DOCSLIB.ORG

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Watermaster Program

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Watermaster Program Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Watermaster Program Katherine Bricken Texas A&M University April 25th 2017 Texas Droughts Why is Texas so Drought Prone? Number of Texas Drought Years Between 1892 and 1992 ▶ Low Rolling Plains - 8 years ▶ East Texas - 10 years ▶ High Plains - 10 years ▶ North Central - 12 years ▶ Upper Coast - 13 years ▶ South Central - 15 years ▶ Southern - 15 years ▶ Trans-Pecos - 16 years ▶ Lower Rio Grande Valley - 17 years ▶ Edwards Plateau - 17 years Does Texas Have Enough Water to Support Another Major Drought? How Does Texas Allocate the Waters of the State? Water Rights in Texas ▶ Prior Appropriations Doctrine ▶ Beneficial Use Doctrine ▶ Priority Call Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ▶2001 ▶State environmental agency ▶Governs and administers all surface water rights ▶Oversees the Watermaster program What is a Watermaster? Texas Watermaster Responsibilities ▶Protect adjudicated rights ▶Regulate unnecessary or unlawful waste, diversions, and/or storage ▶Enforce compliance by monitoring stream flows, reservoir levels, and use ▶Inform holders as needed about water availability ▶Respond to complaints ▶Oversee where a diversion would remove water that rightfully belongs to another Watermaster Program Staff ▶ Watermaster ▶ Staff of State Deputies ▶ Advisory Committee Diversions ▶ Any and all diversions must be approved and recorded ▶ Diversion plan must indicate the exact time, amount, and purpose ▶If resources are available and within permit, then the diversion will be authorized Basin Program Creation Means ▶The TCEQ decides to divide the state into water divisions. ▶A petition for a Watermaster Program is signed by twenty-five water rights holders ▶The Texas State Legislature passes a statue for the viewed necessary creation Legislative Authority Texas Water Code §§ 11.325-.3261 ▶Delegates the legal right to oversee physical water right compliance through: ▶ Monitoring stream flows ▶ Regulating reservoir levels and water use ▶ Metering and coordinating water diversions ▶Water rights holders must pay the TCEQ for their basin’s Watermaster operations and expenses The State of Texas v. Hidalgo County Water Control & Improvement District of 1969 ▶“Valley Water Case” ▶1956 ▶Initiated the Watermaster process ▶Stopped 40 water districts with 650 corporations and individuals from diverting water ▶Ensured sufficient water supply for domestic use Valmont Plantations v. State ▶Landowners along the Rio Grande did not have riparian water rights ▶1963 - The Valley Water Case came to trial before Judge J.H. Starley ▶Ruled in 1966 that river waters would be divided according to a set of weighted priorities ▶Ruling was upheld by the Texas Supreme Court in 1970 Water Rights Adjudication Act of 1967 Sections 11.325-.333 ▶Granted the first state watermaster the power to: ▶Physically supervise water distribution ▶Assure adjudicated water rights holders that rights are enforced and protected The Sunset Bill ▶Readdressed the role of The Watermaster Program ▶Amended the Adjudication Act ▶Requires TCEQ to evaluate river basins in which no watermaster has been appointed to at least once every 5 years Current Operations The Rio Grande Watermaster Program ▶Established by ▶Valley Water case ▶TCEQ - Middle and Upper Rio Grande adjudications ▶International treaty ▶Manages from Fort Quitman to the Gulf of Mexico ▶Middle and Lower Rio Grande are served by the Falcon-Amistad reservoir system ▶Water below Lake Amistad is allocated on a changing account basis The South Texas Watermaster Program ▶Implemented in 1988: ▶Colorado, Guadalupe, San Antonio, and Nueces rivers ▶Lavaca and Navidad rivers were added by petition ▶Encompasses 50 counties and seven river basins ▶Guadalupe, Lavaca, Lavaca Guadalupe Coastal, Nueces, Nueces – Rio Grande Coastal, San Antonio, and San Antonio – Nueces Coastal basins ▶Includes five field deputies that patrol water diversion The Concho River Watermaster Program ▶ Established by the 79th Texas Legislature in 2005 through the House Bill 2815 ▶ Comprised of eight counties in West Texas ▶ Irion, Runnels, Sterling, Coke, Reagan, Tom Green, Schleicher, and Concho County covering the Concho watershed of the Colorado Basin. ▶ Centered in San Angelo in Tom Green County The Brazos Watermaster Program ▶ Established on April 21, 2014 by petition of 37 water holders and subsequent TCEQ hearing ruling ▶ First to be established after Sunset Bill Evaluation ▶ Has authority over the Lower Brazos River Basin ▶ Five deputies patrol and manage the basin ▶ Three main offices in Stephenville, Waco and Angleton Rise of Importance Watermaster Program Alternatives Controversy Conclusion Questions?.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Concho River & Upper Colorado River Basins
