Copyright by Elbin Antonio Collado 2018

The Thesis Committee for Elbin Antonio Collado Certifies that this is the approved version of the following Thesis:

An Analysis of Drought Management Plans and Drought Response Strategies in Texas

APPROVED BY SUPERVISING COMMITTEE:

Charles Kreitler, Co-Supervisor

David J. Eaton, Co-Supervisor

James R. Kyle

An Analysis of Drought Management Plans and Drought Response Strategies in Texas

by

Elbin Antonio Collado

Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Master of Arts

The University of Texas at Austin December 2018

Dedication

I dedicate this work to my wonderful and amazing girlfriend Jasmin, who travelled halfway across the country with me, so I can pursue my academic goals. I’d also like to dedicate this to my family and friends back in New York who encouraged me to stand on my own and face uncertainty. Lastly, I want to dedicate this to the Dominican Republic and its people whom I hold dear to my heart (hope to see you soon).

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge the following groups of people for helping me put this thesis together and providing a wonderful experience during my completion of the EER program.

Thanks to:

Charles Kreitler for your guidance and support throughout the thesis process and for providing a multi perspective learning experience about the complex water issues in Texas and beyond. David Eaton for your wisdom, feedback and welcoming me into his office. James R. Kyle for your teachings of geology, natural resources and all your support within the Energy & Earth Resources program. Richard Chuchla for your commitment to providing the EER students with the best and most valuable academic experience. Jessica Smith for your guidance, advice and support on all things EER, UT and Texas. My friends and peers whom I’ve had the pleasure sharing this university experience. Varsity Pizza for providing cold beer and warm pizza at affordable prices to me and my peers.

v

Abstract

An Analysis of Drought Management Plans

and Drought Response Strategies in Texas

Elbin Antonio Collado, MA

The University of Texas at Austin, 2018

Co-Supervisor: David J. Eaton

Co-Supervisor: Charles Kreitler

Water scarcity can be defined as a lack of enough water, or not having access to safe water supplies (Liu, Gosling and Yang). Due to population growth and shifts in rainfall over the coming decades, management of water resources may need to change. This thesis reports on how Texas deals with its current water scarcity to understand future options.

While droughts cannot be prevented, the recent statewide Texas droughts in 2011 underscored the need for better preparation for responding to the impacts of drought.

Having effective preparedness plans and an adequate supply is particularly critical to the proper management of water resources. (Division, 2005)

This thesis describes how regions within Texas address issues such as droughts, climate change, population growth, and how Texas’s 16 Water Planning Regions respond vi

to water shortage. Sections of the thesis examine drought preparedness strategies founding the 16 Regional Water Plans (2016). A Drought Contingency Plan (DCP) is a set of conservation measures that increase during different stages of drought. The Texas Water

Development Board (TWDB) requires a DCP for any water entities that serves 3,000 connections or more. Emergency Drought Responses (EDR) are potential ways of increasing water supply during water scarcity conditions. The TWDB requires an EDR for any entities that serve fewer than 3,000 people or only have a single source of water supply.

This report also includes data for water use in each Water Planning Region, to compare how much water the people in each region currently consume.

After compiling information on DCPs, EDRs, and water use, the 16 Water Planning

Regions were compared, and the results presented graphically. Regardless of the climate or the available water resources, Texas drought contingency strategies are similar and follow a trend to further improve conservation methods across regions. Most entities report that demand, not supply, is the biggest threat to water availability. Most plans address conditions of severe drought, but do not plan for more than the previous worst-case scenario. This thesis concludes that Texas may not be able to continue to provide water to all its consumers during the next major drought. It remains an open question whether Texas can increase supply from drought-proof sources, such as use of brackish groundwater.

Drought Contingency Plans (DCP) rely mostly on consumer conservation efforts.

Emergency Drought Responses (EDR) emphasize increasing water supply. My original hypothesis was that drier areas of Texas would have differing strategies than regions with ample annual rainfall. However, this research has indicated that this is not the case: DCPs vii

and EDRs are comparable across Texas. Small communities across Texas conserve water with the limited resources they have. Large cities are improving water conservation strategies; with population growth, their conservation measures may not be enough because there is a limit to how much can be conserved.

viii

Table of Contents

List of Tables ...... xi

List of Figures ...... xii

Chapter One: Introduction ...... 1

Droughts in Texas ...... 2

The Texas Climate ...... 7

Population growth and Increased Water Demand ...... 13

Chapter Two: Regional Planning ...... 16

Drought Planning ...... 19

Drought Stages ...... 27

Chapter Three: Data Collection ...... 30

Drought Contingency Plans ...... 31

Emergency Drought Response Options (EDR) ...... 35

Gallons Per Capita Daily ...... 39

Chapter Four: Data Analysis ...... 44

Analysis: Drought Contingency Plans ...... 44

Analysis: Emergency Drought Options (Small WUGs) ...... 52

Analysis: Gallons of Per Capita Per Day ...... 56

Analysis: Combination of Drought Management Strategies ...... 60

Chapter Five: Discussion ...... 64

Conversation with John Ashworth from WSP on Region E (Far West Texas) ...... 71

Conversation with Sara Eatman from Black & Veatch on Region M ...... 72

Conversation with Brian Perkins from Black & Veatch on Region L...... 73 ix

Conversation with Ms. Simon Kiel from Freese & Nichols on Region F ...... 74

Chapter Six: Conclusion ...... 77

Appendix A: Drought Contingency Plans ...... 79

Appendix B: Emergency Drought Reponses ...... 89

REFERENCES ...... 105

x

List of Tables

Table 1: The Regional Water Planning Process ...... 18 Table 2: TCEQ Drought Contingency Planning Key Principles ...... 25 Table 3: Six Step Process for Effective Drought Contingency Planning ...... 27 Table 4: Drought Classification Scheme with Palmer Drought Index ...... 29 Table 5: Coastal Bend (Region N) City of Aransas Pass Drought Contingency Plan ...... 31 Table 6: Example of Panhandle's (Region A) Contingency Plan ...... 32 Table 7: Example of Region L's Drought Contingency Plan ...... 33 Table 8: Potential Emergency Water Supply ...... 37 Table 9: Example of Region N's Emergency Response Options ...... 38 Table 10: Example of Region P Emergency Supply Options ...... 39 Table 11: Drought Contingency Plan Responses...... 49 Table 12: A Count of Emergency Supply Options ...... 53 Table 13: Count of Infrastructure Needed by Small Water User Groups ...... 55 Table 14: Coding of Drought Response Strategies ...... 61 Table 15: The Scoring Procedure ...... 62

xi

List of Figures

Figure 1: Comparison Between the 2010 and 1950s Drought ...... 4 Figure 2: Determining Wet vs Dry Conditions with Tree Rings ...... 5 Figure 3: Historic Megadroughts in the western United States ...... 6 Figure 4: Average Annual Precipitation in Texas from1961 to 1990 ...... 8 Figure 5: Average Annual Temperatures in Texas ...... 10 Figure 6: States Most Threated by Drought Conditions ...... 12 Figure 7: States Least Prepared to Deal with Climatic Changes ...... 13 Figure 8: Texas Water Demand Projects by Category 2020-2070 ...... 14 Figure 9: Texas's 16 Water Planning Regions ...... 17 Figure 10: Categories of Drought and Natural Climate Variability ...... 21 Figure 11: Water Demand by Sector 2006 – 2015 ...... 23 Figure 12: Long-term Trends in Texas Population & Municipal Water Use Rates ...... 41 Figure 13: Gallons Per Capita Daily for Water Planning Regions ...... 43 Figure 14: Outdoor Water Use as a Percentage of Total Water Consumption in Texas .. 46 Figure 15: Drought Contingency Plan Strategies, Plans Specifying Strategy and Average Stage Initiated ...... 50 Figure 16: Response Drought Stages ...... 52 Figure 17: Percentages of the Emergency Supply Options ...... 53 Figure 18 Gallons Per Capita Per Day by Regional Water Planning Areas ...... 58 Figure 19: Austin Water's Conservation ...... 59 Figure 20: Drought Contingency Plan Score ...... 64 Figure 21: Emergency Drought Options for Small Water User Groups by Counties ...... 66 Figure 22: Map combining the Drought Contingency Plan scores, Emergency Drought Options and Gallons per Capita Per Day ...... 68 Figure 23: Map of Groundwater Conservation Districts of Texas ...... 70

xii

Chapter One: Introduction

Drought has been, is, and may always be a problem for water management, environmental protection and human health. Drought may well be the natural phenomenon that directly affects more people than any other natural disaster (Eslamian and Eslamian

2017). Although drought does not occur as a short time event, as with some other natural disasters, it can reduce water supplies, affect wide areas, and create diverse economic, environmental, and social damage.

Current trends in Texas population growth, behavior and climate change threaten access to the water resources Texas currently uses. Texans depend on a reliable, clean supply of drinking water to sustain health. Texans also need water as an economic input for agriculture, energy production, navigation, recreation, and manufacturing. While human activities can put pressure on water resources, these stresses can be exacerbated by climate and population growth. Many scientists believe that climate change is real and affecting millions of people around the world and could increase water demands while shrinking water supplies (Singh).

These factors effect Texas' likelihood of drought and water resources availability.

This shifting balance may challenge water managers' capacity to simultaneously meet the needs of growing communities, sensitive ecosystems, farmers, ranchers, energy producers, and manufacturers (Environmental Protection Agency).

1

Many areas in the Western U.S. have experienced less rain over the past 50 years, as well as increases in the severity and length of droughts (Environmental Protection Agency, 2017). Innovations such as water desalination and water conservation have become standard strategies in dry states to increase supply and make efficient use of existing water sources. This concern for water supply and demand has been especially of concern in Texas and the Southwest. The variability of the Texas climate also represents both a risk and an uncertainty that the TWDB asks each regional water planning group to address developing regional water plans (Texas Water Development Board).

