CONTENTS 

PREFACE  1  
SE MIN AR PARTICIPANTS  2  
SUMMARY OF THE REPORT .  3  
11ie Problem  
Recommendations  
PART I. PROFILE OF A PROBLEM  6  
INTRODUCTION  7  
The Allure of Water  
Water: Harbinger of the Future  

SUPPLY .........•..•...•..... 8 The Edwards Aquifer DEMAND 13 Types of Water Demand Cyclical Variations in Water Demand Present and Prospective Water Demand INTERESTS 20 Conservation vs. Exploitation: The Interests in Conservation ALTERNATIVE SUPPLY . . . . . . . . . . 23 Augmentation Instead of Exploitation THE DISTRIBUTION OF AUTHORITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Who Will Decide and Who Will Pay? The Institutions of the Water-Policy System Texas Law and Water Policy SUMMARY OF THE PROBLEM 29 An Overview PART II. RECOMMENDATIONS 31 INTRODUCTION 
32 WATER SYSTEM-MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS 33 GUIDELINES FOR A WATER-MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 35 PROPOSAL FOR WATER DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT 37 TOWARD IMPLEMENTATION 41 APPENDIXES ....... ... . 42 
I. The Institutions of the Water-Policy System 43 
II. Outline of Statutory Provisions for Regulation of Withdrawal 51 
III. Proposed Provisions for District Financing 54 
IV. Interviews 56 BIBLIOGRAPHY 58 SUMMARY OF THE CONFERENCE ON THE REPORT 61 PARTICIPANTS IN THE CONFERENCE 63 
PREFACE 

This document is the product of a seven-month study conducted by students of the Water Resources Research Seminar of the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin. Its purpose is to produce policy guidelines pertinent to the development and management of water resources in a selected geographic area. 
The research team consisted of nine students of diverse background. Assisting fac­ulty included a political scientist, an engineer, and an economist. 
The geographic area of study selected by the team centered around San Antonio and the Edwards Aquifer (see map, p. 9). There were two reasons for that choice: 1) the proximity of the area to the University facilitated access to pertinent data and informa­tion sources; and 2) the multiplicity of governments, planning agencies, river authorities, and interest groups involved in water supply in this area suggested a need for a compre­hensive and coordinated water-management policy. 
The study included examination of the powers and duties of government agencies, identification of interests affected by water policy, and collection and study of informa­tion on water supply and demand. Persons with private and public concerns were inter­viewed and their views considered. 
The students presented their report to a conference of persons representing the various groups and agencies with interests in water development in the area studied. Its contents were also presented by the students to the audiences served by Austin and San Antonio educational television stations. 
SEMINAR PARTICIPANTS 
SEMINAR MEMBERS 
Karl G. Andersen, B.A. (Government) Austin College, Sherman, Texas 
H. Merrill Goodwyn, B.S., M.S. (Mechanical Engineering) Louisiana Tech, Ruston, 
Louisiana Robert E. Kelly, B.A. (Mathematics) University of Texas at Austin Clifford M. Naeve, B.S. (Mechanical Engineering) University of Texas at Austin Feather O'Connor, B.A. (Government) University ofArizona, Tucson, Arizona Ida A. Powell, B.A. (Sociology) Whittier College, Wh£tt£er, California Leonard F. Redding, B.S. (Education) Eastern Montana College, Billings, Montana Carl E. Symm, B.S. (Mathematz"cs) Texas A&M, College Station, Texas, M.B.A. 
(Management) University ofHouston, Houston, Texas 
E.W. Bill Wright, B.A. (Sociology) Southwest Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas 
ASSISTING FACULTY 
William S. Butcher, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, presently on leave of absence in the Office of Science and Technology, Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C. 
Jared E. Hazleton, Ph.D., Lecturer, Vice-Chairman of Economics Department, University of Texas at Austin Walter L. Moore, P.E., Ph.D. Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Texas at Austin Emmette S. Redford, Ph.D., LL.D. Ashbel Smith Professor of Government and Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin 
SUMMARY OF THE REPORT 

THE PRO~LEM 
This study is concerned with the development and management of water supplies in the Edwards Aquifer area. Currently, the Edwards Aquifer supplies approximately 300 thou­sand acre-feet of water annually to meet the diverse needs of nearly one million people. With increased demands due to municipal and agricultural growth in the area, it is apparent that the Edwards Aquifer, even with its exceptional recharge capacity, is not an inexhaustible water source. Hence, supplementary surface supplies must be developed to augment the high-quality, low-cost water now available from the aquifer. 
Mean annual recharge rate for the Edwards is approximately 500 thousand acre-feet. However, this figure varies significantly with weather conditions. (See The Edwards Aquifer, p. 8.) Recharge and discharge are balanced by springflow which releases excess recharge during periods of high rainfall and decreases during periods of lower rainfall and increased pumpage. In addition to springflow, water discharged from the aquifer through pumpage may be categorized as one of four types: municipal and military; irrigation; industrial; and domestic, stock, and miscellaneous. (See Types ofWater Demand, p. 13.) Pumpage rates in the industrial and domestic, stock, and miscellaneous categories con­stitute a relatively small and constant portion of total discharge. Irrigation pumpage has increased significantly in the last 15 years, and the potential for growth is high. Increases in irrigated acreage and a trend toward more two-crop-a-year farming in Uvalde and Medina counties contribute to this increase. 
Although population growth rates in San Antonio and other municipalities have 
declined since the forties and early fifties, it is not difficult to visualize an increase in 
demand in the municipal and military categories to at least half the mean annual recharge 
rate. 	Growth trends in the different demand categories point to increasingly frequent 
years in which total demand and discharge will exceed recharge of the aquifer. (See 
Present and Prospective Water Demand, p. 13.) 
A number of studies concerned with augmentation of the area's water supply have been conducted. The recommendations of these studies include: 
1. 	
Recharge Facilities. Some small recharge facilities are in existence and larger ones are in various stages of planning. The proposed large recharge facilities will not, alone, increase available water sufficiently to meet projected demand. 

2. 	
Reuse. The location of reuse facilities is practically limited to the immediate San Antonio area where there is sufficient return flow available to justify construction costs. The flexibility of reuse could accommodate varying weather conditions and unusually heavy demands on freshwater sources. 

3. 	
Surface-Water Facilities. In addition to the existing Medina and Canyon reservoirs, construction of Applewhite, Cibolo, and Cuero I and II reservoirs, plus the necessary conveyance facilities, could provide San Antonio with adequate water to meet prospective increases in its demand. 


(See Augmentation Instead of Exploitation, p. 23.) 
With this potential for supplementation of groundwater sources, questions will arise concerning the selection and timing of facilities development and who will pay for them. While the use of supplemental surface water will probably be confined to the immediate San Antonio area, the benefits of supplemental surface-water development are not con­fined to that area. Other problems requiring attention will be the maintenance of the high quality of water in the Edwards, the possibility of temporary shortages due to drought, and even the possibility of regulation of use in case supplemental supplies are not adequate. 
If all the interests in the supply of water in the area are to be promoted and protected, timely decisions based on complex considerations will be required. The diffi­culty of reaching such decisions is compounded by the variety of government agencies that shape the decision-making process. Approximately 100 government units of varying size, authority, and responsibility operate in the region of the Edwards Aquifer and associated surface waters. (See The Institutions of the Water-Policy System, p. 25.) The implications of this decentralization raise several pertinent questions that must be con­sidered. Does fragmentation preclude any regional planning and development program? Is it possible to develop management of both ground and surface waters conjunctively? Will it be possible to deal effectively with crisis conditions when they occur? Will it be possible to anticipate needs for changes in groundwater law if these become imperative? (See Texas Law and Water Policy, p. 27.) 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
Augmentation, conservation, and protection of the water in the Edwards Aquifer for beneficial use is in the interest of the people in the area. While plans for solutions to the problems of quality and quantity have been offered, decisions with respect to these plans and their implementation are uncertain. No existing authority has the overall responsi­bility for coordination of water development and management for the aquifer, its recharge area, and its associated surface waters. An outline of the functions of a water-development and management system and guidelines for its establishment is pre­sented. 
Management of a water system including the Edwards Aquifer will require that the following functions be performed: 
1. 	
To plan for water of sufficient quantity and adequate quality in the area. 

2. 	
To develop and coordinate supplementary water sources. 

3. 	
To study quality of water in the area and make recommendations to the Texas Water Quality Board and other appropriate agencies. 

4. 	
To provide technical assistance to municipalities and other water users in the system. 

5. 	
To regulate exportation for usage outside the system and promote cooperative exchange of water within the system and with outside sources. 

6. 	
To identify short-and long-term critical periods of water supply and to make provisions for equitable distribution of the available water during those periods. 

7. 	
To disseminate information and promote public understanding concerning the integrated development of water resources in the area. 

8. 	
To recommend to the state legislature such measures as are appropriate to 


protect and conserve water resources for future generations. 
(See Water System-Management Functions, p. 33.) 
The following guidelines are suggested for the effective implementation of the pre­ceding functions of a water-development and management system: 
1. 	
The system should supplement and complement present activities of state and local agencies. 

2. 	
The system should provide a framework for cooperation among state, regional, and local agencies. 

3. 	
The system should respect the water rights of individuals consistent with the rights of all. 

4. 	
The system should have adequate authority and resources to carry out its . responsibilities. The system should encompass at least the following: 

a. 	
Integration of both ground and surface water into a single operational system. 

b. 	
Jurisdictional authorities .congruent with the various functions. 

c. 	
Authority to determine the existence of threats to the preservation and utilization of the aquifer and the action needed to meet those threats. 

d. 	
Funding authority for planning operations and development for operation of facilities. 



5. 	
While the system should be aware of and conversant with the different inter­ests, it should have the capacity to exercise independent judgment. 

6. 	
The system should provide administrative arrangements for performance of functions not the responsiblity of existing agencies. 


(See Guidelines for a Water-Management System, p. "35.) 
Because of the lack of broad authority by any government entity already existing in the area, creation of a Water-Development and Management District, similar to the master district envisioned in the Texas Water Plan, is herein recommended. The purpose of the District will be to establish and maintain an integrated water-development and manage­ment system for the Edwards Aquifer and complementary surface waters. 
A tentative outline of the organization, jurisdiction, duties and powers, and finan­cing provisions of the proposed Water-Development and Management District has been offered in the Proposal for Water Development and Management, p. 37. The outline is offered as a direct organizational, legal, and administrative extension of the functions and guidelines presented above. 
Part I 
PROFILE OF A PROBLEM 

INTRODUCTION 

THE ALLURE OF WATER 
In 1716 the explorer Domingo Ramon viewed the San Antonio River and predicted that its water source was "capable of supplying a city" (3, p. 2). *This bountiful water supply, in an otherwise semiarid region, fostered the establishment of missions and settlements at an early date in Texas' history (9, p. 15). Whether those early settlers in San Antonio De Bexar could have envisioned a city of eight thousand by 1860 is a point of conjecture. At that point of development the city and the surrounding irrigated farming area depended almost entirely on springflow for its water supply. The period of abundant surface water passed in the early nineteenth century, and people became accustomed to water rationing and filing applications for water rights (33, p.14). 
A new water era was ushered in with the drilling of the first "flowing well" into the Edwards limestone formation in 1888. This subsurface water discovery ended the depen­dence upon springflow and may have triggered the ensuing population surge. By 1900, San Antonio had more than 53 thousand people (33, p. 23). 
Irrigation was growing, too. The old Spanish irrigation system had helped to prove 
the worth of the land for agricultural production. Vegetable farmers were attracted to the 
area. Most notable were a group of Belgian farmers who in 1900 drilled a common well 
for irrigation. With the notable exception of the construction of Medina Lake in 1911, 
the use of subsurface water became the primary source of irrigation water in the farming 
area west of San Antonio. 
Both urban and rural growth over the water-bearing Edwards limestone has been 
remarkable. Now, less than 85 years after the first well was sunk, the Edwards supplies 
the water needs of approximately a million people in a five-county area. 
WATER: HARBINGER OF THE FUTURE 
As the history and development of the San Antonio area has been shaped by the avail­
ability of water, so will continued growth depend on sufficient water. But it is not the 
immediate San Antonio area alone that concerns us. The springs that prompted settle­
ment at San Antonio originally now flow only intermittently, the water having been 
preempted by well pumpage. To the northeast of San Antonio, springs still flow in Hays 
and Comal counties. Their aesthetic and recreational value has become a significant 
economic asset in the respective communities. San Marcos, New Braunfels, and several 
smaller communities also depend on the Edwards for municipal water. 
Irrigation water drawn from the Edwards is of great importance in Medina and 
Uvalde counties to the west of San Antonio. In this area, too, several towns and commu­
nities depend on this same water-bearing formation. 
William F. Wilson, after reading the memoirs of a man involved in the drilling of the 
first well in 1888, commented, "it is doubtful that he realized ...[he] had discovered 
one of the most prolific artesian aquifers in the world" (33, p. 23). It is also doubtful that 
it was realized then how vast was the area that could be served by the Edwards. Con­
tinued population growth linked with diverse industrial, agricultural, and recreational 
development today depends on the ability of this natural resource to supply its water 
needs. 
*Numbers in parentheses refer to reference numbers in bibliography. 

