DOCSLIB.ORG

View of Las Moras and Pinto Springs in the Kinney Pool and Leona Springs in the Uvalde Pool

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
View of Las Moras and Pinto Springs in the Kinney Pool and Leona Springs in the Uvalde Pool SwRI® Project No. 20-17344 DEVELOPMENT OF A FINITE-ELEMENT METHOD GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL FOR THE EDWARDS AQUIFER Final Report Prepared for Edwards Aquifer Authority Prepared by S. Beth Fratesi, Ronald T. Green, F. Paul Bertetti, Ronald N. McGinnis, Nathaniel Toll, Hakan Başağaoğlu, and Leslie Gergen Geosciences and Engineering Division Southwest Research Institute® James R. Winterle Edwards Aquifer Authority Yoar Cabeza and Jesus Carrera Institute of Environmental Assessment and Water Research Spanish Council of Scientific Research in Barcelona, Spain February 2015 Executive Summary The Edwards Aquifer Authority relies heavily on groundwater flow models to characterize groundwater flow conditions in the San Antonio segment of the Edwards Aquifer and to serve as the basis for predicting impacts of water-resource management scenarios. Currently, the Edwards Aquifer Authority uses a MODFLOW finite-difference model developed in 2004 by the U.S. Geological Survey to perform these water-resource management analyses. There are recognized limitations and shortcomings in the 2004 MODFLOW model, including questions about the conceptual model on which the numerical model is based. The Edwards Aquifer Authority undertook two initiatives to reduce uncertainty in models used to perform water-resource management analyses. One initiative was undertaken to advance the 2004 MODFLOW model through a series of recalibration exercises. The second initiative was to develop a second groundwater-flow model that is conceptually independent of the 2004 MODFLOW model. The objective of a second model is not to replace the 2004 MODFLOW model; but to provide an independent numerical tool against which to compare the 2004 MODFLOW model predictions. This report documents the development of the alternative numerical groundwater model of the Edwards Aquifer for the Edwards Aquifer Authority. Attributes of the alternative model that set it conceptually independent from the 2004 MODFLOW model are: Inclusion of the Contributing Zone Recharge is calculated directly from precipitation and is not prescribed at the upgradient side of the Recharge Zone Western boundary is refined to better define the Kinney Pool The Contributing and Recharge Zones are characterized by three layers Distinct conduits are included in the Confined Zone The alternative model employs a finite-element formulation instead of the finite-difference formulation used in the 2004 MODFLOW model The fundamental difference between the two models is the manner in which recharge is input in the alternative model. By including recharge as a direct calculation from precipitation over both the Contributing and Recharge Zones, the hydraulic lag between the time of precipitation and the time at which a hydraulic signal is transmitted through the aquifer is captured in the alternative model. Conversely, recharge is a calibrated input parameter in the 2004 MODFLOW model. Although other factors set the alternative model apart from the 2004 MODFLOW model, it is the manner in which recharge is incorporated that establishes the alternative model as conceptually independent from the 2004 MODFLOW model. Development of the alternative model was considered complete when: (i) the model was tested against the conceptual model (i.e., model cross-checked for internal consistency and consistency with observations); (ii) the conceptual model was determined to be physically reasonable and ii representative of the model domain; and (iii) steady-state and transient model predictions of the calibration targets were within the model goals. The model domain was specified to allow for model boundaries to be no-flow, to the degree possible, with the exception of springs. The model domain is specified to include all groundwater and surface-water basins that contribute water to the San Antonio segment of the Edwards Aquifer. By definition, this domain includes the entire Contributing Zone of the Edwards Aquifer. Designation of no-flow boundary conditions minimizes the uncertainty inherent with determining recharge and discharge associated with specified flux and head dependent boundaries. A hydrostratigraphic model was developed to establish the boundaries, define distribution of layer thicknesses, represent