urface Wate Developmen ‘s The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, J. E. Miller, Director The Texas A&M University System, College Station, Texas Contents Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .‘ 4 Annual Surface Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 5 Surface Water Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Riparian Doctrine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Appropriation Doctrine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Correlation of Doctrines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Progress of Water Rights Adjudication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Diffused Surface Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Water Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Local Water Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 River Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Counties and Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Water Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 State Water Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Board of Water Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Water Rights Commission . .1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Water Development Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Federal Water Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Bureau of Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Soil Conservation Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Priority Water Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Municipal and Industrial Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 kngafion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..26 Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Hydroelectric Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Navigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Flood Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Future Water Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3O Appendix Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Appendix A: Major Conservation Storage Reservoirs . . . . . . . . . 4O Appendix B: Water Development Board Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 W. fi . _ f/.lvmg y *2?!‘ /£'i&=“gg§ $13M w,“ a 2-‘ ggalft-fiw ,7?‘ ' i?» ‘£19’; ‘N.’ ' _ 2W3»; Vsflmggwv. 4v"- ‘ n vgfiy§~zr ffiasqya‘, W ‘hi’? 6y Surface Water Development in Texag AAAAAAAA “_ i- 1,, . ‘x John G. McNeely and Ronald D. Lacewell Professor Associate Professor The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station (Depa ment of Agricultural Economics) Summary The rate of use of water in Texas is increasing. As the State becomes more industrialized and urbanized, competing demands for water increase. Some increased demand is met with ground water, but this is not a long- .. term solution. The Texas Water Development Board's published estimates show an annual yield of ground water for all Texas river basins of 4.3 million acre-feet per year. By comparison, the Board shows annual use of ground water for irrigation alone to exceed 10.0 million acre-feet per year. Other uses increase the annual defi- cit by millions of acre-feet. In Texas, 95 percent of the total conservation storage capacity is concentrated in 63 reservoirs. The Texas Water Development Board has not provided a published figure on average annual yield of surface water from these reservoirsFIn addition, on a year-to-year basis, many factors cause variability in reservoir yield. Be- cause the policy has been to build reservoirs in anticipa- tion of need, determining average annual quantity of water available and providing some measure of yearly variation are important. Institutional constraints imposed by Texas water law prevent coordinated management of ground and surface water. Texas courts have refused to modify judi- cial law so that conjunctive management can be accom- plished. Among the major obstacles to legislative reform is the political resistance of large numbers of existing water rights holders. 2 In Texas, it is generally established that land- owners have the right to intercept and use water that falls on their land until it reaches a watercourse, or sinks into the ground, or is evaporated. This diffused surface water can be impounded by the landowner on his own property without the necessity of obtaining a permit as long as the reservoir does not exceed 200 acre- feet in capacity. Such small impoundments are consid- ered by some engineers to result in major water losses from evaporation, transpiration by vegetation, seepage, and percolation. If precipitation, runoff, or springflow makes its way to a streamcourse, it becomes subject to riparian and prior appropriation water rights systems. The riparian right arises by operation of common law concepts as an incident to the ownership of land abutting a stream or watercourse, requiring no act other than the acquisition of title to the land. The appropriative right, on the other hand, is regulated by statute. It is not necessarily re- lated to the land ownership and is acquired by com- pliance with statutory requirements implemented by rules and regulations of the Texas Water Rights Com- mission. At the end of August 1975, the Commission rec- ognized 10,603 rights and claims to some 53.7 million acre-feet of water. With both rights doctrines recognized in Texas, numerous riparian and appropriative rights exist on the same stream, creating problems for Texas courts and water agencies trying to correlate these con- flicting types of rights. The main purposes of the Water Rights Adjudication Act of 1967 are the eventual merger of all surface water claims into the permit system and the final adjudication of all surface water rights. This will require many years. Texas differs from other States in water resource de- velopment in that eight of her major rivers are intrastate streams. River authorities have been created which have the power of water districts for the control, storing, and preservation of storm and flood waters of the river and its tributaries. Counties, cities, and the various kinds of water districts are all authorized by statute to undertake certain projects. Local water districts, to- gether with the Federal agencies, are the action agen- cies which construct, operate, and maintain most waterworks and water projects. The Texas Water Development Board acts as State cooperator in water development planning with Federal agencies and serves as the State sponsor of Federal projects where no suitable local agency is available. The Board may make loans to local governments for ap- proved water projects consistent with overall planning objectives. It may also negotiate with the Federal Gov- ernment for water storage space in Federal projects, purchase storage space in local reservoirs, and con- struct reservoirs and necessary related facilities. Board figures for November 1976 for 63 major Texas reservoirs show 35 non-Federal reservoirs with conservation stor- age capacity of 14.6 million acre-feet and 28 reservoirs built, owned, or operated by Federal agencies with con- servation storage capacity of 15.4 million acre-feet. River authorities, municipalities, water districts, and State water agencies exercise the dominant role in development of municipal and industrial water supplies, supplying about 8O percent of the money in- vested for these purposes. This percentage is expected to increase in the future. In 1931, a preference list was devised by the Legisla- ture to guide in appropriation of the State's waters. This preference list provided the following order for all streams in the State with the exception of the Rio Grande: l. domestic and municipal uses, 2. processing, 3. irrigation, 4. mining and the recovery of minerals, 5. hydroelectric, 6. navigation, and 7. recreation and plea- sure. Ground water was used for irrigating about 82 per- cent of the land irrigated in Texas in 1974; 15 percent was irrigated from surface water supplies and 3 percent from mixed ground and surface water. Most ground water used for irrigation was from the declining aquifers in the High Plains. More than half the acreage in Texas irri- gated by surface water was in the Rio Grande Valley. The Gulf Coast Prairie constitutes the other major irri- gation area using surface water. Only seven of the major reservoirs have water allo- cations for mining purposes, with small allocations used almost entirely for petroleum production. Water for fu- ture mining needs will largely be met by local surface and ground water resources. A small amount of power is produced by hydro- electric plants in Texas, but because surface water is limited, hydroelectric plants are used in most cases for peaking or emergency purposes. Every method of generating power in large quantities available today re- sults in the unavoidable production of byproduct heat. The disposition of this low-level heat requires using water as a heat transfer and cooling medium. It is an- ticipated that future powerplants will use existing re- servoirs or ponds for cooling whenever possible, since this creates the least additional environmental distur- bance and a minimum additional consumption of water. All project costs allocated to power are usually recov- ered. The Federal Government carries the dominant re- sponsibility for planning, constructing, and paying for navigation improvement. Navigation was important to exploration and early development in Texas, providing early routes from the Gulf to the interior. Subsequent advances in overland transportation slowed river navi- gation development, except in the tidewater area along the Gulf. Outdoor recreation has experienced a phenomenal boom in the past two decades, becoming one of the top l0 major economic activities of the Nation. The Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965 was intended to encourage the States and other non-Federal public entities to assume responsibility for developing recre- ational potentials created by Federal reservoirs. State and local bodies have been reluctant to share in Fed- eral reservoir recreation costs because of Federal agency control, shortage of local financial resources for recreational purposes, and other reasons. Future de- velopment of outdoor recreation on Federal and non- Federal reservoirs is still not clear. The purpose of flood-control works is the prevention of flood damage. In a reservoir project, flood waters are stored in the reservoir and then released at a non- damaging rate. With respect to major reservoirs, costs of flood control, including operation and maintenance, are borne entirely by the Federal Government. Flood-control storage capacities at 2B major Texas reservoirs amounted to 17.4 million acre-feet in 1976. There is evi- dence of a changing national policy to keep economic development out of the flood plains. It appears that management is to take the place of structural solutions for controlling flood losses. Flood prevention on intra- state rivers and smaller streams will increasingly become the responsibility of the landowners involved. A general problem exists of allocating Texas water resources among competing uses and users. This prob- lem has been growing in intensity in recent years. Both public and private entities are involved, including commercial agriculture and industrial enterprises, environmental organizations, and the general public at large. Often these interests are in direct or indirect com- petition for the use and benefits of the various water and related land resources in the State. The final outcome will be determined by the Texas legislature and the courts. lnwoducflon Planning for long-range water resource develop- ments for Texas has been conducted by the Texas Water Development Board and other agencies in compliance with a series of statutory enactments. These Legislative directives have reflected the response by the State to the increasing complexity of its water problems (33). Present water developments are and those of the future will be extremely costly. The State of Texas and its political subdivisions are expected to provide in- creasing portions of the funds required as Federal funds become less available for this purpose. As potential water needs escalate, it becomes more apparent that existing supplies should be conserved, distributed, and administered in a more efficient manner (33). The rate of use of water in Texas is increasing rapidly as the population expands and as the State becomes more industrialized and urbanized. A question naturally arises as to whether basic water policies of the past are suited for conditions of the present and the foreseeable future. More consideration may need to be given to conservation and to more efficient use of exist- ing supplies. In addition, more attention is being paid to economic and social consequences of water resource development, including the impact on regional eco- nomic growth, institutional arrangements, and esthetic values affecting the quality of life. The National Water Commission, created by an Act of Congress in 1968 to review national water resources problems, submitted its report and recommendations to the President and the Congress in 1973. The Commission recognized that Federal programs for navigation, recla- mation, flood control, and hydroelectric power had made an enormous contribution to national well-being. Demands on the Nation's water supply have accelerated so rapidly that national policies governing water con- servation, development, and utilization have lagged far behind national growth. New policies are considered essential by the Commission to assure efficiency in water use and to sustain a healthful, esthetically pleas- ing environment (19). Today's major water problems were unknown when the Nation decided to assume responsibility for naviga- tion improvements, reclamation, and flood control. The United States is more fully settled and predominantly urban and gives far greater weight to environmental and esthetic values than when the Nation was young and less settled. The people want action on the enor- mous problem of controlling the pollution which befouls their rivers, lakes, and estuaries. They are concerned with preserving the recreational values of natural water resources and developing the recreational potential of existing water projects. The report of the National Water Commission de- velops seven recurring themes pertaining to issues of water policy: l. The level of future demands for water is not in- evitable but derives in large part from policy de- cisions within the control of society. 2. National priorities have shifted from develop- ment of water resources to restoration and enhancement of water quality. 3. Water resource planning must be tied more closely to land use planning. 4. Policies are recommended which lead to the con- servation of water, that is, policies which will motivate better use of water and reduce water losses by improved efficiency. 5. Sound economic principles should be applied to decisions on whether to build water projects, providing a net increase in the goods and serv- ices available to consumers with due regard for protection of environmental values. 8. The laws and legal institutions should be re- examined in the light of contemporary water problems, particularly the need to modernize laws dealing with ground water. 