Saturday, December 3, 2016
1012 C Street  •  Floresville, TX 78114  •  Phone: 830-216-4519  •  Fax: 830-393-3219  • 

WCN Site Search

Preview the Paper Preview the Paper

Preview this week's Paper
A limited number of pages are displayed in this preview.
Preview this Week’s Issue ›
Subscribe Today ›

Lost & Found

Found: Red Chihuahua, male, friendly but frightened, need to find his owner, in Floresville. 830-534-6413.

VideoFound: Dog, chocolate color, on old Pittman Rd., be prepared to prove it's your dog, looking for owner. Call or text Tammy at 830-391-6662.
*Includes FREE photo online!
More Lost & Found ads ›

Help Wanted

Oilfield Roustabouts - SEI Oilfield Services now hiring experienced roustabouts at our Jourdanton location, Mon.-Fri. with weekends as necessary, weekly pay, full benefits package, matching 401k, and PTO, $11-$12/hour. If you have prior roustabout experience email your resume and/or contact information to
>Dean & Peeler Meatworks Custom Butchery in Poth TX will be opening in early 2017 and is searching for a head butcher and qualified meat cutters. This will be a cattle only federally inspected facility focusing on full high quality fabrication for customers and private labels. Those individuals interested please contact us at (806) 789-6359 or
More Help Wanted ads ›

Featured Videos

Video Vault ›

Election Coverage

When politics turns to water ... an analysis

E-Mail this Story to a Friend
Print this Story
Darrell T. Brownlow, Ph.D.
October 16, 2013 | 3,222 views | 7 comments


A friend asked me the other day if I was excited about voting for Proposition 6, the constitutional amendment authorizing the use of $2 billion from the “Rainy Day Fund” for developing water projects across the state.

I, like my friend, have heard the politicians applauding themselves for doing such a great job in passing this “historic” legislation and working to ensure Texas has the water it needs to continue its dynamic growth.

While I am not against expanding the state’s role in funding water projects to help thirsty children, I think I’ll pass on being part of the cheering section for passing this amendment.

I guess it’s simply hard for me to reconcile how, after 15 years of water planning, Texas has not really done one thing to produce more water for areas that need it. In the midst of the second or third multi-year drought this decade, the Legislature needs to appear as though it’s doing something. What do politicians do better than anything else?

Yes, they spend other people’s money. Having been a direct participant in the production of three Regional Water Plans (2002, 2007, and 2012), all of which included dozens of projects and accounting for tens of thousands of pages of documents produced via thousands of hours of consultants’ time, I don’t ever recall money or the lack thereof as being the reason a water project was not done.

I don’t recall a headline saying “water project ready, but no money.” To the contrary, behind the scenes, some consultants and planning participants often characterized Regional Water Planning as being a process where good projects go to die and bad projects become “place holders.” I don’t want to give the impression that water planning is or was bad.

A lot of interesting data is generated and a great deal of public discourse can be had about water usage. But the fact is, if you need water for anything other than long-term considerations, regional water planning is not the way to do it. Unfortunately, over time, long term becomes short term and again, regional planning does not work well on short-term issues.

Again, who can be against spending “Rainy Day Fund” money on projects identified in the State Water Plan? Well, it might help to have more details.

Have you heard any politician provide details about what exactly is in the State Water Plan? Besides the obvious ideas like conservation measures and recycling, what actual water supply projects are they specifically talking about funding? Out of the hundreds of projects with a cumulative $30 billion estimated cost, which projects identified in the 2012 State Water Plan might be funded? To get some idea of this, let’s examine some supply versus demand details within the 2012 South Central Texas Region, which includes San Antonio, Bexar County, and 19 surrounding counties.

First, let’s examine the projected “needs” for water. Of the six “water user” groups for which water use is divided into, by a large margin, new supplies of water are needed for increasing “municipal” demands. The plan states that at projected growth levels, by 2050 this region will need to increase its “municipal” water supply by about 50 percent over what is currently available.

This region currently uses slightly less than 400,000 acre-feet of water each year and will need slightly less than 600,000 acre-feet per year by 2050, which is a “need” of over 200,000 acre-feet of “new” water.

The vast majority of this new water is for San Antonio and the I‐35 corridor counties. With increasing municipal demands come increasing water demands for both industrial and steam-electric uses, but those demands are much smaller. Particularly with steam-electric, these can be supplied for as a result of the increased wastewater generated by any new supplies created for the increased municipal demands.

But what about water for agriculture and livestock? Actually, the 2012 State Water Plan for South Central Texas shows that ample water is available for Livestock use out through 2060. And as for agricultural irrigation, which is the second largest water demand in the region behind municipal, the 2012 water plan actually projects a dramatic increase in water availability for irrigation out through 2060.

