TDOC
Z TA245.7
B- 69

221169 Ma 87
* LIBRARY” 
‘ LIUN 091987
kfgggs ‘WMM Universityfi

Brushland Management
for Water Yield:

Prospects for Texas

41’ A

 

 

[Blank Page in Original Bulletin]

2
i
t

s! f 521.2. 6-4565? W‘??? g  A

i‘ l?  x,
6'

BRUSHLAND MANAGEMENT FOR WATER YIELD:

PROSPECTS FOR TEXAS

Bruce A. McCarl
Professor - Agricultural Economics
Ronald C. Griffin
Associate Professor - Agricultural Economics
Ronald A. Kaiser
Assistant Professor - Recreation & Parks
Lansingh S. Freeman
Research Associate - Agricultural Economics
Wilbert H. Blackburn
Professor - Range Science
Wayne R. Jordan

Director - Texas Water Resources Institute

The Committee for Water Policy
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station

Texas A&M University

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

Objectives and Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Motivating Factors: Why Brush Management? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The Need for Public Action and Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Study Objectives, Procedures, and Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

A Review of Issues and Available Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Brush Treatment and Range Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Law and Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Possible Public Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Policy Options for Enhancing Brush Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

A Research Agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6O

Appendix A: Seminar Speakers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Appendix B: A Qualitative Analysis of Varying Cost Shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Appendix C: Research Need Prioritization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Appendix D: Prioritized Needs Contained in Research Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Water demand is growing in Texas and agencies charged with guiding water
resource management are faced with increasing evidence of water scarcity.
Consequently, attention has turned to ways of reducing water scarcity through
development, conservation, reallocation, and/or regulation. Pursuit of these strategies
will probably have implications for the agricultural sector. Agriculture uses large
quantities of water, often at a lower use value than nonagricultural uses. In addition,
one study estimates that 38 percent of the state’s water budget is used by brush and
noneconomic plants on agricultural land. Reduction of brush and noneconomic plants
would not only reduce water consumption but also might increase agricultural
productivity. This situation has raised the policy issue of whether or not water used
by brush can be beneficially shifted to other uses, reducing water scarcity and
augmenting land productivity.

Objectives and Procedure

This document addresses that issue and arose out of a Texas Agricultural
Experiment Station project titled "Policy Studies of Water Conservation Initiatives."
The project and the document have the following objectives:

1) To produce a state-of-the-art assessment regarding policy incentives, legal
considerations, and technical feasibility matters involved with redirecting
water in Texas, concentrating heavily on the question of brushland
management for water yield enhancement.

2) To produce an associated list of Texas public action alternatives, including
a prioritized research agenda.

These objectives were addressed by the interdisciplinary committee authoring this
report. The process involved a detailed literature review, consultation with many
professionals at Texas A&M University and other Texas state agencies, and
sponsorship of a seminar series titled "Water Development Through Conservation
Initiatives."

Findings

In assessing the situation regarding brush management, the committee found
that:

0 Existing brushland water yield research results from other states are of limited
relevance to Texas conditions. Application of a formula based on Arizona and
California research to five Texas cases led to predictions that brush management
would yield 1.1, 2.3, 2.8, 4.9, and 5.2 inches of water, but Texas results indicate
yields of 0.26, 0, 0.31, 0.95, and 1.21 inches respectively. However, these data do

ii

not provide a reliable basis from which to infer Texas water yields. Currently,
insufficient data exists from which to infer water yield consequences of brush
management under Texas conditions.

A previous concentrated implementation of brush management in the San Angelo
area of Texas demonstrates the potential for water yield enhancement.

Water yield does not equate to water use or water use value. Evidence from an
Arizona study shows less than one-half the additional water from brush
management went into consumptive use. Conserved water which is applied to
another use may still have low value.

As much as 4O million acres in Texas could be subject to a brush management
program. Brush management improves livestock carrying capacity. However,
increased livestock revenues alone are not sufficient to justify brush management
in many locations. Consequently, either off-ranch elements of society must share
the cost of brush management or other benefits must be gained by the rancher
(perhaps through wildlife).

Brush is not a homogeneous commodity. Rainfall, soil, topographic, and
temperature differences, along with other factors cause widely varying brush
species mixes to occur in the state. Such diversity implies widely varying potential
water yields, management costs, livestock production benefits, and wildlife
considerations, among other factors. Consequently, careful site selection should be
part of any publicly subsidized effort.

In areas where brush removal is economically attractive, 100 percent clearing will
not usually be justified due to wildlife effects, topography, and other factors.

According to current laws concerning water rights, much of the water accruing
through brush management efforts becomes state water. Brush managers have
clear rights to the water only where it is in the form of diffused surface water
which is captured (impounded) or groundwater which is pumped. The brush
clearer can apply for a water right for water in a watercourse, but the right, if
granted, will be junior to all other users. Furthermore, given the lack of Texas
water yield data, documentation of additional appropriable flow will be difficult.

From a public policy perspective, a number of actions could be pursued relative to
encouraging brush management. The main categories of these actions are a)
continue current policy-no new initiatives; b) subsidize brush management
through low-interest loans; c) cost share with those managing brush; d) refine
property rights to resultant water so that private markets arise; and e) regulate
brush incidence. Concurrently, research, education, and planning can be
undertaken to provide a basis for future brush management initiatives.

History shows a water justified brush management policy action in Arizona
executed without research backup which led to millions of acres being cleared
without apparent water yield benefits.

There is little basis on which to judge the social profitability of a brush
management policy. Many relevant questions (e.g., How much water? Who uses
it? What benefits do the users get? What happens to the environment?) remain
unanswered.

iii

0 An efficient off-ranch subsidy policy would include site specific criteria in
determining the amount of brush management to be cost subsidized. This would
include consideration of many on-site factors involving water yield, water use
values, percent of waters used, and effects on other costs and benefits.

0 Any policy to encourage brush management should be considered relative to other

policies to reduce water scarcity. However, little systematic data are available on
the costs and benefits of other policies.

iv

INTRODUCTION

Texas’ 27 percent population growth during the 1970’s was the highest in the
nation and high growth rates are expected to continue (Skrabanek and Murdock
1981). Dramatic population growth and concurrent expansion in economic activity
cause increasing pressure on the state’s water resources. Because of high costs,
reduced federal subsidies, and the scarcity of low cost, easily developed reservoir sites,
water supply enhancement through reservoir development is limited.

Texas must rely on other approaches for dealing with water scarcity. Practical
alternatives may emerge from technological innovation, but the most worthy solutions
may lie in the day-to-day application of rational, problem-specific management
practices. Society, through its decision-making processes, must make policy decisions
regarding which management practices to follow. One potential set of management
practices involves shifting water among alternative uses. When considering this
option, attention immediately turns to agriculture, since a large portion of the state’s
water is used within this sector.

One prominent alternative for shifting water involves the expansion of brush
management on rangelands. Information derived from other states (Hibbert 1983)
and Texas (Blackburn 1983, 1985) suggests that increased surface water flows and
groundwater recharge can be obtained through brush management. Simultaneously,
evidence arising from Texas rangelands indicates that brush management can
increase land productivity in terms of both livestock (Scifres 1980) and wildlife (Inglis
1985) while improving environmental quality through reduced sedimentation
(Blackburn 1983, 1985). Potentially, brush management may yield positive social

- returns by alleviating water scarcity while increasing land productivity and

environmental quality. These potential benefits have raised the policy issue of
whether society should encourage brush management. This document is designed to
contribute to the resolution of that issue.

Motivating Factors: Why Brush Management?

The traditional motivation for controlling brush on rangelands involves
increasing forage production for livestock. Botanical competition between grass and
brush species for nutrients, water, and space implies that brush removal can increase
grass production. In turn, stocking rates, livestock production, and revenues are
enhanced. However, from the rancher’s perspective, investment in brush management
often has a relatively low economic return (McBryde, Conner, and Scifres 1984). Low
returns, together with cash flow constraints, limit brush management activities on
most of the 95,000,000 acres of Texas rangeland (Soil Conservation Service 1985).

Brush and noneconomic plants have been estimated to use 38 percent of the
total Texas water budget (Rechenthin and Smith 1967). The consideration of
brushland vegetation management as a means to increase available water supply is
not new to the arid western states. Research begun in Arizona and California 30
years ago suggests vegetation management may hold promise as a low-cost source of

additional water. Only recently has research regarding physical conditions and plant
species in Texas begun (Blackburn 1983, 1985).

However, Texas political momentum for increased brush management has
gathered quickly. This momentum has been stimulated by a brush management
program in the Rocky Creek area near San Angelo which turned a dry wash into a
flowing stream (Kelton 1975; Dow Chemical Company 1986). Many feel that
additional brush management throughout the state can provide needed water supplies
for downstream areas while improving rangeland productivity. This idea has been
operationalized by the Texas legislature under the auspices of Senate Bill 1083, the
"Brush Bill," (1985).

Much of what is "known" about Texas prospects for water yield from brush
management is contained in the Soil Conservation Service publication, Grassland
Restoration Part V - Effect on Water Yield and Supply (Rechenthin and Smith 1967).
This document presents a positive outlook offering a "conservative" estimate that 10.2
million acre-feet could become available annually through a statewide brush
management program. To place this in perspective, 1980 Texas water consumption
by the municipal, domestic, manufacturing, mining, steam electric, and agricultural
sectors amounts to 17.9 million acre-feet (Texas Department of Water Resources 1984,
p. 25). Thus, Rechenthin and Smith’s water yield estimate amounts to more than 50
percent of current water consumption. However, the assumptions underlying these
figures render the estimates tentative as discussed below.

Simultaneously, a preliminary estimate of the economic consequences of brush
management for water production paints an optimistic picture. According to
Blackburn, Jones, and Lacewell (1984), 40 million acres of moderate and dense Texas
brushland could be treated for a one-time cost of $800 million. Assuming 5 million
acre-feet would be produced, they estimate that this investment would result in an
annual return of $200 million worth of water consumption benefits. In addition, they
estimate benefits of $16 million arising from reduced erosion costs and a $186 million
increase in livestock revenues. Thus, they estimate there would be an annual return
of $402 million from a one-time expenditure of $800 million. Therefore, brushland
management has the appearance of a profitable social investment. However, these
estimates are based on many assumptions about the applicability of results from other
states and about the importance and/or unimportance of many factors.

A final point of motivation concerns environmental influences. The erosion
benefits estimated by Blackburn, Jones, and Lacewell (1984) arise from brush
replacement with a soil-preserving grass cover. Other environmental effects may be
beneficial as well. A properly managed mix of habitats including brushy areas can
enhance wildlife habitats and species diversity. Game animal populations can be
increased in quantity and/or quality, and the accessibility of rangelands to hunters
can be improved. These effects would increase wildlife lease revenues. Additionally,
water salvaged from brush management could enhance watercourse flows and estuary
fresh water inflows with positive consequences for recreation, wildlife habitats, and
fisheries.

The Need for Public Action and Research

The information reviewed above shows potential for social gains through
brushland management. However, any policy action will need to be developed based

upon the economic, environmental, legal, institutional, and political implications of
those actions. Predictions of these implications depend upon data involving the effects
of brush management on water available for use, water quality, water use, and
resultant water user income among many other factors. However, little is known
about relevant data in Texas. Available scientific data are essentially drawn from
other ecosystems and institutional settings which, while similar, are not identical to
those found within Texas. For example, none of the water yield estimates cited above
are drawn from data developed in areas where mesquite is an important component of
the brush complex. Furthermore, experimentation in other states has involved
publicly owned rangelands, but private land is the rule in Texas. Such differences
call for research on a number of technical, legal, and economic issues regarding water
yield from brushland management. These involve the net yield of water, the ways
water will be released into the environment, the ways water will be used, the benefits
and costs accruing to the various benefiting and possibly losing entities, and the
institutional mechanisms needed to assure that the water goes to valuable uses.
Research on such issues will make important contributions to efforts to redirect water
from low-valued to higher-valued uses.

One way of justifying carefulinvestigations of possible public policies is to
review instances where the basis for brush management-related actions was not
strong. Three such instances will be reviewed: 1) a case where brush management
was implemented; 2) a legal precedent pertaining to water rights developed by brush
management; and 3) a current barrier to Arizona implementation of brush
management.

Arizona has been a leader in brush management research and implementation.
Barr (1956) provided one of the foundations for the Arizona actions. Regarding brush,
Barr (1956) estimated a per acre water yield between 0.5 and 1.0 acre-inches from the
removal of the pinyon-juniper overstory, while concluding that chaparral-infested
acreage exhibited low potential for water yield. Subsequently, in the 1960’s,
considerable acreage of Arizona brushland was treated by mechanical procedures to
remove the pinyon-juniper overstory. Meanwhile, research was continued on
vegetative management for water yield. Resultant research findings indicated that
mechanical methods of removal did not increase water yield, especially on pinyon-
juniper-infested lands (Clary et al. 1974), but that chaparral-infested lands exhibited
significant potential for water yield (Hibbert, Davis, and Scholl 1974; Hibbert 1983).
Thus, implementation in advance of research results led to an effort to increase water
yield by managing a brush complex where water yield was not enhanced, while
overlooking a brush complex which could increase water yield.

As a second illustration of the need for public policy inquiries, consider the legal
setting of brush management under an appropriative water rights system. While laws
and institutions are subject to change, legal rights to increased water yields do not
necessarily accrue to those who practice brush management. Colorado’s Shelton
Farms case is an example (Meyers and Tarlock 1980, pp. 127-36). Shelton Farms
cleared an area of brushy phreatophytes adjacent to a watercourse and then petitioned
for the use of the water generated by the clearing activity. This petition was
eventually denied. The resultant water was held to be water that historically was in
the watercourse and therefore subject to the existing appropriative rights system. The
increased water yield was held to accrue to existing water rights holders, not to the
party managing the brush. Such a situation would obviously reduce the incentives for
private landowners to undertake phreatophyte brush management and might make it
difficult to establish a compensation scheme.

The final iiiustration justifying public policy investigation is drawn from the
current Arizona chaparral brush management situation. Evidence shows that water
yield and social welfare can be enhanced by herbicide-based chaparral brush
management (Hibbert, Davis, and Scholl 1974; Hibbert 1983; Brown, O’Connel1, and
Hibbert 1974). While this has been known for more than 1O years, there has been
limited implementation largely due to resistance to widespread herbicide use. Early
trial applications of herbicides were marked by confrontations, one of which led to the
book pointedly titled "Sue the Bastards" (Shoecraft 1971). Research is needed on
environmental implications and public concerns regarding alternative brush
management options.

Study Objectives, Procedures, and Format

The above discussion of potential social returns, as well as the illustrations,
points out the complexity of the brush management decision. This document is
designed to contribute to decision making by identifying what is known and not known
about the brush management decision. The document arises out of a research project
entitled "Policy Studies of Water Conservation Initiatives" funded by the Texas
Agricultural Experiment Station. The objectives of the project are:

1) To produce a state-of-the-art assessment regarding policy incentives, legal
considerations, and technical feasibility matters involved with redirecting
water in Texas, concentrating heavily on the question of brushland
management for water yield enhancement; and

2) To produce an associated list of Texas public action alternatives including
a prioritized research agenda.

This document is divided into four major parts: 1) the introduction; 2) a review of the
issues and the associated literature; 3) a potential public action section including a
research agenda along with a discussion of alternative policy approaches; and 4) a
summary.

This project involved a literature review and a seminar series entitled "Water
Development through Conservation Initiatives." The literature review was conducted
by the authors with the assistance of student Scot Ullrich. The Law and Institutions
section is a synthesis from work by Ronald Kaiser and Frank Skillern with research
provided by Jonathan Miller, Tim Perrin, and Lori Thomas. The seminar speakers
who contributed greatly to the authors’ knowledge of the subject were Thomas Brown,
Richard Conner, Jack Inglis, Lee Jones, Charles Scifres, Steve Stagner, Dan Tarlock,
Murray Walton, and Zach Willey (Appendix A provides titles and addresses). In
addition, one of the team members, Wilbert Blackburn, also presented information.
Several faculty members, in particular, Richard Conner, Lonnie Jones, Ron Lacewell,
John Nichols, and Ed Smith, assisted by reviewing parts of the document. The
authors wish to express their sincere appreciation to all.

A REVIEW OF ISSUES AND AVAILABLE INFORMATION

Brushland management for water yield enhancement involves: 1) partial or total
removal of brush from rangelands by a rancher who thereby alters the physical and
economic characteristics of his land; 2) a resultant change in vegetative water use
which may alter the on-site water balance and off-site abundance of surface or
groundwater; 3) a related change in environmental attributes such as sediment load,
wildlife habitat, and water quality; 4) society’s laws and institutional structures
which determine rights to and patterns of water use; and 5) water use by off-ranch
parties with potential changes in their revenues and costs. Such a situation contains
many potential issues relevant to public policy toward brush management for water
production. The discussion of the policy related issues can be loosely grouped into five
categories.

Hydro logy

0 water consumption and flow-on-site and off-site alterations in ground
and surface water volume

Brush Treatment and Range Productivity
i brush incidence and on-site effects of brush management
Environment

I off-site concerns for fish and wildlife, water quality, recreation, and
aesthetics

Law and Institutions

0 implications of current Texas laws, institutions, agencies, and water
management organizations

Economics

0 benefits and costs of brush management actions and related public
policies

These are not independent categories; rather there are many overlapping concerns.

Hydrology

The off-site hydrologic effect is the critical issue related to the brushland
management for water yield decision. The considerations of key importance are, "Does
brushland management increase water yield?" "Where and when is this increased
water available for use?" And "How can increases in water be monitored?" This
section presents discussion on these issues.

Does Brushland Management Increase Water Yield?

This question involves the quantity of water, the conditions which cause water
yield to vary, the timing of water releases during the year, and the form of the water
yielded (surface water or groundwater). A body of research has addressed these
questions, but the research is of varying relevance to Texas conditions. Research
findings exist pertaining to vegetative management efforts in general, to cases
suggestive of Texas rangeland conditions, and to a limited extent on Texas
rangelands. Therefore, general findings are discussed first, then findings pertinent to
Texas-like conditions, and finally findings arising in Texas.

Efforts to enhance water yield through vegetative manipulation have a long
history. Bates and Henry studied water yields from forest management in 1928. In
1965, Meiman and Dils predicted that "The multiple use concept of resource
management will be implemented...to the point of applying positive practices
[vegetative management] for...water resource [augmentation]." However, according to
a 1983 appraisal by Ponce and Meiman,"...management for water yield augmentation
has not progressed very far" (p. 415). The preponderance of scientific research
indicates that water yield can be enhanced through vegetative management where the
water yield enhancement arises through alterations in evapotranspiration and
possibly interception by resident plants.

Ponce and Meiman (1983) reviewed evidence showing that water yields differ
based on vegetation and location. For example, 10-30 centimeters (4-12 inches) were
yielded by clearing eastern U.S. forestlands, as much as 15 centimeters (6 inches) on
Arizona chaparral lands, and 2.5-7.5 centimeters (1-3 inches) on ponderosa pine
lands. Increases have not always been found; for example, Hibbert (1979) reports
small to negligible flow increases from pinyon-juniper lands in Arizona. A set of
conditions for water yield increase has been synthesized by Hibbert (1983) who states:

1) Annual precipitation should exceed 450 millimeters (17.7 inches),

2) The vegetation removed must be replaceable with species which use less
water, and

3) The replacement species should be shallow rooted and either low in
biomass, decidous, or dormant much of the time.

Many acres of Texas brushlands satisfy the above criteria and thereby exhibit
potential for water yield enhancement, but realization of this potential depends on
selection of regions exhibiting favorable brush complexes and rainfall conditions.
Ponce and Mieman (1983) remark that "The greatest potential for water yield
augmentation appears to be on carefully selected watersheds that have the biophysical
potential to produce water that is used for high value purposes, and can be managed
under sound multi-resource management" (p. 418).

Research in Texas has been limited (Blackburn 1985). However, relevant
findings have arisen on rangelands throughout the world (Hibbert 1988), with most
arising in Arizona and California. Hibbert (1983) estimated an equation which
indicates that in rangeland cases one should expect 0.26 inch of additional runoff for
each 1-inch increase in precipitation above 15.12 inches. The evidence was based on
studies involving a number of brush complexes dominated by deep-rooted evergreen

shrubs in Arizona and California. (Figure 1 portrays Hibbert’s (1983) regression line
and underlying data.) Other species can exhibit different behavior although the
environmental conditions which led to predominance of these species may be the
causal factor. For example, Hibbert (1983) cites evidence of poor potential from
Arizona and California sagebrush and pinyon-juniper stands although this may be
attributed to low rainfall. Hibbert’s equation may be of limited relevance to widely
varying geographic, soil, and environmental conditions.

The water yielded by brush management has been found to display some general
characteristics. First, the water yield augmentation has been found to occur
principally in subsurface flow and groundwater infiltration (Hibbert 1983). In some
areas, water flow has increased in nearby watercourses without increasing surface
runoff through subsurface flow. Second, the time period over which water yield
increase persists has been found to be dependent upon the rate of brush regrowth
(Hibbert, Davis, and Scholl 1974). Third, the brush control method has been shown to
be an important determinant of water yield. Control methods which remove the above
ground portion of the plant but which do not kill the roots (fire and chaining or
cabling) have been found to exhibit short-lived water yield increases (Hibbert 1983).
Complete plant removal (rootplowing, etc.) and herbicide treatments have shown the
most long-lived effects. Fourth, follow-up treatments have been found to be necessary
to maintain brush control and water yield enhancement (Texas Agricultural
Experiment Station 1985, Hibbert 1983). Fifth, brush management has been shown
to reduce and in some cases increase soil erosion rates with steepness of slope
(Sampson 1944; Blackburn 1983) and rate of forage establishment being important
explanatory factors (Scifres 1986). Sixth, research results on water yield have tended
to overestimate practical implementation results. Research often has been conducted
on denser brush stands than ordinarily expected, and more brush has been removed
than in practical implementations (Ponce and Meiman 1983). Seventh, the majority
of water yields have been observed in high rainfall years-80 percent of the water
yields in Arizona occurred in the wetter than average years (Hibbert 1979). Eighth,
the brush-infested lands studied have been found to contain untreatable acreage due
to brush density, slope, accessability, or other factors (Ponce and Meiman 1983;
Brown, O’Connell, and Hibbert 1974).

Turning to Texas, limited research has been done (Table 1). Most of these data
are of limited scientific validity with respect to the water yield question mainly due to
years studied (i.e., 1-year study) or measurement method as noted below.
Nevertheless, these data are indicative of the situation and merit discussion.
Richardson, Burnett, and Bovey (1979) found, in a 7-year watershed study, that when
controlling honey mesquite there was "about 1O percent more runoff’ (p. 318) which
amounted to 24.3 millimeters or 0.95 inches on the Blackland Prairie of Texas.
Richardson, Burnett and Bovey (197 9) also report results from a study near Sonora,
Texas, in which root plowing was employed for brush management. In that case,
water yields after treatment were less than those before. Blackburn (1983) reviews
simulated rainfall studies by Bedunah (1982) and Brock, Blackburn, and Haus (1982),
stating that mesquite control "increased infiltration rates and either has no effect or
decreased sediment production on the Rolling Plains" (p. 83). Blackburn (1983) also
reviews Knight, Blackburn, and Scifres ( 1983) stating "Prescribed burning following
herbicide application had little influence on infiltration rates—thereby water yield-of
whitebrush or running mesquite dominated sites on the South Texas Plains but
decreased sediment loss" (p. 83). i

These results are not consistent with the Hibbert (1983) equation as the Texas
results generally fall below the equation and the data underlying it (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Comparison of Water Yields.

6

Water Yield (Acre-Inches)
O0
|

| i l I I "
14 18 22 26 30 34 38
Annual Precipitation (inches)

B Hibbert Data >< Texas Data

Table 1.

Characteristics of Texas Brushland Management Water Yield

Estimates
Texas
Source Richardson Franklin Weltz Knight Soil and
et al. et al. Water Board
Area Blackland Rolling South Texas South Texas Rocky
Prairie Plains Plains Plains Creek
Town Riesel Throck- Alice Tilden San Angelo
morton (La Copita)
County McClennan Throck- Jim Wells McMullen Tom Green!
morton Irion
Water yield 0.95 .31 1.18 0 .26
(inches)
Years studied 1970-77 1985 1985 1979 ?
Precipitation 35 26 35 24a 19
(inches)
Method Watershed Lysimeter Lysimeter 0. 5—m Steam
measurement variable guaging
area plots
Comments Two 1.3-ha First-year First-year Simulated Flow was
watersheds data from data from heavy storm between 475
were non- non- rainfall and 4,000
metered- weighing weighing measuring GPMb; 1,000
one with lysimeter. lysimeter. runoff and GPM was used
mesquite infiltra- to form
removed. tion after estimate.
the other removing All flow
without. mesquite and was assumed
whitebrush. due to brush
removal.

a Normal precipitation approaches 24 inches but simulated rainfall was used.
b Gallons per minute

 

10

Namely, the South Texas Plains site receives 24 inches of rainfall for which Hibbert’s
(1983) formula predicts 2.31 inches of water but yielded zero while the Blackland
Prairie site receives 34 inches of rainfall which leads to a prediction of 4.91 inches of
water but yielded 0.95 inches- Soil types, geology, weather patterns, etc. seem to
render Hibbert’s (1983) results of limited relevance.