SUPPLY 

THE EDWARDS AQUIFER 
An aquifer may be any water-bearing bed or stratum of permeable sand, rock, or gravel capable of yielding quantities of water to wells and springs. The Edwards arcs across south-central Texas from near Bracketville in Kinney County, east through Uvalde, Medina, and Bexar counties, then northeast through Comal and Hays counties (see map, 
p. 9). It consists of cavernous and honey-combed limestone which permits the movement and storage of vast quantities of water. It is unique in its exceptional capacity for rapid movement and replenishment. 
The primary recharge mechanism in the Edwards is the Balcones fault zone, an area of porous limestone through which surface water enters the underground reservoir. Rivers and streams crossing the fault zone lose a large part of their water into the aquifer. About three-fifths of the water entering the reservoir comes from streams in the western coun­ties of Medina, Uvalde, and Kinney. (See Table I, p.10.) 
The total amount of water entering the Edwards depends on cyclical variations in rainfall. (See Table II, p. 10.) In the Edwards Plateau and surrounding areas which feed recharge, rainfall has varied from less than 20 inches in 1956 to nearly 50 inches in 1958 (20, p. II-8). These two years also represent extremes in calculated recharge in recent history: 43. 7 thousand acre-feet in 1956 and 1. 7 million acre-feet in 1958. (See Table III, 
p. 11.) The structure of the Edwards is such that recharge after drought periods is rapid: from 1947 through 1956, the deficit of discharge over recharge was slightly over two million acre-feet, but in the next two years (1957-58), recharge exceeded discharge by nearly 1.9 million acre-feet. Comparison of the data in Table III indicates that high recharge is not immediately lost through the springs but is partially stored. The average annual recharge has been estimated at 500 thousand acre-feet (12, p. 4). 
There are several approaches to estimating the total amount of Edwards water available for use. The most conservative estimate by the U.S. Corps of Engineers of the total filled capacity of the aquifer is 12 million acre-feet (22). However, this figure is not indicative of the aquifer's usable capacity because several factors make consumption of all water unlikely. First, it may be physically impossible to draw it from the limestone. Second, the threat of saline water intrusion at lower levels remains an unproven but nonetheless serious possibility. Third, the cessation of all springflow which would result from total mining of the Edwards would provoke vigorous opposition. (High and low recorded water levels are shown in Table IV, p.11.) 
A more realistic indication of the useful capacity of the Edwards is based on its average total recharge rate of 500 acre-feet per year. Recharge and discharge on the Edwards are balanced by springflow, which acts as a natural regulating device by releasing excess recharge and sustaining loss in discharge due to decreased recharge and increased well discharge. "Safe yield" is thus total recharge minus desired springflow. Recom­mended pumpage rates range from 263 to 400 thousand acre-feet per year (22, p. 148; 20, p. I-15). Average springflow rates over this range vary respectively from 47 to 20 percent of the total aquifer discharge. Thus, pumpage demands on the aquifer are limited as much by desired springflow rate as they are by the aquifer's total capacity (34, p. 16). 
Beyond the question of quantity is that of quality. Though the Edwards now yields 
EDWARDS 
·.. . .. . . !.::_:_:.:_; UHN~~RGRO"D RES.
5
' ·~ -aUNjp , '---.. .~
--~-.._...--. ' '-r--­
.,.....~.. 
mm 
I~
El .,.. 
• ::D 
v 0 
•

!= • c 
~z 
.o 
c m 
i ~ 
c ::D 

9. g 
::D z -0 ~ • 
IQ 1. et.I I I I I 
SCM..I M MILl:t
a o 
->
• 0
El c
! ­
0 "II 
::::s m
::D 
TABLE I. 
ESTIMATED RECHARGE TO THE EDWARDS AND ASSOCIATED LIMESTONES 
(acre-feet in thousands) 


1969  1934-68 average  
Basin  KAF*  (%)  KAF*  (%)  
Nueces and West Nueces Rivers  119.7  (20.7)  95.3  (18.6)  
Frio and Dry Frio Rivers  113.8  (19.7)  85.6  (16.6)  
Sabinal River  30.7  ( 5.3)  32.2  ( 6.2)  
Medina Lake  55.4  ( 9.6)  50.8  ( 9.9)  
Area between Sabinal and Medina Rivers  84.2  (14.6)  72.6  (14.1)  
Area between Medina River and Cibolo Creek  26.6  ( 4.7)  56.6  (11.0)  
Cibolo and Dry Comal Creeks  99.9  ( 17 .3)  89.8  (17 .4)  
Blanco River and Adjacent Area  46.6  ( 8.1)  32.0  ( 6.2)  
Totals  576.9  (100.0)  514.9  (100.0)  

*KAF =acre.feet in thousands. 
The above information is found in Bulletin 24, Edwards Underground Water District, June 1970. 

TABLE II. 
RECORDED RAINFALL IN THE AR.EA OF THE EDWARDS RESERVOIR 
(inches per year) 

RECORDING  1960  1969  LONG-TERM  YEARS OF  
STATION  RAINFALL  RAINFALL  MEAN  RECORD  
Bracketville  19.12  28.53  20.65  80 years  
Uvalde  23.98  33.38  24.19  69 years  
Sabinal  26.24  33.05  25.68  51 years  
Hondo  32.37  32.30  28.58  66 years  
San Antonio  29.76  31.42  27.98  93 years  
Boerne  32.55  38.07  32.26  75 years  
N cw Braunfels  34.28  33.01  31.21  76 years  
San Marcos  45.48  36.59  33.04  69 years  

The above information for 1960 is found in Bulletin 3, Edwards Underground Water District, October 1963. All other information is found in Bulletin 24, Edwards Underground Water District, June 1970. 
IO 
TABLE III. 
ESTIMATED RECHARGE AND DISCHARGE OF THE EDWARDS RESERVOIR 
(acre-feet in thousands) 

YEAR  RECHARGE  DISCHARGE  I YEAR  RECHARGE  DISCHARGE  
1934  179.6  437.9  
1935  1258.0  518.6  1955  192.0  388.8  
1936  909.6  598.2  1956  43.7  391.0  
1937  400.7  571.2  1957  1143.0  456.6  
1938  432.7  557.8  1958  1711.0  617.6  
1939  399.0  432.8  1959  690.4  619.1  
1940  308.8  416.6  1960  824.8  655.6  
1941  850.7  601.2  1961  692.5  683.7  
1942  557.8  594.7  1962  251.9  589.1  
1943  273.1  539.3  1963  170.3  516.4  
1944  560.9  567.4  1964  411.2  475.4  
1945  527.8  614.8  1965  623.5  578.9  
1946  556.1  583.9  1966  597.7  571.2  
1947  422.6  593.5  1967  466.7  557.4  
1948  178.3  450.6  1968  884.7  660.0  
1949  508.1  479.8  1969  576.9  658.7  
1950  200.2  466.7  
1951  139.9  425.6  
1952  275.5  424.9  
1953  167.6  468.3  
1954  160.9  424.3  

The above information was gathered from reports by the U.S.G.S. (see Bibliography, 14), and Bulletins 1-24, Edwarda Underground Water District 1963-1970. 
TABLE IV. 
HIGH AND LOW RECORDED WATER LEVELS IN KEY WELLS IN THE EDWARDS RESERVOIR 
(feet above sea level) 

WELL  COUNTY  1969  RECORD HIGH  RECORD LOW  PERIOD OF RECORD 
HIGH LOW  
H-5-1 J-1-82 J-17 G-49 H-23  Uvalde Medina Bexar Comal Hays  875.0 866.6 698.4 670.1 676.1 642.8 626.3 623.4 589.1 568.1  878.5 (11-22-61) 710.3 (2-27-61) 685.5 (6-26-35) 627.3 (2-19-61) 593.8 (3-29-68)  811.0 (4-13-57) 622.3 (8-18-56) 612.5 (8-17-56) 613.3 (8-21-56) 542.2 (7-12-56)  1929-32 & 1934-69 195Q-69 1932-69 1948-69 1937-69  

The above information is taken from Bulletin 24, Edwards Underground Water District, June 1970. 
high-quality water, brackish water may intrude if the aquifer drops to extremely low levels. Also important is the threat of contamination through the recharge process. The recharge zone's natural beauty, higher altitude, and cooler climate make its future devel­opment likely. Control of sewage effluent may be required to insure against raw sewage entering the aquifer. Runoff from municipalities, recreational areas, livestock feed lots, and chemically treated acreage may also pose a problem, as may faulty drilling procedures in oil fields. 
DEMAND 

TYPES OF WATER DEMAND 
Water discharged or withdrawn from the Edwards Aquifer may be categorized as one of five types: springflow; municipal and military; irrigation; industrial; and domestic, stock, and miscellaneous. 
Although springflow cannot be called a demand in the sense in which the word applies to the other categories, it is considered here because it supports recognized, beneficial uses and is a large proportion of total aquifer discharge. It also supplements flow in the Guadalupe-Blanco River basin. Municipal and military demand is the largest single source of well withdrawal. The Edwards is the only water source for San Antonio, San Marcos, New Braunfels, Castroville, Hondo, D'Hanis, Sabinal, Uvalde, and several smaller communities. San Antonio is the largest single user, but nearby military bases and the aggregate of smaller cities and towns add a considerable amount. Irrigation is also a significant demand. The primary area of withdrawal is west of San Antonio in Bexar, Medina, and Uvalde counties, with additional irrigation in Comal and Hays. An important consideration in regard to irrigation is that it is a consumptive use, i.e., that water is not released for treatment and reuse. Industrial demand is a small percentage of total dis­charge; most use occurs in Bexar County, and Comal and Medina add small additional amounts. Domestic, stock, and miscellaneous demand includes domestic and livestock use by farmers as well as domestic use by others not drawing from a municipal water system. 
CYCLICAL VARIATIONS IN WATER DEMAND 
Weather is the most important cause of year-to-year variations in water demand. In wet weather, municipal and irrigation withdrawals decline because there is reduced need to water lawns or irrigate vegetable fields. This is also the time when the Edwards reservoir is recharging in excess of its discharge. During dry weather the reverse is true. More munici­pal water is demanded and irrigation needs rise sharply, and reservoir recharge is deficient. Withdrawals for industry and domestic, stock, and miscellaneous uses show little such cyclical variation. 
Springflow is most sensitive to variations in weather conditions. In periods of abun­dant rainfall the reservoir is recharging, irrigation and municipal demand decreases, and the water level rises. Artesian pressure in the aquifer increases and the springs flow more heavily. Springflow drops, however, when rain is scarce, demand rises, and the aquifer level falls. 
PRESENT AND PROSPECTIVE WATER DEMAND 
The most recently published information on the volume of water use for each demand category is for the year 1969. Despite the fact that rainfall and aquifer recharge were generally above normal that year, discharge was greater than the recharge. (See Table III, 
p. 11.) The significance of this is clearer in contrast with 1960, a year of similar total aquifer discharge and average rainfall over the area where pumpage occurs. (See Tables II and III, pp.10-ll)Domestic, stock, and miscellaneous demands were approximately the 
TABLE V . 
AQUIFER DISCHARGE BY TYPE, COMPARING 1960 and 1969. 
(acre-feet in thousands) 

1960  (%)  1969  (%)  Change  
Springs Municipal and Military Irrigation Industry Domestic, stock, & misc.  426.9 121.4 54.9 23.3 29.1  (65.2) (18.5) (8.4) (3.5) (4.4)  351.2 162.0 95.2 21.1 29.2  (53.4) (24.6) (14.4) (3.2) (4.4)  (down 18%) (up 19%) (up 74%) (down 9%) (up 0.3%)  
Totals  655.6  (100.0)  658.7  (100.0)  

Source: Bulletin, Edwards Underground Water District 
FIG URE 1. 
ILLUSTRATION OF PERCENTAGE OF AQUIFER DISCHARGE 
BY TYPES: 1960 and 1969. 

1960 1969 

TABLE VI. 
AQUIFER DISCHARGE: WELL-WATER ONLY, 1960 and 1969 
(acre-feet in thousands) 

1960  I  (%)  I  1969  I  (%)  
Municipal & Military Irrigation Industry Domestic, stock, & misc.  121.4 54.9 23.3 29.1  (53.1) (24.0) (10.2) (12.7)  162.0 95.2 21.1 29.2  (52.6) (31.0) (6.9) (9.5)  
Totals  228.7  (100.0)  307.5  (100.0)  

Source: Bulletin, Edwards Underground Water District 
FIGURE 2. 
ILLUSTRATION OF PERCENTAGE OF WELL DISCHARGE FROM THE 
EDWARDS AQUIFER BY TYPES: 1960 and 1969. 

1960 1969 

34.83 of Total Aquifer Discharge 46.63 of Total Aquifer Discharge 
same in both years, and industrial use was slightly less in 1969 than in 1960. Municipal and military demand in 1969 was 19 percent higher than in 1960, and irrigation use was 74 percent greater. Not surprisingly, springflow dropped 18 percent. (See Table V, p. 14) Such comparisons of demands by years require caution; intervening variables may affect the data that are chosen for comparison. The pie charts in Figure 1 (p. 14), however, illustrate a change in proportion among the demand categories that becomes more appar­ent when springflow is removed from the total aquifer discharge and only well withdrawal is considered. (See Table VI and Figure 2, p. l 5.) 
Although municipal and military demand is much greater in 1969 than in 1960, its proportion of total well discharge is slightly decreased. Other categories also show pro­portional decreases, except for irrigation which increased from 24.1 percent in 1960 to 31 percent in 1969. Total well discharge increased from 228.7 thousand acre-feet in 1960 to 307.5 thousand acre-feet in 1969, an increase of 34 percent. 
Irrigation demand has increased significantly in the last 15 years, and the potential for continued growth is high. Although farm land in Bexar County is being urbanized, general growth plus the relocation of Bexar County farmers has increased the amount of acreage in cultivation in the counties west of San Antonio. Irrigated acres in Medina and Uvalde counties have approximately doubled in the past decade. Potentially, there is enough suitable land to more than double current acreage. Table VII (below) shows approximate acreage and water demand (from the Edwards only) for Medina, Uvalde, and Bexar counties, at present, and estimates of maximum development based on potential acreage. The figures were derived from interviews with county agricultural extension and district conservation agents. 
TABLE VII. 
IRRIGATED ACREAGE AND WATER DEMAND IN ACRE-FEET 

Present Irrigated Acres  Water Demand @2 acre-feet/acre/year  Total Potential Irrigated Acreage  Potential Water Demand  
Medina Uvalde Bexar  18,000 34,000 7,000  36,000 68,000 14,000  85,000 50,000  170,000 100,000  
Totals  59,000  118,000  135,000  270,000  

