THE STATE WATER PLAN AND REGIONAL WATER PLANNING A PRESENTATION TO LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS CON MIMS, CHAIR SOUTH CE

1. THE STATE WATER PLANANDREGIONAL WATER PLANNING A PRESENTATION TO LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS CON MIMS, CHAIR SOUTH CENTRAL TEXAS REGIONAL WATER PLANNING GROUP (REGION L)SEGUIN, TEXASNOVEMBER 6, 2010 Good morning. My presentation will cover: The beginnings of the state water planning by the Texas Water Development Board The emergence of regional water planning A discussion of the South Central Texas Regional Water Planning Group (Region L) Details of Region L�s 2011 Plan The uniqueness of Region L�s Plan, and Challenges ahead in regional water planning Good morning. My presentation will cover: The beginnings of the state water planning by the Texas Water Development Board The emergence of regional water planning A discussion of the South Central Texas Regional Water Planning Group (Region L) Details of Region L�s 2011 Plan The uniqueness of Region L�s Plan, and Challenges ahead in regional water planning

2. Texas Water Development Board and the State Water Plan Drought of the 1950�s caused creation of the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB). Worst in the state�s recorded history and is considered by most to be the drought of record. Lasted from about 1950 to 1957. 244 of the state�s 254 counties were classified as disaster areas. Ended in 1957 with floods. In 1957, the Legislature created TWDB and mandated formal process for state water planning. Evolved into one of the most dynamic and innovative approaches to water management in our nation. Texas Water Development Board and the State Water Plan It was largely the drought of the 1950�s that caused the creation of the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB). Droughts have always been a problem, but the one of the 1950s was the worst in the state�s recorded history and is considered by most to be the drought of record. That drought lasted from about 1950 to 1957. By the end of 1956, 244 of the state�s 254 counties were classified as disaster areas. The drought of record ended in 1957 with floods. In 1957, the Legislature created TWDB and the voters subsequently approved a constitutional amendment authorizing TWDB to administer a $200 million water development board fund to help communities develop water supplies. The Legislature also mandated that Texas begin a formal process for developing a plan to meet the state�s future water needs. Statewide planning began in earnest in 1957 and has evolved over the years into one of the most dynamic and innovative approaches to water management in our nation.Texas Water Development Board and the State Water Plan It was largely the drought of the 1950�s that caused the creation of the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB). Droughts have always been a problem, but the one of the 1950s was the worst in the state�s recorded history and is considered by most to be the drought of record. That drought lasted from about 1950 to 1957. By the end of 1956, 244 of the state�s 254 counties were classified as disaster areas. The drought of record ended in 1957 with floods. In 1957, the Legislature created TWDB and the voters subsequently approved a constitutional amendment authorizing TWDB to administer a $200 million water development board fund to help communities develop water supplies. The Legislature also mandated that Texas begin a formal process for developing a plan to meet the state�s future water needs. Statewide planning began in earnest in 1957 and has evolved over the years into one of the most dynamic and innovative approaches to water management in our nation.

3. STATE WATER PLANS AND RESERVOIRS Since 1957 - eight state water plans. In first plans, reservoirs were answer to water resources management. The 1961 plan recommended 45 new reservoirs. The 1968 plan recommended 62. 196 reservoirs with capacities of 5,000 acre-feet, or more. 87 % constructed prior to 1980. Only 25 constructed since 1980. Since 1957, TWDB has prepared eight state water plans. The first two plans emerged during the nation�s dam and reservoir construction era. Reservoirs were the primary answer to water resources management. They could control floods, generate cheap energy, provide water supplies for cities, farms and industries, and offer recreational opportunities. The 1961 plan recommended 45 new reservoirs. The 1968 plan recommended 62. The pace of reservoir construction began to slow in the 1970s and has since slowed considerably because of environmental and funding constraints, new approaches to planning, and a lack of high quality reservoir sites. Today, the state has 196 reservoirs with capacities of 5,000 acre-feet, or more. 87 % were constructed prior to 1980. Only 25 have been constructed since 1980.Since 1957, TWDB has prepared eight state water plans. The first two plans emerged during the nation�s dam and reservoir construction era. Reservoirs were the primary answer to water resources management. They could control floods, generate cheap energy, provide water supplies for cities, farms and industries, and offer recreational opportunities. The 1961 plan recommended 45 new reservoirs. The 1968 plan recommended 62. The pace of reservoir construction began to slow in the 1970s and has since slowed considerably because of environmental and funding constraints, new approaches to planning, and a lack of high quality reservoir sites. Today, the state has 196 reservoirs with capacities of 5,000 acre-feet, or more. 87 % were constructed prior to 1980. Only 25 have been constructed since 1980.