layers that are offset and locally missing due to slip on the most influential faults, and provide a high-resolution, data- and observation-constrained stratigraphic framework to support the alternative model. This hydrostratigraphic framework model refines major areas of uncertainty in the existing groundwater model, such as the Recharge Zone northern boundary condition, the influence of the western portion of the Edwards Aquifer, and the effect of deformation features (faults, fractures, and layer dip) on groundwater flow. The major river basins in the Contributing Zone were characterized as hydraulically independent. By doing this, surface water and groundwater flow from each basin to the adjoining basin was minimized. This characterization honored the conceptual model developed for the Contributing Zone in which surface water and groundwater flow in each basin was mostly restricted to each basin. This conceptualization allowed the precipitation/recharge model to be calibrated for each basin (i.e., the recharge model for each basin had its own coefficients). Comparison of the model against the conceptual model in terms of internal consistency and consistency with observations is discussed in detail in the report. Similarly, the conceptual model developed as part of this numerical model was evaluated to ensure it is physically reasonable and representative of the model domain. Subdomains of the San Antonio segment of the Edwards Aquifer are individually evaluated to ensure the conceptual model is internally consistent, physically reasonable, and representative of the model (sub) domain. Subdomains included Kinney Pool, Uvalde Pool, western San Antonio Pool (Dry Frio, Frio, and Sabinal River watersheds), Medina River watershed, interbasin area between Medina River and Cibolo Creek Basins, Cibolo Creek watershed, Guadalupe River watershed, and Blanco River watershed. To the degree possible, the water budget of each subdomain is explored and evaluated. In those cases where quantitative evaluation is possible, volumetric rates of recharge/discharge of the conceptual model are evaluated and compared with physical assessment and analysis. Elsewhere, the appropriateness of the conceptual model is qualitatively evaluated. Simulated discharge at 9 springs and hydraulic head at 102 monitoring wells were compared with observations and measurements. Index wells J-17 (Bexar County), J-27 (Uvalde County), Comal Springs, and San Marcos Springs were the most prominent data sources to match in reaching the calibration goals. The calibration period was 11 years, from 2001 to 2011. This calibration period was chosen because it includes two very wet years, 2004 and 2007, and four iii very dry years, 2006, 2008, 2009, and 2011. Additional justification for this period for calibration was that pumping data and NEXRAD (Next-Generation Radar data provided by the National Weather Service) precipitation data are available, compared with the drought of the 1950s during which pumping and precipitation data would need to be estimated. In addition, water-budget assessments derived from simulations performed with the alternative model were compared with similar assessments based on the conceptual model, U.S. Geological Survey calculations, and model results using Hydrologic Simulation Program FORTRAN. The alternative model successfully replicated the general response of the Edwards Aquifer. Seven of 14 of the target goals were met by the alternative model. In comparison, the 2004 MODFLOW model met 3 of the 14 target goals. The inability of the alternative model to match high discharge at Comal and San Marcos Springs led to the greatest discrepancy between simulation results and the target goals. The alternative model was more successful in matching low discharge at the two springs. Matching low discharge is recognized to be more important than matching high discharge in model performance. Aside from this discrepancy, simulated heads and spring discharge are in general agreement with observations, as attested by model performance statistics. Agreement between simulations and observations is encouraging when compared with existing models, given that the alternative model has the additional constraint imposed by the recharge model and a decreased degree of freedom due to the fact that recharge is calculated solely on precipitation and is not a specified, calibrated input variable. This feature in the alternative model clearly sets it apart from the 2004 MODFLOW model and substantiates its status as a conceptually independent model. These attributes of the alternative model qualify it for future use to provide the Edwards Aquifer Authority with an independent numerical tool to evaluate aquifer responses to different spatial and temporal patterns of precipitation, recharge, and pumping. iv Table of Contents 1. Introduction ….