Edwards Aquifer

The Edwards Aquifer is one of the most prolific artesian aquifers in the world. Located on the eastern edge of the Edwards Plateau in the U.S. state of Texas, it is the source of drinking water for two million people, and is the primary water supply for agriculture and industry in the aquifer's region. In addition, the Edwards Aquifer feeds the Comal and San Marcos springs, provides springflow for recreational and downstream uses in the Nueces, San Antonio, Guadalupe, and San Marcos river basins, and is home to several unique and endangered species.

Edwards Aquifer
Downstream from the headwaters of the San Marcos River
LocationEdwards Plateau, Texas Hill Country, Texas, United States
Area3,237 km2 (1,250 sq mi)
GeologyLimestone karst[1]
WebsiteEdwards Aquifer Website
Edwards and Trinity Aquifers Map

Water balance

Although between 25 and 55 million acre-feet of water may be present in the Edwards aquifer, only a small portion of this water is practically or legally available for use.[2] Storage is the difference between recharge (inputs) and discharge (outputs) from the Edwards Aquifer.

Annual storage can be negative during dry years with high water use and positive during wet years with relatively low water use. A long-term negative imbalance between recharge and discharge in an aquifer may lead to the depletion of the available water in the aquifer.

Annual storage between 1955 and 2012 estimated from data provided by a continuing program between the U.S. Geologic Survey and the Edwards Aquifer Authority ranged from -633,000 to +1,653,000 acre-feet per year. The average storage during this period was 37,000 acre-feet per year.[3]

Water inputs, outputs, and storage to the Edwards Aquifer based on data collected by the Edwards Aquifer Authority between 1955 and 2012

Inputs (recharge)

Water enters the Edwards Aquifer in two ways: it either falls as precipitation and percolates directly into the aquifer, or it enters as streamflow flowing through the Recharge Zone. The Recharge Zone occurs along the Balcones Fault Zone where the Edwards Plateau drops steeply and meets the Gulf Coastal Plain. Here, highly fractured limestones are exposed at the Earth's surface, which allow rain and streamflow to infiltrate directly into the aquifer.[4]

The Contributing Zone, which occurs on 5,400 mi2 (14,000 km2) of the Edwards Plateau (Texas Hill Country), collects precipitation and streamflow that drain to the Recharge Zone. Major streams draining the Contributing Zone include Cibolo Creek, Helotes Creek, Barton Creek, and Onion Creek.[5] Water is unable to percolate into the aquifer in the Contributing Zone because much of the underlying geology is impermeable.[6]

Average precipitation in the region is around 30 inches per year.[7] Only precipitation that falls on the contributing area is available for infiltration. With a contributing and recharge area of over 6,650 mi2, the mean annual volume of precipitation that is available for recharge is 10,660,000 acre-feet (13.15 cubic kilometers), or the equivalent of 5.3 million Olympic sized swimming pools. The average annual recharge rate between 1934 and 2013 is estimated to be 699,000 acre-feet (median annual recharge is 556,950 acre-feet),[8][9] or only 6% of the total inputs to the system.

Outputs (discharge)

Water from the Edwards Aquifer is discharged in two ways: it is either pumped from wells (well discharge) or it leaves as stream outflow (spring discharge). The Edwards Aquifer Authority (EAA) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) have monitored annual well and spring discharges since 1934.

Annual well discharge - the sum of all well discharges in a year - ranged from 219,300 acre-feet to 542,500 acre-feet between 1955 and 2012. The average well discharge for this period was approximately 371,667 acre-feet, equivalent to 183 thousand Olympic-sized swimming pools.[3]

Annual spring discharge ranged from 69,800 acre-feet to 802,800 acre-feet between 1955 and 2012. The average spring discharge for this period was approximately 392,991 acre-feet.[3]

During dry years, more water is discharged from wells while during wet years, more water is discharged from springs. Annual total groundwater discharge from pumping and springs ranged from 388,800 acre-feet to 1,130,000 acre-feet, and the average total groundwater discharge for 1955 to 2012 period was approximately 764,431 acre-feet.[3]

Edwards Aquifer discharge summary for 2013 in acre-feet, by county and use[3]
Reported Use (Permitted Wells) Unreported Use Subtotals Total Discharge
County Irrigation Municipal Industrial Domestic/Livestock Non-reporting facilities Well Spring
Atascosa 1,208 0 0 0 0 1,208 0 1,208
Bexar 4,179 216,051 15,648 8,893 5,046 249,817 51 249,868
Comal 63 5,781 7,061 390 0 13,295 141,412 154,707
Guadalupe 0 69 167 0 0 236 0 236
Hays 177 2,341 1,292 858 195 4,863 91,210 96,073
Medina 33,755 5,911 2,007 1,089 0 42,762 0 42,762
Uvalde 36,959 3,870 95 2,510 209 43,643 133 43,766
Totals: 76,341 234,023 26,270 13,740 5,450 355,824 232,806 588,630

Hydrologic modeling

Scientists with the United States Geologic Survey have developed numerical groundwater flow models for the San Antonio and Barton Springs aquifer segments to determine the amount of water in the aquifer, the direction it is flowing, and its velocity. These are used to estimate the sustainable levels of groundwater withdrawal throughout the aquifer.[10] Given ample data is needed for numerical simulations, yet often lacking,[11] regional modeling of large aquifers is difficult, but modeling segments within an aquifer is common and provides useful information for water users throughout the aquifer.

Aquifer storage is correlated with water levels recorded in the J-17 Bexar index well which serves as the sole official monitoring well in the Edwards Aquifer.[7][9] The J-17 well, is located in the artisanal confined Edwards Aquifer at a location AY-68-37-203 based on the latitude and longitude.[9] Water levels have been recorded in the J-17 well since the 1910s, and is used to generalize the entire aquifer system. Changes in aquifer storage are used to estimate recharge rates.