4. Planning Evolution 1980s and 1990s shift away from dams. Focus on: reducing water use through conservation reusing treated wastewater, converting salt and brackish water to freshwater and relying on more innovative approaches. Intense 1996 drought caused changes in water planning. Nueces River Basin - 1990s drought replaced the drought of the 1950s as the drought of record for planning purposes. In the 1980s and 1990s state water planning evolved in several important ways. For one, there was a clear shift away from large-scale structural solutions such as dams. There was more focus on reducing water use through conservation, reusing treated wastewater, converting salt and brackish water to freshwater, and relying on more innovative approaches. In 1992, TWDB started to broaden participation in the planning process by including stakeholders and other state agencies. But, it was the drought of 1996 that caused one of the most significant changes in how Texas conducts water planning. The 1996 drought was short, but very intense causing some cities, especially in South Texas, to ration water for months. In fact, in the Nueces River Basin, the drought of the 1990s replaces the drought of the 1950s as the drought of record for planning purposes.In the 1980s and 1990s state water planning evolved in several important ways. For one, there was a clear shift away from large-scale structural solutions such as dams. There was more focus on reducing water use through conservation, reusing treated wastewater, converting salt and brackish water to freshwater, and relying on more innovative approaches. In 1992, TWDB started to broaden participation in the planning process by including stakeholders and other state agencies. But, it was the drought of 1996 that caused one of the most significant changes in how Texas conducts water planning. The 1996 drought was short, but very intense causing some cities, especially in South Texas, to ration water for months. In fact, in the Nueces River Basin, the drought of the 1990s replaces the drought of the 1950s as the drought of record for planning purposes.

5. 16 Planning Regions The 1990�s led to passage, in 1997, of Senate Bill 1, establishing a new water planning process that relies primarily on local and regional decision makers. The planning process shifted from a �top-down� centralized approach to a �bottom-up� consensus driven approach. TWDB divided the state into 16 planning regions and appointed members to serve on each planning group.The 1990�s led to passage, in 1997, of Senate Bill 1, establishing a new water planning process that relies primarily on local and regional decision makers. The planning process shifted from a �top-down� centralized approach to a �bottom-up� consensus driven approach. TWDB divided the state into 16 planning regions and appointed members to serve on each planning group.

6. South Central Texas Planning Region (Region L) 2010 South Central Texas Regional Water Plan (Region L) Region L includes 20 � counties, essentially covering: most of the San Antonio and Uvalde Pools of the Edwards Aquifer, 7 counties in the Nueces Basin west and south of San Antonio that are influenced by the Edwards and Carrizo aquifers, the San Antonio metropolitan area, and the San Antonio and Guadalupe river basins extending from Bexar, Kendall, Comal and Hays counties down to the Gulf Coast. 2010 South Central Texas Regional Water Plan (Region L) Region L includes 20 � counties, essentially covering: most of the San Antonio and Uvalde Pools of the Edwards Aquifer, 7 counties in the Nueces Basin west and south of San Antonio that are influenced by the Edwards and Carrizo aquifers, the San Antonio metropolitan area, and the San Antonio and Guadalupe river basins extending from Bexar, Kendall, Comal and Hays counties down to the Gulf Coast.