    CONCHO RIVER & UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASINS Brush Control Feasibility Study Prepared By The: UPPER COLORADO RIVER AUTHORITY In Cooperation with TEXAS STATE SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION BOARD and TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY December 2000 Cover Photograph: Rocky Creek located in Irion County, Texas following restoration though a comprehensive brush control program. Photo courtesy of United States Natural Resources Conservation Services. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The preparation of this report is the result of action by many state, federal and local entities and of many individuals dedicated to the preservation and enhancement of water resources within the State of Texas. This report is one of several funded by the Legislature of Texas to be implemented by the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board during FYE2000. We commend the Texas Legislature for its’ extraordinary insight and boldness in moving ahead with planning that will be critical to water supply provision in future decades. In particular, the efforts of State Representative Robert Junell are especially recognized for his vision in coordinating the initial feasibility study conducted on the North Concho River and his support for studies of additional watershed basins in Texas. The following individuals are recognized as having made substantial contributions to this study and preparation of this report: Arlan Youngblood Ben Wilde Bill Tullos Billy Williams Bob Buckley Bob Jennings Bob Northcutt Brent Murphy C. Wade Clifton C.J. Robinson Carl Schlinke David Wilson Don Davis Eddy Spurgin Edwin Garner Gary Askins Tommy Morrison Woody Anderson Gary Grogan Howard Morrison J.P. Bach James Moore Jessie Whitlow Jimmy Sterling Joe Dean Weatherby Joe Funk John Anderson John Walker Johnny Oswald Keith Collom Kevin Spreen Kevin Wagner Lad Lithicum Lisa Barker Marjorie Mathis Max S.
    [Show full text]
  • Stormwater Management Program 2013-2018 Appendix A
    Appendix A 2012 Texas Integrated Report - Texas 303(d) List (Category 5) 2012 Texas Integrated Report - Texas 303(d) List (Category 5) As required under Sections 303(d) and 304(a) of the federal Clean Water Act, this list identifies the water bodies in or bordering Texas for which effluent limitations are not stringent enough to implement water quality standards, and for which the associated pollutants are suitable for measurement by maximum daily load. In addition, the TCEQ also develops a schedule identifying Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) that will be initiated in the next two years for priority impaired waters. Issuance of permits to discharge into 303(d)-listed water bodies is described in the TCEQ regulatory guidance document Procedures to Implement the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (January 2003, RG-194). Impairments are limited to the geographic area described by the Assessment Unit and identified with a six or seven-digit AU_ID. A TMDL for each impaired parameter will be developed to allocate pollutant loads from contributing sources that affect the parameter of concern in each Assessment Unit. The TMDL will be identified and counted using a six or seven-digit AU_ID. Water Quality permits that are issued before a TMDL is approved will not increase pollutant loading that would contribute to the impairment identified for the Assessment Unit. Explanation of Column Headings SegID and Name: The unique identifier (SegID), segment name, and location of the water body. The SegID may be one of two types of numbers. The first type is a classified segment number (4 digits, e.g., 0218), as defined in Appendix A of the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (TSWQS).