7. Development, management, and protection of water resources should be controlled by that level of government nearest the problem and most capable of effectively representing the vital interests involved. The Federal role in the plan- ning and financing of water programs should gradually diminish (19, pp. 6-10). In 1975, the Executive Director of the Texas Water Development Board reviewed the factors affecting de- velopment of water supply projects in the State. He con- sidered the long time period involved in Federal pro- cesses from time of water project conception to actual project construction. He pointed out that construction costs involved in developing water supply projects cur- rently increase at a rate approximating 15 percent a year. He indicated the level of participation by the State in water supplies as follows: "Among other things, it is not generally recognized that our State —— through its river authorities, municipalities, water dis- tricts, and state-level water agencies — exercises the dominant role in development of Texas municipal and industrial water supplies. Many think we rely heavily upon the federal govern- ment for financial and other forms of aid in the development of our instate water supply projects. This is not fact. Earlier issues of Water for Texas have noted that over the past about 80 per- cent of the money invested in Texas water projects has been put up by Texas entities of government, State and local." (6, p.2) In the past, Texas citizens generally have been able to live wherever they chose without concern for the availability of water. It is now more apparent that the State's developable resources are limited. Recognition has come that wise use of available water resources is vital (33). LYYIQI'\II Annual Surface Water Resources The Texas climate is marked by extremes in many aspects, particu- larly the amount‘ and timing of pre- cipitation. Annual precipitation in the State ranges from 8 inches or less in far West Texas to more than 56 inches in far East Texas near Orange. This gradual decrease in precipitation in an east to west di- rection is shown in Figure l. Isohyets, or lines of equal precipita- p tion, are generally arranged in a north-south direction across the State, reflecting distance from the Gulf of Mexico, which is the source of most atmospheric moisture in Texas. The average decrease in pre- cipitation is abolut 1 inch for every 151/2 miles from east to west (33). Texas is also subject to wide fluctuations in rainfall from year to year. Precipitation often varies more than 5O percent from calculated av- erages and, in most years, will be below the annual average. The State L-IYUIIYELKING LIBRARY About three-fourths of the surface water runoff in Texas originates in the eastern one-fourth of the State. is subject to periods of drouth, some- times of long duration. Due to high summer temperatures and persis- tent wind, evapotranspiration rates are frequently quite high (7). In West Texas, water runoff is far exceeded by evaporation and transpiration water losses. Because of the nature of precipitation and ter- rain in West Texas, surface runoff Figure 1. Mean annual precipitation (in inches). Source: Texas Almanac and State Industrial Guide, 1976-1977, Dallas, A. H. Belo Corp., 1975,p.164. Figure 2. Mean annual runoff (in inches). Source: Texas Society of Professional Engineers and Texas Section of the American Soci- ety of Civil Engineers, The Effects of Ponds and Small Reservoirs on the Water Resources of Texas, Austin, The Society, 1974, p. 10. usually is quite small. About three- fourths of the runoff in Texas origi- nates in the eastern one-fourth of the State (33). Mean annual runoff varies from about 0.2 inch or less in far West Texas to more than 20 inches in a small area of East Texas as shown in Figure 2 (27). Runoff varies not only geographically but also through time. In wet years, runoff in any area of Texas may be substan- tially above that of dry years. Texas includes parts of the drain- age basins of several rivers and all of the drainage basins of other riv- ers. Far West Texas lies within the watershed of the Rio Grande. This important interstate and interna- tional stream has its headwaters in southern Colorado and flows across New Mexico before traversing the southern border of Texas, thus form- ing the international boundary with Mexico. About three-fourths of the flow of the Rio Grande below El Paso is derived from Mexico. Its tributary, the Pecos River, rises in the mountains of north-central New Mexico (23). 6 Million Acre - Feet i. Figure 3. Mean annual streamflow. Major portions of the headwaters of the Nueces, San Antonio, Guada- lupe, Colorado, Brazos, and Red Rivers are located in West Texas. Few major reservoirs are on the West Texas portions of these rivers. Prob- lems with sedimentation and high lake surface evaporation loss plague the reservoirs of West Texas (23). Streams with headwaters on the High Plains generally contribute nothing to streamflow east of the Caprock Escarpment except during!" rare periods of relatively high rain-l fall (9). The Canadian River, which bi- sects the High Plains, rises in the mountains of northern New Mexico. Texas is assured a part of the flow of the Canadian, Red, Rio Grande, and Sabine Rivers through a series of in- terstate and international compacts and treaties (23). Most Texas rivers have their sources in the regions of least runoff and flow into the more humid re- gions of the State (Figure 3). Rivers with their sources in Central and East Texas include the Cypress, Lavaca, Neches, Sabine. San Iacinto, Sulphur, and Trinity (29). Source: Texas Water Development Board, The Texas Water Plan, 4 parts, Austin, The Board, November 1968. Surface water is legally classified as either diffused surface water or water within a defined watercourse. Surface Water Rights The two basic doctrines of surface water rights recognized in Texas are the riparian doctrine and the ap- propriation doctrine. The corre- sponding water rights perfected under these doctrines are commonly referred -to as riparian rights and appropriative rights. The riparian right is a common law right to use a proportionate part of the normal flow of a stream as a part of the owner- ship of lands abutting the stream. The appropriative right is an ac- quired right under a procedure provided by statute, to divert from a water supply a specific quantity of public water under a permit granted by the Texas Water Rights Commis- sion (31). Surface water may be classified as diffused surface water or as water within a defined watercourse. Dif- fused surface water originates as rain, snow, or sleet and continues to be surface water until it reaches some natural channel or water- course. Once it reaches such a watercourse, it becomes part of the stream and is the property of the State, subject to the rights of owners of riparian lands and those who have obtained appropriation rights (31). A watercourse is defined as an identifiable natural stream having a definite natural channel originating from a definite source of supply. Waters in a watercourse may be classified as ordinary or normal flow, underflow, and storm and flood water. The Texas Water De- velopment Board has defined these categories as follows: 1. The ordinary or normal flow of a watercourse has been judi- cially defined as a flow below the line "which the stream reaches and maintains for a sufficient length of time to be- come characteristic when its waters are in their ordinary, normal and usual conditions, uninfluenced by recent rainfall or surface runoff." (Motl v. Boyd, 116 Tex 82, 286 SW 458, 1926). 2. The underflow consists of water in the sand, soil, and gravel immediately below the bed of an open stream, which sup- ports the surface stream in its natural state or feeds it di- rectly, together with the water in the lateral extensions of the subterranean water-bearing material on each side of the surface channel. 3. The storm and flood water is primarily the collected diffused surface water from recent pre- cipitation. "The legal distinction between ordi- nary flow, underflow, and storm and flood flow is particularly significant in reconciling conflicting claims to the 7 same water supply, which arise because of the dual recognition in Texas of both riparian and appropriation doctrines. The riparian right concept relates to and is concerned only with the ordinary flow and underflow of a stream. A riparian right does not attach to that portion of a stream comprised of storm and flood flow, and therefore generally will not at- tach to waters impounded by large reser- voirs." (31, p. 2) Riparian Doctrine Templer (23) indicates that the riparian doctrine was introduced into Texas by the Spanish and Mexi- can governments and later in a somewhat different form by the Re- public of Texas. For many years, Texas courts and water agencies ruled that Spanish and Mexican land grants carried extensive ripa- rian water rights, including the right of irrigation. This was determined in the important case of Mot] v. Boyd, 116 Tex 82, 268 SW 458 (1926). Sub- sequently, more thorough investiga- tions of Spanish and Mexican water law revealed the error of this in- terpretation. It was finally deter- mined in Valmont Plantations v. Texas, 163 Tex 381, 355 SW 2d 502 (1962) that riparian rights to water for irrigation did not pass under these land grants, unless specifically in- eluded. Few specific grants of irrigation rights were made except in the vicinity of San Antonio and El Paso. Extensive tracts of land were granted by Spanish and Mexican governments in Texas, and title to some 26 million acres can be traced to these sources, mostly in South and Central Texas (10). Land grants made between 1836 and 1840 by the Republic of Texas’ also were con- trolled by Mexican law and possess the same water rights as prior grants (38). The constitution of the Republic of Texas (1836) insured the validity of these existing land titles, and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) between the United States and Mexico carried this recognition for- ward. More comprehensive riparian water rights attach to all lands granted by the Republic and State 8 between 1840 and the Appropriation Acts of 1889 and 1895, an era when large quantities of land passed into private hands. In 1840, Texas courts adopted the common law of England and with it acquired the riparian doctrine. Subsequent modifications of the original doctrine by the courts gave riparians the right to make reasonable use of water for irriga- tion or for other extensive and con- sumptive purposes. Appropriation Doctrine The appropriation doctrine was adopted by the State near the turn of the century. Since the Appropriation Act of 1895, land acquired from the State no longer carries riparian rights, and a statutory procedure has existed whereby individuals can obtain water rights from the State. All appropriation statutes expressly recognized the superior position of riparian water rights. At first, ap- propriation was accomplished through an informal procedure; the landowner simply filed a sworn statement with his county clerk de- scribing his water diversion. Under such a loosely administered approp- riation system, claims sometimes overlapped, described huge acre- ages to be irrigated, or claimed more water than the dependable flow of the stream could produce. Later, cer- tified copies of these clairlnslwere rec- ognized by the State, and thus they came to be called "certified filings." Almost 1,000 certified filings were re- corded with the State claiming a substantial amount of water (2). Since 1913, a more strictly ad- ministered procedure involves mak- ing application to a State agency, now the Texas Water Rights Com- mission, for a permit to appropriate water from streams. The several purposes for which water may be appropriated are spelled out in Sect. 5.023, Texas Water Code, and the order of priority or preferences be- tween these uses is listed in Sect. 5.024, Texas Water Code. At the end Of August 197s, the f Commission recognized 10,603 rights and claims to some 53.7 mil- lion acre-feet of water. Most existing permits claim water for irrigation, although many of the largest are for municipal and industrial use or for hydroelectric power generation. Permit holders must file annual re- ports of water use with the Water Rights Commission, so that reason- ably accurate records of appropria- tive water use are available to aid water resource administrators and planners (23). Riparian landowners in Texas may also acquire appropriative» water rights and may claim both‘ types of rights, each without preju- dice to the other (13). As riparians, they are held to a standard of rea- sonable use, and the extent of the appropriative rights is determined by their permits. Doubtless, many riparian owners have taken advan- tage of the more certain water rights derived from permits or certified fil- ings, and perhaps have ceased to claim riparian rights altogether. With both doctrines recognized in Texas, numerous riparian and ap- propriative rights exist on the same stream, creating problems for Texas courts and water agencies in trying to correlate these conflicting types of rights. Following years of unsuc- cessful attempts to correlate these rights, and more accurately define and delimit the nebulous riparian rights, in 1967 a Water Rights Ad- judication Act was passed (Sects. 5.301-5.341, Texas Water Code), and adjudication of water rights is cur- rently in progress (23). Correlation of Doctrines Texas courts and State water agencies have experienced great difficulty in trying to correlate the riparian and appropriative water rights which exist side by side on the same stream. In this century, sev- eral attempts have been made to more accurately define or quantify the nebulous riparian rights so that all existing claims to or use of sur- face water could be inventoried, thus allowing more effective water resource management (24). In 1917, the Board of Water Engineers was given authority to ad- judicate water rights on streams, but this authorization was held uncon- stitutional in Board of Water Engineers v. McKnight, 111 Tex 82, 229 SW 301 (1921). Later in 1926, the attempt was made in Mot] v. Boyd, 116 Tex 82, 268 SW 458, to divide streamflow into "ordinary normal flow" and "flood flow" with riparian rights attaching to the former cate- gory. State courts and water agen- cies found this division difficult, if not impossible, to apply in practice (8). Until adjudication of water rights is completed in Texas, however, this definition remains the basis for cor- relating riparian and appropriative rights. Several unsuccessful legislative attempts were made to more accu- rately delimit riparian rights. In 1955, the Legislature adopted a water user's statute designed to measure riparian water use (13). The act required all water users, includ- ing riparians, to file a statement each March with the Commission, stating the amount of water used during the preceding calendar year. It excluded those taking only small quantities of water for domestic and livestock purposes. This did not solve the problem because most riparians ignored the law and failed to file reports, and penalty provisions were inadequate and were not enforced. Holders of water rights permits is- sued by the Water Rights Commis- sion are required to file annual re- ports of water use. As late as 1968, however, the Water Rights Commis- sion had no record of the number of riparian water users in any major river basin, the extent of their claims, or the amount of water they were using. For example, in 1967 only three persons claiming riparian rights filed water user's reports in the Nueces River Basin (22) although eventually more than 200 riparian claimants were discovered claiming nearly 250,000 acre-feet of water. This sizable unknown element obvi- ously made coordinated and effi- cient administration of the State's surface water resources impossible. The Water Rights Adjudication Act, designed to remedy this situa- tion, was passed in 1967. Its main purposes are the eventual merger of all surface water claims into th’e permit system and the final adjudi- cation of all surface water rights. Under the Act, all unrecorded claims of water, such as those of all ripari- ans and some holders of rights under the Irrigation Acts of 1889 and 1895, were required to be filed with the Commission. Minor exceptions were made for those using only small quantities of water for domes- tic and livestock purposes. The deadline for filing was September 1, 1969, but numerous late claims were received and accepted by the Com- mission. Exceptions extended the base period and filing date to 1970 and 1971, respectively, for some riparians, and the filing deadline was extended to September 1974 for those who failed to file because of extenuating circumstances or for good cause (23). For the State as a whole, some 11,600 unrecorded claims, mostly riparian, were filed under the Act, claiming more than 7 million acre- feet of water (36). Many claims showed no water use during the base period (1963-1967) or were for uses excluded under the Act, thus raising the question of how they should be treated by the Commis- sion. An Attorney General's opinion indicated that these claims could be rejected. The Commission, however, elected to review each claim on a time-consuming, individual basis. More than 3,200 claims in this group have now been reviewed and re- jected, and it