In fact, the plan shows an “irrigation” surplus that increases to nearly 75,000 acre-feet of water per year by 2060. That alone represents almost 40 percent of the projected new demand required for municipal water.

Since most of the agricultural irrigation water is groundwater coming primarily from aquifers in the rural areas surrounding the large municipal centers, it is important to consider that not only does the Plan identify this “surplus” of irrigation water, it also characterizes approximately 140,000 acre-feet per year of additional groundwater as “unallocated,” which implies “available.”

Summing the surplus of irrigation supply with the unallocated groundwater, the State Water Plan for this region shows that while approximately 200,000 acre-feet per year of new municipal supply is needed for the region by 2050, more than 215,000 acre-feet per year of surplus irrigation and unallocated groundwater will exist by 2050. (See chart, page 2D).

Not all water is equal

In Texas, there are two types of water:

1) surface water, which is the water in our lakes and rivers and the use of which is entirely controlled by both the state of Texas and the federal government; and

2) groundwater, which as the Texas Supreme Court holds, belongs to the property owner but is subject to some regulation by local groundwater districts.

For all practical purposes, the water in our existing lakes and rivers (surface water) is already accounted for in the planning. Basically, the supply of surface water is used up, and any attempt to build new lakes to increase the supply or simply take more water from the rivers is met with lawsuits by the environmental interests as well as rural residents fearful of condemnation of private lands for new reservoirs.

This places the focus of water planning squarely on groundwater -- and where is the groundwater?

Yep, the rural areas where small communities and agricultural interests rely on the water. And the 2012 Regional Plan basically says, the ranchers have plenty of water for their cattle, the farmers will be using much less than they have, and the groundwater districts are reporting large amounts of unallocated groundwater.

In summary, it’s hard not to conclude that the new funding for water projects is not simply “free money” to help the big municipalities wrestle groundwater away from the rural interests.

In supporting Proposition 6, it’s important to the rural and agricultural interests to fully understand the details and not be swooned by promises of proportionally small subsidies and reservations of monies for conservation measures.

The rural and agricultural interests have the water; why would they need the money? I suppose one could argue that supporting the municipalities in their efforts to secure funding for new water supplies will help take pressure off the rural groundwater supplies.

Wrong. Have you read the State Water Plan? The plan is to take -- or buy -- the rural water.

See Part II next week.

Darrell Brownlow is a geologist with a Ph.D. from Texas Tech University. From 1999 to 2012, he was a small business representative to the South Central Texas Regional Water Planning group and from 2001‐11, he was Gov. Perry’s appointee to the Evergreen Groundwater Conservation District. He currently serves as an elected director on thebBoard of the San Antonio River Authority. He is a rancher and landowner in Wilson and LaSalle counties.

Your Opinions and Comments

Gina Stanush-Huizar  
October 25, 2013 5:29pm
I received an email from the Texas farm bureau saying vote yes, I think they need to do their homework. Great article! Vote NO for Prop. 6

Russell Dickerson  
Floresville, TX  
October 22, 2013 1:23pm
Slush funds aside, any time people talk water plan that usually involves some mechanism to place regulations on the rural community on what we can do with our water, and schemes to take that water. Giving the an additional... More ›

Elaine K.  
October 21, 2013 9:32pm

Elaine K.  
October 21, 2013 9:31pm

Alvin Charmaine  
October 21, 2013 2:15pm
Why is it bad for people who need water to buy it from people who have excess water?

Ms. S. V.  
October 19, 2013 7:52am
Follow the MONEY. Everyone wants part of the funds. That is why they want this bill to pass. VOTE NO!

Senior Citizen  
Wilson County  
October 17, 2013 8:49pm
More people should be reading about this before they vote!

Share your comment or opinion on this story!

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Not a subscriber?
Subscriber, but no password?
Forgot password?

Election Coverage Archives

Election election coverage header
Election Voter registration header
Election voter reg-download ford
Election secretary of state voter info
Sample Ballots sample ballot header
Sample Ballots Wilson County
Sample Ballots ESD 1 La Vernia
Sample Ballots ESD 2 Eagle Creek
Sample Ballots Karnes county
Sample Ballots floresville
Election Coverage voters guides header
Election Coverage Christian voters
Election Coverage League Women
Election Coverage Liberty Institute
Texas State Rifle Assoc.
Election Coverage Citizen Link
Heavenly Touch homeFriesenhahn Custom WeldingVoncille Bielefeld homeAllstate & McBride RealtyTriple R DC Experts

  Copyright © 2007-2016 Wilson County News. All rights reserved. Web development by Drewa Designs.