7. Interests Represented on Planning Groups Public Counties Municipalities Industry Agriculture Environment Small Business Electric Generating Utilities River Authorities Water Districts Water Utilities Each planning group has members representing 11 specific interests: Public, Counties, Municipalities, Industry, Agriculture, Environment, Small Business, Electric Generating Utilities, River Authorities, Water Districts, and Water Utilities. Region L has 21 voting members, five non-voting members representing the neighboring planning regions, and representatives of the Texas Water Development Board, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, and the Texas Department of Agriculture. Each planning group has members representing 11 specific interests: Public, Counties, Municipalities, Industry, Agriculture, Environment, Small Business, Electric Generating Utilities, River Authorities, Water Districts, and Water Utilities. Region L has 21 voting members, five non-voting members representing the neighboring planning regions, and representatives of the Texas Water Development Board, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, and the Texas Department of Agriculture.

8. Regional Planning Process 50 year planning period. Project population. Project drought water demand for municipal, industrial, steam-electric power generation, irrigation, mining, and livestock. Quantify existing reliable water supplies. Calculate needs for additional water supplies. Evaluate and recommend water management strategies to meet projected needs. What is Involved in Regional Water Planning: In each planning cycle, the regions project population growth and water demands over a 50 year period. Then they identify existing supplies and compare them to projected demands to determine future needs. Water projects to meet the future needs are then considered with the involvement of water suppliers in the region and the public. Each selected project, which we refer to as a �water management strategy�, is then technically evaluated to determine the quantity of water it will make available during drought conditions, reliability of supply, cost of the water delivered to the end user�s distribution system in a form ready for use, and the cumulative affect of the supply when operated with all of the other selected strategies. What is Involved in Regional Water Planning: In each planning cycle, the regions project population growth and water demands over a 50 year period. Then they identify existing supplies and compare them to projected demands to determine future needs. Water projects to meet the future needs are then considered with the involvement of water suppliers in the region and the public. Each selected project, which we refer to as a �water management strategy�, is then technically evaluated to determine the quantity of water it will make available during drought conditions, reliability of supply, cost of the water delivered to the end user�s distribution system in a form ready for use, and the cumulative affect of the supply when operated with all of the other selected strategies.

9. THE FIRST REGION L PLAN Evaluated virtually all water supply options that had been proposed in the past in this region, together with several new options. Technically evaluated 79 water supply options Formulated five different plans, each having a special character and focus. Taking the best components of each plan, the final plan contained 23 water supply options - no surface water reservoirs. The First Region L Plan: In 1998, the state�s newly appointed 16 planning groups got to work on developing their first regional water plans. In this first planning cycle, Region L initiated a process that ensured evaluation of virtually all of the water supply options that had been proposed or discussed in the past in this region, together with several new options. In all, 79 water supply options were technically evaluated and five different regional water plans were formulated, each having a special character and focus. Taking the best components of each plan, a final plan was crafted under Evelyn Bonavita�s leadership containing 23 water supply options, none of which included surface water reservoirs which the public clearly opposed.The First Region L Plan: In 1998, the state�s newly appointed 16 planning groups got to work on developing their first regional water plans. In this first planning cycle, Region L initiated a process that ensured evaluation of virtually all of the water supply options that had been proposed or discussed in the past in this region, together with several new options. In all, 79 water supply options were technically evaluated and five different regional water plans were formulated, each having a special character and focus. Taking the best components of each plan, a final plan was crafted under Evelyn Bonavita�s leadership containing 23 water supply options, none of which included surface water reservoirs which the public clearly opposed.