Table VII shows that present irrigation from the Edwards in only a three-county area demands approximately one-fifth of the mean annual recharge of 500 thousand acre-feet, and that development of irrigable land in Uvalde and Medina counties has a potential water demand of more than half the annual recharge. Two other factors must be considered. First, two acre-feet/acre/year is only a rough, static estimate. Many farmers use less than this, for one vegetable crop per year may require as little as one and one-third acre-feet/acre. On the other hand, a farmer may raise two crops in one year and double his water demand. In a dry year, such a practice might lift demand to four acre-feet/acre/year. Although it is unlikely that all irrigated acreage will begin using such quantities of water, it is important to note that if it did, the total amount would exceed the average annual recharge to the aquifer. Present rates in Bexar and Uvalde counties are about one and one-half acre-feet/acre, but the growth of two-crop-per-year farming in Medina County has pushed the use rate to almost four acre-feet/year. The second factor to be considered is that the high cost of distributing surface water makes it unlikely that surface facilities could be used as a major source of irrigation water in the western counties. That is, irrigators are almost totally dependent on the aquifer and will continue to be. 
Aquifer discharge reported by the Edwards Underground Water District for 1955 through 1969 is plotted in Figure 3 (p. 18). Although the variations due to weather cause considerable scattering of the data, a three-year moving average smooths the plot to show a definite increase in irrigation withdrawal (represented by the bold line through the irrigation plot). The extreme effects of severe drought are revealed in the exceptionally high use in 1956. 
Municipal and Military water use has also risen. If per capita rate is assumed constant for the purposes of rough estimation, the trend in population best approximates the trend in water demand. Figure 4 (p. 19) shows the population growth of San Antonio since 1920 and plots the range of possible future growth. The highest growth rate shown represents continued increase at the same percent per decade as in 1960-70. The inter­mediate line shows growth each decade at the same actual increment as 1960-70. The lowest line is suggest by the decelerating growth rate predicted by a consulting firm which studied growth patterns in selected metropolitan areas over 500 thousand (27). 
In 1969 the San Antonio City Water Board supplied 660 thousand persons with an average of 92.7 million gallons of Edwards water per day ( 140 gallons per person per day) (29, p. 2). Total withdrawal in that year was approximately 104 thousand acre-feet, or 
0.158 acre-foot per person per year. This per capita rate is plotted vertically on the right margin of Figure 4, providing a graphic link between possible population and projected water demand. In this manner, one million people would use approximately 156 thou­sand acre-feet of water. A demand of 200 thousand acre-feet would probably not be likely until the population approached 1,275,000. 
Military bases and municipal water systems other than the San Antonio City Water Board recently have accounted for approximately one-third of the consumption in the municipal and military demand category. The growth of military bases and accompanying rise in water demand is uncertain, but San Marcos, New Braunfels, Uvalde, and some smaller communities are likely to continue to grow. It is not difficult to visualize munici­pal water demand taking at least half of the mean annual recharge. 
These growth trends in different demand categories point to increasingly frequent years in which total demand and discharge will exceed the recharge of the aquifer, and suggest that demand and discharge will eventually exceed recharge regularly. 
Figure 3. Water Demand by type: 
700 
500 
{l.l 
Q 
.z < 
{/.) 
;J 
0 
= 
300 ~ 
z 
.... 

100 
0 

1955-1969 
INDUST 

...... 
<.O 
O'> 
...... 
Note. Heavy curve represents a three-year running average. 
Figure 4. Population Growth and Estimates, Bexar County, 1930-2020 
2100 

325 1900 
275 1700 
1500 225 
Cl.) 
Q 
~ 1300 
Cl.) 

;:i 
.E 
0 
:c 
i;.. 
175z: 1100
... 
z 
0
... 
i;.. 
41! 
~ 900 
;:i 
II. 
0 
125 z : 700 
II. 

1¥ 
;:i 
500 
75 
300 

25 100 
1930 1950 1970 1990 2010 

19 
INTERESTS 

CONSERVATION VS. EXPLOITATION: THE INTERESTS IN CONSERVATION 
Evidence is strong that future water demand will exceed the average annual recharge in the aquifer. In the drought of the 1950s this occurred in seven consecutive years, and the water level dropped to a low of 612 feet above sea level in the San Antonio area. Springflow declined drastically, but otherwise no great harm was done; the total capacity of the aquifer is enormous, even below the level which would maintain springflow. So why not go ahead and use whatever water is needed, exploit the resource and see how long it will last? There are a variety of Edwards beneficiaries, few of whom have a preference for continual exploitation. Conservation, in the sense of careful, beneficial use which avoids waste and depletion, is a common interest of all. 
Included among beneficiaries of Edwards water are those who pump their own household water supply, households receiving municipal water, industry, farmers raising livestock and crops, and a variety of people dependent on springflow and streams such as the Guadalupe and Blanco rivers, which receive return flow and spring water. Because of their different needs and interests, political demands are often conflicting. 
The citizen-municipal consumers form one type of·interest. Because this category includes approximately one million people, the water retailers representing their interests assume the strongest position in the formulation of water policy in the area. Largest of these retailers is the San Antonio City Water Board which, with its well-financed and competently managed organization, has been a leader in development of water-management policy concerning the Edwards. While the management of the City Water Board seems committed to preservation of the aquifer as a resource, the pressure from its customers motivates it to continue providing high-quality groundwater at a price significantly below that paid in municipalities dependent on more expensive surface water. 
Representation of the interest of irrigators in the area by any formal structure can best be described as fragmented or nonexistent. The Board of Directors of the Edwards Underground Water District (EUWD) includes or has included some of the more influ­ential irrigators in Bexar, Medina, and Uvalde counties. However, some dissatisfaction has been expressed with the programs undertaken by the EUWD and with the control exer­cised by the interests representing the San Antonio, New Braunfels, and San Marcos areas. With most of the area population concentrated in these urbanized areas, the irrigators fear that their interests will not be served by the Board; one irrigator has recently resigned from the Board due to this conflict of interests. 
The irrigators feel that measures to control pumpage from the aquifer would favor 
the municipal water consumers and those who advocate maintenance of springflow. As a 
result they generally oppose controls of any kind, although some believe that eventual 
controls are almost inevitable. The attitude of many irrigators might be summarized: "As 
long as water is allowed to flow from the springs for no apparent economic purpose, why 
should we worry about cutting back on the amount of water we pump?" 
While opposing controls, the irrigator still has an interest in conservation of the 
aquifer. He cannot drill a well, case it, and provide a pump and motor and distribution 
system without considerable investment. His conservation interest dictates that the aquifer be maintained in such a manner as to insure a continued supply of water at his well site. Moreover, the cost of lifting water increases as the water level drops. At depths of the order of 300 feet, pumping costs can reduce or eliminate the profitability of his crops. 
When the irrigator does tum to formal institutions for support of his viewpoint, he is most likely to contact one of the EUWD board members or his state representative. 
In addition to its consumer-oriented interest in the aquifer, San Antonio is also linked to the economic health of the irrigators through its relations with base agriculture, agri-business, and agricultural support services. Agriculture ranks next to the military in its contribution to the economy. Historically, San Antonio has been a major center for the slaughter and processing of beef. It has become an important pecan-shelling center and is seeing an increase in vegetable processing and shipping. 
Industrial water demand generates another interest, although withdrawal from the Edwards for industrial consumption is relatively small when compared to municipal and irrigation figures. The largest consumers are centered around San Antonio and include two breweries. The absence of natural ore deposits and the inadequacy of bulk transpor­tation facilities has limited the location of heavy industry in the area . . 
Members of the seminar interviewed personnel from several water-consuming indus­
tries. They tended to be well informed on the area water situation and to actively 
participate in urganizations active in water-resource policy making, such as the Chamber 
of Commerce Committee for Water Resources and the Texas Water Conservation Associa­
tion. Those interviewed also described programs of public and institutional education and 
cooperation concerning the development and preservation of water resources. 
An interest group referred to here as the conservationists includes diverse persons interested in maintenance of springflow and protection of the unusual aquatic life exist­ing downstream from the springs, in protection of the aquifer as a natural resource rather than as an exploitable water supply, and in protection of the aquifer from pollution. This group, which contains members from all other interest groups in the area, appears to have been very effective in initiating institutions and control measures centered around the Edwards. A prime example of this is the Edwards Underground Water District, originally conceived by Paul Jahn of New Braunfels, whose basic aim was the protection of the natural springs in New Braunfels and San Marcos. In addition to generating a substantial tourist trade, the springs and their preservation have become a strong theme in almost all literature concerned with management of water resources in Central Texas. 
Another example of the strength of the conservationist interests is the almost univer­sal acceptance of the necessity for protection of the Edwards recharge zone from pollu­tion. Current enthusiasm for the ecological movement and the emotional appeal of its argument have combined to give the conservationist interests strength. 
River authorities also have interests in the Edwards area. While their constituents are 
not direct consumers of aquifer water, they will feel pressures for development of their 
surface resources should aquifer water become scarce. No viable program for maintenance 
of water supply in the Edwards area can be developed without integrated control of both 
surface and groundwaters in a broader area. The river authorities are well-established 
political institutions that must participate in an integrated program. Although the pro­
grams of the San Antonio River Authority are strongly influenced by the interests of the 
city, the programs of the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority must represent a variety of 
interests ranging from control of sewage disposal in the Canyon Lake area to supply of water for coastal rice growers to research in freshwater requirements for preservation of the bays and estuaries. 
Implementation of an existing water·exchange agreement between these two river authorities, through the construction of Cuero, Cibolo, and Goliad reservoirs, will be a necessary first step toward a water-development and management program involving the Edwards Aquifer. Many of the water professionals in the Edwards area are currently employed by these river authorities and by the U.S. Geological Service and will be instrumental in water-policy decisions in the future. Both river authorities and a number of their managers, engineers, and scientists are members of the Texas Water Conservation Association, which has been active in the promotion of groundwater conservation and regulation programs. Next to the San Antonio City Water Board, the personnel in the two river authorities probably aggregate the most influential interests centered around the Edwards Aquifer. 
ALTERNATIVE SUPPLY 

AUGMENTATION INSTEAD OF EXPLOITATION 
Trends in both irrigation and general population growth point to the day when the Edwards Aquifer will not have the capacity to supply all demands without jeopardizing springflow permanently, significantly reducing downstream flow, and perhaps threatening the quality of the water through saline intrusion. Several studies concerned with the augmentation of area water supply have been made. Methods considered include develop­ment of recharge facilities to increase flow into the reservoir, reuse of treated return flow, and development of surface water facilities. 
Recharge Facilities for the Edwards Aquifer are already in existence, but the con­struction of additional ones has been blocked by disagreement over financing. Moreover, opposition of residents near the proposed sites grew when it was realized that the reser­voirs would be dry a large part of the time and therefore would be useless for recreation. If these problems can be resolved, more facilities may be built. In any event they will not increase available water sufficiently to meet the projected demand. 
Reuse, as one of the major supply components in an area water system, has the potential of providing decision makers valuable flexibility in delivering an adequate and certain supply of water to all users. A reuse subsystem would not be a closed loop, but one that would have a substantial amount, varying between 20 and 90 percent, of fresh­water infusion. This flexibility could accommodate varying weather conditions and other unusually heavy demands on a freshwater source such as the Edwards. 
Since reuse of waste water concentrates salts, the two technologies of seawater desalting and waste water repurification may merge. Within two decades, the procedure will possibly be so effective that public confidence in the systems will be high. 
Nevertheless, reuse will present technological problems. The disposition of the salt by-products of repurification is a major one. Another technological problem of reuse is that of balancing production against use. This becomes acute in the capture, retention, and treatment of large volumes of water during heavy rainfall. One existing plan for San Antonio provides for the creation of a lake for San Antonio's effluent. 
The feasibility of reuse of return flow as a means of augmenting Edwards water is uncertain. A study comparing a "ground-surface" water system with a "ground-reuse" water system was conducted by Louis Koenig for the Alamo Area Council of Govern­ments in 1970 (28). Findings dealing only with technical and economic factors show comparable costs for the two systems. Future developments may make reuse more eco­nomical and provide additional incentive for the implementation of a reuse system. 
On the other hand, the location of a reuse facility is practically limited to the immediate San Antonio area, because only there is there sufficient return flow to justify construction of facilities. (Irrigation is consumptive and does not release controllable amounts of water.) At the present time, the cost of distributing San Antonio's treated flow to the western counties is prohibitively high~ Thus, barring new developments, it is unlikely that a reuse system could substantially decrease irrigation demand on the aquifer. The city of San Antonio, moreover, is in the most advantageous position with regard to meeting its own water demands, and may not be inclined to develop .reuse facilities. Its public officials have made public commitment to the construction of surface-water reservoirs. 
Surface-water Facil£ties are a third method of augmenting Edwards water supplies. Actually, two reservoirs already exist in the area. Medina Lake, on the Medina River between Medina and Bandera counties, is owned and operated by the Bexar, Medina and Atascosa Irrigation District and furnishes water to a farming area in southwest Bexar, southeast Medina, and north Atascosa counties. It probably would not add a sufficient increment to the water supply of San Antonio to make a transfer of ownership worthwhile. Continued use for irrigation may help avoid greater irrigation demand on the aquifer. Most important, Medina Lake benefits all Edwards users as a recharge source; Medina Lake loses an average of 50.8 thousand acre-feet of water to the aquifer annually. (See Table I, p. 10.) 
Canyon Lake, on the Guadalupe River in Comal County, is a more feasible water source for San Antonio. Through court action, San Antonio won the right to purchase 50 thousand acre-feet of water annually from the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority (35). The need for this water is not seen as immediate, and conveyance facilities have not been built. The cost of water from Canyon would be higher than for water from the Edwards, and the water would require more treatment. 
The city of San Antonio has investigated and proposed several reservoirs for storage of supplementary water. Any or all may be constructed with financing through the Bureau of Reclamation. All will raise the cost of water by conveyance and treatment costs. Applewhite on the Medina River would supply approximately 20 thousand acre­feet annually. Cibolo on Cibolo Creek would have a safe yield of about the same amount. Additional dams have been proposed in the Guadalupe River Basin. Two reservoirs at Cuero would furnish up to 205 thousand acre-feet annually. An exchange agreement between the San Antonio River Authority and the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority anticipates that water from the Guadalupe basin at Cuero would go to San Antonio, and that treated effluent released by the city into the San Antonio River would later be impounded at another proposed reservoir at Goliad. Water from Goliad would complete the exchange by returning to the Guadalupe basin for lower-Guadalupe water require­ments. Table VIII summarizes possible surface-water supply for San Antonio. 
Table VIII. Possible Surface Water for San Antonio. 
SOURCE  SAFE-YIELD  
Canyon Lake  50,000 acre-feet  
Applewhite Reservoir  20,000 acre-feet  
Cibolo Reservoir  20,000 acre-feet  
Cuero I & II  205,000 acre-feet  

