development Board (2012), Water for Texas. 2012 State

Water Plan Rep., Austin, TX.

Note: This article is a summary of Khedun, CP, AK Mishra, VP Singh,

and JR Giardino (2014) A copula-based precipitation forecast-

ing model: Investigating the interdecadal modulation of EN-

SO's impacts on monthly precipitation, Water Resources Re-

search, in press.

Climate Change cont. from page 3

Figure 2. Boxplots of observed and simulated cold season precipitation

anomalies for (i) the bivariate case of ENSO and precipitation (top pan-

el) and (ii) the trivariate case of ENSO, PDO, and precipitation (bottom

panel). NSOI < 1 represents El Niño and NSOI < -1 represents La Niña.

If you have comments or questions, or if you would like to submit an article, please email us at TheDrop.WMHS@gmail.com.

5

The Drop

Climate Change cont. on next page

Consequences of Climate Change on Water Availability

Throughout the last century, water availability has been a major issue

around the world, whether looked at from a political, socioeconomic, or

scientific aspect. The changes in the climate, or the commonly coined

‘climate change’, are leading to greater risks to water availability and

without arguing the viability of climate change as a anthropocentric

caused phenomena rather than a natural cause, this paper will explore

possible future trends and outcomes due to changes in the global climate.

A case study analysis of water availability in Mexico and the United

States will also be considered, while highlighting major global issues,

and the paper will finalize by presenting possible solutions and alterna-

tives to the consequences due to climate change.

While there are many negatives outcomes to increased global temper-

atures, and overall climate change can lead to new political consequenc-

es, it would be unwise to point out a few of the benefits. The main bene-

fit deals with agriculture, as warmer temperatures can lead to longer

growing seasons and allow certain crops to grow more north. According

to Owen Paterson, the Secretary of State for Environment, food and rural

affairs for Britain, “for humans, the biggest cause of death is cold in win-

ter, far bigger than heat in summer. It would also lead to longer growing

seasons and you could extend growing a little further north into some of

the colder areas”. He was speaking after the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change found last week that the world will face nearly inevita-

ble warming of more than 2 degrees within the next two to three decades.

This large finding will lead to large changes in climate, for the better or

worse. It is useful to point out that an increase in overall temperature,

would indeed lead to less deaths due to cold, as Mr. Paterson stated, but

it would also lead to less energy use, as studies have shown that peak en-

ergy use is far greater in the winter months than in the heat of the sum-

mer.

After looking at the general positive and negative consequences of

climate change, a further analysis of the political, socioeconomic and sci-

entific consequences can be explored. Starting off with the largest sec-

tion, climate change will have a great impact on the earth in terms of hy-

drology, biology, and ecology. According to the EPA and USGCRP

(United States Global Change Research Program), the amount of rain

falling during the most intense 1% of storms increased by almost 20%

over the past 50 years. There are places in the world that are experienc-

ing a wet period, while other places have had their largest drought of rec-

ord recorded within the last 50 years.

Increased temperatures would also lead to changes in stream dynam-

ics, while in areas reliant on snowpack and glaciers, increased tempera-

tures will lead to earlier melting times, resulting in less water availability

later on. If the snow is melting before the time of peak demand, then

these areas such as the western United States will experience difficulties

of managing the water supply vs. the demand. Changes in the flow times

can potentially lead to changes in return periods for large scale flooding

events, especially in the aforementioned snowpack areas. Coupled with

the intensity of storms having also increased, large scale hydrological,

yet anthropocentrically damaging events could occur if the timing fell

into place.

In terms of biology and ecology, changes in stream and ocean dynam-

ics will lead to direct alterations in regards to the aquatic life and organ-

isms living near the water, or the organisms that heavily rely on the wa-

ter. As water temperatures rise, it allows more areas for warm water fish

to migrate and spawn, effectively pushing out cold-water fish such as

trout. Not only would this been seen on waters on the continent, but in-

creases in ocean water temperatures would see animals such as polar

bears and specific species of seals to lose their habitat, as the sea ice

melts in the polar region.

Another ecological impact of warming would be seen on the coasts,

infiltration of salt water into a freshwater system may force some key

species in the existing food chain to relocate or die, and with their re-

moval the overall biodiversity would alter. This removal of species from

these food chains will also occur due to the spreading of vegetation as

the temperatures increase. This alteration of land cover can lead to un-

foreseen changing in the surface water availability while any increase in

nutrient run off due to increased precipitation can help the spreading

rates of the vegetation.

Climate change can also cause problems with human health, with the

impact varying depending on economic wealth and location. People in

developing countries are highly susceptible to the effects of climate

change, since many developing countries have large populations near

coastal areas. The recent (2013) tsunamis and earthquakes in the island

nations in Southeast Asia have shown the vulnerability of urbanization

near coastal areas, and especially in countries with low overall wealth, it

can be hard to rebound from such catastrophic events. These events cou-

pled with the coastal areas now having increased salinity of the local aq-

uifers and surface water combine to leave the inhabitants in a dire need

for water, and for locations in developing countries, this combination has

a crippling effect. Higher levels of precipitation along with expected

changes in temperature, solar radiation, and atmospheric C02 concentra-

tions, also leads to heavier erosion, resulting in sediment transport down

the slope (Nearing et. al. 2004). For places that rely on surface water for

drinking, this increased turbidity causes a major issue in terms of water

quality.