……….………………………………………………………………………...1 1.1 Scope of Work....…..........….…………………………………....................................2 1.2 Conceptual Independence of the Model…....................................................................3 1.3 Previous Investigations and Research...........................................................................3 1.4 Previous Models............................................................................................................5
Load more

Recommended publications
  • LOCAL SPOTLIGHT Edwards Aquifer, San Antonio, Texas, United States—Protecting Groundwater
    LOCAL SPOTLIGHT Edwards Aquifer, San Antonio, Texas, United States—Protecting groundwater Photo: © Blake Gordon Photo: © Blake Gordon North America Left. Officials release a benign "tracer dye" into Edwards Aquifer drainage systems to chart flows and track the underground water pathways. Right. Hydrogeologist descends into a sinkhole to check on the Edwards Aquifer. The challenge As one of the largest, most prolific artesian aquifers in the world, the Edwards Aquifer serves as the primary source of drinking water for nearly 2 million central Texans, including every resident of San Antonio—the second largest city in Texas—and much of the surrounding Hill Country. Its waters feed springs, rivers and lakes and sustain diverse plant and animal life, including rare and endangered species. The aquifer supports agricultural, industrial and recreational activities that not only sustain the Texas economy, but also contribute immeasurably to the culture and heritage of the Lone Star State. AUSTIN The aquifer stretches beneath 12 Texas counties, and the land above it includes several important hydrological areas. Two areas in particular— the drainage area and the recharge zone—replenish the aquifer by “catching” rainwater, which then seeps through fissures, cracks and sinkholes into the porous limestone that dominates the region. While this natural filtration system helps refill the aquifer with high-quality water, the growing city of San Antonio is expanding into territories of the very sensitive recharge zone, increasing the risk of contamination. In Edwards Aquifer SAN ANTONIO addition to a rising population, the state’s water supplies have been impacted by multi-year droughts. By 2060, Texas is projected to be home to approximately 50 million people while the annual available water resources are estimated to decrease by nearly 10 percent.
    [Show full text]
  • Stewardship of the Edwards Aquifer
    STEWARDSHIP OF THE EDWARDS AQUIFER What is the Edwards Aquifer? “The Edwards Aquifer is one of the most valuable resources in the central How does this affect me? Aquifer: an underground area that holds enough water Texas area. In most places, it takes time for stormwater to travel to provide a usable supply. over land and filter through soil to reach the rivers and This aquifer provides water for lakes that supply drinking water to residents. In the municipal, industrial, and agricultural Edwards Aquifer region, recharge features provide a direct link between groundwater and our underground uses as well as sustaining a number of water supply. This means that stormwater pollution rare and endangered species. directly affects the quality of our drinking water. To preserve these beneficial uses, As a result, TCEQ has implemented extra water quality San Antonio ReportSan Texans must protect water quality in requirements to protect the aquifer. Examples include Source: this aquifer from degradation water quality treatments like rain gardens and water resulting from human activities.” quality ponds, as well as erosion and sedimentation While other aquifers in Texas are made up of sand and controls at construction sites. gravel, the Edwards Aquifer is a karst aquifer, composed - Texas Commission on Environmental of porous limestone formations that serve as conduits Quality (TCEQ), RG-348 for water as it travels underground. (Edwards Aquifer Authority) As shown in the graphic to the right, the Edwards Aquifer region encompasses much of South Central Texas. Portions of the City Antonio ReportSan of West Lake Hills lie within the Edwards Aquifer Contributing and Recharge Zones.