is estimated that more than one-half of the total claims filed can be dismissed (36). Thus, the number of claims in most river ba- sins apparently can be substantially reduced before adjudication begins. Figure 4 reflects the number and extent of claims as of August 1974 after all claims had been received and a considerable number had been rejected. Almost 90 percent of these claims were for irrigation, al- though only about two-thirds of the water claimed was for this purpose. In the Rio Grande, Guadalupe, and Colorado River Basins, claims ex- ceeded 1 million acre-feet, and the Red River Basin approached this figure. Significant quantities of more than 200,000 acre-feet were also claimed in the Neches, Trinity, Brazos, San Antonio, and Nueces River Basins. The largest number of claims was in the Neches, Colorado, and Brazos River Basins with more than 1,000 each. The Trinity, Sabine, and Cypress Basins had more than 800 each, and in most other major river basins, several hundred claimants were discovered. By com- parison, the number and extent of claims between major streams in the Coastal Basins were relatively small. Of all claims filed, about 95 per- cent were riparian. The remainder represented certified filings which had not been recorded as required by the Irrigation Act of 1913. How- ever, almost 60 percent of the 6.3 mil- lion acre-feet of water claimed was attributed to these unrecorded cer- tified filings. The actual process of water rights adjudication started shortly after most of the unrecorded claims were received by the Commission. Once adjudication is complete, certifi- cates of adjudicated water rights will be issued to successful claim- ants. If the Act survives expected court tests, then for the first time, riparian rights will be limited to a specific maximum quantity of water. The Water Rights Commission is also attempting to cancel, either wholly or partially, unused approp- riation permits. Some permits were obtained under the loosely admin- istered certified filing system. Others represent unused allocations of wa- ter made by permit from the Water Rights Commission and its predeces- sors. Vested water rights such as these cannot be altered without a forfeiture proceeding, and the water to which they pertain is not subject to reappropriation until the permits are cancelled or reduced (31). In the past, cancellation has been difficult because of several glaring defects in the cancellation statute (37). A 1971 Supreme Court decision, Texas Water Rights Commission v. Wright, 464 SW 2d 642, allowing ad- ministrative cancellation of permits after 10 years of continuous non-use, has permitted the Commission to move more rapidly in cancelling or reducing unused claims, so that as 9 Major River Basins No. of Claims Water Claimed (acre-feet) 1. Rio Grande* 422 1,344,025 2. Nueces 235 243,999 3. San Antonio 183 172,174 4. Guadalupe 317 1,083,219 5. Lavaca 25 8,530 M6. Colorado 1,362 1,142,045 7. Brazos 1,263 169,762 8. San Jacinto 36 65,324 9. Trinity 958 232,686 10. Neches 1,727 514,273 11. Sabine 940 95,213 12. Cypress 835 4,569 13. Sulphur 239 1,810 14. Red 391 979,331 15. Canadian 21 6,080 Coastal Basins A. Rio Grande-Nueces 44 32,383 B. Nueces-San Antonio 13 42,566 C. Guadalupe-Lavaca 4 309 D. Lavaca-Colorado 20 9,358 E. Colorado-Brazos 54 17,515 F. Brazos-San Jacinto 64 35,693 G. San Jacinto-Trinity 14 12,644 H. Trinity-Neches 68 149,628 TOTAL 9,235 6,373,236 *Does not include 878 adjudicated rights in the Lower Basin to 2,020,382 acre-feet of water 10 Figure 4. Claims filed under water rights ad- judication act. Source: Texas Water Rights Commission, Austin, Texas (as of August 31, 1974). few as possible will remain before adjudication. A major benefit expected to accrue from adjudication is that additional unclaimed surface water may be discovered and made available for appropriation. This additional amount is estimated to be as high as 25 percent of the available water supply in some river basins (2). To further underscore the importance of water rights adjudication in Texas, many water resource experts believe that all existing surface water rights in the State must be determined be- fore such massive transbasin diver- sions as those contemplated in the Texas Water Plan are attempted. This is particularly true where exist- ing streamcourses are to be utilized as water transfer routes. It is impos- sible to keep the transferred water separate and intact to its destination if existing claims and water use along the route stream are unknown. Adjudication of water rights in each river basin will also allow determi- nation of the quantity of surplus wa- ter, if any, available for transfer (23). The final adjudication of all surfa .-‘ ce water rights will require many years. Progress of Water Rights Adjudication Of the major river basins in Texas, adjudication has progressed farthest in the Rio Grande and San Antonio Basins. Adjudication is essentially complete for the Lower Rio Grande Basin below Falcon Reservoir. The adjudication process here was ac- complished largely by the courts in the massive law suit, State of Texas v. Hidalgo County WC & ID No. 18, et. a1, 443, SW 2d 728 (Tex Civ App. 1969) Writ ref., n.r.e., that consumed more than a decade. The result was a court determination of most sur- face water rights. Such actions that originated be- fore the 1967 Act are excluded from the adjudication procedure. A com- plicating factor stemming from that case was that the court allotted "eq- uitable" rights to persons who had been using water in the past, er- fironeously thinking they possessed riparian or other water rights. Such rights, however, apparently have application only to the Rio Grande Basin. The administrative phase of adjudication is nearing completion for the Middle Rio-Grande Basin be- tween Falcon and Amistad Reser- voirs and the Barilla Creek sub- basin of the Pecos watershed and is well along in the Upper Rio Grande Basin (23). Elsewhere over the State, rather than adjudicate surface water rights for each major river basin in succes- sion, the Water Rights Commission has chosen to proceed on a "hot spot" basis, determining water rights in smaller sub-basins that have long histories of recurring water disputes. The first such sub- basin for which adjudication was ordered was the Cibolo Creek watershed in the San Antonio River Basin, and here adjudication has progressed farthest under the Act. The other sub-basins of the San An- tonio River, the Concho River, the Upper Colorado River, Pecan Bayou and Pedernales sub-basins of the Colorado River, and the Upper Gua- dalupe and Lower Nueces sub- basins were also singled out. Ad- judication is progressing rapidly in these areas. Most remaining sub- basins within the named water- sheds are in earlier administrative phases of adjudication. Adjudica- tion appears to be moving in a rather orderly fashion from the water- deficit areas of the State into the more humid regions. Another obvi- ous reason for this progression is the opportunity to apply the adjudica- tion procedure first to those river sub-basins with the fewest water rights claimants (23). In the remaining basins, the Commission is just beginning pre- liminary pre-adjudication surveys. These surveys are most advanced in the Trinity and Brazos River Basins. Progress to the judicial phase of ad- judication and subsequent appeals probably will take many years. By September 1974, the Water Rights Commission considered that the process of adjudication was about one-third complete (36) and expects adjudication to be completed in the next l0 years. In any event, it will be some time before all Texas surface water rights are reasonably well es- tablished (23). Texas’ share of the waters in inter- state and international streams is determined on the basis of a series of interstate compacts and inter- national treaties. Several of these agreements are of significance to West Texas. Two treaties between the United States and Mexico govern allocation of water to Mexico from the Rio Grande at Iuarez and of the river's waters between the two coun- tries from Ft. Quitman to the Gulf of Mexico. The Rio Grande Compact entered into by Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas controls the use of the Rio Grande above Ft. Quit- man. The Pecos River Compact be- tween New Mexico and Texas gov- erns the apportionment of waters of that river. The two compacts have been a major source of dispute be- tween the states (23). The Canadian River is allocated by a compact between New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma. The only interstate stream for which no com- pact has yet been approved is the Red River. Work is progressing on the completion of a compact for that stream, and a draft compact is cur- rently under review. Texas’ interest in interstate waters must be well es- tablished so that adjudication of water rights in the State can be completed (23). Water rights adjudication is pro- gressing for the streams, channels, and rivers of Texas. But as pressure on water supplies continues to grow, diffused surface water and its im- poundment is another source of sur- face water which may become an important issue. ll <14? _ {,1 .1 ,, As pressures on water supplies continue to g has become an important issue. row, the impou ndment of diffused surface water Diffused Surface Water When water falls from the atmos- phere as precipitation, it becomes diffused surface water. Diffused sur- face water is surface drainage over the face of a tract of land which is not yet concentrated into a channel or watercourse. A watercourse has been defined in Texas as having a bed, banks, a water current, and a permanent supply source. The stream need not be perennial but must flow regularly enough that a running stream is maintained for a considerable time (4). An essential characteristic is that flows of dif- fused surface water are relatively short lived. In Texas, it is generally estab- lished that landowners have the right to intercept and use diffused surface water on their land. Their right is superior to that of adjacent lower landowners and to any sur- face water right holder on streams into which the runoff water might eventually flow (4). The rule in Texas is similar to that of most other juris- dictions. No State has gone so far as to attempt appropriation of diffused surface water (4). A Texas statute, Sect. 5.140 of the Texas Water Code, provides that dif- fused surface water can be im- pounded by the landowner on his own property without the necessity of obtaining a permit so long as the reservoir does not exceed 200 acre- feet in capacity. This includes the small impoundments commonly called stock tanks or farm ponds. Since 1953, water in these small re- 12 servoirs may be used only for domestic and livestock purposes. A permit is required from the State if the dam is on a stream course, if the reservoir exceeds the storage limits, or if the water is to be put to other uses. A recent Water Rights Com- mission survey of reservoirs exceed- ing 50 acre-feet storage capacity re- vealed more than 800 reservoirs which may require permits (36). Downstream water users usually are of the opinion that such small re- servoirs and related conservation land treatment practices have the ef- fect of reducing their water supply (3). A recent study of diffused surface water use in Texas by the Texas So- ciety of Professional Engineers (27) gives a great deal of credence to this concern and concludes that such small impoundments result in major water losses. The impact of such small reser- voirs is determined by their size and number and the amount of runoff. The law permitting landowners to construct such reservoirs applies throughout the State and does not consider the wide variations in rain- fall, runoff, and other hydrologic fac- tors that affect surface water yield. Small reservoirs are most numer- ous in the central part of the State where annual runoff, except for South Texas, exceeds 1 inch. For example, more than 8,000 stock tanks and farm ponds are in the Nu- eces River Basin's 19 counties ac- cording to a recent survey by the Soil Conservation Service. Because they can be constructed at will by land- owners, the number is growing rapidly as reflected by a 29-percent increase from 1962 through 1969. Such reservoirs have an average capacity of only 6.5 acre-feet, but they intercept tlfe runoff from a watershed averaging 136 acres (25). Statewide, in the period between 1957 and 1967, rather than increas- ing as in the Nueces River Basin, thq-‘l number of small reservoirs de- creased, but the number of large farm ponds increased. Ponds with capacities greater than ll acre-feet comprise some 1.5 million acre-feet of the total impoundment capacity of 2.3 million acre-feet (27). It has been calculated that near El Paso a watershed of 24,000 acres is required, under normal conditions, to supply a 200 acre-foot reservoir permitted under Sect. 5.140, Texas Water Code; 10,000 acres on the High Plains; 2,400 acres in Central Texas; and only 600 acres in East Texas (27). Many small impoundments are quite shallow with large surface areas compared to storage capacity. Losses of water are heavy from evaporation, transpiration by vege- tation, seepage, and percolation. In others, the quantity of water allowed to be impounded under Sect. 5.140 is large. A landowner without a permit can impound more than 65 million gallons of water in a single reservoir for domestic and livestock purposes, and he can build as many reservoirs as his land will fill. This is esti- mated to be 85 times the amount of water actually needed by a typical single-family cattle-ranching opera- tion on three sections of land (27). The fears of downstream water users that their water rights could be seriously impaired as small reser- voirs in the watershed increase in number and size seem justified. Under present Texas law, they would have no legal recourse. The Texas Society of Professional Engineers has recommended that Sect. 5.140 of the Texas Water Code be revised and that no small reser- voir larger than l0 acre-feet in stor- age capacity be allowed without a permit from the Water Rights Com- mission (27). development programs. Local, State, and Federal governmental agencies are active participants in water 1 Water Development Government has played an impor- tant role in the protection and de- velopment of water resources in Texas. The governmental institu- tions at Federal, State, and local levels have been participants in ac- tive programs aimed at overseeing private development and at develop- ing natural resources for the public at large. The administrative organi- zation and the intergovernmental re- lationships have been and are rela- tively complex. Many local, State, and Federal agencies are concerned with different specific water pro- grams. A history of water legislation and related water programs is provided by the Texas Water De- velopment Board (31). This history of water legislation in Texas dates back to 1889 when the Texas Legislature attempted to provide for the orderly distribution of water resources between livestock and irrigation interests. In 1913, with an Act creating the Board of Water Engineers, orderly development of water rights became possible. This was the first State agency concerned with water development and water rights. Following severe floods in 1913 and 1914, there was agitation for an amendment to the Constitution which would recognize the State's duty to prevent flood damage and to take steps necessary for the conser- vation of the State's natural re- sources. To avoid any question as to the State's legal right to regulate the conservation of natural resources, a Conservation Amendment was adopted in 1917. It stated that the conservation and development of all the natural resources of the State were public rights and duties, and the Legislature was authorized to pass all laws appropriate for this purpose. As cities and industries developed within Texas, municipal and hydro- electric interests became more com- petitive for water with cattlemen and irrigators. Competition over the available and sometimes uncertain water supply led to the passage of the Wagstaff Act in 1931. This act declared beneficial use preferences as a guide for the Board of Water Engineers in the granting of future water permits. The act declared that for a given supply of water, domestic and municipal needs must be met first, followed