Switching focus to the economic consequences, climate changes will

certainly affect agriculture and energy production. Changes in tempera-

ture, amount of carbon dioxide, solar radiation, and the frequency and

intensity of extreme weather could have significant impacts on crop

yields. While warmer temperatures may increase growth on northern

plants, they put pressures on the crops as more water is needed and the

crops’ transpiration levels will increase. Once the optimal temperature

for a particular crop is reached, crop yield will decline, and so the farm-

ers will have a net profit loss. With agriculture so prevalent in the United

States and many countries around the world, the effects of climate

change on water availability will be monitored closely.

Looking at energy production, many countries rely heavily on hydro-

power for their main electricity needs, including Brazil, China, Australia

and the United States. Changes in stream flows and timing can greatly

alter a hydropower facilities operations as lower volumes will create less

energy for electricity while changes in timing could affect when the hy-

dropower plants obtain their peak electricity outputs and alter when dams

need to control against downstream flooding. In the future, there will al-

so be a need for discussion on whether the water needed to cool the

plants causes more of an economic burden than the energy provided.

The demand for energy due to rising temperatures and dryer climates

in some areas will cause the biggest societal and economic problems as

increases in heat waves will rise electricity demands for cooling and are-

as with low amounts of able drinking water will require energy demand-

ing techniques to produce more water, such as the process of desalina-

tion. Industries such as oil and gas will have to balance the use of water

for fracking and other processes with the amount of energy they produce.

If the world energy industry does not alter its management and produc-

tion strategies, there could possibly be an even greater demand for water

than scientists predict for the future.

Overall, there are many features that climate change can positively or

negatively impact, whether political, socioeconomic or non-

anthropogenic. The conflict between the United States and Mexico over

water is a major issue that will exacerbate due to climate change, but

there are many similarities between the two countries in terms of policies

By J. Hootsmans

If you have comments or questions, or if you would like to submit an article, please email us at TheDrop.WMHS@gmail.com.

Climate Change cont. from page 5

6

The Drop

Groundwater Contamination issues along the Mexico – U.S.

Border

Transboundary cont. on next page By V. Lopez

and mindset, while there are also major differences. Both countries have

large changes in temperatures and precipitation depending on the region,

as the United State has water issues in the western states while Mexico

has water issues in the northern and central parts of the country. Each

country has improved its water infrastructure in the past few decades,

with Mexico having large increases to piped water access, 88 to 93% in

urban areas and 50 to 74% in rural areas (UNICEF/WHO data) while the

United States has upgraded its piping, waste treatment and appliances

that use water for domestic use. Nevertheless, due to the federal govern-

ment in the U.S. passing the Clean Water Act in 1972 and the Safe Wa-

ter Drinking Act in 1974, and Mexico only forming their National Water

Commission in 1989, America currently is more advanced in water infra-

structure and has higher levels of water sanitation.

However, the major differences between water availability in Mexico

and the United States stems from the water quality of both nations. In the

U.S., the main problem comes from Americans using too much water for

domestic uses and industries and dwindling supplies that can be used for

drinking, despite the minimal amount of water used for drinking. Since

the standard of living across the US rates very highly compared with

many other countries in the world, there is sometimes a negligence when

this standard of living is coupled with the perceived amount of water

supply in the country. The U.S. average domestic use per person is 98-

US-gallon (370 L) per day, or roughly 3 times as much as in Germany, a

nation known for its environmental efforts and scientific findings

(UNICEF and WHO data).

For Mexico, the main issue is not the overuse of water, but the access

to water all the time. Much of the water comes intermittently to many

places due to poor infrastructure and service quality. Especially with the

increases in water quality, Mexico has to find a water to provide water

for the dry areas of the country. This leads to the conflicts with the Unit-

ed States as Texas and northern Mexico conflict over the Rio Grande,

Colorado River and other surface water bodies. Despite the 1944 treaty

over water between the countries and the later amendment, both coun-

tries have a hard time quantifying groundwater rights due to the difficul-

ties of quantifying groundwater supplies.

While the conflict between Mexico and the United States will height-

en due to climate change, the world population overall will have to start

changing its mentality towards water use. While many developing coun-

tries have too low overall wealth to have large infrastructure changes and

changes in water policies, the countries deemed the “world powers” can

start making a difference in how they manage water supplies through

education and preventive measures.

Overall, water has and always will be a staple ingredient in everyday

life. The challenge the world faces due to changes in climate, whether it

constitutes larger cyclical events such as El Niño/La Niña, warmer tem-

peratures, higher CO2 levels and other changes will not be in how these

changes can be prevented, but how the world can adapt to these changes.

Further research is required to fully understand climate variability vs.

time, as scientists are finding out about new cycles and relationships

each year. However, it is adamant that the world starts preparing for ma-

jor shifts in water availability, since salt water intrusion in coastal areas

and islands, increased evapotranspiration for vegetation, groundwater

withdrawal for energy use and other factors will become issues of the

highest importance in this century.

References

"Impacts & Adaptation." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d.

Web. 24 Nov. 2013.

"Global Warming Can Have a Positive Side, Says Owen Paterson." The

Guardian. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Nov. 2013. <http://

www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/30/owen-paterson-

minister-climate-change-advantages>.

MA Nearing, F.F. Pruski, and M.R. O'Neal. Expected climate change

impacts on soil erosion rates: A review: Journal of Soil and Wa-

ter Conservation 2004 59(1):43-50

"Water Conflict Management and Transformation at OSU." Case Stud-

ies. Oregon State University, n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2013. <http://

www.transboundarywaters.orst.edu/research/case_studies/

US_Mexico_Aquifer_New.htm>.

"Data Resources and Estimates - Introduction." WHO & UNICEF Joint

Monitoring Programme. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Nov. 2013. <http://

www.wssinfo.org/data-estimates/introduction/>.

