Assesses of the effectiveness of existing groundwater management strategies Clim

Assesses of the effectiveness of existing groundwater management strategies
Climate change adaptation
Trend analysis
Regulatory and policy framework
Stakeholder involvement
Water use efficiency
Land use planning
Economic consideration
Thesis: We will examine the changing role of cities in the acquisition and distribution of groundwater in the U.S., and how our changing relationship to groundwater manifests in legislation, the environment, and our affected communities, both urban and rural.
INTRO: In the heart of the Lone Star State, a pressing issue looms huge beneath the surface: scarcity in Texas’ groundwater supplies. This isn’t just a problem of dwindling aquifers, it is a nuanced dilemma with far-reaching consequences and roots in the state’s geopolitical conditions. With an exploding population, increasing urbanization, and the effects of climate change, the need to preserve groundwater in Texas has never been more pressing. In the Texas Environmental Law Journal, Amy Hardberger states, “Oil may have put Texas on the map, but water is what needs to stay there” (Hardberger, 2013). As we stand on the verge of a watershed moment, Texans must recognize the importance of groundwater in feeding their streams, livelihoods, and communities.
Texas cities rely on groundwater in an abundance of ways, from human culture to agriculture. Springs are a centerpiece of life for many Texans. For example, Barton Springs alone drew in over 800,000 visitors in recent years to swim, kayak, and fish (Barton Springs Pool, 2023). However, as springs run dry due to lowering water tables, so too will the days of recreation and thriving marine life. Over the past decade, groundwater stores in Central Texas have been on a notable decline, with iconic spring-fed landmarks such as Jacob’s Well in Wimberly consecutively going dry in the summers of 2022 and 2023 (Wilder, 2023). More recently, the San Marcos, Comal, and Barton Springs have reported flow rates at 50%, 30%, and 21% below their historical averages for August 2023, respectively (Baddour, 2023). Additionally, many rural Texans, such as the farmers and ranchers of Burleson County, have witnessed their personal wells run dry due to a nearly 50% drop in the water table from April 2020 to March 2021 (Douglas, 2021). With fresh water being one of the few necessities for life, these trends should have Texas residents questioning why their water is rapidly dwindling.
Of course, the state of water security in Central Texas is not tied to one source, but has interlocking roots in the geologic, political, and social conditions of its inhabitants. Water readily flows through the delicate limestone underpinning this region, creating large, volatile aquifers that can be rapidly depleted under drought conditions. Historically, this threat of depletion has been amplified by state groundwater laws that prioritize the “rule of capture.” The rule of capture is a core legal doctrine in Texas asserting that landowners are free to pump and utilize groundwater from their property entirely at their discretion, regardless of any external impacts on neighboring water supplies. Precedence of the rule of capture has rendered groundwater law in Texas notoriously difficult to understand, creating a façade of simplicity under which the biggest pump prevails. As a result, scarcity and disenfranchisement loom in communities where water is a resource to be competed for.
As populations surge, private utility companies have mobilized on the Central Texas water market, claiming large quantities of water from aquifers shared with local landowners. These private entities are then transporting water from rural to urban centers, thereby profiting off of the scarcity largely induced by rapid urban growth. These events have led to concerns involving equitable accessibility and resource management between urban and rural areas (Conti & Gupta, 2021). When accounting for the expected population growth in Central Texas, a 70% increase by 2050, the onus clearly falls on the regulatory agencies of the region to reassess their constituents’ relationship with groundwater (TPWD, n.d.).
As it stands, Central Texas is home to four of the top fifteen fastest growing cities in the U.S., with Georgetown topping the list at number one (U.S. Census Bureau, 2023). Located 27 miles north of Austin, the city welcomed over 11,000 new residents between July 2021 and July 2022, marking a historic growth rate of 14.4% for the town (U.S. Census Bureau, 2023). In light of this, the City of Georgetown has identified a need to expand and diversify its water supplies to meet the growing needs of individuals, private industry, and municipal services within its limits, and its ability to meet this need will be critical to sustaining future growth. City officials have thus turned their gaze to the private sector to assume the risks of bolstering water infrastructure; empowering private utility companies like EPCOR to pump larger volumes of groundwater from surrounding communities that have little-to-no political representation in the matter. This is the case in Georgetown’s most recent endeavor with EPCOR’s Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Water Supply Project, public-private partnership that mirrors a recent trend among U.S. government institutions to entrust private entities with projects or services that would otherwise fall under their jurisdiction (Roehrich et al., 2014). Using the recent partnership between Georgetown and EPCOR as a case study, we will here examine how the private acquisition and distribution of groundwater in Central Texas has evolved in the twenty-first century, and how our changing relationship to groundwater manifests in legislation, the environment, and our affected communities, both urban and rural.