DROUGHTS IN TEXAS

In Texas, three things are certain: death, taxes and drought. Recurring droughts are a natural part of the states highly variable climate. The El Niño Southern Oscillation affects

Pacific moisture patterns and effects Texas precipitation, often leading to periods of moderate to severe drought. Unlike other types of weather-related natural disasters, such as floods, droughts typically develop slowly over a period of months or years. Like floods, drought can have widespread negative impacts on society, the economy, and the environment (Thompson, 2015). The severity of drought depends upon several factors, though duration and intensity are the two primary components.

In Texas, the so-called "drought of record" during the 1950s ranks the highest in terms of both duration and intensity. However, a drought ranking can be misleading, as a single year of above average rainfall can interrupt a prolonged drought, reducing its ranking. Nonetheless, based on recorded precipitation measurements statewide, the 1950s

2

drought remains the benchmark for water shortages used in planning. Other significant droughts in Texas occurred in the late 1800’s, 1910’s, 1930s, 1960’s, 1980’s, 1990’s and

2010’s (Texas Water Resources Institute).

The Palmer Drought Index, sometimes called the Palmer drought severity index and often abbreviated PDSI, is a measurement of dryness based on recent precipitation and temperature. The 2011 drought may rank among the most intense one-year droughts on record (TWDB, 2017). Figure 1 compares the recent drought (2010-2014) and the 1950s drought of record. It shows that the 1950’s drought lasted over 20 months longer than the

2010 drought (NOAA). The 2010 drought reached a severe point just after a year, so it illustrates how much more severe it was than the 1950’s drought which took over 70 months to reach the same severity on the Palmer Drought Severity Index; the 2010 drought was both shorter, more intense.

3

Figure 1: Comparison Between the 2010 and 1950s Drought

Source: (NOAA)

As climate variability affects the availability of the state’s water resources, the

TWDB requires regional water planning groups to address water needs during a repeat of the drought of record. Climate data are generally available in Texas from the late 19th century to the present, but this is a relatively short record towards evaluating long-term climate variability. Annual tree growth, expressed in a tree growth ring, is strongly influenced by water availability and can provide precipitation information prior to the 19th century. Figure 2 shows that a dry year results in a thin growth ring and a wet year results in a thick growth ring. In Texas, scientists have completed precipitation data reconstructions using post oak and bald cypress trees (Texas Water Development Board).

4

Figure 2: Determining Wet vs Dry Conditions with Tree Rings

Source: (Stoller-Conrad)

Tree ring records indicate that Texas has experienced droughts longer than the drought of record extending back to 1400 (Cleaveland et al., 2011). Had the recent drought persisted for two more years, it would very likely have become the new drought of record.

A combination of warmer temperatures and decreased precipitation, as experienced during the 2011 drought, enhances the risk of Texas experiencing extreme droughts. The tree ring records, recent drought, and very wet episodes indicate that the climate of Texas is highly variable. Droughts with durations and intensities exceeding the drought of record could occur in the future. Figure 3 illustrates the frequency and severity of pre-recorded drought events. While Texas has recently emerged from its second-worst statewide drought (2010-

5

2014), we do not know when the next drought will occur. Figure 3 can be interpreted as droughts have become shorter in duration but have become more frequent and severe in a shorter period of time.

Figure 3: Historic Megadroughts in the western United States

Source: (Stahle)

Due to natural climate variability, a global climate change has the potential to exacerbate the occurrences of drought. One assessment is that Texas may be hotter and drier in the future or that regions in the east portion of the state will change to become like those in the west. Often, however, those who predict future changes do not provide specific examples of potential impacts and potential approaches toward mitigation.

6

THE TEXAS CLIMATE

In general, the eastern part of Texas receives more precipitation compared to the western portion. The State of Texas lies within both "cool" and "warm" parts of the

Temperate Zone of the Northern Hemisphere. There are no distinguishable boundaries between Texas’s three major climatic types: Continental, Mountain, and Subtropical. The subtropical climate dominates much of the state but the whole state is susceptible to drought and has experienced several major droughts in recorded history.

Figure 4 illustrates the average annual precipitation within different parts of the state. Rainfall is consistent from north to south in Texas but varies from east to west. Based on data from the past 20 years, Texas’ annual average precipitation ranges from 60.57 inches in Jasper County, East Texas, to 9.43 inches in El Paso in western Texas. Texas' weather varies widely, from arid in the west to humid in the east. These differences ought to lead to a difference in drought planning. The huge expanse of Texas encompasses several regions with distinctly different local micro-climates: Northern Plains, Trans-

Pecos Region, Texas Hill Country, Piney Woods, and South Texas. In general, the part of

Texas that lies to the east of Interstate 35 is subtropical. The portion of Texas that lies to the west of Interstate 35 is arid desert and therefore more susceptible to drought events

(Larkin & Bomer, 1983).

7

Figure 4: Average Annual Precipitation in Texas from1961 to 1990

Source: (NOAA)

However, the “dry line” which has been located on the 100th meridian in Texas may currently be pushing slowly eastward. According to one observation, the boundary appears to have shifted 140 miles over the past century due to global warming (Seager, 2018).

Unless farmers can adapt, such as by using more irrigation, they will need to consider growing wheat or another more suitable crop rather than corn. Large expanses of cropland may fail and may be converted to more of a western-style grazing range (Rice, 2018).

8

Furthermore, water supplies could become a problem for urban areas. For example, Austin, which is near the dry line, draws all of its water supply from the Highland Lakes.

Some analysts argue that for over a century, weather events have become more extreme, turning normal fluctuations into long-term climate trends. Extreme heat, wildfires, drought, inland and coastal flooding threaten different regions in the U.S. in different ways. Texas is one of the largest U.S. states by area, population, agricultural production, and energy consumption, it also is one of the states most exposed to extreme heat, drought and wildfire (Schiller, 2015). The state has experienced drought conditions for over 50 of percent the time since the late 1980’s on an annual basis. (National Centers for Environmental Information).

Figure 5 illustrates expected average temperatures across the state based on records from the previous 20 years. Such values are not static; most of Texas has warmed between one-half and one degree (F) in the past century (NOAA). In the eastern two-thirds of the state, average annual rainfall is increasing, yet the soil is becoming drier due to an increase in evaporation. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggested that global climate change is likely to cause a warmer climate, a decrease in mean annual runoff, an increase in flow seasonality, and an increase in the number of extreme drought events

(Mace & Wade, 2008). TWDB continues research to address potential impacts from climate variability on water resources in the state and how these impacts can be addressed in the water planning process.

9

Figure 5: Average Annual Temperatures in Texas

Source: (NOAA)

For example, the United Kingdom Hadley Centre’s climate model (HadCM2) is a model that accounts for both greenhouse gases and aerosols and project climate through

2100. The HadCM2 model projects that temperatures in Texas could increase by about 3

°F (~1.7 °C) in spring (with a range of 1-6°F) and about 4 °F (~2.2 °C) in other seasons

(with a range of 1-9°F). HadCM2 projects precipitation to decrease by 5-30% in winter and increase by about 10% in the other seasons, despite a recent increase in heavy storms like

Hurricane Harvey (United States EPA).

Several major river basins lie in part, or entirely, within Texas. Unless increased temperatures are coupled with an increase in rainfall, water could become scarcer. A

10

warmer and drier climate would lead to greater evaporation, as much as a 35% decrease in streamflow, and less water for recharging groundwater aquifers. Although increased rainfall could mitigate these effects, it could contribute to localized flooding (United States

EPA).

According to HadCM2, seventy years from now, the longest period without rain each year is likely to be at least three days longer than it is presently (United States

Environmental Protection Agency). Increased evaporation and decreased rainfall are both likely to reduce the average flow of rivers and streams. Drier soils will increase the need for farmers to irrigate crops, but sufficient water might not be available.

States at Risk is a project that documents how Americans in all 50 states experience climate change. In 2015 States at Risk evaluated in its Preparedness Report Card the level of precipitation in each of the 50 U.S. states for future climate threats. Figure 6 illustrates states that are most threated by drought conditions. The lighter colors represent states that are least threaten by drought and the darker colors represent states that are more threatened by drought conditions. Texas currently faces the highest overall summer drought threat of any state. By 2050, nine states (Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Texas, Michigan,

Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Washington) are projected to face a greater summer drought threat than Texas does today (Climate Central).

Figure 7 illustrates the states least prepared to deal with the climatic changes, based on climate change models. Some, like Colorado, Washington and Michigan are reasonably well prepared overall, earning a B or higher. Others, like Texas and Montana have taken little action, scoring a D- and an F respectively (Climate Central). The preparedness map 11

shows that Texas is one of the most unprepared US states able to deal with the climate changes that it will face. A possible recent example that can be used is Hurricane Harvey.

The floods that ravaged Houston left behind tens of billions of dollars in damage and may take years to recover. As with storms, droughts cost billions of dollars and may becoming more frequent, requiring proper planning to mitigate its impacts. Failing to prepare today will only increase response and recovery costs tomorrow.

Figure 6: States Most Threated by Drought Conditions

Source: (Climate Central)

12

Figure 7: States Least Prepared to Deal with Climatic Changes

Source: (Climate Central)

POPULATION GROWTH AND INCREASED WATER DEMAND

Droughts can influence water supply, but high-water demand can also cause a human induced drought due to excessive use. In general, municipal and agricultural water use is expected to increase due to changes in climate. However, most increases in water use will be due to expected increases in population in Texas (Mace & Wade, 2008).

Population growth can be a major contributor to water scarcity. Growth in populations means mounting demand and competition for water for domestic, industrial, and municipal uses.

Texas had the seventh fastest population growth rate in the country in 2017 – 1.4 percent – and it experienced the biggest numeric population growth of any state. Texas’ population is expected to increase more than 70 percent between 2020 and 2070, from 29.5 13

million to 51 million, with over half of this growth occurring in the Dallas and Houston areas. Water demand in some regions is projected to increase approximately 17 percent between 2020 and 2070, from 18.4 million to 21.6 million-acre feet per year (Texas Water

Development Board). Figure 8 below illustrates the demand projections by water use categories. While the overall total demand does not seem to have a large increase, municipal use will increase significantly, eventually with more demand than irrigation.