Two other proposals for augmentation of Edwards water have received less consid­eration. The first involves piping Colorado River water to San Antonio. Although this would be more economical than pumping water from Cuero, the availability of excess water from the Colorado basin is questionable. The second proposal is to pump water from Amistad Dam on the Rio Grande to the irrigators in the western counties. 
THE DISTRIBUTION OF AUTHORITY 

WHO WILL DECIDE AND WHO WILL PAY? 
Numerous proposals for augmenting the Edwards water resource have been made, but none will become reality until it is decided which plan or plans will be implemented, and when, and by whom. How shall new facilities be financed? Which present users of ground­water will make the change to a new water source? 
The resolution of these questions will require a compromise of conflicting perspec­tives and attitudes. It may appear that surface water developed in the Guadalupe-Blanco River basins should be used by the immediate San Antonio area, because conveyance to the irrigators farther west would be expensive. But San Antonio can pump water that requires minimal treatment from the Edwards at a cost of about three cents per thousand gallons (34, p. 18). Estimates for Cuero water run as high as 17 cents, including installa­tion of more extensive treatment facilities (28). Should San Antonio incur the cost so that additional water will be available to other aquifer users, or should the irrigators bear the cost of bringing water from Amistad so that aquifer water will be available for San Antonio and the springs? 
These specific questions reflect the complexity of the decisions facing water policy makers in the region of the Edwards Aquifer. The problems are compounded by the variety of government institutions that shape the decision-making process. 
THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE WATER-POLICY SYSTEM 
The preceding discussion has described a wide variety of interests involved in the utiliza­tion of the Edwards Aquifer. An examination of the institutions dealing with water and water policy in this same area reveals a kaleidoscope of interdependent cities, counties, water districts, and state and federal agencies, each authorized to undertake certain projects and assume particular responsibilities. Insofar as the various agencies and inter­ests interact and utilize the same resource, they comprise a loosely structured water system. A comprehensive study of a single element within the system, such as San Antonio, must recognize the interdependence of the entire system population: the geo­graphic and institutional boundaries of the system are expanded. The scope of the prob­lem is further enlarged as the development and use of supplementary water sources are considered. Lastly, the Edwards itself is dependent on surface water for replenishment. To assess the effectiveness of this operating system, the scope and powers of its various components must be understood. 
One of the primary responsibilities of the Cities in this area is the regulation, admin­istration, and maintenance of an adequate municipal water supply for their residents. Cities may construct municipal water-supply and waste-disposal systems, and may issue the bonds required to construct them (36). They may, alternatively, contract with private water companies, water districts, or water authorities to supply municipal water. 
Cities are also empowered to establish flood-control measures, and may receive technical aid and monetary assistance from the federal government to undertake such programs. Home-rule cities have the additional authority to straighten, widen, or by other means improve any river or stream within the city. They may also establish improvement districts with bonding authority to undertake such improvements (7, p. 18). 
All cities may generate, purchase, and distribute hydroelectric power and assess beneficiaries for these services. 
Existing Water-control and Improvement Districts have the authority to engage in water supply, irrigation, flood control, drainage, reclamation, forest preservation, conser­vation, sewage and garbage collection, waste disposal, navigation, and generation and sale of hydroelectric power (36). The state legislature has authorized these districts to issue bonds and levy taxes (if approved by the qualified voters). 
Water districts may be created under general law or by special law. General law districts must be approved by the resident property taxpayers after a hearing before the county commissioner's court or another authorized agency. Special law districts are cre­ated by the legislature. 
The Counties are authorized by the state constitution to issue bonds and collect taxes for flood control, navigation, irrigation, and drainage improvement. In addition to the authority to participate directly in other water programs, such as development and sale of water, counties are also responsible for enforcing state laws, including fish and game laws, and general water laws pertaining to water districts (36). Counties also may perform some services for certain districts. This mainly consists of assessment and collec­tion of taxes for the districts, and various auditing responsibilities. 
Even though local units of government have assumed primary responsibility for water-resource development, several State Agencies have responsibilities in water policy. At present, there are eight boards or commissions that have functions related to water development and use, three of which are concerned exclusively with water resources. The Water Development Board has the responsibilities of preparing a state water plan, main­taining an inventory of surface and groundwater resources, and financing or helping other agencies finance water-development projects. The Water Rights Commission is responsible for developing and conserving state water resources. It allocates the use of surface water, grants permits to construct reservoirs, and may create surface or groundwater control and improvement districts. The Water Quality Board is primarily responsible for maintaining the quality of the waters of the state. It issues permits for waste discharge, and assists in the development of sewage-treatment facilities. It establishes water-quality standards and may institute legal proceedings against violators. 
River Authorities are created by the state legislature for a variety of purposes, including development and maintenance of waterways, flood control, soil conservation, sewage treatment, poilution prevention, irrigation, and recreational development. They may construct facilities and sell sewage-treatment services, develop canals and water supply systems, and purchase, store, and sell water. 
Federal Participation in water-resource development and conservation programs in the Edwards area is of continuing importance. A more detailed description of the role of agencies concerned with water policy and programs in this area may be found in Appen­dix I, page 43. 
More than 100 government units of varying size, authority, and responsibility oper­ate in the region of the Edwards Aquifer and associated surface waters. The implications of this decentralized water system may be profound. Is it possible to implement any regional-planning and development program, or does fragmentation limit such activities to smaller geographic areas? Although different agencies are concerned with ground and surface water, would it be possible to develop joint management of both water resources? 
In periods of temporary shortages, and in view of the possibility of permanent overdraft caused by development, will it be possible for these agencies to deal effectively with either short-or long-range crises? A major factor will be the structure of water law under which these agencies perform their activities. 
TEXAS LAW AND WATER POLICY 
One of the most significant aspects of water policy in Texas is the separate treatment accorded ground and surface water. A water-supply system which incorporates them optimally must treat them as one resource; yet Texas law provides for appropriation of surface water but makes no comparable provision for groundwater. 
Rights in surface water in Texas have origins in Spanish law and the common law of England. In addition to riparian rights of landowners and sovereign grants of water rights, appropriative rights in surface water have been acquired since 1889. Present statutes declare all surface waters to be the property of the state, and rights to its use may be acquired by appropriation for specific purpose (39, 40). These waters may be diverted for their proposed use and users must apply for a permit to withdraw. Permits are granted by a user-priority scale and rights maintained on a "first in time, first in right" basis. Surface waters are also subject to protection from pollution by the Texas Water Quality Act. Quality standards are set and enforced by the Texas Water Quality Board, with delegated enforcement authority held by other state and local agencies. 
Although surface water is publicly owned, groundwater is still subject to the English common-law concept of absolute ownership. Developments in scientific and technological knowledge have put this tradition in a new perspective and require examination. 
Groundwater can be defined hydrologically as water occurring within a zone of rocks that are completely saturated, or it can be simply defined as that water which can be extracted from the earth through wells. The most important hydrological classification of groundwater distinguishes between water confined under artesian pressure and water that is unconfined in a water-table condition. 
Texas statutes make no ownership distinction between artesian waters and uncon­
fined or water-table aquifers. Instead, the statutes follow the historical classification of 
groundwater established by the courts in early cases. This classification divides all ground­
water into 1) underground streams and 2) percolating waters. The first class-of subterra­
nean streams and stream underflow-includes all water that floats beneath and alongside a 
surface stream channel. Such waters are the property of the state. The second class­
percolating waters-includes all water not flowing through the earth in known and de­
fined channels. These waters are further defined legally as waters percolating, oozing, or 
filtrating through the earth, and are presumed in theory to be percolating in a hidden and 
incomprehensible fashion. 
It is possible that the Edwards Aquifer could be construed as an underground 
stream, although this argument was unsuccessful in a somewhat comparable situation in 
West Texas (41). The enabling legislation for the Edwards Underground Water District 
generally describes a definite, traceable flow. Thus, its flow appears to be neither hidden 
nor unanalyzable. Hydrologists argue that they are able to trace water as it flows under­
ground within a small unit of measure. Although courts have hitherto rejected evidence of 
definite underground streams, the hydrologists have had additional time to refine their 
techniques and develop more sophisticated information. 
It can be argued that if the flow of the Edwards Aquifer is not occult, statutory provisions based on that assumption would no longer apply. If it is not classified as underground water with a hidden flow, an argument could be made that it be treated as surface water; or under statutes applicable to surface water. Judicial and legislative logic might thus develop a rejection of the concept of absolute ownership as it now applies to the water of the Edwards Aquifer. 
An additional position arguing for adjustment of groundwater law might be that the correlative rights of various users are subject to protection, and even to regulation of preemption and quantity of use when it is necessary for mutual protection. The history of oil regulation has shown that when the rights of various owners are seriously threaten­ed by actions of others, regulation of correlative rights may become imperative. In several western states, similar adjustments in water law have been made. The viability of the doctrine of absolute ownership has been described by Justice Jackson: "Rights, property or otherwise, which are absolute against the world are certainly rare, and water rights are not among them" (10, p. 182). 
The future of Texas water law is unknown; yet it should be asked whether effective water development of ground and surface-water resources is possible when law distin­guishes so strictly between them. Moreover, the Edwards area has been shown to be one in which cyclical overdraft of the aquifer during periodic shortages may threaten the entire water resource. This possibility, together with the dangers of irresponsible exploita­tion and permanent overdraft, may require consideration of some form of withdrawal regulation in the future. 
SUMMARY OF 1HE PROBLEM 

AN OVERVIEW 
Regional planning and development of the Edwards and associated surface waters has two main objectives: augmentation of water supply and prevention of pollution. It is clear that demand on the Edwards is going to increase, although the rate is uncertain. San Antonio will continue to grow, irrigation to the west may expand, recreation and other development may increase. Even if the aquifer is able to supply sufficient water for decades to come, overdraft because of cyclical variations in rainfall still poses a threat. Technical advisers report that the Edwards has dropped at successively faster rates during successive dry periods; thus, a shorter drought than the 1950s could result in more serious problems for those who are not able to pump water economically from the lower levels. These factors encourage examination of policy alternatives such as increased recharge, reuse of return flow, and surface-water development. 
A second theme in regional water policy is the protection of the aquifer from contamination. The prospect of unregulated urban development in the critical recharge zone is the most immediate threat to the quality of Edwards water. Sewage facilities short of comprehensive waste water treatment systems may cause a decline in the quality of the water, as they have in other sections of the state. Unfortunately, present water law does not provide adequate legal authority for maintenance of groundwater quality. Addition­ally, there is the unverified threat of brackish water intrusion, which may occur if water levels reach depths substantially lower than in the past. 
The water system of the Edwards Aquifer and associated surface sources is not 
facing immediate crisis in either of these policy areas. Water in the area, if properly 
developed, should provide a sufficient supply for a long time. Moreover, pollution or 
contamination of the Edwards remains a threat rather than a fact. But the lead time 
required for long-range planning and implementation of development systems makes 
imperative an immediate assessment of the institutional capability to meet immediate 
policy needs and to respond to the unknown problems and issues that may arise in the 
future. 
An intricate network of overlapping government units has the responsibility of 
water-policy formation. In the San Antonio Metropolitan Area alone there are seventeen 1such entities: two cities, one metropolitan water district, eleven water-control and im­provement districts, one water-improvement district, and two nonsupplying water districts which cover several counties. Additionally, there are about 30 private water companies and several installations on military bases which are constructed and operated by the federal government. It may well be that this situation makes cohesive, integrated 
water policy impossible to achieve. 
The difficulty of formulating and implementing planning and development policy 
within such a framework of government is easy to imagine. The disadvantages of such a 
situation are numerous: 1) any form of adequate information and authority that would 
allow an agency to develop and implement a uniform and comprehensive water plan is 
precluded; 2) special water districts fragment larger districts' service and financial base 
and inhibit planning; 3) small districts are disadvantaged by uneconomic activity stem­
ming from their small scales of operation; 4) during drought periods, rationing measures may not be observed throughout the area, and thus may be ineffectual and inequitable; and 5) similarly, quality-control measures may not be effective because of variations in enforcement. ( 
Compounding these obstacles is the fact that Texas water law gives little support to public development of integrated ground and surface-water systems. Large-scale recharge is not plausible as long as there is no control of the water once it enters the aquifer. Both cyclical and permanent overdraft cannot be prevented until there is an equitable mecha­nism for protecting both existing water rights and the aquifer itself. 
The preceding discussion suggests the unanswered issues of water policy in the water system of the Edwards Aquifer and associated surface streams. 
Part II -RECOMMENDATIONS 
INTRODUCTION 

The Edwards Aquifer must supply a variety of water demands whose future development may exceed the supply. Continued overdraft will threaten the efficiency of the aquifer as a natural water-distribution system. Access for beneficial use by various interests will be impaired. 
Conservation and protection, for beneficial use, of the water of the Edwards Aquifer is in the interest of the people in the area. Since surface water is to be developed to augment the aquifer supply, these waters as well as groundwaters must receive conserva­tion and protective attention. Conservation must not be for its own end, but a means toward benefit and enjoyment of these water resources for present and future genera­tions. Protection of the quality of the water entering the aquifer, and within it, and of surface water augmenting the aquifer supply, will insure quality as well as quantity for continuing beneficial use of area waters. 
Despite the fact that numerous studies and plans offer solutions to the water~supply problem, implementation of such plans is uncertain. No authority has adequate power and jurisdiction to manage even the existing system, a system which must grow to include the aquifer recharge area and the area where surface-water resources may be developed. The outlook for the management of a regional water resource is herein explored, begin­ning with functions and guidelines, and proceeding to specific recommendations. 
In response to the need to further develop the means for the conservation and 
protection of area waters, functions of a water-management system are proposed that will 
enhance the probability of meeting future water needs. In view of the lead time demand­
ed for future development, prudence requires that steps be taken in the immediate future 
to create an ability to manage water-resource problems on a regional basis. 
WATER SYSTEM-MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS 