The first year of data from lysimeter-based water budget studies in South Texas
and North Central Texas Rolling Plains indicate water yield increases as a result of
brush management. Results from mesquite-dominated mixed brush complexes
replaced with herb-dominated species in South Texas showed increased annual runoff
and deep percolation of 1.18 inches (30 millimeters) as opposed to Hibbert’s (1983)
formula which predicts 5.17 inches (Weltz 1987). In addition, there was less surface
runoff and more infiltration in the areas where mesquite was removed than in
untreated areas on the Texas Rolling Plains with replacement forage species altering
water use (Franklin 1987). On net, a 0.31-inch increase in water yield was realized.

In addition to the hydrological evidence arising from the research community,
evidence has also arisen from actual Texas brush management efforts. The most
notable case involves Rocky Creek, which is a small tributary of the Middle Concho
River northwest of San Angelo, Texas. According to Kelton (1975), Rocky Creek
"dried up in the early 1930’s only to come back to life in the late 1960’s after
extensive brush removal along its 74,000 acre watershed [with] seeps and springs...at
literally dozens of places [with] at least a dozen of them...flowing year round" (p. 1).
The Dow Chemical Rangelander newsletter (1986) indicates Rocky Creek continues to
flow. Kelton (1975) and Rechenthin and Smith (1967) cite examples of other
watercourses where similar experiences have been noted. The Texas Soil and Water
Conservation Board presents an estimate of the volume of water in Rocky Creek as a
consequence of brush management amounting to 525.6 million gallons based on
stream gauging and an assumption that a majority of the water in the river is
attributable to brush management (Kuykendall 1986). This amounts to 0.26 inches
per acre, which is again lower than predicted by Hibbert (1983) (1.01 inch for 19
inches of precipitation which approximates that at Rocky Creek). In addition, the
0.26-inch estimate may overestimate water yield as it is impossible to determine the
amount of additional water versus the amount of storm water which is shifted in time
by alterations in infiltration rates. The Texas results which yield quantitative
estimates are summarized in Table 1. A regression through these data shows the
yield to be on the order of 1 inch of water every 15 inches of percipitation above 19
inches. But this is unreliable as the scientific reliability of the water yield estimates,
excluding the one derived by Richardson, Burnett, and Bovey (1979), is not high.

It is also instructive to compare these results with those derived by Soil
Conservation Service (Rechenthin and Smith 1967) which are the only statewide data
available. This comparison is shown in Table 2. Generally, the Soil Conservation
Service estimates are within the ranges predicted by Hibbert’s (1983) formula but may
be optimistic with respect to the sparsely available Texas results.

An interesting issue involves the accuracy of inferences to total water yield

based upon research findings from other areas and/or preliminary research. This issue
is best illustrated by reviewing the history of estimates generated for the Salt and
Verde River basins in Arizona (Table 3). Barr (1956) presented estimates of water
yield increases from three brush complexes: pinyon-juniper, chaparral, and desert
shrubs. Barr (1956) concluded that there was practical potential to generate 0.5-1
inch of water per acre for over 1.7 million acres of pinyon-juniper and no potential
from chaparral and desert shrubs. Almost 20 years later, Ffolliott and Thorud (1974)

11

   

 

Table 2. Comparison of Water Yield Predictions and Texas Findings
Water Hibbert Formula
Rain- Yield Total Yield T0138 ‘y
Fall Per Acre Land Water Min Max Observed 
Min Max Treated Avail Cleared (1,000 (inch/ (inch! Yield 

Region (inch) (inch/acre) (1,000 acres) acre-feet) acre) acre) (inch/acre) s?

EAST TEXAS EAST 35 55 6.4 4,288 3,000 1,600 5.2 1 0.4 —

TIMBERLAND WEST 30 35 4.0 929 650 217 3.9 5.2 -
TOTAL 1 , 8 17

BLACKLANDS AND

GRAND PRAIRIE 30 45 3.0 5,000 3,500 875 3.9 7.8 -

NORTH CENTRAL

PRAIRIE, CROSS BRUSH 25 35 4.0 5,243 3,670 1,223 2.6 5.2 1.0

TIMBERS, SALT CEDAR 24.0 25 25 50

CENTRAL BASIN TOTAL 1,273

EDWARDS EAST 20 35 3.0 7,857 5,500 1,375 1.3 5.2 -

PLATEAU WEST 15 20 0.3 12, 143 8,500 213 0.0 1.3 —
SALT CEDAR 24.0 53 53 106
TOTAL 1,693

ROLLING MESQUITE 20 25 1.0 10,600 9,540 795 1.3 2.6 0.3 8L 0.3

PLAINS SHIN OAK
SAGEBRUSH 20 25 4.0 3,501 2,451 817 0.0 2.6 -
SALT CEDAR 24.0 288 288 575 —
TOTAL 2, 187

HIGH SHIN OAK

PLAINS SAGEBRUSH 15 20 2.0 1,714 1,200 200 0.0 1.3 —
MESQUITE 15 20 0.3 3,339 3,000 75 0.0 1.3 —
SALT CEDAR 36.0 6 6 17 —
TOTAL 292

TRANS PECOS BRUSH 0 18 0.1 1,000 1,000 8 0.0 0.8 -
SALT CEDAR 24.0 282 282 563 -
TOTAL 572

RIO GRANDE NUECES 18 35 2.0 6,786 4,750 792 0.8 5.2 1.2

PLAIN GUAD. AND
SAN ANT. 18 35 2.0 840 588 98 0.8 5.2 -
RIO GRAN DE 1 8 22 0.3 2, 880 2,0 16 50 0. 8 1. 8 —
OTHER 18 35 2.0 3,726 2,608 435 0.8 5.2 —
TOTAL 1,375

COAST BOTTOMLAND 30 55 12.0 15 15 15 3.9 10.4 —

PRAIRIE UPLAND 30 55 6.4 316 221 1 18 3.9 10.4 0.0
OTHER 30 44 4.0 423 296 99 3.9 7.5 -
TOTAL 232

GRAND TOTAL ALL LANDS 2.5 66,037 49,509 10,316
GRAND TOTAL EXCLUDING SALT CEDAR 2.2 65,383 48,855 9,005

 

12

Table 3. Estimates of Water Yield from Arizona Brushland Treatment? Salt

and Verde River Basins

Brush Type Barr Ffolliott and Thorud Brown et al.
All Brush Complexes
Physically Treatable Landb (acres) 2,200,000 1,241,798 850,000‘?
Practically Treatable Landd (acres) 1,700,000 1,176,375 175,912°
(percent of physically treatable land) (77) (95) (21)
Most Probable Management Option (acres) 1,700,000 470,550-705,825 105,547-147,766
(percent of practically treatable land) (100) (40-60) (60-80)
Annual Water Yield:

Total (acre-feet) 71,000 117,637-235,274 24,000-30,443

Per acre (inches/acre) 0.5 3-4 3.1-3.8
Pinyon - Juniper
Physically Treatable Land (acres) 2,200,000 na na
Practically Treatable Land (acres) 1,700,00 na na
Annual Water Yield

Total (acre-feet) 71,000 0 na

Per acre (inches/acre) 0.5-1 0f na
Chaparral
Physically Treatable Land (acres) 11a 1,241,793 350.000
Practically Treatable Land (acres) na 1,176,375 175,912
Total Water Yield

Total (acre-feet) 7 1,000 1 11637-235274 24,000-30, 443

Per acre (inches/acre) 0E 3-4h 3.l-3.8i

a Brushland water yields were derived for land infested with chaparral and pinyon-juniper.
b Brushland felt to be physically capable of yielding additional water.

c National Forest land only.

d Brushland treatable after constraints are taken into account.

e Brushland treatable after accounting for wilderness areas, steep slopes, sparse vegetation areas, and wildlife and aesthetic

COHCEITIS .

f Pinyon-juniper lands were found not to yield significant results.

E Chaparral lands were assumed not to yield significant results.

h Three inches when 40 percent of brush is cleared, four inches when 60 percent of brush is cleared.

i Based on the assumption of .59 inches of additional water per inch of precipitation over 17 inches.

na means not available.

13

concluded that there was potential to obtain 3-4 inches per acre from selected
chaparral acreage and basically none from pinyon-juniper and desert shrubs. Thus, a
major discrepancy arose in the 2O years. Barr’s (1956) estimates differ because of 1)
reliance on preliminary research-water yield from pinyon-juniper was estimated based
on "theoretical calculations..." even though he recognized that "...there is some
evidence that pinyon-juniper control may produce no additional water," and 2) the
opinion that chaparral was not "practically controllable" (Barr 1956, pp. 29, 30).

The related study by Brown, O’Connell, and Hibbert (1974) allows another
interesting comparison. While the estimates for yield per acre are approximately the
same as Ffolliott and Thorud’s (1974), the treatable area assumptions differ widely.
Ffolliott and Thorud (1974) assume the Salt and Verde basins contain about 1.24
million acres of chaparral land of which 1.18 million acres are judged treatable, with
the untreatable acreage estimate based on ownership and rainfall. Ffolliott and
Thorud (1974) argue that between 4O and 60 percent of the treatable land is
practically treatable because of physiographic, vegetative, institutional, social,
economic, and other constraints. On the other hand, Brown, O’Connell, and Hibbert
(1974) start from a national forestland base of 850,000 acres of chaparral and reduce
it to 175,912 acres based on wilderness area regulations, brush cover, slope, and other
pertinent criteria. This land area is then further reduced to between 105,547 and
147,766 acres based on economic criteria. The Brown, O’Connell, and Hibbert (1974)
estimates exhibit almost a tenfold variation from Ffolliott and Thorud’s (1974) water
yield estimates because of the treatable acreage assumption.

The only comprehensive Texas based technical assessment of water yield is that
generated by the Soil Conservation Service within Rechenthin and Smith’s 1967
report as presented in Table 2 [which underlies the estimates used in the introduction
to this report and in Blackburn, Jones, and Lacewell (1984)]. However, Rechenthin
and Smith’s (1967) numbers are adapted based on extrapolation of data from distant
areas and different plant species. For example, the Edwards Plateau numbers are
based on a study of pinyon-juniper and shrub oak removal in California (Woods 1966)
and a 70 percent brush removal assumption. Given the Arizona experience, such an
inference is highly questionable. Development of Texas data constitutes an important
research need.

Yet another approach for estimating water yield involves the application of
hydrological simulators such as erosion/hydrology models to predict water flows. The
basis of such models is well developed (e.g., U.S. Department of Agriculture’s EPIC
model: Williams, Jones, and Dyke 1984; Williams, Renard, and Dyke 1983). Arnold
and Williams (1985) have investigated the ability of a simulator model to predict
water yields. In this study, two watersheds with some rangeland were investigated.
These involved a 538—hectare watershed in Oklahoma and a 234-hectare watershed
in Idaho. In addition, an 18—hectare crop, pasture, and grass-covered watershed in
Riesel, Texas was studied. The Oklahoma watershed was studied over a 19—year
period predicting a mean of 48 millimeter annual water yield versus an actual of 19
millimeter with close correspondance in standard errors (27 versus 25 millimeter) but
an average of 31 percent prediction error. The Idaho watershed showed a model mean
of 75 millimeter as compared with an actual mean of 72 millimeter over a 14-year
period when the standard error was less close (40 versus 31) with a 25 percent
average prediction error. The Texas non-range watershedover 22 years showed a
model mean of 169 millimeter versus a mean of 149 millimeter with a model standard
error of 129 millimeter versus 88 millimeter with an average of 30 percent error.
Data on sediment yields also are presented. Based on these data and other evidence
from a total of 12 watersheds, Arnold and Williams (1985) concluded that simulators

14

"can realistically simulate water and sediment yields under a wide range of soils,
climate, land use, topography, and management" (pg 114). However, it is interesting
to note that the three range and/or Texas related cases cited above are the worst cases
in the 12 studied in terms of average prediction error.

Work also has begun on applying these models to Texas conditions and
vegetation manipulation. Hailey and McGill (1983) have investigated procedures for
incorporating Texas vegetative and climatic conditions in runoff predictions. Arkin
(1986) has a project reviewing the opportunity to use these models for predicting the
water and other effects of brush management. Based on research to date, Arkin
(1986) states that the U. S. Department of Agriculture EPIC family of models appears
to be suitable for rangeland use, but the model’s characteristics in terms of sensitivity
to brush management and reliability for predicting hydrological results are topics yet
to be fully investigated (Arkin 1986).

When and Where Is the Water Made Available?

Assuming that water is made available by brush management, an important
question involves when and where it is available, as this, in part, determines value.
There are two aspects of this issue, the first involves the actual timing and location of
additional water. The second involves the ability to monitor the additional water.

The when and where question has a number of dimensions. Additional water
from rangelands may augment surface water or groundwater supplies directly.
Surface water increases may result in increases in: 1) the flow in reaches of rivers, 2)
the quantity of water used by water rights holders, 3) the volume of floodwaters, 4)
the amount of water in reservoirs, 5) the rate of groundwater recharge, and/or 6) the
amount of water flowing into bays and estuaries. Groundwater increases may raise
the water table, increase water pressure in related areas, or augment surface flow by
way of seeps and springs. All of these depend upon the timing of water release and
the hydrologic characteristics of the region. There has been a considerable body of
research on the several topics implicit in these questions. The general topic involves
the stream/groundwater measurement, modeling, and simulation research areas which
have been extensively studied (Linsley, Kohler, and Paulus 1982). Few studies have
been conducted pertinent to brushland management (Ponce and Meiman 1983, Brown
1986a,b; Lundeen 1977). The results of these studies are summarized below.

Brushlands have been found to release water predominantly in high
precipitation years-80 percent of the water in the wetter than average years (Hibbert
1983). Brown (1986a,b) used data reflecting such a release pattern to simulate the
effects of brushland management on water use in the Verde River basin in Arizona.
Brown (1986a,b) found that such a pattern led to:

1) An increase in consumptive use of the water approximating 5O percent of
the increased flow with the rest being accounted for by increased spillage,
seepage, evaporation, etc.;

2) A consumptive use pattern which depended on storage capacity as well as
the volume of additional water generated; and

3) An increase in the probability of flooding.

15

Interestingly, Brown’s (1986a,b) results show increased storage decreases the amount
of the brush management water yield which is consumptively used. While increased
reservoir storage was associated with increased total consumptive use, the increase in
water yielded by brush management showed decreased delivery under the increased
storage. The wet year predominated delivery pattern and the prevailing institutional
structure apparently caused this.

A number of other issues have been mentioned relative to the off-site
hydrological characteristics of the water yield.

1) Practical implementations of vegetative manipulation have not been tried
and documented on a large watershed basis. "Although research has
shown that water yield canbe increased, the means to transfer this
information to larger areas is limited" (Ponce and Meiman 1983, p. 418).

2) It is difficult to measure the effects of watershed vegetation manipulation
projects downstream because the additional water generated is often less
than the measurement error (Harr 1983; Krutilla, Bowes, and Sherman
1983).

Studies of the basin-wide implications of brush management most likely will
need to be done with models which estimate and track water yield increases (Williams
1983). However, with models the results are dependent on the accuracy of the data
and assumptions. Research is needed on the reliability of these models because, "To a
large degree confidence is dependent on the degree to which the model is based on
scientific principles underlying the hydrologic process, the degree to which it has been
validated in other areas, and how credible its predictions are for the watershed of
interest" (Ponce and Mieman 1983, p. 417).

No Texas based studies were found pertaining to basin-wide implications of
brushland water yield increases. A research need is to measure flow changes on rivers
caused by upstream vegetation management. A body of literature is available to start
from. Models have been developed by the Texas Water Development Board to study
short-term storm runoff and water availability prediction. In addition, groundwater
models for selected areas in Texas provide information for various recharge rates. For
example, the Texas Water Development Board modeled the Edwards Aquifer.

Another hydrologic issue involves the incidence of flooding. In Arizona, brush
management has been found to increase surface runoff volume only slightly after the
first couple of years. Subsequently, the majority of the increased water yield was
found in subsurface flows or in groundwater (Hibbert 1983). The increased subsurface
flows are released to watercourses sometime after rainfall events. Thus, flooding is
likely to be increased only if: 1) major storm events occur in the first 2 years after
treating a large amount of land, probably only on a local basis (Krutilla, Bowes, and
Sherman 1983; Ponce and Meiman 1983) and/or 2) major events occur when the soil is
already saturated. However, these results could use Texas verification.

How Can Increases in Water Be Monitored?

Monitoring is also an important question, i.e., "How will one know how much
water is generated by a project and where the water goes?" It is difficult to determine

16

points at which the specific amount of increase can be monitered. Also, the technology
to measure the increased subsurface flows is expensive. Increased yields from springs
could be more easily measured, but these are not always identifiable, nor are they the
sole manifestation of increased yield. The consensus appears to be that it is
impossible to physically monitor actual flows from specific vegetation management
projects (Ponce and Mieman 1983). For this reason, simulation models have been
suggested.

Brush Treatment and Range Productivity

The consideration of whether to manage brushlands for water yield involves a
number of issues above and beyond the hydrologic questions such as:

1) What is the incidence of brush in Texas?
2) What are the treatment alternatives?

3) What are the implications of brush management for range productivity
and range-derived income?

4) What benefits will be foregone if brush is removed?

5) What factors will a rancher consider in making a brush management
decision?

These broad questions encompass a number of sub-issues, which will be briefly treated
below. The reader also is referred to "Integrated Brush Management Systems for
South Texas: Development and Implementation" (Texas Agricultural Experiment
Station 1985) and "Brush Management: Principles and Practices for Texas and the
Southwest" (Scifres 1980) for a more in-depth treatment of a number of the issues.

Incidence of Brush

Scifres (1980, p. 3) defines brush as "...a growth of shrubs and/or small trees
usually undesirable for livestock grazing or timber management but which may be of
value for browse, wildlife habitat, and/or watershed production." He adds, "Most
rangeland in Texas supports an extensive cover of woody plants, _a brush problem...".
In 1964, the Soil Conservation Service estimated that there were 88.5 million acres of
Texas rangeland infested with brush. Approximately 50 percent of this land was felt
to be in need of brush removal to improve forage production (Smith and Rechenthin
1964).

While brush is prevalent on Texas lands, it is not homogeneous. The diversity
of Texas soils, rainfall conditions, evaporation rates, temperature, and frost-free days
contributes to a tremendous diversity in brush communities (Gould 1975; Scifres
1980, Figure 2). This diversity exists not only in the context of large geographic
areas, but is exhibited in species mix and density on specific parcels of land depending
upon slope, water availability, soil characteristics, etc. Such diversity means that
water use, potential water yield characteristics of brushlands, as well as treatment
cost, erosion rates, and other factors are heterogeneous.

17

Figure 2. Map of Brush Types by Regions.

BRUSH MANAGEMENT

   
  
  
   

    

3.
\A a 32 PO81’ on: snwmum
\ . van,” _
f . nowuo nuns) $.35“ Elm - 85km 
\ Honey Mesquite , ____ v-T
fled-berry Jumper y’ \-3 ‘,4’
" Send Shinnery Oak.’ f‘ /
. , 1
f S. f f
CROSS TIIBERS AN f‘ 1 '48
I\ PRAIRIES I‘
£2.00 x
,-\ I I ‘N!
I I \ 1
) bg maevwooos \
““' H Oaks - Other Hardwoods
M \ 7- \ I Honey Meequne 56
” J sowmos PLATEAU _
Honey Meequnte — Live Oak _ 1
\ Mixed Brush - Cactus — Jumpers. ‘ Iafk g" L.» as
' i, 1"" 2.
14 __ --~_, GULF PRAIRIES AND IIARSHES
6. Honey Mesquite — Mixed Brush
soumtezuswuans f Huceedwe-Muzanney Rose-Oak:
Honey Mesquite -— Mixed Bmsh )0’ / 4R
Cactus — Oaks. "' \ " _ 
t.‘ / 
/ I 
N I 1 * 40
I 2.
] ,
I .
o 2o 4o so so I‘ .
i ‘
SCALE m MILES I‘

 

---- VEGETATIONAL AREA BOUNDARIES
--—- PRECIPITATION AREAS

 

18

An assessment of the water yield effects of brush management would require,
among other things, information on the types of brush infesting rangeland by location,
slope, soil type, rainfall, etc. However, such systematic information is not available.
Data from a 1982 survey of the brushlands by brush type are given in Tables 3 and 4.
Brush is present in significant amounts despite considerable efforts to remove it
(Welch 1982, Table 6).

Another important sub-issue regarding brush incidence is its dynamic
characteristics. The density and dispersion of brush is possibly increasing (Walton
1986). Brush incidence was much lower in the past (Scifres 1980). Grazing practices
have contributed to the spread of brush. During drought periods, if there is
insufficient feed, livestock eat brush seed pods. Subsequently, the undigestable seeds
can be deposited in manure at other locations. The nutrients and moisture in manure
provide a nursery area which nurture the young brush plants aiding the spread of
brush (Kelton 1975). A 1982 estimate of brush-infested rangelands includes 105.6
million acres, up from 92 million acres in 1972 and 88.5 million acres in 1963
(Johnson 1986). However, one cannot conclude from this evidence that brush is
increasing. The basis for these numbers varies; for example, most estimates place
total Texas rangelands at 95 million acres-less than the 1982 infestation estimate.
But if present, increasing brush density has important implications. For example,
increased brush density reduces range carrying capacity and alters wildlife species mix
(Wiggers and Beasom 1986). Simultaneously, current water yields could be reduced
leading to increased water scarcity over time. Thus, research needs are: 1) what is
currently happening to brush incidence by species, density, region, etc. and 2) what
will happen to future state water availability if treatments are not undertaken. Data
may be available pertaining to the first question from the Soil Conservation Service
1960’s, 1970’s, and 1980’s surveys [Smith and Rechenthin (1964) and unpublished
1975 and 1982 follow-ups (Johnson 1986)].

Treatment Alternatives

The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station (1985) and Scifres (1980) describe
many brush management alternatives. The basic techniques include: 1) mechanical
methods such as root plowing, chaining, shredding, raking and stacking, roller
chopping, cabling, railing, and discing; 2) chemical methods involving broadcast
herbicides or individual plant treatments; 3) prescribed burning; and 4) biological
control, mainly using goats. The choice among these management methods depends
on site characteristics and brush species as well as treatment objectives.

Table 7 gives data on the cost of selected brush management alternatives.
These data reveal a wide range of costs. Such methods may be used individually or
conjunctively. One can also adopt alternative application strategies. The main
application strategy decision involves the degree to which the treatment is applied.
Land may be totally cleared, or selectively cleared in either strips, a checkerboard
pattern, or a more complex mosaic pattern (Hamilton 1985). These brush removal
strategies leave different amounts of brush for livestock, drought reserves, wildlife
cover screens, and erosion barriers.

A number of research findings have arisen pertinent to the brush management
for water yield question. First, brush management has been found to require follow-
up treatments. Follow-ups often involve prescribed burning several years after an
initial herbicide treatment, but other methods can be used. A concern with follow-up

19

Table 4. Acres Reflecting Various Infestations by Type of Brush

Percent Acres
Canopy
Creeging Mesguite Honez Mesquite Blueberrz Redberrz J uniger
0 1,67,360,200 1 16,989,300 158, 100,700 156,030,300
1 60,400 3,613,700 470,400 1,218,700
1-5 110,300 17,795,900 3,012,000 4,621,600
6-10 74, 100 10,508,300 1,622,400 2,728,900
1-20 58,600 9,873,400 1,401,600 1,882,800
21-30 6 1,300 4,739,700 794,700 818,000
31-50 33,100 2,790,900 732,800 358,200
51-75 1,036,700 473,500 91,000
76- 100 408,500 148,300 8,500
Sand Shinoak_ Post Oak Pricklezgar Broom Snakeweed
0 165,243,000 16 1,407,700 137,082,000 157,770,900
1 70,200 232,700 5,643,900 987,300
1-5 458,400 1,293,900 19,88 1,300 4,039,200
6- 10 393,000 1,065,200 3,276,300 2,443,000
11-20 463,200 1,131,800 1,398,000 1,633,300
21-30 378,900 842, 100 300,500 548,800
31-50 4 15,500 942,600 146, 800 269,300
51-75 257,200 619,900 21,700 53,200
76- 100 78,600 221,500 7,500 13,000
Blackbrush Creosotebush Huisache Macartnez Rose
0 160,705,900 157,907,900 164,428,500 167,389,200
1 373,200 511,300 251,100 47,500
1-5 2,047,600 3,180,200 1,468,000 152,300
6-10 1,806,000 2,368,300 712,100 71,400
11-20 1,4 13,300 2,635,500 502,000 48,200
21-30 790,000 84 1,600 179,500 22,000
31-50 463,200 313,200 412,900 4,200
51-75 121,000 64,100 19,800
76-100 37.800 9,800 3,400
W hibebrush
0 162,31 1,000
1 674,600
1-5 2,477,100
6-10 1,120,000
1 1-20 645, 500
21-30 290,900
31-50 146,500
51-75 70,900
76-100 22,500

Source: Soil Conservation Service 1986 preliminary data drawn from 1982 brush survey, unpublished.