In the Edwards aquifer, groundwater flow models have been developed for the San Antonio and Barton Springs aquifer segments in the San Antonio region of Texas. Two model simulations were conducted: steady state and transient. A steady-state groundwater flow model requires magnitude and direction of flow remain constant, whereas a transient model simulation allows for a change in water storage over time. Steady-state results suggest water leaving the aquifer occurs through springs (73.3 percent), water well pumping (25.7 percent), and to the Colorado River (0.6 percent). Inflow of water to the aquifer mostly occurs through natural recharge (93.5 percent) and water delivered through the aquifer's regional boundaries (6.5 percent). The transient simulation model also suggests discharge primarily occurs through springs, followed by water well pumping; however, changes in water storage is heavily dependent upon the amount of monthly precipitation and water well pumping volumes.[12]

Basin characteristics

Geography

Located in South Central Texas, the Edwards Aquifer incorporates an area of approximately 4,350 square miles that extends into parts of 11 counties.[13] The aquifer's boundaries begin at the groundwater divide in Kinney County, East of Brackettville, and extend Eastward through the San Antonio area and then Northeast where the aquifer boundary ends at the Leon River in Bell County.[3] The aquifer is hydrologically separated into the Austin and San Antonio regions by a groundwater divide near the town of Kyle in Hays County.[13]

The total area of the aquifer forms roughly the shape of a slight upward curve and approximately measures 160 miles east to west at its furthermost boundaries and 80 miles north to south at its widest section.[14] The aquifer is geographically divided into three distinct regions: the total drainage area, recharge zone, and artesian zone. These zones run east to west, with the drainage area forming the northernmost portion of the aquifer and the artesian zone forming the southernmost portion.

The aquifer's recharge zone,[15] where surface water enters the aquifer, follows the Balcones Fault line, from Brackettville (roughly along U.S. Highway 90), through San Antonio, and north to Austin along but a few miles west of Interstate 35. On certain stretches of highway in Austin and San Antonio, signs indicate that the driver is entering or leaving the recharge zone, as the zone's easternmost edge sits beneath heavy urban and suburban development.

Its drainage area, where water is transported near the surface to the recharge zone, extends about 40 miles (64 km) north of the recharge zone at the west end, and tapers to end at a point in the east.

The artesian zone,[16] where water springs from wells naturally due to the higher elevation of the recharge zone, extends 10–20 miles (16–32 km) south on the west end to only a few miles south on the east end. Across the eastern half of the aquifer, the recharge and artesian zones occupy common area.

Geology

Approximately 70 million years ago, activity of tectonic plates caused a revival of the Rocky Mountains. As these tectonic processes were occurring, millions of tons of sediments were deposited by alluvial and fluvial processes across Texas. The tremendous weight of these sediments resulted in faulting between the Edwards Plateau and the Gulf. The main geologic unit, known as the Edwards Limestone, is tilted downward toward the south and east and is overlain by younger limestone layers as well as several thousand feet of sediments. The Edwards Aquifer is a group of limestones and is considered a highly heterogenic aquifer.[17] Three stratigraphic columns across the San Antonio area represent the Edwards Aquifer. These stratigraphic units are known as the Maverick Basin. the Devils River Trend, and the San Marcos Platform.[18]

The Maverick Basin portion of the Edwards Aquifer consists of the West Nueces, McKnight, and Salmon Peak Formations. The Devils River Trend unit of the Edwards Aquifer is composed mostly of Devils River Limestone with a thickness of approximately 550 feet. The third unit in Edwards Aquifer, the San Marco Platform, consists of the Kainer, Person, and Georgetown Formations.[18]

Karst formation from Segovia, Spain.

Hydrogeology

The Edwards Aquifer is highly productive karst aquifer made up of Edwards Group limestones.[19] The Edwards limestone is variable in hydrologic character, but is generally highly porous and permeable, which makes it able to hold and move a lot of water. The limestone is broken by faults and joints. Water flows through these fractures and continues to dissolve the limestone, creating larger and larger pore spaces over time. Some units also store water in eroded fossil burrows that formed through the burrowing action of worms and crustaceans at the seafloor. The effective porosity, or the amount of water that is capable of being recovered, of the Edwards aquifer is estimated to be about 5%.[2] The aquifer ranges in thickness from about 300 to 700 feet (100 – 200 meters).

Main Barton Spring in Austin, Texas, a prominent fracture (visible here) in limestone rock. Through this artesian karst spring water emerges to the surface from the karstic Edwards Aquifer. This spring is situated near the diving board in Barton Springs Pool. Photo provided by US Geological Survey.

Unlike sand and gravel aquifers that store water in very small pore spaces, karst aquifers store water in large pockets or caverns, forming underground "rivers" and "lakes".[20] The rate at which groundwater will move through these conduits can vary tremendously. In the Edwards Aquifer some water may barely move, while in other areas water may travel miles (thousands of meters) in a single day. On average, the Edwards aquifer has been modeled with a transmissivity of about 100 ft2/day (9.29 m2/day).[2]

In the south, the Edwards Aquifer dips beneath the lowland plains of the gulf coast. This area south of the recharge zone is referred to as the Artesian Zone, where the water is held under pressure by low permeability layers, and can flow to the surface without the assistance of pumps through openings like springs and artesian wells.