Management of a water system including the Edwards Aquifer and ancillary surface waters will require that the following functions be performed: 
1. To plan for water of sufficient quantity and of adequate quality in the area, including assessment of present and future demand and supply, supplementary ground and surface-water sources, additional recharge facilities, increased reuse, and other applica­tions of new technologies: 
Planning is especially important in water resources in light of the crucial role of water in all human endeavor, and of the lead time required (often 20 to 25 years) to implement a major water-development project. Furthermore, sophisticated long-range planning has be­come a prerequisite for project financing. Good planning requires a) development of an adequate data base for accurate assessment, and b) consideration of all possible options in evaluating alternative courses of action. Both of these activities have been carried on in the past on a limited scale, and their significance has been limited by the lack of a system to coordinate them on a scale as broad as the problems to which they were applied. 
2. To develop and to coordinate supplementary water sources, additional recharge of the aquifer, and increased treatment and reuse of water as required to protect and maxi­mize the utilization of the aquifer: 
Recent investigations show that the available water resources in the area may be ade­quate, if fully utilized, for a considerably larger demand than now exists. Unfortunately, failure to appreciate the relation between various uses of single water projects and the further relation between projects in the past has resulted in an unintegrated and uncom­plementary development of water. The difficulties that arose between GBRA and the City of San Antonio over the Canyon Rr.servoir is a case in point. Comprehensive coordination and development of recharge facilities, reuse and treatment systems, and other supplementary water sources must be implemented, if optimum utilization is to be obtained from the existing and future water resources. 
3. To study the quality of water in the area and make recommendations to the Texas Water Quality Board and other appropriate agencies: 
The potential for pollution of the Edwards Aquifer is very real. Although presentsources of pollution, such as faulty septic tanks, have not substantially affected the overall quality of the water in the aquifer so far, that is not to say that pollution cannot be serious in the future. The recent expansion of San Antonio northwest over areas of the recharge zone of the aquifer and the increasing population in other recharge areas away from the city carry significant potential for pollution of the aquifer. Another source of pollution which could seriously impair the quality of the Edwards Aquifer is the possibility of the intrusion of saltwater and other noxious compounds. 
4. To provide technical assistance to municipalities and other water users in the system for the study, planning, coordination, and development of quality and quantity of water: 
Many small municipalities and other water users dependent on the aquifer require techni­cal assistance in handling their water problems. It is also important that the technical assistance they receive be consistent with regional planning. 
5. To regulate the exportation of water for usage outside the system and promote cooper­ative exchange of water within the system and with outside sources: 
An interest outside the system could conceivably obtain property directly over the aquifer for the purpose of pumping an unlimited amount to a destination outside· the system. The encouragement of cooperative exchanges of water facilitates efficient large-scale water development to meet various requirements. 
6. To identify short-and long-term critical periods of water supply anci to make provi­sions for the equitable distribution of the available water during these periods: 
It is important that a water system provide protection for the variety of interests served by the Edwards. Despite a history of droughts and increasing yearly withdrawals from the aquifer, there exists but a single consideration in the distribution of a scarce supply of water among competing interests-the ability to pump water from a greater depth than your neighbor. Not only does this constitute a waste in resources, but it does not allow the consideration of all interests to come into play. 
7. To disseminate information and promote public understanding concerning the inte­grated development of water resources in the area: 
In Texas, as elsewhere in the United States, there is a lack of public understanding of the requirements for development and utilization of water as a resource. Regardless of the reasons, the net result is a severe limitation on the ability to develop and allocate the use of water efficiently. In the Edwards region, where people are accustomed to an abundance of low-cost, high-quality water, public resistance to additional tax burdens, along with a lack of understanding of 20-year planning horizons for completing major water projects, creates a need for a substantial educational campaign. 
8. To recommend to the legislature of Texas such measures as are appropriate to protect and conserve water resources for future generations: 
With further development will come new demands for the use of water. It is reasonable to assume that these demands will create new problems that will require changes, exceptions, and additions to the law. Because of the important role of long-range planning performed by a water-development and management system, it would be in a unique position to evaluate future needs and contribute important inputs to the legislature as to needed reform in water law and water policy. 
GUIDELINES FOR A WATER-MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 

Effective implementation of the preceding functions requires the formulation of adequate 
policy-making and administrative arrangements. The following are suggested guidelines 
for establishing an effective water-development and management system: 
1. The system should supplement and complement present activities of state, regional, and local agencies. 
The purpose of water development and management on a regional basis is to provide incentives for coordinated planning and development. To that end a regional system should assist existing agencies where possible, and undertake only those projects and operations that cannot be provided as effectively by such agencies. 
2. The system should provide a framework for cooperation among state and local agencies. 
A regional water-development and management :system is in an advantageous position to identify the common interests among the various users and develop programs for coopera­tion. 
3. The system should respect the water rights of individuals consistent with the rights of all. 
The utilization of land in the Edwards Aquifer region is dependent on rights to ground­water beneath the land, and this economic dependence should be recognized. 
At the same time it should also be recognized that the utility of an existing right to groundwater may on occasion depend on authority to limit that right. For example, preserv­ing the right to pump unlimited amounts of groundwater during times of critical water supply might deplete the Edwards Aquifer sufficiently to deny its beneficial use to those who cannot economically pump as deeply as others. The ability to render a water right useless is to destroy its value. Thus the water rights of some might have to be restricted in order to preserve the rights of all. 
4. The system of water development and management should have adequate authority and resources to carry out its responsibilities. This should include at least the following: 
a. Integration of both ground and surface water into a single operational system: 
Since the cost of groundwater is significantly lower than that of alternative surface-water supplies, the incentive is to use the higher-cost surface waters only in time of critical shortage. Sufficient incentive for developing the supplementary water supplies depends upon ability to integrate ground and surface water. Such integration of water sources would provide a means for distributing the additional water-development and usage costs among all users that benefit. 
b. 
Jurisdictional authorities congruent with the various functions. 

c. 
Determination of the existence of threats to the preservation and utilization of the aquifer, and the action needed to meet the threats: 


Water strikes so close to everyone's vital interests that rational policy making during a water crisis becomes extremely difficult. Hence the establishment of procedures to antici­pate shortages and take appropriate action not only allows careful assessment, but avoids unnecessary ill feelings and economic hardship. 
d. Funding authority for planning operations and development and operation of facilities: 
The lack of adequate funds for planning operations would seriously impair the ability of the system to do competent, independent planning and to coordinate planning and develop­ment effectively. 
The development of facilities for the Edwards region will require authority to distribute the costs of such projects equitably among all beneficiaries, even though a local agency is responsible for development, because the benefits are often distributed extensively among all users of water in the aquifer and cannot be confined to the constituency of any one local agency. 
5. While 	the system should be .aware of and conversant with the different interests, it should have the capacity to exercise independent judgment. 
Those in policy-making positions should be responsive to the needs of the various interest groups, for each may be affected differently by a decision. It should also be recognized, however, that resolution of conflicts among the various interests and promoting the common interests of all will require independent judgment. 
6. The system should provide administrative arrangements for performance of functions not the responsibility of existing agencies. 
It is important in the design of the system that the responsibilities of each agency be precisely defined and that each function to be performed be assigned to at least one agency. 
PROPOSAL FOR WATER DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT 

It has been shown that the Edwards Aquifer is an effective means of water distribution serving the needs of people in a broad area. Furthermore, an interdependence of the people thus served has been noted. This water distribution and interdependence, in effect, describes a system. The system is relatively self-contained within boundaries roughly described by those of the aquifer. Since the water supply within this system will not forever be sufficient for growing demands, various measures for development have been recommended which require management. Several ftinctions have been recommended for water-system management and guidelines have been suggested for establishing an effective water-development and management system. Because of lack of broad authority by any governmental entity already existing in the area, an agency similar to the master district envisioned in the Texas Water Plan (p. 20, V-3,4) is herein recommended. 
In recommending such an agency, consideration is given to its possible interface with existing agencies. It is presumed that the proposed agency would complement the activi­ties of state agencies such as the Water Quality Board and the Water Development Board and not conflict with them. 
It must be determined, however, whether the newly proposed agency will conflict with existing local agencies, since it will clearly overlap the geographic areas of some. The primary area of concern, the area from which users take water from the Edwards Aquifer, is expanded if consideration is given to the protection of water quality in the aquifer recharge area. It is further expanded if consideration is given to another basin to develop surface water facilities. While the location of proposed dams pertinent to area water supply is within the bounds of the San Antonio or Guadalupe-Blanco River authorities, it will be the interest of the system-management agency to see that the dams get built; but it need not be the interest of that agency to assume the responsibilities of the river authorities. Although cooperation with the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority would be desirable· to promote the construction of a dam and lake, it may be preferred that GBRA continue to look after the needs of downstream users such as rice growers and the bays and estuaries. Similarly, the San Antonio River Authority extends beyond the immediate area of the Edwards Aquifer, but dam sites are also located in its territory. The Edwards Plateau, important as an aquifer recharge area, represents territory over which neither river authority nor underground water district has jurisdiction. The area will be of con­cern to the water-management agency, but inclusion within its geographic bounds may be of questionable value. Functional authority beyond the immediate water-use area is per­haps more appropriate. 
The Edwards Underground Water District presents a special case for consideration. The functions of the proposed agency include all those existing in the EUWD and more. One of the purposes of the proposed water-management system is to integrate the use of surface and groundwater. It is also recommended that this system provide for the devel­opment of reuse of treated effluent waters. These functions, plus developing surface­water facilities and protecting the recharge area of the aquifer, are beyond the scope of the EUWD. 
We recommend the creation of a Water-Development and Management District as follows: 
I. 	PURPOSE 
The purpose of the Water-Development and Management District will be to establish and maintain an integrated water-development and management system for the Edwards Aquifer and complementary waters. 
II. 	
ORGANIZATION 

A. 	
The governing body of the Water-Development and Management District will be composed of a nine-man board of directors, including 1) one selected by the Board of Directors of the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority, 2) one selected by the Board of Directors of the San Antonio River Authority, 3) one selected by the Board of Directors of the Edwards Underground Water District, 4) one selected by the city council of San Antonio, and 5) five members appointed by the governor of Texas with the advice and consent of the senate, including a) one as chairman, b) one conversant with the interests of irrigation, and c) one conversant with the interests of recreation.I 

B. 	
A staff under the supervision of an executive director will be responsible for carrying out decisions of the board of directors, including daily planning and development operations. 


III. 	JURISDICTION 
The jurisdiction of the Water-Development and Management District shall vary in response to the requirements of its functions,2 including the following: 
A. 	Areas of primary benefits. This includes areas that are direct beneficiaries of water from the aquifer. 
B. 	Ancillary areas necessary for establishing an integrated water-development and management system. This includes recharge areas of the aquifer and sources for supplementary water supplies. 
IV. 	
DUTIES AND POWERS 

A. 	
The primary responsibility of the Water-Development and Management District shall be planning and development of the Edwards Aquifer and complementary water supplies based on broader considerations of the public interest than can now be assured under existing formal and informal arrangements. 

B. 	
In order to develop an adequate data base for planning purposes, the Water­Development and Management District shall maintain, or delegate the maintenance of, an inventory of users, which shall include that information 


1If the legislature determined that the functions of the Edwards Underground Water District should be absorbed by this district, the board could be constituted as follows: 1) appointee by GBRA, 2) appointee by SARA, 3) appointee by San Antonio, and 4) four appointed by the governor including the chairman. 
2one example of an authority with jurisdiction varying according to its functions is the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA). The LCRA has one jurisdictional boundary for the sale of water and another for the sale of electricity. 
judged necessary for the performance of the District.3 
C. 	In the course of carrying out its responsibilities for planning and development, the Water-Development and Management District may have to assume the re­sponsibility for certain management and technical operations. Such functions could be incorporated as part of the present activities of the Edwards Under­ground Water District in monitoring the aquifer.4 
D. 	The Water-Development and Management District shall have authority to develop those facilities which cannot be undertaken as effectively by local agencies.5 
E. 	The Water-Development and Management District shall have authority, in con­formity with legislative standards, to distribute the costs of financing projects developed by local water agencies in cases where the beneficiaries of such projects are not wholly contained within the boundaries of those agencies. In such cases, the costs will be distributed according to benefits received.6 
F. 	The Water-Development and Management District shall hav~ the additional responsibility of assisting the Water Rights Commission in developing a formula for defining critical periods. 7 
G. 	The Water-Development and Management District shall periodically review the prospective demands for water from the Edwards Aquifer and determine whether all beneficial uses, including municipal, industrial, irrigation, and recre­ation uses, can be met without regulation of withdrawal of water from the aquifer during times of normal recharge. In the event that the District deter­mines that the preservation of the minimum level in the aquifer and mainte­nance and development of beneficial uses is continually threatened, and that the threat cannot be removed by additional water sources, reuse of water, or 
3This would be similar to the system of well logs presently in operation for monitoring the Ogallala Aquifer on the High Plains of Texas. 
4For example, one management tool not yet applied to the Edwards Aquifer is analog simulation, which is currently being developed for the Ogallala Aquifer in the Canadian River Project in the Texas Panhandle. 
5This principle has been successfully applied in developing the Delaware River Basin. 
6 Allocation of costs according to separable benefits is a firmly established procedure in federal water-development projects. 
7This will require that the powers of the Water Rights Commission, with regard to the proposed district only, be expanded to include the following: 
a) The Water Rights Commission shall have authority to develop a formula for the determination of conditions at which the conservation and beneficial use of the Edwards Aquifer are threatened. The chief engineer of the Water-Development and Management District shall inform the Water Rights Commission when these conditions are reached or are immediately impending. 
b) After appropriate public hearings, and with technical assistance from the Water· Development and Manage­ment District as necessary, the Water Rights Commission shall have authority to determine that a critical period exists and issue rules to regulate the allocation and use of water from the Edwards Aquifer for the duration of the critical period. The Commission shall have authority to enforce these rules, including the requiring of reports on use, inspection of water facilities to insure compliance, and initiation of action fo:i: violations as provided by law. All regulations on allocations and use shall be terminated promptly when the critical period has ended. 
c) The Water Rights Commission shall establish procedures for hearing petitions for exemption from any of the requirements prescribed in its rules and orders. d) Appeals from rules or orders of the Commission may be made to the appropriate state court. 
augmentation of recharge, it shall recommend to the legislature of Texas such changes in groundwater law and measures as it shall deem necessary for the preservation of the aquifer and equitable maintenance of the rights and inter­ests of users. An outline of the possible content of revised groundwater law is contained in Appendix II, p. 51. 
V. FINANCING 
The District shall have the authority to 1) levy ad valorem taxes to finance planning and operation functions for the general benefit, 2) issue revenue bonds to finance water-development projects, and 3) establish fees and charges, as appropriate. The separable benefits shall be differentiated through user charges for the repayment of revenue bonds and the financing of maintenance and operations of facilities. (A more detailed statement of possible financing provisions is outlined in Appendix III, 
p. 54.) 