2O

Table 5. Acres in Need of Treatment by Area of Texas

p Improvement With Brush Management
Area Brush Management and Reestablishment
Trans-Pecos 3,129,400 683,500
High Plains 1 ,767,900 199,600
Rolling Plains 5,439,900 1,182,200
Rolling Red Prairies 190,800 72,500
North Central Prairies 2,093,900 1,101,300
Edwards Plateau 7,642,200 1,565,400
Central Basin 654,200 134,500
Northern Rio Grande Plain 1,988,000 813,200
Western Rio Grande Plain 2,238,000 981,100
Central Rio Grande Plain 1,870,100 1,064,100
Lower Rio Grande Valley 240,300 55,800
West Cross Timbers 321,400 413,300
East Cross Timbers 38,300 74,900
Grand Prairie 1 ,002,600 463,300
Blackland Prairie 728,500 488,500
Claypan Area 1 ,034,300 792,000
East Texas Timberlands 6,500 4,800
Coast Prairie 740,500 78,000
Coast Saline Prairies 193,800 14,800
Total 31,320,600 10,182,800

Source: Statistical Results from Texas 1982 Natural Resources Inventory, compiled
by U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Temple,
Texas, January 1985.

21

Table 6. Acres of Texas Rangeland Receiving Brush Treatments

Year Chemical Mechanical Total Burning
1940 2,552,982

1941 1,902,261

1942 1, 105,796

1943 657,091

1944 2,930,884

1945 1,116,796

1946 1,371,314

1947 1,212,959

1948 514,503

1949 740,743

1950 1,042,072

1951 500,000 1,289,610

1952 500,000 1,186,090

1953 82, 177 1,034, 155

1954 106,486 1,013,668

1955 101,904 1,279,068

1956 148,755 946,795 1,095,550

1957 217,227 688,212 905,439

1958 410,194 760,272 1,170,466

1959 466,559 828,055 1,294,614

1960 505,421 990,929 1,496,249

1961 653,745 816,990 1,470,735

1962 573,378 746,289 1,319,667

1963 695,916 836,594 1,532,510

1964 589,645 725,366 1,315,011

1965 815,294 776,485 1,591,779

1966 1,130,821 917,227 2,048,048

1967 966,390 939, 179 1,905,569

1968 890,133 740,980 1,631,133

1969 982,354 751,973 1,734,327

1970 965,264 954,980 1,920,244

1971 450,607 750,728 1,201,335

1972 979,315 794,759 1,774,074

1973 924,839 627,979 1,552,818

1974 868,223 1,077,878 1,945,010

1975 585,858 614,189 1,200,047

1976 573,506 675,298 1,248,804

1977 592,935 572,077 1, 165,012

1978 1,438,387

1979 1,578,000

1980 1,128,909 845,501 1,974,410 200,266
1981 942,919 778,741 1,721,660 225,296
1982 na‘ na na na
1983 1,084,822 896,341 1,981,163 210,026
1984 729,323 796,852 1,526,175 267,932
1985 987,005 892,918 1,879,923 220,519

* na = not applicable.
‘Spy/z; 37224201985

22

Table 7. Estimated Cost of Selected Brush Control Practices

Treatment Description Cost/Treated Acre
($)

Two-Way Chain 7 - 9
Burn (first) 3 - 7
Burn Subsequent 2 - 4
Stack (after chaining) 15 - 18
Burn Stacks 4 - 6
Aerial Spray "Grazon ET+PC" (1 lb AI/acre) 26
Aerial Apply "Spike" (2 lb AI/acre) 55
Root Plow 34 - 38
Root Rake (two-way) 24 - 28
Seed Buffel 14 - 16
Chisel Plow 9 - 1 1
Roller Chop 8 - 10
Heavy Off-Set Disc and Seed Buffel 34 - 38

Aerial Spray "Banvel + Grazon PC" (1 lb AI/acre) 25

Source: Presentation by Richard Conner, "Implications of Brush Clearing for Range
Productivity and Income," Integrated Brush Management Systems
Workshop, Texas-A&M University, January 1986.

treatments may involve whether the mosaic pattern yielded by a nonuniform
treatment strategy can be maintained. Second, it has been found that brush
management methods which fail to remove or kill the brush root system have short-
lived effects on water yield. For example, fire and chaining often have effects for only
a few years after treatment (Brown 1986a). The practice most commonly felt to
effectively enhance water yield involves herbicide use which kills the whole plant with
follow-up prescribed burning to control regrowth. Third, mechanical root removal
methods (raking, plowing) have been shown to exhibit considerable erosion potential
(Scifres 1986).

Implications for Range Productivity and Income

One important set of issues involves the effects of brush management on range
productivity and range-derived income. There are a number of important sub-issues
relating to the productivity of the livestock, wildlife, and other ranch enterprises.
There are also important questions regarding the economics of brush management.

Brush control affects land productivity. Range carrying capacities are altered as
brush density changes. Brush and forage are competitive. Brush density affects
wildlife feed, cover screen, and bedding areas. As brush is cleared, range productivity
responds in a dynamic fashion dependent upon the establishment of replacement
forages, rate of soil erosion, surface runoff volume, availability of wildlife cover

23

screens, availability of drought forage reserves, and rate of brush regrowth. Texas
Agricultural Experiment Station (1985) states that brush management can: 1)
increase livestock carrying capacity; 2) increase wildlife carrying capacity when
selective control is practiced; and 3) have varied effects on soil erosion, depending
upon the degree of soil disturbance, the rate at which new cover is established, and
the incidence of precipitation.

A number of studies contain data on the effect of brush management on
livestock carrying capacity and productivity. For example, McBryde, Conner, and
Scifres (1984) estimate that brush management could permit a 10.2 percent increase
in South Texas range carrying capacity, leading to a 3.2 percent increase in the total
regional value of livestock. However, brush removal activities cost money. Negative
to low rates of return appear to be the norm on brush management investments when
justified solely by livestock returns (Hamilton et al. 1986). In a study based on 1978
conditions, Whitson and Scifres (1980) estimate that, depending upon brush removal
method, between 40 and 9O percent of brush treatment costs would need to be
subsidized in order for a livestock producer to earn a 9 percent return on investment.
Generally, these data indicate that brush management is not economically justified
based on livestock benefits alone; rather, there have to be sufficient net benefits in
terms of other on-site enterprises or off-site benefits. In the brush management
context, there appear to be three other possible sources of on-site benefits—wildlife,
water, and crops-as well as a source of cost or benefits of nonpoint source pollution.
Off-site benefits will be discussed later. Wildlife merits further discussion and will be
the subject of a paragraph below. On-site water could be used in justifying brush
management if water yield is altered so that the resultant water increases ranch
productivity such that net income increases.

Increased cropping on cleared brushland does not appear to be likely. There may
be some on-site cropping stimulated by the ability to impound increased water, but
this is likely to be limited. Nonpoint source pollution changes could have on- as well
as increasing off-site costs or benefits. There are cases in Texas where brush
management will either promote or inhibit nonpoint source pollution (this evidence
will be reviewed in the later section on the environment). For example, increases in
soil erosion could increase costs in terms of foregone future on-site agricultural
productivity as well as increasing off-site costs of nonpoint source pollution.

Wildlife alterations are an important consideration regarding the on-site
productivity effects of brush management. In certain areas of Texas, income from
hunting leases can match or exceed that from livestock (Inglis 1985). Thus, brush
management for water yield enhancement efforts will need to integrate wildlife
management objectives with livestock and potential water yield objectives (Conner
1985a). Such objectives may well be complementary, as brush can be too thick to
provide quality habitat for livestock and game animals. Extremely thick brush has
the most negative livestock and wildlife production effect and therefore would yield a
relatively larger rate of return to private brush management efforts (Whitson and
Scifres 1980), while seemingly yielding more water. Evidence cited by Inglis (1985)
shows that reductions in brush density can enhance game animal habitat. However,
brush removal can be taken too far. Extremely open country depresses game animal
numbers. Nongame wildlife may also play a role in determining the desirable amount
of brush management. Different species exhibit different economic values (Stoll and
Johnson 1984) and habitat requirements [as now being compiled by Texas Natural
Heritage Department or as compiled for Oregon by Thomas and Maser (1986)].
Furthermore, game, nongame, and livestock animals using the land can exhibit both
complementary and competitive relationships which could play a role in any ranch-

24

level planning regarding brush management. Little is known about such
relationships in Texas.

Consideration of the value of wildlife to the rancher also raises an issue
regarding the relationship of game abundance and leases. Studies have found that
the value of the leases on a particular piece of land is not tightly tied to the number of
game animals inhabiting that land (Glover, Conner, and Steinbeck 1986). Factors
such as services, publicity, facilities, and physical characteristics of the land appear to
be more important. Research is needed on the relationship between brush
management, lease values, and these other factors.

When one species in an ecosystem is altered, the composition of the remaining
vegetation, insects, nongame animals, etc. is changed as well. Little is known about
the effects brush management or increased water yield has on these items.

Benefits of Brush

A basic thrust of the brush management initiative has involved the removal of
"worthless" brush. However brush may not be worthless. For example, brush may
have value in terms of:

1) Supporting wildlife species whose habitat requirements call for particular
characteristics (nesting, coverscreen, etc.) in terms of woody plants,
particularly those species which require extensive areas of woody plants;

2) Reduction of soil slippage and erosion, particularly in unstable areas or on
steep slopes;

3) Production of mesquite charcoal;
4) Provision of a drought forage reserve;
5) Provision of shade for livestock and wildlife; and

6) Alteration of local atmospheric conditions by altering photosynthesis and
transpiration.

The value of not maintaining these and other possible benefits of brush is a research
issue.

Brush Management as an Economic Decision

The final brushland productivity issue involves the way in which the brush
management decision is evaluated by a rancher to see if it is advantageous. This
topic has been treated by Conner (1985b) and McBryde, Conner, and Scifres (1984fi
among others. A number of factors must be evaluated over the decision time horizon
to see if the management decision is beneficial. Often a net present value analysis
will be used to evaluate the decision (Bussey 1978). The key considerations in the
rancher’s brush management decisions are: 1) livestock revenues; 2) livestock
investment and rearing costs; 3) brush management costs; 4) wildlife-related income

25

and associated costs; and 5) other benefit items.

Brush management can increase livestock production in a number of ways.
There may be changes in the number of animals on the range, the calf crop, the
weaning weight, or the sales weight of the animals. The most likely increase will
come in terms of number of animals on the treated land, but the other factors may
change depending upon whether forage quality changes. Livestock productivity
alterations will vary over time depending on the rate of forage establishment and
brush regrowth. Estimates of production increases and revenue changes are needed
for each year of the planning horizon.

Assuming that the range carrying capacity increases, additional livestock
investment costs may be incurred. More cows and bulls may need to be acquired.
Added animals not only increase production but also variable costs such as salt,
minerals, veterinary fees, etc. Brush management may reduce certain variable costs
(such as labor or feed). Estimates of the net cost changes must be developed for each
year.

The third category involves brush control costs for initial and follow-up
treatments. These include the costs of the materials used, application equipment, any
associated labor, etc. Another cost item which may arise involves the cost of
maintaining the animals at some other location during the treatment and
reestablishment periods.

Fourth, a number of wildlife benefits and costs should be considered which are
difficult to quantify. These include the brush management-induced change in wildlife-
related leasing income, wildlife management costs, and other values attributable to
game and nongame animals.

Brush management may also exhibit other economic effects. The effects on the
value of ranch-owned assets should be considered. These are included in the economic
calculations by adding the brush management-induced change in the value of
livestock, land, and equipment inventories (considering their abundance as well as
altered sale value) at the end of the planning horizon.

Environment

There has been a historical tendency to overlook environmental concerns relative
to brush management. However, environmental concerns are important from a
number of standpoints. First, brush management practices may have the potential for
increasing environmental quality, which would be valuable to society. Therefore, from
a social standpoint, it may be important to consider the increased value of
environmental quality in determining whether or not to undertake brush management
actions. Second, in areas like Arizona, environmental concerns have been
instrumental in determining whether or not brushlands are treated. Environmental
concerns of the 1970’s virtually brought brush management to a standstill on
federally managed rangeland. For example, in 1980, the Bureau of Land
Management treated only 2,500 hectares (6,250 acres) in the United States
(Blackburn 1983). Nationwide, there has been a change in brush management with
prescribed burning becoming much more prevalent. This has been influenced by the
environmental movement. For example, while herbicides are known to be more
effective for increasing water yield in treating brush, prescribed burning is the only

26

brush management tool proposed in the Arizona Tonto Forest Plan (Forest Service
1985). Private ownership patterns in Texas may mitigate the influence of the
environmental interests. Nevertheless, environmental concerns are important because
of the social benefits and costs associated with environmental alterations and because
of the potential constraints that could be placed on brush management practices.

Brushland management for water yield improvement could have a number of
environmental implications. These implications arise principally through the effects
of brush removal on plant species mix, evapotransporation, photosynthesis, water
infiltration, surface flow, and runoff chemical content. In turn, these alterations
affect environmental attributes as well as atmospheric conditions and scenic
characteristics of the land.

Wildlife

Brushland management can alter populations of both land- and water-based
wildlife. The possible effects on land-based wildlife depend on their food, cover, and
shelter requirements. Some species will increase in abundance and/or migrate into the
area as the plant population is altered, while other species will migrate out or
diminish. For example, research indicates mule deer favor more open country while
whitetails favor brush; thus, increased brush concentration has been found to lead to
a substitution between these species (Wiggers and Beasom 1986). Information about
the likely implications of brush management is contained in Inglis (1985) or the
habitat requirement compilation now underway by the Texas Natural Heritage
Department.

Water resulting from brush control can affect water-based wildlife in a number
of ways. There may be changes in the timing and availability of water as well as
water quality. Stream flows may change from variable seasonal patterns to
dependable perennial patterns and/or stream flow volume may increase in a uniform
or seasonal manner. Flooding also may increase. Water increases may occur in
streams, rivers, reservoirs, and/or estuaries. The brushland water yield also may
affect groundwater and the wildlife species dependent upon springs and areas fed by
springs.

Water quality changes also can alter wildlife populations. The exact nature of
the water chemistry changes covered by brush management are not well known.
Generally, it has been found that there may be changes in herbicide residuals, nitrate
concentrations, and sediment load as a result of brush management (Davis 1984,
Blackburn 1983, and Clary et al. 1974), and some feel there may be increases in salts
washed into watercourses. In turn, these changes could alter the fish and wildlife
habitats through effects on the eutrophication of streams and reservoirs or through
changes in soil fertility within the watershed. This may lead to an increase in algae
blooms and aquatic macrophytes, although reportedly in Texas, phosphorus, not
nitrogen, is the limiting nutrient for such phenomena.

Water Availability

Brushland management techniques may increase the amount of water in
streams, groundwater systems, and/or percolating from groundwater to surface water.

27

Changes in any of these can alter environmental characteristics such as stream
channel dynamics (Schumm 1974) as well as the recreational use of certain areas
(Young 1982). Increases in water availability also can lead to increased flooding,
which can be destructive in terms of the aesthetics and property values along
watercourses. Increased water yields, if potentially directed toward groundwater
recharge, could prevent groundwater depletion and/or springs from drying up, thereby
maintaining surface water uses, recreation, and tourism industries. (The San Marcos
springs fed by the Edwards Aquifer are an example of a surface water system linked
to groundwater.) Increased levels of water availability may also affect bays and
estuaries by providing more water and by altering salt content.

Water Quality

A number of studies have considered the influence of brush management on
water quality. The influences documented in the literature involve nitrates, sediment
loads, and herbicide residuals. Davis (1984) reports results from an 1 1-year study of a
treated watershed in Arizona showing sharply increased nitrate levels. In fact,
nitrates were increased on the order of 100-fold during the first couple of years and,
over the 11-year period, show a 14-fold increase when compared to an untreated
watershed.

Long-term soil erosion rates, as reviewed by Blackburn (1983), generally have
been shown to exhibit no increase or decrease on treated versus untreated land.
However, almost all treatments exhibit short-term increases in soil erosion. There
may also be cases where there is an increase in long-term soil erosion. For example,
in Bedunah’s 1982 study, an area which was denuded exhibited a large increase in
soil erosion. While this may not be a planned consequence of brush management, it
may be possible that gulleys and unstable areas are created in areas which, under
brush, were previously stabilized.

If herbicides are used in brush management, herbicide residues may alter the
chemical composition of water. Clary et al. (1974) report that herbicide residuals
amounting to 1.3 percent of that applied were found in runoff water during the first
year after treatment. Concentrations ceased to be detectable after 3 years. Herbicide
research in Texas has revealed results similar to the Arizona studies. Herbicide
concentrations decreased with distance from the treated area in proportion to the size
of adjacent, untreated watershed subunits, which contributed runoff water to
streamflow (Mayeux et al. 1984). Plant "washoff" was the main source of herbicide
detected in runoff water. In one study, about 6 percent of the applied picloram left
the treated area during a period of 1 month when conditions were especially conducive
to herbicide transport. The picloram concentrations decreased with each successive
runoff event (Mayeux et al. 1984). The initial peak concentration could harm crops
below the treated area, but no effect was shown in one study (Bovey et al. 1974).
These results were similar in cases where follow-up treatments were employed (Baur,
Bovey, and Merkle 1972). Research on chemical concentrations in subsurface flows
showed extremely low presence of herbicide residues (Bovey et al. 197 4). Long-term
studies have not been done due to the speed of chemical degredation. The cumulative
effects from widespread applications could be researched.

Changes in water quality may affect the value of water for drinking and/or other
uses. No systematic information is available on the economic effects of changed water
quality. For example, nitrates in drinking water are known to be the cause of

28

methemoglobinemia, a potentially deadly condition for infants 3 months old or less
(National Research Council 1978). Finally, brush management also may affect
aquatic salt concentrations when salt concentrations are reduced by increased flow or
salt-bearing runoff (when water crosses salty surfaces or infiltrates through
underground salt deposits).

Atmospheric Characteristics

The removal of brush from a considerable acreage of Texas brushlands could
cause atmospheric changes; for example, Rechenthin and Smith (1967) estimate
millions of acres could be treated. If millions of acres were treated, then there could
be several million less acre-feet of water transpired into the atmosphere by the brush
plants. This might have implications for humidity and rainfall patterns in Texas, but
the effect is probably minimal given the dominant effect of Gulf and Pacific Ocean
evaporation on Texas atmospheric conditions.

Scenic Characteristics

The final environmental issue involves changes in scenic characteristics.
Brushland management will obviously alter brush density as well as the population
and species mix of animals using that brushland. Scenic characteristics of the river
and stream environments also could change. An environmental concern, given a
proposal to modify a large amount of land, may well involve scenic characteristics.
This has proven to be important in Arizona, where environmental concerns have
opposed large-scale land treatment practices, in part based on scenic concerns.
Environmental groups do not have as much political standing in Texas as they do in
other states because of the private ownership characteristics of Texas land. Potential
detrimental externalities resulting from losses in scenic beauty are, nevertheless, a
policy concern.

Law and Institutions

The legal status of water conserved through brush management is unsettled in
Texas. There is a lack of statutory or judicial direction from which to develop a clear
answer to questions such as "Who owns any water produced by brush management?"
"Can the water conserved be conveyed to other persons?" And "What are impediments
to allocation and use of the conserved water?" In addition to the novelty of the legal
status of conserved water, the form, location, and source of the water also are
important in determing applicable law.

The legal ownership and allocation of any water conserved by brush control
depends on the classification of the water. Water is legally classified as surface water,
groundwater, or diffused surface water. Different laws apply to the use of water in
each category. This distinction has relevance for brush management, since the
resulting water will fall into one of these categories. Surface waters are owned by the
state and allocated under a permit process, whereas groundwater and diffused surface
water are not considered state waters.

29

Surface Water

Water designated surface water is held in trust by the state and generally
requires a permit from the Texas Water Commission before it may be diverted and
used. Surface waters are defined as the surface and related underflow of every
watercourse including stormwater, floodwater, and rainwater (Texas Water Code §
1 1.02). Watercourses include natural rivers, streams, canyons, and ravines (Texas
Water Code § 1 1.02). Any water in a watercourse that results from adoption of
conservation measures arguably is state water to be allocated under the permit
system.

All rights to use surface water arise from a state-granted permit. The Texas
Water Commission may issue a permit to appropriate water for any "beneficial use."
Beneficial use is defined as an "amount of water which is economically necessary for
the purpose authorized by [the Water Code], when reasonable intelligence and
reasonable diligence are used in applying the water to that purpose" (Texas Water
Code § 1 1.002(4)). In practice, the Texas Water Commission has considered almost
any customary use a beneficial one. Although waste is prohibited under the Code (§§
11.092-.O93), it has been narrowly defined.

A permit specifies a particular quantity of water to be used for an identified
purpose but limits the amount acquired to that which is actually
beneficially used. A permit authorizing appropriation of state water is merely a
license evidencing the holder’s intent to divert and use state water (Peel 1986). The
right remains unperfected until the water is beneficially used for the purpose specified
in the permit. When an appropriator applies a quantity of permitted water to an
authorized beneficial use, the right to that water is perfected and becomes a vested
right.

Determining the Amount of Unappropriated Waters

Because a permit can only be given to use unappropriated water, it is critical to
determine the amount of flow available in the stream along with the amounts
appropriated and/or actually used. Current Texas Water Commission methodology
includes calculation of historic flow in the basin and computer modeling. The Texas
Water Commission determines unappropriated water by subtracting the full face
value of existing rights from the amount of flow to get the amount available for new
appropriation.

The Texas Water Commission’s approach to determining unappropriated water
available for appropriation was reviewed in a recent case before the Texas Supreme
Court. In Lower Colorado River Authority v. Texas Department of Water Resources
(1985), the court held that where current paper rights on a river exceed the average
annual flow, there is no water available for appropriation. This conclusion was
reached even though the water actually applied to beneficial uses on the river in
question did not exceed the average annual flow of the river. This case has
implications for water generated by brush management. The Texas Water
Commission will need precise data on water yields through brush control to allocate
the additional water.

 

3O

Statutory Limitations on Permit Rights

Several sections of the Water Code provide criminal and civil penalties for

unlawful use and diversion of waters subject to the permit process. Persons are:

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

Prohibited from selling or offering to sell water rights unless the seller has
a permit from the Texas Water Commission authorizing the new use of the
water (Texas Water, Code § 11.084);

Penalized for wasteful use of water when the use of water is excessive or
applied to a nonbeneficial purpose or when there is unreasonable loss of
water through faulty design or negligent operations of water conveyance
systems (Texas Water Code §§ 11.092-.O93)

Required to return surplus water, i.e., water not consumed during use,
back to the stream of origin (Texas Water Code § 11.046)

Allowed to use permitted water for a secondary purpose before return only
if it complies with the permitted purpose (31 Texas Administrative Code §
295.8);

Not allowed to divert water from any stream into any other stream to the
prejudice of any person within the watershed from which the water was
originally taken (Texas Water Code § 11.085)

and

Required to amend their permit from the Texas Water Commission if they

change the place of use, purpose of use, point of diversion, irrigated
acreage, or otherwise alter a water right (Texas Water Code § 1 1.122(a)).

The Water Code is not exclusively prohibitory in nature. It contains a number

of permissive provisions allowing for flexibility in the allocation and use of water.
Under selected provisions of the Code persons are:

1)

2)

Allowed to sell permitted water to anyone who has the right to acquire the
use of it and to use a natural watercourse to convey the water Texas Water
Code § 11.036(a)); and

Allowed to construct, without obtaining a permit, reservoirs to hold not
more than 200 acre-feet of surface water for domestic and livestock
purposes (Texas Water Code § 11.142(a)).