    [Show full text]
  • San Angelo Project History
    San Angelo Project Jennifer E. Zuniga Bureau of Reclamation 1999 Table of Contents The San Angelo Project.........................................................2 Project Location.........................................................2 Historic Setting .........................................................3 Project Authorization.....................................................4 Construction History .....................................................7 Post Construction History ................................................12 Settlement of Project Lands ...............................................16 Project Benefits and Use of Project Water ...................................16 Conclusion............................................................17 About the Author .............................................................17 Bibliography ................................................................18 Archival and Manuscript Collections .......................................18 Government Documents .................................................18 Articles...............................................................18 Books ................................................................18 Index ......................................................................19 1 The San Angelo Project The San Angelo Project is a multipurpose project in the Concho River Basin of west- central Texas. In a region historically known for intermittent droughts and floods, the project provides protection against both weather extremes.
    [Show full text]
  • Long-Term Trends in Streamflow from Semiarid Rangelands
    Global Change Biology (2008) 14, 1676–1689, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01578.x Long-term trends in streamflow from semiarid rangelands: uncovering drivers of change BRADFORD P. WILCOX*, YUN HUANG* andJOHN W. WALKERw *Ecosystem Science and Management, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA, wTexas AgriLIFE Research, San Angelo, TX 76901, USA Abstract In the last 100 years or so, desertification, degradation, and woody plant encroachment have altered huge tracts of semiarid rangelands. It is expected that the changes thus brought about significantly affect water balance in these regions; and in fact, at the headwater-catchment and smaller scales, such effects are reasonably well documented. For larger scales, however, there is surprisingly little documentation of hydrological change. In this paper, we evaluate the extent to which streamflow from large rangeland watersheds in central Texas has changed concurrent with the dramatic shifts in vegeta- tion cover (transition from pristine prairie to degraded grassland to woodland/savanna) that have taken place during the last century. Our study focused on the three watersheds that supply the major tributaries of the Concho River – those of the North Concho (3279 km2), the Middle Concho (5398 km2), and the South Concho (1070 km2). Using data from the period of record (1926–2005), we found that annual streamflow for the North Concho decreased by about 70% between 1960 and 2005. Not only did we find no downtrend in precipitation that might explain this reduced flow, we found no corre- sponding change in annual streamflow for the other two watersheds (which have more karst parent material).
    [Show full text]
  • TPWD Strategic Planning Regions
    River Basins TPWD Brazos River Basin Brazos-Colorado Coastal Basin W o lf Cr eek Canadian River Basin R ita B l anca C r e e k e e ancar Cl ita B R Strategic Planning Colorado River Basin Colorado-Lavaca Coastal Basin Canadian River Cypress Creek Basin Regions Guadalupe River Basin Nor t h F o r k of the R e d R i ver XAmarillo Lavaca River Basin 10 Salt Fork of the Red River Lavaca-Guadalupe Coastal Basin Neches River Basin P r air i e Dog To w n F o r k of the R e d R i ver Neches-Trinity Coastal Basin ® Nueces River Basin Nor t h P e as e R i ve r Nueces-Rio Grande Coastal Basin Pease River Red River Basin White River Tongue River 6a Wi chita R iver W i chita R i ver Rio Grande River Basin Nor t h Wi chita R iver Little Wichita River South Wichita Ri ver Lubbock Trinity River Sabine River Basin X Nor t h Sulphur R i v e r Brazos River West Fork of the Trinity River San Antonio River Basin Brazos River Sulphur R i v e r South Sulphur River San Antonio-Nueces Coastal Basin 9 Clear Fork Tr Plano San Jacinto River Basin X Cypre ss Creek Garland FortWorth Irving X Sabine River in San Jacinto-Brazos Coastal Basin ity Rive X Clea r F o r k of the B r az os R i v e r XTr n X iityX RiverMesqu ite Sulphur River Basin r XX Dallas Arlington Grand Prai rie Sabine River Trinity River Basin XAbilene Paluxy River Leon River Trinity-San Jacinto Coastal Basin Chambers Creek Brazos River Attoyac Bayou XEl Paso R i c h land Cr ee k Colorado River 8 Pecan Bayou 5a Navasota River Neches River Waco Angelina River Concho River X Colorado River 7 Lampasas