Figure 8: Texas Water Demand Projects by Category 2020-2070

Source: (Texas Water Development Board)

Texas’ existing water supplies— those that can already be relied on in the event of drought— are expected to decline by approximately 11 percent between 2020 and 2070, from 15.2 million to 13.6 million acre-feet per year (Texas Water Development Board,

14

2017). A global trend is that human beings use larger volumes of water per capita. The

United Nations points out that “water use has been growing at more than twice the rate of population increases in the last century” (Singh, 2016). The Texas Water Development

Board has emphasized conservation and drought management to stretch existing water supplies. The TWDB at the same time is looking at innovative ways of creating new water sources, using brackish groundwater and seawater. As the population in Texas continues to grow, the ability to develop new supplies of fresh water could be challenging, expensive and energy intensive.

15

Chapter Two: Regional Planning

Texas faces enormous challenges related to its continued growth, its climate variability, and its diverse ecosystems. In response, the Texas 75th Legislature passed

Senate Bill 1 (SB1) in 1997 to create a statewide, ground-up local-to-regional planning process to better reflect regional conditions, preferences, and future water needs (Texas

Water Development Board). SB1 created 16 Regional Water Planning Groups statewide.

They were given the responsibility of creating the Regional Water Plans that the Texas

Water Development Board (TWDB) develops into a State Water Plan. These regional plans and the state plan are updated every five years and planning is extended through 2070.

Figure 9 regions are labeled and refers to these by letters A through P.

16

Figure 9: Texas's 16 Water Planning Regions

Source: (Texas Water Development Board)

Within each region there are planning groups (PG), each made up of about 20 members. The PGs represent by statute 12 interests, including agriculture, industry, environment, public, municipalities, business, water districts, river authorities, water utilities, counties, groundwater management areas, and power generation. The PGs conduct all functions during open meetings in a participatory manner. They hold special public meetings when to develop scopes of work and hold hearings before adopting regional water plans. This public involvement helps direct the planning and determine which water

17

management strategies to recommend. Consensus building within the planning groups is crucial to ensure enough support for adopting the plan. Planning group members adopt plans by voting at open meetings. Table 1 below lists the approach regional water planners undergo to develop a regional water plan.

Table 1: The Regional Water Planning Process

Ongoing Work of The Regional Water Planning Process

1. Describing the regional water planning area 2. Quantifying current and projected population and water demand over a 50-year planning horizon 3. Evaluating and quantifying current water supplies

4. Identifying surpluses and needs 5. Evaluating water management strategies and preparing plans to meet the needs 6. Evaluating impacts of water management strategies on water quality, agricultural and natural resources, as well as water resources of the state 7. Describing how the plan is consistent with long-term protection of the state’s water, agricultural, and natural resources 8. Developing drought response information and recommendations

9. Recommending regulatory, administrative, and legislative changes 10. Describing how sponsors of water management strategies will finance projects 11. Describing the state of project implementation in the regional planning area 12. Prioritizing the recommended projects in the regional water plan

13. Adopting the plan, including the required level of public participation

Modified from: (Texas Water Development Board)

18

Once the planning group adopts a regional water plan, the plan is sent to the TWDB for approval. The TWDB compiles information from each approved regional water plan and other sources to develop the state water plan. The state water plan developed over a five-year period, summarizes and includes the dedicated efforts of about 450 planning group members, numerous technical experts, the public, and several state agencies, including the TWDB, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Texas Department of

Agriculture, and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). This process has resulted in greater public participation, public education, and public awareness, underscoring the benefits of directly involving local and regional decision makers and the public in water planning (Texas Water Development Board, 2015)

DROUGHT PLANNING

The 2012 Texas State Water Plan stated that Texas does not and will not have enough water to meet the needs of its people, its businesses, and its agricultural enterprises in serious drought conditions (Texas Water Development Board). Texas state water plans are based on future conditions that could exist in the event of a recurrence of the worst recorded drought in Texas’ history—known as the “drought of record”— a time when, generally, water supplies are lowest and water demands are highest. The philosophy of drought contingency planning is that short-term water shortages can be anticipated. The potential risks and impacts of drought can be evaluated in advance and response measures can be determined, with defined implementation to minimize the impacts of drought.

19

TWDB’s water plans define different types of droughts based on meteorological, agricultural, hydrological and socioeconomic effects. Meteorological drought can be defined by a period of substantially diminished precipitation duration and/or intensity. The commonly used definition of meteorological drought is an interval of time, generally on the order of months or years, during which the actual rainfall at a given place consistently falls below a climatically appropriate rainfall (Texas Almanac). Agricultural drought occurs when there is inadequate soil moisture to meet the needs of a crop at a particular time. Agricultural drought usually occurs after or during meteorological drought but before hydrological drought; it can also affect livestock and other dry-land agricultural operations (Texas Almanac).

Hydrological drought refers to deficiencies in surface and subsurface water supplies. It is measured as streamflow and as lake, reservoir and groundwater levels.

There is usually a delay between lack of rain and less measurable water in streams, lakes and reservoirs. Therefore, hydrological measurements tend to lag other drought indicators.

Socioeconomic drought occurs when physical water shortages start to affect the health, well-being, and quality of life of the people, or when the drought starts to affect the supply and demand of an economic product (Texas Almanac). Figure 10 below, defines the levels of drought and its potential impacts.

20

Figure 10: Categories of Drought and Natural Climate Variability

Source: (Texas Water Development Board)

In its latest Texas Water Plan, the TWDB expanded the scope of the regional water plans to include information on drought preparations and response. Drought contingency plans were required to be included in regional water plans after the 2011 drought (Texas

Water Development Board). Like the State Water Plans, Regional Water Plans (RWP) are released on a five-year basis. Drought contingency plans were included in the state regional water plans in the most recent 2016 water plans (TWDB). Since only recently regional water plans included drought contingency plans, it served as a good opportunity to

21

assemble all 16-regional drought plans. These plans document how cities and water user groups in Texas plan to deal with drought conditions.

TCEQ defines a drought contingency plan as “a strategy or combination of strategies for temporary supply and demand management responses to temporary and potentially recurring water supply shortages and other water supply emergencies” (Texas

Commission on Environmental Quality). Drought response measures in this context may be referred to as best management practices. Best management practices typically include voluntary reduction in customer water demand, mandatory pro rata curtailment of water diversions or deliveries, or the temporary use of an alternative water supply. The drought contingency plan must include a minimum of three drought or emergency response stages.

These stages provide for the implementation of measures in response to water supply conditions during a repeat of the drought of record (Texas Commission on Environmental

Quality).

The purposes of a drought contingency plan are to: conserve the available water supply in times of drought, water supply shortage, and emergency; maintain supplies for domestic water use, sanitation, and fire protection; protect and preserve public health, welfare, and safety; minimize the adverse impacts of water supply shortages; and minimize the adverse impacts of emergency water supply conditions. In the absence of drought response measures, demand tends to increase during a drought due to increased demand for water. Figure 11 illustrates this interaction between drought and increased use. The year

2011 was the “dry” year on record. Irrigation increased 4 million acre-feet, from 14 million to 18 million acre-feet, but decreased in 2015, the last data available. 22

Figure 11: Water Demand by Sector 2006 – 2015

Source: (Texas Water Development Board, 2017)

The severity impact of a drought depends on the degree of depletion of supplies and on the relationship of demand to available supplies (Eslamian, Management of Drought and Water Scarcity). A water supply shortage can be the result of drought or the result of conditions which may render all or some portion of the water supply unavailable. These conditions can include but are not limited to the presence of invasive species, contamination of the water supply, or infrastructure failure.

In Texas, any wholesale and retail public water suppliers and irrigation districts that serves 3,000 or more persons are required to develop a drought contingency plan (DCP).

TCEQ defines a wholesale public water supplier (WPWS) as “an individual or entity that for compensation supplies water to another for resale to the public for human consumption” 23

(Texas Commission on Environmental Quality). The term does not include an individual or entity that supplies water to itself or its employees or tenants as an incident of that employee service or tenancy when that water is not resold to or used by others. “A WPWS does not include an individual or entity that conveys water to another individual or entity but does not own the right to the water which is conveyed, whether or not for a delivery fee” (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality). Many wholesale public water suppliers provide water service on a retail basis to the public for human consumption and are therefore also considered to be “community water systems.” TCEQ requires that these water suppliers create Drought Contingency Plans for both their retail and wholesale water service operations. (Division, 2005)

Drought preparedness is a key tool for the drought of record, or the worst drought to occur for a particular area. Regional planning focuses on the hydrological drought or the drought with the largest shortfalls on surface and/or subsurface water supply (Texas Water

Development Board). The frequency and severity of hydrological drought is often defined on a watershed or river basin scale (National Drought Mitigation Center). Table 2 below lists the key principles for drought contingency planning from the TCEQ.

24

Table 2: TCEQ Drought Contingency Planning Key Principles

TCEQ Drought Contingency Planning Key Principles

• Drought and its potential impacts on both water supply and demand, as well as water supply infrastructure, can be expected to occur

• Drought response measures and implementation procedures that can be defined in advance of drought

• Through timely implementation of drought response measures, it is possible to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the risks and impacts of water shortages and other drought-related water supply emergencies

• Some water demands are considered essential to public health and safety or to the economy while others can be considered non-essential or discretionary

• Drought contingency plans should be tailored to the unique circumstances of each water supplier (e.g., vulnerability of water supply and/or infrastructure to drought, end-users and demand characteristics, objectives, etc.)