A 1,954 mile long international border is shared by the United States

and Mexico, starting from California and Baja California, in the west, to

Tamaulipas, and Texas, in the east (Umoff, 2008). Not only does the

United States and Mexico share a border, but they also share groundwa-

ter. An aquifer that has parts in separate states is known as a transbound-

ary aquifer (ISARM, 2009). The social and economic benefits of ground

water use are extensive. Groundwater is used for drinking water, irriga-

tion, and many other activities for local citizens (Evans 2006). Over 50

billion per day are used to support the U.S. agricultural uses, and it pro-

vides a source of drinking water for half of the nation (USGS, 2003).

There have been several studies on transboundary aquifers that ex-

press contaminant concerns along the border. Some are more quantitative

studies, and others take a more socioeconomic approach. Groundwater

studies usually take much energy and require expensive sampling and

modeling techniques (Patrick, 1987). There are many unknowns in the

groundwater world simply because it is something that is not visually

seen. It doesn’t catch immediate attention like surface water does, and

force people to take action. Now that water resources are becoming

scarce in some regions questions need to be answered (IPCC, 2001).

How much water is below us? How much of it is potable water? How

can we use this water to our advantage, and manage it so that future gen-

erations can use this resource as well.

In one study on the transboundary aquifer, Nogales Wash, high nitrate

levels have been recorded from wells on the U.S. side due to the improp-

er use of septic systems, and other contamination concerns occurring

from wastewater and industrial waste generated in Nogales, Sonora

along the Mexican border (Mumme, 2000). There are quite a few other

groundwater contamination issues in other aquifers along the border. For

instance, Copper and Uranium mines on both sides of the border leach

toxic materials including sulfuric acid, arsenic, and copper into streams

and aquifers (Patrick, 1987). The Naco Bisbee aquifer has contamination

issues from sulfates related to now defunct copper mining operations in

Bisbee, AZ. (Mumme, 2000). Petroleum contamination from spills and

leaking surface and underground storage tanks and from pipelines has

been reported to have affected local water supplies (Patrick, 1985). Other

non-point sources include geological origins, improper use of animal ma-

nures, and fertilizers. Beef cattle operations have an estimated waste of

75% that ends up on pastures and rangelands that affect surface and

If you have comments or questions, or if you would like to submit an article, please email us at TheDrop.WMHS@gmail.com.

Editors

7

ROSARIO SANCHEZ is from

Saltillo, Mexico. She has her

Masters in Diplomatic studies

from Matias Romero Instituto

and a PhD in Water Management

and Hydrological Sciences at

Texas A&M (Class 2009). Ro-

sario is currently the Pro-

gram Coordinator of the WMHS

Program and her research inter-

ests are water planning, water

policy development and interna-

tional trans-boundary water law.

The Drop

Transbundary cont. from page 6

groundwater (Power, 1989).

For aquifers along the coast, there is one contami-

nation concern special to their location. Sea water in-

trusion has been recorded for both the Gulf Coast Aq-

uifer, and the Tijuana aquifer. It is where freshwater in

coastal aquifers is replaced by saltwater usually due to

over pumping (Ranjan, 2006; ISARM, 2009; LBG-

Guyton et al, 2003).

Being from the border myself, and on the coast it is

easy to see both sides of the equation. To us locals

there is no border. Our beliefs, culture, language, busi-

ness and family overlap and spill into both countries.

Even though many border cities have built tight knit

communities, both countries have a variety allocation

differences along the border that prevent cooperative

water management. The Mexican water system is

owned and allocated by the Mexican government,

while the U.S. water system varies within the states

(Evan, 2006).

Local and regional entities have to take population

growth, climate change, and city infrastructure seri-

ously when creating water management plans. Certain

solutions and alternatives need to be implemented in

order for a promising change to happen. Since well

sampling is a major resource for groundwater data col-

lection, monitoring, long term projections, and period-

ic assessments of well water samples need to be initi-

ated. Groundwater levels and water quality can then

be addressed appropriately for the location in order to

make a sustainable plan (USGS, 2002). A water budg-

et based on those assessments can be considered to

preserve and optimize groundwater resources, and

make informed choices when managing long-term en-

vironmental and ecological processes (Logan, 1990;

Theis, 1953).

A binational agreement between the U.S. and Mex-

ico needs to be accomplished in order to ease or refer-

ence back to when tension and conflict arise (Mumme,

2005). Competition among both countries will only

increase as time goes on without any established bi-

national groups and agreements. Two twin large cities,

El Paso and Juarez, and San Diego and Tijuana have a

water task force that addresses water management

problems, and takes the communities and the water

systems into account when projecting long term water

plans (Sanchez-Munguia, 2009). Creating specialized

working groups like these cities did for every trans-

boundary aquifer system could lead to a more sustain-

able way of managing water.

References

Evans, J., 2006. Transboundary Groundwater in New Mexico,

Texas, and Mexico: State and Local Legal Remedies to a

Challenge Between Cities, States, and Nations. Envtl. L.

& Pol'y Rev. 30, 471.

IPCC, 2009. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Cam-

bridge University Press. 3.

ISARM, 2009. Atlas of Transboundary Aquifers. 324.

LBG-Guyton Associates, 2003. Brackish groundwater manual for

Texas regional water planning. Texas Water Develop-

ment Board. 376, 188.

Logan, T.J., 1990. Agricultural best management practices and

groundwater protection. Journal of Soil and Water Con-

servation. 45, 201-206.

Mumme, S., 2000. Minute 242 and Beyond: Challenges, and

Opportunities for Managing Transboundary Ground-

water on the Mexico- U.S. Border. Natural Resources

Journal. 40.