    [Show full text]
  • Water Rights Detail Table
    Data Dictionary - Water Rights Database Field Name Description WRNo Water Right Number; identifier for water rights. WRType Water Right Type; any of the following: 1 = Application/Permit 2 = Claim 3 = Certified Filing 4 = Returned or Withdrawn 5 = Dismissed/Rejected 6 = Certificate of Adjudication 8 = Temporary Permit 9 = Contract/Contractual Permit/Agreement WRSeq Water Right Sequence Number; numbers the lines of data in each water right. AppNo Indicates the Application number associated with the Permit number (water right number). Use this number to request a Central Records Permit file. WRIssueDate Indicates the date the water right was issued by the TCEQ or predecessors. AmendmentLetter Unique identifier for amendments to water rights. CancelledStatusCode Indicates water right status; any of the following: R = Dismissed/Rejected/Combined T = Totally Cancelled A = Adjudicated P = Partially Cancelled Blank = Current Owner Name Indicates the water right owner name. OwnerTypeCode Indicates type of owner; any of the following: 1 = Individual 7 = Individual Unverified 2 = Organization 8 = Organization Unverified 3 = Et Ux 9 = Estate or Trust Unverified 4 = Et Al 10 = Archive 5 = Estate or Trust 11 = Et Ux Unverified 6 = Et Vir 12 = Et Al Unverified DivAmountValue Indicates the amount of water authorized for diversion per year, in acre-feet. WMCode Indicates the Watermaster Area in which the water right is located, as follows: CR = Concho River ST = South Texas RG = Rio Grande blank = not in a Watermaster Area UseCode Indicates the appropriated use of the water right; any of the following: 1 = Municipal/Domestic 7 = Recreation 2 = Industrial 8 = Other 3 = Irrigation 9 = Recharge 4 = Mining 11 = Domestic & Livestock Only 5 = Hydroelectric 13 = Storage 6 = Navigation Priority Date Indicates the original date of the original use of the water allocated under that water right.
    [Show full text]
  • Camp Elizabeth, Sterling County, Texas
    Camp Elizabeth, Sterling County, Texas: . An Archaeological and Archival Investigation of a u.s. Army Subpost, and Evidence Supporting Its Use by the Military and "Buffalo Soldiers 11 Maureen Brown, Jose E. Zapata, and Bruce K. Moses with contributions by Anne A. Fox, C. Britt Bousman, I. Waymle Cox, and Cynthia L. Tennis Sponsored by: San Angelo District Texas Department of Transportation Archaeological Survey Report, No. 267 Center for Archaeological Research The University of Texas at San Antonio 1998 Camp Elizabeth, Sterling County, Texas: An Archaeological and Archival Investigation of a U.S. Army Subpost, and Evidence Supporting Its Use by the Military and "Buffalo Soldiers" Maureen Brown, Jose E. Zapata, and Bruce K. Moses with contributions by Anne A. Fox, C. Britt Bousman, L Waynne Cox, and Cynthia L. Tennis Robert J. Hard and C. Britt Bousman Principal Investigators Texas Antiquities Permit No. 1866 Archaeological Survey Report, No. 267 Center for Archaeological Research The University of Texas at San Antonio ©copyright 1998 The following information is provided in accordance with the General Rules of Practice and Procedure, Chapter 41.11 (Investigative Reports), Texas Antiquities Committee: 1. Type of investigation: Archaeological and archival mitigation 2. Project name: Camp Elizabeth 3. County: Sterling 4. Principal investigator: Robert J. Hard and C. Britt Bousman 5. Name and location of sponsoring agency: Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, Texas 78701 6. Texas Antiquities Permit No.: 1866 7. Published by the Center for Archaeological Research, The University of Texas at San Antonio, 6900 N. Loop 1604 W., San Antonio, Texas 78249-0658, 1998 A list of publications offered by the Center for Archaeological Research is available.