Modified from: (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality)

For much of Texas, the drought of record occurred from 1950 to 1957. During the

1950s drought, some wells, springs, streams, and rivers went dry. Some cities had to rely on water trucked in from other areas to meet drinking water demands. By the end of 1956,

244 of the 254 Texas counties were classified as disaster areas by President Eisenhower

(Texas Water Resources Institute, n.d.). This historic drought forced so many Texans to move that it permanently transformed Texas from a rural to a more urban state (Charlene

R. Nickels, 1997). Some of the planning regions are switching their drought of record from the 1950’s drought to the driest year in Texas climate recorded history, the recent 2011

25

drought, which began in late 2010. Rainfall averaged eleven inches across the state, making it the driest year in Texas history. Agricultural losses were estimated at more than $8 billion, making it the most expensive Texas drought in history (Beach). The total direct cost of agricultural loss was $5.2 billion with an estimated $3.5 billion in indirect costs, bringing the total loss to $8.7 billion. The direct costs were due to a decrease in the production of a set of crops, including cotton, wheat, hay, corn, and sorghum production, along with livestock losses. Indirect costs were associated with job losses and crop price increases. (Bolhassani, 2014)

While the approach to planning may be different across water user groups, all DCPs should include targets for water use reductions, drought response stages, triggers to begin each stage, supply management measures, demand management measures and descriptions of drought indicators. A “good” drought contingency plan is, almost by definition, one that is tailored to the unique conditions and circumstances of an individual water supplier

(Texas Commission on Environmental Quality). No two wholesale public water suppliers are likely to face identical circumstances or conditions with respect to water supply availability, the water demand characteristics of their customers, or the capacity and limitations of their water supply facilities. Therefore, DCP differ from city to city and across regions as they have different climatic conditions and water supply and demands

(Texas Commission on Envrionmental Quality, 2005).

Even wholesale water suppliers that rely on a common water source may have different risk of shortage due to differences in water rights or the amount of water used by wholesale customers. Since no two wholesale suppliers face identical conditions, the best 26

management practices for one supplier may be different than the best management practice for another supplier. However, despite the many differences among water suppliers, there is a standard six-step process that can be followed to develop an effective drought contingency plan and satisfy state requirements, as listed in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Six Step Process for Effective Drought Contingency Planning

Six Step Process for Effective Drought Contingency Planning 1. Public Involvement 2. Triggering Criteria 3. Drought Response Targets and BMPs 4. Design the Plan 5. Adopt the Plan 6. Periodic Review & Update

Modified from: (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality)

DROUGHT STAGES

The Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) is a metric used to identify the severity of the long-term droughts. NOAA calculates regional PDSI values from a combination of precipitation, temperature, and soil moisture data. It represents the accumulation or deficit of water over a period of about 9 months (Texas A&M Research Foundation). Soil moisture data is calibrated to a homogeneous climate zone. PDSI has been widely used to recognize long-term agricultural drought and hydrological drought. It can identify the abnormality of drought in a region (Palmer Drought Severity Index and Palmer Z-Index, 2018).

27

Table 4 converts the PDSI in a set of drought levels that distinguish any drought conditions and the general actions that should be associated given the PDSI. As drought severity increases, the PDSI decreases. Category D0 drought is the least intense condition; it represents abnormally dry conditions. Abnormally dry conditions suggest that an area is about to go into a drought or that it is slowly on the path of recovery from a drought event.

When the drought intensity increases from D0 to D1, a region is considered in a moderate drought. Moderate drought indicates that there may be some measurable damage or impacts associated with the lack of rainfall and the temperature. One indication of a moderate drought is damage to crops. Another metric could be that water resources are low, providing evidence that a shortage may be underway. A moderate drought D1, may trigger a water supply entity to impose voluntary water use reductions to its connections.

Severe drought (D2) is a third level of an ongoing drought leading to more evident water shortages and crop losses. Mandatory water restrictions are likely to be imposed. The severity and longevity of restrictions and water reduction targets will vary between water supply water user groups (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality). Extreme drought and exceptional drought conditions are referred to as D3 and D4, respectively. The impacts of a drought on water availability and agricultural productivity increase in conjunction with the drought category. As a drought conditions intensify, so may water restriction intensity.

28

Table 4: Drought Classification Scheme with Palmer Drought Index

29

Chapter Three: Data Collection

Each emergency response of the sixteen 2016 approved regional plans has its own metrics and design. To evaluate these plans, it is useful to compare them in some standard manner. Therefore, I have converted plans into one uniform matrix. With information in one place, a reader could analyze how various water users are addressing specific drought stages. If two different regions have cities using one water source, this data set would compare best management drought responses. An analysis of the drought contingency plans may provide insight to regions which have robust or weaker water conservation efforts.

The Texas Water Development Board’s website twdb.texas.gov, is the primary data source for this analysis. I used the 2016 Texas Water Plan to gather data for each region’s

DCPs and EDRs, Texas provides water-related data on its public websites. I also used

Texas State Water Plan (texasstatewaterplan.org) for information on water user group’s

2020 population, 2020 demand and existing supply for each entity that was represented in the DCPs. These data document drought responses by larger communities or communities with larger existing water supply. I then developed a grading system to compare drought strategies among water users, which focused on the regions available emergency supply options. The data collected for this research can be found electronically on the Texas Data

Repository website; https://dataverse.tdl.org/ searching the Dataverse titled “Texas

Drought Contingency Plans & Drought Response Strategies”.

30

DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLANS

Compiling the Drought Contingency Plans into one single matrix that could be used to collect information from all the regions was a difficult task because the format and information included varied from one region to another. Three examples of plans from three different regions are shown below and point out the problems of “comparison” and providing a uniform data set for all regions.

Table 5: Coastal Bend (Region N) City of Aransas Pass Drought Contingency Plan

Source: (Region N Water Planning Group)

31

Table 5 lists the water user group or entity, the type of water source and the

reduction goals and responses for each stage. Table 6 is a format used by Region A

(Panhandle Region). The water source is listed as well as the trigger and response

next to each other. In another table not shown here, Region C used a similar format

but did not include the strategies in the response column but included a percentage

of the reduction goal rather than strategies in the response column.

Table 6: Example of Panhandle's (Region A) Contingency Plan

Source: (Freese & Nichols, Inc)

Table 7 provides another common format used by Region L along with several others. Table 7 lists the entity name, date of the DCP plan, stage numbers, triggers, responses and water supply sources. The trigger and the responses are marked with an X 32

to indicate the stage to which it applies. For example, the first entity (Aqua WSC) has and

X in the Prohibited Use column in all four stages.

Table 7: Example of Region L's Drought Contingency Plan

Source: (South Central Texas Regional Water Planning Group)

TCEQ recommends that drought contingency plans provide three to five response stages for implementation of best management practices. Plans with fewer than three stages may not provide enough flexibility to respond appropriately to water supply or demand conditions of varying severity. With fewer stages, the transition between stages may be too great; for example, moving from an initial voluntary water conservation stage to strict

33

water allocation without an intervening stage of more moderate drought response measures. The TCEQ reports that public compliance with best management practices is greater when such measures are introduced gradually in stages (Texas Commission on

Environmental Quality). The TCEQ also suggested that drought contingency plans with more than five stages are difficult to administer, in as much as the “spread” of the triggering criteria between stages may not allow adequate time for the public to understand what is required in one stage before the next stage is triggered (Texas Commission on

Environmental Quality).

The TWDB’s website includes the 2016 Approved Regional Water Plans. From chapter 7 of these plans I gathered the responses for each drought stage for water user groups in each region. Most responses could be summarized into 14 distinct categories. In my model I have a Stage 1 – 6, for each stage I converted the responses in the numbers 1-

14. Most drought plans only included have 5 stages, but several regions (such as O and P) used a sixth stage to implement water allocation. To enhance the analysis, I gathered data for each entity’s county, population, demand and existing supply, main water source and type of triggers.

Region M presented the major water supply water user groups in the regional water plan. The rest of water user groups appear in their plan’s appendix E. Region C did not include specific responses for each entity within its Regional Water Plan. I contacted a few cities directly and used their responses as a surrogate for other water user groups within the region. The Lower Colorado’s (Region K) 2016 RWP did not include a detailed drought plan or drought contingency plan. I contacted Ms. Jaime Burke, P.E from AECOM and she 34

provided DCPs for water user groups in Region K, water sources, trigger type, drought stage response, population, demand and exiting supply. Annual precipitation and average temperature for all regions, are also included in the database.

The DCPs were compiled into a data matrix with columns for each stage and the responses the entity used in cells. Responses were coded as numeric values to reduce the size of the cells. In total there were 354 drought contingency plan responses. Appendix A includes the data set.

EMERGENCY DROUGHT RESPONSE OPTIONS (EDR)

In a separate excel sheet I gathered data on emergency responses to local drought conditions (852 responses total). Emergency preparedness is of importance for water user groups that rely on a sole-source of water for supply. Texas Statute §357.42(g) requires regional water planning groups to evaluate potential temporary emergency water supplies for all County‐Other Water User Groups (WUGs) and municipalities with 2010 populations less than 7,500 that rely on a sole source of water (Texas Commission on

Environmental Quality). The TWDB defines County-Other Water user as an aggregation of residential, commercial, and institutional water users in cities with less than 500 people or utilities that provide less than an average of 250,000 gallons per day, as well as unincorporated rural areas in a given county (Texas Commission on Environmental

Quality).

The purpose of the TWDB’s evaluation of emergency response to local drought for small systems is to identify potential alternative water sources for temporary emergency 35

use if existing water supply sources become temporarily unavailable due to extreme hydrologic conditions, such as equipment failure, unanticipated loss of reservoir storage, or other localized drought events. This section provides potential solutions that should act as a guide for municipal water users vulnerable in the event of a loss of supply. Within the chapter reviews there were 851 water user groups from all regions reporting information from emergency drought responses. There were a larger number of smaller water users than larger ones, given the number of respondents in this dataset compared to the that in the drought contingency plans.

Unlike drought contingency plans, emergency responses were much more structured and consistent from region to region, therefore easier to collect and transcribe.

Table 8 lists potential emergency water supply sources that might be used by small sole- source municipal or County-Other water user groups across all regions.

36

Table 8: Potential Emergency Water Supply

Potential Emergency Water Supply New local groundwater well

Brackish groundwater limited treatment

Release from upstream reservoir

Curtailment of upstream and/or

Downstream water rights.

