USE OF GROUNDWATER IN TEXAS, 2000 Total Use: 10.03 million acre-feet Source: Texas Water Development Board, "Summary Historical Water Use 2000 (2003)

In contrast to surface water regulations, Texas law allows property owners an absolute "right of capture" to the groundwater under their property. Any property owner may pump as much water as needed, generally without incurring any responsibility even if other property owners are affected. The law makes an exception to this right of capture: when groundwater flows in a well-defined channel and thus constitutes an underground river, it becomes state property, just as if it were surface water.^* No underground water source has been legally designated as an underground river in Texas, although the Texas Water Commission (now the Texas Water Board) in 1992 declared the Edwards Aquifer an underground stream. A state district court later overturned the decision.

Because the state is charged with protecting groundwater quality, however, some controls have been established. In critical areas of groundwater depletion such as the Ogallala Aquifer in the High Plains and the Edwards Aquifer in the San Antonio area, either the legislature or the TCEQ has established local management authorities, which can manage groundwater withdrawals through a permitting system, and establish other controls, like well spacing requirements.

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL MUNICIPAL USE SUPPLIED BY GROUNDWATER IN MAJOR URBAN COUNTIES, 1990, 1995 and 2000 URBAN COUNTY 1990 1995 2000 El Paso (El Paso, San Elizario, Anthony, Socorro) 79% 63% 25% Ector (Odessa, Penwell) 41% 36% 10% Midland (Midland, Greenwood, Spaberry) 41% 18% 24% Potter (Amarillo, Ady) 49% 49% 46% Lubbock (Lubbock, Shallowater) 28% 39% 24% Tarrant (Ft. Worth, Arlington 7% 6% 5% Dallas (Dallas, Irving) 2% 1% 1% Travis (Austin, Manor, Lakeway) 7% 8% 6% Bexar (San Antonio, Kirby) 100% 100% 98% Harris (Houston, Pasadena, Waller) 71% 64% 26% Galveston (Galveston, Texas City) 20% 14% 14% Jefferson (Beaumont, Port Arthur) 24% 24% 21% Cameron (Brownsville, Harlingen, San Benito, Port Isabel) 4% 3% 2% Note: Percentages represent all municipal use within county boundaries, not city limits Source: Texas Water Development Board, "Summary Historical Water Use 1995" (1997)

For many years, the Harris-Galveston Coastal Subsidence District, the Fort Bend Subsidence District and the Edwards Aquifer Authority have limited groundwater withdrawal.^* Senate Bill 1, the 1997 State water bill, and further legislation in 2001 expanded this ability, stating that the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) and the TCEQ will evaluate areas outside of existing groundwater districts and may name areas experiencing water quantity or quality problems part of a "priority groundwater management area." Since then, both TWDB and TCEQ have adopted rules for the establishment of Priority Groundwater Management Areas. Under the rules, local voters could approve formation of an underground conservation district. If they failed to approve a district, the TCEQ could ask the legislature to do so.

While SB 1 moves groundwater districts toward further management of groundwater resources, it does not alter the rule of capture. Critics have long argued that this rule, even with some controls, leads to overpumping of the state's natural resources and does not properly protect the water rights of others using both surface and groundwater. Others have called for maintaining the rule of capture but giving groundwater districts much greater power and funding to properly manage and in some cases limit pumping. Of particular concern is that private landowners can pump an aquifer and sell the water outside of the immediate area. For example, both local individual landowners in Hudspeth County as well as outside investors in the Dell City area have been approaching the City of El Paso to sell water from the rural area to feed the city's growth, while T. Boone Pickens has been approaching San Antonio and other cities about selling them water from his landholdings in West Texas. If agreements are reached some areas of the state could have significant amounts of water transfered from their geographic location to larger, urban areas of the State. Most groundwater districts are still developing rules about transfers of water outside the boundaries of the district itself.

In spite of the fact that this leads to aquifer mining, both the Texas Supreme Court, most recently in a 1999 case, and the Texas legislature have continued to treat groundwater as a basic property right.^* The term mining, when used in connection with an aquifer, refers to the practice of of pumping more water from the aquifer than will be replaced through the natural recharge process.

In some areas of Texas, mining of major aquifers has caused subsidence of the land. In other areas, mining has affected water quality by allowing the saline water that lies deep in most aquifers to encroach on the layers of freshwater at the surface. The aquifers most affected by mining include the Ogallala Aquifer in the high plains; the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer in the Cypress River basin; the Trinity Aquifer in Dallas and Tarrant counties; and the Gulf Coast Aquifer in the Houston-Galveston region and the Baytown, Freeport and SanJacinto River Basin areas. Finally, mining of the Hueco-Mesilla Bolson near El Paso has changed groundwater flow and reduced the quality of the water as saline water from adjacent saline bearing sands encroaches upon higher quality groundwater. Water is further reduced as El Paso shares the resource with Ciudad Juarez, its Mexican neighbor to the South. While per-capita water use in Ciudad Juarez is much less than El Paso, the population is much higher. Because of these problems, El Paso has moved toward use of surface water, reducing its municipal groundwater use from 79 to 25 percent over the last decade*

WATER PUMPED FROM TEXAS' MAJOR AQUIFERS, AND ANNUAL GROUNDWATER AVAILABILITY, 2000 AQUIFER PUMPED 1990 (ACRE-FEET) PUMPED 1997 (ACRE-FEET) EFFECTIVE ANNUAL RECHARGE RATE GROUNDWATER AVAILABILITY IN 2000 UNDER DROUGHT CONDITIONS Ogallala 5.55 million 6.22 million 0.30 million 6.40 million Edwards (Balcones) 0.53 million 0.43 million 0.44 million 0.37 million Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) 0.19 million 0.23 million 0.78 million 0.98 million Carrizo-Wilcox 0.45 million 0.43 million 0.64 million 1.6 million Trinity 0.19 million 0.18 million 0.10 million 0.18 million Gulf Coast 1.23 million 1.15 million 1.23 million 1.60 million Bolson and Alluvium Deposits (Hueco-Mesilla Bolson, Cenozoic Pecos, Seymour) 0.32 million 0.46 million 0.43 million 0.54 million Total 8.56 million 9.10 million 3.92 million 11.67 million Source: Texas Water Development Board, "1995 Estimated Ground Water Pumpage Summary by Major Aquifer Units"(1997); Texas Water Development Board, Water for Texas -- 2002 (2003), Figure 5-11; and Texas Department of Water Resources, Groundwater Availability in Texas: Estimates and Projections through 2030 (July 1987) Note: Recharge Rate is the amount of precipitation and infiltration of surface water which adds to the level of the aquifer each year. Safe annual availability refers to both the annual recharge and additional waters stored in the aquifer in a drought year which can be pumped without unduly creating either water quality problems or land subsidence. Thus, aquifers which have no storage can only provide the annual recharge rate.  Note that annual recharge is an estimated average; actual recharge depends upon annual precipitation. In addition, it should be noted that the Groundwater Availability are what local leaders in the community estimate and are not necessarily based upon clear scientific evidence.

[Home] [About Us] [State Summaries] [County Profiles] [Maps]
[Take Action] [Join A Discussion] [Links] [Site Index] [Search]