10. 2011 Plan Overview 2011 Plan can be seen at Region L�s website Regionltexas.org There are about 240 water user groups (~135 municipal) in the region for which water demands are projected and for which supplies are identified to meet the demands. TWDB prepared water demand projections for Municipal, Industrial, steam electric power generation, irrigation, mining and livestock Since 2010 Census not available, municipal population and water demands same as in 2006 Plan. Only steam electric power generation was updated. Now we will talk about our recently completed 2011 Plan, that can be seen at our website Regionltexas.org. There are about 240 water user groups in the region for which water demands are projected and for which supplies are identified to meet the demands. About 135 are municipal users. Water demand projections were prepared by TWDB for each water user category, including municipal, industrial, steam electric power generation, irrigation, mining and livestock. Since results of the 2010 Census was not available, population and municipal water demand projections in our 2011 Plan are identical to those used in our 2006 Plan. Only water demand projections for steam electric power generation were updated for the 2011 Plan.Now we will talk about our recently completed 2011 Plan, that can be seen at our website Regionltexas.org. There are about 240 water user groups in the region for which water demands are projected and for which supplies are identified to meet the demands. About 135 are municipal users. Water demand projections were prepared by TWDB for each water user category, including municipal, industrial, steam electric power generation, irrigation, mining and livestock. Since results of the 2010 Census was not available, population and municipal water demand projections in our 2011 Plan are identical to those used in our 2006 Plan. Only water demand projections for steam electric power generation were updated for the 2011 Plan.

11. Population @ Year 2000 In 2000, the population of this region was estimated at about 2.0 million. 68% in Bexar County.In 2000, the population of this region was estimated at about 2.0 million. 68% in Bexar County.

12. Population @ Year 2060 It is projected to reach about 4.3 million in 2060. About 80% of these people will be in the San Antonio metropolitan area and along the IH 35 corridor between San Antonio and Austin. It is projected to reach about 4.3 million in 2060. About 80% of these people will be in the San Antonio metropolitan area and along the IH 35 corridor between San Antonio and Austin.

13. 2011 Plan Overview Total water use expected to reach 1,291,568 acft/yr by 2060, with 49 % being for municipal use, compared to 35% municipal use in 2000. To meet this demand, the region will need add 438,650 acft of new supplies over the next 50 years. The 2011 Plan produces new supplies in excess of 755,000 acft/yr. Total water use in the region is expected to reach about 1.3 million acft/yr by 2060, with 49% being for municipal use, as compared to 35% municipal use in 2000. To meet this demand, the region will need add about 440,000 acft of new supplies over the next 50 years. Water management strategies in the 2011 Plan recommended to meet the 2060 projected needs could produce new supplies in excess of 755,000 acft/yr. Total water use in the region is expected to reach about 1.3 million acft/yr by 2060, with 49% being for municipal use, as compared to 35% municipal use in 2000. To meet this demand, the region will need add about 440,000 acft of new supplies over the next 50 years. Water management strategies in the 2011 Plan recommended to meet the 2060 projected needs could produce new supplies in excess of 755,000 acft/yr.

14. Water Demand @ Year 2000 As a matter of interest, note that in year 2000, municipal demands are 38% and irrigation demands are 43%As a matter of interest, note that in year 2000, municipal demands are 38% and irrigation demands are 43%

15. Water Demand @ Year 2060 In 2060, we expect municipal demand to grow to about 50% and irrigation demands to decrease to about 24%In 2060, we expect municipal demand to grow to about 50% and irrigation demands to decrease to about 24%

16. Water Demand at Year 2060 Municipal Top 5 Counties Bexar (375) Comal (53) Hays (Part) (47) Guadalupe (41) Victoria (18) Industrial Top 5 Counties Calhoun (72) Victoria (44) Bexar (42) Comal (12) Guadalupe (4) This slide shows the top five counties with municipal demands and the top five counties with industrial demands.This slide shows the top five counties with municipal demands and the top five counties with industrial demands.

17. 2011 South Central TexasRegional Water Plan Here is a graph showing our projected water needs under drought of record conditions and our projected water supplies as they are expected to come on line by decade.Here is a graph showing our projected water needs under drought of record conditions and our projected water supplies as they are expected to come on line by decade.

18. Recommended Water Management Strategies This depicts the location of every recommended water management strategy in our 2011 Plan. It�s too small to read. I just put it in to irritate Evelyn.This depicts the location of every recommended water management strategy in our 2011 Plan. It�s too small to read. I just put it in to irritate Evelyn.

19. Sources of New Supply in 2060 Notice that we are counting on water conservation to meet about 13% of our future needs. Notice that we are counting on water conservation to meet about 13% of our future needs.