Emergency interconnect

Use of other local supply

Trucked in water delivery Modified from: (Texas Water Development Board)

The addition of a new local groundwater well along with trucking in water was identified by most water user groups as a potential emergency water supply source. Table

9 below provides an example of the potential emergency supply options for Region N

(Coastal Bend). Table 10 reports similar data for Region P. The two tables are similar to each other, unlike the drought contingency tables.

37

Table 9: Example of Region N's Emergency Response Options

Source: (Region N Water Planning Group)

38

Table 10: Example of Region P Emergency Supply Options

Source: (Lavaca Regional Water Planning Group)

GALLONS PER CAPITA DAILY

Strategies for drought preparedness focus on water conservation because one way to prepare for drought is to conserve water year-round (Texas Living Waters Project, 2017).

Incorporating conservation as part of daily life can help preserve essential water resources more effectively than requiring limited use only during critical periods. Some typical water conservation measures include reducing nonessential water use practices, such as watering the lawn in the middle of the day or not washing cars during summer months. The reduction of use can reduce the impact of drought and save money by reducing the size of costly water infrastructure.

39

It’s important that conservation efforts are continuous effort, not only during drought condition. Water conservation can enable utilities to reduce or delay raw water purchases, prolong the need to find additional supplies, reduce variable production costs and reduce consumer costs. Conservation can reduce chemical treatment and electricity costs, especially during drought when decreased water levels are saturated with higher in chemical content.

Municipal water demand includes water used by a variety of consumers in Texas communities, including single-family residences as well as multi-family residences, commercial, institutional, and light industrial uses. It includes water utilities, individual cities, and aggregated rural areas, sometimes referred to as “county-other” for planning purposes. Figure 12 illustrates that even as Texas’ population has risen, Texans use less water per person per year, thanks in part to water conservation (Walker, 2017). Even with reduced per capita use, consumption has increased in Texas. (Texas Water Development

Board). Water demand in Texas is projected to increase by 22 percent, from about 18 million acre‐feet per year in 2010 to about 22 million acre‐feet per year in 2060.

40

Figure 12: Long-term Trends in Texas Population & Municipal Water Use Rates

Source: (Walker)

The Texas Living Waters Project (TLWP) reviewed water conservation programs in 19 cities around Texas to determine the extent to which municipalities were using water conservation measures to increase efficiency. The TLWP reported that the quality and extent of water conservation programs vary across Texas and that not all cities conserve as aggressively as they could (Texas Living Waters Project, 2015).

One of the criteria used to track water use is to calculate how much water is used per person each day, or gallons per capita per day (GPCD). GPCD can be used for estimating future water use demand, GPCD can allow areas to track conservation goals, as it provides a baseline for household use and conservation efforts. The GPCD metric is

41

generally easy to understand and it allows for meaningful comparisons between one’s own use of water with others’ in the country, state, county and the community level.

Water usage comparison is an important quality of any conservation effort.

Education, outreach, emergency responses to water shortages can all result in temporary reduction in water use. When people can compare their usage with their neighbors, changes in behavior can occur. A metric is needed to provide a basis for comparison, and as such

GPCD is as good.

GPCD is calculated by dividing total annual water used, by total population, total population and then 365 days of the year (GPCD = Total annual water used / Total population / 365 days). A 2004 state-appointed Water Conservation Implementation Task

Force set a target for municipal water suppliers to reduce water use to 140 GPCD and called for a one percent reduction in water use each year to reach that target. Many major water suppliers already have reached or exceeded the 140 GPCD goal. Each Texas community tracks it's GPCD data and reports it to the TWDB (Texas Water Development Board).

According to the TWDB, the average municipal per capita water use in Texas dropped from 175 gallons per day in 2000 to 146 gallons per day in 2015 (Texas Water

Development Board).

From 2016 Regional Water Plans, I collected the GPCD for each region. Figure 13 below illustrates the average GPCD for each planning region and the average of all the regions in the horizontal bar. Those regions with GPCD values under the average bar are conserving water more than regions above the bar. Figure 13 also illustrates that people in

42

half the 16 regions use less than 140 GPCD. Consumers in regions A, F and J, have much conserving to do.

Figure 13: Gallons Per Capita Daily for Water Planning Regions

Regional GPCD 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60

Gallons per capita per per day per capita Gallons 40 20 0 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Regional Water Planning Areas

GPCD Averages

Modified from: (Texas Water Development Board)

43

Chapter Four: Data Analysis

This chapter reports on the results of the analysis of the drought management strategies based on the use of Microsoft Excel, Tableau and Esri ArcGIS to represent the data in graphs, tables and figures. The information in the drought and water management chapters were converted into tables and charts that illustrate the needs and strategies of water users. The data are discussed separately for drought contingency plans, emergency drought options and water use (in GPCD). The information is integrated into a combined metric score for the regions to compare drought preparedness differences across the state.

ANALYSIS: DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLANS

All of Texas' drought contingency plans, emphasize demand management measures that reduce water demands by curtailment. Each water supply plan also identifies drought response triggers and actions to be taken in time of drought. Many wholesale public water providers and most municipalities have prepared for drought by developing individual utility drought contingency plans, although not all were represented in the drought contingency plans in the 2016 approved regional water plans. I was able to collect 354 drought contingency plan responses; I was unable to tell how many were missing.

The drought response varies from entity to entity, primarily between those utilities who serve customers, including irrigators, with raw water, and those who deliver treated water. Each water district responds slightly differently. The conservation stages for cities included limitations on car washing and lawn watering, with voluntary action in early 44

stages and fines or other penalties in later stages. The response measures indicate that suppliers reduce water use within each response stage, with the intensity of management measure reflecting the severity of water supply or demand conditions and specific targets for each stage.

Restrictions vary depending on many factors including water source type, existing supply and the culture of that region. In El Paso for example, residents may pay fines if the sprinklers in their front yards accidentally water the streets (Far West Texas Water

Planning Group). Austin restricts watering to one or two days per week, depending on the level of concern over water at any given time even during non-drought conditions (Lower

Colorado Regional Planning Group).

Lawn watering is considered discretionary or nonessential in many plans. Watering is visible and easy to monitor and represents a substantial component of urban water demand, particularly during the summer months when drought conditions may be most severe. For example, seasonal (summer) water demand, which is the amount of water use over “base” or winter levels, typically accounts for 20-30 percent of total municipal water demand on an annual basis. More significantly, seasonal uses may account for 50 percent or more of peak day water use (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality). During a drought it is common for seasonal water use to increase by an additional 20 percent or more relative to “normal year” seasonal demand levels. Figure 14 illustrates outdoor use for

Texas cities as a percentage of total use (collected from 2004-2011 water use data).

45

Figure 14: Outdoor Water Use as a Percentage of Total Water Consumption in Texas

Outdoor Water Use as Percentage of Total Use

Houston Tyler Katy College Station Garland Fort Worth Arlington Dallas Pflugerville Cities Austin San Antonio Corpus Christi Amarillo Laredo Lubbock Odessa El Paso

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Percentage of Total Use

Modified from: (Texas Water Development Board)

The cities on the chart are sorted by their average annual precipitation, with the cities at the top (such as Houston and Tyler) receiving the highest annual rainfall, 50 inches and 47 per year respectively (cities at the bottom, such as Odessa and El Paso) have the lowest average annual rainfall, 15 inches and 10 inches per year respectively. Some of the cities with less precipitation like Laredo, have less outdoor water use than high precipitation rates cities, such as Dallas. However, there are many “dry” cities such as

Amarillo, which only receives 20 inches of rainfall per year and uses more than 40% of its total water use for outdoor purposes. Similarly, Tyler Texas is a generally “wet” city with

46

average annual rainfall of 47 inches a year. With so much rainfall one would think they do not need to use 53% of its total water use for outdoor purposes. It may be helpful for

Amarillo and Tyler to look at cities with the similar average rainfall and see what outdoor water use strategies they can use to improve their outdoor water use as percentage of total use.

Best management practices in drought contingency plans typically prescribe lawn watering by limiting time-of-use and other restrictions. One approach is to place water users on a schedule which allows for staggered lawn watering days and restrictions on the times during the day when lawns can be watered. For convenience, many water suppliers institute an alternate-day lawn watering schedule, whereby water users can water every other day based on the last digit of their street address. Although it is easy to explain to the public and easy to monitor, the TWDB strongly recommended that this alternate-day approach not be used (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality). Research indicates that both peak day and overall water use increases under an alternate-day, “odd-even” lawn watering schedule. This tendency for alternate-day lawn watering to increase water use may rule out its use in a response stage, as it is not a best management practice.

Rate surcharge is another practice becoming more common but not utilized by all water user groups. A price adjustment can take the form of higher rates for water use above a specified base amount, or a temporary summer price increase in commodity charges. Rate surcharges can be viewed as either an incentive for compliance with water use restrictions or a penalty to those who use excessive water.

47

Surcharges can shift the cost of providing peak system capacity to those who are heavy water users. During the California drought in the early 1990’s, many water suppliers used steep water rate surcharges in tandem with water use restrictions and overall reductions in water use on the order of 30 percent. Water rate surcharges or rate adjustments can also be used to generate additional revenue to offset any lost revenues associated with reduced water sales (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, 2005).

Table 11 below lists drought contingency plans’ best management practices, the percentage of plans specifying the strategies, and the average drought stage at which the plan is initiated. The various responses or strategies are found on the left. This table is sorted by the percentage of the plans that implement a specific strategy. The percentages are in the middle column and the average stage in which the strategy is implemented appears in the right-hand column. For example, Voluntary Usage Reductions are generally initiated during stage 1: that strategy was reported by 52% of water user groups. Figure 15 is a bar chart representing the same information in another format. The dark shades represent the percentage of water user groups that use the strategies. It is sorted by the average stage in which the strategies are implemented.