TOWARD IMPLEMENTATION 

The essence of this report is that the basic need in water supply for the Edwards area is a development and management system. Many existing alternative plans to meet the water needs of the area well into the future have been reviewed. The means of deciding among those alternatives or implementing any of them has been found lacking. A water district of broad scope has been recommended to handle the decision making that is necessary to meet the future water needs of the area. We urge that the state legislature and the appropriate water agencies initiate action to consider and implement the recommen­dations made in this report. 
APPENDIXES  
I.  THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE WATER-POLICY SYSTEM  
II.  OUTLINE OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS FOR REGULATION OF WITHDRAWAL  
III.  PROPOSED PROVISIONS FOR DISTRICT FINANCING  
IV.  INTERVIEWS  

APPENDIX I. TIIE INSTITUTIONS OF THE WATER-POLICY SYSTEM 
LOCAL AGENCIES 
THE SAN ANTONIO WATER BOARD 
The San Antonio Water Board, established in 1925, is governed by a board of trustees that is appointed by the city council. In tum, the board appoints the general manager who acts as chief administrator of the Board. Even though the Board is part of the city government, and must act in accordance with the terms of the bond ordinance under which the system's bonds are issued, it is still somewhat autonomous in conducting its business. 
System expansion is being carried out according to a comprehensive plan for future development that was adopted by the city council in 1959. The plan is based on esti­mated water needs of the San Antonio area up to 1980. An integral part of the Board's plan is the requirement that all water-system installations within five miles of San Antonio's city limits must conform to the city council's criteria for domestic and com­mercial water supply, and construction of all such water systems is subject to inspection by the City Water Board to insure compliance with the established criteria.I 
Since the City Water Board is the largest supplier and distributor of water in Bexar County, it is greatly concerned with the development of additional water sources and conservation of the existing supply. The Board supports this interest by participating in programs aimed at developing means of recharging the Edwards Aquifer, and developing supplemental surface-water supplies from the surrounding areas. 
WATER CONTROL AND IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS 
A Water Control and Improvement District (here referred to as a water district} is a unit of government with a limited purpose. Legislative power to create and to authorize the creation of water districts stems from two amendments to the Texas Constitution.2 The two amendments provide for such districts to have the authority to engage in water supply, irrigation, flood control, drainage, reclamation, forest preservation, conservation, creation of hydroelectric power, navigation, sewage, garbage collection, and waste dis­posal. The legislature is also authorized to empower these districts to issue bonds and levy taxes.3 
Water districts may be created by the commissioner's court, the legislature, or the governing body of a city, if the district is to be located within its bounds. All such districts, however, must be formed and operated in accordance with state law, and 
IThe criteria relate to the adequacy and purity of the water supply, system design, system pressures, quality of materials used, methods of construction, location of valves and fire hydrants, requirements for elevated storage facili­ties, and special corrosion protection for certain types of soil. (San Antonio City Code, Sections 36-13 (a) and (c).] 
2Articte ill, section 52, and Article XVI, section 59. 
3Significantly, no debt limitation was imposed other than the requirement that indebtedness be incurred only if approved by the property-tax paying voters of the district. 
approved in some instances by the Texas Water Rights Commission. 
There are 11 water-control and improvement districts in the San Antonio area, eight of which are active at this time. Seven of these districts actually furnish water to the area of jurisdiction. Five of the districts deal in sewage disposal, and two also engage in garbage collection and disposal. 
All the active districts have issued bonds for the construction of water systems. These bonds are paid off through water charges and taxes. Three of the districts also raise operating funds by levying taxes on property. 
BEXAR-MEDIN A-ATASCOSA WATER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ONE 
This district has approximately 34 thousand acres under its jurisdiction. About 60 per­cent of the district lies within Medina County, about 10 percent in Atascosa County, and 30 percent in Bexar County. This district is empowered to obtain and distribute water for irrigation, domestic, power, and commercial purposes; persons using water for domestic purposes must install their own purification facilities. The district levies a 20 percent ad valorem tax, a "maintenance charge" on persons residing within its boundaries, and a "crop water charge" on use of water from Medina Lake. 
BEXAR METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 
The Bexar Metropolitan Water District is a multipurpose conservation district with juris­diction over "metropolitan" San Antonio, excluding Alamo Heights, Olmos Park, and Terrell Hills. The District has the power to "control, conserve, protect, preserve, distrib­ute, and utilize storm and flood waters of rivers and streams and underground water situated in the District and to control and regulate the accumulation and disposal of sewage, wastes, refuse, and residuum." It also has the power to protect and preserve the purity of surface and underground waters, to make rules and regulations pertaining to operations, and to provide penalties for violations thereof. In addition, the District is authorized to regulate waters of the San Antonio River watershed, and to cooperate with the state and federal governments in such undertakings. 
The functions and jurisdictional area of the District overlap those of the City Water Board and San Antonio River Authority; however, the District has limited itself to water supply, and confined its operation to southwest San Antonio and Castle Hills. 
SAN ANTONIO RIVER AUTHORITY 
The San Antonio River Authority, a conservation and reclamation district, was created by authority of Article XVI, Section 59, of the Texas Constitution. It includes all that part of the state within the boundaries of the counties of Bexar, Wilson, Karnes, and Goliad. 
The Authority is empowered to construct, maintain, and operate navigable canals and waterways, to effectuate flood control, conservation, and use, for all beneficial purposes, of ground, storm flood, and unappropriated flow waters in the District, and also to effectuate irrigation, soil conservation, sewage treatment, and pollution preven­tion. The district is also charged to encourage and develop parks, recreational facilities, forestation and reforestation, and to preserve fish. 
The District is assigned the responsibility of preparing a master plan for the maximum development of the soil and water resources of the entire District, including plans for the complete utilization, for all economically beneficial purposes, of the water resources of the District. In accordance with the master plan, the Authority may act as a coordinating agency dealing with the problems of water supply and distribution on a basin-wide basis. It may also act as a bargaining agency in negotiating with other river authorities in the state, and agencies of the federal government. 
The Authority can also issue negotiable bonds and levy ad valorem taxes (up to a maximum rate of two cents per $100 valuation). However, a large segment of the Author­ity's revenue comes from a 15-cent flood-control tax which is levied and collected by the county. 
THE EDWARDS UNDERGROUND WATER DISTRICT 
The Edwards Underground Water District was created by the state legislature for the purpose of "protecting, conserving, and recharging the Edwards Underground Reservoir." The District consists of all of Uvalde County, most of Medina and Bexar counties, and a small part of Comal and Hays counties. 
A 15-member board of directors, three from each county area, an engineer-manager, and an assistant secretary administer the District. A two-cent tax per $100 property valuation provides the funds for operation. 
Operations consist primarily of studying the recharge potential of the Edwards Aquifer. The U.S. Geological Survey aids the District by making studies of the amount, quality, and movement of water through the aquifer. 
BEXAR COUNTY 
Bexar County is authorized by the Texas Constitution to issue bonds for flood control, navigation, irrigation, and drainage improvement.4 The county can also levy ad valorem taxes as well as other authorized taxes for flood-control improvements.5 
SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 
Soil Conservation Districts are created and supervised by the State Soil Conservation Board. Each District is governed by an elected five-member board of supervisors. Each District serves as an independent subdivision of the state. Among other functions, the Districts carry out control measures to prevent flood damage, and furnish equipment or other material to assist farmers and ranchers in carrying out erosion control and water management. The Districts are also assigned the responsibility of cooperating with any other agency in order to prevent erosion and water damage within the District. 
4Article m, section 52. 
5Article VII, section 1-a. 
STATE AGENCIES 

THE TEXAS WATER RIGHTS COMMISSION 
When the Texas Water Rights Commission was reconstituted in 1965, it was vested with all the powers, duties, purposes, and responsibilities of the Texas Water Commission and the Board of Water Engineers that were not expressly transferred to the Water Develop­ment Board. 
The Commission is governed by three full-time members appointed by the governor, with the advice and consent of the senate, and an executive director who is the chief administrative officer of the Commission. 
The primary functions of the Commission are regulating and permitting use of public water of the state. I ts general responsibilities include the protection of public safety and private property from damage that might occur from improperly designed dams and reservoirs. It may declare any project a public nuisance and order it to be abated or removed if it finds the project to be dangerous to public safety. 
The Commission is directed by the legislature to actively and continually review outstanding permits and certified filings, and to cancel, in whole or in part, those rights that are found to have been abandoned or not used for ten consecutive years. However, several exceptions which limit action by the Commission are contained in the cancellation statutes. For example, no portion of a certified filing held by a city, town, municipal water district, or a village, authorizing use of water for municipal use, may be cancelled for ten years' nonuse if any water was used for any authorized purpose during the previous ten-year period. Also, permits and certified filings that authorize facilities for impounding water cannot be cancelled to less than the storage capacity of the reservoir. 
The Commission creates several kinds of water districts and approves the organiza­tion and feasibility of most water districts which propose to construct projects that are to be financed by the issuance of bonds. Most of the water districts and river authorities are subject to continuing supervision by the Commission. 
The Commission recognizes and provides local interests with continuing oppor­tunities to develop projects for local and regional needs; however, the Commission usually considers the State Water Plan as a guide for authorizing projects. Resolution of any conflict between the State Water Plan and private, local, and/or regional interests is vested in the Commission; ultimate authority is vested in the courts. 
THE TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD 
The Water Development Board was established primarily to assist and advise local units of government in undertaking water-development projects. The constitution of Texas autho­rizes the Board to issue up to $350 million of state general-obligation bonds for the creation of a revolving fund from which loans can be made to local governmental units. The Board may lend local units of government up to a maximum of one-third of the total cost of the water project, or $5 million, whichever is smaller. It may be noted that since the Board's inception the size of the Development Fund has been increased and the Board has been authorized to acquire fee interests in reservoir storage projects constructed on Texas streams. 
The Board has formulated and adopted a state water plan that is being used as a flexible guide to state policy for the development of water resources. The Board's respon­sibility for investigating all matters concerning the quality of groundwater in the state, and reporting its findings to the Texas Water Quality Board, includes the San Antonio underground water supply. 
THE TEXAS WATER QUALITY BOARD 
The Texas Water Quality Board replaced the Texas Water Pollution Control Board.6 It is composed of seven members, of whom three are appointed by the governor, with the advice and consent of the senate, while the other four are the Executive Director of the Texas Water Development Board, the State Commissioner of Health, the Executive Direc­tor of the Parks and Wildlife Department, and the Chairman of the Texas Railroad Commission. 
The Board is the principal authority in the state on matters relating to the quality of water within the state. Under the Water Quality Act, the Board is to be informed on all aspects of water quality, and specifically on the control and abatement of water pollu­tion. The Board is further directed to assist in resolving questions as to the respective authorities and duties of state agencies which have vested water-quality-control functions, and in doing so to minimize duplication of activities so that state policy for controlling and maintaining the quality of the state's waters can be effectuated. 
The Board is also responsible, along with the Railroad Commission, for administra­tion of the Injection Well Act and the Solid Waste Disposal Act. Under the former act, the Board's jurisdiction extends to the disposal, by injection well, of industrial and municipal wastes. Under the latter, the Board is designated as the State Solid Waste Agency with respect to the collection, handling, storage, and disposal of industrial wastes. 
THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE 
The General Land Office is administered by ·the Commissioner of the General Land Office, who is elected by the people of Texas. It is responsible for planning for the reclamation, development and beneficial use of state-owned lands. The office is required to ensure that all development and operations, expecially those dealing with oil and gas, upon such lands will be done in such a manner as to prevent the pollution of water, destruction of marine life, and obstruction of navigation. 
TEXAS SOIL CONSERVATION BOARD 
The Soil Conservation Board is an agency of the state that was created to perform the state-level administration of soil-conservation programs. The Board's activities are primar­ily directed along three lines: 1) district program planning and assistance; 2) education and promotion of conservation in general; and 3) approval or disapproval of applications 
6The Water Quality Board was established by the Texas Water Quality Act which was passed by the legislature in 1969. 
for federal assistance in planning and implementing watershed protection and flood­prevention projects as contemplated in Public Laws 566 and 1018. The federal govern­ment, through the Board, pays the entire cost of improvements that are applicable to flood prevention. 
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 
The State Department of Health is charged with minimizing health hazards that are associated with water. Of the Department's 18 divisions, the sanitary-engineering and water-pollution-control divisions in the section on Environmental Sanitation Services have the most direct jurisdiction over water. Protection of the purity of the public water supply is one. of the major tasks of this section. The Department is responsible for making studies and investigations, and collecting evidence, in connection with the enforcement of laws that pertain to the provision of safe water for the public, the pollution of streams, and various other items of general sanhation. Where any pollution is found, the Depart­ment may bring legal action to enjoin this activity. 
The Department is empowered to approve or disapprove the establishment of all water supply and sewage disposal systems. It must also make available consulting services and vocational-training programs in the field of sanitation to various local units of govern­ment. 
PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT 
The Parks and Wildlife Commission has two primary functions: 1) the enforcement of pollution laws " ... insofar as concerns the protection of wildlife;" and 2) the develop­ment of recreational potentials of the stat~'s water resources and the lands adjoining those waters. 
THE RAILROAD COMMISSION 
The Railroad Commission has jurisdiction over the oil and gas industry. A related respon­sibility is the prevention of pollution of surface and groundwaters by crude oil, saltwater, or other mineralized water which may escape from oil and gas wells. 
FEDERAL AGENCIES 

THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 
The Environmental Protection Agency is a result of the consolidation of several of the major programs that deal with pollution into a single agency independent of existing departments. Functions transferred to it included those of the Federal Water Quality Administration, the National Air Pollution Control Administration, parts of the Environ­mental Control Administration, the pesticides registration authority of the Department of Agriculture, and certain research authorities of the Council on Environmental Quality. 
THE COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 
The Council on Environmental Quality, established by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, formulates and recommends national policies to the President and Congress of the United States in order to promote the improvement of the quality of the environ­ment. 
THE WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL 
The Water Resources Council was established by the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 to maintain a continuing study of the adequacy of supplies of water that are necessary to meet the requirements in each water-resource region in the nation. It is also responsible for studying the relation of regional or river-basin plans and programs to the requirements of larger regions of the nation, and the adequacy of the administrative and statutory means for coordination of the water and related land-resource policies of the several federal agencies. The Council also reviews the plans of the river-basin commissions and transmits these plans, with the Council's recommendations, to the President for his review and transmittal to Congress. 
The Council also administers a program for federal financial grants to states to aid 
them in comprehensive water and related land-resource planning. 
THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 
The Corps of Engineers is primarily responsible for improvement of the navigability of rivers and harbors, and for undertaking flood-control measures. The Corps is also con­cerned with the following: 1) drainage and soil conservation; 2) conservation of water for domestic, industrial, and agricultural use; 3) hydroelectric power; 4) recreation; 5) public health and sanitation; 6) prevention of saltwater intrusion; and 7) fish and wildlife pres­ervation. It must be noted that the Corps has much influence over congressional commit­tees that are responsible for planning and funding water programs. 
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION (DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR) 
The Bureau of Reclamation is concerned not only with providing water facilities for irrigation, but also with water-resource development in general. The Bureau is specifically concerned with the development of water resources for 1) generation of hydroelectric power, 2) drainage, 3) flood control, 4) improvement of navigation, 5) silt control, 6) creation of recreational facilities, 7) wildlife refuge, and most important 8) the provision of water supplies for municipal and industrial use. Probably the most important con­tribution of the Bureau in Texas is the many comprehensive studies of water problems which the Bureau has itself conducted or in which it has participated. 
THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 
The U.S. Geological Survey is responsible for determining, appraising, and describing surface and underground water resources so as to aid in the solution of the nation's water problems. These investigations are undertaken by the Water Resources Division of the Survey, and are financed on a federal-local matching-fund basis. 
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE (DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE) 
The Soil Conservation Service conducts exhaustive research into various aspects of soil erosion problems. It has the responsibility of administering the upstream watershed pro­grams that provide assistance to local watershed groups for building flood-control and erosion-prevention structures when these programs are approved by Congress. The Service cooperates closely with the State Soil Conservation Board and the local Soil Conservation Districts in their respective activities. 
THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE (DEPARTMENT OF HEW) 
The Public Health Service collects data to show the degree of pollution of the nation's waterways, and conducts research for finding more effective and efficient means of treating municipal and industrial wastes. The Service is authorized to provide monetary grants to municipalities for the construction of needed sewage-treatment plants. In addi­tion, the Service conducts studies of the various state laws pertaining to pollution control. The Service also provides the states with model statutes that can aid the states in their attempts to abate pollution. 
OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES 
Numerous other federal agencies, as well as congressional committees, have responsi­bilities for various aspects of water planning and development, including, particularly, the 
U.S. Weather Bureau, the Bureau of Mines, the Bureau of the Census, the Federal Power Commission, the Forest Service, and the Committees of Public Works and Interior and Insular Affairs. 

APPENDIX II. OUTLINE OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS FOR 
REGULATION OF WITHDRAWAV 

I. Purpose. Proposed revisions in water and water-related statutes should provide legis­lative changes whereby budget, staff, and authority of agencies are adequate to: 
A. 	Conserve, preserve, and protect recharge (quantity, quality) 
B. 	Prevent waste and pollution 
C. 	Determine and declare critical periods 
D. 	Regulate withdrawals 
E. 	Provide coordination and development of ground and surface-water supplies 
F. 	Manage equitable distribution of costs incurred. 
II. 	
Proposed provisions for regulation of withdrawal 

A. 	
Application process (to construct, relocate, or pump) 

1. 	
Source of application forms 

2. 	
Information required 

a. 	
Name(s) of applicant(s) 
1) owner, driller, user 
2) present, future right 


b. 	
Location of well 

c. 	
Description and specification of well size, casing, equipment 

d. 	
Determination of quantity used2 1) Metered 2) Formula applied to estimate usage 3) User estimates 

e. 	
Use ·and disposition of return flow 

f. 	
Quality needs 

g. 	
Quantity needs 

h. 	
Time of need-seasonal, etc. 


1. 	Proposed completion date 
J. 	Exemptions 
k. 	Filing date 

3. 	
Filing procedures 

a. 	
To be submitted to whom 

b. 	
Number of copies 

c. 	
Submission by mail or in person 

d. 	
Exceptions, exemptions 



4. 	
Hearings 




a. 	Time, date, place 
!This outline represents a detailed enumeration of the many provisions that could be included in statutory regulation 
of withdrawal. The detailed nature of the outline is such that numerous optional provisions are presented and, 
therefore, the inclusion of all such provisions in a water·dcvelopment and management system is not necessarily 
recommended. 
2Either users may be required to meter all wells in .order to measure usage-a set formula may be applied to all unmetered wells to predict usage-or users may be permitted to submit their own estimates of their usage. 
b. 	
Hearing officers/examiners 

c. 	
Conditions for granting permit (to pump, construct, or relocate) 


1) 	Issue period 
a) permanent 
b) renewable 

2) 	Amount of water used a) measurement device b) apply formula for estimating c) user estimates 
3) Priority date and number3 4) Subject to proration clause 5) Subject to nonexportation clauses 6) Date pumping may begin 7) Reporting date 8) Date permit granted 
d. 	Permit/license granting 
1) Name of grantee 
2) Location of well 
3) Proposed use 

a) usage 
b) quantity 
c) quality 

4) 	Period of issue 
a) permanent 
b) renewal date 

5) Priority number 6) Permit date 7) Subject to proration clause 8) Subject to nonexportation clause 9) Determination of quantity used 
a) measurement device b) formula for estimating c) user estimates 
10) Signature(s) of hearing officer(s) 11) State seal 
e. 	Conditions for denial 
1) 	Failure to a) provide pertinent information b) meet construction requirements 
2) Critical periods 
3) Flagrant violations 

f. 	Waiting list 
5. 	Appeal procedure 
a. 	
Time, place, date 

b. 	
Actors 

c. 	
Instruments 


3The priority of iHuance of a water right may be determined by the first in time, fint in rights principle, by type of usage, by quantity of water used, or by a combination of different criteria. 
6. 	Withdrawal/usage fees 
a. 	
Rates 1) Zones (variable)4 2) Replenishment assessment (variable)5 

b. 	
Payment 
1) Time, date, place 
2) Method 
3) Receiver 



B. 	Monitoring 
1. 	Periodic reporting, inspection 
a. 	
Information required 

b. 	
Submission-when, where 

c. 	
Inspection officers 


2. 	Analysis of data 
a. 	
Ratio of need to use 

b. 	
Status of aquifer 

c. 	
Determine conditions for critical period 

d. 	
Designate critical periods 

e. 	
Conditions for ceasing to grant permits 

f. 	
Conditions for prorating water 


C. 	Proration (staged) 
1. 	Priority criteria 
a. 	
use 

b. 	
permit date 

c. 	
quantity 


2. 	Rate by which pumping is reduced 
a. 	
even 

b. 	
variable (by usage) 


3. 	
Method of notification 

4. 	
Hearings 

5. 	
Appeal procedures 


D. 	Enforcement, penalties, and punishment 
1. 	Fines 
a. 	
Civil penalties6 

b. 	
Proportional replenishment assessment (variable) 

c. 	
Increased assessment rates for infractions of proration provisions 


2. 	Forfeitures 
a. 	
Noncompliance 

b. 	
Abandonment 


3. 	Other 
4Different pricing zones may be established within a water district. The pricing structure within a zone may vary according to uae, and the pricing structure within a district may vary from zone to zone. 
Replenishment asse11ments are levied whenever a user withdraws water in excess of his adjudicated share. They may be fixed sums or proportional to the quantity of excess water used. 
6such penalties may apply either to violations of water quality standards or to usage in excess of adjudicated water rights. 
APPENDIX III. PROPOSED PROVISIONS FOR 
DISTRICT FINANCING 

A. FEES AND CHARGES 
The District shall establish fees and charges which may not be higher than necessary to fulfill the obligations imposed upon it. 
B, 	LOANS AND GRANTS 
1. 	
The District may borrow money for its corporate purposes. 

2. 	
The District may borrow money and accept grants from private sources, the United States of America, the state, and local governments. The District may enter into any agreement in connection with the loan or grant which is not in conflict with the constitution and laws of this state. 

3. 	
The sources of any funds accepted by the District shall be public information, as to both amount and any restrictions placed by the donor on their expendi­ture. 


C. 	BONDS 
1. 	For the purpose of carrying out any power or authority conferred upon it, the District is empowered to issue its bonds in three general classes: 
a. 	
bonds secured by ad valorem taxes; 

b. 	
bonds secured by a pledge of all or part of the revenues accruing to the District, including without limitation those received from sale of water or other products, rendition of service, tolls, charges, and from all sources other than ad valorem taxes; 

c. 	
bonds secured by a combination pledge of all or part of the revenues from whatever source derived. 


2. 	Bonds shall be authorized by resolution of the board and shall be issued in the name of the District. The bonds shall be in such form as shall be prescribed by the Board. 
D. 	REFUNDING BONDS The Board is authorized to issue refunding bonds for the purpose of refunding any outstanding bonds authorized by this Act and interest thereon. 
E. 	APPROVAL AND REGISTRATION OF BONDS After any bonds (including refunding bonds) are authorized by the District, such bonds and the record relating to their issuance shall be submitted to the attorney general for his examination as to the validity thereof. 
F. 	BOND ELECTION No bonds payable wholly or partially from ad valorem taxes (except refunding bonds) shall be issued unless authorized by an election at which only the qualified tax-paying voters of the District may vote and unless a majority of the votes cast in such election is in favor of the issuance of the bonds. 
G. 	MAINTENANCE TAX The Board shall have the power to levy and collect ad valorem taxes for the mainte­nance of the District and its improvements, in such amounts as are voted in accor­dance with the procedure hereinafter set· forth-provided that the maintenance tax shall not exceed the maximum rate voted, .and said rate shall remain in effect until or unless changed by subsequent vote, and that in no event shall the tax rate exceed the limit specified below. 
H. 	RENDITION, ASSESSMENT, EQUALIZATION, LEVYING, AND COLLECTION OF TAXES. The rendition and assessment of property for taxation, the equalization of values, and the collection of taxes for the benefit of the District shall be in accordance with the law applicable to counties, insofar as such law can be made applicable, and except as hereinafter specifically provided. All of the laws for the enforcement of state and county taxes shall be available to the District. 
I. 	TAX LIMIT The maximum rate of tax which may be levied for any year for all of the purposes is ten cents on each $100 of taxable property based on its assessed valuation. 
J. 	ASSIGNMENT OF COSTS The District shall have authority in conformity with legislative standards to dis­tribute the costs of financing projects developed by local water agencies in cases where the beneficiaries of such projects are not wholly contained within the bounda­ries of those agencies. In such cases, the costs will be distributed according to benefits received. 
APPENDIX IV. INTERVIEWS 

The seminar participants appreciate the cooperation of the following persons in the form of personal interviews and/or class participation. These persons are not responsible for the contents of this report. 
E. C. Abbott, District Conservationist, U.S. Soil Conservatfon Service, Hondo, Texas 
C.R. Baskin, Chief Engineer, Texas Water Development Board Howard Boswell, Former Executive Director, Texas Water Development Board Glen Bragg, Agr£cultural Extens£on Agent, Medina County Ralph Brown, Legal Council, Alamo Area Council of Governments Timothy Brown, Legal Division, Texas Water Rights Commission Harry P. Burleigh, Executive Director, Texas Water Development Board Alfred J. D'Arezzo, Assistant Director, Texas Water Development Board Jack Fickerson, Acting Executive Director, Texas Water Development Board Antonio Furino, Director, Economic and Social Planning, Alamo Area Council of 
Governments 
E. F. Gloyna, Dean, College ofEngineering, University of Texas at Austin Weldon W. Hammond, Geologist, Alamo Area Council of Governments Ralph Harris III, Board ofDirectors, Edwards Underground Water Distrfrt Carson Hoge, Director ofPlanning, Brazos River Authority Kenneth Hubbard, Texas Water Rights Commission James Hull, Economics Division, Texas Water Development Board Paul W. Jahn, Board ofDirectors, Edwards Underground Water District 
C. E. James, San Antonio Water Board Corwin W. Johnson; Charles I. Francis Professor of Law, School of Law, University of 
Texas at Austin RhetJohnson, District Conservationist, U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Uvalde, Texas Joseph Jones, Bureau ofBusiness Research, Austin, Texas 
W. L. Jones, San Antonio Chamber of Commerce Therman Kennedy, Agricultural Extension Agent, Bexar County 
C. Thomas Koch, Consultant Engineer, San Antonio, Texas Phil B. Kosub, Plant Manager, Pearl Brewery, San Antonio, Texas 
W.W. 
McAllister,Mayor, City of San Antonio Roscoe C. Martin, Maxwell School ofPublic Adminstration, Syracuse, New York William Moltz, Economic Division, Texas Water Development Board Fred Pfeiffer, Manager, San Antonio River Authority 

J. 
J. Pickle, United States House ofRepresentat£ves John Poemer, Texas State House ofRepresentatives Rodney Reagan, Board ofDire'ctors, Edwards Underground Water District Lewis Seward, Director ofPlanning, Texas Water Development Board John Simmons, General Manager, Sabine River Authority Darrell E. Smith, Agricultural Extension Agent, Uvalde County John H. Specht, Assistant General Manager, Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority Joseph Teller, Deputy Director, Texas Water Qual£ty Board Pete Torres, City Council, San Antonio, Texas Trigg Twichell, Area Engineer, United States Geological Survey 


Robert H. Vahrenkamp, General Manager, Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority Henry Van de Walle, Farmer and Businessman, Bexar and Medina Counties Robert P. Van Dyke, General Manager, City Water Board, San Antonio, Texas BillJ. Waddle, General Manager, Texas Water Conservation Association Blair Warren, Assistant Manager, San Antonio River Authority McDonald D. Weinert, General Manager, Edwards Underground Water District 
A.G. Winslow, Geologist, United States Geological Survey 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 

BOOKS AND ARTICLES 
1. 	
Bollins, John C. Special District Governments. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1957. 

