DOCSLIB.ORG

Crop Production Potential

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Crop Production Potential Water Use for Agriculture in Priority River Basins – Section 7 North and Middle America The Río Grande Basin Water Use for Agriculture in Priority Rivers Basins Section 1 Executive Summary Introduction Water Resources – A Global Perspective Section 2 Africa: – Niger River Basin – Lake Chad Basin – Zambezi River Basin Section 3 South Asia: – Indus River Basin Section 4 East Asia and the Pacific: – Mekong River Basin – Yangtze River Basin Section 5 Australia: – Murray-Darling Basin Section 6 Europe and Central Asia: – Great Konya Basin Section 7 North and Middle America: – Río Grande Basin Section 8 Main Conclusions Literature cited in the study 1 Water Use for Agriculture in Priority River Basins – Section 7 North and Middle America The Río Grande Basin CONTENTS 1 The Río Grande Basin............................................................................................................ 3 1.1 Management of the Río Grande Basin........................................................................... 4 1.1.1 International Boundary and Water Commission................................................. 4 1.1.2 The NAFTA institutions ..................................................................................... 5 1.1.3 Conflicts in the basin........................................................................................... 6 1.2 Features of the Río Grande Basin.................................................................................. 7 1.2.1 Ecoregions in the Río Grande Basin ................................................................... 7 1.2.2 Recreation and wildlife enhancement ................................................................. 7 1.2.3 Current water situation........................................................................................ 8 1.3 Irrigation development................................................................................................... 9 1.4 Agriculture................................................................................................................... 12 2 Conclusions for the Río Grande Basin ............................................................................... 18 2.1 Irrigated agriculture .....................................................................................................18 2.2 Future water demand ................................................................................................... 18 2 Water Use for Agriculture in Priority River Basins – Section 7 North and Middle America The Río Grande Basin 1 THE RÍO GRANDE BASIN The Río Grande Basin encompasses 465,998km2 and covers portions of three US states and five Mexican states. Although the Río Grande is shown as a continuous river, the flow from the Colorado Mountains at times is strongly reduced near Fort Quitman, approximately 125km south of El Paso. The new perennial flow then begins again at the confluence with the Río Conchos from the Mexican side, approximately 454km downstream from El Paso. The flow of the Río Grande that originates from the watershed in the southern slopes of the Colorado Mountains and the mountain ranges of northern New Mexico is stored at Elephant Butte Dam (design capacity 3.25km3) located in New Mexico (see Figure 1.1). The water is used to irrigate the Mesilla, the El Paso and the Juarez Valleys. The Río Grande below the El Paso- Hudspeth county line consists mostly of return flow and occasional excess water and runoff from the adjacent areas. The Bureau of Reclamation designates the Río Grande between Elephant Butte Dam and Fort Quitman as the middle Río Grande, whereas in Texas this section is considered part of the Upper Río Grande reach. In any case, the El Paso to Fort Quitman segment of the Río Grande consists largely of the tail waters of the water supply from Elephant Butte Dam. Annual rainfall in this segment of the Río Grande Basin averages 200mm. The Río Conchos from Mexico is the major entry into the Río Grande below Fort Quitman and flows in just below Presidio (or Ojinaga, Mexico), 454km south of El Paso. This flow continues to Amistad Dam (design capacity 6.27km3), located 500km below Presidio. There is no major tributary that flows into the Río Grande from the US side, until the inflow of the Pecos River at Langtry, Texas, and the Devils River at Amistad Reservoir. The Conchos basin itself is heavily regulated, with several large reservoirs, primarily to supply irrigation districts. Most of the municipalities in the Conchos basin meet demand using local groundwater reserves. Downstream of the confluence, the river flows through a series of large protected natural areas, including the Big Bend Ranch Texas State Park, the Cañon de Santa Elena and Maderas del Carmen protected areas in Mexico, and Big Bend National Park. Downstream of Big Bend National Park to Amistad Reservoir, the