in their respective or- der, by industrial needs, irrigation, 13 mining, hydroelectric) navigation, and recreation and pleasure (31). Local Water Agencies Texas differs from other States in water resource development in that many of her rivers are intrastate streams. Eight of the major Texas rivers run from their sources in West Texas to the Gulf. This has made possible the creation within the State of a basinwide type of district, called either a conservation and rec- lamation district or a river authority. As originally conceived, these were attempts to create governmental units that would have an overall basinwide perspective, as well as the authority to develop and con- serve the water and soil resources of the basin. In 1929, the State created its first conservation and reclama- tion district, which later became the Brazos River Authority. River Authorities River authorities are created as governmental agencies and vested with all the authority as such under the Constitution and the laws of the State. They have the power of such water districts as are authorized in the provisions of the Conservation Amendment in the Constitution. They may formulate plans for the control, storing, and preservation of storms and flood waters of the river and its tributaries. They have the power to provide and maintain im- provements for the common benefit of the district. They are usually given specifically broad powers to do a number of things. Most river authorities are not given the power to tax. To obtain necessary planning funds, they rely upon the counties to contribute funds. River authorities are empow- ered to receive loans and grants from the Federal Government. They may issue bonds secured by the rev- enue to be derived from the sale of water or electrical power. Because of larger jurisdiction, most river au- thorities are in better position to fi- nance, construct, and operate dams and reservoirs than is a city or local l4 water district. The authority may cooperate with local interests which may contract to purchase water and power from such projects (31). Counties and Cities Several units of local government in Texas are authorized to engage in various water programs. Counties, cities, and the different kinds of water districts all are authorized by statute to undertake certain projects. Texas counties have authority to cooperate with the Federal Govern- ment in navigation projects and in flood-control projects. They may issue bonds to purchase land and rights-of-way, and they have the power of eminent domain to aid in carrying out this authority. They have authority to contract with any city or town, and they may acquire water systems and water supply re- servoirs for the purpose of supplying water. They also act as administra- tive agencies of the State govern- ment. Under the general water law statutes, the commissioners court of a county is empowered to create all types of water districts which are lo- cated entirely within the county. Generally, Texas counties have not been too active in undertaking re- sponsibilities of water resource ad- ministration and management (31). Unlike counties, cities exist primarily to regulate and administer the local or internal affairs of their incorporated territories. For this rea- son, they have a vital concern in maintaining an adequate municipal water supply. Texas cities may con- struct municipal water supply sys- tems and issue the bonds required to construct them. They also have au- thority to contract with private water companies or with water districts to supply municipal water. Flood pro- tection measures are undertaken by cities, directly or by cooperation with the Federal Government. They may generate, purchase, and dis- tribute hydroelectric power. Water Districts Since the enactment of a 1904 con- stitutional amendment permitting the creation of special districts, wa- ter districts have become the most important unit of local government undertaking water programs in the State. The local water districts, to- gether with the Federal agencies, are the action agencies which con- struct, operate, and maintain most waterworks and water projects. Water districts in Texas undertake all major types of water programs, including flood control, drainage, navigation, sewage disposal, power supply, ground water control!” mosquito control, soil conservation. and recreation as well as irrigation, domestic, commercial, and indus- trial water supply. The tasks of sup- plying and controlling water often involve the construction of levees, dams, lakes, and power facilities or the channeling, clearing, and main- tenance of streams and rivers (31). Water districts are units of gov- ernment and have the usual corpo- rate powers — the power of eminent domain, the power to levy taxes and special assessments, and the power to issue bonds, subject to limitations appearing in the enabling laws. In fulfilling their missions, districts are authorized to make necessary sur- veys, examinations, investigations, and plans, to purchase or construct waterworks and facilities, and to cooperate and contract with Federal agencies, individuals, private cor- porations, other districts, river au- thorities, and other municipalities. Little control or supervision of water districts is exerted by either State agencies or the public. The only le- gal restrictions usually pertain to fi- nancial powers and the engineering soundness of proposed projects (31). Until 1964, local units of govern- ment operating with the Federal Government carried the major part of the State's responsibility to de- velop and conserve Texas’ water re- sources. They undertook and fi- nanced the programs to build dams and reservoirs and to operate and maintain them. As the population and indus- trialization of the State have grown, increased water problems have made necessary the creation of new water agencies. Much of the respon- sibility for water development shifted from the counties to water districts and from single-purpose water districts to multiple-purpose river authorities. Parallel to this de- velopment has been the trend in cities toward water districts and the trend toward multicity districts to undertake projects which a city alone could not develop. At the be- ginning of accelerated water de- velopment planning in the 1960's, more than 600 river authorities, water districts, and other local or re- gional political entities had direct responsibility for some aspect of water development (31). State Water Agencies Board of Water Engineers The State Board of Water Engi- neers was established in 1913 with authority to hear applications and grant permits for water projects. In addition, the Board was to make ap- propriations of water and to make measurements and calculations to determine the amount of water available for appropriation. In 1955. this same Board was made respon- sible for determining the feasibility of proposed Federal projects. The following additional functions were assigned to the Board in 1957: 1. To prepare and submit to the Legislature a statewide report of the State's water resources. 2. To negotiate with the United States for the development and acquisition of conservation storage in reservoirs con- structed by the United States. 3. To cancelwater permits or cer- tified filings which had not been put to a beneficial use in l0 years. These new duties changed the na- ture of the Board of Water Engineers and brought both water rights man- agement and water development into the picture. Water Rights Commission The reorganization of the State Board of Water Engineers in 1962 as the Texas Water Rights Commission laid the foundation for the separa- tion of planning and water rights administration. The State permitted the Commission to delegate admin- istrative responsibility for the plan- ning and engineering functions of the agency to the Chief Engineer of the Water Development Board while retaining the permit functions under the Chairman of the Commission. Major functions of the Water Rights Commission are to grant permits to individuals, local gov- ernments, and the Water Develop- ment Board for water use, water storage, project construction, and interbasin transfers of water. The Commission conducts feasibility hearings on proposed Federal proj- ects with the assistance of the staff of the Water Development Board. It designates local sponsors for either State or Federal projects after public hearings. It has the responsibility to cancel water permits which have not been put to use during a 10-year period. The Commission can create certain types of water districts, or these districts can be created by acts of the Legislature. To summarize, the Commission continued all of the functions that were not specifically transferred to the Water Develop- ment Board. Water Development Board In 1957, the Texas Water De- velopment Board was established and was given the responsibility for administering a $200-million bond program. Funds were to be loaned to local governments for projects where no other financing was available. By legislation in 1961, the Water De- velopment Board was permitted to invest in Federal and other projects for water storage purposes. The Board was responsible for preparing the comprehensive State Water Plan. The Water Development Board has other major responsibilities. It acts as State cooperator in local water development planning with Federal agencies and serves as the State sponsor of Federal projects where no suitable local agency is available. It negotiates with the Federal Gov- ernment for the inclusion of water storage space in Federal projects. The board may also purchase stor- age space in local reservoirs to ensure optimum development of the damsites. Finally, the Board may construct reservoirs and necessary facilities required to move water from reservoirs to cities, districts, or other wholesale customers (18). The water development fund which was approved for $200 million by the voters in 1957 was increased to $400 million in 1966. The massive bond plan of 1969 was rejected. But in 1971, $100 million was approved for local pollution control projects. In 1976, a constitutional amendment was voted on, considering whether to raise the fund from $400 million to a revolving $800 million and remov- ing the present 6-percent interest rate limit on the bonds. Although the funds had been justified by the Water Development Board for municipal and industrial water supply development from instate sources, the amendment was de- feated. In reviewing and evaluating the surface water resource situation in Texas, a most important considera- tion is conservation storage of a res- ervoir. Basically, conservation stor- age of a reservoir is the volume capacity of the space available to store water for subsequent release or withdrawal to serve the needs for beneficial uses. A detailed discus- sion is presented in Appendix A. The Texas Water Development Board provides current and histori- cal conservation storage data for selected major Texas reservoirs by river basins. The monthly report is based on 63 reservoirs that represent 95 percent of the total conservation storage capacity in Texas reservoirs having a capacity of 5,000 acre-feet or more. Conservation storage capacity data for the 35 non-Federal reservoirs are presented in Table 1. These reservoirs have a storage capacity of 14,570,070 acre-feet or 48 percent of the total for major Texas reservoirs. The location of Federal and non-Federal reservoirs is shown in Figure 5. 15 TABLE 1. LOCALLY BUILT, OWNED, OR OPERATED RESERVOIRS IN TEXAS Conservation Name of Lake Number on Storage Capacity or Reservoir Map1 Owner and (or) Operator (acre-feet) Red River Basin Red River Basin MacKenzie Reservoir 2 MacKenzie Municipal Water Authority 46,250 Greenbelt Reservoir 3 Greenbelt Municipal and Industrial 58,200 Water Authority — 62.84 percent Texas Water Development Board — 37.16 percent y Lake Kickapoo 5 City of Wichita Falls 106,000 Lake Arrowhead s city of Wichita Falls 262,100 Sulphur River Basin Sulphur River Basin Lake Sulphur Springs 9 Sulphur Springs Water District 13,520 Cypress Creek Basin Cypress Creek Basin Lake Cypress Springs 11 Franklin County Water District — 48.4 percent 66,800 Texas Water Development Board — 51.6 percent Sabine River Basin Sabine River Basin Lake Tawakoni 13 Sabine River Authority 936,200 Toledo Bend Reservoir 14 Sabine River Authority of Texas and Louisiana 4,472,900 Neches River Basin Neches River Basin Lake Palestine 15 Upper Neches River Municipal Authority 411,300 Lake Tyler 16 City of Tyler 73,700 Trinity River Basin Trinity River Basin Bridgeport Reservoir 19 Tarrant County Water Control and 386,400 Improvement District No. 1 Eagle Mountain Reservoir 20 Tarrant County Water Control and 190,300 Improvement District No. 1 Lake Ray Hubbard 25 City of Dallas 490,000 Cedar Creek Reservoir 26 ‘Tarrant County Water Control and 679,200 Improvement District No. 1 Lake Livingston 29 City of Houston and Trinity River Authority 1,750,000 San Jacinto River Basin San Jacinto River Basin Lake Conroe 3O San Jacinto River Authority — 13.15 percent 429,900 City of Houston — 66.67 percent Texas Water Development Board — 20.18 percent Lake Houston 31 City of Houston 140,500 Brazos River Basin Brazos River Basin White River Lake 32 White River Municipal Water District 44,300 Millers Creek Reservoir 33 North Central Texas Municipal Water Authority 45,520 Fort Phantom Hill Reservoir 34 City of Abilene 74,300 Lake Stamford 35 City of Stamford 52,700 Hubbard Creek Reservoir 36 West Central Texas Municipal Water District 317,800 Lake Graham 37 City of Graham 45,000 Possum Kingdom Lake 38 Brazos River Authority 569,380 Lake Palo Pinto 39 Palo Pinto County Municipal Water District No. 1. 42,200 Operated by City of Mineral Wells Lake Granbury 40 Brazos River Authority 151,300 Lake Pat Cleburne 41 City of Cleburne 25,300 Colorado River Basin Colorado River Basin Lake J. B. Thomas 48 Colorado River Municipal Water District 202,300 Lake Colorado City 49 Texas Electric Service Company 30,800 Champion Creek Reservoir 50 Texas Electric Service Company 41,600 E. V. Spence Reservoir 51 Colorado River Municipal Water District 484,800 Lake Brownwood 55 Brown County Water Improvement District No. 1 143,400 Lake Buchanan 56 Lower Colorado River Authority 955,200 San Antonio River Basin San Antonio River Basin Medina Lake 59 Bexar-Medina-Atascosa Counties Water 254,000 Improvement District No. 1 Nueces River Basin Nueces River Basin Lake Corpus Christi 60 Lower Nueces River Water Supply District 269,900 Rio Grande River Basin Rio Grande Basin Red Bluff Reservoir 61 Red Bluff Water Power Control District 307,000 Total 14,570,070 Source." Texas Water Development Board, Water for Texas, Vol. 6, No. 4, April 1976. 1Reference is to the map presented in Figure 5. Notes: Conservation storage capacity is the space available to store water above the level of invert of lowest outlet works and below the level of top of conservation pool or normal maximum operating level. Conservation storage refers to the volume of water held within the conservation storage space. Not included is any water in flood-control stor~ age (above the top of conservation pool or normal maximum operating level), or any water in so-called dead storage (in the bottom of the reser- voir, below the invert of lowest outlet works, and consequently not removable by gravity flow alone). Figure 5. Selected major Texas reservoirs, 1976. Information provided by Texas Water Development Board for 63 reservoirs that together represent 95 percent of the total conservation capacity of major Texas reservoirs (those with capacity of 5,000 acre-feet or more each). ‘°°°.