    [Show full text]
  • Distributional Surveys of Freshwater Bivalves in Texas: Progress Report for 1997
    DISTRIBUTIONAL SURVEYS OF FRESHWATER BIVALVES IN TEXAS: PROGRESS REPORT FOR 1997 by Robert G. Howells MANAGEMENT DATA SERIES No. 147 1998 Texas Parks and Wildlife Depar1ment Inland Fisheries Division 4200 Smith School Road Austin, Texas 78744 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many biologists and technicians with Texas Parks and Wildlife Department's Inland Fisheries Research and Management offices assisted with SW"Veys and collectons of freshwater mussels. Thanks also go to Pam Balcer (Kerrville, Texas) and Sue Martin (San Angelo; Texas) who assised extensively with collection of specimens and Jesse Todd (Dallas, Texas), Dr. Charles Mather (University of Arts and Science, Chickasha, Oklahoma) and J.A.M. Bergmann (Boerne, Texas) who provided specimens and field data. ABSTRACT During 1997, over 1,500 unionid specimens were docwnented from 87 locations (I 06 sample sites) statewide in Texas where specimens were either directly surveyed by the Heart of the Hills Research Station (HOH) staff or were sent to HOH by volunteers. Living specimens or recently-dead shells were found at 59% of the locations, 14% yielded only Jong-dead or subfossil shells, 24% produced no unionids or their remains, and 3% could not be accessed due to private lands or other local site problems which precluded sampling. Jn conjunction with previous field-survey work J 992-1996, unionids appear completely or almost completely extirpated from the Pedernales, Blanco, San Marcos, Llano, Medina, upper Guadalupe, upper Sulphur, areas of the San Jacinto, and much of the San Saba rivers. Sections of other river systems and many tributaries have also experienced major unionid population losses in recent years.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Geological Survey
    DEFARTM KUT OF THE 1STEK1OK BULLETIN OK THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY No. 19O S F, GEOGRAPHY, 28 WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1902 UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CHARLES D. WALCOTT, DIRECTOR GAZETTEEK OF TEXAS BY HENRY G-A-NNETT WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1902 CONTENTS Page. Area .................................................................... 11 Topography and drainage..... ............................................ 12 Climate.................................................................. 12 Forests ...............................................................'... 13 Exploration and settlement............................................... 13 Population..............'................................................. 14 Industries ............................................................... 16 Lands and surveys........................................................ 17 Railroads................................................................. 17 The gazetteer............................................................. 18 ILLUSTRATIONS. Page. PF,ATE I. Map of Texas ................................................ At end. ry (A, Mean annual temperature.......:............................ 12 \B, Mean annual rainfall ........................................ 12 -ryj (A, Magnetic declination ........................................ 12 I B, Wooded areas............................................... 12 Density of population in 1850 ................................ 14 B, Density of population in 1860
    [Show full text]
  • Concho River Fishing Report
    Concho River Fishing Report Peak Sigfried alights her race so dispraisingly that Reginald refers very plain. Rickie remains pious: she conversably.bed her toothwort pulps too alee? Clairvoyant Ace sometimes tear-gas any pooka recrudesced Trolling woolly worms. The proposal acknowledges that this is there are the lake is premature to specify the guadalupe river in! Try the concho runs after a commercial finfish license is there were. The report updated and release of reduction of leon creek is working for more concentrated in the bottom with a document will make it will implement measures similar to fishing report good. Concho river fishing report. Any recent local governments, live fish per year with the headings within the snake populations supports its previous years of water snake. Cooling daytime fishing report concho river and. No reports recently shared through. Kitchen counter that concho river crossings for the report, baby bass were stocked the lake is not a species, as a tpwd. The active and stinkbait throughout the creation of reclamation personnel have no portion is not taking or other reliable trend. Clear river just a species are also passed downstream. February with roads, spinners and then later this factor among all designated uses. The species we are some fish stockings are essentially uniform throughout all these compounds in all northern san angelo, and scenic river at ottine in! There is accessible for juvenile snakes if possible loss downstream for the boat ramp that this was characteristic of agricultural and stacked against the cities economically in river fishing report concho river. Fishing is located on your fly fishing on redds in river fishing report concho county, she has been having any severe lowland flooding.