Since 1931, Texas municipalities have had special rights to acquire surface

water, without paying for it, from other water rights holders, provided the water is
used for domestic purposes (Texas Water Code § 1 1.028). This provision is
functionally a time priority appropriation giving municipalities a 1931 priority date.

Loss of Water Rights

The prior appropriation doctrine requires due diligence in the use of water.

Nonuse of water is antithetical to Texas water law and can result in cancellation of a
water right. The Water Code allows the Texas Water Commission to institute

31

cancellation proceedings based on 10 consecutive years of nonuse of water by a permit
holder (Texas Water Code § 11.172). In many respects, this discourages water
conservation. If a permit holder adopts a conservation measure thereby saving water,
that saved water can be lost through cancellation.

Diffused Surface Water

Diffused surface water is water not part of a running stream or watercourse. It
is water which has come from falling rain or melting snow and which follows no
definite course, but which is eventually lost by evaporation, by percolation into the
ground, or by entering a watercourse. One court has called it water of "casual and
vagrant character" (Hoefs v. Short 1916). Diffused surface water is not regarded as
state water and the surface water legal framework does not apply.

Once diffused surface water reaches the point where it enters a waterway with a
well-defined channel or bank, it ceases to be diffused surface water and is considered
subject to appropriation under the permit process (Stoner v. Dallas, 1965).
Correspondingly, if the water percolates into the ground it legally becomes
groundwater.

If the flow of diffused surface water is increased by brush management, the
water belongs to the landowner so long as it remains on the property. This right is
not absolute. Certain limitations on a landowner’s rights to control and use diffused
surface water can be found in the Surface Water Act of 1915 (Texas Water Code §
11.086). The statute reads, in pertinent part, "No person may divert or impound the
natural flow of surface waters in this state, or permit a diversion or impounding by
him to continue, in a manner that damages the property of another by the overflow of
the water diverted or impounded" (Texas Water Code § 11.086). As a rule of property,
the statute applies only to persons or private entities who are proprietors of land
(Kraft v. Langford 1978). The statute does not apply to governmental entities (City of
Amarillo v. Ware 1931). If a governmental entity causes excessive overflow, the
injured landowner’s action is based on inverse condemnation. This means a
governmental body has no greater right than an individual to collect diffused surface
waters and release them in unnatural quantities on lands of another unless by
agreement and with the appropriate compensation.

The Surface Water Act does not apply to a landowner’s right to drain land into
natural drainways where the water tends to naturally flow toward that drainway.
The landowner may collect this water and discharge it into a natural watercourse on
his or her own land provided the discharge does not exceed the natural capacity of the
watercourse. The courts have, however, issued a warning in this respect: "We do not
think a landowner has the right under the law to capture, concentrate, and discharge
surface waters with impunity, even on his own land, and thereby divert the same from
their natural flow [to the injury of lower riparian owners]" (Coleman v. Wright 1941).
Thus, the upper landowner must conduct business in a reasonable manner, taking care
to avoid altering the natural flow of the water to the extent that it would create
liability under the unlawful diversion statute.

32

Groundwater

Waters "percolating, oozing, or filtering through the earth" are classified as
groundwater. The Texas appropriative statutes do not apply to such waters, and
groundwater is not property of the state subject to the permit system. Texas courts
have unequivocably adopted and the Legislature has not modified the common law
rule that a landowner has an absolute right to take for use or sale all the water he
can capture from below his land (Smith Southwest Industries Inc. v. Friendswood
Development Company 1977).

Any water saved through brush control that becomes groundwater is the
property of the overlying landowner. Limitations on the use of this water may occur
through regulatory provisions of undergroundwater conservation districts, but these
restrictions do not change the private ownership of water.

Rights to Waters Resulting From Conservation Measures

The rights to the use of waters produced by brush control are not easily resolved
under existing statutory or case law. If the conserved water by its flow or seepage
naturally enters a watercourse, it would be considered state water subject to
appropriation. However, if the conserved water can be captured before it leaves the
landowner’s property and was not previously derived from state waters, then it would
be subject to use and control of the landowner. Between these two extremes lies a
large area of gray in which the classification of water is not clear. At least two major
doctrines are potentially applicable to the characterization of water produced by brush
control: the doctrine of developed water and the doctrine of salvaged water.

The Distinction Between Developed Water and Salvaged Water

In the leading case to date concerning water conservation by phreatophyte
control, the Colorado Supreme Court distinguished between "developed water" and
"salvaged water" (Southeastern Colorado Water Conservatory District v. Shelton Farms
Inc. 1975). Developed water is new water added to a stream or other source of water
supply not previously part of the system. Examples include water brought from
another source, or water found within the system which would never have normally
reached the river or its tributaries.

In contrast, salvaged water is water from the river system that otherwise would
be wasted but instead becomes available for beneficial use. In the Shelton Farms case,
for example, the phreatophytes which were eradicated grew in a river bed. Therefore
the court concluded that the water saved by their removal was water which already
was a part of the river system. The water generated by the phreatophyte eradication
was held to be part of a river which was held to be already fully appropriated. Hence,
this salvaged water belonged to the other senior appropriators and not the conserver.
This finding has been upheld in a number of other cases, and one can safely conclude
that under current law the removal of brush immediately adjacent to a watercourse
results in additional state water.

33

The Texas Approach

Texas seems to follow a similar approach to rights in conserved water. In Texas
Law of Water Rights, Hutchins defined developed water as "new water added to a
stream or other source of water supply by reason of artificial works" (1961, p. 541).
This definition arose in the regulations of the State Board of Water Engineers:
"Developed water is water that in its natural state does not augment a water supply,
but that is added to a water supply or is otherwise made available for use by means of
artificial works" (Hutchins 1961, p. 541). By allowing that return waters could be
developed water, Hutchins (1961) implied that water newly created and then used
retained its character as developed water even as it returned to a stream. These
conclusions were based on a paucity of Texas cases available concerning developed
waters.

One Texas case contains an oblique reference to water saved through brush
control. In Halsell v. Texas Water Commission (1964), an expert witness discussing
water saved in a reservoir through reduction of evaporation or through phreatophyte
control referred to that water as salvaged water saved for the State of Texas (Halsell
v. Texas Water Commission 1964). This result would be consistent with the Shelton
Farms case.

The Texas Water Commission’s new rules seem to indicate that any water which
is arguably state water, even though made usable through private efforts and
investment, is still state water subject to the permit process, that is, salvaged water.
Yet, Texas cases have termed previously appropriated irrigation waters, contained in
drainage ditches, developed waters. In Harrell v. F. H. Vahlsing Inc. (1932) the San
Antonio Court of Civil Appeals held that the owner of irrigation seepage and drainage
waters may recapture such water and sell it to adjoining landowners. In California,
return flow is required and is subject to further appropriation (California Water Code
1971, § 1202). Wyoming case law holds that an owner of land upon which seepage or
waste water rises may recapture the water only for use where originally appropriated
(Fuss v. Franks 1980). Generally, most western states deprive downstream
appropriators of a cause of action against such recapture of drainage waters.

Halsell v. Texas Water Commission ( 1964), Guelker v. Hidalgo County Water
Improvement District ( 1954), and Harrell v. F. H. Valsing Inc. (1932) apparently
deprive any downstream claimant of rights in an upstream user’s return water. But
Water Commission rules prevent the upstream user from using it for nonpermitted
purposes. Case law and Water Commission rules and policy are in conflict and
confusion in this area. Where brush management creates water supplies out of
diffused surface water, it is water not previously appropriated and clearly produced by
labor and investment of the producer. Brush management conservation is thus
distincnt from the facts of Shelton Farms, where it is held that the water saved by
phreatophyte control was water earlier a part of a fully appropriated stream.

Evaluation

The ownership status of water conserved through brush management control is
unsettled in Texas. Several questions arise due to the complex range of fact patterns
encompassed by such water conservation efforts and the failure of Texas water law to
provide a unifying perspective from which to deal with water allocation and
development problems.

34

Fact Patterns Vary

A wide range of water ownership patterns are imaginable under the umbrella
"water conservation through rangeland brush control," depending on the type of water
involved. The water "saved" may percolate into the ground and become groundwater.
It may arise as increased diffused water and be available for capture by the
landowner. It may flow as increased runoff into existing watercourses and become
state waters subject to appropriation. Rights to the use of conserved water are
determined not only by the above characterizations but on additional legal factors as
well. Rights to water subject to appropriation may depend on use (whether or not
beneficial, whether consumptively used, used and returned, or unused and returned as
surplus), on time (first in time yields first in right), and on effect on others.

Important prerequisites to water ownership, transfer, and transportation are
summarized in Table 8. This information shows that water ownership, once achieved,
does not imply an unimpeded right to sell consumption rights.

Table 8. Summary of Texas Ownership and Conveyance Rights by Water Type

Water Water Right Transportable Through Transportable Through
Type Ownership Transferrable Natural Watercourse Other Means
Surface Permit granted Approved by Permit from Permit from
Water by TWCa TWC TWC TWC

(Bed & Banks Permitb)

Diffused Permit from

Surface Water is (No apparent TWC (No apparent
Water captured limitations) (Bed 8t Banks Permit) limitations)
Ground- Water is (No apparent Permit from (No apparent
water captured limitations) TWC limitations)

(Bed & Banks Permit)

a TWC = Texas Water Commission.
b Texas Water Code § 11.042.

At this time, the law regarding the classification of waters and hence
determining its availability for capture, reuse, or recycling under an existing
appropriation, or requiring a new permit to appropriate, is not based on conservation
objectives treating water as a scarce natural resource. In some regards, the law
regarding water rights directly contradicts conservation goals.

35

Legal Impediments to Conservation Techniques

Control of an essential natural resource is fundamentally a policy question for
the state. In the last legislative session, Texas made some progress towards 
integrating conservation goals with the state’s water law, but several established 
features of the permit system do not further conservation objectives. 

In the Texas permit system, water rights depend on water use. The "use it or
lose it" basis for maintaining appropriative rights generates continual pressure
against conservation. In Texas, virtually any customary use is adequate to protect a
permitted water right. Furthermore, code language exists declaring unused water to
be unappropriated. This may be a serious disincentive for a current user to make
private outlays for conservation if additional use of the "saved" water will not be
available to the conserver.

Legal Issues Regarding Environmental Impacts

Any brush management project may impair water quality and pose other
environmental threats. For instance, brush removal may displace wildlife or lead to
water quality deterioration endangering fish. Contamination of groundwater may
also be possible. The legal responsibility of a landowner undertaking a brush
management project will be examined next.

Brush management can be considered a nonpoint source of pollution insofar as it
increases the delivery of sediment, nutrients, and pesticides to waterways.
Responsibility for managing agricultural nonpoint sources is addressed by the Clean
Water Act, which assigned federal regulatory authority to the Environmental
Protection Agency and the U. S. Department of Agriculture. This policy has evolved
into a situation where these agencies defer to the individual states for nonpoint source
pollution management (Griffin and Stoll 1984). States, including Texas, have not
taken a strong stance in regulating agricultural nonpoint sources. If brush
management activities are shown to contribute substantially to the nonpoint source
problem, public control to mitigate pollution may be forthcoming.

The significant federal statute regulating herbicides is the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 United States Code § 136). It requires registration
of pesticides and certification of applications. This statute is applicable to brush
control by herbicides. In addition, Section 75.006 of the Texas Agriculture Code (1986)
requires a permit before a controlled herbicide is used. A permit, once issued, expires
when the area for which the permit was granted has received application of the
herbicide. Application of herbicides also is regulated (Texas Agriculture Code §
75.012). In situations of aerial spraying, the applicator must provide notice of intent
to spray and prepare a record of the spraying. The Texas Department of Agriculture
can delay or cancel the application if the spraying would endanger crops or valuable
plants in the area.

In the last 2O years, Congress has become increasingly cognizant of the need for
fish and wildlife conservation. The result has been the creation of a body of
environmental law that is both advisory and demanding (Coggins 1983). Both of the
following federal conservation statutes, as a rule, apply only to action by federal
agencies.

36

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 United States Code §§ 661-666)
provides that wildlife conservation is to receive equal consideration with water
resource development programs through "harmonious" and effective planning.
Furthermore, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to develop all species of
wildlife and their habitats as well as control the loss of wildlife from disease or other
causes. Although this act is directed at dam-building agencies, it may affect brush
management projects. If the brush management was done for a water storage project
or caused an increase in the flow of a waterway, resulting in more land being covered
by the stream and a concomitant loss in habitats, then mitigation measures may be
required of the landowner (Coggins 1983).

Perhaps of greatest significance in the fish and wildlife conservation area is the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 ( 16 United States Code §§ 1531-1534). It forbids the
taking of endangered species, instead of requiring agencies to conserve them and
protect their habitat. And equally clearly, "management practices that harm listed
species-individually or in combination-are flatly illegal." Thus, brush management,
with the potential herbicide contamination, habitat disruption, and increased water
flow, could come under the Endangered Species Act by "jeopardizing the continued
existence" of a particular listed species.

Mitigation Measures

Brush management on rangeland may require some mitigation measures to limit
harmful environmental impacts. A provision of the Texas Administrative Code
requires that the policy of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department is to "seek full
mitigation for fish and wildlife losses" (Chap. 31, § 57.141). The application of this
policy is limited to those losses that occur through water resource development
activities (31 Texas Administrative Code § 57.141 (b)). Although brush management
is not primarily what the regulation addresses, it may come within the provision’s
scope. The section provides that mitigation measures may include, among other
things, land replacement for loss of hunting opportunities and management
techniques to replace and protect fish. These might include construction of spawning
areas and nursery cove areas. Of course, these mitigation requirements could be
necessary in a brush management project.

Additionally, federal law provides that water resource development plans that
cause the loss of fish habitats should be mitigated (16 United States Code § 662). The
measure required in these cases is replacement of the lost habitat. A fish habitat
might be lost by the increased water flow caused by the brush management. Under
such circumstances, the habitat will have to be replaced by the landowner provided
this section is held to apply to water development by managing brush.

Economics

The Texas water problem is not a problem of physical scarcity. The true
problem is one of economic scarcity: the means and costs of supply, the practices and
implicit values of competing demands, and the balancing of supplies and demands.
This more general conception of water scarcity addresses a number of allocational and
distributional questions. These include questions relating to how water supply is or
isn’t developed, who gets limited supplies (and when and how), and to what uses
water is put, along with many others.

37

Decisions concerning water use and allocation—whether private or public-must
resolve the inevitable tradeoffs which face any commodity or resource employed by
mankind. Economics is the examination of such tradeoffs, and it is the resolution of
economic issues which guides rational choice. Monetary values often serve as a metric
by which the desirability of particular actions (or inactions) is gauged. Three major
economic issues relevant to the notion of brush management for water production are:

1) What are the off-site benefits and costs of increased brush management,
and do the off-site benefits exceed the costs?

2) Are the off-site net benefits of brush management sufficient to offset the
range manager’s net costs?

3) ls a brush management policy economically attractive?

This listing omits a number of on-site economic questions which were discussed
in the "Brush Treatment and Range Productivity" section. Implicit, but not omitted
from these issues, are a number of secondary questions which will be discussed briefly.
All of these issues have crucial risk, spatial, and temporal dimensions which bear
heavily on the entire topic of brush management for water production.

Do Off-Site Benefits Exceed Costs?

Rangeland brush management is best interpreted as an investment activity with
maintenance and water capture costs. This investment can produce on-site livestock,
wildlife, and aesthetic benefits as well as off-site water and environmental benefits.
The on-site economic concerns were discussed earlier; this section considers the
potential off-site values.

Consider the benefits first. The most noteworthy benefit is enhanced water
supply. Ideally, one should know the recipients and use of the additional water and
the timing involved. Slightly less ideally, one should know to what use will the water
be put, where, and when. Regardless, one needs to have an idea of how much the
water is worth at various times of the year and how much is used. Water has
different values in different uses, ranging from a few dollars per acre-foot in low-
valued irrigation (Frank and Beattie 1979) to thousands of dollars per acre-foot in
certain manufacturing activities. In the same use water has different values in
different places. For example, while San Antonio citizens are paying approximately
$230 per acre-foot, some people in the Corpus Christi area normally pay three times
that amount. Even in the same use at the same place, water has different values at
different times. Water is most highly valued during summer months when demand is
high and supply is low. During a period of restricted water use during the 1984
summer drought, some Corpus Christi homeowners paid large sums ($20 per thousand
gallons or $6,517 per acre-foot) for trucked wastewater to preserve their lawns. The
economic benefit of enhanced water supply is dynamic because of the changing value
of water. Increasing scarcity over time increases value. Because growth in population
and economic activity will increase water scarcity, the value of Texas water grows
over time. More reliable and secure water supplies command greater premiums; the
more senior the water right, the more valuable. The stochastic influence of weather is
pertinent. Generally, water is more valuable during drought periods. Quality is
pertinent-consumers who pay $1.20 for 1,000 gallons of pressurized tap water

38

delivered to their home ($391 per acre-foot) also are willing to pay 79 cents for a
gallon of drinking water at the supermarket ($257,000 per acre-foot). Drinking is
obviously a highly valued use of water. Research is needed on the value of water in
different uses, places, and times.

As a second category of brush management benefits, consider the range of
positive, extramarket impacts. Preliminary information and opinions suggest that
brush management can have positive impacts on sediment loads, water quality,
wildlife, estuaries, scenic aesthetics, and other environmental goods. These items can
have significant social value, but with the exception of certain game animals the
benefits do not accrue to the brush management investor. The reason is that markets
for many of these "commodities" do not exist, probably because of measurement
difficulties or high transaction (information) costs.

Rangeland generally experiences less long-term erosion after brush treatment
and grass establishment, other things being equal. Reduced erosion will preserve the
character and long-run productivity of soils and offers an on-site benefit for the
rancher. As noted earlier, brush treatment is usually followed by increased soil
erosion during a brief period. Reduced erosion also offers off-site benefits (Crosson and
Brubaker 1982). Nonpoint source pollution, primarily by sediment, will be lessened,
thereby reducing the costs of siltation, water treatment, flooding, and turbidity. Little
is known about the off-site value of diminished or increased soil erosion, although
Taylor (1977) estimates an off-site marginal value of 16.5 cents per ton of reduced
erosion within a North Texas watershed. This figure primarily represents the costs of
removing siltation from a reservoir and may or may not be appropriate for other
regions.

Improved surface and subsurface water availability as well as the restored
grassland habitat provide a number of extramarket environmental benefits. Brush
management, resulting in some type of mosiac pattern with interspersed open areas
and brushy areas, will typically improve wildlife habitat (Inglis 1985). Such
improvements can lead to changes in wildlife species mix of supportable species, an
improvement in wildlife health and condition, and greater productivity in the sense of
increased size or population. Very little is known regarding the social value of such
impacts.

Greater surface water production can produce or renew wetlands, contribute to
instream flows, and charge coastal estuaries. Important waterfowl, shellfish, fresh
water fish, and saltwater fish species are assisted by these effects. Instream or on-
stream recreational experiences also are improved. At issue here is not the value of
these commodities or activities, but the marginal value of water in producing these
things. Young (1982, pp. 20, 21) has summarized marginal values of water for
similar activities on Colorado mountain streams: $9-13 per acre-foot for fishing, $2-5
per acre-foot for whitewater sports, and $7 per acre-foot for streamside recreation.

Increased surface water flows can, depending on the timing of these flows and
the availability of hydroelectric capacity, be employed to produce additional electricity.
Because of the high level of water development in the western United States, a given
unit of water often can produce electricity at each of several dams along a river. For
example, water has a value as high as $50 (1982 dollars) per acre-foot in the
Oregon/Washington Columbia river basin, averaging 5 cents per foot of head (McCarl
and Ross 1985). Similarly, in the Arizona Salt River Valley, where brush treatment
has been most throughly investigated for its water-producing ability, an acre-foot was
valued at $2.48 (1972 dollars) if it produced power at four reservoirs (Brown,

39

O’Connell, and Hibbert 1974). Depending on where the water originated, it may not
pass through all four of these reservoirs. Values for particular dams ranged from 45
to 9O cents per acre-foot (depending on head), and it was assumed that additional
flows were 100 percent usable, i.e., timing of enhanced flows was not a problem.
Hydropower development varies in Texas, and it is conceivable that water produced
through brush management may or may not offer hydropower benefits depending on
the availability of excess hydroelectric capacity.

While the on-site costs of brush management are mentioned in the "Brush
Treatment and Range Productivity" section, significant off-site costs are certainly
present. There are two major categories: water development costs and off-site
environmental costs.

Water produced by brush management, whether in groundwater or surface
water form, does not arrive at places and times of final use without cost. This water
must be stored, transported, pumped, and often treated prior to consumption. The
prospective use values which were discussed earlier as benefits are counterbalanced by
development costs. Assuming excess capacity exists in the form of unused reservoir
storage (or well pumping capacity), conveyance and treatment systems, and
wastewater facilities, there are still labor, energy, chemical, and other resources
consumed in the delivery of brush management-produced water supplies.

If excess capacity does not exist in one or more of these items, then additional
capital must be devoted to construction. Otherwise brush management water benefits
will be limited to instream benefits. Even where excess capacity does exist, the
quantity of brush management-produced water may exhaust this capacity and
accelerate the construction of new facilities—another cost. Simulation results for an
Arizona watershed demonstrate that brush management-produced surface water
comes mostly during high flow periods when reservoirs are nearly or totally full with
almost 50 percent of the increased water supply going uncaptured (Brown 1986 a,b).
If this holds true for Texas, then additional facilities may be needed to realize out-of-
stream water benefits.

The final major category of off-site benefits and costs concerns environmental
damages. The impacts here appear to be few, but they may be substantial under
particular circumstances. First, off-site environmental damages may be caused by
specific brush management practices. For example, drift from aerially applied
herbicides or uncontrolled maintenance burns can damage property, crops, livestock,
wildlife, or people. Similarly, nitrates and other nonpoint pollutants can have
deleterious water quality effects with consequent damages and/or pollution control
costs. Second, excessive brush removal can be injurious to wildlife habitats because
brush often serves as a crucial source of cover, shade, shelter, and food (Inglis 1985).
While this is largely an on-site cost, there may be deleterious repercussions for off-site
areas. Though not an environmental cost, strictly defined, any increase in flooding
produces off-site costs which should be accounted for within a complete economic
appraisal. Again, these are topics in need of research.

Is Brush Management Economically Attractive?

The several dimensions of benefits and costs offered by brush management
require careful analysis. Some benefits and costs fall upon the rancher; others accrue
to off-site individuals. From a social/policy perspective both count. Some of the

4O

benefits/costs come in the form of marketed commodities, while others do not. Certain
effects occur in one time period or under one set of circumstances but not in others.

The appropriate economic criterion for analyzing brush management is that of
net present value (NPV) (Howe 1971; Sassone and Schaffer 1978) where the
discounted net benefits are summed from the initial treatment period (year O) until
the final period of the planning horizon (year T).

T
NPV =t E0 (Bt- ct) (1 + n-t

The parameter r in this formula designates an appropriate social discount rate. Bt
denotes the benefits in time period t while C denotes associated costs. If the
computed net present value is positive, then rush management is a socially valuable
investment in the sense that investment returns are greater than the threshold
returns mandated by r.

The difficult task is to quantify the many benefits and costs which are
necessarily implicit to Bt and Ct. Following the example of Krutilla, Bowes, and
Sherman (1983), a representative listing of economic effects is presented in Table 9.
This taxonomy of values is separated into on-site and off-site effects. Completion of
Table 9 for each period within the planning horizon is a prerequisite for computing
NPV and determining the social worth of brush management.

Any complete economic appraisal of brush management for water production
would be tentative at this time. Of the 26 assessment categories identified in Table 9,
the earlier Blackburn, Jones, and Lacewell (1984) paper was able to quantify five,
excluding, for reasons of time and missing information, important factors (e.g., brush
management maintenance costs and wildlife benefits). Further, the water benefits
were based on an assumption that 70 percent of the acreage would be treated which is
probably optimistic. This is indicative of the availability of technical and economic
information. The only economic studies similar to the type needed here are those of
Brown, O’Connell, and Hibbert (1974); O’Connell (1972); Clary et al. (1974); and
Krutilla, Bowes, and Sherman (1983). The first two of these studies deal with
Arizona chaparral; the third addresses Arizona pinyon-juniper; and the fourth
examines forestland in western Colorado. Even though the regions and vegetation
addressed by these studies are unlike the situation in Texas, the types of benefits and
costs requiring evaluation are similar. All of the appraisal needs identified in Table 9
but saltwater fish were relevant for the four studies. Inspection of the impacts which
were actually valued within these studies, however, reveals numerous omissions
(Table 10). In addition, all these studies assumed 100 percent of the water is usable,
contrary to Brown’s (1986b) findings. These studies were limited by available
information.

