Links

Have you hugged a farmer lately

Now that state law and the EAA have limited pumping from the Edwards Aquifer, Edwards aquifer users have been asked to make conservation a priority. There is not another group that has stepped up to the challenge to conserve like farmers, who by our calculations, have conserved well in excess of 50% of their historical maximum use.

Supply, demand and the tale of the local water market

There are many reasons to conserve, but one of the most compelling is financial incentive. Applying a basic economic principal, limited supply combined with growing demand results in increased market prices. These are the exact conditions that we have observed in the local water market over the last four years, predominantly driven by the issuance of permits by the EAA (limited supply) and growth in municipal and industrial demand. Many farmers have taken this opportunity to lease or sell conserved water permits to municipalities and businesses, helping offset the cost of conservation equipment, increased operating costs and poor and volatile crop prices.

Selling an EAA pumping permit results in a permanent transfer of ownership, while leasing a permit results in a temporary transfer. To date, business and government leaders within the local rural communities have appeared indifferent as whether permits are sold or leased. We would expect this to change as these leaders recognize the benefits of long-term leases relative to sales.

Benefits of long-term permit leases to local community

Ownership remains with residents of community

Provides a new and stable income to farmers

Potential to offset impact of lost farm subsidies

Expected to add jobs and grow local economy (a)

-90+ jobs and $6.3+ million per year to Uvalde economy

-58+ jobs and $4.1 + million per year to Medina economy

Potential to raise local government revenue

(a) source: Economic Impact report by the Institute for Economic Development at UTSA assuming an annual lease price of $250. A copy of this report is available on this site.

Quick Review

1. Pumping permits and regulatory oversight by the EAA will ensure that the Edwards Aquifer is available for current and future generations.

2. Farmers, the largest aquifer user group, have conserved more than 50% of their historical water use... conserved water that is now available to meet the needs of municipalities and businesses.

3. Farmers have begun selling and leasing their conserved permits to municipalities and businesses, with this new revenue stream used to help offset the cost of conservation equipment, increased farming costs and competitive markets.

4. An economic impact study by UTSA concludes that the long-term lease of conserved irrigation permits would add jobs and grow the local economies…in contrast, we suspect that the permanent sale of irrigation permits would provide much fewer long-term benefits.

5. In Summary, farmers have a sizable amount of excess permits generated by the purchase of conservation equipment and application of conservation practices. These conserved permits, though going mostly unused today, could be leased to municipalities and businesses. This would not only meet a critical need for water for the South Central Texas region, but would in-turn stimulate the rural economies where these farmers operate.

6. Sounds like a win-win situation so far.

If this is such a great deal, why all the controversy?

The major controversy surrounds the manner with which the permits will be transferred - from the irrigators who have conserved the permits to the municipalities and businesses in the San Antonio area that desperately need additional long-term water resources.

While permits to date have been sold or leased with the intent of the new owner/lessee pumping the water from their own wells, there are estimated to be tremendous benefits achieved by pumping the water from the western portion of the aquifer and physically transporting this water via pipeline to the San Antonio area. The latter will require a change to existing state law and a sizable monetary investment in infrastructure. A change to the state law would be most easily accomplished through a consensus of position by aquifer users (to include the EAA) that such a change is warranted and beneficial. And, the financing of the infrastructure would follow naturally, most likely with the beneficiaries (San Antonio area municipalities and businesses) raising the necessary funds to construct and operate the pipeline.

When you consider that even with the added expense of the pipeline this represents one of the lowest cost and easily accessible water sources for San Antonio area municipalities and businesses, and consider that transferring a responsible amount of water would actually benefit the rural economies sourcing the water, this sounds like a very Common Sense alternative. However, when you look closer at the details and at the history, it is a complicated and emotional issue involving a precious resource.

Despite the complexity and emotions, we believe that this Common Sense alternative will ultimately prevail and will continue to promote the research summarized in the following sections.

What is the “Knippa Gap” and why should I care?

The Edwards aquifer is separated into the Uvalde Pool and the San Antonio Pool. The Uvalde Pool is separated from the San Antonio Pool by a series of barrier faults known as the "Knippa Gap", and is distinguishable from the San Antonio Pool because its water levels are about 200 feet higher and are less variable than water levels in the San Antonio Pool.

More on the “Knippa Gap”.

The differences between the Uvalde Pool and the San Antonio Pool noted in the above section are considered by edwardswater.com to be key reasons why the EAA assigned separate Critical Period Management (CPM) restrictions to the Uvalde Pool and the San Antonio Pool. As water levels trigger various CPM stages, water use within that pool is restricted by 5%, 10%, or 15%. A historical analysis by Dr. Uliana indicates that water levels in the Uvalde Pool would not have reached levels that would trigger CPM restrictions since 1958, while water levels in the San Antonio Pool would have triggered CPM restrictions in 22 of the last 46 years.

Just what the doctor ordered.

In a 12/02/04 presentation titled "Hydrogeologic Evaluation of the Uvalde Pool of the Edwards Aquifer", Dr. Uliana concludes (1) that conservation efforts has lowered use by 32% from the 1980's, (2) that water saved through conservation could be used for irrigation transfers to Bexar County and (3) that the results suggest that a pipeline could be used to manage the aquifer better.

The solution is simple, accepting change is what is hard

We understand as well as anyone that a pipeline represents a major change to the rural communities of Uvalde, Medina, and Bexar counties. While change is never easy or popular, it is vital that local leaders step up and confront change if these communities desire to maintain, dare improve, their standard of life. Being proactive will allow the farmers and their communities a much better opportunity to set the rules, whereas, waiting too long could place them in the uncomfortable position of being forced to react to the demands of major cities and businesses.

Today, we find ourselves within a window of opportunity where the solution to our current and future water needs is not only Common Sense, but a solution that allows everyone relying upon the Edwards Aquifer to walk away a winner:

rural economies will grow stronger and expand given the farmer’s more stable income and purchasing power;

farmers have a new farm product to supplement and grow their operations;

environmentalists will appreciate the major incentives to conserve;

San Antonio Water Systems (SAWS) gains access to a new water source;

San Antonio residents continue to receive the same high quality water at an affordable price;

the San Antonio business community can better promote economic development;

the Edwards Aquifer Authority (EAA) is able to more effectively manage this vast, rechargeable aquifer;

downstream users of the Guadalupe and Comal rivers benefit from more consistent and predictable river flows; and

state legislators will benefit from the South Central Texas Region (Region L) leading the way with common sense and efficient solutions to satisfying the state’s water requirements.