river has been designated a Wild and Scenic River under US federal law. River rafting is a popular and economically significant activity in this stretch. The flow of the Pecos River is regulated at Red Bluff Lake on the New Mexico-Texas border, consisting mostly of saline irrigation return flow. The flow of the Pecos River that enters the Río Grande is a mixture of return flow and runoff from far west Texas. The Bureau of Reclamation designates this segment of the Río Grande as a part of the lower Río Grande system, whereas in Texas this segment is commonly referred to as the Upper Río Grande reach. Annual rainfall in this section of the Río Grande averages 250–300mm. The Río Grande between Amistad Dam and Falcon Reservoir (capacity 3.94km3) is a long stretch extending over 481km. There is no major tributary, but there are numerous creeks and drains that flow into the Río Grande after storms. In Texas, this segment of the Río Grande is commonly referred to as the Middle Río Grande reach. Annual rainfall in this section increases to 500mm. The Río Grande below Falcon Reservoir to the Gulf of Mexico is the heart of the Lower Río Grande, and flows over 442km. The Río Salado from Mexico is a major tributary that flows directly into Falcon Reservoir, and the Río San Juan flows into the Río Grande below Falcon. There are two major drainage courses on the US side: the Main Floodway and the Arroyo Colorado. The latter is of particular importance, because it flows directly into the Laguna 3 Water Use for Agriculture in Priority River Basins – Section 7 North and Middle America The Río Grande Basin Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge. The natural drainage flow is away from the Río Grande eastward toward the Laguna. This area lies outside the Río Grande Basin and is a part of the Nueces River Coastal Basin. Figure 1.1 The Río Grande/Río Bravo Basin 4 Water Use for Agriculture in Priority River Basins – Section 7 North and Middle America The Río Grande Basin 5 Water Use for Agriculture in Priority River Basins – Section 7 North and Middle America The Río Grande Basin 1.1 Management of the Río Grande Basin 1.1.1 International Boundary and Water Commission The International Boundary and Water Commission/Comisión Internacional de Límites y Aguas (IBWC/CILA), established in 1944, is the official agency for communication between the Mexican and United States governments regarding water issues along the international border. The jurisdiction of the IBWC/CILA covers the boundary areas of the Río Grande/Río Bravo in Texas and Río Colorado in California, the terrestrial line that divides Mexico and the United States, as well as water infrastructure along the border. The functions of the IBWC/CILA are to: • observe the fulfillment of international treaties related to boundaries and international waters of Mexico • participate in diplomatic negotiations leading to international agreements on the subject • operate and maintain dams, hydrometric stations and other international works along the border, in close coordination with corresponding federal or state entities • carry out water accountancy leading to an appropriate distribution of water, in accordance with current international treaties 6 Water Use for Agriculture in Priority River Basins – Section 7 North and Middle America The Río Grande Basin • collaborate with other federal and state agencies in environmental affairs along the northern border of Mexico. In addition, the Commission has the authority to settle differences that may arise between the governments with respect to interpretation and application of the 1944 Treaty. The mandate of the Commission is quite narrow. There are many important water issues, such as groundwater appropriation, drought management and water conservation, which were not included in Commission responsibilities. 1.1.2 The NAFTA institutions The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) includes side agreements for the establishment of international institutions to address environmental concerns in the border region between the United States and Mexico. These institutions do not have a direct impact on water management policies, as they are concerned primarily with water pollution, wastewater treatment, and solid waste infrastructure. However, through certification and funding of projects leading to conservation and reduced pollution of the existing water supply, they may indirectly contribute to an increase in the amount of usable water. The Border Environmental Cooperation Commission The mission of the Border Environmental Cooperation Commission (BECC) is to coordinate, evaluate, and facilitate environmental infrastructure projects along the border. The
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2003 Regional Assessment of Water