“9‘P‘PPN-‘ . Lake Meredith Mackenzie Reservoir Greenbelt Reservoir Lake Kemp Lake Kickapoo Lake Arrowhead Lake Texoma . Pat Mayse Lake . Lake Sulphur Springs . Wright Patman Lake . Lake Cypress Springs . Lake O’ the Pines . Lake Tawakoni . Toledo Bend Reservoir . Lake Palestine . Lake Tyler . Sam Rayburn Reservoir . B. A. Steinhagen Lake Bridgeport Reservoir Eagle Mountain Reservoir . Benbrook Lake .. Q0155 RESERVOIRS SHOWN ON MAP . Lewisville Lake . Grapevine Lake . Lavon Lake Lake Ray Hubbard Cedar Creek Reservoir . Navarro Mills Lake . Bardwell Lake Lake Livingston Lake Conroe . Lake Houston . White River Lake . Millers Creek Reservoir . Fort Phantom Hill Reservoir . Lake Stamford . Hubbard Creek Reservoir . Lake Graham . Possum Kingdom Lake . Lake Palo Pinto . Lake Granbury . Lake Pat Cleburne . Whitney Lake . Waco Lake . Proctor Lake . Belton Lake . Stillhouse Hollow Lake . Somerville Lake . Lake J. B. Thomas . Lake Colorado City . Champion Creek Reservoir . E. V. Spence Reservoir . Twin Buttes Reservoir . O. C. Fisher Lake . Hords Creek Lake . Lake Brownwood . Lake Buchanan . Lake Travis . Canyon Lake . Medina Lake . Lake Corpus Christi . Red Bluff Reservoir . lntl. Amistad Reservoir . lntl. Falcon Reservoir 17 Intimately related to surface water availability and requirements are characteristics of State ground water. The development of ground water from the major and minor ground water aquifers of Texas has progressed rapidly since the drouth of the 1950's. This has caused a very large increase in rate of use of ground water. More than 1,000 municipalities and numerous indus- tries use large quantities of ground water. But the greatest use in Texas has been for irrigating grain sor- ghum, cotton, wheat, forage crops, rice, hay and pasture acreage, vege- tables, corn, oil crops, orchards, and nut crops. A reevaluation of the ground water availability data as presented in the Texas Water Plan recently has been completed by the Water De- velopment Board's Water Availa- bility Division. This study revealed that approximately 4,295,700 acre- feet of ground water are available annually from the major and minor aquifers of the State as sustainable annual yield. Results are sum- marized by river basin in Table 2. The reevaluation indicates a net de- crease in perennial yield of 483,600 acre-feet from the estimates used in development of the Texas Water Plan. Refinement of the estimates of the dependable yields of Texas aquifers is a continuing process (21). The results have extremely signifi- cant implications for future needs requiring surface water sources. Federal Water Agencies U.S. Army Corps of Engineers The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers entered the Texas water develop- ment picture in 1872, concentrating its early efforts on navigation im- provements along the Gulf Coast. Today, more than 700 miles of shal- low-draft channels comprising the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and connection channels in Texas, 15 18 TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES OF AVAILABILITY OF GROUND WATER IN TEXAS BY BASIN Figures Used in Development of 1968 Texas Water Plan Estimated Ground Water Revised Ground Water Availability Annual Yield Estimated Annual Basin (acre-feet) Yield (acre-feet) Canadian — j 91,000 Red 1 23,600 348,000 Sulphur 5,700 5,700 Cypress 15,000 15,000 Sabine 319,000 98,000 Neches 560,000 311,000 Trinity 326,600 238,000 San Jacinto 500,000 295,000 Brazos 425,200 476,000 Colorado 538,700 562,000 Lavaca 200,000 86,000 Guadalupe 160,300 144,000 San Antonio 343,500 322,000 Nueces 167,700 208,000 Rio Grande 604,000 695,000 Neches-Trinity 1,000 14,000 Trinity-San Jacinto 50,000 36,000 San Jacinto-Brazos 80,000 82,000 Brazos-Colorado 125,000 68,000 Colorado-Lavaca 75,000 8,000 Lavaca-Guadalupe 75,000 48,000 San Antonio-Nueces 30,000 30,000 Nueces-Rio Grande 54,000 1 15,000 Grand Total all Basins 4,779,300 4,295,700 Source: R. D. Price, D. A. Muller, and W. B. Klemt, "ReevaIuation of State's Ground- Water Resources Completed," Water for Texas, Volume 6, No. 2, pp. 11-15, Feb. 1976. deep water ports, and 260 miles of deep-draft channels are maintained by the Corps of Engineers (40). The first Corps reservoir project in the State was Denison Darn on the Red River which forms Lake Tex- oma. Since completion of the Deni- son project, 28 dam and reservoir projects have been completed by the Corps in Texas. Corps and other Federal cost-sharing is shown in Table 3. Corps involvement in planning reservoir construction evolves when local interests believe that a need exists for construction or improve- ment of a water resources project. The local interests petition their congressional representative to di- rect the Corps to make a survey and a recommendation. A study assem- bles pertinent data bearing on eco- nomic and engineering solutions of the problem and their impact on the environment. Public meetings are held to determine the wishes of local interests. Other agencies concerned with any phase of related resource planning or development are con- tacted to avoid conflicts and to in- corporate joint efforts. Studies may involve an entire river system and require consideration of navigation, flood control, water supply, water quality control, hydroelectric power, drainage, irrigation, recreation, or other purposes. When the data are analyzed and a determination made of the fullest possible use of the natural re- sources, the study with its recom- mendation is submitted to Congress, and if approved, the recommended projects become authorized by an Act of Congress. After authorization, the projects still require congres- sional appropriations before con- struction can begin. The major Texas reservoirs by river basins that have been built or are owned or operated by Federal agencies are shown in Table 4. Their combined conservation storage capacity is 15,387,380 acre-feet, or 52 percent of the State total for reser- voirs with capacity of 5,000 acre-feet or more. Most of the larger multi- purpose reservoirs in Texas were federally constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Their pol- icy is to operate the dams which they build. The Corps has been the major agency in reservoir construction in Texas since completion of Lake Tex- oma in 1943. Bureau of Reclamation Since its inception in 1902, the Bureau of Reclamation has been one of the principal agencies of the Fed- eral Government in developing the TABLE 3. MAXIMUM FEDERAL COST SHARES FOR CONSTRUCTION AGENCIES Percentage of Costs, Land Easement, and Operation, Maintenance, Purpose Agencyl Construction Rights-of-Way2 and Replacement Flood Protection Bureau 100 100 100 SCS 100 0 0 Local Flood Protection Corps 100 0 0 Large Reservoir Corps 100 100 100 Navigation Bureau 100 100 100 Corps 100 o3 10o Recreation; small boat harbors Corps 5Q 0 100 Hydroelectric Power Bureau o: 0 0 Corps 0 0 0 Municipal and lndustrial Water Supply Bureau 0 0 0 SCS 50 0 0 Corps 0 0 0 Irrigation Bureau Variable Variable 0 SCS 50 Q 0 Corps Variable Variable 0 Water Quality (Low flow augmentation) Corps 100 100 100 Recreation: Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Bureau 5O and 1004 50 0 and 1005 SCS 50 50 0 Corps so and 1004 so o and 1005 Drainage Bureau Variable Variable 0 SCS 50 0 0 Corps 50 50 0 Source: National Water Commission, Water Policies For The Future, Final Report to the President and to the Congress of the United States, Washington, D.C., June 1973. lBureau — Bureau of Reclamation; SCS — Soil Conservation Service; Corps — Army Corps of Engineers. 2When Federal lands are involved, they are provided to the project without charge. 3Costs of lands, easerrients, and rights-of-way for navigation reservoirs are borne by the Federal Government. ‘ 4Hydroelectric power users may have benefited from unwarranted allocation of joint construction costs to other project purposes and from repayment arrangements with low interest rates. 5The two percentages represent the maximum Federal shares of separable and joint costs, respectively. water resources of the West. The Reclamation Act of 1902 authorized the Secretary of the Interior to con- struct the facilities to develop water for reclamation of arid and semiarid lands in the Western States. Initiated to encourage farmers to settle public lands in the West, the Reclamation program has evolved into a multipurpose undertaking to develop water resources for all ben- eficial purposes. All reimbursable project costs are repayable to the Federal Government by benefici- aries. Costs allocated to irrigation are repaid without interest. Costs allocated to municipal and indus- trial water and hydroelectric power are repaid with interest (12). Results of past Bureau of Reclama- tion planning in Texas are illus- trated by a number of projects that have been completed. In far West Texas and neighboring New Mexico, the Rio Grande Project provides a water supply for 178,000 acres of ir- rigation and produces hydroelectric power. At the northern end of Texas, the Canadian River Project provides municipal and industrial water supplies to several Texas cities plus flood control and recreational de- velopment. In Central Texas, the Bureau com- pleted Mansfield Dam, creating Lake Travis on the Colorado River above Austin for the Lower Colorado River Authority. The dam is a key element in the Authority's system of water supply, flood control, and power facilities. At the southern end of the State, the Bureau designed Falcon Dam and Power Plant on the Rio Grande near Laredo for the International Boundary and Water Commission. which operates the project to provide water supply, flood control, and power for the Lower Rio Grande Val- ley. Distribution and drainage facilities of several irrigation dis- tricts in the Valley have been re- habilitated as part of the reclama- tion program. A large part of the Bureau's plan- ning effort in more recent years has been concentrated primarily in in- vestigations of the Columbus Bend, 19 TABLE 4. FEDERALLY BUILT, OWNED OR OPERATED RESERVOIRS IN TEXAS Conservation Name of Lake Number on Storage Capacity or Reservoir Map Owner and (or) Operator (acre-feet) Canadian River Basin Canadian River Basin Lake Meredith 1 Canadian River Municipal Water Authority. 821,300 Built by U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Red River Basin Red River Basin Lake Kemp 4 Owner — City of Wichta Falls and Wichita County 319,600 Water Improvement District No. 2. Design Engineer — U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for rebuilt dam. Lake Texoma 7 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2,722,300 Pat Mayse Lake 8 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 124,500 Sulphur River Basin Sulphur River Basin Wright Patman Lake 10 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 142,700 Cypress Creek Basin Cypress Creek Basin Lake O’ the Pines 12 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 252,000 Neches River Basin Neches River Basin Sam Rayburn Reservoir 17 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2,876,300 B. A. Steinhagen Lake 18 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 94,200 Trinity River Basin Trinity River Basin Benbrook Lake 21 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 88,200 Lewisville Lake 22 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 464,500 Grapevine Lake 23 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 187,700 Lavon Lake 24 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 129,300 Navarro Mills Lake 27 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 60,900 Bardwell Lake 28 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 53,580 Bfazos Rive,- Basin Brazos River Basin Whitney Lake 42 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 622,800 Waco Lake 43 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 151,900 Proctor Lake 44 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 59,300 Belton Lake 45 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 457,300 Stillhouse Hollow Lake 46 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 234,900 Somerville Lake 47 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 160,100 Colorado River Basin Colorado River Basin Twin Buttes Reservoir 52 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 177,800 O. C. Fisher Lake 53 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 119,200 Hords Creek Lake 54 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 8,600 Lake Travis 57 Lower Colorado River Authority 1,144,100 Guadalupe River Basin Guadalupe River Basin Canyon Lake 58 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 385,600 Rio Grande Basin Rio Grande Basin lntl. Amistad Reservoir (Texas) 62 Owner — United States and Mexico. Operated by 1,965,500 International Boundary and Water Commission. Built by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and International Boundary and Water Commission lntl. Falcon Reservoir (Texas) 63 Owner — United States and Mexico. Operated by 1,563,200 international Boundary and Water Commission. Built by U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and International Boundary and Water Commission Total 15,387,380 Source." Texas Water Development Board, Water for Texas, Vol. 6, No. 4, April 1976. 1Reference is to the map presented in Figure 5. Notes: Conservation storage capacity is the space available to store water above the level of invert of lowest outlet works and below the level of top of conservation pool or normal maximum operating level. Conservation storage refers to the volume of water held within the conservation storage space. Not included is any water in flood-control storage (above the top of conservation pool or normal maximum operating level), or any water in so-called dead storage (in the bottom of the reservoir, below the invert of lowest outlet works and consequently not removable by gravity flow alone). 20 Cuero, Palmetto Bend, and Texas Basin Projects (5). Soil Conservation Service Three Acts of Congress provide the authority under which the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) provides the technical and financial assis- tance on structural measures in watershed programs. The Flood Control Act of 1944 approved opera- tions on ll major watersheds. In- cluded in Texas are the upper 8% million acres of the Trinity River, the 5-million-acre segment of the Col- orado River of Texas known as the Middle Colorado, and the Washita River which heads in Texas and flows through Oklahoma into the Red River. In the 1953 Appropriation Act for the Department of Agriculture, Con- gress authorized the SCS to plan and carry on a construction program in approximately 6O small watersheds, generally ranging from 20,000 acres up to 100,000 acres in size. Four of these are in Texas. They are the Green Creek, a tributary of the Bos- que in Erath County between Dublin and Stephenville; Cow Bayou, a tributary of the Brazos between Waco and Temple; Escondido Creek in Karnes County; and Calaveras Creek in Bexar County. The latter two are tributaries of the San An- tonio River. The third piece of legislation is Public Law 566, the Watershed Pro- tection and Flood Prevention Act passed by the 83rd Congress and amended by the 84th and 85th Con- gresses. As now amended, the Act provides for works of improvement for flood prevention, including struc- ‘tural and land treatment measures, and for conservation, development. utilization, and disposal of water in watersheds not exceeding 250,000 acres and not including any single structure which provides more than 5,000 acre-feet of floodwater deten- tion capacity and more than 25,000 acre-feet of total capacity. Improve- ment works may be included for flood prevention, irrigation and drainage, municipal and industrial water supplies, streamflow regula- tion, fish and wildlife improvement, recreation, and saline water intru- sion control. This is the only legislation under which any new project can be under- taken with financial or technical as- sistance of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These projects are not Federal but local. Projects must be initiated and carried out by local subdivisions of the State govern- ment. The local organizations must ac- quire without cost to the Federal Government such land, easements, or rights-of-way as will be needed in connection with the improvement works installed with Federal assis- tance. They must award and ad- minister contracts for all structures. They also must assume a pro- portionate share of the costs of in- stalling any improvement works in- volving Federal assistance which is applicable to the agricultural phases of the conservation, de- velopment, utilization, and disposal of water or to fish and wildlife con- servation. This share is that deter- mined by the Secretary of Agricul- ture as equitable in consideration of direct identifiable benefits. The Federal Government will pay all costs for construction applicable to flood prevention. The local or- ganizations must pay all costs for installing improvements for munici- pal and industrial water, recreation, streamflow regulation, and saline water intrusion control. The local organizations also must arrange to pay operating and maintenance costs of the improvement works. They must obtain necessary water rights, obtain agreements for the carrying out of recommended soil conservation practices on 50 percent or more of the farm land in the drainage area, and make satisfac- tory arrangements for repaying loans from the Federal Government. All work of the SCS, except tech- nical assistance in the Agricultural Conservation Program and the Con- servation Reserve of the Soil Bank Act, is performed in cooperation with and through subdivisions of State government. These include soil con- servation districts, water control and improvement districts, drainage and levee districts, and conserva- tion and reclamation districts, river authorities, counties and municipal- ities, singly or in combination. Public Law 566 requires that a State agency must approve a water- shed application before Federal as- sistance can be provided. The State Soil Conservation Board has been designated as this agency in Texas. The Board also recommends to the State Conservationist priorities for planning assistance (17). 