Mumme, Stephen P. "Advancing binational cooperation in trans-

boundary aquifer management on the US-Mexico Bor-

der." Colo. J. Int'l Envtl. L. & Pol'y 16 (2005): 77.

Patrick, R., Ford, E., Quarles, J., 1987. Groundwater Contamina-

tion in the United States. University of Pennsylvania

Press., 75.

Power, J.F., Schepers, J.S., 1989. Nitrate contamination of

groundwater in North America. Agriculture, Ecosystems

& Environment. 26, 165–187.

Ranjan, P., Kazama, S., Sawamoto, M., 2006. Effects of climate

change on coastal fresh groundwater resources. Global

Environmental Change. 16, 388–399.

Sanchez-Munguia, V., 2011. The US-Mexico Border: Conflict

and Co-operation in water management. International

Journal of Water Resources Develoment. 27:3, 577-593.

SCERP, 1999. W ater Quality on the U.S.- Mexico Border: Asses-

ment of the Mimbres Basin. PP96II-19.

Umoff, A.A., 2008. An Analysis of the 1944 U.S.-Mexico Water

Treaty: Its Past, Present, and Future. Envt’l L. & Pol’y

J. 32, 69.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2003. Ground-Water Depletion Across

the Nation. U.S Geological Survey Fact Sheet .

U.S. Geological Survey, 2002. Concepts for national assessment

of water availability and use. U.S. Geological Survey

Circular . 1223, 34.

By: L. Sansom

Protecting spring flow in the Edwards Aquifer

Growing up in a place where honeycomb lime-

stone litters the surficial landscape and artesian

springs bubble up from clear, cold depths imbues

one with an intuitive understanding regarding the

strong interconnectivity between groundwater and

surface water in a karstic aquifer. However, many

people are disconnected from their natural environ-

ment. As people migrate to big cities, we begin to

lose that innate understanding of natural limitations

that are inherent in the environment. In a complex

world where there are multifaceted and often com-

peting water needs, in addition to limited natural re-

sources, finding a balance for spring flow protection

can be difficult. Finding a balance that everyone can

agree on seems, at times, nearly impossible. This has

especially been the case for the Edwards Aquifer.

A contentious management process, which started

with the development of the Edwards Aquifer Au-

thority (EAA) in the early 1990s, was finally ap-

proved for implementation in January 2013. After

years of drawn out conflicts between the various

stakeholders concerned about the future of the Ed-

wards Aquifer, a federally mandated agreement was

drawn up, agreed upon, and began implementation in

February 2013. A year has passed since implementa-

tion of the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) began

and the Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation

Program was just recently honored with a ‘Partners

Edwards Aquifer cont. on next page

VICTORIA LOPEZ is from

Brownsville, TX. She earned her

bachelor’s degree in Environmen-

tal Science at the University of

Texas at Brownsville in 2012. She

is on her way to earning a Mas-

ter’s degree with research inter-

ests in hydrogeology and trans-

boundary water issues. Before

coming into the WMHS Program

she held internships with the

USFWS and the USFS, and has

traveled globally to learn more

about environmental justice is-

sues.

PETER MIN-CHENG TU is

from Taipei, Taiwan. He has mas-

ter’s degrees in aerospace engi-

neering (Purdue University) and

law studies (University of Pitts-

burgh). Peter’s Ph.D. dissertation

will focus on evaluating the per-

formance of control measures for

urban storm runoff by a novel

approach of combining hydrologi-

cal modeling and satellite images.

2014.

8

The Drop

Edwards Aquifer cont. on next By L. SANSOM

in Conservation’ award from the U.S. Fish and Wild-

life Service (USFWS) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-

vice, 2014)

The Edwards Aquifer serves as an excellent case

study on spring flow protection in a karstic aquifer

because of the special regulatory framework that has

developed in Texas. The EAA is the only managing

entity, other than the Harris-Galveston Subsidence

District, that has a legal right to permit and manage

groundwater in the state, despite the Rule of Capture

law. This is a rare occurrence, especially because Tex-

as is a state that traditionally protects property rights

and has a legal framework that treats groundwater as a

property right. However, if successful at increasing

resilience to drought, the regulatory framework in the

Edwards Aquifer could serve as a model for other

karstic water sources globally.

Physical Processes in Edwards Aquifer

The Edwards Formation is a unique karstic aquifer

that is located in the Balcones Escarpment in Central-

West Texas and it is comprised of several different

types of limestone, ranging from 300-400 feet thick

(Eckhardt, 2012). The highly heterogeneous nature of

the aquifer results in erratic and complex groundwater

flow patterns that are extremely difficult for scientists

to model. The geologic development of the Edwards

Aquifer has shaped it in such a way, that the porosity

is very high, and groundwater can be transported rap-

idly. The Edwards formation has an exposed outcrop

northwest of San Antonio, where the majority of re-

charge occurs, and it is tilted so that the bedding plane

trends towards the southeast, increasing in depth un-

derground (Baker, Bush and Baker, Jr., 1994). Also

known as the Balcones Fault Zone, groundwater flow

patterns in the Edwards are further complicated by a

multitude of faults and fractures. Some of these serve

as barrier faults and have the ability to disconnect the

flow, for instance, between San Antonio and Austin,

though scientists are discovering that there may, in

fact, be some connection between the two portions of

the aquifer during periods of low flow (HDR Engi-

neering, Inc., 2010).