    2003 Regional Assessment of Water Quality in the Rio Grande Basin United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission Texas Clean Rivers Program 2003 Regional Assessment of Water Quality in the Rio Grande Basin By Texas Clean Rivers Program United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission Authority This study and report were undertaken by the United States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission pursuant to the agreement with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality under Contract Number 582-2-44870/IBM-01-27 to administer the Texas Clean Rivers Program in the Rio Grande basin. ii Participating Agencies Federal United States Geological Survey Big Bend National Park Service Natural Resource Conservation Service State Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Upper Pecos Soil and Water Conservation District #213 Local The City of El Paso, Public Service Board The City of Laredo Environmental Services Division The City of Laredo Health Department The City of Brownsville The Rio Grande International Study Center Texas A&M Experiment Station, El Paso Texas Cooperative Extension, Fort Stockton The University of Texas at El Paso New Mexico State University El Paso Community College International United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission iii iv Table of Contents PARTICIPATING AGENCIES III TABLE OF CONTENTS V INDEX OF FIGURES IX INDEX OF TABLES XI LIST OF ACRONYMS XIII EXECUTIVE SUMMARY XV 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 HISTORY OF THE INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION
    [Show full text]
  • The History of the Rio Grande Compact of 1938
    The Rio Grande Compact: Douglas R. Littlefield received his bache- Its the Law! lors degree from Brown University, a masters degree from the University of Maryland and a Ph.D. from the University of California, Los Angeles in 1987. His doc- toral dissertation was entitled, Interstate The History of the Water Conflicts, Compromises, and Com- Rio Grande pacts: The Rio Grande, 1880-1938. Doug Compact heads Littlefield Historical Research in of 1938 Oakland, California. He is a research histo- rian and consultant for many projects throughout the nation. Currently he also is providing consulting services to the U.S. Department of Justice, Salt River Project in Arizona, Nebraska Department of Water Resources, and the City of Las Cruces. From 1984-1986, Doug consulted for the Legal Counsel, New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, on the history of Rio Grande water rights and interstate apportionment disputes between New Mexico and Texas for use in El Paso v. Reynolds. account for its extraordinary irrelevancy, Boyd charged, by concluding that it was written by a The History of the congenital idiot, borrowed for such purpose from the nearest asylum for the insane. Rio Grande Compact Boyds remarks may have been intemperate, but nevertheless, they amply illustrate how heated of 1938 the struggle for the rivers water supplies had become even as early as the turn of the century. And Boyds outrage stemmed only from battles Good morning. I thought Id start this off on over water on the limited reach of the Rio Grande an upbeat note with the following historical extending just from southern New Mexicos commentary: Mesilla Valley to areas further downstream near Mentally and morally depraved.
    [Show full text]
  • A Glimpse of Some of the Geology and Mineral Resources: Sierra Blanca
    THE EL.PAS0 GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY I I GUIDEBOOK i FIFTH ANNUAL FIELD TRIP I I I I A GLIMPSE OF SOME OF THE I GEOLOGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES I I SIERRA BLANCA-VAN HORN COUNTRY HUDSPETH AND CULBEWSON COUNTIES TEXAS > APRIL 3, 1971 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS F - The Texas Lineament in Eagle Flat, Texas ------------- 28 INTRODUCTION The Trans Pecos region of West Texas has attracted the attention I it deserves as a source of useful minerals both metallic and nsn- metallic. Because of the preoccupation of the people of Texas with petroleum production, many have overlooked the fact that them have been several important metal mines tn this province and that talc deposi ts are s ti1 l being worked here. Undoubtedly othep economic mineral deposits exist in the region awai ting discovery by intensive geological prospecting. The af'fi cers of the El Paso Geological Society and the field trip leadek hope that this trip will heighten inteest in the finding and developing of mineral deposi ts in Trans Pecos Texas. We welcome all our visitcs~sand know that they will wish to jodn us in thanking all those who made thds trip possible. We wish especially to acknowledge the kindness of the Pioneer Talc Company in showing us through the mill at Allamore and allowlng the group to visdt the Texsla- Talc mine. We also wish to thank Mr. Sandy Neal of Van Haon for per- mission to cross the Neal Ranch on the way to the Hazel Wne. John M. Hills, President El Paso Geological Society EL PAS0 GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OFFICERS John M.