21 In the past, Texas citizens generally have been able to live wherever they chose without concern for the availability of wa- ter. But as the State becomes more ur- banized and industrialized, her develop- able water resources become more and more limited. The Texas Water Development Board’s published estimates show an annual yield of ground water for all Texas river basins of 4.3 million acre-feet per year. By comparison, the Board shows annual use of ground water for irrigation alone to exceed 10.0 million acre-feet. Other uses increased the annual deficit by millions of acre-feet. This has critical implications relative to future demands on the surface water resources of the State. 22 23 Priority Water Uses The purposes for which water may be appropriated were established by the Legislature in 1913 as irrigation, mining, milling, manufacturing, de- velopment of power, city water uses, and livestock raising. The prefer- ence list devised in 1931 to guide the Water Rights Commission provided the following order for all streams in the State of Texas with the exception of the Rio Grande: 1. domestic and municipal uses, including water for sustaining both human and domes- tic animal life; Z. water to be used in processes designed to convert mate- rials of a lower order of value into forms having greater utility and commercial value and to include water necessary for the development of electric power by means other than hydroelectric; 3. irrigation; 4. mining and recovery of minerals; 5. hydroelectric; 6. navigation; and 7. recreation and pleasure (31). Municipal and Industrial Development From the earliest days of the Na- tion, cities and industries have provided their own water supplies. This policy was recognized by the Congress, and several laws contain statements to the effect that the Fed- eral Government will confine itself to a secondary role in this field. In recent years, a tendency for increas- ing the Federal role in the provision of municipal and industrial water has emerged, similar to the Federal domination in the field of pollution control. Problems of coordination have occurred among public agen- cies in the planning and financing of water resource development. In some situations, municipal and in- dustrial water supplies have been used or priced with less than maximum effectiveness. 24 .40» The interest of different water users are often in direct or indirect competition for the use and benefits of the various water and related land resources in the State. Various legislative attempts to make possible the use of Federal reservoirs to supply municipal and industrial water culminated in the Water Supply Act of 1958 which es- tablished a uniform policy for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Under this policy, these agencies may provide additional capacity for municipal and industrial water in reservoirs to be constructed primar- ily for other purposes. All construc- tion costs of storage for present or anticipated future demand must be repaid, with interest, by State or local agencies. No payment for stor- age costs for future supply need be made until the supply is first used. An interest-free period of up to 10 years is allowed on storage costs as long as that supply is not used. No more than 3O percent of the costs of the project may be allocated to stor- age for future supply (19). Capacity for water supply also may be included in reservoirs con- structed under the PL 566 program of the Soil Conservation Service. Non- Federal interests must repay all storage costs for future supply and at least one-half the storage costs for present supply needs. Provision is made for postponement of storage cost payments for future supply and for an interest-free period of up to 10 years as indicated in the preceding paragraph. The grant agencies also provide Federal cost-sharing for storage and conveyance of municipal and indus- trial water. Housing and Urban De- velopment and Farmers Home Ad- ministration provide up to 50 percent of construction and land-rights costs. The Economic Development Administration may supplement other grants up to a maximum of 80 percent of construction costs. Opera- tion and maintenance is a non- Federal responsibility. The Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 authorized the formulation of comprehensive plans for major river basins or other regions. Municipal and industrial water supply needs are to be taken into account in the preparation of these plans. The Act provides for financial assistance to the States to enable them to play a more effective role in plan prepara- tion. It also provides for coordination by the Water Resources Council. Municipal water supply systems provide water for domestic pur- poses, commercial uses, fire protec- tion, street flushing, and lawn and garden irrigation, and in many cities for industrial use. In addition, much water is lost from some systems by leakage. Most industrial water is self-supplied and is used by a rela- tively small number of firms in five major industries — food, paper, chem- icals, petroleum, and metals (19). Dams and reservoirs that are au- thorized for municipal and industrial water supply purposes are sum- marized in Appendix Tables 1 and 2. Several of these dams are owned by the U.S. Corps of Engineers, and many others are owned by cities and other public entities. H. P. Burleigh, the former Execu- tive Director of the Texas Water De- velopment Board, in 1975 sum- marized the changing circumstances in financing municipal and indus- trial water supplies (6). In 1957, the Legislature and the Texas electorate approved the Texas Water De- velopment Fund of $200 million for that purpose. Subsequently, this sum was increased from $200 million to $400 million. Burleigh pointed out that river au- thorities, municipalities, water dis- tricts, and State water agencies exercise the dominant role in de- veloping Texas municipal and in- dustrial water supplies. During past years, about 8O percent of the money invested in Texas water projects has been supplied by State and local governments. He anticipated that the percentage of State participation in future water supply projects will be at still higher rates with contin- ued decline in Federal financing (6). Past use of the Texas Water De- velopment Board funds for water supply projects has been a material aid to the State in developing its water supply sources, according to Burleigh. The fund has aided some 72 water supply projects with $215.7 million and has catalyzed the in- vestment of an additional $160.6 mil- lion from local interests. Projects aided are expected to pay their own way, and no water project aided by 25 the Water Development Fund is cur- rently in default. Burleigh em- phasized that State and local entities will have to undertake the larger types of water projects. Tech- nical and financial resources are available to develop any necessary type of required municipal and in- dustrial water project (6). Irrigation The earliest record of irrigation in Texas is that reported by the Spanish explorer Coronado who found Indians irrigating crops in the vicinity of the present city of El Paso in 1541. The statewide trend in irri- gated acreage has been upward since the first historical develop- ments, but the increase has occurred at variable rates. By 1974, the area irrigated in the State had increased to 8.6 million acres, according to the 1974 irrigation inventory (30). Irri- gated acres by river basin and source of water are presented in Ap- pendix Table 3. Ground water was used for irrigat- ing about 82 percent of the land irri- gated in Texas in 1974; 15 percent was irrigated from surface water supplies and 3 percent from mixed supplies of ground and surface water. The Texas Water Develop- ment Board (30) reports the leading counties in 1974 for surface water ir- rigation to be the following: County Hidalgo Cameron Jefferson Brazoria Chambers Maverick Willacy Colorado Liberty Starr Matagorda Wharton 12 Counties Texas 1,037,763 82% 1,272,397 100% More than 60 percent of the acre- age in Texas irrigated by surface water in 1974 was in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, in Cameron. Willacy, Hidalgo, and Starr Coun- ties. Most of the water used for irri- gation was obtained from the Falcon Reservoir on the Rio Grande. The other major irrigation area using surface water is the Gulf Coast Prairie. Leading surface water irri- gation counties in the Gulf Coast Prairie are Jefferson, Brazoria, Chambers, Colorado, Liberty, Mat- agorda, and Wharton. Maverick County in the Middle Rio Grande Valley is the remaining county in the top twelve which together comprise 82 percent of total surface water irri- gation in Texas (30). Total acres irrigated by surface water in Texas have changed com- paratively little in the summaries published by the Texas Water De- velopment Board for 1958, 1964, 1969, and 1974. Acres irrigated have in- creased only from 1,126,521 in 1958 to 1,272,397 in 1974. Acre-feet applied were virtually unchanged at 2,170,313 in 1958 and 2,186,062 in 1974. During the same period, and primarily in other areas of the State, use of ground water for irrigation in- creased substantially (30). Dams and reservoirs authorized for irrigation are listed in Appendix Table 4 (29). Acre-feet authorized for irrigation from these reservoirs Acres Acre-feet 378,650 513,317 287,445 392,245 69,470 173,675 50,399 134,397 50,105 125,262 41, 100 97, 600 37,723 53,896 28,710 114,720 26,274 65,687 25,576 26,155 22,401 89,604 19,910 59,730 1,846,288 84% 2,186,062 100% 26 greatly exceed the actual usage. The correlation between the use of irri- gation as a reason for reservoir con- struction and the subsequent use of the impounded water for irrigation purposes is not high. A historical problem with Federal water resources development proj- ects for irrigationl has been the ex- tent of subsidization by the Federal Government. The water users on some modern reclamation projects‘ repay no more than 10 to 15 percent. of the construction costs attributable to irrigation. The remaining cost is borne in part by the Federal Gov- ernment by not requiring the water users to pay interest on the capital advanced for project construction. Power and other non-irrigation rev- enues also are credited toward irri- gation reimbursement, and an un- duly large part of the costs are allo- cated to nonreimbursable purposes. Finally, water projects that result in large increases in the production of certain commodities have been undertaken with little or no consid- eration of the demand for those commodities (19). The National Water Commission recommends that irrigation users served by new Federal projects pay the full costs of water supply. This should result in a lower total cost to society because it will improve effi- ciency in the use of irrigation water and related resources. When irri- gators receive water on a subsidized basis, incentives to use water care- fully and efficiently tend to be re- moved (19). Mining In 1968, the Texas Water De- velopment Board indicated that water used in Texas for mining was almost entirely for petroleum pro- duction. Sand and gravel operations and recovery of other minerals used minor amounts of water. Their calcu- lations indicated an estimated cumulative total of several million acre-feet of water required in Texas through the year 2020 for secondary recovery of oil. Brackish, saline, or fresh water can be used for injection operations. The choice is usually determined by the economics of water supply and operation and maintenance costs. The largest re- serves of oil in Texas potentially recoverable by water injection are in arid areas of the State. Water for most mining needs will largely be met by local surface and ground water resources (34). Only 7 of the 63 major reservoirs have allocations of water for mining purposes (Appendix Table 5). The al- locations are small in comparison to those for other uses. Lignite de- velopment may require increased al- locations of water in the future. It seems likely that these needs will be met largely with ground water and smaller reservoirs. Hydroelectric Power Electric power requirements in Texas are increasing at a rate which requires a doubling of electric generating facilities about every 7 to 9 years. For many years, natural gas has been the principal fuel for power generation in Texas. But natural gas is no longer available for this pur- pose in the quantities that are needed. The utilities are now turn- ing to coal and lignite and will also be using nuclear energy for power production. The choice of fuels de- pends upon a number of factors, the most important of which are cost and the reliability of the supply (20). Every method of generating power in large quantities available today results in the unavoidable pro- duction of byproduct heat. The dis- position of this low-level heat re- quires the use of water as a heat transfer and cooling medium. This use is also significant to water con- servation in Texas because the lmethod of cooling determines the amount of water consumed as a re- sult of a powerplant's operation (20). It is recommended that future powerplants use existing reservoirs or ponds whenever possible for cool- ing, since this creates the least additional environmental disturb- ance and a minimum additional consumption of water. New cooling reservoirs may be built as multiple- purpose projects which provide water for other uses, such as munic- ipal water supply, ‘flood control, or recreation, in addition to powerplant cooling. Because of their generally inadequate flow, using rivers for once-through cooling is undesirable in Texas and will be avoided. Using cooling towers supplied by fresh water is also undesirable because of their greater consumption of water (20). A small amount of power is pro- duced by hydroelectric plants, but because surface water is limited, hydroelectric plants in Texas are used in most cases for peaking or emergency purposes (20). The ll dams and reservoirs authorized for electrical power generation in Texas are presented in Appendix Table 6. Electric power generated by Corps of Engineers or Bureau of Reclama- tion projects is generally sold at prices sufficient to recover all project costs allocated to power, including interest. On Federal reclamation projects, power revenues in excess of costs have been used to repay interest-free costs allocated to irri- gation. In some projects, power users have benefited from joint costs allocated to such non-reimbursable purposes as flood control or naviga- tion (19). Navigation The Federal Government carries the dominant responsibility for planning, constructing, and paying for navigation improvement. It con- siders a narrow range of alterna- tives, restricts its research chiefly to methods of channel modification, and relies upon private shippers for technological innovations. The eco- nomic analysis is rather rigidly for- mulated. The primary public con- straints are regulating the channels and common carriers. Iust how much effect the improvements have had on the economy is difficult to assess. There has been a tendency to ignore side effects, which have been vari- able (44). Navigation was important to ex- ploration and early development in Texas. Major rivers, flowing roughly parallel courses from northwest to southeast, provided early routes from the coast to the interior. Sub- sequent advances in overland transportation slowed river naviga- tion development, except in the tidewater area along the Gulf. Texas now has 12 ports for deep- draft (30 to 40 foot) vessels and 13 shallow-draft (6 to 14 foot) ports. The intracoastal waterway connects the entire coastal area with a protected shallow-draft route between Texas and other Gulf and south Atlantic ports. The Houston Ship Channel enables this inland area to receive and ship the third largest tonnage of all U.S. seaports. Continued expansion of coastal facilities for domestic and overseas commerce has accelerated efforts to connect inland industrial areas with them by development of Texas rivers for navigation. Navigation on the Trinity and Red Rivers has been au- thorized. Proposals have been made for studies on other streams to de- termine the economic and engineer- ing feasibility of navigation (33). Recreation Outdoor recreation has experi- enced a phenomenal boom in the past two decades. This results mostly from the general increase in leisure time for the average Ameri- can, improved mobility, greater ur- banization, and a generally pros- perous economy. The manufacture of goods, transportation of persons and supplies, provision of facilities, and consumption spending for out- door recreation place it among the top l0 major economic activities of the Nation (19). The Federal Water Project Recrea- tion Act of 1965 was intended to encourage the States and other non-Federal public entities to as- sume responsibility for developing recreational potentials created by Federal reservoirs. For any particu- lar Federal water project, the re- sponsible Federal agency is au- thorized to bear 50 percent of the "separable" cost of providing recre- ational facilities and to make avail- able Federal lands for the use of non-Federal entities agreeing to op- erate and maintain these facilities. 