Omissions in these four studies constrain the usefulness of their conclusions,
but, with this in mind, the results are still interesting. The Brown, O’Connell, and
Hibbert (1974) chaparral study had mixed conclusions; chaparral treatment was
economically attractive in some areas of the study region but not in others. In
particular, 96 of the 139 analyzed areas exhibited positive NPV’s for chaparral
conversion. O’Connell’s (1972) evaluation of chaparral treatment for a small
watershed in Arizona determined a slightly positive NPV. Clary et al. (1974) also
found a slightly positive NPV for successful pinyon-juniper removal projects. Finally,
the study of clear-cutting forested lands for water production found NPV’s in excess of
$300 per acre (Krutilla, Bowes, and Sherman 1983). It is notable that the shortest
planning horizon used in any of these studies was 5O years, and discount rates ranged

41

Table 9. Categories of Information Needed to Do an Economic Appraisal

Categories On-Site Off-Site

Benefits:

Water ?
Livestock

Game Animals
Nongame Animals
Game Birds
Nongame Birds
Freshwater Fish
Saltwater Fish
Other Recreation
Erosion ?
N onpoint Source Pollution

Hydropower ‘?

.\3 .Q .Q .\3 .\g
.Q .\) -Q .Q .\; -\3 .Q .\3

Total Benefits(Bt) ? ‘?

Costs:

Livestock Management ?
Vegetation Treatment ‘?
Maintenance ?
Treatment-Related Damage

to Plants/Animals ? ?
Seeding ‘.7
Water Development ?
Erosion ?
Nonpoint Source Pollution ?
Flooding ?

Total Costs (Ct) ? ?

Table 10. Economic Values Quantified by Previous Studies

42

O’Connell
(1972)

Clary et al.
(1974)

Brown ~et al.
(1974)

Study

Krutilla et al.
( 1983)

Arizona
Chaparral

Arizona
Pinyon-juniper

Arizona
Chaparral

Region
Vegetation

Benefits: 1

Water

Livestock

Game Animals
Nongame Animals
Game Birds
Nongame Birds
Freshwater Fish
Saltwater Fish
Other Recreation
Erosion

N onpoint Source Pollution
Hydropower

Fire Reduction2
Harvested Timber-Z

wa-ggw: w: w: w: w: w: w: w: w: <\\
w: '\'J\-\) w: w: w: w: w: w w: w: ~<\<-\
w:\w: w: w: w: w: w: w: w: w: w: ‘g

Costs: 1
Livestock Management
Vegetation Treatment
Maintenance
Treatment-Related Damage
to Plants/Animals

Seeding

Water Development
Erosion

Nonpoint Source Pollution
Flooding

Environmental Impact

Statement-Q
Agency Overhead-z

\ \"°'°'°'°\°° \\\
w: w: w: w: w:\w: \\\
u¢ 1° n‘) no ~Q 0Q 0° 

Western Colorado
Forests

'Q'Q'Q'Q'Q'\D'~J \\¢Q \'\7\'\D'Q\'Q'Q'Q'$'\D'\D'Q\

1 From Table 9.
2 Not identified in Table 9 as a value relevant to Texas brush management.

43

from 4-7 percent.

In the course of this study, some results were computed on the potential benefits
of brush management (Appendix B). These results are quantitatively unreliable
because of numerous omissions and necessary crude assumptions. However, they offer
qualitative insights to the problem. These calculations involve the rates of return to
brush management arising from a site in South Texas yielding 1 inch of water and a
site in the Southern Rolling Plains yielding 1/4 inch of water, considering livestock
returns, brush management costs, and net water value only. The summary results of
this analysis are presented in Table 1 1 and are explained in Appendix B.
Qualitatively these results show:

1) Brush management exhibits low rates of return when it is not subsidized.
Subsidies raise this rate of return.

2) Off-farm interests can gain from brush management but this depends on
the value of the water, the share of the brush management cost, the
percentage of water used, and the amount of water obtained.

3) Cost share policies should vary as water yield, value of water and amount
of water used vary. This implies that the cost share policy should involve
site dependent elements.

Is a Brush Management Policy Economically Attractive?

Given that an extensive brush management program could be expensive, a
natural line of inquiry concerns whether there are better means of alleviating water
scarcity. Because of varying conditions within the state, there is no single best
alternative. Appropriate solutions will differ by region and locale. Problems of water
scarcity are addressed by one (or both) of two general methods: supply management
and demand management. Table 12 identifies major supply and demand management
policies. Nearly every one of these policies is employed somewhere in Texas. It can be
presumed, therefore, that nearly all of these policies are economically rational in
particular situations. The question then arises: In what circumstances is brush
management a preferred method of water management?

This raises a more general question: How does one decide which policy of a set
of water policies is best? If only supply management policies are being contemplated
and water supply is the sole policy objective, then the best policy or combination of
policies is the one providing a given amount of water at least cost. This comparison
presumes, however, that water demand is fixed and immutable or, at least, that
supply-oriented policies are universally better than demand-oriented policies. In order
to choose the best policy or program (combination of policies) from all available
policies, a more complicated net benefits analysis must be performed (Griffin and Stoll
1983). Even if brush management is not the best water policy, nonwater benefits
occurring on- and off-site may be sufficient to render this policy "best" in a broader
setting.

Economic assessment of the desirability of any policy falls into the general
program/policy evaluation arena of economic inquiry. A vast literature pertains to
such questions (see Mishan 1976; Gittinger 1982; Sassone and Schaffer 1978). The

Table 11. Rates of Return Under Alternative Policiesl

Data for South Texas-Like Site Yielding 1 Inch of Water from Brush Management.

--------Assumed Water Price------- Water Price Where
Cost $20 $40 $100 Off-Ranch Interests
Share Rancher OH-Ranch------—- Break Earn 10%
Policy --------—----Rates OfReturn-----—-------- Even Return

percent ---------------percent ----- $ -------
0 2.6 + Inf +Inf + Inf 0.00 0.00

10 3.8 50.8 107.6 278.5 4.15 6.62

2O 5.0 21.3 50.8 136.1 8.30 13.24

30 6.5 10.2 31.5 88.6 12.45 19.86

40 8.2 3.7 21.3 65.0 16.60 26.49

50 10.1 -0.7 14.8 50.8 20.75 33.11

60 12.5 -4.1 10.2 41.2 24.90 39.73

70 15.4 -6.7 6.6 34.3 29.05 46.35

Total Rate Of Return 7.2% 1 1.6% 24.8%

Data for Southern Rolling Plains-Like Site Yielding 0.26 Inch of Water from Brush Management.

-Assumed Water Price--—--—-- Water Price Where
Cost $20 $40 $100 Off-Ranch Interests
Share Rancher ------------Ofl"-Ranch-------—--- Break Earn 10%
Policy ---------—---Rates OfReturn-----------—-- Even Return

percent ---------------percent ------ $ ------
0 0.8 + Inf +Inf + Inf 0.00 0.00

10 2.0 27.1 63.9 166.1 8.46 12.11

20 3.4 4.5 27.1 81.3 16.92 24.23

30 4.9 -6.2 12.9 52.1 25.38 36.34

40 6.7 -13.8 4.5 36.8 33.84 48.46

50 8.7 -20.3 -1.5 27.1 42.30 60.57

60 1 1.0 -26.3 -6.2 20.3 50.76 72.68

70 13.9 -32.0 -10.3 15.1 59.22 84.80

Total Rate Of Return 3.5% 6.2% 14.4%

1 As explained in Appendix B, these results are quantitatively unreliable but are presented for
qualitative insight.

45

Table 12. Major Policies for Dealing with Water Scarcity

SUPPLY MANAGEMENT
Enhancement System Management
Reservoirs Redesign and Retrofitting
Wells Advanced System Control
Conveyance Leak Detection
Treatment Maintenance
Interbasin Transfers Recycling
Contracting
Purchasing Rights
Groundwater Recharge
Desalinization

Weather Modification
Vegetation Management

DEMAND MANAGEMENT

Incentives Regulation Education
Metering Building Codes Public School Programs
Marginal Cost Pricing Drought Contingency Plans News Releases
Increasing Block Rates Pressure Reduction Customer Mailings

Hook-up Fees
Subsidized Conservation

basic elements of such an analysis as they pertain to the brush question involve:

1) Selection of a relevant discount rate (as explained in Mishan 1976, or Lind
1982b

2) Identification of who is affected by the policy in terms of gains and losses
as well as the magnitude of the effects over time; this would include
identifying the parties affected by changes in the categories of economic
activity mentioned in Table 9;

3) Development of estimates of the government and private costs involved
with implementation of the policy;

4) Identification of nonquantifiable benefits and/or costs; and

5) Comparison of alternative policies on the basis of quantifiable and
nonquantifiable benefits/costs.

46

POSSIBLE PUBLIC ACTIONS

The review of the literature and the experience of the research team suggest a
number of alternative policies and research directions which could be followed. In this
section, the available policies are presented and discussed and research needs are
summarized and organized into a prioritized agenda.

Policy Options for Enhancing Brush Control

Important policy decisions are forthcoming regarding the topic of brush
management for water production. The Brush Bill (Senate Bill 1083) has established
a particular program, but all policy is subject to revision, and this particular
legislation remains unfunded. A basic policy question is then, "Should state monies
be allocated to this program or should it be allowed to expire through a lack of
funding?" The following discussion adopts the presumption that there are cases
where brush reduction is socially desirable in the sense that benefits exceed costs. As
indicated earlier, this remains unproven.

There are several alternative broad policy approaches to brush management and
similar water conservation opportunities which warrant consideration. The first is to
maintain the status quo position, alter nothing, and allow brush control to proceed in
the direction dictated by current organizations and institutions. The second, third,
and fourth policy approaches involve economic incentives for encouraging brush
management by ranchers. Approach two is to extend low-interest loans to ranchers
for brush management activities. Approach three is to activate cost sharing for brush
control-perhaps by authorizing state funding of the Brush Bill. Approach four is to
encourage creation of private markets for water produced through brush control. The
fifth alternative policy approach is regulatory. Regulations can be developed and
promulgated for acceptable levels of brush infestation or for acceptable management
practices. Approach six involves opportunities to educate ranchers and/or water
supply beneficiaries. The seventh approach is to pursue further research.

Some of these policy approaches can be used in combination with one another;
others are mutually exclusive. The following discussion develops each of these
alternatives more fully and identifies attendant issues.

Status Quo

The status quo or "do nothing" approach to brush management implies neither
a stable situation nor the absence of brush control activity. Privately funded brush
control will continue. Various species of brush will continue to propagate and expand
their domains. Ongoing research will refine available information on the entire topic
of brush control for water production.

Because of on-site benefits, some landowners will pursue a nonzero level of brush

47

management. Recall that more than a million acres of brush are treated annually
(Table 6). However, brush infestation may continue to increase. From a social
perspective, private investment in brush control may be inadequate, but private
investment will be forthcoming nonetheless. Encouragement for investment in brush
management, when warranted, will continue to come from the education and
assistance programs of the Texas Agricultural Extension Service and Soil
Conservation Service. A minimal level of federal cost-sharing at a 50-'75 percent rate
is being provided through the Agricultural Conservation Program of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, but an individual landowner may receive no more than
$3,500 annually. In order to qualify for this benefit, soil erosion on the individual’s
brushland must be in excess of a tolerance level in the absence of brush management.
Therefore, an economic incentive, albeit small, exists to support brush control.

Because the water-conserving landowner who controls brush infestations will
find it difficult to establish rights to the resulting water, contracts between these
individuals and downflow water users will be rare. These landowners have no title to
enhanced streamflow (surface water) and can claim groundwater only if they
withdraw it. Up to 200 acre-feet of surface flow can be stored for domestic and
livestock uses without permit, but transfer to other potential uses requires a permit.
Diffused surface water can be stored, but this is costly. Transfer of such stored water
can be expensive or, if done through natural watercourses, requires a permit and a
clearly defined route between buyer and seller. Because of these facts, special
circumstances must be present before other water users will pay a rancher to remove
brush. One such circumstance may be if a certain individual, group, water supplier,
town, or city has reason to believe that he/she/it will be a direct beneficiary from the
brush management practice. For example, if a river authority owns a reservoir
receiving drainage from a brush-infested watershed, the authority might willingly
contract with watershed landowners for brush removal. In this way, the authority
could enhance water production from the reservoir.

The evolution of brush propagation during the past century indicates that what
once were Texas grasslands are now brushlands. The range of brush will expand if
not abated as will associated water consumption. So, too, will the range of white-tail
deer (at the possible expense of mule deer) and other brush-dependent animal species.
Private efforts of brush control will continue, but will be dependent on the
characteristics of livestock markets. Therefore, the situation is not static, and
adoption of the "do nothing" policy approach should recognize this fact.

Low-Interest Loans

A second policy involves extension of low-interest loans. This already has been
done in the context of water conservation. In November 1985, Texas voters approved
Propositions 1 and 2 of House Bill 2. These propositions authorize the Texas Water
Development Board to issue bonds and then loan the proceeds to further water
conservation efforts. House Bill 2 established a pilot program ($5 million) of low-
interest loans for irrigators investing in water-saving technologies. The program
operates through bonds issued by the Texas Water Development Board. Soil and
water conservation districts or underground water districts apply to the Texas Water
Developemnt Board for these funds and subsequently loan them to irrigators.
Approved borrowers are currently receiving loans with 6.75 percent interest rates. In
general, borrowers must also pay 2.5 points for loan origination, that is, a lump sum
payment amounting to 2.5 percent of the loan amount. Providing results of the pilot

48

program are sufficiently favorable to garner a two-thirds majority in the Legislature,
an expanded program ($200 million) will be adopted. Under the pilot program, there
are a number of restrictions, and participation by producers has been much less than
anticipated.

This program does not make loans available to ranchers for brush management,
but it could be extended to this purpose. This policy could serve as an economic
incentive for greater brush management by decreasing the interest rates faced by
ranchers who must borrow money to reduce brush infestations. Because the state is
merely passing its borrowing privileges along to ranchers, program costs are limited to
administration costs. The potential cost of defaulted loans is borne by intermediaries,
in this case, soil and water conservation districts and underground water districts.

Two critical issues regarding this policy are as follows. First, program
participation may be low as it has been with the irrigator pilot program for several
reasons. The value of the interest rate reduction to the irrigator is not large,
collateral is required, and the loan cannot cover 100 percent of investment costs.
Although some intermediaries have adopted stricter rules, the irrigator must cover at
least 2O percent of equipment costs and 50 percent of labor and installation costs
through personal capital or money obtained from another lender. For many producers
this can be an impossible requirement. Finally, soil and water conservation districts
and underground water districts are not experienced financial institutions, and it has
been a slow process for these organizations to learn a new role.

The second major issue concerning the feasibility of a low-interest loan program
involves implications of recent federal tax reform. Federal tax regulations legislation
recently involved consideration of limiting the amount of municipal bonds issues for
"private activity" purposes (Texas Water Alliance 1986). Texas bond issuances may
have to be severely curtailed in order to meet these restrictions. A likely impact is the
effective elimination of the loan program for irrigators as well as any opportunity to
extend these same benefits to ranchers.

Cost Sharing

Senate Bill 1083 established the Texas Brush Control Program, which
encourages brush management through cost sharing. The State Soil and Water
Conservation Board is charged with the responsibility of promulgating rules and
administering monies to be drawn from the newly created "Brush Control Fund." The
Board is directed to designate "critical areas" where "brush is contributing to a
substantial water conservation problem." Following this, the Board can enter into
contracts with landowners with the Board paying no more than 7O percent of the costs
of approved brush management practices.

Although the Legislature did not appropriate any money for the Brush Control
Fund, the Board has been working to develop rules and designate critical areas. Cost
sharing is a potentially effective incentive for encouraging brush control. Through its
"critical area" approach, this policy makes it possible to target the policy upon
locations where water savings can be obtained and water is most needed. Moreover,
in its forthcoming budget request for fiscal year 1986-87, the Board is requesting $5
million to conduct a pilot program of cost sharing in a few selected watersheds
(Kuykendall 1986).

49

There are, however, questions to be addressed prior to full-fledged policy
adoption. First, where will the revenues to fund this program come from? Will they
come from general revenue or a new source? Because of the state’s budget crisis, new
programs are closely scrutinized, and new sources of revenue are being considered.
Some ideas for funding a cost-sharing policy are: 1) a "check off“ on municipal water
use and 2) a tax on nonagricultural groundwater pumping. Under the check off
program, each consumer would pay, for example, $0.01 per 1,000 gallons of water
used (perhaps only in designated critical areas). The pumping tax is similar except
that it is limited to groundwater. For example, owners of large capacity wells might
be taxed a penny or so per 1,000 gallons of pumped groundwater, although
implementation would be difficult. These proposals attempt, though imperfectly, to
place policy costs upon the potential beneficiaries. These alternatives illustrate the
potential coupling of government expenditures with income alternatives.

A second issue concerns the prevention of brush regrowth. Policy provisions
which encourage brush regrowth prevention would need to be developed. Questions
which would need to be addressed include: What annual or periodic management
practices are needed to preserve the results of initial brush treatment? Who will pay
for these? And will landowners be contractually responsible for, as an example,
maintenance burns to control brush regrowth?

A third issue involves the way in which the policy might be designed to account
for site dependent changes in water value, water yield, or water delivery to use.

Water Marketing

There are numerous examples of water conservation being advanced in the
western United States by an increased reliance on water marketing. The general idea
is to encourage the efficient use of water with a market-derived price that informs
water users about the scarcity of water (Anderson 1983; Willey 1986). That is, price
can be an effective signal for communicating when resource use is too great or too
small. Water rights holders who have a low use value for water must forego the net
returns of selling some (all) of their rights if they are to continue use. Potential water
consumers may have use values in excess of price and therefore desire to purchase
rights. Property rights to the water presently consumed by brush must be established
before a water market could encourage additional brush management. As discussed
earlier, three cases emerge with respect to Texas water rights: diffused surface water,
surface water, and groundwater. Diffused surface water produced by brush
management can be impounded (entrapped) by the rancher and can be transferred to
other uses, but impoundment is required (and costly). Furthermore, transport of this
impounded water through natural watercourses requires a permit. Surface water
resulting from brush management becomes property of the state and, through the
permitting process, is dedicated to appropriators; it does not belong to the landowner.
The rancher may impound 200 acre-feet of surface water for domestic and livestock
use; any other use requires a permit. Brush management-produced groundwater is
the property of the overlying landowner. Initially then, this groundwater belongs to
the conserving rancher, but ownership is merely theoretical unless the rancher
captures (pumps) this water before it flows from beneath the land.

The system of water rights in Texas does not appear to encourage brush
management by the use of the market approach. The market policy would therefore
require institutional reform before becoming operational. It is notable, however, that

5O

water marketing is consistent with state policy. Surface water rights are
transferrable (marketable) in Texas, and it is also legal to sell or lease diffused
surface water and groundwater. An extension of these rules to include the water
presently consumed by brush is necessary before water markets can become much of
an incentive for brush control.

There are also some potential stumbling blocks to be considered. One has to
wonder how long Texas can continue to treat different water locations-diffused
surface water, surface water, and groundwater-by different legal doctrines. This can
be especially pertinent to rangeland water. As one example, removed brush can
produce diffused surface water which later infiltrates to become groundwater before
seeping out as spring water feeding a stream. If ownership is to be resolved to the
point where market activity is supportable, then the confusion of multiple legal
doctrines must be mediated by legal reform. This is a strong argument in favor of
conjunctive management of surface water and ground water.

The lease or sale of water conserved by brush control will only be feasible if
monitoring and enforcement are effective. If a rancher agrees to conserve water so
that it may flow to another consumer, a number of practical questions arise. How will
the amount of conserved water be determined? What would prevent intervening
water consumers from diverting or pumping the conserved water before it reaches the
buyer? How should conveyance losses through evaporation, transpiration,
groundwater recharge, etc. be handled?

If brush owners are granted water rights, wouldn’t this encourage people to grow
brush to gain water rights? The evident method of handling this matter would be to
grant water rights for brush infestation levels existing at a single point in time (e. g.,
1986). Perhaps a complete aerial survey of Texas could serve as a basis for a final
determination of rights. This raises other questions, however. If brush populations
worsen at particular locations, must the owners purchase a compensating amount of
water rights from downstream right holders? Should those with brush be rewarded as
opposed to those without brush?

The final possible problem to be considered here concerns the extent of brush
control resulting from a market approach. If a great deal of brushland were treated,
the price of water would be driven downward. This fact will limit, as it should, the
statewide conversion of brush. There are no complete assurances, however, that a
particular site will not undergo 100 percent removal of brush. As mentioned earlier,
this is rarely desirable because of wildlife and environmental values. The value of
hunting leases will probably be sufficient to prevent undesirable brush clearing.

Regulation

The previous three policy approaches-low-interest loans, cost sharing, and water
marketing-rely upon economic incentives for motivating landowners to voluntarily
adopt brush management investments. At the opposite end of the spectrum are
regulatory policies in which brush management investments are mandated. Two such
policies are possible. One approach to brush control regulation might be to specify
maximum permissible levels of brush infestations or to identify undesirable species.

To accomplish this it may be necessary to regulate brush according to plant species,
terrain, region, etc. Precedent exists for this in § 11.089 of the Texas Water Code
which prohibits a landowner from allowing certain species of grass or weeds to go to

51

seed on or within 10 feet of a waterway. The choice of brush management practices
would be left to the landowner. A second approach would be to dictate the types of
brush management investments and practices which must be employed. This would,
in effect, force the adoption of water conservation technology. In either case,
enforcement would be difficult and potentially costly.

Education and Research

Each of the previous policy proposals can be complemented by either (or both) of
two additional policies. Education can be expanded to better inform those owning
brushland and/or those receiving water flow from brush-dominated watersheds.
Research can be extended in primary and/or evaluative directions.

Educational/advisory programs of the Texas Agricultural Extension Service and
the Soil Conservation Service inform landowners about opportunities to improve
rangeland conditions. This information is developed with an understanding of the
landowner’s interest in grazing conditions, wildlife habitat, and aesthetics. One policy
alternative is to expand these programs. A second aspect of an educationally oriented
policy might be to inform municipal and industrial water consumers and suppliers
about opportunities to augment water supply through brush control. The objective of
such a program would be to encourage and support private arrangements between
user groups and landowners for mutually beneficial brush management.

Recognizing the existence of ongoing research, another policy option is to
increase research efforts in one or more of a variety of directions. A research agenda
identified by this investigation is presented in the following section.

A Research Agenda

The above policies represent alternatives for society to deal with a potential
brush management for water yield augmentation initiative. In order to determine
which policy to pursue, as well as how to implement policies, a number of unanswered
questions need to be addressed through research. This section presents an integrated
agenda of high priority research which would, when completed, provide an adequate
basis for policy decisions. This agenda was developed through a research need
prioritization process. Each of a list of possible research needs was given both long-
and short-term priorities for inquiry through a delphi-like process with the authors as
participants. Appendix C presents the results of this process. Highly ranked research
needs were then organized into the research agenda presented here. Appendix D
shows the correspondence between the prioritized needs and the research agenda.

Before presenting the agenda, some important features should be noted. First,
the agenda is derived from priorities set by the authors and concentrates on needs
relating to brush management arising from the authors’ literature review, biases, and
knowledge of ongoing research. Second, results of the research need prioritization
indicated that the highest priority short-term needs involve development of baseline
data on water yield, alternative water development, trial implementations, potential
policy design, and water use values. In the long run, the highest priority needs
involve modeling, economic evaluation, and policy appraisal. Many of the long-term
priorities would change if significant water yield was not found in the short-term

 

52

research.

Turning to the research agenda, analysis of the prioritization results leads to an
agenda containing 11 integrated elements. The elements are listed below; their
interrelationship will be discussed next.

Element A: Enhance Ability to Predict Water Yield Changes Induced by Brush
Management

Predictive tools allowing reliable estimates of water yield are needed. In the
short term, emphasis should be placed on developing watershed-level data for the
effects of brush management on water yield. If initial studies support the hypothesis
of significant water yield increases, some emphasis should be given to the effects of
alternative brush management strategies (i.e., treatment patterns and alternative
clearing methods). As data become available, efforts should turn to the prediction of
water yield by applying and/or adapting watershed models. In the long term, model
modification and validation should become the fundamental thrust.