48

Table 11: Drought Contingency Plan Responses

Percentage of Plans Average Specifying Stage Strategy Strategy Initiated No irrigation with hose-end sprinklers 95% 3.3 No irrigation with automatic irrigation systems 94% 3.5 No draining and filling of pools and spas 86% 3.1 Public awareness/ customer awareness measures 80% 1 Mandatory no more than twice per week irrigation 80% 1.5 limits Water rationing/ reductions for commercial/ 77% 3.6 industrial customers Mandatory limit on irrigation hours 71% 1.5 Prohibit non-essential water uses - hosing of paved 69% 2.2 areas Mandatory no more than once per week irrigation 69% 2.3 limits Prohibit uses of flushing gutters, allowing runoff, 67% 1.9 not repairing leaks Use Alternative supply sources 61% 2.7 No vehicle washing outside commercial facilities 60% 3.2 No operation of ornamental fountains/ponds 59% 3 Vehicle washing only with bucket and/ or handheld 56% 1.9 hose with shutoff nozzle Prohibit non-essential water uses - hosing of 56% 2.1 building or other structures except for fire protection No irrigation of golf course fairways 55% 3.6 No new permits for swimming pools, Jacuzzis, 55% 3.3 spas, ornamental ponds, or fountains No irrigation by hand-watering, with soaker hoses 53% 3.8 or by drip irrigation Voluntary usage reductions 52% 1 Prohibit non-essential water uses - wet street 52% 1.9 sweeping Investigate alternative water sources 52% 1.7 Source: (Texas Water Development Board)

49

Figure 15: Drought Contingency Plan Strategies, Plans Specifying Strategy and Average Stage Initiated

Modified From: (Texas Water Development Board)

Based on the collected water conservation and drought plans, the majority of drought responses are either short term conservation-oriented strategies, or long-term policy changes. Public awareness and voluntary usage reductions are typically first responses during initial periods of abnormal dryness. This involves educating the public and consumers about conservation. Mandatory stages follow such as limited lawn irrigation to no more than twice per week in defined irrigation hours.

50

Some of the last strategies to be implemented may include: limits to irrigation of golf courses; reductions for commercial and industrial customers; no irrigation even by hand-watering, with soaker hoses or by drip irrigation. One thing I found odd is that using new water sources is initiated before prohibiting irrigation of golf course fairways. Perhaps

Texans value having green grass for recreation over having a secure water resource.

A few of the most common limits which are generally implemented in the later drought response stages are no irrigation with hose-end sprinklers, no irrigation with automatic irrigation systems and no draining and filling of pools and spas. Based on the data collected from the water plans, the following strategies are implemented in the early stage: reductions in voluntary usage, prohibition of wet street sweeping, and investigation of alternative water sources; however, they are not commonly used by most of the water user groups. Although, investigating new water sources may occur during a drought, only about half of plans specify this strategy.

TCEQ recommends that drought plans with more than 3 stages, but less than six responses be implemented gradually. Six stages may cause confusion when adopting targets for triggers. All Texas plans have at least 3 stages (see Figure 16). The number of

WUG's with more than 3 stages of preparedness rapidly decreases after stage 3. This may be an indication that some water user groups are doing the bare minimum of what is required by the Texas Water Development Board.

51

Figure 16: Response Drought Stages

Responses By Stages 400 350 300 250 200

150 Responses 100 50 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Stages

Counts

ANALYSIS: EMERGENCY DROUGHT OPTIONS (SMALL WUGS)

I collected all the Emergency Drought Plans required for municipalities with populations less than 7,500 or that rely on a sole source of water. The Emergency Options do not relate to the different stages of drought but are implemented during drought when it is necessary to further increase supply. Table 12 counts emergency strategies conditions reported by the water user groups in the Regional Water Plans drought chapters.

Emergency options focus on increasing water supply and not conservation. Small communities in Texas generally do not consume much water and do not have the resources like large cities to improve water efficiency. Figure 17 below shows the percentage of the plans that have a specific emergency option.

52

Table 12: A Count of Emergency Supply Options

Emergency Options Counts

Release Upstream 455 Curtailment of Water 485

Drill Local Wells 779

Brackish Treatment/Development 539

Potential Emergency Interconnects 664

Other Local Supply 648 Truck Water 850

Figure 17: Percentages of the Emergency Supply Options

Emergency Supply Options to Local Drought Conditions 100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% Percentage of Plans Having Options

Release From Upstream Curtailment of Water Drill Local Groundwater Well Brackish Water Treatment/Development Potential Emergency Interconnects Other Local Supply Truck In Water

53

As illustrated by Figure 17, all water user groups will truck in water as an emergency strategy (100%) followed by drilling local groundwater wells (90%), which indicates the value of ground water supply for mitigation during drought. Wells can be a source of water in rangelands, particularly if the groundwater is of usable quality. Water from wells can be raised mechanically by pump. Wells can be dug along the riverbeds and channels to harvest the shallow seepage water.

Some analysts argue that brackish water is a key future water source for Texas

(McGraw). Indeed, 60% of water users reported investigating brackish water for emergency supply, especially in region F where almost all the water users reported brackish water treatment or development for emergency supply. Some small communities that rely on Emergency Drought Options depend on finding new water supplies. Larger communities that have adopted Drought Contingency Plans are water conservation oriented (Texas Water Development Board).

It is interesting to report that 13% of all water user groups reported already having potential interconnection emergency agreements already in place. In Region B 60% percent of water user groups reported having emergency agreements already in place (Biggs &

Mathews). Finding nearby communities with whom to interconnect could be difficult for

Texas towns separated by large distances. Many of the water user groups require additional infrastructure to implement their reported strategies. Table 13 lists the infrastructure needed by the small Water User Groups.

54

State water planners have investigated the drought management infrastructure already in place. This information is included in Regional Water Plans and transferred in to the State Water Plan to inform state officials. The state is not responsible for providing the water infrastructure, but it can assist by offering low interest loans such as SWIFT

(Texas Water Development Board). Utilities report the most common infrastructure needs as pipes for moving water (required by 34% of the water users), trucks for transporting water (28%) and wells to develop local groundwater sources (33%). Regions G, H, L, N &

O reported requiring the most infrastructure needs, mainly wells, pipes and transportation.

Table 13: Count of Infrastructure Needed by Small Water User Groups

Infrastructure Needs Counts Conveyance facilities 39 Desalination facility 1 Pipes 460 Pump station 18 Trucks 375 Meters 4 Valves 4 Treatment plant 4 Water well 438

The SWIFT program recognizes the benefit of conservation and the needs of rural legislation encourages diverse investments, including agricultural water conservation, urban water conservation, and reuse projects (Texas Water Development Board, 2018).

The SWIFT program helps communities invest in water infrastructure through low-interest loans, extended repayment terms, deferral of loan repayments, and incremental repurchase

55

terms for projects with state ownership aspects. The SWIFT program offers a variety of loans and terms to accommodate diversity of projects in the state water plan. Eligible projects include conservation and reuse, desalinating groundwater and seawater, building new pipelines, developing reservoirs and wells fields, purchasing water rights, as well as numerous other strategies. Only the project components specified in the Texas Water Plan are eligible for SWIFT financing. SWIFT investment loan may take many years to build from problem specification to infrastructure, so communities ought to plan ahead by investing in infrastructure before another drought event. Drilling new wells and developing brackish groundwater resources may not provide small communities with new water in a timely fashion. If time is considered, some of the EDR’s options may not be viable.

ANALYSIS: GALLONS OF PER CAPITA PER DAY

Climate variability can affect the water resource availability; So, it is prudent to continue water conservation efforts, even in non-drought conditions (Texas Water

Development Board, 2017). According to the TWDB, GPCD is a good indicator to measure municipal utility and water provider conservation efforts over time (Austin Water). In the

2017 State Water Plan, water efficiency strategies (conservation and drought management) were projected to meet about 32 percent of Texas’ water demands by 2070. Not only are water conservation strategies often the most cost-effective water supply options, but they also can be easier to implement and have fewer environmental impacts than building new

56

reservoirs, desalination plants, or other supply strategies (Texas Water Development

Board).

Figure 18 illustrates daily use volume in gallons per capita per day by planning regions. Data were collected on GPCD values for every Texas county. County values were then averaged within each planning region. For example, Far West Texas, South Central

Texas, Lower Colorado and Lavaca regions have the lowest GPCD. Much of the northern part of Texas has high water use. Although these are strong agricultural areas, farming water use is not included in GPCD value.

57

Figure 18 Gallons Per Capita Per Day by Regional Water Planning Areas

Figure 18 highlights which regions conserve water and which regions could improve. Far West Texas is one of a most drought prone regions due to low precipitation, in its GPCD value is 129 gallons. Region L (South Central Texas) and Region K (Colorado

River) are also some of the best regions in water conservation. Region L encompasses the

58

San Antonio Water System (SAWS) South Central Texas is home to an array of endangered plant and aquatic spices that rely on the spring follows within the region.

Region K (which includes Austin) has improved conservation efforts. The set of strategies Austin uses to reduce GPCD are illustrated in Figure 19. One of the reasons it may be so successful is because regulation and rate are the two largest factors of its overall conservation strategies.

Figure 19: Austin Water's Conservation

Source: (Gross, 2018)

The Panhandle, Region F and the Plateau Region perform at a lower water conservation level, with over 157 gallons per capita per day. These regions are mainly made up of many small communities. Small communities may be the most unprepared for drought and have the highest per capita water consumption (but low overall consumption).

59

Unlike big cities in Texas, small communities may not have the financial resources to tackle water efficiency issues or upgrade costly infrastructure. Regional water plans help these small communities the most by providing data and suggestions that they may use for future planning.

ANALYSIS: COMBINATION OF DROUGHT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

With the data collected, I created a metric to score the regions using 1) drought responses 2) the emergency responses to local drought conditions and 3) GPCD, as a measure of which regions had the most favorable drought preparedness. By aggregating these measures (DCPs, EDRs & GPCDs), it is possible to rate preparedness for regional drought conditions. My approach included; scoring each water user group (entities with

DCPs), taking the average for users in the same county, and then taking the average for counties in the same region. Table 14 below lists the coding of drought response strategies in my spreadsheet.