20. 2011 Plan Overview As noted, earlier: regional water demand in 2060 is about 1.3 million acft/yr need add 438,650 acft of new supplies over the next 50 years the 2011 Plan produces new supplies in excess of 755,000 acft/yr. The amount of water provided in the Plan over and above projected demands is referred to as Management Supplies As noted, earlier, to meet the regional water demand in 2060 of about 1.3 million acre-feet per year, the region will need to add about 440,000 acft/yr of new supplies over the next 50 years. The 2011 Plan produces new supplies in excess of 755,000 acft/yr. The amount of water provided in the Plan over and above projected demands is referred to as Management SuppliesAs noted, earlier, to meet the regional water demand in 2060 of about 1.3 million acre-feet per year, the region will need to add about 440,000 acft/yr of new supplies over the next 50 years. The 2011 Plan produces new supplies in excess of 755,000 acft/yr. The amount of water provided in the Plan over and above projected demands is referred to as Management Supplies

21. 2011 Plan Overview Management Supplies are recommended: To recognize future uncertainty To preserve flexibility in selecting projects to implement To serve as additional supplies in the event rules change To ensure adequate supplies if faced with a new drought of record Management Supplies are recommended for the following reasons: To recognize the uncertainty associated with actually being able to implement projects. To preserve flexibility in selecting projects as conditions may change. To serve as additional supplies in the event rules, regulations, or other restrictions limit the use of any projects. To ensure adequate supplies in the event of a drought more severe than the drought of record. Management Supplies are recommended for the following reasons: To recognize the uncertainty associated with actually being able to implement projects. To preserve flexibility in selecting projects as conditions may change. To serve as additional supplies in the event rules, regulations, or other restrictions limit the use of any projects. To ensure adequate supplies in the event of a drought more severe than the drought of record.

22. 2011 Plan Overview TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: $7.6 billion ANNUAL UNIT COSTS: Low of $104/acft/yr High of $2,429/acft/yr Average of $1,209/acft/yr. Total estimated cost for the recommended water management strategies that will require long-term financing for implementation is $7.6 billion. Annual unit costs per acre foot range from a low of $104/acft/yr (GBRA Lower Basin Storage) to a high of $2,429/acft/yr (Wimberley/Woodcreek) with an average of $1,209/acft/yr. (Seawater Desal: 50 MGD = $2,541 for 56,000 af; 75 MGD = $2,284 for 84,012; 100 MGD = $2,158 for 112,016)Total estimated cost for the recommended water management strategies that will require long-term financing for implementation is $7.6 billion. Annual unit costs per acre foot range from a low of $104/acft/yr (GBRA Lower Basin Storage) to a high of $2,429/acft/yr (Wimberley/Woodcreek) with an average of $1,209/acft/yr. (Seawater Desal: 50 MGD = $2,541 for 56,000 af; 75 MGD = $2,284 for 84,012; 100 MGD = $2,158 for 112,016)

23. Uniqueness of the Region L 2010 Plan If a water management strategy involves groundwater under the jurisdiction of a groundwater district, it is clearly recognized in the Plan that the availability of the supply is subject to permitting by a groundwater district and the Plan will not interfere with the district�s responsibility to decide to whom permits will be issued and the conditions to be applied. For each such water management strategy, a back up strategy must be available in the Plan. Region L adopted a policy concerning eminent domain in which it encourages that all land needed for implementation of the water management strategies will be obtained using a process of willing seller and willing buyer and limited condemnation will be used as a last resort. Uniqueness of the Region L 2010 Plan: There were several unique accomplishments in developing the current Plan. The Plan is unique in how we treated groundwater supplies that are under jurisdiction of groundwater conservation districts: The Plan recognizes that water supplies under the jurisdiction of a groundwater district are subject to permitting by a groundwater district and the Plan will not interfere with the district�s responsibility to decide to whom permits will be issued and conditions to be applied to the permits. For each such water management strategy, a back up strategy must be available in the Plan. The Plan is unique by addressing eminent domain: Region L encourages that all land needed for implementation of the water management strategies in the Plan will be obtained using a process of willing seller and willing buyer and limited condemnation will be used as a last resort. Uniqueness of the Region L 2010 Plan: There were several unique accomplishments in developing the current Plan. The Plan is unique in how we treated groundwater supplies that are under jurisdiction of groundwater conservation districts: The Plan recognizes that water supplies under the jurisdiction of a groundwater district are subject to permitting by a groundwater district and the Plan will not interfere with the district�s responsibility to decide to whom permits will be issued and conditions to be applied to the permits. For each such water management strategy, a back up strategy must be available in the Plan. The Plan is unique by addressing eminent domain: Region L encourages that all land needed for implementation of the water management strategies in the Plan will be obtained using a process of willing seller and willing buyer and limited condemnation will be used as a last resort.