    [Show full text]
  • Geological Society of America Bulletin
    Downloaded from gsabulletin.gsapubs.org on January 11, 2012 Geological Society of America Bulletin Structural framework of the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone in south-central Texas David A. Ferrill, Darrell W. Sims, Deborah J. Waiting, Alan P. Morris, Nathan M. Franklin and Alvin L. Schultz Geological Society of America Bulletin 2004;116, no. 3-4;407-418 doi: 10.1130/B25174.1 Email alerting services click www.gsapubs.org/cgi/alerts to receive free e-mail alerts when new articles cite this article Subscribe click www.gsapubs.org/subscriptions/ to subscribe to Geological Society of America Bulletin Permission request click http://www.geosociety.org/pubs/copyrt.htm#gsa to contact GSA Copyright not claimed on content prepared wholly by U.S. government employees within scope of their employment. Individual scientists are hereby granted permission, without fees or further requests to GSA, to use a single figure, a single table, and/or a brief paragraph of text in subsequent works and to make unlimited copies of items in GSA's journals for noncommercial use in classrooms to further education and science. This file may not be posted to any Web site, but authors may post the abstracts only of their articles on their own or their organization's Web site providing the posting includes a reference to the article's full citation. GSA provides this and other forums for the presentation of diverse opinions and positions by scientists worldwide, regardless of their race, citizenship, gender, religion, or political viewpoint. Opinions presented in this publication do not reflect official positions of the Society.
    [Show full text]
  • Groundwater Availability of the Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer, Texas: Numerical Simulations Through 2050
    GROUNDWATER AVAILABILITY OF THE BARTON SPRINGS SEGMENT OF THE EDWARDS AQUIFER, TEXAS: NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS THROUGH 2050 by Bridget R. Scanlon, Robert E. Mace*, Brian Smith**, Susan Hovorka, Alan R. Dutton, and Robert Reedy prepared for Lower Colorado River Authority under contract number UTA99-0 Bureau of Economic Geology Scott W. Tinker, Director The University of Texas at Austin *Texas Water Development Board, Austin **Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer Conservation District, Austin October 2001 GROUNDWATER AVAILABILITY OF THE BARTON SPRINGS SEGMENT OF THE EDWARDS AQUIFER, TEXAS: NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS THROUGH 2050 by Bridget R. Scanlon, Robert E. Mace*1, Brian Smith**, Susan Hovorka, Alan R. Dutton, and Robert Reedy prepared for Lower Colorado River Authority under contract number UTA99-0 Bureau of Economic Geology Scott W. Tinker, Director The University of Texas at Austin *Texas Water Development Board, Austin **Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer Conservation District, Austin October 2001 1 This study was initiated while Dr. Mace was an employee at the Bureau of Economic Geology and his involvement primarily included initial model development and calibration. CONTENTS ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................1 STUDY AREA...................................................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • Edwards Aquifer Region 1615 N
    EDWARDS AQUIFER REGION 1615 N. St Mary’s Street • San Antonio, Texas 78215 • 210.222.2204 • 1.800.292.1047 • www.edwardsaquifer.org Drainage basins in the drainage area collect surface water runoff and funnel it into streams that cross the recharge zone. In the artesian zone, the water fl ows generally from west to east. Water movement through the Edwards Limestone Drainage County Lines is generally slower south and east of the fresh Area EAA Jurisdictional Boundary water zone. This water remains in contact with Recharge San Antonio City Limits the limestone and gypsum longer, allowing NORTH Zone dissolved mineral concentrations to increase Major Rivers to over 1,000 milligrams/liter. Artesian Minor Rivers WEST EAST Zone Intermittent Streams SOUTH How Does The Aquifer Work? Th is generalized diagram of a north-south cross section of the Edwards Aquifer streams that fl ow downhill to the recharge