The Edwards naturally discharges groundwater in

the form of springs and artesian wells, with the major-

ity of discharge occurring in the eastern portion of the

formation. San Marcos Springs and Comal Springs

are the primary springs for discharge and house eight

federally listed endangered species (listed in Figure

1). Spring flow for these two springs is contingent up-

on the upper five to ten percent of the aquifer and the

sensitive species that reside in this aquifer often act as

an indicator for the health and well-being of the dy-

namic ecosystem (Edwards Aquifer Habitat Conser-

vation Program, 2014). Furthermore, the Edwards Aq-

uifer was designated in 1975 as a Sole Source Aqui-

fer, which provides the water supply for nearly 12

million people (Eckhardt, 2012). Thus, the Edwards

Aquifer is a unique karstic aquifer that sustains human

populations and endangered species alike.

Regulating the Edwards Aquifer

In Texas, the Rule of Capture has prevailed as the

primary water rights system since 1904 and has been

consistently held up and reinforced by court decisions

(The Edwards Aquifer Authority And The State Of

Texas, Petitioners, v. Burrell Day And Joel McDaniel,

Respondents, 2010). Rule of capture basically allows

for the unrestricted pumping of groundwater because

it treats groundwater as a private property right. Es-

sentially, as long as a landowner can retrieve the

groundwater via pump and put it to ‘beneficial use’

than the water then becomes privately owned by the

landowner.

In 1991, it came to the attention of the Lone Star

Chapter of the Sierra Club that there was a man by the

name of Ronnie Pucek who owned the Living Waters

Catfish Farm, just outside of San Antonio. Mr. Pucek

was pumping the same amount of water annually as

one-fourth of the entire city of San Antonio in order to

maintain his catfish farm (Eckhardt, 2012). While,

under the rule of capture, Mr. Pucek was legally enti-

tled to the water, it became obvious that the exorbitant

level of pumping was not going to be sustainable for

the delicate, karstic Edwards Aquifer, which 12 mil-

lion other people also relied upon. In an attempt to

protect the aquifer, Sierra Club sued the USFWS for

not adequately protecting the endangered species re-

siding in the aquifer. Under the Endangered Species

Act (ESA), Sierra Club argued that unrestricted

pumping would result in the ‘incidental taking’ of

several endangered species.

By 1993, the high profile case was decided and the

U.S. District Court ruled in favor of Sierra Club

(Eckhart, 2012). The USFWS was required to imple-

ment a Recovery Plan. In response, the USFWS was

able to mandate that Texas regulate pumping of

groundwater in the Edwards Aquifer, despite the Rule

of Capture laws in place. Now the “sustainable pump-

ing of Texas’ Edwards Aquifer is required by federal

statute to preserve adequate flows for endangered spe-

cies living in the springs, which in turn protects local

Edwards Aquifer cont. from page 7

Figure 1: Federally Listed Endangered Species in Edwards Aquifer

Fountain Darter (endangered)

Comal Spring Dryopid Beetle (endangered)

San Marcos Gambusia (endangered); how-ever, one has not been found since 1982

Texas Wild Rice (endangered)

Peck’s Cave Amphipod (endangered)

Comal Springs Riffle Beetle (endangered)

Texas Blind Salamander (endangered)

San Marcos Salamander (threatened)

Source: (Edwards Aquifer Habitat Conservation Program 2012)

PRAKASH KHEDUN is a

Postdoctoral Research Associate

in the Department of Biological

and Agricultural Engineering at

Texas A&M University. He holds

a BEng (Hons) in Civil Engineer-

ing and an MSc in Environmental

Engineering from the University

of Mauritius and a PhD in Water

Management & Hydrological

Science from Texas A&M Univer-

sity. He came to Texas A&M Uni-

versity on a Fulbright Scholar-

ship. Part of his doctoral research

was supported by a Dissertation

Fellowship. His research interest

includes water resources manage-

ment and the influence of climate

variability and change on the hy-

drologic cycle.

CHARLES FONTANIER is

from Spring, TX and earned his

bachelor’s and master’s degree in

Agronomy at Texas A&M in 2007

and 2010, respectively. Charles is

a research associate with the De-

partment of Soil & Crop Sciences

and Ph. D. student in WMHS. He

is studying the impact of residen-

tial lawn irrigation scheduling

methods on landscape perfor-

mance, surface hydrology, and

nutrient fluxes.

Contributors

If you have comments or questions, or if you would like to submit an article, please email us at TheDrop.WMHS@gmail.com.

LINDSAY SANSOM is a Cen-

tral Texas native. Lindsay is cur-

rently pursuing a PhD at Texas

A&M University in the Water

Management and Hydrological

Sciences program. Her research

focuses on issues relating to trans

-boundary aquifer sharing, in

addition to challenges associated

with urban water conservation.

Contributors

The Drop

9

Edwards Aquifer cont. from page 8

By L. SanSOM Edwards Aquifer cont. on next page

WMHS

Apparel on

Sale Now

communities from over-pumping and depleting their

primary water supply (Veni, et al., 2001).”

The regulatory process began in 1997 and the EAA

was charged to “manage, conserve, preserve, and pro-

tect the Aquifer (Eckhart, 2012).” The EAA regulatory

area covered some portion of the following counties;

Bexar, Uvalde, Comal, Hays, Guadalupe, Medina, and

Atascosa. However, the first two rounds of rules

drawn up by the EAA were invalidated in the courts,

first by Ronnie Pucek from the catfish farm, and then

again in a case against the Bragg family who owned a

pecan farm (Eckhart, 2012). After that, the EAA spent

an entire year carefully crafting their rules to be legally

valid and the permanent rules were finally adopted in

2000. The rules put in place by EAA set forth the reg-

ulatory structure for managing aquifer pumping. A

large part of this process was to create marketable wa-

ter rights through a permitting system. The EAA ini-

tially capped the total allotted permits at 450,000 acre-

feet annually and allocated those permits based heavily

on historical use (Edwards Aquifer Authority, 2012).