    [Show full text]
  • Leasburg Diversion Dam Flows Along the Rio Grande River About a Mile and a Half Northwest of Fort Selden Historic Site
    H. Davis with the U.S. military was Explore History, Where It Happened surveying the area for use as a military Visit New Mexico Historic Sites and explore the state’s most important places. post. These seven historic sites and one historic property highlight the traditions and Today, the Diversion Dam is part of culture of New Mexico. It is an experience LEASBURG Leasburg Dam State Park, designated a you won’t forget. state park in 1971. DIVERSION DAM Help Preserve Fort Selden Help us preserve Fort Selden by becoming a site volunteer or by making a designated gift to the Museum of NM Foundation for the Fort’s preservation and interpretation. 100% of your gifts will be used to support Fort Selden. Become a Friend of Fort Selden Join other community members as we work to form a non-profit group to support the Fort. Call us for more information at 575-202-1638. The Leasburg Diversion Dam flows along the Rio Grande River about a mile and a half northwest of Fort Selden Historic Site. This diversion dam is vitally important to the region because water is one of New Mexico’s most important commodities. For thousands of years the Rio Grande has been a source of water for travelers, settlers, and livestock and provided water for crop irrigation. Fort Selden Historic Site However, the Rio Grande is an extremely powerful force of nature. It 1280 Ft. Selden Rd. Radium Springs, NM 88054 is a naturally moving river whose path changes on an almost yearly basis. Phone (575) 526-8911 Regional Office: (575) 202-1638 nmhistoricsites.org In the mid-19th century, settlers in the two flood controls in Picacho North and through to the Juarez Valley can have Upper Mesilla Valley were looking for Picacho South; and diversion dams access to water when needed.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Contaminants and Their Effects on Fish in the Rio Grande Basin
    Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends (BEST) Program: Environmental Contaminants and their Effects on Fish in the Rio Grande Basin S# S# S# S# S#S#S# S#S#S#S# S# S# # S S# S# # S S# S# S# S# # S# S# S S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# # S# S# # S S#S# S S# S# S# S# #S# S# S# S# S#S S# # S# SS# S# S# S#S# Scientific Investigations Report 2004—5108 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Front cover. The U.S. map shows the Rio Grande Basin (green) and stations sampled in this study (orange). Shown in gray are major river basins and stations in the conterminous U.S. sampled during other Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends Program (BEST) investigations. Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends (BEST) Program: Environmental Contaminants and their Effects on Fish in the Rio Grande Basin By Christopher J. Schmitt, Gail M. Dethloff, Jo Ellen Hinck, Timothy M. Bartish, Vicki S. Blazer, James J. Coyle, Nancy D. Denslow, and Donald E. Tillitt Scientific Investigations Report 2004—5108 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Gale A. Norton, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Charles G. Groat, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2004 For more information about the USGS and its products: Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/ Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 Far West Texas Description
    2021 Far West Texas Water Plan Draft October 2020 CHAPTER 1 FAR WEST TEXAS DESCRIPTION 2021 Far West Texas Water Plan Draft October 2020 This page intentionally left blank. 2021 Far West Texas Water Plan Draft October 2020 1 FAR WEST TEXAS Far West Texas encompasses the most arid region of the State of Texas (Figure 1-1). Residents of this expansive desert environment recognize that water is a scarce and valuable resource that must be developed and managed with great care to ensure the area’s long-term viability. The Region’s economic health and quality of life are dependent on a sustainable water supply that is equitably managed. Chapter 1 presents a broad descriptive overview of Far West Texas including currently existing water management facilities and international water issues. This chapter also summarizes specific planning components that are presented in more detail elsewhere in this Plan, such as projected population and water demand and available water-supply sources to meet these anticipated demands. Also provided in this chapter is a listing of State and Federal agencies, universities, and private organizations that are involved in various aspects of water supply issues. Figure 1-1. Location of Far West Texas 1-1 2021 Far West Texas Water Plan Draft October 2020 1.1 WATER PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT 1.1.1 Regional Water Planning The 2021 Far West Texas Water Plan follows an identical format as the plans prepared by the other 15 water planning regions in the State as mandated by the Texas Legislature and overseen by the Texas Water Development Board.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenges and Opportunities for Water of the Rio Grande
    Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 43,3(August 2011):367–378 Ó 2011 Southern Agricultural Economics Association Challenges and Opportunities for Water of the Rio Grande M. Edward Rister, Allen W. Sturdivant, Ronald D. Lacewell, and Ari M. Michelsen The Rio Grande has headwaters in Colorado, flows through New Mexico, and serves as the United States.–Mexico border in Texas, emptying into the Gulf of Mexico. Snow melt in Colorado and northern New Mexico constitutes the water river supply for New Mexico and the El Paso region, whereas summer monsoonal flow from the Rio Conchos in Mexico and tributaries, including the Pecos River, provides the Rio Grande flow for southern Texas. The region is mostly semiarid with frequent long-term drought periods but is also characterized by a substantial irrigated agriculture sector and a rapidly growing population. International treaties and interstate compacts provide the rules for allocation of Rio Grande waters between the United States and Mexico and among Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas. Water rights in Texas have been adjudicated, but the adjudication process was based on a wet period; hence, contemporary Rio Grande water rights are overallocated. Issues related to the waters of the Rio Grande include: frequent drought, increased municipal demand caused by a rapidly increasing population, supply variability, underdeliveries from Mexico, increasing salinity, inefficient delivery systems, health issues of the population, no economic/financial incentives for farmers to conserve, and water is not typically priced for efficiency. Stakeholders are interested in identifying solutions to limited water supplies while there is increasing demand. There are several activities in place addressing Rio Grande-related water needs, including enhancing delivery distribution efficiency of raw water, conversion of rights from agriculture to urban, improving both agricultural irrigation field distribution and urban use efficiency, developments in desalination, and litigation.