24. Uniqueness of the Region L 2010 Plan The Plan includes conditional recommendation for designation by the Texas Legislature of five stream segments having unique ecological values, being the reaches of the Nueces, Frio, and Sabinal rivers above the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone and the San Marcos and Comal rivers. amounts to the largest number of unique stream segment recommendations made by any planning region, to date if approved by the Legislature, no state funds may be used to construct reservoirs within these stream segments. Special effort was made to include the public to the maximum extent possible in every meeting and to employ workgroups to resolve conflicts. The Plan is unique in recommending designation of unique stream segments: The Plan includes conditional recommendation for designation by the Texas Legislature of five stream segments having unique ecological values, being the reaches of the Nueces, Frio, and Sabinal rivers above the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone and the San Marcos and Comal rivers. This amounts to the largest number of unique stream segment recommendations made by any planning region, to date. If approved by the Legislature, no state funds may be used to construct reservoirs within these stream segments. The preparation of the Plan was unique in its involvement of the public to the maximum extent possible in every meeting and in the planning group�s use of workgroups to resolve conflicts. The Plan is unique in recommending designation of unique stream segments: The Plan includes conditional recommendation for designation by the Texas Legislature of five stream segments having unique ecological values, being the reaches of the Nueces, Frio, and Sabinal rivers above the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone and the San Marcos and Comal rivers. This amounts to the largest number of unique stream segment recommendations made by any planning region, to date. If approved by the Legislature, no state funds may be used to construct reservoirs within these stream segments. The preparation of the Plan was unique in its involvement of the public to the maximum extent possible in every meeting and in the planning group�s use of workgroups to resolve conflicts.

25. Challenges Ahead in Preparing the 2016 PlanA Perfect Storm In the next five year planning cycle: The 2010 Census will be available and higher population numbers are expected The amounts of groundwater that can be permitted by groundwater districts will be completed and the amount available could decrease. (Groundwater represents 29% of the new water needed to meet Region L 2060 needs.) Increased burden on groundwater districts to help satisfy regional water needs while protecting local environments and economies. Challenges Ahead in Preparing the 2016 Plan The stage is set for a perfect storm in the next five year planning cycle. During that time: Results of the 2010 Census will be available, and higher population numbers are expected for the region, meaning more water demand. Determination of the amounts of Managed Available Groundwater that can be permitted, based on Desired Future Conditions now being developed by groundwater districts pursuant to House Bill 1763, 79th Texas Legislature, will be completed and the amount of groundwater available for permitting in Region L could decrease. Groundwater represents 29% of the new water needed to meet Region L 2060 needs. Since the region is very dependent on groundwater for new supplies, there will be an increased burden on groundwater districts to help satisfy regional water needs while protecting local environments and economies. Unfortunately, most groundwater districts are at a financial disadvantage in dealing with well financed water developers who will not hesitate to use the courtrooms to achieve their objectives. For the groundwater districts to continue functioning, it will be critical that they have well thought out, scientifically based, management plans and rules, adequate funds, and intelligent, open-minded leadership. Challenges Ahead in Preparing the 2016 Plan The stage is set for a perfect storm in the next five year planning cycle. During that time: Results of the 2010 Census will be available, and higher population numbers are expected for the region, meaning more water demand. Determination of the amounts of Managed Available Groundwater that can be permitted, based on Desired Future Conditions now being developed by groundwater districts pursuant to House Bill 1763, 79th Texas Legislature, will be completed and the amount of groundwater available for permitting in Region L could decrease. Groundwater represents 29% of the new water needed to meet Region L 2060 needs. Since the region is very dependent on groundwater for new supplies, there will be an increased burden on groundwater districts to help satisfy regional water needs while protecting local environments and economies. Unfortunately, most groundwater districts are at a financial disadvantage in dealing with well financed water developers who will not hesitate to use the courtrooms to achieve their objectives. For the groundwater districts to continue functioning, it will be critical that they have well thought out, scientifically based, management plans and rules, adequate funds, and intelligent, open-minded leadership.