In 2001 the first permits were issued and in 2002 the

Texas Supreme Court validated the EAA’s power to

regulate pumping in the final decision on the Bragg

case (Eckhart, 2012). As the permitting process got

underway, a large number of diverse stakeholders be-

gan to join the conversation. In order to create a forum

for fair discussion, in 2006, the federal government

recommended the Recovery Implementation Program

(RIP), a consensus building work group (Abbott,

2012). Texas took this federal process and created

EARIP, the Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementa-

tion Program. This group was comprised of 40 differ-

ent stakeholder groups, including the whole range of

water users. As it turns out, water is an integral part of

our growth and is necessary for individual consump-

tion, agricultural uses, industrial and municipal uses,

energy and environmental uses; basically necessary for

all forms of life. With such a diverse group of voices,

the discussion became very contentious and the debate

continued to heat up.

By 2007 the Texas Legislature, in an attempt to ad-

dress complaints regarding EAA, raised the annual

pumping limit to 572,000 acre-feet and directed the

EAA to create the Habitat Conservation Plan (HPC).

The HCP was required as part of the arrangement with

USFWS, a prerequisite necessary to gain five inci-

dental taking permits from the federal government un-

der the ESA (Abbott, 2012). Additionally, if the HCP

was not ready for implementation by December 2012,

than the USFWS was threatening to take over manage-

ment of the EARIP. With the threat of Texas sover-

eignty at risk, the conversation became reluctantly

more productive (Abbott, 2012). After nearly five

years in the making, the HCP was finally approved in

January 2013 and in March 2013 the USFWS present-

ed the EAA with the incidental takings permits

(Edwards Aquifer Habitat Conservation Program,

2014).

Despite the long and extremely contentious debate

regarding the regulation and management of the Ed-

wards Aquifer, the EARIP was able to agree on the

HCP, which has been successful in balancing the com-

plex and often competing needs of the region. As a

result, on January 16, 2014 the EARIP (along with

three other programs across the nation) was honored

by the USFWS with their ‘Partners in Conservation’

award. According to the USFWS, the ‘Partners in

Conservation’ award is given to “partnership projects

that have demonstrated exemplary natural resource

conservation efforts through public-private coopera-

tion.” Though the HCP was a long time in the making,

it has been successful in balancing human needs and

the needs of the natural environment. While the HCP

Shirts in S, M, L, XL for $10

Trucker hats for $5.

Contact Rosario to get yours

today.

DAVID MOYER is a M.S. stu-

dent in the WMHS program and is

focusing his work on water con-

taminant sources, fate, transport,

and removal. Certificate in GIS,

and in 2013 he worked with the

SCSC department to develop state

-wide interpolation maps of sur-

face soils for Texas. He plans to

finish his degree requirements in

Spring 2014 and receive his diplo-

ma in August, and after graduat-

ing he intends to seek employment

involving water contaminant iden-

tification, regulation, and remov-

al.

JAMES HOOTSMANS is a

M.S. student in the WMHS pro-

gram. with an interest in fluvial

processes in Alpine Regions.

Figure 1. A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employee at the San Marcos Aquatic Research Center holds

a Texas Lined Salamander. (Source: Edwards Aquifer Authority)

If you have comments or questions, or if you would like to submit an article, please email us at TheDrop.WMHS@gmail.com.

Edwards Aquifer cont. from

page 9

The Drop

10

AWRA: The Invasion by WMHS

A hearty “Congratulations” and “Job Well Done” goes out to the four

Water Management & Hydrologic Science students and one Civil Engi-

neering student that have taken the helm of the Texas A&M Chapter of

the American Water Resources Association for this academic year.

Elected to their respective posts in April, 2013, this new administration

has just completed the fall semester and has spring semester ready to go.

Elected as President for 2013-2014, Shailee Jain continues to recruit

speakers from near and far, with varying interests in water and contribu-

tions in all facets of the water arena. Nick Kelly, elected to fill the post

of Webmaster, brings innovation in advertising for meetings and speakers

alike, in addition to his other “webmaster” duties including the never end-

ing maintenance of our members’ contact information. Dave Moyer, our

newly elected Vice-President continues his behind the scenes work in

contribution acquisition and as AWRA liaison with other student groups

on campus. I am the newly elected Treasurer for the AWRA organiza-

tion; my duties include all financial aspects of AWRA, and, most im-

portantly for our attendees, the requisition of food for each meeting.

Alyssa Pena, our Secretary, hales from the Civil Engineering Department.

While she is adjusting to life with WMHS types, she also runs behind the

scenes, contributing to our bi-weekly advertising campaign and meeting

assistance and preparation.

On behalf of all AWRA officers, I would like to invite each of you to

join us on alternating Thursday evenings at 5:30pm in the Civil Engineer-

ing Building (CE), room 118, for our Spring 2014 line up of guest speak-

ers. Our meetings last for about an hour and we always have fabulous

food afterwards! Dues for spring semester are $10. Hope to see you on

January 23, 2014.

The WMHS Program wants to congratulate our graduating students: Silas Adams (MWM), Erick Leigh (M.S), Krittika Govil (M.S) and Calvin

Clary (M.S). We are surely proud of you and certain you will make a difference in the water sector. Gig ‘em!

WMHS News

was designed specifically to protect the endangered species that are reli-

ant on the Edwards Aquifer and stream flow in the San Marcos and Co-

mal Springs, the HCP has offered a way forward for managing water

scarcity for the entire region. The EARIP and HCP provides an excellent

example of stakeholder involvement and cooperative water management

planning.