Climate

The Edwards aquifer lies beneath part of the Edwards Plateau[21] thus the climate of the Edwards Plateau can be used to describe the climate in the aquifer's region. The eastern portion of the Aquifer falls in a Humid subtropical climate (Köppen climate classification Cfa or Cwa), while the western has a semi-arid steppe climate (BSk and BSh) The average annual temperature on the Edwards Plateau is 66 degrees Fahrenheit and the average annual precipitation amounts to 25.24 inches.[22] The temperatures vary by season with the lowest average temperature occurring in January, 50 degrees Fahrenheit, and the highest temperature occurring in July or August, nearing 85 degrees Fahrenheit for both months.[22] Conversely, January is the month with the lowest precipitation, averaging 1 inch, while May and September average the most, 3 inches.[22] The proximity of the Edwards Plateau to the Gulf of Mexico and its location in the middle latitudes creates variation in the weather patterns experienced between different years, seasons, and months.[22]

Water quality

Approximately 1.5 million people obtain their drinking water from the Edwards Aquifer. At present, the water quality of the aquifer has been satisfying drinking water standards and there have been no significant issues with pollution contamination.[23][24] Regular water quality testing through the USGS NAWQA Program occurred between 1996 and 2006. On a yearly basis, ions, metals, nutrients, bacteria, pesticides, VOCs, and synthesized chemicals remained below the EPA's published Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs).[25][26][27][28] Dissolved nitrates (NO3) are detected throughout the entire aquifer at concentrations that exceeded the national background levels3, but that are well below the MCL (10 mg/L).[24] These nitrates may be the result of agricultural runoff that enters the aquifer through its recharge zone.[26]

Due to the karst hydrogeology of the Edwards Aquifer, chemicals that enter the system have the potential to rapidly travel through the aquifer and contaminate down-gradient water sources in a short period of time (hours to days).[29] Aquifers can be easily contaminated when pollutants enter the recharge zone. Because of this vulnerability to contamination, organizations have formed to protect the Edward's Aquifer recharge zones.[30] Anthropogenically sourced pollutants (pesticides, VOCs, and synthetically derived compounds) can be found within the Edwards Aquifer at very low levels.[26]

Ecology

The Edwards Aquifer supports a wide variety of organisms, and several endemic species. The ecosystem is one of the most diverse subterranean aquatic ecosystems in the world.[31] The widemouth blindcat (Satan eurystomus),[31] a unique species of blind catfish, has been pumped out of wells almost 610 meters deep.[32] However, all aquatic-dependent plants and wildlife in the Edwards Plateau area rely on the aquifer to support essential components of their habitats. Currently, the terrain is dominated by oak – juniper parks.[33] The dominant woody plant on the Edwards Plateau is Ashe juniper (Juniperus ashei).[34]

Edwards Aquifer is home to a large number of invertebrate species, 40 of which have been described.[33] The most diverse groups are the prosobranch gastropods and amphipod crustaceans. The Edwards Aquifer has the highest recorded diversity of stygobites in the world.[35] In the United States, only the fauna of the Edwards Aquifer of Texas has a significant component of marine-derived species. Of the major karst regions in the United States, it is the only one with a significant marine component.[36] Of the 64 stygobionts known from the Edwards Aquifer, 17 are marine relics.[37]

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) consider the Comal and San Marcos Springs ecosystems to have one of the greatest known diversities of organisms of any aquatic ecosystem in the Southwestern United States.[38] This is due in part to the constant nature of the temperature and flow of the aquifer waters that have created unique ecosystems supporting a high degree of endemism.[39] The Edwards Aquifer is the sole environment for the rare Barton Springs salamander (Eurycea sosorum), which is a federally listed endangered species.[40] At Comal and San Marcos Springs, their openings and in the rivers and lakes originating from the springs, one threatened and seven endangered species have been listed by USFWS under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The San Marcos salamander (Eurycea nana) is listed as threatened. The San Marcos gambusia (Gambusia georgei), Texas wild rice (Zizania texana), fountain darter (Etheostoma fonticola), Texas blind salamander (Typhlomolge rathbuni), Comal Springs riffle beetle (Heterelmis comalensis), Comal Springs dryopid beetle (Stygoparnus comalensis), and Peck's cave amphipod (Stygobromus pecki) are listed as endangered.

Land use

Land use through the region atop the Edwards aquifer varies between rangeland, agricultural and residential/urban. The northern portion is primarily rangelands and contains most of the streams feeding the recharge zone.[41] Until the late 1990s much of the land area that recharged the aquifer was undeveloped rangeland, but since that time it has undergone a significant increase in development.[42] From 1996 to 1998 residential land use increased 9 percent in the Edwards aquifer recharge zone; even so, 72 percent remains undeveloped.[43] The region atop the Edwards aquifer continues to increase in population today. In 2012 the US Census Bureau noted four counties located within the Edwards Region; Kendal, Comal, Hays and Travis were among the fastest growing in the nation, all with growth rates between 25 and 50 percent.[44] An estimated 4.6 percent of the recharge zone is now covered with impervious surfaces which decrease aquifer recharge and can negatively affect water quality.[43]

Almost all of agricultural lands and a large portion of San Antonio overlie the confined portion of the aquifer (Barker 1996). In an effort to preserve undeveloped land the city of San Antonio passed the Edwards Aquifer Protection Plan in 2000 (renewed in 2005, 2010 and 2015). The plan allows the city to purchase conservation easements for land in Bexar, Medina and Uvalde counties. The landowners retain and upon agreement the landowners cannot divide or develop the land and are paid 40-45% of market value for the easement. The plan has over 130,000 acres enrolled.[45]

Demographics

More than 1.7 million people rely on water from the Edwards Aquifer for municipal, industrial and daily use.[46] One of the major cities on the aquifer is San Antonio, America's 7th largest city, with a population of over 1 million. San Antonio is fully dependent on the Edwards Aquifer for their municipal, industrial and daily use.[44] Another major city on the aquifer is Austin. More than 50,000 people in the city of Austin (6% of Austin's population) rely on the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer.[46]

Between 1990 and 2015, the population increased by two thirds, at this rate, the population of the basin will be doubled in 2050. The population across the counties have approximately the same growth rate of 10% per year. However, Comal and Guadalupe have a greater growth rate of more than 25% per year. This will increase the number of people relying on the aquifer for daily water use.