60

Table 14: Coding of Drought Response Strategies

Responses Coded number Public awareness/Voluntary usage reductions 1 Reduce water demand/ mandatory reduction targets 2 Mandatory lawn watering schedule/Landscape irrigation restrictions 3 Prohibit uses of specific outdoor watering activities 4 All non-essential water use is prohibited 5 Water rationing 6 Water restrictions for commercial and Industrial customers 7 Terminate Contracts/ Restrictions on new service connections 8 Investigate/ Use alternative water sources 9 Allocate water 10 Other 11 Vehicle washing restriction 12 Restaurants prohibited from serving unrequested water 13 Rate Surcharge 14 Modified from: TWDB Regional Water Plans

The most effective conservation strategy and the easiest to manage from a water utility perspective indicate prohibition of non-essential water use; water rationing; commercial and industrial customer water restrictions; termination of water contracts; alternative water sources; and rate surcharge. Water rate surcharge is another effective practice that is becoming common. This price adjustment can take the form of significantly higher rates for water use in excess of a specified base amount or a temporary seasonal increase in commodity charges. Rate surcharges in particular can be viewed as either a positive incentive for compliance with water use restrictions or as a way to penalize those who use excessive amounts of water. Rate surcharges have the added benefit of reducing the need to actively monitor compliance with and enforce prescriptive water use restrictions. 61

If water users included any of these responses, then I gave them a point for each response that is implemented and two points if it included a rate surcharge. Water user groups whose existing water supply is above 2020 expected demand also received a point.

With growing demand and population, water providers will need to at least meet demand, having enough current supply to meet that demand gives water user groups an advantage.

Many of the water users with low scores had existing supply greater than 2020 demand.

The average total score for all the water user groups was 3. Table 15 lists the scoring procedure.

Table 15: The Scoring Procedure

Criteria Score If they don’t have a drought plan 0 If they have something other than +1 voluntary restrictions If existing water supply is greater +1 than 2020 water demand If entity has more than 4 drought +1 for each additional stage stages If entity has effective responses +1 for each different response within plan If rate charge increases +2

I calculated the average GCPD per region and per county for each water user group.

The score was also calculated for the emergency response matrix. For every option available, a water user groups would receive 1 point and 2 additional points if they already have emergency agreements in place. For the GCPD’s, every region that is below the

62

average consumption for the entire state (146 gallons) would receive an additional point.

Users above the state average would deduct a point; those at the average would neither receive nor deduct a point. After the water users were all scored, I aggregated them into counties and then by regions. The higher the “score”, the more a county/region is prepared for future drought. The range of scores are in colors for a better representation on a map.

The white spaces indicate that there is no data from the drought contingency plans for these areas. Figure 22 is a combination of Figure 20 (GPCD), Figure 21 and data from Figure 18 in a single map to represent all three drought management strategies into one representative illustration.

63

Chapter Five: Discussion

Figure 20: Drought Contingency Plan Score

64

Figure 20 represents the drought contingency scores and by county. Yellow shading illustrates low scores. Red shades illustrate high drought contingency scores. There are a lot of non-represented counties in the drought contingency plans, especially within regions

F and G which are predominately made up of small communities. Most of the low scores are in the center and northern portion of the state. There is a larger cluster of higher scores are in the south west of the state.

65

Figure 21: Emergency Drought Options for Small Water User Groups by Counties

66

The lack of white suggests there are a lot more counties represented in the

Emergency Drought Options. The means Texas is still made of up of mostly smaller communities than large cities. North East Texas has the most counties with the highest

Emergency Drought Option scores. The lowest scores are in South Texas, mainly in the

Costal Bend, South Central Texas and the Rio Grande region. Many water users in these regions only had one or two emergency supply options, trucking in water or drilling local wells.

67

Figure 22: Map combining the Drought Contingency Plan scores, Emergency Drought Options and Gallons per Capita Per Day

68

Figure 22 illustrates the grades by region based the most effective of drought contingency responses, emergency supply strategies and gallons per capita per day use.

Many of the regions in the eastern portion of Texas have higher scores than those to the west. This is not what was expected, as west Texas is much more prone to drought than the east, due to the low precipitation and higher temperatures. The Panhandle (Region A),

Llano Estacado (Region O), Region F and the Plateau (Region J) had the lowest scores out of all the regions. These regions also have some of the highest GPCDs in the state. Region

A is having a large agricultural industry and focuses its conversation efforts mainly on reducing water use to grow crops, which isn’t accounted for in GPCD.

I thought it was possible that the areas with high scores could be due to the presence of Groundwater Conservation Districts (GCD’s). Based on a visual analysis, there was no apparent relationship between high scores and the presence of GCDs. For example, north east Texas does not have GCDs, but scored high compared to other regions. Figure 23 is a map of the GCD presence across Texas.

69

Figure 23: Map of Groundwater Conservation Districts of Texas

Source: (Texas Water Development Board)

Based on the TWDB information, Texas could improve its coordination and uniformity of Drought Stage levels for all users of a source. It has been acknowledged that there can be some confusion when two water users of the same water source are at different

Drought Stage levels, even if they are implementing similar drought responses. This was the first time this information was included in the Regional Water Plans; data collection and presentation will likely improve in subsequent editions. It would much easier for regions and analyst if this region followed a format for presenting the data and a structure for the information that is required to be included. Future analysis with similar data can be done using the triggers and goals for each stage. 70

The drought management process is new and therefore is naturally evolving, getting more specific and detailed each iteration of the Regional Water Plans. I reached contacted regional planners from several regions to discuss their perspective on about the regional planning process and the issues with drought planning that their region faces. I spoke with planners from regions E, M, L and F which all have their own unique separate issues and strategies to improve water conservation and hedge against potential future drought events.

Below are my notes and take always from my conversations with the regional planners.

CONVERSATION WITH JOHN ASHWORTH FROM WSP ON REGION E (FAR WEST TEXAS)

Region E is unique in the state in the terms of climate. It is a desert unlike the rest of the state and is always in drought condition compared to the other regions. El Paso’s water supply is split equally (50/50) by local groundwater and surface water supply.

Drought conditions are based on the flow of the Rio Grande and flow is controlled from

Elephant Butte. How much can be released defines if they are in drought (less than average flow). Supply depends on the irrigators who are water right holders. If the irrigators only receive half their normal supply, then El Paso Water Utility also only receives half. Water is only released from Elephant Butte for irrigators from April through October. During excessive drought conditions, the city increases groundwater production.

The Kay Bailey Hutchison Desalination Plant was developed to assist in providing water to the city, especially when the they do not receive adequate surface water supply.

Desalination is growing in popularity as it has become a cost-effective option for big cities, however, it is still out of reach for the small rural communities. Brackish water

71

desalination’s price has come down to the point that it is now cost competitive with developing new surface water supply, and Texas’ supply of brackish groundwater is greater than fresh water (Ashworth).

Prior to 2016, regional water planners previously only had to identify that water user groups had plans; now they are required to investigate the plans in more detail. Every planning period they try to establish formats. Planners from different regions need more communication on the presentation of plans. Mr. Ashworth stated that it takes a planning period to understand how to handle what the TWDB wants planners to do.

Those who live in West Texas are culturally ingrained not to use a lot of water, while people in areas that have excess supply think and act like it will never run out and are less likely to cooperate with water restrictions during drought.

CONVERSATION WITH SARA EATMAN FROM BLACK & VEATCH ON REGION M

Region M solely relies on the Rio Grande River’s Amistad and Falcon Reservoirs.

Water rights are differentiated into municipal/ industrial use and irrigation/mining. The water rights for municipal and industrial use are projected with a designated pool. If the city is holding enough water rights, then it is in good shape. As irrigation water rights holder receives whatever supply is left over, so irrigators absorb a lot of the impact when there is drought in the region.

The other issue is that there is a lot of old infrastructure and many cities distant from the Rio Grande rely on dirt canals to transport water from the river. These overland

72

flow systems are ineffective and are highly susceptible to water losses due to evaporation.

Rights holders do not receive the full amount of water they are entitled to due to the losses in the dirt canal system. This leads to a water transport issue that effects other users, it’s not that the water isn’t there, the issue is moving it away from the river. Many irrigators have begun trying to adopt efficiency improvements to transport the water further.

The irrigation districts divert water for municipalities, because it is inefficient, they have decided to consider consolidating water to run the systems more efficiently during times of drought. Another option is for cities to increase storage, rather than have a small storage facility that can be less efficient and require more delivery. Improvements for

Region M include better coordinating and more collaborating for water deliveries to reduce losses. Concrete lining in the canals is slowly being added to address this issue and many of the districts are improving. However, some are not due to of lack of financial resources

(Eatman). During drought, irrigators are recommended to let fields lay fallow or plant different crops.

CONVERSATION WITH BRIAN PERKINS FROM BLACK & VEATCH ON REGION L

Region L, like much of Texas is a drought prone. In this region there are many endangered species, such as the Whooping Crane, so environmental considerations are included during the water management and planning process. Region L emphasized taking care of endangered species while also considering the large industrial sector in the region.

73

So, during times of drought the region must be cognizant of meeting not only the needs of its people but also the needs of the energy/ chemical industry and the environment.

Region L relies on the water levels and not stream flow of the Edwards Aquifer and

Canyon Reservoir to identify if they are approaching drought conditions. Unlike some aquifers, the Edwards is highly reactive to weather conditions. Drought awareness and water use is taken seriously in this region. Planners prepare for drought by making sure that there is adequate supply by diversify water sources. The region does not depend on only one water source. Many districts use both groundwater (from the Edwards Aquifer) and surface water that is transported from other areas.

Region L is conservation orientated. Users know that supply can be cut back by as much as 40%, so they conserve year around to be prepared for drought restrictions. The region also offers many incentive programs for low flow system retro fits and rain water harvesting. The region also has tested storm clouds seeding to promote rainfall. The San

Antonio system now has the largest aquifer storage and recovery system and a water reuse program. Brian explained that planners are starting to also think about direct potable reuse options for the future which may be included in the next regional water plans.

CONVERSATION WITH MS. SIMON KIEL FROM FREESE & NICHOLS ON REGION F

Except for San Angelo, Midland & Odessa, Region F is predominately made up of rural communities. These bigger cities have a large Permian Basin oil and gas industry.