zone. In the recharge zone, where region highlights the key components of the aquifer and how they inter-relate the Edwards Limestone is exposed at the land surface, the water actually enters About 85% of precipitation falling and function to form a natural underground system for storing water. the aquifer through cracks, crevices, caves, and sinkholes, and then percolates on the area is lost back to the further underground into the artesian zone. Here, a complex network of atmosphere by evaporation or Th e Edwards Aquifer is a karst aquifer, which means it consists of porous, interconnected spaces, varying in size from microscopic pores to open caverns, by transpiration of water vapor honeycombed formations of Edwards Limestone and other associated limestones from vegetation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Edwards Aquifer (Part A)
    E-PARCC COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE Program for the Advancement of SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY Maxwell School Research on Conflict and Collaboration THE EDWARDS AQUIFER (PART A) Amidst of one of the worst Texas droughts in recent memory, attorney Robert Gulley wondered why he had left his position at an established law practice to take on the position of program director for the Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program (EARIP). As the program director, Robert now worked for 26 different organizations and his job was to assist them, using a consensus-based stakeholder process, through one of the most contentious and intractable national disputes involving scarce groundwater resources at the Edwards Aquifer, one of the most valuable water resources in the Central Texas area. This dispute had already spanned decades and, to make this task even more daunting, the competing interests on both sides had made numerous unsuccessful attempts over the years to resolve this conflict. Hot weather, droughts, and the resulting conflicts between stakeholders are frequent occurrences in Texas. Robert, who had returned to his home state specifically for this position, knew that this drought would only intensify the tensions amongst the stakeholders involved. The Edwards Aquifer (“Aquifer”) provides approximately 90 percent of the water for over two million people living and working in the South-Central Texas area. The Aquifer supplies the water that services the city of San Antonio and other municipalities; a multi-million agricultural and ranching industry in the western part of the region that views water as a coveted property right; as well as the recreational activities that provide the backbone of the economies of rapidly-growing, nearby cities of San Marcos and New Braunfels (Figure 1).
    [Show full text]
  • Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards (Balcones Fault Zone) Aquifer, Central Texas
    OLD G The Geological Society of America Memoir 215 OPEN ACCESS Barton Springs segment of the Edwards (Balcones Fault Zone) Aquifer, central Texas Brian B. Hunt Brian A. Smith Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer Conservation District, Austin, Texas 78748, USA Nico M. Hauwert Balcones Canyonland Preserve, City of Austin, Austin Water, Wildland Conservation Division, Austin, Texas 78738, USA ABSTRACT The Barton Springs segment of the Edwards (Balcones Fault Zone) Aquifer is a prolifi c karst aquifer system containing the fourth largest spring in Texas, Barton Springs. The Barton Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer supplies drinking water for ~60,000 people, provides habitat for federally listed endangered salamanders, and sustains the iconic recreational Barton Springs pool. The aquifer is composed of Lower Cretaceous carbonate strata with porosity and permeability controlled by dep- ositional facies, diagenesis, structure, and karstifi cation creating a triple permeability system (matrix, fractures, and conduits). Groundwater fl ow is rapid within an inte- grated network of conduits discharging at the springs. Upgradient watersheds pro- vide runoff to the recharge zone, and the majority of recharge occurs in the streams crossing the recharge zone. The remainder is direct recharge from precipitation and other minor sources (infl ows from Trinity Group aquifers, the San Antonio segment, the bad-water zone, and anthropogenic sources). The long-term estimated mean water budget is 68 ft3/s (1.93 m3/s). The Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer Conserva- tion District developed rules to preserve groundwater supplies and maximize spring fl ow rates by preserving at least 6.5 ft3/s (0.18 m3/s) of spring fl ow during extreme drought.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquifers of Texas