    [Show full text]
  • Floods of April-June 1957 in Texas and Adjacent States
    Floods of April-June 1957 in Texas and Adjacent States By I. D. YOST FLOODS OF 1957 GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1652-B Prepared in cooperation with the States of Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Arkansas, and with other agencies UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1963 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D.C. CONTENTS Page Abstract__ _ _____________________________________________________ Bl Introduction._____________________-___________-___-_-__------_---- 1 Acknowledgments ____________-_-__-____--__------_---__-__-------- 4 Definition of terms and abbreviations_-_____-_-_--___-----_---------- 5 General features of the floods_--__-_-____--._------------__---_------ 5 Precipitation..________________________________________________ 5 Thefloods_-____________________________________ - 10 Flood-control reservoirs-___________---___------_---_----------- 13 Determination of flood discharges____________________-___---___---- 13 Explanation of data___________________--_-________--____-_------- 15 Station data______________________________________________________ 16 Arkansas River basin_______________-____--__---_--_-_--_------ 16 Canadian River near Amarillo, Tex_______________-_-___.---_- 16 Red River basin_____________________-__-_--_---__------------- 18 Salt Fork Red River at Mangum, Okla_--__-_-_-__---_------- 18 North Fork Red River near Headrick,
    [Show full text]
  • Correspondence Documenting Mussel Inventories Throughout The
    Texas Mussel Sanctuaries Texas Administrative Code Title 31, part 2, Ch. 57, subch. B, rule 57.157 NN MM A B1 G BB22 B3 OO C II EE JJ DD F H L Miles 0 10 20 40 60 80 Legend Mussel Sanctuaries per TPWD code Mussel Sanctuary Reservoirs Major Streams River Basins Brazos Brazos-Colorado P P Canadian Colorado TPWD Code Colorado-Lavaca (subpart d.2) Stream Name County(ies) Upper Boundary Low er Boundary Cypress A Big Cypress Creek Camp Lake Bob Sandlin dam US Highw ay 271 B1 Sabine River Rains, Van Zandt Lake Taw akoni dam State Highw ay 19 Guadalupe B2 Sabine River Smith, Upshur, Wood FM 14 State Highw ay 155 Lavaca B3 Sabine River Harrison, Panola State Highw ay 43 US Highw ay 59 Lavaca-Guadalupe Angelina, Cherokee, Jasper, Nacogdoches, Rusk, San Augustine, Confluence w ith Neches includes B.A. Neches C Angelina River Tyler Source in Rusk County Steinhagen Res. Neches-Trinity B.A. Steinhagen Res. (aka Lake Nueces D Neches River Hardin, Jasper, Orange, Tyler B.A. Steinhagen) Pine Island Bayou Houston, Leon, Madison, Trinity, Nueces-Rio Grande E Trinity River Walker State Highw ay 7 State Highw ay 19 Red F Live Oak Creek Gillespie US Highw ay 290 Pedernales River G Brazos River Palo Pinto, Parker Possum Kingdom Reservoir dam FM 2580 (Tin Top road/hw y) Rio Grande H Guadalupe River Kerr UGRA dam (Lake Ingram assumed) Flat Rock dam Sabine I Concho River Concho Mouth of Kickapoo Creek US Highw ay 83 bridge San Antonio J San Saba River Menard FM 864 US Highw ay 83 bridge San Antonio-Nueces K Guadalupe River Gonzales Wood Lake dam (aka Lake Wood)
    [Show full text]