The surface water supply for the region has decreased over time and the supply in the

74

aquifers have water quality issues. Like region M, the rural communities cannot afford to develop the water sources that are far away.

The reduced reliability of surface water sources in the region has encouraged some to shift to groundwater sources to secure a more drought tolerant source of water supply.

Over time the increased demands may affect aquifer storage for future use. Groundwater in Region F provides a more drought-resilient water source, but it needs to be managed to assure future supplies.

In Region F, there are two ongoing weather modification programs; The West

Texas Weather Modification Association (WTWMA) project and the Trans Pecos Weather

Modification Association (TPWMA) program. Between these two programs, there is active precipitation enhancement activities occurring in 11 counties in Region F to this strategy was considered for irrigated agriculture in those counties.

Region F officials have stated that the most significant factor in reducing water consumption is public awareness of drought conditions and voluntary reductions in water use. Cities, such as Midland, are pursuing aggressive water conservation programs that include using xeriscaping and efficient irrigation practices for public properties such as parks and buildings, and reuse of treated effluent for municipal and manufacturing supplies.

Challenges to the drought preparedness in Region F include the resources available to smaller cities to adequately prepare for drought and respond in a timely manner. Also, for many cities the drought of 2011 tested the entity’s drought plan and triggers. Some water providers found that the triggers were not set at the appropriate level to initiate 75

different stages of the drought plan. The 2011 drought came quickly and was intense. This increased demands on local resources and for many groundwater users increased competition for the water. Some systems had difficulty meeting demands and little time to adjust.

Some water providers of surface water sources have proactively developed supplemental groundwater sources, providing additional protections during drought. Some of the groundwater users have expanded groundwater production or are planning to develop additional groundwater to hedge against future drought.

76

Chapter Six: Conclusion

After reviewing Texas drought and its management plans, I can draw 5 conclusions or observations. First drought contingency plans are similar across Texas. They are not representative of how regions deal with drought. An analyst cannot draw inferences from plans alone regarding regional drought strategies. If the TWDB in the next iteration of regional water plans required a standard format across all regions (similar to how emergency drought response data are represented), an analyst one could compare regions more effectively.

The dry line moving east will affect surface water resources and its users. Eastern regions should consider depending more on groundwater and diversifying their supply. As precipitation decreases on the eastern half of the state, surface water will be reduced by less precipitation and increased evaporation. It may be useful for regional planners and water user groups from east Texas to start conversations and the sharing of ideas with regional planners and water users in west Texas.

While there are many innovative methods to increase water supply, desalination looks to be promising but risky. Desalination is seen as a drought proof solution. However, water utilities do not report much information on how desalination may increase energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. It could exacerbate global climate change if its use gains popularity and becomes more affordable. Desalination is a more important consideration in the recent water plan compared to the previous one. Due to the affordability and underutilized resource, this will become one solution to future water access. Many regions are desalinating than ever before, but what are the atmospheric and energy use implications 77

if all the regions considering desalination had plants installed and running today? Water is by far our most important resource and we will do whatever it takes to make sure we have access.

The drought management chapter added to the regional water plans is orientated towards providing education and assistance to small communities. Small communities are the least prepared for drought and have limited resources for improving infrastructure. If another major drought event in Texas were to occur, larger cities may be better equipped to providing water to its residents. Smaller communities without proper planning and infrastructure improvements may struggle to provide water to residents and economic sectors.

78

Appendix A: Drought Contingency Plans

* The data used for this project can be found digitally on Texas Data Repository website; https://dataverse.tdl.org/ searching the Dataverse titled

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

Appendix B: Emergency Drought Reponses

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

REFERENCES

(n.d.). Ashworth, John. Far West Texas Regional Planning Elbin Collado. 15 June 2018. Phone Conference. Austin Water. "Understanding the Drought." Februrary 2015. Austin Texas. Report. 10 June 2018. . Beach, Patrick. Drought cost Texas. 21 March 2012. . Biggs & Mathews. "REGION B REGIONAL WATER PLAN." 2015 December 2015. Texas Water Development Board. . Bolhassani, Behni. The 2011 Texas Drought: Impacts & Implications. 24 November 2014. . Charlene R. Nickels, Frederick A. Day. "Depopulation of the Rural Great Plains Counties of Texas." Great Plains Research: A Journal of Natural Resources (1997): 3-5. Cleaveland, M K. "Extended chronology of drought in south central, southeastern and west Texas." Texas Water Journal (2011): 54-96. Climate Central. States at Risk Report Card Key Finds. 2018. . Climate Change in Texas. 2018. . Coastal Bend Regional. "Coastal Bend Regional Water Planning Area Regional Water Plan." 2016. Division, Water Supply. Handbook for Drought Contingency Planning for Wholesale Public Water Suppliers. Austin, Texas: Texas Commission on Environmetal Quality, 2005. Eatman, Sara. "Region M Planning Phone Interview." Austin, 2018. Environmental Protection Agency. Climate Impacts. 19 January 2017. . Eslamian, Saeid and Faezeh Eslamian. Handbook of Drought and Water Scarcity: Management of Drought and Water Scarcity. Isfahan: CRC Press, 2017. Eslamian, Saeid. Management of Drought and Water Scarcity. Boca Raton: CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group, 2017. Far West Texas Water Planning Group. "Far West Texas Water Plan." January 2016. Texas Water Development Baord. . Fluckiger, Jared. "Assessing Idaho’s Future Water Administration." 2016. 105

Fluence News Team. What is Water Scarcity. 6 October 2017. . Freese & Nichols, Inc. "2016 Panhandle Water Plan." 17 November 2015. Texas Water Development Board. . Gross, Dema. "Personal Communication." How Does Austin Conserve. Austin: Austin Water, 15 Feburary 2018. Larkin, Thomas J and George W Bomer. Climatic Atlas of Texas. Austin: Texas Department of Water Resources, 1983. Lavaca Regional Water Planning Group. "2016 Lavaca Regional Water Plan." November 2015. Texas Water Development Board. . Liu, Junguo, Simon N Gosling and Hong Yang. "Water Scarcity assessments in the past, present, and future." Earth's Future (2017): 1-2. Report. Lower Colorado Regional Planning Group. 2016 Region K Water Plan. 1 January 2016. Web Report. 15 October 2017. . Mace, Robert E and S C Wade. In Hot Water? How Climate Change May (or May Not) Affect the Groundwater Resources of TExas. Austin: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, 2008. McGraw, Seamus. A Thirsty Land. Austin, 2017. National Centers for Environmental Information. State of the Climate: Drought for Annual 2017. January 2018. . National Drought Mitigation Center. NDMC. 2018. . NOAA. Climatological Rankings. 2015b. . —. National Temperature and Precipitation Maps. July 2018. . Palmer Drought Severity Index and Palmer Z-Index. 2018. . Ramsey, Ross. What Drought? Just Don't Tread on Our Green Grass. 23 March 2013. . Region N Water Planning Group. "Coastal Bend Regional Water Planning Area Regional Water Plan." 2015 December 2016. Texas Water Development Board. . Rice, Doyle. A major climate boundary in the central U.S. has shifted 140 miles due to global warming. 13 April 2018. .

106

Schiller, Ben. These States Are The Most (And Least) At Risk From Climate Change. 30 November 2015. . Seager, Richard. "Whither the 100th Meridian? The Once and Future Physical and Human Geography of America’s Arid–Humid Divide. Part II: The Meridian Moves East." American Meteorological Society (2018). Singh, Atul. Water is the Essence of Life. 10 March 2016. . South Central Texas Regional Water Planning Group. "2016 South Central Texas Regional Water Plan." December 2015. Texas Water Development Board. . Stahle, D. "Tree-ring Reconstructed Megadroughts over North America Since A.D. 1300." Climate Change (2007): 133-149. Stoller-Conrad, Jessica. Tree rings provide snapshots of Earth's past climate. 25 January 2017. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2540/tree-rings-provide-snapshots-of-earths- past-climate/. 15 November 2018. Texas A&M Research Foundation. "Drought Monitoring Index for Texas." 30 June 2007. Texas Water Development Board. . Texas Almanac. Texas Droughts. 2017. . Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Handbook for Drought Contingency Planning for Retail Water Public Water Suppliers. Austin: TCEQ, 2005. Book. —. Handbook for Drought Contingency Planning for Wholesale Water Suppliers. Austin: TCEQ, 2005. Book. Texas Living Waters Project. Common-sense measures that would help municipalities conserve water. 2015. . —. Drought in Texas. 2017. . Texas Water Development Board. Historical Water Use Estimates. January 2018. Website. 15 April 2018. . —. "Regional Planning in Texas." September 2018. Texas Water Development Board. Report. October 2018. . —. State Water Implementation Fund for Texas. 2018. . —. "Texas State Water Plan." 7 December 2017. Texas Water Development Board. Report. 10 February 2018. .

107

—. Texas Water Use Estimates. 2016. . —. Water Conservation Plans and Annual Reports. State Report. Austin: Texas Water Development Board, 2017. Web Document. —. Water For Texas. January 2012. 15 March 2018. . Texas Water Resources Institute. Timeline of Drought in Texas. n.d. . —. Timeline of Droughts in Texas. 15 October 2011. . Thompson, A. Texa's Warmer Future: Drought and Heavy Rains? 15 June 2015. . TWDB. Texas State Water Plan. Austin: Texas Water Development Board, 2017. United States Environmental Protection Agency. What Climate Change Means for Texas. August 2016. . United States EPA. "Climate Change and Texas." September 1997. National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP). . Walker, Jennifer. 2017. . —. Texas Has An Epic Story To Tell About Water Conservation. 6 December 2017. .

GIS Layers and Shapefiles were obtained from: Texas Water Development Board Texas Natural Resource Commission Texas Department of Transportation

“Maps throughout this work were created using ArcGIS® software by Esri. ArcGIS® and ArcMap™ are the intellectual property of Esri and are used herein under license. Copyright © Esri. All rights reserved. For more information about Esri® software, please visit www.esri.com.”

108