Economy

The Edwards Aquifer underlies 38 counties in South and Western Texas.[47] West Texas is regionally defined by jobs in the oil and gas industries, but is also home to mining support, agriculture, and transportation support, among other sectors.[48] South Texas is regionally defined by recent economic growth in shipping industries, irrigation based farming, and manufacturing.[49] According to the Texas Comptroller and Texas Water Development Board, the Southern region's economic growth and irrigation practices have put pressure on water demands that exceed supply, and this is expected to increase with economic and demographic trends between 2010 and 2060.[49]

All of these economic practices in the region put pressure on both the quantity and quality of water in the Edwards Aquifer. A recent study showed that salinity in groundwater wells in the aquifer is high, potentially affected by adjacent, natural salt deposits as well as brine seepage from nearby oil fields.[50] Additionally, irrigated agriculture is a significant user of the Edwards Aquifer groundwater, with a variety of crops cultivated, including: " vegetables, hay sesame, soybeans, peanuts, cotton, corn, sorghum, wheat, and oats".[51] Also, the city of San Antonio is located along the eastern edge of the aquifer and was listed as the 7th largest city in the United States by population in 2014.[52]

Stakeholders

Historically, the Edwards Aquifer has served as the sole source of water for the city of San Antonio.[53] This eight-county metropolitan area is the second fastest-growing area in the state of Texas and depends on the aquifer for both recreational use and clean drinking water.[54][55] San Antonio Water System (SAWS) is the largest public water utility system that serves the eight counties of the San Antonio metropolitan area. A total of 92 water wells with a daily pumpage rate of 203.7 million gallons supply water to SAWS’ customers.[56]

In addition to the 2.3 million San Antonio residents are the communities of New Braunfels and San Marcos that depend on the aquifer for clean drinking water. Farming and ranching communities are other significant dependents of the aquifer.[56] From the 1930s to the 1980s, withdrawals have quadrupled with over half of the current withdrawals serving municipal water purposes while the remaining goes to agricultural needs.[57][58] More than 50,000 people in the city of Austin (6% of Austin's population) rely on the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer.[46]

Five groups of stakeholders have played significant roles in shaping the use and conservation of the aquifer, including the Edwards Aquifer Authority (EAA), New Braunfels, San Marcos, San Antonio, and Texas State University.[59][60] Additionally, federal entities including US Geological Survey, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and US Environmental Protection Agency have been involved in water steward activities and recovery management plans of the Edwards aquifer system.[53][54][55]

The EAA was created as a result of Edwards Aquifer Authority Act enacted by Texas State Legislature in 1993. The main purpose of EAA is to oversee the permitting system for water withdrawals from the aquifer system. A subdivision of state government, EAA is more of a liaison between federal agencies (e.g. USFWS, USEPA, USGS), state agencies (e.g. Texas Water Development Board, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, etc.) and non-governmental organizations (e.g. Texas Water Conservation Association, Texas Association of Groundwater Districts).[53]

Main stakeholders involved in water resources management in the Edwards aquifer system
Stakeholders Involvement in aquifer resources management
Farmers and ranchers Depend on water for crops and animal husbandry
Edwards Aquifer Authority Responsible for permitting process for water withdrawal from the Edwards aquifer system
Metropolitan areas: Uvalde, San Antonio, New Braunfels, and San Marcos Depend on water for drinking, recreational uses, utilities, and for irrigation
San Antonio Water System (SAWS) Largest public utility system that relies on Edwards aquifer system.

History

European exploration

Spanish missionaries who arrived in Texas in the 1700s looked to the Edwards Aquifer as their primary source of water. Springs fed by the aquifer played a key role in deciding the location of the Alamo mission and other settlements in the Texas Hill Country.[61] As Europeans continued to settle the region, and as Texas was acquired by the United States, the Edwards Aquifer continued to supply water for farming, ranching, and rural domestic use.[62]

Regulation and management

In the 1950s, however, Texas experienced the worst drought on record.[63] Legislature for the Edwards aquifer began in 1959 with the creation of the Edwards Underground Water District, which created and supplied maps and worked with licensing departments for development interests. Starting in the 1970s, the Texas Water Quality Board (TWQB) first recognized the aquifer and issued regulations regarding surface recharge zones. Following these first steps, regulations began to include the need for geologic assessments prior to development, design standards for underground storage tanks and pipes, and fees for development.[64]

In 1992, the TWQB declared the Edwards aquifer an underground river due to the precense of endangered species, but this was overturned later the same year. In 1993, Texas Senate Bill 1477 established the Edwards Aquifer Authority to manage the aquifer and to limit pumping to protect the spring flow levels.[65]

In 1997, Chapter 36 of the Texas Water Code was amended by Senate Bill 1 of the 75th Texas Legislature to require all underground water conservation districts in Texas to develop a groundwater management plan and submit it for approval by the Texas Water Development Board every five years on the anniversary of initial approval (September 17, 1998 for the Edwards Aquifer Authority). The initial requirements of the groundwater management plans were that they address the efficient use of groundwater, methods of controlling and preventing waste of groundwater, conjunctive surface water issues, natural resource issues that affect the use and availability, of groundwater, and methods of controlling and preventing subsidence.

The requirements of groundwater management plans have since been expanded to require the inclusion of planning requirements for addressing drought conditions and conservation(2001, the 77th Texas Legislature Senate Bill 2), estimates of the managed available groundwater, the amount of groundwater used within each district, the amount of recharge from precipitation, projected surface water supply, total water demand within the district, and consideration of water management strategies that were included in the adopted state water plan( 2005, 79th Texas Legislature HB 1763). Senate Bill 2 of the 77th Texas Legislature also required the groundwater conservation districts to submit groundwater management plans to the Chair of any Regional Water Planning Group in which any part of the district is located so that they may specify any area(s) that conflict with the approved Regional Water Plan[1].