As far as water resource management is concerned, stakeholder in-

volvement is one of the most important ways to ensure that all competing

water needs are understood and balanced in a way that is fair. The Ed-

wards Aquifer stakeholder process provides an interesting and useful ex-

ample of how, even in an extremely contentious debate amongst a large

group of people, consensus can be found.

References

Abbott, Michael, interview by Lindsay Sansom. Associate Director for the Meadows

Center for Water and the Environment (December 6th, 2012).

Baker, Rene A., Peter W. Bush, and E.T. Baker, Jr. Geologic History and Hydrogeolog-

ic Setting of the Edwards Trinity Aquifer System, West-Centra Texas. Austin:

U.S. Geological Survey, 1994.

Eckhardt, Gregg. Hydrogeology of the Edwards Aquifer. 2012. http://

edwardsaquifer.net/geology.html.

Eckhart, Gregg. "Laws and Regulations Applicable to the Edwards Aquifer." Edwards

Aquifer Website. 2012. http://www.edwardsaquifer.net/rules.html.

Edwards Aquifer Authority. Aquifer Education. 2012. <http://

www.edwardsaquifer.org/display_education_portal_m.php?

pg=education_springs_wells>.

Edwards Aquifer Habitat Conservation Program. Edwards Aquifer Habitat Conserva-

tion Program. 2014. http://www.EAHCP.org.

HDR Engineering, Inc. Evaluation of Hydrologic Connection between San Marcos

Springs and Bartons Springs Through the Edwards Aquifer. San Marcos:

Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority, 2010.

The Edwards Aquifer Authority And The State Of Texas, Petitioners, v. Burrell Day And

Joel McDaniel, Respondents. NO. 08-0964 (Texas Supreme Court, Court of

Appeals, February 17, 2010).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "Recent HCP News." U.S. Fish and W ildlife Service.

October 2012. http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/AustinTexas/

ESA_C_HCP_news.html (accessed November 2012).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “2013 Partners in Conservation Award.” U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service. January 2014. http://www.fws.gov/home/feature/2014/2013-

pic-awards.html#Edwards.

Veni, George, et al. Living with Karst: A Fragile Foundation. CBL Printing, 2001.

By E. July

By J. ANDRUS

Smart Meters Grant Project Collaboration

I. Introduction

This project will investigate best approaches for achieving household

water-use efficiency using automated metering infrastructure (AMI), also

known as smart meters. Working with several cities in Texas, as well as

AMI equipment manufacturers in the private-sector, comparative tests

will be run across an anticipated test group of several thousand homes to

determine the most effective methods and software to communicate me-

ter data to household water users to maximize water-use efficiency.

Household water-use efficiency is a crucial piece of the effort to

achieve adequate water supplies in Texas’s future. The 2012 Texas State

Water Plan forecasts that municipal water demands (of which household

use is the core) will have the fastest rate of growth among all demand

categories and be greater than all other categories by 2060. Moreover,

these projections assume successful programs to reduce per capita water

Smart Meters Project cont. on next If you have comments or questions, or if you would like to submit an article, please email us at TheDrop.WMHS@gmail.com.

A Blink to Water Courses

The Drop

11

This new section is intended to provide students with some information

and background about the content of water courses offered around Cam-

pus. We have a long list of water classes, so this section will entail to of-

fer as many classes as possible per edition. You can always go back to

previous editions to complement your water course comments and over-

views. The information is based on the authors’ experience and back-

ground.

CVEN 664 Water Resource Planning and Management

Category Water required

Overview

The course was taught through a combination of lectures and group re-

search projects. It

covered the main distinctions between engineers and planners/public of-

ficials, basics of water use and water economics, various types of water

allocation policies and water rights law systems, drought/flood planning,

irrigation planning, and other business and management kinds of infor-

mation that would be useful for water resource engineers and planners

alike.

This course is a great introduction to water policy and water economics.

For those looking to get a basic introduction to the water program, this is

a great course. Plus the heavy focus on group projects makes for good

practice. I think anyone interested in water resources in general would

benefit from this class.

Smart Meters Project cont. from page 10

consumption beyond current efficiency. Stated another way, the state’s

water plan cannot be achieved without the development of new technolo-

gy and programs for household water-use efficiency.

II. Background

While AMI hasn’t been widely adopted in the water sector, it has the

potential to have a significant impact on water use efficiency, not only in

Texas, but also across the nation. A survey by the Department of Energy

of 500 homeowners in Houston with electrical smart meters found that:

71% changed behaviors by getting data about their real-time energy use;

83% turned off lights when leaving the room or going to bed; 51% ad-

justed their thermostats; and 97% plan to continue using smart meters.

Analogous changes in water use behaviors due to AMI are expected to

follow these results.

Though several previous studies have been conducted on how custom-

er feedback affects water conservation, there has been only one study

(Fielding, Russell, Spinks, & Mankad, 2012) that has utilized smart me-

ters to provide personalized information in the feedback process. Howev-

er, the scope of this study consisted of only 221 participants, 25% of

whom actually received the personalization feedback. The other draw-

back to this study is that the feedback was limited to a monthly postcard.

None of the studies found were performed in the United States, and

none of the studies provided feedback on a daily basis. Additionally, test

groups have typically had small sample sizes of less than 500. Based on

the studies reviewed, we expect to achieve anywhere from 5% to 20%

reduction in water usage among participants. This level of water use re-

duction would constitute a significant fraction of municipal conservation

goals in the State Water Plan.