    Texas Water Development Board Report 345 Aquifers of Texas bY John B. Ashworth, Geologist and Janie Hopkins, Geologist November 1995 Aquifers of‘Texas November1935 Texas Water Development Board Craig D. Pedersen, Executive Administrator Texas Water Development Board William B. Madden, Chairman No6 Fernandez, Vice Chairman Charles W. Jenness, Member Elaine M. Barron, M.D., Member Lynwood Sanders, Member Charles L. Geren, Member Authorization for use or reproduction of any original material contained in this publication, i.e., not obtained from other sources, is freely granted. The Board would appreciate acknowledgement. Published and Distributed by the Texas Water Development Board P.O. Box 13231 Austin, Texas787 1 l-323 1 iii Aquifers of Texas November 1995 Table of Contents Page INTRODUCTION.. ................. 1 GENERAL GROUND-WATER PRINCIPLES.. 7 MAJOR AQUIFERS Ogallala. .......................... 10 Gulf Coast. ..................... 12 Edwards (Balcones Fault Zone). ..... 14 Carrizo-Wilcox. ................ 16 Trinity. ............................ 18 Edwards-Trinity (Plateau). ......... 20 Seymour. ......................... 22 Hueco-Mesilla Bolson. ..... 24 Cenozoic Pecos Alluvium. ....... 26 MINOR AQUIFERS Bone Spring-Victorio Peak. ...... 30 Dockum. ......................... 32 Brazos River Alluvium. ... 34 Hickoryv. ........................ 36 West Texas Bolsons. .......... 38 Queen City. ................. 40 Woodbine. .................. 42 Edwards-Trinity (High Plains). ... 44 Blaine. ........................ 46 Sparta. ........................ 48 Nacatoch. ...................... 50 52 lgneous. ......................... 54 Rita Blanca. .................... 56 Ellenburger-San Saba. ...... 58 Blossom. ....................... 60 Marble Falls. ................... 62 Rustler. ............................. 64 Capitan Reef Complex. ..
    [Show full text]
  • HCA Issue: Edwards Aquifer Authority V. Day What the Supreme Court Did (And Did Not) Say About Groundwater in Texas Photo By: Chase Fountain
    HCA Issue: Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Day What the Supreme Court Did (and Did Not) Say about Groundwater in Texas Photo by: Chase Fountain HCA is a passionate community caring for the unique features, spring-fed streams, heritage ranch lands, spectacular beauty and vibrant culture of the Texas Hill Country for the benefit of future generations. In Texas, groundwater in place is owned by the overlying landowner, but it is subject to reasonable regulation by the state (for example, through groundwater districts). Regulation of groundwater can result in a compensable taking. Another case, Bragg v. Edwards Aquifer Authority, is likely to shed some additional light on questions left unanswered in Day about when regulation of groundwater results in a compensable taking. What the Court Did Say: • The Court did hold that groundwater is owned in place by the overlying • emanating from the Conservation Amendment of the Texas Constitution, landowner. “In our state the landowner is regarded as having absolute Article XVI, Section 59, and implemented through Water Code Chapter 36. title… to the oil and gas in place beneath his land. .Each owner of land owns separately, distinctly and exclusively all the oil and gas under • The Court did state that state regulation to limit groundwater use based his land and is accorded the usual remedies against trespassers who solely on historical use such as that applied in the Edwards Aquifer can appropriate the minerals or destroy their market value…We now hold cause a taking of private property. (i.e. Districts cannot limit groundwater that this correctly states the common law regarding the ownership of pumping permits to only those who can demonstrate prior beneficial use groundwater in place.” during some specific time period).