    [Show full text]
  • Rio Grande Compact Commission Report
    3 RIO GRANDE COMPACT COMMISSION REPORT RIO GRANDE COMPACT The State of Colorado, the State of New Mexico, and the State of Texas, desiring to remove all causes of present and future controversy among these States and between citizens of one of these States and citizens of another State with respect to the use of the waters of the Rio Grande above Fort Quitman, Texas, and being moved by considerations of interstate comity, and for the purpose of effecting an equitable apportionment of such waters, have resolved to conclude a Compact for the attainment of these purposes, and to that end, through their respective Governors, have named as their respective Commissioners: For the State of Colorado M. C. Hinderlider For the State of New Mexico Thomas M. McClure For the State of Texas Frank B. Clayton who, after negotiations participated in by S. O. Harper, appointed by the President as the representative of the United States of America, have agreed upon the following articles, to- wit: ARTICLE I (a) The State of Colorado, the State of New Mexico, the State of Texas, and the United States of America, are hereinafter designated “Colorado,” “New Mexico,” “Texas,” and the “United States,” respectively. (b) “The Commission” means the agency created by this Compact for the administration thereof. (c) The term “Rio Grande Basin” means all of the territory drained by the Rio Grande and its tributaries in Colorado, in New Mexico, and in Texas above Fort Quitman, including the Closed Basin in Colorado. (d) The “Closed Basin” means that part of the Rio Grande Basin in Colorado where the streams drain into the San Luis Lakes and adjacent territory, and do not normally contribute to the flow of the Rio Grande.
    [Show full text]
  • Rio Grande Project
    Rio Grande Project Robert Autobee Bureau of Reclamation 1994 Table of Contents Rio Grande Project.............................................................2 Project Location.........................................................2 Historic Setting .........................................................3 Project Authorization.....................................................6 Construction History .....................................................7 Post-Construction History................................................15 Settlement of the Project .................................................19 Uses of Project Water ...................................................22 Conclusion............................................................25 Suggested Readings ...........................................................25 About the Author .............................................................25 Bibliography ................................................................27 Manuscript and Archival Collections .......................................27 Government Documents .................................................27 Articles...............................................................27 Books ................................................................29 Newspapers ...........................................................29 Other Sources..........................................................29 Index ......................................................................30 1 Rio Grande Project At the twentieth
    [Show full text]
  • Rio Grande Project
    RIO GRANDE PROJECT El Paso Field Division 10737 Gateway Blvd. West, Suite 350 El Paso, TX 79935 U. S Dept. of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation RIO GRANDE PROJECT CURRENT HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS OF UPPER RIO GRANDE BASIN U. S Dept. of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation ALBUQUERQUE AREA OFFICE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION ~ I CO ·· - ·· - ·· AZ:NM I • AMARILLO RIO GRANDE PROJECT MEXICO %OF AVG. SNOW WATER EQUIVALENT vs TIME %OF AVG. SNOW WATER EQUIVALENT vs TIME Upper Rio Grande Basin (Basin Avg.) Rio Chama Basin (Basin Avg.) 600 ~-----------------., 140 ...--:-------------:--;:--:-;:-=--~ w ~500 .------------~ ~ 120 ~~-------~~~~ ~ Avg=Avgo ~400 #---------------~~~~ ~ 100 ~H*--~.