There is a significant gap in knowledge regarding the efficacy of

providing daily, personalized feedback to promote conservation. The pro-

posed study will help fill that void in Texas. Another gap in the existing

research is the lack of understanding about the long-term impacts of in-

terventions. This project will allow us to continue monitoring the usage

of study participants for an 18-month period to see if interventions result

in long-term usage reductions. Various behavioral change theories will

be used for the development of the educational program aimed at both

the organizational and individual level.

III. Objectives

The main objective of this study is to determine if and to what extent

feedback using AMI data can be used to achieve water conserva-

tion. Long term objectives include utilizing this data to reduce water loss

due to leaks, improve distribution system modeling techniques and cali-

bration, and infrastructure and energy optimization through demand man-

agement.

IV. Deliverables

Deliverables for the project will include:

Measure short-term reduction in usage at all cities after 3-4 months of

feedback. Our goal is to reduce usage among participants by 20%.

Measure long-term reduction in usage at all cities. Our goal is to

maintain usage reduction rates over the course of the two year study

at a minimum of 15%.

Publish several peer-reviewed journal articles.

Present at several local and national conferences/seminars/meetings

each year.

Publish guidebook providing information on implementing AMI. The

Team will work with each of the three participating communities to

document lessons learned from their experiences in selecting, pur-

chasing, and implementing an AMI system. Material will cover se-

lecting a supplier, potential installation issues, public outreach,

maintenance, and IT challenges that may be faced during this pro-

cess.

Publish technical report on designing feedback to promote conserva-

tion. TWRI will publish a technical report that describes how water

systems should design customer communication and feedback that

best promotes conservation. If possible, the report will address demo-

graphic differences in feedback efficacy.

Pursue additional funding to expand research to other areas. The pro-

ject team has recently teamed with researchers from University of

Arizona and Colorado State University to pursue a federal grant that

would allow researchers to work with universities and cities in other

states to determine the potential impact of this research in other areas

of the country. The selection will be announced sometime this fall.

IV. Project Team

The project team includes:

Dr. Kelly Brumbelow, Associate

Professor in the Zachry Depart-

ment of Civil Engineering

Dr. Kevin Wagner, Associate Di-

rector of TWRI

Dr. Scott Cummings, Associate

Professor, Ag. Leadership Educa-

tion and Communication (ALEC)

Joel Andrus, TWRI Extension As-

sociate

Kevin Andrews, ALEC Extension

Assistant

Allen Berthold, TWRI Extension

Associate Joel Andrus is a Ph.D. student in

the WMHS program.

By D. Moyer Water Courses cont. on next page

If you have comments or questions, or if you would like to submit an article, please email us at TheDrop.WMHS@gmail.com.

The Drop

12

ESSM/BAEN 651 Intro to Geographic Information Systems

Category Free Elective

Overview

The lecture component does not take the entire semester, but only about

2/3 of it. It gives a brief overview of the history and technology of GIS.

The lab is pretty intensive and teaches students the basic functions and

operations of a GIS software suite. When I took the class we were using

ArcGIS. The lab work is capped with a GIS project, wherein the stu-

dents design their own methods for solving some “real-world” problem

with the information given. Topics and info are provided by the TA/

professor, and work covers basic GIS functions.

The lab component was great for learning basic GIS. Mapmaking,

georeferencing, creating and editing raster and vector files, etc. were

taught. If you have any interest in GIS but no background in using GIS

platforms, this would be a great introductory course.

SCSC 658 Watershed Management and Water Quality

Category Water Elective

Overview

This class is mostly lecture-based, but grad students also have a research

project with a brief presentation at the end of the semester. You will

learn about different water management strategies for stream restoration,

non-point source contamination remediation (during construction and for

agriculture), and the ecological functions of a watershed and wetlands.

This course focuses rather heavily on understanding HOW various prob-

lems occur in watersheds (i.e. if there is high mercury, that might indi-

cate a gold mine that needs to be cleaned up; if there is a high algae con-

tent there may be nutrients getting into the stream; etc.) as well as best

management practices to avoid causing them.

This course took a broad approach to water contamination and quality

management. Basically, it says if you have water running through your

land or if your land feeds runoff into a water body, then you have to

make some informed decisions about how to manage your land so that

you avoid nasty consequences for the rest of the watershed. And then

you learn to identify various problems and their solutions. If you are in-

terested in water quality, non-point source contamination, and/or ecolog-

ical restoration of streams and wetlands, and you want an intro/overview

of all those topics then this is a good class to take.

PLAN 625 GIS in Landscape and Urban Planning

Category Free Elective

Overview

I took the online version, but there is also an in-class version. Students

are expected to learn the basics of GIS software (ArcMap in my case)

and apply them via a semester-long project. This course is designed for

architecture and planning students, but it’s a good intro to GIS for any-

one. The homework is intensive and you get to pick your own project

topic.

GEOL 410 Hydrogeology

Category Water class

Overview

Students learn about how soil properties affect their water-holding abil-

ity. We also learn about how head, pressure, and elevation combine to

drive groundwater flow. Stress and shear are also introduced, and there

is some discussion about why moist soil is more prone to landslides and

earthquakes, and the dangers of pumping water into or out of an aquifer

system.

It’s a great introduction to how soil influences groundwater movement,

and vice versa. If you have never studied groundwater before, but you

might like to start, this is a pretty good intro course to cover soil/water

interactions. Note: if you take a basic soil science course and an engi-

neering mechanics/statics course first, then this class will be a lot easier

for you.

Water Courses cont. from page 11

If you have comments or questions, or if you would like to submit an article, please email us at TheDrop.WMHS@gmail.com.