27 All "joint" costs allocable to recrea- tion are borne entirely by the Fed- eral Government. Only a few non-Federal entities have taken advantage of the terms of the Act. If non-Federal interests do not accept responsibility for recre- ational development, the responsi- ble Federal agency must bear the cost of developing "minimum facilities that are required for the public health and safety" and that are accessible by roads previously in existence or otherwise necessary for project construction (l9). Although the Soil Conservation Service is primarily a land conserva- tion agency, it is also a reservoir construction agency in connection with the PL 566 program. The SCS assists non-Federal entities to de- velop recreational potentials cre- ated by PL 566 and bears 50 percent of the construction cost thereof, in- cluding land rights. For the remain- ing cost, Federal recreation funds have been used for only about 2 percent of the PL 566 reservoirs. At flood-control and navigation projects other than reservoir proj- ects, the Corps encourages non- Federal development of recreational potentials by leasing lands without charge and by paying up to 50 per- cent of development costs if a non- Federal entity will agree to operate and maintain the development. In the case of small-boat harbor proj- ects, the Corps requires non-Federal interests to make cash contributions equal to 50 percent of those harbor costs allocable to recreation and to provide lands, easements, rights- of-way, spoil disposal areas, and onshore facilities. The costs of major fish and wild- life facilities that remain under Fed- eral administration in connection with a Federal water project or a na- tional wildlife refuge are borne entirely by the Federal Government. If costs are incurred to improve the fish and wildlife resource for recre- ational purposes, the Federal Gov- ernment pays 5O percent of separa- ble costs and 100 percent of joint costs allocable to recreation (19). If maximum benefits are to be de- rived from recreational development 28 on new Federal reservoirs, the States must consider one of the fol- lowing alternatives: l. The State legislatures must increase approp- riations for recreation to provide one-half the cost of developing the facilities and all of the operating funds; 2. States must begin charging user fees to provide the funds neces- sary for cost-sharing in recreational development; or 3. A combination of increased legislative appropriations and user fees must be used to provide the needed funds for recre- ational facilities (l). Reluctance of State and local bodies to share in Federal reservoir recreation costs is due to Federal agency control, shortage of local fi- nancial resources for recreational purposes, and distortion of local rec- reational programs which can be caused by financing such major projects as those of the Corps. Be- cause local bodies are reluctant to finance recreation for use by people outside their respective taxing juris- dictions, they desire to have projects taken over by Federal agencies that have broader tax bases. Local bodies also are unwilling to spend local money on Federal land that must remain in Federal ownership. Another consideration is that Fed- eral reservoirs are not always prime recreational assets (19). A State may refuse to participate in the recre- ational development of new Fed- eral reservoirs under PL 89-72, in which case the likelihood of rec- reational development is almost nonexistent (1). Admission and user fees have been in effect in varying degrees at numerous Federal reservoir rec- reational areas since the Land and Water Conservation Fund first took effect in 1965. The fee system under the Fund Act has not worked well. Collections have underrun projec- tions; there has been little consis- tency between agencies in desig- nating areas and length of charge season; the honor system has failed; collection costs per dollar of receipts have varied greatly be- tween agencies from minimal to equaling or exceeding receipts. Willingness to try to make a fee sys- tem work has varied by agency, and local public oposition to Federal rec- reation fees has varied. In general, the fee system since 1965 can be classed as a failure and a disap- pointment (19). Federal construction agencies such as the Corps of Engineers are construction oriented. They are thus limited in competent and dedicated resource or recreation-management personnel. These staff have little in- fluence on policy and do not occupy top positions. Fundamentally, the ~ construction agencies are managers‘ of neither people nor resources. Within the Corps, for example, sev- eral basic management problems are apparent, including inadequate recreation planning and inadequate coordination between construction and land acquisition, lax adminis- tration of existing facilities, in- adequate facilities, lack of interpre- tive facilities, and lax enforcement of regulations (19). Flood Control The objective of flood-control works to prevent flood damage is accomplished by constructing either reservoirs or channel improvements, or combinations of both. In a reser- voir project, flood waters are stored in the reservoir and later released at a nondamaging rate. Flood-control improvements often include multi- purpose reservoirs for flood control and water conservation. Benefits from these reservoirs include the prevention of flood damages and the conservation of water for such pur- poses as municipal and industrial use, navigation, power, preserva- tion of fish and wildlife, and recrea- tion (39). To serve their purpose of regulat- ing flows and supplying water for beneficial uses, reservoirs have fluc- tuating pool levels. It is not feasible to attempt to hold for beneficial uses all flood flows. Water temporarily stored in the flood-control pool is re- leased as rapidly as practicable to provide the necessary storage space for subsequent floods. The water in the conservation pool, which is held until needed, will also fluctuate, since the level will drop during drouths when the withdrawals ex- ceed the rate of replenishment for extended periods (39). The Federal Flood Control Act of 1936 brought two important changes in the Nation's approach to flood problems. First, it recognized the problems as national in scope and placed major responsibility with the Federal Government. Second, it re- sulted in policies which placed pri- mary reliance on flood-control struc- tures (15). Since 1936, the national approach to flood problems has been to assume the major obligation to protect dev- eloped areas from damaging floods. In addition, Federal agencies have cooperated with National, State, and local groups in providing relief and rehabilitation assistance at times of flood disasters. The techniques used in the flood-control acts have been essentially building engineer- ing structures — channel improve- ments, canals, dams, dikes, walls, and levees (15). Despite a cumulative, massive in- vestment, the estimated annual losses from floods continue an up- ward climb. Structural measures have not kept pace with the rapidly growing flood problems (17). Build- ing is taking place in flood- vulnerable areas faster than the areas are being protected. Physical protection may be justified for some of the areas. Many flood-prone areas are largely undeveloped and have not yet reached the stage of de- velopment that would justify the construction of flood-control works. The passage of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 was another step in the advancement of flood plain management. The adoption of local flood plain regulations which ,I"neet the criteria of the Department of Housing and Urban Development is a prerequisite to obtaining sub- sidized flood insurance under the Act. This flood insurance program has been expanded and changed under the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. The significance of the law is that it requires communities having identified flood-prone areas to participate in the flood insurance program or become ineligible for federally related financing (41). The National Water Commission in its Final Report in 1973 recom- mends new cost-sharing policy for Federal and federally assisted water development including flood control as follows: "Flood Control, Drainage, and Shoreline Protection, Including Hur- ricane Protection — Costs of Federal or federally assisted projects providing such benefits as protecting lands through flood control, drainage, and shoreline protection, including hur-y ricane protection, should be recovered from identifiable beneficiaries through local units of government such as municipalities, flood control, drain- age, or shoreline protection districts that have power to make assessments upon lands benefited by the projects, or through State governments because of their critical role in determining flood plain management, with interest equal to prevailing yield rates on long term U.S. Treasury bonds outstanding at the time of construction." (19, p. 498). Developed flood-control capaci- ties of the major Texas reservoirs are summarized in Appendix Table 7. Flood control cost-sharing var- ies with the types of facilities constructed; With respect to major reservoirs, flood-control costs, in- cluding operation and maintenance. are borne entirely by the Federal Government. The policy is the same on minor reservoirs except that the Corps of Engineers may recommend that non-Federal interests be re- quired to provide land, easements, and rights-of-way if the reservoir is clearly in lieu of a local protection project. Hurricane protection proj- ects under Corps policy require at least 30 percent cost-sharing for con- struction and local assumption of all project operation costs. Under the PL 566 program, the Soil Conserva- tion Service pays all construction costs allocated to flood control (19). One panel of the National Confer- ence on Water held in April 1975 considered flood damage reduction (42). The statement of the continuing problem of flood plain development and flooding describes the present situation in Texas and the United States. "After nearly 4O years of concerted na- tional attack on the flood problem in the United States, we find the exposure to floods still increasing for man and his homes, factories, commercial facilities and communication lines. In addition, the costs to the Nation are rising for ad- justments to floods, and the vulnerability to catastrophe is increasing. The billions invested in reducing flood losses over this period have, on the whole, repaid themselves. But these investments have not prevented continued, unnecessarily vulnerable settlement of flood plains, in some cases adjacent to already protected areas. Nor have the investments in pro- tective measures prevented the rising demands on all governmental levels for disaster relief. "As the Nation has grown in recent years, the structural options for reducing the level and extent of floods have dwin- dled, while the costs of structural mea- sures have risen sharply. From an eco- nomic standpoint alone, traditional flood control projects are becoming increas- ingly more difficult to justify, while environmental concerns often reduce even further the feasibility of such so- lutions. The U.S. Congress has re- sponded to this realization by a number of enactments intended to reduce the un- necessary costs of floods, most notice- ably: 1. Section 73 of the Water Resources De- velopment Act of 1974, removing the cost-sharing prohibitions for nonstruc- tural solutions. 2. Section 102 of the Flood Disaster Pro- tection Act of 1973, requiring Flood In- surance in special hazard areas. Also Section 201, which provides for sanc- tions for communities not qualifying for insurance. 3. Sections 314 and 406 of the Disaster Relief Act Amendments of 1974. Sec- tion 314 requires insurance for prop- erties receiving disaster relief; Section 406 requires evaluation and mitiga- tion of natural hazards as a condition of any disaster loan or grant made under provisions of the Act. "The net effect of these provisions is not yet clear. What is clear is their gen- eral intent to slow the growth of incom- patible and unnecessarily hazardous de- velopment on flood plains." (42, p. 50) This is evidence of a national pol- icy to keep economic development out of the flood plains. Management is to take the place of structural so- lutions as a means of controlling flood losses. Flood prevention on intrastate rivers and smaller streams will increasingly become the responsibility of the landowners _ involved (17). 