Element B: Develop Economic and Social Implications of Alternative Policies and
Actions for Relieving Water Scarcity

Wide-ranging studies of alternative water supply and demand modification
(conservation) strategies are needed. In the near term, research should address the
economic, legal, andinstitutional implications of alternatives other than brush
management such as consumer conservation incentives, reservoir development, and
canal lining. In the long term, brush management would be examined as one of the
alternatives.

Element C: Enhance the Ability to Predict How the Water Originating From
Rangeland Sites Will Be Used

Once data are available on the additional volume of water in a watercourse or
aquifer resulting from brush management, it will be important to know where that
water goes and who uses it. Projects are needed which adapt existing basin, aquifer,
and integrated hydrological simulators to depict the characteristics of areas where
brush management will be done. Subsequently, these models will be used to simulate
basinwide implications of water yield increases on water use, flow, etc. Later efforts
should involve model validation and the support of efforts for economic and policy
appraisal.

Element D: Estimate the Economic and Risk Benefits of Additional Water and
Changes in Water Quality

Policies regarding water use, water scarcity, and water quality enhancement
alternatives require information on the value of water in various uses. Data on
economic risk as related to water availability also are needed. Studies addressing this
element would develop information on the demand schedules by various user groups at
various times of the year under varying water abundance and quality.

Element E: Determine What Legal Reforms Are Needed to Implement Brush
Management Policy

Information is needed on the design of policies encouraging brush management.
Studies should develop legal, institutional, and economic evaluations of the potential

53

cost-sharing, subsidy, market, and regulatory approaches. Attention needs to be paid
to such issues as possible legal reforms which could refine the rights to water
generated by brush management; funding and administrative changes required to
pursue cost-sharing and subsidy programs; and rules which would facilitate water
marketing.

Element F: Predict the Water Quality Efiects of Brush Management

Information is needed on the water quality implications of brush management.
Research initiated under this need should parallel the water yield studies. This
information is needed before the higher priority economic and policy appraisals can be
done.

Element G: Develop Physical and Economic Criteria for Site Selection

Brush management investments should be made on parcels where the greatest
benefit may be obtained. There is a need for site identification criteria. Research
addressing this need would provide simultaneous criteria in terms of water value,
water yield, wildlife, livestock, land characteristics, and brush management costs.
Such effects would need to be supported byhydrological, wildlife, and economic site-
oriented projects.

Element H: Determine the Relationship Between Brush Management and Wildlife
Income

Data are needed on the impacts of brush management on income associated with
wildlife. Research addressing this need would examine the relationship of wildlife
ecology and income from leases with brush management alternatives involving
treatment type, percentage of brush removed, and the resultant pattern of brush
density.

Element I: Develop the Economic Implications of Brush Management On and Off the
Site Managed

Information is needed on whether the benefits from treating a parcel exceed the
costs of treatment. Needed research involves detailed accounting of brush
management-induced costs and benefits in on-site and off-site subcategories. Data
also are needed on the net on-site profitability to determine the role that off-site
interests need to play in influencing brush management actions. This research will
require detailed input from studies on amount of additional water, disposition of
water, wildlife benefits, and the value of water.

Element J: Study the Costs, Benefits, and Consequences of Alternative Policies
Encouraging Brush Management

Society can direct numerous alternative cost sharing, subsidy, market, or
regulatory policies toward brush management. The choice of the most desirable policy
depends on technical, legal, political, institutional, and economic factors. Studies
addressing this need would assess the feasibility of alternative policies along with
associated costs and obstacles to implementation. For example, an immediate
research need may involve the effectiveness and consequences of alternative means for
funding the Brush Bill. Institutional reforms or policy features which might insure
policy effectiveness would need to be suggested and investigated. Later, the
desirability of brush management policies would need to be assessed in terms of gains

54

and losses, what risks the policies pose, state treasury costs, and comparative
standing relative to other water development alternatives. Conditions under which
brush management is an attractive option need to be developed.

Element K: Document the Benefits of Currently Existing Brush Management Programs

Reliable hydrological data on the effects of brush management will take years to
develop. However, momentum for brush-clearing efforts may cause decisions to be
made in advance of the availability of hydrological data. An area which has been
managed, such as Rocky Creek, or areas where brush management projects will be
initiated in the near future may provide the potential for studying the effects of
additional water without detailed hydrological information. Short-term studies are
needed to develop data for a preliminary assessment of a project. A pilot project
analysis would provide insights into data requirements within later studies and may
help in providing criteria for desirable sites.

Discussion of Elements

The above elements constitute a research agenda designed to address brush
management policy questions. Integration of elements within the agenda is
illustrated by the flowchart in Figure 3. Ultimately, the agenda is designed to assess
when and where public policy actions encouraging brush management should be used.
However, in order to sensibly answer this question, information on a number of
researchable topics is required. The elements involving detailed economic appraisal of
brush management sites and site selection criteria cannot proceed until other elements
are completed. The others could be started now. In addition, the examination of an
existing brush management program (element K) would provide a way of developing
information on the ultimate question in advance of the availability of hydrological
data.

All of the elements within this agenda contain needs which were classified as
highest or high priority in either a short- or long-term setting. From the short-term
priority perspective, elements A (Predict Water Yield), B (Study Ways to Relieve
Water Scarcity), and K (Study Results of Existing Brush Management Programs)
received highest priority. From a long-term perspective, all the elements except F
(Predict Water Quality), H (Predict Wildlife Effects), and K (Study Results of
Programs) received highest priority. However, as Figure 3 indicates, all of these are
necessary to complete the overall program.

An additional element identified can be viewed as key to the overall effort. This
involves exploration of potential cooperation with state and federal agencies
considering brush management demonstration projects. Cooperation before and
during demonstration projects would enhance the information content and the value
of these projects. If cooperation is negotiated, a follow-up need would involve

~ development of a list of data to be collected involving the effects of brush management

not only on water but also on costs, wildlife, livestock, farm income, etc.

Finally, while the agenda focuses upon brush management for water yield, some
elements in the agenda reflect broader perspectives. In particular, the study of other
scarcity policies (element B), water value (element D), policy implementation costs
(element J), legal considerations (element E), and basin water use (element C)
contributes not only to the question at hand but also to institutional competence and

55

~u=om< fizmowom m5 E m&=m=o=m_or_2=_ d 250E

‘ w 1
$620.. w>:<zmwh_<
hzwzwcé Oh Qwowwz

mzmoumm 410B >“=._.zwQ_

(it

        

_ 1 l

ww_u_._o¢ wzizmw»?

r m0 .500 m1... >528. \
_ x .

m5 owo<z<z

      
       
     

>Q<w5< Z< >QD._.m

 

_
IOZ<m mo... wwunoém
zwzww<z<z 5mm ._o.m>wo

y I i
38km E29?

O
mmh<>> 4<ZOF5n<
m0 zoEwomen

 

>032 9.53
H02 52mm
mPSEOEm<
 

 

a _
dumé < wz_o<z<: .._o
m5._<> m5 m0 wizcwm

QEOZOOw ..._o.m>wo

 

  

    

,_<w_<m&< >030“.
déw>o b80200

          
       

 

 

  

3.0201. v02 xwnmm m0 i

i wgzozoow ww_<m&< i O

hzwzwo<z<z xmnmm >m
QEEwzww Iwh<>> m0

moi: hQowmm

 

<
F02 Imam» 5 Eomkm
?_._._.Z<DO 5E‘; >95

 

0
zocowdw Em mo“
éwcmo ._o.m>wo

 

  

.._
.._.02 13mm “U whomtm
>._._1_<DO $53 >QD._.m

Q
>CJ<DO QZ< >._._._.Z<DO
amt‘; 3 820208

m
>com<8 mm=<>> ozswswm
1o wzfiz 5:5 >035

 

the ability of Texas Agricultural Experiment Station personnel to participate in
overall state water policy making.

56

57

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Water demand is growing in Texas and agencies charged with guiding water
resource management are faced with increasing evidence of water scarcity.
Consequently, attention has turned to ways of reducing water scarcity through
development, conservation, reallocation, and/or regulation. Such strategies probably
will affect the agricultural sector. Agriculture uses large quantities of water, often at
a lower use value than nonagricultural uses. In addition, one study estimates that 38
percent of the state’s water budget is used by brush and noneconomic plants on
agricultural land. Reduction of brush and noneconomic plants would not only reduce
water consumption but also would increase agricultural productivity. This situation
has raised the policy issue of whether or not water used by brush can be beneficially
shifted to other uses, alleviating water scarcity and augmenting land productivity.

Vegetation management for water yield enhancement is not a new idea. Studies
regarding brush infested rangelands have been ongoing for 30 years. A number of
lessons and findings have arisen. Removal of brush has been found, in particular
cases, to cause additional water to be generated. However, the amount of water
generated has been found to be dependent upon brush type and precipitation. In
Arizona, some brush complexes have been found to generate no water (pinyon juniper),
while others have been found to generate up to 6 inches per acre treated (chaparral).
Such findings have not been perfectly anticipated by policy decisions. For example, in
Arizona, a considerable acreage of pinyon juniper was cleared in an apparently
unsuccessful 1960’s water yield enhancement effort while chaparral was overlooked as
a viable brush complex. Attention has now been refocused following a carefully
executed research program. Important questions remain. Chaparral management has
been shown to release 8O percent of the additional water in wetter than average years.
A simulation study investigating water use under this release pattern shows no more
than one-half the additional water was consumptively used. Furthermore, while
water yield has been found to be augmented by chaparral management, widespread
implementation has not occurred due to environmental considerations about
widespread herbicide use.

The extent to which such findings hold for Texas conditions is an open question.
In the only comparable cases, a formula asserting that 1 inch of additional water yield
is produced by every 4 inches of annual precipitation above 16 inches forecasted yields
of 1.1, 2.3, 2.8, 4.9, and 5.2 inches in five cases, while actual yields were 0.26, 0, 0.31,
0.95, and 1.21 inches respectively. The Texas results are more consistent with 1 inch
of water for every 15 inches of precipitation above 19 inches. But the reliability of
four of the five estimated above and the cited formula are highly questionable due to
the nature of the procedures behind the water yield estimates (as reviewed in Table 1).
However, there is promise for water yield inherent in the experience with Rocky Creek
near San Angelo where, for more than a decade, brush management has apparently
caused a previously dry stream to flow on a year-round basis. An improved
understanding is needed of water yields from brush management in various regions of
Texas.

If significant water yields result from brush management, Texas certainly has
brush that could be managed. Soil Conservation Service estimates place the acreage

58

in neeo’ ofbrusb management in the neighborhood of 4 0 million acres. Furthermore,
brush incidence has not been significantly reduced in 30 years, despite the
management of millions of acres. Brush management can be socially as well as
agriculturally beneficial. Managing brushlands could increase wildlife leasing income
and livestock income, as well as water benefits. However, from the Wildlife
perspective, selective brush clearing is needed with sufficient brush left for cover
screen, bedding, and nesting areas. There are also potential environmental effects of

brush management in terms of altered river environments, water quality, and soil
erosion.

Current economic evidence does not show brush management to be a very
profitable exercise from the standpoint of the rancher. Costs keep almost equal
rancher-received benefits. Two case studies were examined where rates of return were
0.8 and 2.6 percent. A great increase in acres of managed brush for water yield
enhancement would require some form of compensation to ranchers by those benefiting
from increased water or improved environmental conditions. Preliminary calculations
show that society can benefit, depending on water yield and water use value. Public
policy initiatives may be needed to bring about compensation of ranchers, as it
appears that private parties would transact for brush clearing only in cases where
geophysical and institutional conditions clearly define the beneficiary of the water.

An example is brush removal in the watershed for a lake where all the water is used
by a city. However, little basis exists for estimating the magnitude of off-ranch gains
and/or losses.

The legal situation involved with water arising from brush management does
not seem to encourage its practice for water yield enhancement. For example,
managing phreatophytes, which draw water directly from watercourses, would yield
state water, currently private brush clearers claim to the resultant would be junior to
existing rights holders. Most of the increased flow resulting from brush management
has been found to take the form of increased infiltration which as subsurface flow
augments watercourses or groundwater. Capture of the subsurface flow before it
reaches the watercourses is necessary before the brush clearer can sell the water.
Once the water reaches the watercourse, it becomes state Water and falls under the
existing water rights system. However, capture is difficult and/or costly. When
groundwater supplies are supplemented, the legal situation is clear. Any
augmentation of groundwater would accrue to the landowner as long as it remained
under the landowner’s property, but this water needs to be captured through
pumping. Again, such capture may be prohibitively expensive.

From a public policy perspective, a number of actions could be pursued relative

to encouraging brush management. The main categories of these actions are a)
continue current policy-no new initiatives; b) subsidize brush management through
low-interest loans; c) subsidize brush management through cost sharing; d) refine
property rights to resultant water and encourage private markets to arise; and e)
regulate brush incidence. Concurrently, research, education, and planning can
provide a basis for future brush management initiatives.

The desirability of public policy decisions to facilitate brush management
depends in part upon social costs and benefits. Unfortunately, conclusive scientific
evidence on the cost/benefit relationship is not available, nor is there a sufficient basis
from which such a relationship can be derived. A research agenda is suggested above
which, if pursued, could help alleviate many of these questions.

All things considered, it is impossible to assess the social desirability of a

59

widespread brush management program at this time. However, the potential benefits
are sufficient to motivate active research and demonstration programs. As these
programs proceed, data will become available on whether estimated benefits of brush
management exceed the costs, allowing thorough consideration of whether public
policy should be altered to encourage brush management.

6O

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, T.L. Water Crisis: Ending the Policy Drought. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1983.

Arkin, G.F. Agricultural Engineer, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. Personal
communication. Temple, Texas, November 1986.

Arnold, J .G. and J .R. Williams. "A Simulator for Water Resources in Rural Basins."
Proceedings of Symposium Sponsored by Committee on Watershed
Management/Irrigation & Drainage Division, American Society of Civil Engineers,’
ASCE Convention, Denver, Colorado, April 30 - May 1, 1985.

Barr, G.W. (ed). Recovering Rainfall (report of Arizona Watershed Program). Arizona
State Land Department - Water Division, Salt River Valley Water User’s
Association, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, 1956.

Bates, C.G. and A.J. Henry. "Forest and Streamflow Experiment at Wagon Wheel
Gap, Colorado." U.S. Monthly Weather Review Supplement 3O (1928).

Baur, J .R., R.W. Bovey, and M.J. Merkle. "Concentration of Picloram in Runoff
Water." Weed Science 2O (1972): 309-313.

Bedunah, J .D. Influence of Some Vegetation Manipulation Practices on the Bio-
Hydrological State of a Depleted Deep Hardland Range Site. Ph.D. Dissertation,
Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, 1982.

Blackburn, W.H. "Influence of Brush Control on Hydrologic Characteristics of Range
Watersheds." Proceedings - Brush Management Symposium, Society for Range
Management, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 73-88, 1983.

Blackburn, W.H. "Range Improvements to Maximize Rainfall Runoff." Proceedings of
the International Ranchers Roundup, Texas Agricultural Extension Service,
Laredo, Texas, 1985.

Blackburn, W.H., L. Jones, and R. Lacewell. "Water Yield Improvement Potential by
Vegetation Management on Texas Rangelands." Unpublished Texas Agricultural
Experiment Station Paper, 1984.

Bovey, R.W., J .R. Baur, E. Burnett, W.G. Knisel, M.G. Merkle, and C. Richardson.
"Occurence of 2, 4, 5 - T and Picloram in Surface Runoff Water in the Blacklands
of Texas." Journal of Environmental Quality 3(1974): 61-64.

Brock, J .H., W.H. Blackburn and R.H. Haas. "Infiltration and Sediment Production
on a Deep Hardland Range Site in North Central Texas." Journal of Range
Management 35(1982): 195-198.

61

Brown, T.C. "Range Management and Hydrology Issues." Water Development
Through Conservation Initiatives Seminar Series, Texas A&M University, College
Station, Texas, August 22, 1986a.

Brown, T.C. "The Value of Incremental Water Flow from Pinyon-Juniper Lands."
Pinyon-Juniper Conference, Reno, Nevada, January 13-16, 1986b.

Brown, T.C., P.F. O’Connell, and A.R. Hibbert. "Chaparral Conversion Potential in
Arizona, Part II, An Economic Analysis." Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station Research Paper, RM-127, 1974.

Bussey, L.E. The Economic Analysis of Industrial Projects. Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1978.

California Water Code, West Publishing Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1971.

City of Amarillo v. Ware. Southwestern Reporter, Texas Supreme Court, Second
Series 40(1931): 57.

Clary, W.P. "Pinyon-Juniper Control-Does it Pay?" Annual Arizona Watershed
Symposium Proceedings 18(l974), 26-29.

Clary, W.P., R.E. Cambell, T.N. Johnson, and M.B. O’Connell Jr. "Effects of Pinyon-
Juniper Removal on Natural Resource Products and Uses in Arizona." Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Research Paper RM-128, 1974.

Coggins, George. "The Law of Public Rangeland Management III: A Survey of
Creeping Regulation at the Periphery, 1934-1982." Environmental Law 13(1983):
295.

Coleman v. Wright. Southwestern Reporter, Second Series, Texas Civil Appeals Court-
Waco, 155(1941): 382, no writ.

Conner, J .R. "On-Site Vegetation Management Issues." Paper presented at Water
Development Through Conservation Initiatives Seminar Series, Texas A&M
University, College Station, Texas, August 19, 1986.

Conner, J .R. "Range Improvements: The Decision Process." Proceedings of the
International Ranchers Roundup, Laredo, Texas, Texas Agricultural Extension
Service, 174-175, 1985a.

Conner, J .R. "Technology Selection Based on Economic Criteria." I n:l ntegrated Brush
Management Systems for South Texas, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station,
College Station, Texas, B-1493, 47-54, 1985b.

Crosson, P.R. and S. Brubaker. "Resource and Environmental Efiects of U.S.
Agriculture." Resources for the Future, Inc. Washington, D.C., 1982.

Davis, E.A. "Conversion of Arizona Chaparral to Grass Increases Water Yield and
Nitrate Loss." Water Resources Research 20(1984): 1643-1649.

Dow Chemical Company. Rangelander. Brush Control Newsletter for the Southwest,
Dow Chemical U.S.A., Dallas, Texas, Summer 1986.

62

Ffolliott, P.F., and D.B. Thorud. "Vegetation Management for Increased Water Yield in
Arizona." Agricultural Experiment Station, The University of Arizona, Tucson,
Arizona, Technical Bulletin 215, 1974.

Forest Service. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Tonto National Forest Plan,
Southwestern Region of the Forest Service, Phoenix, Arizona, 1985.

Frank, M.D. and B.R. Beattie. "The Economic Value of Irrigation Water in the
Western United States: An Application of Ridge Regression." Texas Water
Resources Institute, College Station, Texas, Technical Report 99, 1979.

Franklin, J .P. Consumptive Water Use by Mesquite and Grass Communities in North
Central Texas M.S. Thesis, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, 1987.

Fuss v. Franks. Pacific Reporter, Second Series 610(1980): 17, Wyoming Supreme
Court.

Gannett Fleming Corddry, and Carpenter, Inc. "Assessment of Environmental Effects
of Proposed Developments in the Senegal River Basin." Harrisburg,
Pennsylvannia, 1980.

Gittinger, J .P. Economic Analysis of Agricultural Projects. John S. Hopkins Press,
Baltimore, Maryland, 1982.

Glover, M.K., J .R. Conner, and D.W. Steinbach. "Hunting Lease Characteristics and
Their Effect on Leasing Income of Texas Landowners." Unpublished manuscript,
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, 1986.

Gould, F .W. "Texas Plants: A Checklist and Ecological Summary." Texas
Agricultural Experiment Station, College Station, Texas, MP-585, 1975.

Griffin, R.C. and J .R. Stoll. "Evolutionary Precesses in Soil Conservation Policy."
Land Economics 60(1984): 30-39.

Griffin, R.C. and J .R. Stoll. "The Enhanced Role of Water Conservation in the Cost-
Benefit Analysis of Water Projects." Water Resources Bulletin 19(1983): 447-457.

Guelker v. H idalgo County Water Improvement District. Southwestern Reporter,
Second Series 269M954): 551. Texas Civil Appeals Court - San Antonio, writ
refused - no reversable error.

Hailey, J .L. and H.N. McGill. "Runoff Curve Number Based on Soil Cover Complex
and Climatic Factors." Presented at the 1983 Summer Meeting, American
Society of Agricultural Engineers, Montana State University Bozeman, Montana,
June 26-29, 1983.

Halsell v. Texas Water Commission. Southwestern Reporter, Second Series 380(1964):
1, Texas Civil Appeals Court - Austin.

Hamilton, W.T. "Applying and Evaluating IBMS, Integrated Brush Management
Systems for South Texas." Inflntegrated Brush Managemet Systems for South
Texas, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College Station, Texas, B-1493,
55-58, 1985.

63

Hamilton, W.T., J .R. Conner, G.L. McBryde, J .R. Stuth, and A.J. Vega.
"Incorporating Precipitation - Induced Variation in Annual Forage Production into
Economic Analyses of Range Improvement Practices." Texas Agricultural
Experiment Station, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, B-1519,
1986.

Harr, D.R. "Potential for Augmenting Water Yield Through Forest Practices in
Western Washington and Western Oregon." Water Resources Bulletin 19(1983):
383-394.

Harrel v. F.H. Vahlsing, Inc. Southwestern Reporter, Second Series 248(1932): 762,
Texas Civil Appeals Court - San Antonio, writ refused, no reversable error.

Hibbert, A.R. "Managing Vegetation to Increase Flow in the Colorado River Basin."
USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-66. Fort Collins, CO: Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 1979.

Hibbert, A.R. "Water Yield Improvement Potential by Vegetation Management on
Western Rangelands." Water Resources Bulletin 19(1983): 375-381.

Hibbert, A.R., E.A. Davis, and D.G. Scholl. "Chaparral Conversion Potential in.
Arizona - Part I: Water Yield Response and Effects on Other Resources." Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, United States Department of
Agriculture Forest Service Research Paper RM-126, 36, 1974.

Hoefs v. Short. Southwestern Reporter, Second Series, Texas Civil Appeals Court - El
Paso 190(1916): 802. Affirmed 273 S.W. 785 (Texas 1925).

Howe, C.W. Benefit-Cost Analysis for Water System Planning. American Geophysical
Union, Washington, D.C., 1971.

Hutchins, W. Texas Law of Water Rights. Department of Water Resources, Austin,
Texas, 1961.

Inglis, J .M. "On-Site Vegetation Management Issues." Paper presented at Water
Development Through Conservation Initiatives Seminar Series, College Station,
Texas, August 19, 1986.

Inglis, J .M. "Wildlife Management and IBMS in Integrated Brush Management
Systems for South Texas." In Integrated Brush Management Systems for South
Texas, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College Station, Texas, B-1493,
35-40, 1985.

Johnson, R.H. Personal Communication. Soil Conservation Service, United States
Department of Agriculture, Temple, Texas, August 1986.

Kelton, E. "The Story of Rocky Creek." The Practicing Nutritionist 9(1975): 1-5.

Knight, R.W., W.H. Blackburn, and C.J. Scifres. "Infiltration Rates and Sediment
Production Following Herbicide/Fire Brush Treatments." Journal of Range
Management 36 (1983): 154-57.

Kraft v. Langford. Southwestern Reporter, Texas Supreme Court Second Series
565(1978): 223.

 

64

Krutilla, J .V., M.D. Bowes, and P. Sherman. "Watershed Management for Joint
Production of Water and Timber: A Provisional Assessment." Water Resources
Bulletin 19(1983): 403-414.

Kuykendall, J . Personal communication. Texas State Soil and Water Conservation
Board, Temple, Texas, October 16, 1986.

Lind, R.C. (ed.). "A Primer on the Major Issues Relating to the Discount Rate for
Evaluating National Energy Options, in Discounting for Time and Risk in Energy
Policy." Resources for the Future. Washington, D.C., 1982.

Linsley, R.K., M. Kohler, and J .L.H. Paulus. Hydrology for Engineers. McGraw-Hill
Book Company, New York, New York, 1982.

Lower Colorado River Authority v. Texas Department of Water Resources.
Southwestern Reporter, Texas Supreme Court, Second Series 689(1985): 873.

Lundeen, L.J. The Use of Digital Simulation Models to Predict the Effects of Vegetation
Cover Change on Streamflow and Downstream Water Use. Ph.D. Dissertation,
Stanford University, 1977.

Mayeux Jr., H.S., R.W. Bovey, E. Burnett, R.E. Meyer, M.G. Merkle, and C.W.
Richardson. "Dissipation of Picloram in Storm Runoff", Journal of Environmental
Quality 13(1984): 44-49.