In addition to the groundwater management plan, the Edwards Aquifer Authority board of directors maintains a three-year rolling strategic plan that is updated annually. The 2015-2017 strategic plan adopted on October 14, 2014 identifies six major goals:

  • Goal A: Sustain Federally Protected Aquifer-Dependent Species
  • Goal B: Ensure Effective Management of the Edwards Aquifer
  • Goal C: Enhance Recharge Program for Improved Aquifer Management and Springflow Maintenance,
  • Goal D: Prevent the Pollution of the Aquifer
  • Goal E: Conduct Research that Enhances Understanding and Effective Management of the Aquifer
  • Goal F: Develop a Diverse, Service-Oriented Organization
  • Goal G: Build Shared Value in the EAA Mission
  • Goal H: Sustain Fiscal Stability [3]

With the growth of regional cities such as San Antonio, municipal demand for water increased.[66] The second half of the twentieth century saw a high volume of legal activity regarding rights to the aquifer.

Policy

Edwards Aquifer Authority regulates withdrawal permits, transfers, and groundwater conservation plans under authority granted by the Texas legislature. Groundwater law in the state of Texas is governed by the Rule of Capture, which gives landowners the right to pump groundwater beneath their land, with the exception of drilling a lateral well extending under a neighbor's property, wasting water, or pumping with the intention of causing harm to a neighbor's well.[67] In order to construct a well to withdraw water from the Edwards Aquifer, however, a user requires a permit that is granted by the Edwards Aquifer Authority. Permits for existing users are determined by maximum historical use, taking into consideration the overall availability of water in the aquifer.[68]

Wells that produce less than 25,000 gallons per day, wells that are solely for the purpose of watering livestock, and a few other exceptions are considered exempt wells that do not require a permit. Permits for withdrawal can be transferred to another user, provided that the new use is beneficial and occurs within the boundaries of the Authority, with a few geographical exceptions.

Groundwater conservation plans are required for permit holders who withdraw more than three acre feet per year (equivalent to 2,678 gallons per day), unless irrigators can prove more than 60 percent efficiency in their water use. Conservation plans require the use of Best Management Practices, as determined by the Edwards Aquifer Authority.[69]

In recharge zones of the aquifer permits are required to store regulated substances that could damage water quality. Additionally, The Texas Commission of Environmental Quality requires special permits for construction in the recharge zones of the aquifer.[70]

In the past there was a conflict between the Sierra Club and US Federal and State agencies, cities, and industrial water users.[71][72][73] The conflict is between groups that want to pump more water from the aquifer for human use and those that want to keep water in the aquifer, to feed springs which provide habitat from endangered species.[71] This conflict tends to emerge after periods of drought in 1988[74] and in 1995-1996[75]

In the initial lawsuit was Sierra Club v. Babbitt in 1991.[71] The plaintiffs included environmental groups (Sierra Club), water districts (Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority and Bexar Metropolitan Water District), municipalities (City of San Marcos and City of New Braunfels), and utilities (Green Valley and Atascosa Rural Water Supply corporations). The defendants included, government agencies (US Fish and Wildlife Service, State of Texas, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department), City of San Antonio, and multiple industrial water users.

In Sierra Club v. Babbitt the plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were not fulfilling their duties under the Endangered Species Act, to protect endangered species and their ecosystems. The endangered species included the Fountain Darter, San Marcos Salamander, San Marcos Gambusia, Texas Blind Salamander, and Texas Wild-rice. The ecosystems for these species depends on water from Comal Springs and San Marcos Springs which have the potential to run dry if too much water is withdrawn from Edwards Aquifer.[71]

The final decision sided with the Sierra Club and other plaintiffs and in 1993 restrictions were placed on pumping from Edwards Aquifer.[71][72] As an outcome of Sierra Club v. Babbitt as a result of this lawsuit, legislation was passed which created the Edwards Aquifer Authority.[76] This was also not the end of litigation, there was an attempt to appeal the initial Sierra Club v. Babbitt in 1993 Sierra Club v. Babbitt the appeal was denied because the US Fish and Wildlife Service agreed with the original ruling, and the City of San Antonio and industrial water users were unable to prove that they were injured by the original Sierra Club v. Babbitt ruling.

Due to Sierra Club v. Babbitt the Edwards Aquifer Act 1993 was passed which created the Edwards Aquifer Authority to oversee pumping regulations.[77] In the case Barshop v. Medina Under. Wat. Cons. Dist. 1996, Medina County Under Water Conservation District challenged the Edwards Aquifer Authority over the constitutionality of the Edwards Aquifer Act.[78] The challenge was over whether property owners have the constitutional right to pump water from their land, or whether concerns for water conservation and endangered species take precedence. Barshop v. Medina Under. Wat. Cons. Dist. went to the Texas Supreme Court where the Edwards Aquifer Act was upheld.[73][78]

In an effort to reduce San Antonio's dependency on the solitary supply of the Edward's Aquifer, the San Antonio Water System (SAWS) has proposed a water supply pipeline, the Vista Ridge, extending 82,000 ft from Burleson County to San Antonio. SAWS reports that the Vista Ridge pipeline, running 54” in diameter, will supply as much as 50,000 ac-ft of water per year for 30 years, upon the project's estimated completion in 2019.[79] This will increase the city's current water supply by 20%.[80]