    [Show full text]
  • The Edwards Aquifer: a Resource in Conflict John M
    Vol. 7, No. 8 August 1997 INSIDE GSA TODAY • Mapping Program, p. 11 • Hazardous Waste, p. 18 A Publication of the Geological Society of America • Penrose Conference Report, p. 19 The Edwards Aquifer: A Resource in Conflict John M. Sharp, Jr., Jay L. Banner, Department of Geological Sciences, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712-1101 Figure 1. Space shuttle photo- graph of central Texas showing prominent physiographic features (see also Figs. 2, 3, and 5) that dic- tate patterns of recharge and flow in the Edwards aquifer. The land- scape break shown by the color change across a southwest-north- east arc from San Antonio (SA) to Austin (A) formed as a conse- quence of en echelon, down-to- the-southeast normal faults of the Balcones fault zone. Urbanization of land (indicated by the light gray colors) around Austin, San Anto- nio, and the area in between has increased rapidly in the previous decade. North is to the top of the photograph. Austin–San Antonio distance is 120 km. Shuttle photo #NASA STS-62-97-143 (March 1994). Inset: The Barton Springs swimming pool in Austin, Texas, exemplifies the conflicting interests regarding the aquifer’s waters. The pool is supplied by springs that discharge from submerged orifices in fractured limestone, which is vis- ible on the right bank. The pool and surrounding park are impor- tant recreational resources. This spring system is the sole environ- ment for the rare Barton Springs salamander, which is a federally listed endangered species. The ris- ing skyline of the City of Austin is visible in the background.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Management of the Edwards Aquifer
    MANAGEMENT OF THE EDWARDS AQUIFER; A WORK IN PROGRESS Joe G. Moore, Jr., Distinguished Professor Department of Biology Texas State University San Marcos, Texas Edwards Water Resources in Central Texas: Retrospective and Prospective Co-sponsored by South Texas Geological Society and Austin Geological Society Omni Hotel, San Antonio, Texas, May 21, 2004 Abstract The Edwards Aquifer (Balcones Fault Zone) constitutes almost the entire source of water supply for San Antonio, Texas. The Aquifer contributes surface water flow in the Guadalupe River through Comal and San Marcos Springs, both of which are home to endangered aquatic species, including the fountain darter. Spring discharge also contributes to flow to fulfill water rights on the Guadalupe River, as well as providing the basis for a portion of the plan developed by the South Central Texas Regional Planning Group. In 1993, the late U.S. District Judge Lucius Bunton ruled that the Secretary of Interior had allowed takings of species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by not insuring adequate discharge from the Springs. Later in 1993, the 73rd Texas Legislature responded to a court-mandated deadline to protect spring discharge by establishing the Edwards Aquifer Authority (EAA) to regulate groundwater withdrawals. Since the EAA began functioning in 1996, some of the issues that inspired the initial Aquifer litigation have been addressed. However, the most significant issues remain, including the total limit on pumping, reductions during critical periods, and an ESA Incidental Take Permit. Early Mention of Pumping Limits On Tuesday, January 10, 1956, in the “San Antonio Express”, the then General Manager of the City Water Board (predecessor agency to the San Antonio Water System, SAWS) wrote “in 10 years San Antonio may well face a major catastrophe which could destroy its entire economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Hill Country Is Located in Central Texas
    TABLE OF CONTENTS Regional Description ……………………………………………………1 Topography and Characteristics………………………………..2 Major Cities / Rainfall / Elevation……………………………….3 Common Vegetation……………………………………………..4 Rare Plants and Habitats……………………………………..…4 Common Wildlife ……………………………………………..….4 Rare Animals …………………………………………….……....4 Issues and Topics of Concern ……………………….…………..……5 Project WILD Activities …………………….……………….………….6 TPWD Resources …………………………………………….….…….6 REGIONAL DESCRIPTION The Texas Hill Country is located in Central Texas. A drive through the Hill Country will take the visitor across rolling hills, crisscrossed with many streams and rivers. The Edwards Plateau dominates a large portion of the Texas Hill Country and is honeycombed with thousands of caves. Several aquifers lie beneath the Texas Hill Country. The Edwards Aquifer is one of nine major state aquifers. It covers 4,350 square miles and eleven counties. It provides drinking and irrigation water as well as recreational opportunities for millions of people. San Antonio obtains its entire municipal water supply from the Edwards Aquifer and is one of the largest cities in the world to rely solely on a single ground-water source. Springs are created when the water in an aquifer naturally emerges at the surface. Central Texas was once a land of many springs. Statewide, it is estimated that Texas currently has nearly 1,900 known springs. The majority of these springs are located within the Texas Hill Country. Many of the streams that flow through the rocky, tree-shaded hills of Central Texas are fed by springs. These streams are home to many species of fish, amphibians, plants and insects, which depend on a steady flow of clean water for survival. Some of these species (salamanders in particular) are found only in these spring- fed environments.
    [Show full text]