McBryde, G.L., J .R. Conner, and C.J. Scifres. "Economic Analysis of Selected Brush
Management Practices for Eastern South Texas." Texas Agricultural Experiment
Station, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, B-1468, 1984.

McCarl, Bruce A. and Mark Ross. "The Costs Borne by Electricity Consumers Under
Expanded Irrigation from the Columbia River." Water Resources Research
29(1985): 1319-1328.

Meiman, J .R. and R.E. Dils. "Watershed Management - Practice and Trends in the
United States." Proceedings of the 1st Annual Meeting of the American Water
Resources Association, University of Chicago, 1965.

Meyers, C.J. and A.D. Tarlock. Water Resource Management: A Coursebook in Law
and Public Policy. The Foundation Press Inc., Mineola, New York, 1980.

Mishan, E.J. Cost - Benefit Analysis. Praeger Publishers, New York, New York, 1976.

National Research Council. "Nitrates: An Environmental Assessment." National
Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1978.

O’Connell, P.F. "Economics of Chaparral Management in the Southwest". National
Symposium on Watersheds in Transition, American Water Resources Association,
Proceedings Series 14, Fort Collins, Colorado, 260-266, 1972.

Peel, S. "Acquisition of Municipal Water Rights in Texas: A Conceptual and
Operational Analysis". Texas Tech Law Review 17(1986): 811-823.

65

Ponce, S.L. and J .R. Meiman. "Water Yield Augmentation Through Forest and Range
Management - Issues for the Future." Water Resources Bulletin 19(1983):
415-419.

Rechenthin, C.A. and H.N. Smith. "Grassland Restoration Part V: Effect on Water
Yield and Supply." USDA Soil Conservation Service, Temple, Texas, Tex-47-157,
1967.

Richardson, C.W., E. Burnett, and R.W. Bovey. "Hydrologic Effects of Brush Control
on Texas Rangelands." Transactions of the ASAE 22 (1979): 315-19.

Sampson, A.W. "Effect of Chaparral Burning on Soil Erosion and Soil-Moisture
Relations." Ecology 25(1944): 171-191.

Sassone, P.G. and W.A. Schaffer. Cost Benefit Analysis: A Handbook. Academic
Press, New York, New York, 1978.

Schumm, S.A. "Geomorphic Thresholds and Complex Response of Drainage Systems
in Fluvial Geomorphology." Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Geomorphology
Symposium, SUNY, Binghampton, New York, 299-309, 1974.

Scifres, C.J. "On-Site Vegetation Management Issues." Paper presented at Water
Development Through Conservation Initiatives Seminar Series, College Station,
Texas, August 19, 1986.

Scifres, C.J. Brush Management: Principles and Practices for Texas and the Southwest.
Texas A&M University Press, College Station, Texas, 1980.

Scifres, C.J. "IBMS: Ecological Basis and Evolution of Concepts in Integrated Brush
Management Systems for South Texas. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station,
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, 5-8, 1985.

Senate Bill No. 1083. The Brush Bill. Texas State Legislature, Sponsor - Senator Bill
Sims, San Angelo, Texas, 1985.

Shoecraft, B. Sue the Bastards. The Franklin Press, Phoenix, Arizona, 1971.

Skrabanek, R.L. and S. Murdock. "Texas County Population Changes in the 1970’s."
Department of Rural Sociology, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas,
Dtr 81-5, 1981.

Smith Southwest Industries Inc. v. F riendswood Development Company. 546 S.W.2d
890 (Tex. Civ. App.-Houston 1977), reversed on other grounds 576 S.W.2d 21
(Tex. 1978).

Smith, H.N. and C.A. Rechenthin. Grassland Restoration: Part I - The Texas Brush
Problem. USDA-SCS, Temple, Texas 1964.

Soil Conservation Service - United States Department of Agriculture. 1982 National
Resources Inventory Statistical Tables, Temple, Texas, 12C, 1985.

Southeastern Colorado Water Conservatory District v. Shelton Farms Inc. Pacific
Reporter, Second Series 529(1975): 1321, Colorado Supreme Court.

 

66

Stoll, J .R. and L.A. Johns. on. "Concepts of Value, Nonmarket Valuation, and the
Case of the Whooping Crane." Transactions of the North American Wildlife and
Natural Resources Conference 49(1984):382-393.

Stoner v Dallas. Southwestern Reporter, Second Series 382(1965):910, Texas Civil
Appeals Court-Dallas, writ refused, no reversable error.

Taylor, R.C. "Economic Implications of Nonpoint Source Pollution Control -
Agriculture" Agricultural & Silvicultural Nonpoint Source Water Pollution
Control. Texas Proceedings of 208 Planning Conference, Texas A&M University,
College Station, Texas, 148-155, 1977.

Texas Administrative Code. Hart Publishing Company, 1985.
Texas Agricultural Code Annotated. Vernons Pamphlet Supplement, 1986.

Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. "Integrated Brush Management Systems for
South Texas: Development and Implementation." Texas A&M University,
College Station, Texas, B-1493, 1985.

Texas Department of Water Resources. "Water for Texas: A Comprehensive Plan for
the Future." Texas Department of Water Resources, Austin, Texas.

Texas Water Alliance. The Texas Water Alliance 1(September 1986),Austin, Texas.
Texas Water Code Annotated. Vernons Pamphlet Supplement, 1986.

Thomas, J .W. and C. Maser (ed) Wildlife Habitats in Managed Rangelands - The Great
Basin of Southeastern Oregon. Bureau of Land Management, United States
Department of Interior, Washington, D.C., 1986.

V anTassell, L.W. and J .R. Conner. "An Economic Analyse of Brush Control Practices
and Grazing Systems in the Rolling Plains of Texas." TAES MP, December,
1986.

Walton, M. "Range Management and Hydrology lssues." Water Development
Through Conservation Initiatives Seminar Series, Texas A&M University, College
Station, Texas, August 22, 1986.

Welch, T.G. "Acres of Texas Rangeland Treated for Brush and Weed Control." Texas
Agricultural Extension Service, College Station, Texas, Mimeograph 1986.

Weltz, M.A. Observed and Estimated Water Budgets for South Texas Rangelands.
Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, 1987.

Whitson, R.E. and C.J. Scifres. "Federal Cost Sharing - The Economic Necessity for
Mesquite Control by Ranch Firms in Texas." Journal of American Society of Farm
Managers and Rural Appraisers Inc. 44(1980): 40-45.

Wiggers, E.P. and S.L. Beasom. "Characterization of Syrnpatric or Adjacent Habitats
of 2 Deer Species in West Texas." Journal of Wildlife Management 50(1986):
129-134.

67

Williams, J .R., C.A. Jones, and P.T. Dyke. "A Modeling Approach to Determining the
Relationship between Erosion and Soil Productivity." Transactions of the ASAE
(1984): 129-44.

Williams, J .R., K.G. Renard, and P.T. Dyke. "EPIC: A New Method for Assessing
Erosion’s Effect on Soil Productivity." Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 38
(1983): 381-3.

Williams, OR. WET: The Computerized Version of Chapter III - Hydrology - of the
WRENSS Handbook. Watershed Systems Development Group, USDA - Forest
Service, WSDG-AD-00007, Fort Collins, Colorado, 1983.

Willey, W.R.Z. "Least Cost Approaches for satisfying Water Demand: An
Alternatives Analysis" Proceedings from Western Water: Expanding Uses/Finite
Supplies. Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado School of Law,
1986. "

Woods, L.G. "Increasing Watershed Yield Through Management." Journal of Soil
and Water Conservation 21(1966): 9'7.

Young, R.A. Allocating the Water Resource: Market Systems and the Economic Value of
Water. Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, July, 1982.

68

APPENDIX A: SEMINAR SPEAKERS

Thomas C. Brown
Economist

Rocky Mountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station
240 West Prospect St.

Fort Collins, CO 80526
(303)224-1892

Richard Conner

Professor

Department of Agricultural Economics
Texas A&M University

College Station, TX 77843-2124
(409)845-2336

Jack Inglis

Professor

Department of Wildlife & Fisheries
Texas A&M University

College Station, TX 77843-2258
(409)845-5707

Lee Jones

Lawyer for Water Rights Division
Texas Water Commission

P.O. Box 13087

Austin, TX 78711-3087
(512)463-7875

Charles Scifres

Professor

Department of Range Science
Texas A&M University

College Station, TX 77843-2126
(409)845-7334

Steve Stagner

Executive Director

Texas Water Alliance

M Bank Tower

West 6th Street Suite 806
Austin, TX 78701
(512)479-6930

Dan Tarlock

Attorney At Law

77 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
(312)567-5713

Murray Walton

Regional Representative
National Audubon Society
2525 Wallingwood, Suite 1505
Austin, TX 78746
(512)327-1943

Zack Willey

Economist

Environmental Defense Fund
2606 Dwight Way

Berkeley, CA 94704
(415)548-8406

69

APPENDIX B: A QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF VARYING COST SHARES

The returns to brush management investments are illustrated in two locations
using data 0n the net increase in livestock returns, the estimated initial and
maintenance costs of brush management, hypothetical water yields, hypothetical
water prices, and hypothetical water delivery ratios. As such, the calculations are
obviously crude, ignoring most of the necessary economic information needs (as
enumerated in Table 9). Nevertheless, the results provide qualitative insight even
though they are quantitatively unreliable.

The calculations were done for two sets of physical conditions. The first involved
South Texas range conditions using data from the Texas Agricultural Experiment
Station (1985) report. The second involved Southern Rolling Plains range conditions
using data from VanTassel and Conner (1986). In both cases, Richard Conner
assisted the authors in updating the livestock data to 1986 conditions and developing
brush management cost estimates. Furthermore, a 1 inch annual water yield was
assumed for South Texas and a 0.26-inch estimate for the Southern Rolling Plains
was used. The analysis was then conducted to determine the internal rate of return to
brush management in terms of the rancher, off-ranch entities‘, and in total. The
rancher and off-ranch rate of return analysis also included consideration of
alternative cost share policies.

Livestock returns data, brush control cost, and water yield assumptions are
detailed in Tables B-1 and B-2. Livestock returns for 12 years after brush
management and the costs of brush removal over that period provide the basic
numbers for the analysis. The brush management costs were estimated by Richard
Conner as were the livestock returns. Both are area specific. Brush management is
assumed to start in year 0 with maintenance on a periodic schedule (see the first
column of Tables B-1 or B-2) with the livestock returns occurring in years 1-12 (see
column 2 of B-1 and B-2). At the end of the 12-year period, a salvage value is entered
giving the value of the additional livestock and improved rangeland. Off-ranch
entities are assumed to pay some proportion of the brush management cost (which will
vary from O to 7O percent). The amount of the cost and the proportion are given in
column 3. The resultant net rancher profit (i.e., livestock returns minus brush
management cost adjusted for the off-ranch cost share) is given in column 4. The
water assumed to accrue to off-ranch interests begins in year 1 and continues each
year until year 12. Water yields of 1 inch are assumed for South Texas and 0.25 inch
for the Southern Rolling Plains, as given in column 6. This water is valued at three
different prices. The water value is assumed to be off-ranch water value times the
amount of water used. Thus, if only 50 percent of the water is used at an off-ranch
value of $80, then a $40 value would be appropriate in this analysis. The rest of
column 7 gives the off-ranch net returns, which are calculated as the water value less
the off-ranch cost share amount. Given these data, the analysis identifies two rates of
return, one for each of the rancher and off-ranch participants.

The results shown in Table B-3 demonstrate the consequences of alternative cost
shares and water prices. If there is a zero cost share in the South Texas case, the rate
of return to the rancher is 2.6 percent, while off-ranch interests gain benefits without
paying (an infinite rate of return). However, when the off-ranch cost share amounts

 

70

Table B-1. Analysis Method for South Texas-Like Site

, Off-Ranch Net
Brush Livestock Cost Net Return
Management Net Cash Share Rancher Water $20.00/
Year Cost Flow 30% Profit Yield acre-feet
------ ---------- Nominal $ -- acre-feet Nominal $

0 29.50 0.00 8.85 (20.65) ($8.85)

1 (4.74) 0.00 (4.74) 0.083 1.67

2 6.00 (5.16) 1.80 (9.36) 0.083 (0.13)

3 3.78 0.00 3.78 0.083 1.67

4 0.62 0.00 0.62 0.083 1.67

5 3.00 4.40 0.90 2.30 0.083 0.77

6 9.56 0.00 9.56 0.083 1.67

7 1.09 0.00 1.09 0.083 1.67

8 6.36 0.00 6.36 0.083 1.67

9 3.00 9.77 0.90 7.67 0.083 0.77
10 3.97 0.00 3.97 0.083 1.67
11 0.86 0.00 0.86 0.083 1.67
12 5.93 0.00 5.93 0.083 1.67

Salvage 16.50 16.50
Rancher Internal Rate of Return 6.5%

Off-Ranch Internal Rate of Return 10.2%

71

Table B-2. Analysis Method for Southern Rolling Plains Site Yielding 0.26

Inch of Water

Off-Ranch
Off-Ranch Net
Brush Livestock Cost Net Return
Management Net Cash Share Rancher Water $20.00/
Year Cost Flow 30% Profit Yield acre-feet
Nominal $ acre-feet Nominal $

0 13.00 0.00 3.90 (9.10) (3.90)
1 (4.20) 0.00 (4.20) 0.022 A 0.43
2 (3.65) 0.00 (3.65) 0.022 0.43
3 3.38 0.00 3.38 0.022 0.43
4 3.60 0.00 3.60 0.022 0.43

5 6.00 3.26 1.80 (0.94) 0.022 (1.37)
6 12.78 0.00 12.78 0.022 0.43
7 (17.62) 0.00 (17.62) 0.022 0.43
8 3.79 0.00 3.79 0.022 0.43
9 4.07 0.00 4.07 0.022 0.43

10 3.00 3.98 0.90 1.88 0.022 (0.47)
11 15.74 0.00 15.74 0.022 0.43
12 (18.15) 0.00 (18.15) 0.022 0.43

Salvage 16.50 16.50
Rancher Internal Rate of Return 4.9%
Off-Ranch Internal Rate of Return -6.2%

mwwmwwisn * r mWrfwwf '~""

Table B-3. Rates of Return Under Alternative Policiesl

Data for South Texas-Like Site Yielding 1 Inch of Water from Brush Management.

-------Assumed Water Price------- Water Price Where
Cost $20 $40 $ 100 Off-Ranch Interests
Share Rancher -----------Off-Ranch------------ Break Earn 10%
Policy ---------------Rates Of Return ----------- Even Return

percent »»»» ------ percent ------ $ ------
O 2.6 + Inf + Inf + Inf 0.00 0.00

10 3.8 50.8 107.6 278.5 4.15 6.62

20 5.0 21.3 50.8 136.1 8.30 13.24

30 6.5 10.2 31.5 88.6 12.45 19.86

40 8.2 3.7 21.3 65.0 16.60 26.49

50 10.1 -0.7 14.8 50.8 20.75 33.11

60 12.5 -4.1 10.2 41.2 24.90 39.73

70 15.4 -6.7 6.6 34.3 29.05 46.35

Total Rate Cf Return 7.2% 1 1.6% 24.8%

Data for Southern Rolling Plains-Like Site Yielding 0.26 Inch of Water from Brush Management.

---------Assurned Water Price --- Water Price Where
Cost $20 $40 $100 Off-Ranch Interests
Share Rancher —------—--—---OfT-Ranch------------ Break Earn 10%
Policy -------- ---Rates Of Return----------------- Even Return

percent --------------- --—--percent ------- $ ------
0 0.8 +Inf +Inf +Inf 0.00 0.00

10 2.0 27.1 63.9 166.1 8.46 12.11

20 3.4 4.5 27.1 81.3 16.92 24.23

30 4.9 -6.2 12.9 52.1 25.38 36.34

40 6.7 -13.8 4.5 36.8 33.84 48.46

50 8.7 -20.3 -1.5 27.1 42.30 60.57

60 11.0 -26.3 -6.2 20.3 50.76 72.68

70 13.9 -32.0 -10.3 15.1 59.22 84.80

Total Rate Of Return 3.5% 6.2% 14.4%

73

to 40 percent, ranchers realize 8.2 percent on their subsidized brush management
investment, while off-ranch interests earn between 3.7 and 65.0 percent, depending on
the value of water. Conversely, in the Rolling Plains case, off-ranch interests earn
between 20.3 and 27.1 percent. Furthermore, adding the on- and off-ranch net income
leads to a 7.2 percent rate of return for the South Texas case at $20 water and a 3.5
percent rate of return in the Southern Rolling Plains case. The final two columns of
the table show the water price at which society breaks even and earns a 10 percent
rate of return.

While quantitatively unreliable, these results suggest that:

0 Appropriate off-ranch cost shares (i.e., the percent borne by off-ranch entities or
their payments for water) vary with site characteristics and water value (including
water delivery ratio).

0 Off-ranch interests can benefit but more must be known about off-site water value,
water yield, and compensation arrangements before quantitatively reliable figures
can be developed.

0 The break-even water prices computed indicate that subsidization policies must be
carefully designed.

74

APPENDIX Cz. RESEARCH NEED PRIORITIZATION

The committee used a multi-stage process in constructing a research issue
prioritization. First, a subcommittee drafted a list of potential research needs. Next,
committee members were given this list and asked to assign priorities between 1 and 5
(with 1 the highest) for research addressing the need immediately (short term) and in
5 years (long term). Simultaneously, comments on issue wording, relevance,
redundancy, and omissions were solicited. Using the first round results, a revised list
was produced containing combined, reworded, and additional research needs. These
needs are listed in Table C-1. Subsequently, the new list of needs was circulated to
the committee with information on the first-round prioritization for reprioritization.
The results of this final prioritization provide the data on which this section is based
and appear in Table C-2. Several things should be kept in mind when examining
these priorities:

1) The priorities were assigned mainly from the standpoint of research needed
to formulate policy directed at brush management for water yield.

2) The prioritization reflects the committee’s knowledge of other ongoing
research and the need for efforts above and beyond current research.

3) The short-term/long-term distinction in prioritization led to a list of needs
which involve short- and long-term objectives within the research agenda.

4) Many of the long-term priorities reflect research which committee members
felt could only be done after a water yield database was developed.
Consequently, most of the long-term priorities reflect research needed if
significant increases in water yield by brush management are found.

Many priorities would change if this were not the case.

5) The research needs are largely oriented toward issues amenable to the
biases of the university researchers who are on the committee. They were
the only participants in the prioritization process.

The research needs which were prioritized are listed in Table C-1. Needs 1-13
mainly deal with water yield from brushland management and the disposition of
subsequent water. Needs 14-24 deal with brush incidence and on-ranch effects of
brush management. Needs 25-29 deal with environmental effects of brush
management and potentially resultant water. Needs 30-36 deal with economic studies
related to water use and/or potential water generated by brush management. Finally,
needs 37-47 deal with economic, institutional, and legal considerations underlying

public policy involving water scarcity in general as well as brush management
encouragement.

The prioritization results are reported in Table C-2. The reviewers are identified
by number. The reviewers, their numbers, and disciplinary focuses are as follows:

75

1. Bruce McCarl Agricultural Economist
2. Wilbert Blackburn Rangeland Hydrologist
3. Wayne Jordan Crop Scientist

4. Lansingh Freeman Environmental Planner
5. Ronald Griffin Water Economist

6. Ronald Kaiser Lawyer

 

Group priorities were formed using the average committee ranking (procedures
other than simple averages were examined e.g., adjusting for differences in means, but
were discarded as there was little qualitative effect). In turn, rankings of highest,
high, medium, low, and lowest were assigned based on the quantitative ranking. This
was done by noting that the average rankings fell between 1.167 and 4.833 and then
establishing five equal divisions over this range. The ranges and number of needs by
range, short-term, and long-term priorities are given in Table C-S.

A list of the research needs sorted by short-term priority is given in Table C-4.
An equivalent list for the long—run priorities is given in Table C-5.

76

Table C-1. List of Research Needs

Number Need Description

1 Develop a database on water yield across a number of watershed sites exhibiting varying brush species,
precipitation regimes, geologic and soils characteristics.

2 Add data to the database in #1 pertaining to brush management methods, treatment patterns, and
maintenance.

3 Develop models which, given the physical characteristics of a parcel, predict water yield.

4 Expand models in #3 to predict water yield under alternative brush management methods, patterns, and
maintenance schemes.

5 Develop a database on water quality effects of brush management across a number of watershed sites
exhibiting varying brush species, precipitation regimes, geologic and soils characteristics.

6 Add data to the database in #5 pertaining to brush management methods, removal patterns, and
maintenance.

7 Develop models which, given the physical characteristics of a parcel, predict water quality effects of
brush management.

8 Expand models in #7 to predict water quality under alternative brush management methods, patterns,
and maintenance schemes.

9 Assess and develop procedures for monitoring the water yield from a brush management application over
time.

1O Develop criteria for the physical treatability of a piece of land, i.e., criteria which identify untreatable
acreage.

11 Develop data on and a model for predicting the disposition of a given quantity of additional surface water
and groundwater in terms of use, groundwater recharge, return flow reuse, flow to estuaries, evaporation,
etc.

12 Develop information on the effect of increased water on watercourse channel dynamics.

13 Develop estimates of the effects of increased reservoir storage on disposition of water increments.

14 Develop inventory information on the types of brush, infestation levels, densities, etc., by region.

15 Develop information on how brush incidence has been changing over time.

16 Develop information on the effects on future water availability of leaving brush infestation alone.

17 Develop estimates of the effect of brush management alternatives on livestock stocking rates.

18 Develop estimates of the effect of brush management alternatives on nongame animal populations.

(continued)

77

Table C-1. (continued)

Number

Need Description

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

Develop estimates of the effect of brush management alternatives on cropped acreage.
Develop estimates of the effect of brush management alternatives on game animal populations.

Develop models exploring the interrelationship of game animal abundance and lease income, including

other factors such as services provided and location.
Predict the consequences of brush management for ranch net income from wildlife leases.

Estimate the consequences of brush management as reflected in the sale value of rangeland and

associated assets.

Given different types of brush complexes and treatment methods, determine the profitability of brush

management to the rancher.

Develop estimates of the consequences of changes in water quality on fish, wildlife, and watercourse

plant populations.

Develop estimates of the downstream effect of water increments such as those which could be incurred

under brush management on fish, wildlife, and aesthetic characteristics.

Develop recommendations pertinent to environmentally sound methods of brush management across

large target areas.
Develop estimates of the consequences of brushland management for the aesthetic value of land.
Develop information on the atmospheric implications of brush management.

Develop estimates of the value of additional water to various users in terms of both income and risk as it

varies by time and water volume.

Develop estimates of the marginal economic consequences in terms of income and risk to various users of

possible changes in water quality.

Develop information on the value of altered flooding regimes.

Develop estimates of the economic consequences of altered nongame populations.
Develop estimates of the economic consequences of altered aquatic populations.
Develop estimates of the net economic value of the water generated from selected sites.

Develop predictive models which, given the characteristics of a site, predict the net economic benefits of

brushland management.

Develop economic and institutional criteria for site identification.

(continued)

78

Table C-1. (continued)

Number Need Description

38 Assess the economic, social, distributional, and other consequences of the potential policies which would
foster brush management.

39 Develop information on the economic effects of alternative ways water scarcity can be addressed
considering reservoirs, conservation, etc.

40 Assess whether reservoir storage development or investments would improve the economic desirability of
brush management.

41 Develop data on the economically rational amount of water that can be developed through brushland
management in Texas.

42 Develop estimates of the economic consequences of allowing brush incidence to continue along its current
physical trend.

43 Examine the institutional and legal reforms necessary to allow use of each of the potential policy options
in Texas.

44 Compare brush management to other water development policies such as alternative water supply
possibilities and make recommendations about the most desirable policies to pursue.

45 Develop estimates of the economic benefits, use of water, and rights to water in an area where brush
management has been implemented, for example Rocky Creek.

46 Examine the institutional and legal reforms put in place by other states to encourage brush management
for water production.

47 Develop recommendations for research which should be done in conjunction with demonstration

implementations.