By 2020, SAWS estimates the average San Antonio residential water bill to be $88/mnth; this would place San Antonio at the lowest rate for water in any major Texan city. The water is provided through over 3,400 leases with private landowners drawing from the Caririzo and Simsboro aquifers. In an effort to protect the ratepayer (i.e. San Antonio citizens), the project proposes an undetermined lifeline rate. Any water that fails to be delivered (i.e. shortages, contamination) will be compensated by Blue Water Systems, L.P and not at the expense of the ratepayer.[81]

This project is projected to promote job growth and prosperity surrounding the city, as the supply will withstand San Antonio's projected growth rate of 20,000 people/year.[81] Companies invested in the project lobbied for a state drought-planning bill to enable regional approval for the sale of private activity bonds. Despite strong support from the house, the bill failed at the end of May 2015, due to lack of support in the senate. Consequently, the project requires approval from each of the seven counties along the route.[80]

Those in favor of the Vista Ridge pipeline believe the project will help protect and sustain the Edwards Aquifer, as well as enable the conservation of diversified water.[79] Those who oppose the pipeline are concerned that installment will damage the natural system's ability to recharge the Edwards Aquifer and retain soil moisture. Further, whether or not the city needs additional supply is in question, as projected increase in water demand is speculated to present commercial expansion, not San Antonio's municipal population demand. Environmental groups, such as the Sierra Club, suggest the project is allocating funds to an unsustainable solution, and that San Antonio should instead be "investing in alternative and innovative resources that are less expensive, less energy-intensive, and locally accessible."[82]

Conservation Efforts

Encompassing an area of 8 counties across south-central Texas including the City of San Antonio and its surrounding communities,[76] the Edwards Aquifer is the main water supply source for the region, providing water for agricultural and industrial purposes and necessary water flow for endangered species habitat, as well as recreational purposes. As a result of a lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club under the Federal Endangered Species Act in 1991, the Edwards Aquifer Authority (EAA) was created to oversee the aquifer in its conservation efforts.[56]

The Texas Legislature directed the EAA to regulate pumping from the aquifer, implement critical period management restrictions, and pursue measures to ensure minimum continuous spring flows of the Comal and San Marcos Springs are maintained to protect endangered and threatened species to the extent required by federal law.[76] In 2013, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved Edwards Aquifer Authority's Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), which is a regional 15-year plan designed to protect the water flow and species in the Edwards Aquifer region.

The HCP supports three major project groups of habitat protection measures, flow protection measures, and supporting measures such as applied research, ecological and biological, and water-quality monitoring. HCP project examples include minimization and mitigation of the impacts of low flow, by restoring native riparian zones in order to benefit the Comal Springs riffle beetle by increasing the amount functional habitat and food sources (i.e., root structures and associated biofilms).[83] The method of riparian zone establishment will include the removal of non-native, followed by the replanting of native vegetation that may be considered representative of a healthy, functioning riparian zone.[83]

Although implementation of the HCP exists primarily within the EAA, a broad group of stakeholders plays a role in the management of the Edwards Aquifer. The National Research Council (NRC) committee, formed by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), released the first of three scientific reports in 2015 that evaluate and make recommendations for Habitat Conservation Plan programming of the Edwards Aquifer.[76]

gollark: Ah, you're finally here.
gollark: It was antimemetically initiated.
gollark: Heavserver you.
gollark: <@683735247489466397> help
gollark: ++delete ☭