29 The wise use of available water resources is vital. Future Water Development Texas Water Development Funds have been approved in the past by the Legislature and the electorate. Using these funds for water supply projects has been of substantial aid to the State in developing its water supply sources. To date, the fund has aided, in cooperation with local interests, the development of more than 70 water supply projects. These projects pay their own way. No water project aided by the Water Development Fund is in default. As amortization of one set of projects occurs, the payments become avail- able for reinvestments in new proj- ects. Present and new expenditures contemplated from State funds are for the development of municipal and industrial projects within the State with instate water. Technical and financial resources are avail- able in Texas to develop any type of required municipal and industrial project. It is anticipated that the State will have to rely upon its own resources for developing many more projects, regardless of size (6). The Texas Water Development Board indicated at its May 1975 meeting that it will presently make no changes in its policy of construct- ing dams and reservoirs in advance of need unless it gets a directive from the Legislature to change its policy. Thus far, it was indicated by the Board Director that "develop- ment of Texas water resources had been rocking along just ahead of need — about 15 t_o 18 years ahead." He indicated that the Board had been able to keep ahead of the need by financing projects when a need is shown and when there is someone to pick up the cost of the bonds used to’ a finance the projects (28, p. 9). On March 16, 1976, the Texas Water Development Board (32) adopted abroad policy statement re- lating to water resource develop- ment and current problems and needs. The Board indicated its willingness to consider applications for financial assistance for worth- while projects. Qualified projects must be financially sound and in the public interest. Cost must exceed the financing capabilities of the sponsor, and the proposed facilities must provide optimum development of the site. Any single project costing in excess of $35 million must have approval by concurrent resolution and adoption by a majority of each house of the Legislature as a single project or as part of a statewide water plan. Proceeds from sale of bonds cannot be used for developing water resources of the Mississippi River. Texas water planning will be appropriately coordinated with other State and Federal programs of importance to Texas. The complete Board statement is quoted in Ap- pendix B (32). Some attitudes of the Board relate to problems of a continuing nature. State and Federal wildlife agencies are trying to use a new Federal wet- lands protection program to get State reservoir builders to provide for mitigation of their wildlife damages. Reservoirs increase lake fishing op- portunities for the public, but they reduce stream fishing and land hab- itats for all birds and animals (32). Lakes as well as other stream alt- eration projects now require Corps of Engineers permits, even when built by cities or river authorities. They come under the Federal environmental review process and the Federal requirement that mitiga- tion lands be provided for the public when wildlife habitat is destroyed. The Texas Water Development Board policy statement recommends that on non-Federal projects, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Depart- ment should provide adequate rec- reational and park facilities as well as wildlife management areas de- termined necessary for habitat loss due to construction of water supply projects. This position is in line with State law and past State prac- tices but may be contrary to Fed- eral law (32). Under the Fish and Wildlife Coor- dination Act, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department must be con- sulted concerning federally funded or licensed water development proj- ects. Its role is principally factfind- ing — to inventory species, to evaluate the status of fish and wild- life habitat, and to assess the prob- able effects of project construction. The Department has no power to re- quire or condemn land for mitigation and no funds to support a large pro- gram of intensive management of mitigation lands. The Coordination Act states further that costs of miti- gation will be defrayed by the con- struction agency. The construction agencies, however, are opposed to increasing the cost of water resource projects to cover mitigation. Ad- ditional legislation or changes in policy may eliminate this apparent impasse (35). A general problem of allocating Texas‘ water resources among com- peting uses and users over time exists. This problem has been grow- ing in intensity in recent years. It touches upon both the quantity and the quality aspects of waters in sur- face streams, in underground aquif- efs, and in coastal estuaries. There are considerations of market values for purposes of agriculture, recrea- tion, industry, manufacturing, food processing, and electrical genera- tion. There are alsolproblems of such extra market values as public health, recreation/fish and wildlife, esthetic, cultural, and others. Both public and private entities are involved including commercial agriculture and industrial enter- prises, environmental organizations, and the general public at large. Often these interests are in direct or indirect competition for the use and benefits of various water and related land resources in the State. Interre- lationship between multiple uses of a single resource and across differ- ent types of resources is usually involved. These may be competing, complementary, or independent of each other. Conditions may change over time and become more or less satisfactory (45). Examples include the multiple uses of Galveston Bay and its ad- joining watershed; the many users of the underground aquifer under Houston for municipal, industrial. and irrigation water supplies; the discharge of Wastes into coastal waters; the multiple uses of reser- voirs for irrigation storage, disposal of treated sewage effluents, and rec- reational fishing. "We must respond, in Texas of all places, to the justifiable needs to use our water to the maximum beneficial use through a highly developed and sophis- ticated water management plan which will incorporate the esthetics along with recreation and maximum beneficial use and reuse of our available supplies. We, without a doubt, face a reallocation of our water resources to those uses which will demonstrate an economic base as well as an esthetic value. Above all, we must find a way to put an end to some of our wasteful practices which encourage the consumptive use of water without gaining a maximum benefit in terms of product value and employment oppor- tunities. A prime example is the folly of our present statutory allowance of 200 acre-feet for any purpose to be im- pounded without a permit or any ques- tion of what the water will be used for. In the midwestern and western portions of our state the thousands of private fish- ing lakes on watersheds are a flagrant waste of our water resources where the water is needed the most. It is very dif- ficult for knowledgeable people in the urban water resources field to support a plan for importation when we are so wasteful locally and take so little cog- nizance of our own practices. Seemingly, it is better to spend billions of dollars than it is to face the hard facts of establishing priorities for water applica- tions and disciplining ourselves to proper use of our available supplies." (l1, p.14) The problem as posed is crucial to Texas at the policy level. Alloca- tional decisions are ultimately made at operating levels where direct con- trol over outputs and inputs are in- volved. But these operating level de- cisions are made within an institu- tional framework that governs what uses can be made of water and its interrelated land resources, and who benefits, and who bears the cost of such uses. The imbalances that exist in Texas and in the Nation with respect to the uses of natural resources and the resulting inci- dence of social costs and revenues are the result of imperfections at the institutional level. It might become necessary for Texas to make adjustments similar to those recommended by Kelso for water users in Arizona (14). There water is considered to be eco- nomically scarce in some areas but not so physically limited as to be a serious threat to the viability of the State's economy. Much of the scarce water supplies are legally, and by reasons of loca- tion, locked into uses of low eco- nomic productivity. Curtailment of these low-valued uses because of increasing water scarcity is judged to have but modest effects on the State's economy. Changing the structure of the State's economy both by curtailing water uses producing lowest net income per unit of water used and by expanding uses which produce higher net incomes will permit continued economic growth. Such transfer of water use is ex- pected to be economically advan- tageous in aggregate to the State's economy, as it means that the State is using its scarce water in higher income producing activities and adding to economic growth. By creating a water market or by facilitating water transfers from lower to higher value productivity, the economy will continue to grow without significant restraints from water shortages (14). The Texas water problem also partially results from a lack of appropriate policies for developing and transferring water among uses. Future plans for the development and allocation of water will need to consider present uses of relatively low economic pro- ductivity as well as new water supplies. 31 Appendix Tables APPENDIX TABLE 1. DAMS AND RESERVOIRS AUTHORIZED FOR MUNICIPAL USE Other Authorized lmpoundment Acre-feet for Uses Name of Reservoir Began Owner Municipal Use (1 ,2,3,4,5,6,7)* Canadian River Basin Canadian River Basin Lake Meredith 1965 Canadian River Municipal Water 100,000 2 Authority Red River Basin Red River Basin MacKenzie Reservoir 1974 MacKenzie Municipal Water Authority 4,000 2 Greenbelt Reservoir 1966 Greenbelt Municipal and Industrial Water Authority — 62.84 percent; Texas Water Development Board —— 37.16 percent 14,500 2,4 Lake Kickapoo 1946 City of Wichita Falls 40,000 Lake Arrowhead 1966 City of Wichita Falls 45,000 Pat Mayse Lake 1967 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 25,000 2 Sulphur River Basin Sulphur River Basin Lake Sulphur Springs 1973 Sulphur Springs Water District 7,800 7 Wright Patman Lake 1953 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 20,000 2 Cypress Creek Basin Cypress Creek Basin Lake Cypress Springs 1970 Franklin County Water District — 48.4 percent; Texas Water Development _ Board - 51.6 percent 1,300 2 Lake O’ the Pines 1957 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 42,000 2 Sabine River Basin Sabine River Basin Lake Tawakoni 1960 Sabine River Authority 184,600 2,3 Toledo Bend Reservoir 1966 Sabine River Authorities of Texas and Louisiana 100,000 2,3 Neches River Basin Neches River Basin Lake Palestine 1962 Upper Neches River Municipal Water Authority 196,000 Lake Tyler 1966 City of Tyler 20,000 Sam Rayburn Reservoir 1965 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 50,000 2,3 Trinity River Basin Trinity River Basin Bridgeport Reservoir 1932 Tarrant County Water Control and Improvement District No. 1 5,000 3,4 Lewisville Lake 1954 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 11,000 ** Grapevine Lake 1952 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1,250 ** Lavon Lake 1953 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 50,000 2 Lake Ray Hubbard 1968 City of Dallas 89,700 Cedar Creek Reservoir 1965 Tarrant County Water Control and Improvement District No. 1 175,000 Navarro Mills Lake 1963 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 19,400 Bardwell Lake 1965 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 9,600 Lake Livingston 1968 City of Houston and Trinity River Authority 40,000 2,3 32 APPENDIX TABLE 1. (c0nt'd.l Other Authorized lmpoundment Acre-feet for Uses Name of Reservoir Began Owner Municipal Use (1 ,2,3,4,5,6,7l* San Jacinto River Basin San Jacinto River Basin Lake Conroe 1973 San Jacinto River Authority — 13.15 percent; City of Houston — 66.67 percent; Texas Water Development Board — 20.18 percent 66,000 2,4 Lake Houston 1954 City of Houston 168,000 3 Brazos River Basin Brazos River Basin White River Lake 1963 White River Municipal Water District 4,000 2,4 Millers Creek Reservoir 1973 North Central Texas Municipal Water Authority 3,500 2,4 Fort Phantom Hill Reservoir 1938 City of Abilene y 30,690 Hubbard Creek Reservoir 1962 West Central Texas Municipal Water District 44,800 2,4 Lake Palo Pinto 1964 Palo Pinto County Municipal Water District No. 1 12,500 2 Lake Granbury 1969 Brazos River Authority 10,000 2,4 Lake Pat Cleburne 1964 City of Cleburne 6,000 Waco Lake 1965 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 59,100 Belton Lake 1954 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 95,000 2,3 lStillhouse Hollow Lake 1968 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 74,000 2,3 Somerville Lake 1967 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 50,000 2,3 Colorado River Basin Colorado River Basin Champion Creek Reservoir 1959 Texas Electric Service Co. 2,700 2 E. V. Spence Reservoir-I 1968 Colorado River Municipal Water District 40,000 2,4 Twin Buttes Reservoir 1962 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 29,000 3 Hords Creek Lake 1948 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2,240 Source: Engineering Data on Dams and Reservoirs in Texas, Texas Water Development Board Report 126, Parts I, ll, and Ill. *1. Municipal 4. Mining 7. Recreation 2. Industrial 5. Hydroelectric 3. Irrigation 6. Navigation **Other individual multiple uses. 33 APPENDIX TABLE 2. DAMS AND RESERVOIRS AUTHORIZED FOR INDUSTRIAL USE Other Authorized lmpoundment Acre-feet for Uses Name of Reservoir Began Owner Industrial Use (1 ,2,3,4,5,6,7)* Canadian River Basin Canadian River Basin Lake Meredith 1965 Canadian River Municipal Water Authority 51,200 P’ 1 Red River Basin Red River Basin ‘A MacKenzie Reservoir 1974 MacKenzie Municipal Water Authority 1,200 1 Greenbelt Reservoir 1966 Greenbelt Municipal and Industrial Water Authority — 62.84 percent; Texas Water Development Board — 37.16 percent 1,500 1,4 Pat Mayse Lake 1967 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 36,600 1 Sulphur River Basin Sulphur River Basin Lake Cypress Springs 1970 Franklin County Water District — 48.4 . percent; Texas Water Development Board — 51.6 percent 14,000 1 Wright Patman Lake 1953 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 100,000 1 Cypress Creek Basin . Cypress Creek Basin Lake O’ the Pines 1957 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 161,800 1 Sabine River Basin Sabine River Basin Lake Tawakoni 1960 Sabine River Authority 23,075 1,3 Toledo Bend Reservoir 1966 Sabine River Authorities of Texas and Louisiana _ 600,000 1,3 Neches River Basin Neches River Basin Sam Rayburn Reservoir 1965 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 660,000 1,3 Trinity River Basin Trinity River Basin Lavon Lake 1953 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 8,000 1 Lake Livingston 1968 City of Houston and Trinity River Authority 212,150 1,3 San Jacinto River Basin San Jacinto River Basin Lake Conroe 1973 San Jacinto River Authority — 13.15 percent; City of Houston — 66.67 percent; Texas Water Development Board — 20.18 percent 28,500 1,4 Brazos River Basin Brazos River Basin White River Lake 1963 White River Municipal Water District 1,000 1,4 Millers Creek Reservoir 1973 North Central Texas Municipal Water Authority 1,000 1,4 Hubbard Creek Reservoir 1962 West Central Texas Municipal Water District 1,200 1,4 Lake Palo Pinto 1964 Palo Pinto County Municipal Water District No. 1 6,000 1 Lake Granbury 1969 Brazos River Authority 70,000 1,3 Belton Lake 1954 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 150,000 1,3 Stillhouse Hollow Lake 1968 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 74,000 1,3 Somerville Lake 1967 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 50,000 1,3 Colorado River Basin Colorado River Basin Champion Creek Reservoir 1959 Texas Electric Service Co. 4,050 1 E. V. Spence Reservoir 1968 Colorado River Municipal Water District 2,000 1,4 Source: Engineering Data on Dams and Reservoirs in Texas, Texas Water Development Board Report 126, Parts l, ll, and Ill. *1. Municipal 4. Mining 7. Recreation 2. Industrial 5. Hydroelectric 3. Irrigation 6. Navigation 34 .m>mP ._mnoPoO RvwmP new mwmP iwmP _wmmP wmxmk E cozhmt: Po wmtoPcmiz: dmP toamm 560m PcmEQ2m>mQ ._m..m>> wmxmh ..mu.5om. mmwdmw; mowdPo mmodmw SmdRdP vmodwofi mwodwfiw 239w; mmmNwQmP vmqwxqw Fuck ~55 $5 qwofimw Pwqmw mmmdmm mmwdP P RoNwP 0mm. P PP mmwdm P_P Swim Quseo 0E 31w P mmqmw owodw Pond P v Pmd P Nmqwwm mwmdmm mmmdwo. P BNBP @950 oEamumaz 2%. PwP ms»? SEN wmfivwm mwmemw PPQmm .85! wmwmwv mmwmmw $252 0mm o o 8g Ema P ow om w 5d momd P mwuw:Z-o_coPc< cmm Q32 8P Km Pmodm mPQwN ma. Pm Pmmdw SP? mwwdm oEoPc< Em 6mm N.“ om mmwe ma} Pmwe 3&5 SP6 m3 PP $522.26 o o o s. 3% vomdP om Pdw PmmdP 8N3 mmm. Pm mnzmnm=o+hum>mJ PvN P wmhw 85 mwmeww 8N? SQ? omodw i. P. P Pm PmodoP mum>m|_ mm P 5W8 mmwdw Q P.oo P w Pmém ooQv 8o. P vmmdom mm». Pm momifi buesoo mooxmmw mmQP vwnm m Pmdom mmqmmw omwmw P NR2. 3 P_mvo_ P mvmdwm 26.200 3w. P Bodm owmd Rmdv 83 P mwwi: mmmfim mwww Pm mmwew ou9o_o0-mo~m.m mwodwv 9W2 8N8 vwwafid omwdofim mwmimm wwodm wwmdmwd wwqmfia 8S5 o 51m SQN oomdP oowd mwtSP v5.5 8.12 vwmew “Bfimépsumq Em 8 SP oom Q59 P 3Q? o o 09x8 P X39» 9502. 5w o mm P_m SQN oood coo. P owPxmw ~85 moodm QQN P 9202. .aw->:=_; S3 aim 8m. P PmfimP m8. P P 2K3 wmwdm wwqww Pmi? >25; o o o o o wfidww P3X. P wfidow 6&2: >E__¢-mw._8z mmmd Em. P m3. P mm; wmoé e58 m? PP mkwmm 9MP P 2582 m? w P P mmm m5. P mmo. P 0.8a mSd 23: mmme mEnmw w? w ow o o mmw q? mmw v9. WQPE>Q o o o o o o . o o o 55.15 2w. PwP mmw; 9w; mmfim Pod wmwomv; moPdm PPo§w Pofimmofi mmqmwv; 8m wwtfi P 21d ovod mmwd Pm. P wmwdmm. P o o vmwm Pm. P mmqmmm. P 58.50 wP6< Poofifiu< $6.4 Pww..-m._u< w2u< ~mmP-w._o< 36.4 PwwP+tu< $.94 cimm 62m mEmPw>w woznnsw umEnEou 2:0 coimEE >_cO cotmmt: cormmt: __< Bictaw 9:5 COFNUI: 6P~>> v5.90 .325 mumtam .39 _wz_wm