The breakdown of such a complex issue necessitates a breadth of contextual knowledge on all relevant factors. This paper begins with a discussion of aquifer geology and functionality, followed by a brief overview of Texas hydrogeology. We will then outline a history of Texas groundwater legislation, as well as historic usage patterns, emphasizing how the rules surrounding groundwater capture have been defined over time. The discussion will next enter the modern day, analyzing the shifting roles of individuals, private entities, and municipal institutions in the groundwater market in recent decades, using Georgetown’s Carrizo-Wilcox Water Supply Project as a focal point for the present. Finally, we will conclude with a discussion of the social and environmental impacts associated with heightened groundwater pumping in light of private utilities’ expansion in Central Texas.
Interview with Georgetown: Chisholm Trail
While the paper mainly focuses on the unprecedented growth of central Texas, in Georgetown’s case, there are additional stressors to the water supply. The Chisolm Trail Special utility district, which had gotten its water for distribution from Georgetown and the BRA, had overallocated water and was unable to keep up with demand and was eventually dissolved, and Georgetown was required by the state, through a CCN. this put additional stressors on Georgetown to figure out how to supply additional water. At the same time, growth in Georgetown began to skyrocket along with Austin’s growth and experienced a massive boom in population; this brought Georgetown from around 25000 accounts to around 57000 accounts. Recently the Brazos River Association allocated all the water they could, and cities were notified that new sources of water should be sought out. Georgetown decided that since their aquifer would not be a viable long-term solution, the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer would provide sufficient water.
Potential other solutions
“Pipe dream of Chelsea”
Sun City brought a big retirement community to the area and triggered more planning, looking at water resources and looking at resources for growth. BRA and wells were all that were used at the time; since there was unprecedented growth in the Austin economy, Georgetown saw unprecedented growth. As new homes were built, the city grew in rings. Some developers went outside of infrastructure, and municipal utility districts were formed. Mud Tax
Chisolm trail was providing retail water sources outside of Georgetown legislature. Chisholm Trail provided service to rural communities, they started to see developers building in said communities, and Chisolm couldn’t manage their resources well; they over-committed the water supply on contract. It was likely they didn’t expect the communities and developers actually to come to fruition. Chisholm took money upfront and over-allocated. They used Georgetown treatment plants and asked the city for help. Georgetown initially only took their “ETJ”, and once the state became involved georgetown had to take it all over, and now there are around 400 square miles of water territory; the water territory far exceeds any other service, and the water utility also involves other utilities. Some customers are in Liberty Hill, Killeen, Briggs, and Florence but still receive billing from the city of Georgetown.
All of this took place around 2014, when Gtown took over management and operation, there were around 25000 customers in Georgetown, but took 7000 from Chisholm, and development went from rural to densely populated areas; this increased the load planned from Georgetown, and that really pushed Georgetown to get water much more quickly. There are around 57000 customers now
There is a CCN certificate for convenience and necessity used to decide who provides water, there were a lot of organizations and factors, and this was far too convoluted, and the plan was to reduce territory to be more manageable. They have approached and been approached by cities for taking over. However, they want to be allocated with water from Georgetown. Cities have been reluctant to take over the ETJ in their own territory for fear of not being able to supply water.
After seeing growth in the range of 10%(normal is around 3-4), aggressive planning and reevaluations were done to figure the new plan out(IRWP and a variety of other master plans) “Multi-legged stool.” The BRA was the primary supplier of water and was seen as the regional provider, they issued a request for proposals, and there is no more water to be allocated.
After the surface water was allocated, groundwater was seen as the next logical step, and since the well is so small, there is no option for Georgetown to pull water from its own aquifer. There have been studies done on the Carrizo Wilcox Aquifer, and two years ago, BRA issued a request for proposals to get CWA water; there were three proposals, and two were opened. Surface water is owned by the state, while well water and groundwater are seen as private property.
Can a public utility do this or will a private always be the best option?
They could, if it is a large town or eleven above a large aquifer, but it is much more difficult to smaller towns, especially when you look at GCDs and the distance that water needs to be pumped. Georgetown is also a unique case due to Chisholm trail situation.