See also

Notes
  1. "The Edwards Aquifer". Environmental Science Institute. The University of Texas at Austin. Archived from the original on 2013-01-28. Retrieved 2013-01-24.
  2. Maclay, R. W., and Land. L. F. (1988). Simulation of Flow in the Edwards Aquifer, San Antonio Region, Texas, and Refinement of Storage and Flow Concepts. Washington: US Government Printing Office, US Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2336-A.
  3. Tremallo, Robin; Hamiton, Mark; Johnson, Steve; Esquilin, Roberto; Chanda, Burgoon (December 2014). "EDWARDS AQUIFER AUTHORITY HYDROLOGIC DATA REPORT FOR 2013". Edwards Aquifer Authority.
  4. Ogden, A. E., Quick, R. A., Rothermel (1986). Hydrochemistry of the Comal, Hueco, and San Marcos Springs, Edwards Aquifer, Texas. In The Balcones Escarpment, Abbott, Patrick L, and Woodruff, C.M., eds. San Antonio: Geological Society of America, pp. 51-54.
  5. Blome, Charles D., Jason R. Faith, Diana E. Pedraza, et al. (2005). USGS, US Department of Interior, and US Geological Survey. <http://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/2005/2873/pdf/2873_Print.pdf>
  6. "Introduction to the Edwards Aquifer". www.edwardsaquifer.net. Retrieved 2015-11-05.
  7. Official Aquifer Level and Statistics (2015). San Antonio Water System. Retrieved 13 October 2015. <http://www.saws.org/Your_Water/aquifer/>
  8. Edwards Aquifer Authority (2013). Scientific Research & Reports: Hydrologic Data Reports. Retrieved 15 October 2015. <"Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2015-09-09. Retrieved 2015-11-03.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)>
  9. Charts and Graphs (2015). The Edwards Aquifer Website. Retrieved 13 October 2015. <http://www.edwardsaquifer.net/charts.html#Estimated_Annual_Recharge_to_the_Edwards_Aquifer>
  10. Bredehoeft, J. 2002. The Water Budget Myth Revisited: Why Hydrogeologist Model. Groundwater, 40 (4), 340-345.
  11. Zhou, Y., Li, W. 2011. A review of regional groundwater flow modeling. Geoscience Frontiers, 2 (2), 205-214.
  12. Lindgren, R., Dutton, A., Hovorka, S., Worthington, S. Painter, S. 2004. Conceptualization and Simulation of the Edwards Aquifer, San Antonio Region Texas. United States Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5277, 154 p.
  13. Ashworth, John (1995). "Aquifers of Texas" (PDF). Texas Water Development Board (Report 345).
  14. Eeason, Sarah. "EAA Subchapter 713 Regulated Zones". ArcGIS. ESRI. Retrieved 17 October 2015.
  15. "Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone". Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Archived from the original on 26 July 2010. Retrieved 12 May 2010. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
  16. "The Edwards Aquifer". San Antonio Water System. Archived from the original on 24 May 2010. Retrieved 12 May 2010. San Antonio Water System
  17. "Hydrogeology of the Edwards Aquifer". www.edwardsaquifer.net. Retrieved 2015-11-23.
  18. Maclay, Robert W. (1995). "Geology and Hydrogeology of the Edwards Aquifer in the San Antonio Area, Texas" (PDF). Water-Resources Investigations Report.
  19. Rose, P. R. (1972). Edwards Group, surface and subsurface, central Texas. Austin: University of Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Report of Investigations 74.
  20. "USGS Kentucky Water Science Center". ky.water.usgs.gov. Retrieved 2015-11-03.
  21. The Nature Conservancy of Texas (2008). "The Edwards Plateau Ecoregion: Extraordinary diversity of life amid hills and canyons in Central Texas" (PDF). Retrieved 2015. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  22. South Central Climate Science Center (2013). "Drought History for the Edwards Plateau of Texas" (PDF). Retrieved 2015. Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  23. Eberts, S. Hydrogeologic Settings and Groundwater-Flow Simulations for Regional Investigations of the Transport of Anthropogenic and Natural Contaminants to Public-Supply Wells - Investigations Begun in 2004. (2011).
  24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. (2009).
  25. Bush, P. W. et al. Water quality in south-central Texas, Texas, 1996-1998. (2000).
  26. Fahlquist, L. & Ardis, A. F. Quality of water in the Trinity and Edwards aquifers, south-central Texas, 1996-1998. (2004).
  27. Moran, M. J., Lapham, W. W., Rowe, B. L. & Zogorski, J. S. Occurrence and status of volatile organic compounds in ground water from rural, untreated, self-supplied domestic wells in the United States, 1986–99.
  28. Long, S., Reece, B. & Eames, D. Water Resources Data Texas Water Year. (2004).
  29. Assessment, U. E. N. C. for E. Karst Hydrology and Chemical Contamination. at <http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=40644>
  30. Edwards Aquifer Protection Program. at <"Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2015-09-06. Retrieved 2015-10-24.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)>
  31. Longley, Glenn: Widemouth Blindcat from the Handbook of Texas Online. Retrieved 12 May 2010. Texas State Historical Association
  32. Glenn Longley and Henry Karnei, Jr. (1978). Status of Satan Eurystomus Hubbs and Bailey, the Widemouth Blindcat 6. S.W. Tex. St. U.
  33. Bexar Metropolitan Water District. (1999). Environmental Assessment ESA Section 10 (a)(1)(B) Incidental Take Permit and Habitat Conservation Plan for Reduction of Withdrawals from the Edwards Aquifer.
  34. Wilcox, B. P.; Owens, M. K.; Knight, R. W.; Lyons, R. K. (2005). "Do woody plants affect streamflow on semiarid karst rangelands?". Ecological Applications. 15 (1): 127–136. doi:10.1890/04-0664.
  35. Culver, D. C., Master, L. L., Christman, M. C., and Hobbs, H. H. (2000). "Obligate cave fauna of the 48 contiguous United States". Conservation Biology. 14 (2): 386–401. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99026.x.CS1 maint: uses authors parameter (link)
  36. Culver, D.C.; Christman, M.C.; Elliott, W.R.; Hobbs, H.H. III; Reddell, J.R. (2003). "The North American obligate cave fauna: regional patterns". Biodiversity and Conservation. 12 (3): 441–468. doi:10.1023/A:1022425908017.
  37. Culver, D. C.; Pipan, T.; Schneider, K. (2009). "Vicariance, dispersal and scale in the aquatic subterranean fauna of karst regions". Freshwater Biology. 54 (4): 918–929. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01856.x.
  38. San Marcos/Comal Recovery Team, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (1996). San Marcos and Comal Springs and Associated Aquatic Ecosystems (Revised) Recovery Plan 6
  39. Wilson, E.O. (1992). The Diversity of Life 397.
  40. Sharp Jr, J. M.; Banner, J. L. (1997). "The Edwards Aquifer: A resource in conflict". GSA Today. 7 (8): 1–9.
  41. Barker, R.A.; Ardis, A.F. (1996). "Hydrogeologic Framework of the Edwards-Trinity Aquifer System, West Central Texas". U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper.