----~~=-~ ~ Avg=Avg o w 9SNOTEL 4 SNOTEL ~300 ~-----------~ Sites ~ 8o ~UW~~.J~~~----~ ~ 60 ~~~~----~~--~ Sites ~200 rr~----------~ 0 40 ~-----------~ ~ ~100 ~~~~~""~~~-----~ 20 ~-----------~ o ~~~~~TITITTI~~~~Trrrrrn 10/1 11/6 12/18 1/29 3/12 4/23 6/4 7/16 10/1 11/6 12/18 1/29 3/12 4/23 6/4 7/16 OCT. 01,2006 to APR. 30,2007 OCT. 01,2006 to APR. 30,2007 %OF AVG. SNOW WATER EQUIVALENT vs TIME %OF AVG. SNOW WATER EQUIVALENT vs TIME Sangre de Cristo Mtn Basins (Basin Avg.) Jemez River Basin (Basin Avg.) 160 ...-----------------., w 140 +-----~------~ ~ 120 ~---~~~~-~--~ w 120 ...-------~--~-----------­ ~ Avg=Avgo ~ 100 ~------~1r~r---~~~~ ffi 100 +--+--~----+-~------~ ~ Avg=Avgo ~ 80 ~~~-~---~---~ 9SNOTEL ffi 80 +------1~----r---------­ Sites 3 SNOTEL ~ 60 ~~~~-----~==~~ ~ 60 ~----~------~---------­ Sites ~ 40 ++~~~-----~~-"~ o~ 40 ~~r-~------~~-------­ 20 ++--------~~~~ ~ 20 ~~~~--------+--------- o ~~~~~~~~~~~~nTM o ~~~~~~~ITTI~ITnTITITTITIT 10/1 11/6 12/18 1/29 3/12 4/23 6/4 7/16 10/1 11 /6 12/18 1/29 3/12 4/23 6/4 7/16 OCT.
    [Show full text]
  • Middle Rio Grande Project, New Mexico,” Vol
    Middle Rio Grande Project Andrew H. Gahan Historic Reclamation Projects Bureau of Reclamation May 2013 Table of Content Table of Content .............................................................................................................................. i Middle Rio Grande Project ............................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 Project Location .......................................................................................................................... 1 Historic Setting ............................................................................................................................ 2 Project Authorization .................................................................................................................. 8 Project Construction .................................................................................................................. 12 Post Construction ...................................................................................................................... 17 Use of Project Water ................................................................................................................. 19 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 23 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • STATUS REPORT on TEXAS LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL AUTHORITY ACTIVITIES by Robert V
    STATUS REPORT ON TEXAS LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL AUTHORITY ACTIVITIES by Robert V. Avant, Jr., P.E. Deputy General Manager BACKGROUND In 1981, the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority was created by Article 4590M to site, develop, operate, decommission, and close a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility for Texas generated waste. In 1989, the Authority's act was recodified by the Texas legislature in the Health and Safety Code., Title 5. Sanitation and Environmental Quality, Subtitle D. Nuclear and Radioactive Materials, Chapter 402. The Authority is governed by a Board of Directors appointed by the Governor, composed of a certified health physicist, geologist, attorney, medical doctor, and two private citizens. Under the statute, low-level radioactive waste is defined as any radioactive material with a half-life of 35 years or less or having less than 10 nanocuries per gram of transuranics. Materials with half-lives of greater than 35 years may be classed as low-level waste if special criteria are established by the Texas Department of Health Bureau of Radiation Control. Subsequent sessions of the legislature have amended the act to revise siting criteria, require consideration of state land, create a Citizen's Advisory Committee, incorporate alternative designs, and establish a special low-level radioactive waste account in the state treasury. As illustrated in Figure 1, the Authority began its activities in 1982. The Authority has proposed a site in far West Texas near Fort Hancock, but El Paso County, the neighboring county to the west, has instituted three separate lawsuits to slow or stop the site selection process.
    [Show full text]