2. 	
Kneese, Allen and Stephen Smith, eds. Water Research. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1966. 

3. 
Lomax, Louise. San Antonio's River. San Antonio: The Naylor Company, 1948. 

4. 	
Maloney, Frank, Fletcher Baldwin, and Sheldon Plager. Water Law and Administra­tion. Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1968. 

5. 	
Martin, Roscoe, et al. River Basin Administration and The Delaware River. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1960. 

6. 	
Smith, Stephen C. "The Role of the Public District in the Integrated Management of Ground and Surface Water," Water Resource Management, ed. Smith. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1966. 

7. 	
Thompson, John T. Public Administration of Texas Water Resources tn Texas. Austin: Institute of Public Affairs, The University of Texas, 1960. 

8. 	
White, Gilbert. Strategies ofAmerican Water Management. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1969. 

9. 
Wright, Mrs. S. J. San Anton£o De Bexar. Austin: Morgan Printing, 1916. 


10. 	Clark, Robert E. Ground Water Management: Law and Local Response, 6 Ar£zona Law Review 178. 
PUBLISHED REPORTS 
11. 	Alamo Area Council of Governments, 1970. Regional Wastewater Development Plan. 
12. 	
Edwards Underground Water District. The Edwards Underground Water District and Edwards Underground Reservoir. 

13. 	
Garza, Sergio, 1962. Recharge, Discharge, and Changes in Ground-Water Storage in The Edwards and Associated Limestones, San Anton£o, Texas, Area: A Progress Report on Studies, 1955-59. Texas Board of Water Engineers Report Bulletin No. 6201. 


14. 	
Garza, Sergio, 1966. Ground-Water Resources of the San Antonio Area, Texas: A Progress Report on Studies, 1960-64. Texas Water Development Board Report No. 34. 

15. 	
Gillet, Paul T., and I. G. Janca, 1965. Inventory of Texas Irrigation, 1958 and 1964. Texas Water Commission Bulletin No. 6515. 

16. 	
Pettitt, B.M. and W. 0. George, 1956. Ground-Water Resources of the San Antonio Area, Texas: A Progress Report on Current Studies. Texas Board of Water Engineers Bulletin No. 5608, Vol. 1. 

17. 	
Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority, 1970. 1970 Annual Report, Guadalupe-Blanco Rz'ver Authority. 


18. 	
San Antonio River Authority, 1963. A Brief in Support of the SARA-GBRA Water Exchange Plan. 

19. 	
Texas Water Development Board, 1966. A Summary of the Prelimi'nary Plan for Proposed Water Resources Development in the San Antonio River Basin. 


20. 
Texas Water Development Board, 1968. The Texas Water Plan. 

21. 
Texas Water Quality Board, 1970. Rules of the Texas Water Qµality Board. 


22. 	
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1964. Survey Report on Edwards Undergound Reser­voirs. 

23. 	
United States Study Commission, 1962. The Report of the U.S. Study Commission­Texas, On The Neches, Trinity, Brazos, Colorado, Guadalupe, San Antonio, Nueces, and San Antonio River Basins and Intervening Areas. 3 Volumes. 


24. Western Resources Conference, 1970. "Municipal Wastewater as a Water Resource," 
Urban Demands On Natural Resources. 
UNPUBLISHED REPORTS 
25. 	Alamo Area Council of Governments, 1970. Rainfall Frequency, San Antonio River Valley. 
26. 	Freese and Nichols-Consulting Engineers, 1956. Cost Study, Surface Supply for San Antonio from the San Antonio River Basin. 
27. 	Freese and Nichols-Consulting Engineers, 1956. Estimated Water Use, Bexar County, 1960-2000. 
28. 	Koenig, Louis-Consulting Engineer, 1970. Basin Management of Water Reuse, Monthly Progress Reports, Nos. 11and12. 
29. San Antonio City Water Board, 1970. San Antonio's Water Supply. 
30. 	
Terrell and Bartlett-Consulting Engineers, 1958. Augmentation ofMunidpal Water Supply ofSan Antonio, Texas, From Surface Waters of the Medina River. 

31. 	
Turner, Collie, and Braden-Consulting Engineers, 1967. Preliminary Engineering Study of Alternative Conveyance Systems, Lake Austin to San Antonio and Cuero-Cibolo to San Anton£o. A report prepared for the Texas Water Develop­ment Board. 


32. 
Van Dyke, Robert P., and Fred N. Pfeiffer, 1970. Area Wide Water Study. 

33. 	
Wilson, William F. 1970. History of Water in the San Antonio River Valley. Alamo Area Council of Governments. 

34. 	
Wilson. Edwards Aquifer, A Study ofEdwards Recharge Zone Requirements. Alamo Area Council of Governments, AACOG Water Quality Planning -Phase 5. 


35. 	Braunig, V. H. and R. H. Vehrenkamp, 1963. A Plan for the Interchange of Surface Water Between the Guadalupe and San Antonio R£ver Basins. 
MISCELLANEOUS . 
36. 
Constitution of the State of Texas, esp. Art. III, Sec. 52 and Art. XVI, Sec. 59. 

37. 	
Moczygemba, Arthur. A five article series on the water problems of San Antonio. San Antonio Express, June 8-12, 1970. 

38. 	
Texas Water Development Board, Office of General Counsel. The Water Develop­ment Board Act. 


VERNON'S REVISED CIVIL STATUTES OF TEXAS 
39. 
Vol. 21, pp. xiii-xxxix. 

40. 
Vol. 23, 1108-1109. 


CASES 
41. 	Pecos County W.C.&I. Dist. No. 1 v. Williams, 271 S.W. (2d) 503 (Tex. Civ. App., 
1954; error refused n.r.e.). 

SUMMARY OF THE CONFERENCE ON THE REPORT, 
HELD MAY 21, 1971 

At a one-day conference held on May 21, 19 71, in the Joe C. Thompson Center on the campus of The University of Texas at Austin, the preceding report was presented to leaders of various groups with interests in water utilization in the area served by the Edwards Aquifer. For a complete list of those in attendance, see Participants, p. 63. Dr. Walter Moore, Professor of Civil Engineering and a faculty adviser to the seminar, pre­sided. Topics for discussion were introduced by students of the seminar, and there followed an open interchange of ideas among conferees and students. The following is a summary of 1) information supplementary to that presented in the report, and 2) pos­sibilities of future action brought out in the conference discussions. 
Supplementary information that was revealed at the conference included the an­nouncement of several important developments. For example, the Texas Water Develop­ment Board, in a cooperative arrangement with the Bureau of Reclamation, the San Antonio River Authority, the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority, and the City of San Antonio, has recently undertaken a comprehensive study of the region's present and future water needs, including irrigation, municipal use, industrial use, and downstream requirements. The study will include a thorough examination of alternative sources of supply. In addition, the U.S. Geological Survey is currently conducting research to deter­mine the exact storage capacity of the Edwards Aquifer. This study should be completed within two or three years. 
An additional water resource not mentioned in the report is the proposal to build a reservoir at Cloptin Crossing on the Blanco River above Wimberley. This reservoir would probably support the springflows at San Marcos; however, neither a definite date for its construction nor the means of financing it was revealed. 
The future of irrigation in Medina, Uvalde, and other western counties over the Edwards Aquifer was another topic of key interest. It was explained that the growth of irrigation in the area is dependent on two factors, the amount of rainfall and the price of farm crops. In addition, there are several factors which operate to create a potential for profit. First, the terrain is favorable for irrigation and the soil will grow almost any kind of fruit or vegetable that can be grown elsewhere in the continental United States. Second, the Edwards Aquifer has traditionally assured abundant amounts of high-quality water at a favorable economic cost. Third, and extremely important in regard to market­ing, this area is strategically located on the northernmost boundary below the winter frostline, which allows favorable timing for national markets during periods of high demand in early spring and late fall. Despite the high risks involved in raising and market­ing perishable fruits and vegetables, the feeling was expressed that, so long as irrigators had access to adequate amounts of cheap water, the irrigation industry would continue to grow, though its rate of growth remains unpredictable. 
Another topic of concern was the effect of development in the Edwards Aquifer region on downstream interests, including marine life in coastal estuaries and the interests of downstream municipalities. It was pointed out that at present marine biologists are not in agreement with regard to estuary requirements. Preliminary studies indicate, however, that the cost of delivering an acre-foot of water to coastal estuaries is approximately $20 to $30. At this cost, expenditures of as much as $60 to $90 million might be required to preserve estuarine life. 
It was acknowledged that the interests of downstream users, particularly major municipalities, were not developed in the report because of the limitation of time and constraints against expanding the problem, and that these interests should be considered in the implementation of any development and management system. Specifically, it was pointed out that construction of facilities in the upper Nueces River Basin to increase the recharge of the Edwards Aquifer could deny downstream interests of water they formerly received. Even if the coastal canal proposed by the Texas Water Plan were constructed, allowing water in the Guadalupe-Blanco River to be transported to the lower regions of the Nueces River Basin in exchange for water trapped by additional recharge facilities, users of water from the Edwards Aquifer would have first access to water. 
Concern was also expressed over the effects of further urban development over the Edwards Aquifer itself. It was pointed out that runoff in a concentrated urban area is more of a pollution threat than is liquid sewage, which is covered by the Water Quality Board regulations. Several participants expressed the belief that present statutes are adequate to handle any pollution threat that may arise. The critical problem, they felt, is enforcement of existing statutes. There was a strong feeling on the part of some that effective enforcement of pollution standards requires the initiative and support of the local citizens affected. 
The possibilities of concrete action now and in the future were reviewed, with the discussion focusing around three general topics: 1) adequacy of water in the area; 2} the need for the creation of a formal institution to supplant informal agreements; and 3) the role of water law in the implementation of an integrated water-development and manage­ment system. Each of the interests realized the potential benefits that could be gained through planned and equitable development and management of water in the area, and there was a concomitant willingness expressed to share in the costs if water could thereby be guaranteed. In the discussion of implementation of the proposed water-development and management system, some specific recommendations were made: 
1. 	
The governing body of the proposed master district should include a representative of the Nueces River Conservation and Reclamation District. (Note: Since the con­ference this organization has been renamed the Nueces River Authority.) 

2. 	
The master district could be created by modifying the law which created the Edwards Underground Water District (EUWD), the master district then replacing the EUWD. 

3. 	
A more general suggestion was that interstate compacts might serve as a useful model for drawing up the required legislation. Although there was considerable agreement on the need for an integrated regional 


approach to the water problems of the Edwards Aquifer region as recommended in the report, there was no similar consensus as to when action should be taken or who should initiate it. Some felt that no action is likely until a water crisis generates public support for a coordinated policy. Some felt that even with public backing, action will not be feasible until completion of the area study by the Texas Water Development Board, which could be used to develop concrete proposals based on extensive feasibility studies. Others felt that action should not be delayed. 
In conclusion, it should be noted that several persons attending the conference commented on the significance of the fact that this was the first time such a broad spectrum of individuals in the area of concern had been brought together for a discussion of their complementary interests. The result, they pointed out, was a better understanding on their part of the interdependence of their separate water requirements. 
PARTICIPANTS IN THE CONFERENCE 
ON THE REPORT 

Mr.Jack Ohlrich, Mayor, City ofNew Braunfels 
Mr. Herb Schneider, Chafrman, Chamber of Commerce Water Resources Committee, New Braunfels, Texas 
Mr. Trigg Twichell, (Ret.) District Chief, U.S. Geological Survey 
Mr. Paul W.Jahn, Director, Edwards Underground Water District 
Mr. Bradley Bailey, Dfrector, Edwards Underground Water District 
Professor Corwin W. Johnson, School ofLaw, The University of Texas at Austin 
Mr. Robert P. Van Dyke, General Manager, San Antonio City Water Board 
Mr. Mike Passur, Chafrman, San Antonio City Water Board 
Mr. Norman G. Flaigg, Area Planning Offz'cer, Bureau of Reclamation 
Mr. Harry P. Burleigh, Executive Dfrector, Texas Water Development Board 
Dr. Earnest F. Gloyna, Dean, College of Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin 
Mr. Bill J. Waddle, General Manager, Texas Water Conservati'on Associ'ation 
Colonel McDonald D. Weinert, General Manager, Edwards Underground Water District 
Mr. William H. Spice, Jr., Chairman, Board of Directors, Edwards Underground Water District General John W. White, Executive Director, Nueces River Conservation and Reclamation D£strict 
Mr. W. E. Tinsley, Chairman, Texas Water Development Board 
Mr. Fred N. P£eiffer, Manager, San Antonio River Authority 
Mr. C. Thomas Koch, Consulting Engineer 
Judge 0. F. Dent, Chairman, Texas Water Rights Commission Dr. Alfred J. D'Arezzo, Assistant Executive Director, Texas Water Development Board Mr. C.R. Baskin, Chief Engineer, Texas Water Development Board Mr.John Simpson, Bureau of Reclamation, Austin Development Office Mr. George Schwab, Bureau of Reclamation, Austin Development Offic.e Mr. Joe Mapes, Freese, Nichols, and Endress, Fort Worth, Texas Mr. Rodney E. Reagan, Director, Edwards Underground Water Distri'ct Mr. 0. H. Niemeyer, Chairman, Uvalde County Water Consen;ation Assoc£at£on Dr. William R. Hazard, Southwest Sociometric Institute