  42. "USGS - NAWQA - Water Quality in South-Central Texas - Contents". pubs.water.usgs.gov. Retrieved 2015-10-23.
  43. Ockerman, D.J. (2002). "Simulation of Runoff and Recharge and Estimation of Constituent Loads in runoff, Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone (Outcrop)and Catchment Area, Bexar County, Texas, 1997–2000" (PDF). USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 02–4241.
  44. Office, US Census Bureau Public Information. "Texas Dominates List of Fastest-Growing Large Cities Since 2010 Census, Census Bureau Reports - Population - Newsroom - U.S. Census Bureau". www.census.gov. Retrieved 2015-10-24.
  45. "Prop 1: Edwards Aquifer Protection Plan up for renewal". KSAT. 2015-05-04. Retrieved 2015-10-24.
  46. GEAA. (2014). Edwards Aquifer Background Information. Retrieved October 13, 2015, fromhttp://www.aquiferalliance.net/unique-resource/
  47. Ashworth, J. B. (1995). Aquifers of Texas. Texas Water Development Board. Report 345. Pdf: http://www.cctexas.com/Assets/Departments/Water/Files/TWDB%20Aquifer%20Report.pdf
  48. Regional Snapshot: West Region. (2015) Texas Comptroller of Accounts. Pdf available at: http://www.texasahead.org/regionalrpts/
  49. Regional Snapshot: South Region. (2015) Texas Comptroller of Accounts. Pdf available at: http://www.texasahead.org/regionalrpts/
  50. Chaudhuri, Sriroop; Ale, Srinivasulu (2014). "Temporal evolution of depth-stratified groundwater salinity in municipal wells in the major aquifers in Texas, USA". Science of the Total Environment. 472: 370–380. Bibcode:2014ScTEn.472..370C. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.10.120. PMID 24295753.
  51. Chowdhury, Manzoor E.; Lacewell, Ronald D.; McCarl, Bruce A. (2011). "Effect of USDA Commodity Programs on Annual Pumpage from the Edwards Aquifer". Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education. 106 (1): 11.
  52. "1 Million Milestone". U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved November 3, 2015.
  53. FitzHugh Thomas, W.; Richter, Brian D. (2004). "Quenching Urban Thirst: Growing Cities and Their Impacts on Freshwater Ecosystems". BioScience. 54 (8): 741–754. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0741:qutgca]2.0.co;2.
  54. "San Antonio (city) QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau". quickfacts.census.gov. Retrieved 2015-11-05.
  55. "San Antonio Water System". www.saws.org. Retrieved 2015-11-05.
  56. "Edwards Aquifer Authority". www.edwardsaquifer.org. Archived from the original on 2015-09-07. Retrieved 2015-11-05.
  57. Hamilton JM. 2003. Edwards Aquifer Authority Hydrogeologic Data Report for 2002. San Antonio (TX): Edwards Aquifer Authority.
  58. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. San Marcos and Comal Springs and Associated Aquatic Ecosystems (Revised) Recovery Plan. Albuquerque (NM): USFWS.
  59. "Water for All. Diverse stakeholders are lauded for work to conserve Edwards Aquifer." Texas Parks and Wildlife Magazine July 2014.
  60. Ernst, C.; Gullick, R.; Nixon, K. (2004). "Conserving forests to protect water". Opflow. 30 (5): 1–7. doi:10.1002/j.1551-8701.2004.tb01752.x.
  61. 1. Gulley, Robert L. (2015). Heads Above Water: the Inside Story of the Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program. Texas A&M University Press. ISBN 978-1-62349-268-7.
  62. 1. Rivard, Robert. "An Oral History: War and Peace Over the Edwards Aquifer". The Revard Report.
  63. Smith, Brian; Hunt, Brian (2010). "A Comparison of the 1950s Drought of Record and the 2009 Drought, Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer, Central Texas". Central Texas: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions.
  64. "Regulatory History of the Edwards Aquifer". www.tceq.state.tx.us. Archived from the original on 2015-09-18. Retrieved 2015-11-03.
  65. McCarl, Bruce A.; et al. (1999). "Limiting pumping from the Edwards Aquifer: An economic investigation of proposals, water markets, and spring flow guarantees". Water Resources Research. 35 (4): 1257–1268. Bibcode:1999WRR....35.1257M. doi:10.1029/1998wr900116. hdl:10211.3/200435.
  66. Rattan Lal, B.A. Stewart, ed. (June 19, 2012). Soil Water and Agronomic Productivity. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. pp. 126–128.ISBN 978-1-4398-5080-0.
  67. "Texas water law". texaswater.tamu.edu. Retrieved 2015. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  68. "Edwards Aquifer Authority". www.edwardsaquifer.org. Archived from the original on 2016-04-03. Retrieved 2015. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  69. "Rules and Statutes." Edwards Aquifer Authority. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Oct. 2015.
  70. "Texas Commission on Environmental Quality". Retrieved 2015. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  71. Sierra Club v. Babbitt, MO-91-CA-069 (W.D. Texas 1993).
  72. Sierra Club v. Babbitt, 995 F.2d 571 (Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 1993).
  73. Sierra Club v. City of San Antonio, 112 F. 3d 789 (Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 1997).
  74. Changnon, Stanley A. (September 1989). <1092:tdbad>2.0.co;2 "The 1988 Drought, Barges and Diversions". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 70 (9): 1092–1104. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1989)070<1092:tdbad>2.0.co;2.
  75. Halpert, Michael S.; Bell, Gerald D. (1996). "Climate Assessment for 1996". NOAA.gov. Climate Prediction Center, NCEP/NWS/NOAA. Retrieved 16 October 2015.
  76. ., National Research Council (2015). Review of the Edwards Aquifer Habitat Conservation Plan. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press. ISBN 978-0-309-36887-2.CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  77. Tex. Gen. Laws § 2350, ch. 626, 73rd. Leg. (1993). http://www.edwardsaquifer.org/files/download/5a48e1d88ffe061
  78. Barshop v. Medina Under. Wat. Cons. Dist., 925 S.W.2d 618 (Supreme Court of Texas 1996).
  79. Puente, Robert. "SAWS Board of Trustees Briefing; Vista Ridge Water Supply Contract" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-03-17.
  80. "Vista Ridge exec discusses failed pipeline bill". San Antonio Express-News. Retrieved 2015-10-24.
  81. "Vista Ridge Fact Sheet" (PDF).
  82. "Sierra Club: San Antonio Doesn't Need Vista Ridge Pipeline". The Rivard Report. Retrieved 2015-10-24.
  83. "Habitat Protection Measures." EAHCP — Restoration of Riparian Zones and Riffle BeetleRiparian Improvement. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Oct. 2015http://www.eahcp.org/index.php/habitat_protection/comal_springs/restoration_of_riparian_zones_and_riffle_beetle_riparian_improvement
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.