26. Challenges Ahead in Preparing the 2016 PlanA Perfect Storm The Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program (EARIP) could further restrict Edwards Aquifer pumping and could divert and dedicate some Region L water management strategies and financial resources to species protection. A regulatory system for protecting environmental flows in the San Antonio, Guadalupe, Mission and Aransas rivers and associated bays could be established, possibly restricting future water supply availability. Court rulings on groundwater ownership and protection of endangered species could restrict future water supply availability The 2011 Plan assumes availability of 320,000 acft/yr of Edwards Aquifer water in a drought. Senate Bill 3, 80th Texas Legislature, established the Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program as a vehicle to develop a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) acceptable to U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect endangered species associated with Comal and San Marcos Springs. Conditions of the HCP could further restrict Edwards Aquifer pumping and could divert and dedicate some Region L water management strategies and financial resources to species protection. In 2007, a stakeholder process was established by SB 3 to develop flow regimes adequate to support sound ecological river and bay environments while recognizing human needs. The process will result in environmental flow requirements that TCEQ will use in it issuance of future water rights. That process could culminate for the San Antonio, Guadalupe, Mission and Aransas rivers and their associated bays during the next planning cycle and could restrict future water supply availability. There are several groundwater ownership and permitting cases pending in the high courts as well as a case involving the whooping crane and anticipated actions concerning listing of freshwater mussels as endangered species that could adversely affect future water availability. The 2011 Plan assumes availability of 320,000 acft/yr of Edwards Aquifer water in a drought. Senate Bill 3, 80th Texas Legislature, established the Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program as a vehicle to develop a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) acceptable to U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect endangered species associated with Comal and San Marcos Springs. Conditions of the HCP could further restrict Edwards Aquifer pumping and could divert and dedicate some Region L water management strategies and financial resources to species protection. In 2007, a stakeholder process was established by SB 3 to develop flow regimes adequate to support sound ecological river and bay environments while recognizing human needs. The process will result in environmental flow requirements that TCEQ will use in it issuance of future water rights. That process could culminate for the San Antonio, Guadalupe, Mission and Aransas rivers and their associated bays during the next planning cycle and could restrict future water supply availability. There are several groundwater ownership and permitting cases pending in the high courts as well as a case involving the whooping crane and anticipated actions concerning listing of freshwater mussels as endangered species that could adversely affect future water availability.

27. Conclusion Finding water needed for the next 50 years will spark more controversy and demand more statesmanship than ever before. Information sources: Texas Water Development Board website Region L Water Plan Conclusion The next planning cycle will begin in September 2011. Because of the challenges noted, our 2016 Plan will be far more than an update of our 2011 Plan. We, likely, will have to respond to more game changing events arising during the planning cycle than we have before. And, finding the water needed for the next 50 years will spark more controversy and demand more statesmanship than ever before. This concludes my presentation.Conclusion The next planning cycle will begin in September 2011. Because of the challenges noted, our 2016 Plan will be far more than an update of our 2011 Plan. We, likely, will have to respond to more game changing events arising during the planning cycle than we have before. And, finding the water needed for the next 50 years will spark more controversy and demand more statesmanship than ever before. This concludes my presentation.