I was contemplating what to post for today when I was handed this headline on a silver platter by Salem's Capital Press newspaper:'Pickens wants agency to nix water plan.'
Oh, yeah, gotta go with T. Boone! Sure beats whatever else I was contemplating.
The AP story by Betsy Blaney starts thusly:
Billionaire T. Boone Pickens wants a court to derail state approval of a water management plan that he claims would take $10 million off the value of his groundwater rights in the Texas Panhandle.
Pickens' attorney, Marty Jones, said Tuesday that the oilman filed a lawsuit against the Texas Water Development Board [TWDB] last month.
The suit came after the board endorsed a plan that Pickens claims will take as many as 18,000 acre feet of water a year from the Ogallala aquifer [Note: also known as the High Plains aquifer system] under land belonging to him and another rancher. One acre foot equals about 326,000 gallons.
$10M is not eaxctly chump change, except perhaps to Pickens.
The story went on to state that the Texas Attorney General's Office, on behalf of the TWDB, denied Pickens' claims; hence the court case.
The map shows the 16 Groundwater Management Areas in Texas. The water rights Pickens is concerned with are located in Hemphill County, which is in GMA 1. His ranch, which borders the Canadian River, is in Roberts County, just west of Hemphill County.
Here's the deal: at the direction of the Texas Legislature, the three groundwater conservation districts in GMA 1 must establish 'desired future conditions' of the groundwater resources within the purview of their district by 1 September 2010. They must decide how much water (percentage of current groundwater in storage) they want to be remaining in storage at the end of 50 years and submit a plan to that effect.
The legislative directive applies to all 95 conservation districts in the state.
The Panhandle Groundwater Conservation District that deals with Pickens' water rights in Hemphill County states that 80% of the current amount of groundwater in storage should remain in the aquifer in the year 2060. The other two GMA 1 districts call for 40% and 50% to be remaining in 2060. Pickens claims that he and his neighbor George Arrington would lose about 18,000 acre-feet annually because of the higher "desired future condition" and because of 'reversal of flow' of waterfrom beneath their lands should all three districts' plans be implemented.
Pickens has 8,000 acre-feet of water rights in Hemphill County. It should be noted that he has a total of 200,000 acre-feet in the area, which he has unsuccessfully tried to market to Texas cities since at least 2005. Plans for a pipeline were suspended about 18 months ago.
According to Pickens' attorney Marty Jones:
"We want to ensure equitable treatment for all the people who have water rights in the same aquifer," Jones said. "Boone has never opposed regulation of groundwater. In fact, it protects his interests today."
I'm sure he does favor regulation as long as he doesn't stand to lose. That's the way it usually is: I like regulation, as long as it protects my interests and doesn't cost me money.
It's refreshing to see Texas dealing with statewide groundwater planning after years of "who's got the biggest pump." The Ogallala aquifer is being depleted, especially in its southernmost sections (e.g., Texas Panhandle). The groundwater conservation districts and GMAs have themselves decided what they want the future conditions to be. As far as I know, this is not some fiat that was dictated to them by the state government but was decided by the stakeholders. Pickens no doubt had a chance to be part of that process, but he apparently cannot accept the results.
But it is nice of Pickens to be so concerned with his neighbors' water rights.
"I know what people say—water's a lot like air. Do you charge for air? 'Course not; you shouldn't charge charge for water. Well, OK, watch what happens. You won't have any water.'" -- T. Boone Pickens, CBS News, 16 August 2006
Hemphill County recognized that it had some special opportunities due to its hydrology and they have chosen to protect those. Now they have the riparian and natural landscape to show for it. http://blogs.edf.org/texaswatersolutions/2010/04/22/public-good-and-private-profit-face-off-in-the-panhandle/
Posted by: Amy Hardberger | Thursday, 22 April 2010 at 07:09 PM
T. Boone is a credit to the American free-enterprise paradigm ... it's always been about the $$$
Posted by: PAUL F MILLER | Thursday, 22 April 2010 at 12:04 PM
Michael, you of course are right - there was no direct state mandate of what the DFC's had to be. These were generated locally and appropriately so.
My only point was that without the "nudge" from the state (requiring each GMA to set a specific DFC) it would likely not have been done locally in any fashion.
Keep up the good work posting all things water, but remember, groundwater rules!
Posted by: Wayne Bossert | Wednesday, 21 April 2010 at 09:12 AM
Hi, Wayne.
Thanks for commenting - much appreciated. Always good to hear from you.
I realize the mandate to promulgate DFCs came from the legislature but as far as I know there was no fiat regarding what those DFCs specifically had to be.
At our NR GW conference a few years ago (October 2008), Rima Petrossian of the TWDB gave a presentation on the GMA process and from what I recall, it was pretty transparent and stakeholder-driven.
I remember Rima saying that the GMAs were holding off developing DFCs to see who blinked first.
http://aquadoc.typepad.com/waterwired/2008/11/conference-report-nonrenewable-ground-water-resources.html
I would bet that your suspicion is correct - the DFCs are designed just prevent the problem from getting worse.
It'll be interesting to see how the GMA process evolves, and whether actions like Pickens' suit are the shape of things to come.
Posted by: Michael | Wednesday, 21 April 2010 at 08:54 AM
"The groundwater conservation districts and GMAs have themselves decided what they want the future conditions to be. As far as I know, this is not some fiat that was dictated to them by the state government.."
In a way the desired future conditions (DFC) have been dictated by the state who have required each GMA to do one. Had not the state mandated this process, I wonder if any DFC's would have been locally considered.
I'd be interested to know if the 40% and 50% and 80% goals are designed to just stop new development at some time in the future or if these goals are going to require elimination of some existing water use to achieve them. My suspicion is that all three of these goals include existing development and go so far as to only restrict new development at some point soon in the future. If this is the case, they really don't help the problem get better - they only prevent it from getting any worse. Of course, this is a positive step that has to be the first step forward.
If Mr. Pickens wins his suit, groundwater management in Texas loses this very important first step.
Posted by: Wayne Bossert | Wednesday, 21 April 2010 at 05:52 AM