79

Table C-2. Priorities Assigned to Needs

Priorities by Reviewer

Commitee Average

Need

r-l
OCO®~IGDUIJ>OJMIH

l-l
I-l

>4
M

v-I
OJ

r-l
A

0-1
U1

o-l
d)

u-l
Q

r-l
on

r-d
(‘D

M
O

M
r-l

M
M

M
OJ

M
ah

M
OI

M
O3

M
\l

M
0o

M
(D

OJ
Q

O0
r-e

OJ
M

OJ
OJ

O9
uh

OJ
O1

OJ
U)

O0
~1

OJ
(l)

O0
€D

h
O

ab
0-1

uh
M

ab
OJ

ah
uh

ub-
U!

ab
U)

uh
Kl

Mnbr-eOiMOJvkOJb-l-BOJOJCDAbUIMHWOIUICIICHbMQnIIOJCHAWOJOJWOJOIWIFCIIhuBOJMOJOJMv-I

2

coiow-uzoro-nwwnow»-wvaoo-uoowcn-noa-nia-w-uow»wcnAcn-u-c-A-ncn-ncn-u-c-oocvwcrvoaw»

Short Term

3

OJHMOJOJCIIOOhuQbOJnkMCIICYIUIOJMWCII-bvlifliOJOfiOOOJMfillfiflrbafiOlrlinbfiliMvkb-lnbvbnbOfiOOOfiMb-l

4

0-‘0-1MnbOJhMOJI-IOOMbMOJOJCIJOJMQnhOQOJMOJMOJOJfluhMnhhobOfiOJnbMMbhrbMOlfiflvhOJld

I-lOJMOOMCAIOOAHvb(DOJOJOIQCHOJCDCHCIIAOJUIvbUIOIOIOOUIOJUIHabODQUIMQP-‘CIIUIubu§MMHH

I-‘MOJMMUIIFOOHCHOJOOMCAJQOVMMUICIIUIOJCDUIUYQ~O1CAJUIQCHHuh-OI-QUIMOIO-Iubwwwmwkh‘

MMI-lr-lhdD-JMMP-‘>-*Ml-*>—*n§n§(0MWU1U\MUJ|§MP-*MMMUIv§CHF¢MOJMUVF*OJMMMMMMF-‘F-‘Ifl

CHMr-lr-lMMr-lMHMi-lHMOJOJMHI-IWMOOMMOJOJCIIOOMWhCIIHIFOJHOJWCIIMhOJbHOOl-IMM

2

Long Term

3

ubbUIOJM-hMOJ-hMOJMMhA-hOOMOIOYI-huhAMCDOJCDOJWWAOJCIIOJMOTHhO-JAAOJOJWMCAJOJ

4

OOMMOJMCAJHCDV-‘r-lMMb-‘OJOJOJMHvhbMMMOJMOJOJMhMbnbvFOJOJOJwMOJOJOJMOQMr-IMM

O!

F-lMMHP-‘l-‘v-‘HHHHHHCIIM-hr-lHUI-bMI-IMHUIACHMUIMOIHMMMUlHnhl-‘vhMMMv-li-lv-‘M

OJv-‘MHi-‘UIMOOHOJMOOi-‘OJAAMHUIAQMMIkOIACHOJOYukOIHO-JnbMCRMOTMnBOJO-‘JCIJCAJMOOOQ

Quantitative
Short Long
Term Term
1.00 2.17
2.50 2.00
3.33 1.33
3.83 2.33
2.67 2.33
3.50 2.67
3.83 2.83
4.17 3.50
2.67 2.17
4.00 3.83
2. 17 1. 17
4.83 4.33
3.67 2.00
4.00 3.00
4.00 3.33
2.83 1.83
4.67 4.67
3.67 3.50
4.83 4.83
2.33 2.33
4.00 3.50
4.00 3.50
3.50 3.17
3.67 2.50
4.00 2.67
3.67 2.33
4.00 2.83
4.67 4.00
4.83 4.83
2.00 1. 17
2.67 1.83
4.50 3.33
3.83 3.33
3.83 3.67
2.17 1.17
3.00 1.67
2.83 1.83
3.67 1.67
1.50 1.50
3.33 2.33
3.33 1.50
3.67 2.67
2.33 1.50
3. 17 1.67
1.83 2. 17
2.17 3.00
1.83 3.00

Qualitative

Short Long
Term Term
Highest High
High High
Medium Highest
Low High
Medium High
Low Medium
Low Medium
Lowest Low
Medium High
Low Low
High Highest
Lowest Lowest
Low High
Low Medium
Low Medium
Medium Highest
Lowest Lowest
Low Low
Lowest Lowest
High High
Low Low
Low Low
Low Medium
Low High
Low Medium
Low High
Low Medium
Lowest Low
Lowest Lowest
High Highest
Medium Highest
Lowest Medium
Low Medium
Low Low
High Highest
Medium Highest
Medium Highest
Low Highes t
Highest Highest
Medium High
Medium Highest
Low Medium
High Highest
Medium Highest
Highest High
High Medium

Highest

Medium

Table C-3. Prioritization Summary

Number and Percentage of
Needs Falling into Class

Short Term Long Term

Class Range of Scores
Highest 1-1.9 4 (9%) 13 (28%)
High 1.9—2.63 7 (15%) 1 1 (23%)
Medium 2.63-3.37 1O (21%) 12 (26%)
Low 3.37-4.1 19 (40%) 7 (15%)
4.1-5 7 (15%) 4 (9%)

Lowest

81

Table C-4. Needs Sorted by Short Term Priority

Need Description Short Long
Term Term

1 Develop a database on water yield across a 1.00 2.17
number of watershed sites exhibiting varying Highest High

brush species, precipitation regimes,

geologic, and soils characteristics.

39 Develop information on the economic effects of 1.50 1.50
alternative ways water scarcity can be addressed Highest Highest

considering reservoirs, conservation, etc.

45 Develop estimates of the economic benefits, use 1.83 2.17
of water, and rights to water in an area where Highest High
brush management has been implemented, for
example Rocky Creek.

47 Develop recommendations for research which 1.83 3.00
should be done in conjunction with Highest Medium

demonstration implementations.

30 Develop estimates of the value of additional 2.00 1.17
water to various users in terms of both income High Highest

and risk as it varies by time and water volume.

1 1 Develop data on and a model for predicting the 2.17 1.17
disposition of a given quantity of additional High Highest
surface water and groundwater in terms of use,
groundwater recharge, return flow reuse, flow

to estuaries, evaporation, etc.

35 Develop estimates of the net economic value of 2.17 1.17

the water generated from selected sites. High Highest
46 Examine the institutional and legal reforms put 2.17 3.00

in place by other states to encourage brush High Medium

management for water production.

43 Examine the institutional and legal reforms 2.33 1.50
necessary to allow use of each of the potential High Highest

policy options in Texas.

20 Develop estimates of the effect of brush 2.33 2.33
management alternatives on game animal High High
populations.

2 Add data to the database in #1 pertaining to 2.50 2.00
brush management methods, treatment patterns, High High

and maintenance.

(continued)

Table C-4. (continued)

82

Need Description Short Long
Term Term

31 Develop estimates of the marginal economic conse- 2.67 1.83
quences in terms of income and risk to various Medium Highest
users of possible changes in water quality.

9 Assess and develop procedures for monitoring 2.67 2.17
the water yield from a brush management Medium High
application over time.

5 Develop a database on water quality effects of 2.67 2.33
brush management across a number of watershed Medium High
sites exhibiting varying brush species, precipi-
tation regimes, geologic and soils characteristics.

16 Develop information on the effects on future 2.83 1.83
water availability of leaving brush infestation Medium Highest
alone.

37 Develop economic and institutional criteria for 2.83 1.83
site identification. Medium Highest

36 Develop predictive models which, given the 3.00 1.67
characteristics of a site, predict the net Medium Highest
economic benefits of brushland management.

44 Compare brush management to other water 3.17 1.67
development policies such as alternative water Medium Highest
supply possibilities and make recommendations
about the most desirable policies to pursue.

3 Develop models which, given the physical charac- 3.33 1.33
teristics of a parcel, predict water yield. Medium Highest

41 Develop data on the economically rational 3.33 1.50
amount of water that can be developed through Medium Highest
brushland management in Texas.

40 Assess whether reservoir storage development or 3.33 2.33
investments would improve the economic Medium High
desirability of brush management.

6 Add data to the database in #5 pertaining to 3.50 2.67
brush management methods, removal patterns and LOW Medium

maintenance.

(continued)

83

Table C-4. (continued)

Need Description Short Long
Term Term

23 Estimate the consequences of brush management 3.50 3.17
as reflected in the sale value of rangeland and Low Medium
associated assets.

38 Assess the economic, social, distributional, 3.67 1.67
and other consequences of the potential Low Highest
policies which would foster brush management.

13 Develop estimates of the effects of increased 3.67 2.00
reservoir storage on disposition of water Low High
increments.

26 Develop estimates of the downstream efiect of 3.67 2.33
water increments such as those which could be Low High
incurred under brush management on fish,
wildlife, and aesthetic characteristics.

24 Given different types of brush complexes and 3.67 2.50
treatment methods, determine the profitability Low High
of brush management to the rancher.

42 Develop estimates of the economic consequences 3.67 2.67
of allowing brush incidence to continue along Low Medium
its current physical trend.

18 Develop estimates of the effect of brush 3.67 3.50
management alternatives on nongame animal Low Low
populations.

4 Expand models in #3 to predict water yield 3.83 2.33
under alternative brush management methods, Low High
patterns and maintenance schemes.

7 Develop models which, given the physical 3.83 2.83
characteristics of a parcel, predict water Low Medium
quality effects of brush management.

33 Develop estimates of the economic consequences 3.83 3.33
of altered nongame populations. Low Medium

34 Develop estimates of the economic consequences 3.83 3.67
of altered aquatic populations. low Low

25 Develop estimates of the consequences of 4.00 2.67
changes in water quality on fish, wildlife, and Low Medium

watercourse plant populations.

(continued)

Table C-4. (continued)

84

Need Description Short Long
Term Term

27 Develop recommendations pertinent to 4.00 2.83
environmentally sound methods of brush Low Medium
management across large target areas.

14 Develop inventory information on the types of 4.00 3.00
brush, infestation levels, densities, etc. by Low Medium
region.

15 Develop information on how brush incidence has 4.00 3.33
been changing over time. Low Medium

21 Develop models exploring the interrelationship 4.00 3.50
of game animal abundance and lease income, Low Low
including other factors such as services
provided, and location.

22 Predict the consequences of brush management 4.00 3.50
for ranch net income from wildlife leases. Low Low

10 Develop criteria for the physical treatability 4.00 3.83
of a piece of land, i.e., criteria which Low Low
identify untreatable acreage.

8 Expand models in #7 to predict water quality 4.17 3.50
under alternative brush management methods, Lowest Low
patterns, and maintenance schemes.

32 Develop information on the value of altered 4.50 3.33
flooding regimes. Lowest Medium

28 Develop estimates of the consequences of brush- 4.67 4.00
land management for the aesthetic value of land. Lowest Low

17 Develop estimates of the effect of brush management 4.67 4.67
alternatives on livestock stocking rates. Lowest Lowest

12 Develop information on the effect of increased 4.83 4.33
water on watercourse channel dynamics. Lowest Lowest

19 Develop estimates of the effect of brush 4.83 4.83
management alternatives on cropped acreage. lowest Lowest

29 Develop information on the atmospheric 4.83 4.83
implications of brush management. Lowest Lowest

85

Table C-5. Needs Sorted by Long Term Priority

Need Description Short Long
Term Term
30 Develop estimates of the value of additional 2.00 1.17
water to various users in terms of both income High Highest

and risk as it varies by time and water volume.

1 1 Develop data on and a model for predicting the 2.17 1.17
disposition of a given quantity of additional High Highest
surface water and groundwater in terms of use,
groundwater recharge, return flow reuse, flow

to estuaries, evaporation, etc.

35 . Develop estimates of the net economic value of 2.17 1.17
the water generated from selected sites. High Highest

3 Develop models which, given the physical charac- 3.33 1.33
teristics of a parcel, predict water yield. Medium Highest

39 Develop information on the economic effects of 1.50 1.50
alternative ways water scarcity can be addressed Highest Highest

considering reservoirs, conservation, etc.

43 Examine the institutional and legal reforms 2.33 1.50
necessary to allow use of each of the available High Highest

policy options in Texas.

41 Develop data on the economically rational 3.33 1.50
amount of water that can be developed through Medium Highest

brushland management in Texas.

36 Develop predictive models which, given the 3.00 1.67
characteristics of a site, predict the net Medium Highest

economic benefits of brushland management.

44 Compare brush management to other water 3.17 1.67
development policies such as alternative water Medium Highest
supply possibilities and make recommendations

about the most desirable policies to pursue.

38 Assess the economic, social, distributional, 3.67 1.67
and other consequences of the potential Low Highest

policies which would foster brush management.

31 Develop estimates of the marginal economic 2.67 1.83
consequences in terms of income and risk to Medium Highest
various users of possible changes in water

quality.

(continued)

Table C-5. (continued)

86

Need Description . Short Long
Term Term

16 Develop information on the effects on future 2.83 1.83
water availability of leaving brush infestation Medium Highest
alone.

37 Develop economic and institutional criteria for 2.83 1.83
site identification. Medium Highest

2 Add data to the database in #1 pertaining to 2.50 2.00
brush management methods, treatment patterns, High High
and maintenance.

13 Develop estimates of the effects of increased 3.67 2.00
reservoir storage on disposition of water Low High
increments.

1 Develop a database on water yield across a 1.00 2.17
number of watershed sites exhibiting varying Highest High
brush species, precipitation regimes, and
geologic and soils characteristics.

45 Develop estimates of the economic benefits, use 1.83 2. 17
of water, and rights to water in an area where Highest High
brush management has been implemented; for
example, Rocky Creek.

9 Assess and develop procedures for monitoring 2.67 2.17
the water yield from a brush management Medium High
application over time.

20 Develop estimates of the effect of brush manage- 2.33 2.33
ment alternatives on game animal populations. High High

5 Develop a database on water quality effects of 2.67 2.33
brush management across a number of watershed Medium High
sites exhibiting varying brush species, precipita-
tion regimes, geologic and soils characteristics.

40 Assess whether reservoir storage development or 3.33 2.33
investments would improve the economic Medium High
desirability of brush management.

26 Develop estimates of the downstream effect of 3.67 2.33
water increments such as those which could be Low High

incurred under brush management on fish,

wildlife, and aesthetic characteristics.

(continued)

87

Table C-5. (continued)

Need Description Short Long
Term Term

4 Expand models in #3 to predict water yield 3.83 2.33
under alternative brush management methods, Low High
patterns and maintenance schemes.

24 Given different types of brush complexes and 3.67 2.50
treatment methods, determine the profitability Low High
of brush management to the rancher.

6 Add data to the database in #5 pertaining to 3.50 2.67
brush management methods, removal patterns and Low Medium
maintenance.

42 Develop estimates of the economic consequences 3.67 2.67
of allowing brush incidence to continue along Low Medium
its current physical trend.

25 Develop estimates of the consequences of 4.00 2.67
changes in water quality on fish, wildlife, and Low Medium
watercourse plant populations.

7 Develop models which, given the physical 3.83 2.83
characteristics of a parcel, predict water Low Medium
quality affects of brush management.

27 Develop recommendations pertinent to 4.00 2.83
environmentally sound methods of brush Low Medium
management across large target areas.

47 Develop recommendations for research which 1.83 3.00
should be done in conjunction with SCS Highest Medium
demonstration implementations.

46 Examine the institutional and legal reforms put 2.17 3.00
in place by other states to encourage brush High Medium
management for water production.

14 Develop inventory information on the types of 4.00 3.00
brush, infestation levels, densities, etc., by Low Medium
region.

23 Estimate the consequences of brush management 3.50 3.17
as reflected in the sale value of rangeland and Low Medium
associated assets.

33 Develop estimates of the economic consequences 3.83 3.33
of altered nongame populations. Low Medium

(continued)

Table C-5. (continued)

88

Need Description Short Long
Term Term
15 Develop information on how brush incidence has 4.00 3.33
been changing over time. Low Medium
32 Develop information on the value of altered 4.50 3.33
flooding regimes. Lowest Medium
18 Develop estimates of the effect of brush manage- 3.67 3.50
ment alternatives on nongame animal populations. Low Low
21 Develop models exploring the interrelationship of 4.00 3.50
game animal abundance and lease income, including Low Low
factors such as services provided and location.
22 Predict the consequences of brush management 4.00 3.50
for ranch net income from wildlife leases. Low Low
8 Expand models in #7 to predict water quality 4. 17 3.50
under alternative brush management methods, Low Low
patterns and maintenance schemes.
34 Develop estimates of the economic consequences 3.83 3.67
of altered aquatic populations. Low Low
10 Develop criteria for the physical treatability 4.00 3.83
of a piece of land, i.e., criteria which Low Low
identify untreatable acreage.
28 Develop estimates of the consequences of brush- 4.67 4.00
land management for the aesthetic value of land. Lowest Low
12 Develop information on the effect of increased 4.83 4.33
water on watercourse channel dynamics. Lowest Lowest
17 Develop estimates of the effect of brush 4.67 4.67
management alternatives on livestock stocking Lowest Lowest
rates.
19 Develop estimates of the effect of brush 4.83 4.83
management alternatives on cropped acreage. Lowest Lowest
29 Develop information on the atmospheric 4.83 4.83
implications of brush management. Lowest Lowest

89

APPENDIX D: PRIORITIZED NEEDS CONTAINED IN RESEARCH ELEMENTS

Element A: Enhance Ability to Predict Water Yield Changes Induced by Brush Management

Need

Priority Short Term Long Term
Highest 1 3
High 2 2, 1, 9, 4, 5
Medium 5, 9, 3 6
Low 6, 4 -
Lowest - -
Description

Develop a database on water yield across a number of watershed sites exhibiting varying brush species,
precipitation regimes, and geologic and soils characteristics.

Add data to the database in #1 pertaining to brush management methods, treatment patterns, and
maintenance.

Develop models which, given the physical characteristics of a parcel, predict water yield.

Expand models in #3 to predict water yield under alternative brush management methods, patterns, and
maintenance schemes.

Develop a database on water quality effects of brush management across a number of watershed sites

exhibiting varying brush species, precipitation regimes, geologic and soils characteristics.
Add data to the database in #5 pertaining to brush management methods, removal patterns, and maintenance.

Assess and develop procedures for monitoring the water yield from a brush management application over time.

Element B: Develop Economic and Social Implications of Alternative Policies and Actions for Relieving

Water Scarcity

Need

16

38

Priority Short Term Long Term
Highest 39 39, 41. 38, 44, 16
High 41 40
Medium 16,44, 40 42

Low 38, 42 -
Lowest - —

Description

Develop information on the effects on future water availability of leaving brush infestation alone.

Assess the economic, social, distributional, and other consequences of the potential policies which would foster
brush management.

39

4O

41

42

44

9O

Develop information on the economic effects of alternative ways water scarcity can be addressed considering
reservoirs, conservation, etc.

Assess whether reservoir storage development or investments would improve the economic desirability of
brush management.

Develop data on the economically rational amount of water that can be developed through brushland
management in Texas.

Develop estimates of the economic consequences of allowing brush incidence to continue along its current
physical trend.

Compare brush management to other water development policies such as alternative water supply possibilities
and make recommendations about the most desirable policies to pursue.

Element C: Enhance the Ability to Predict How the Water Originating From Rangeland Sites Will Be Used

Need

11

13

32

4O

Priority Short Term Long Term
Highest - 1 1
High 11 13, 9, 40
Medium 9, 4O 32

Low 13 -
Lowest 32 -

Description

Assess and develop procedures for monitoring the water yield from a brush management application over time.

Develop data on and a model for predicting the disposition of a given quantity of additional surface water and

groundwater in terms of use, groundwater recharge, return flow reuse, flow to estuaries, evaporation, etc.
Develop estimates of the effects of increased reservoir storage on disposition of water increments.
Develop information on the value of altered flooding regimes.

Assess whether reservoir storage development or investments would improve the economic desirability of
brush management.

Element D: Estimate the Economic and Risk Benefits of Additional Water Changes in Water Quality

Need

30

31

Priority Short Term Long Term
Highest .. 30, 31
High 30 —
Medium 3 1 -

Low - -
Lowest - -

Description

Develop estimates of the value of additional water to various users in terms of both income and risk as it
varies by time and water volume.

Develop estimates of the marginal economic consequences in terms of income and risk to various users of
possible changes in water quality.

91

Element E:

Need
16

38

42

43

44

46

Determine What Legal Reforms are Needed to Implement Brush Management Policy

Priority Short Term Long Term
Highest - 43, 38, 44, 16
High 43, 46 -
Medium 16, 44 42, 46
Low 38, 42 ' -
Lowest - -
Description

Develop information on the effects on future water availability of leaving brush infestation alone.

Assess the economic, social, distributional, and other consequences of the potential policies which would foster
brush management.

Develop estimates of the economic consequences of allowing brush incidence to continue along its current
physical trend.

Examine the institutional and legal reforms necessary to allow use of each of the available policy options in
Texas.

Compare brush management to other water development policies such as alternative water supply possibilities
and make recommendations about the most desirable policies to pursue.

Examine the institutional and legal reforms put in place by other states to encourage brush management for
water production.

Element F: Predict the Water Quality Effects of Brush Management

Need

Priority Short Term Long Term
Highest - —
High - 5
Medium 5 -

Low 6, 7 6 7, 8
Lowest 8 -

Description

Develop a database on water quality effects of brush management across a number of watershed sites

exhibiting varying brush species, precipitation regimes, geologic and soils characteristics.
Add data to the database in #5 pertaining to brush management methods, removal patterns, and maintenance.

Develop models which, given the physical characteristics of a parcel, predict water quality effects of brush
management.

Expand models in #7 to predict water quality under alternative brush management methods, patterns, and
maintenance schemes.

92

Element G: Develop Physical and Economic Criteria for Site Selection

Need

Priority Short Term Long Term
Highest - 37
High - -
Medium 37 -
Low - -
Lowest - -
Description

Develop economic and institutional criteria for site identification.

Element H: Determine the Relationship Between Brush Management and Wildlife Income

Need

20

21

22

24

Priority Short Term Long Term
Highest - -
High 2o 2o, 24
Medium - -

LOW 21, 22, 24 21, 22
Lowest - -

Description

Develop estimates of the effect of brush management alternatives on game animal populations.

Develop models exploring the interrelationship of game animal abundance and lease income, including other
factors such as services provided and location.

Predict the consequences of brush management for ranch net income from wildlife leases.

Given different types of brush complexes and treatment methods, determine the profitability of brush
management to the rancher.

Element I: Develop the Economic Implications of Brush Management On and Off the Site Managed

Need

22

23

24

Priority Short Term Long Term
Highest - 35, 36, 37, 41
High 35 24
Medium 36, 37, 41 23

Low 22, 23, 24 22
Lowest — —

Description

Predict the consequences of brush management for ranch net income from wildlife leases.

Estimate the consequences of brush management as reflected in the sale value of rangeland and associated
assets.

Given different types of brush complexes and treatment methods, determine the profitability of brush
management to the rancher.

93

35

36

41

Develop estimates of the net economic value of the water generated from selected sites.

Develop predictive models which, given the characteristics of a site, predict the net economic benefits of

brushland management.

Develop economic and institutional criteria for site identification.

Develop data on the economically rational amount of water that can be developed through brushland

management in Texas.

Element J: Study the Costs, Benefits, and Consequences of Alternative Policies Encouraging Brush

Management
Priority Short Term Long Term
Highest — 16, 38, 41, 43, 44
High 43, 46 -
Medium 16,41, 44 27, 42. 4s
Low 27, 38, 42 -
Lowest - -
Need Description
16 Develop information on the effects on future water availability of leaving brush infestation alone.
27 Develop recommendations pertinent to environmentally sound methods of brush management across large
target areas.
38 Assess the economic, social, distributional, and other consequences of the potential policies which would foster
brush management.
41 Develop data on the economically rational amount of water that can be developed through brushland
management in Texas.
42 Develop estimates of the economic consequences of allowing brush incidence to continue along its current
physical trend.
43 Examine the institutional and legal reforms necessary to allow use of each of the available policy options in
Texas.
44 Compare brush management to other water development policies such as alternative water supply possibilities
and make recommendations about the most desirable policies to pursue.
46 Examine the institutional and legal reforms put in place by other states to encourage brush management for

water production.

Element K: Document the Benefits of Currently Existing Brush Management Programs

Priority Short Term Long Term
Highest 45, 47 35, 37
High 35 45
Medium 37 47

Low - -

Lowest - -

94

Need Description

35 Develop estimates of the net economic value of the water generated from selected sites.

37 Develop economic and institutional criteria for site identification.

45 Develop estimates of the economic benefits, use of water, and rights to water in an area where brush

management has been implemented, for example Rocky Creek.

47 Develop recommendations for research which should be done in conjunction with Soil Conservation Service
demonstration implementations.

[Blank Page in Original Bulletin]

[Blank Page in Original Bulletin]



 39

ersit

Univ
HIIIIHIIIIIIII

y»? 
_\\ “X



.§§\.\\v
, \*\

's>.@\. . "

g,»

>M \;\\
_

w \~



\ $4“) w \

f) @121; .

\ ,