Water Management Strategies: Ranking the Options

Ronald A. Kaiser* Bruce J. Lesikar C. Scott Shafer Jan R. Gerston

The Texas A&M University System

W

hile Texas’ surface water resources are limited and its groundwater resources are being depleted, its water needs are growing. In order to meet projected water needs, Texas must plan to use a combination of demand management, supply development, conservation, reuse, and recycling strategies.

This report presents the results from a survey of officials of the 16 regional water planning groups concerning their opinions of 20 water management strategies. The preference–feasibility analysis for each region presented in this report is based on this survey.

*Professor, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station; Associate Professor and Extension Specialist, Texas Agricultural Extension Service; Assistant Professor, Texas Agricultural Extension Service; and Science Writer, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station; respectively.

Water Planning in Texas

D

rought and floods have driven water planning and development in Texas. In the 1920s and early 1930s, disastrous flooding on the Colorado and Brazos rivers resulted in the creation of river authorities for both watersheds and construction of large-scale dams and reservoirs. On a statewide basis, after damaging floods in 1957 ended the 1950s drought, the Texas Legislature passed the Water Planning Act requiring the preparation of a state water plan. By 1961, the first Texas water plan for surface water development was published by the Texas Water Development Board.

canal and pipeline system to west Texas, state water plans focused on developing new sources of water. Until recently, surface water development through dam building, pumping more groundwater and transferring water from east to west (Trans-Texas) was the dominant theme of all planning efforts. Very little attention was given to conservation and demand management. The following briefly describes each planning era in Texas leading up to the latest era of regional planning. Era 1. Reservoir Planning and Construction

T

he first era of planning advocated water supply development through reservoir construction. Starting first at a watershed level and continuing on a statewide basis, Texas began a massive reservoir construction program in the 1930s that lasted about 40 years. In total, there are 5,700 reservoirs in the Texas river system, including 188 major reservoirs, or large holding tanks, that impound more than 5,000 acrefeet of water each. Of these 188 major reservoirs, 74 are massive impoundments holding 98% of Texas’s usable surface water supply. During the reservoir construction era nearly all of these major impoundments were built.

Burleigh’s Ditch was a plan to pipe water from East to West Texas through a massive canal and pipeline system

Since that initial report, the Board revised, updated and released state water plans in 1968, 1977, 1984, 1990, 1992 and 1997. Though these plans were adopted by the Board and were sent to the legislature, they were largely ignored and became reference documents. Unless a specific recommendation from the plan was enacted into law, the plans were not binding on other state agencies or local units of government.

On a statewide basis, water plans developed in 1961, 1968, and again in 1977 projected water shortages in the near future and advocated a continuation of dam building to supplement water supplies. This dam building approach continued unabated until strong environmental concerns that were legislatively expressed in the early 1980s, began a shift to a new water planning paradigm.

Just as in the 1950s, drought again played a key role in instituting a change in water planning. After the 1995–1996 drought caused an estimated economic loss of $5 billion to the state’s economy, the Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 1. The failure of earlier water plans to garner widespread support was also a factor in the 1997 legislative changes in state water planning. To more fully understand the magnitude of this change, it is necessary to offer a bit of Texas water history.

Era 2. Environmental and Conservation Awakening

D

rought was again a factor in highlighting the need for change. After a moderate drought in the early 1980s highlighted the need for freshwater inflows into Texas bays and estuaries, the Texas legislature amended the water permit and planning system. Legislation passed in 1985 mandated that a certain amount of water be set aside from reservoirs to meet bay and estuary freshwater needs and required that environmental protection and water conservation conditions be added to the water permit process.

AN OVERVIEW OF WATER PLANNING Statewater planning has evolved through four different eras. Starting with “Burleigh’s Ditch,” which was a plan to pump water from the Mississippi River Basin and from rivers in east Texas through a massive

In addition to these water law changes, the Texas leg-

3

to supply development. While these 1990s plans advocated building at least 14 new reservoirs, the environmental, economic and fiscal realities of dam building make these long-term possibilities rather than near-term realities. These plans began to demonstrate that part of the answer to Texas’ water needs could be found in more frugally managing the water that we have instead of building more reservoirs. This new emphasis helped to stimulate the latest era in Texas water planning.

islature abolished the Texas Department of Water Resources, divided its water planning and permitting functions between two state agencies. Planning responsibility was assigned to the Texas Water Development Board and the permitting function to the Texas Water Commission (now the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission). This agency split was undertaken in part to more fully address environmental concerns in water development. Era 3. Reallocation and Demand Management

Era 4. Regional Water Planning

S

tarting with the 1990 plan and continuing with the 1997 plan, greater attention was given to demand management through conservation, recycling, reuse, market transfers and interbasin transfers rather than

I

n enacting Senate Bill 1, the Texas legislature decentralized, democratized and strengthened water planning. After 40 years of centralized water planning by Texas Water Development Board staff planners and engineers in Austin, the legislature adopted a regional approach to water planning. The Texas Water Development Board was directed to establish water planning regions, provide them with financial and technical assistance and to ultimately approve their regional water plans. Thus, regional water planning groups and plans are the core of the new state water plan. Senate Bill 1 not only directed that the Texas Water Development Board prepare and adopt a state water plan through a regional water planning process but it also required that the plan, once adopted, guide the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission in is-

Regional Planning Areas 4

suing water permits. The Bill added legal and financial teeth to the regional water planning process by requiring that local plans conform to the regional plan and that state funding be consistent with these plans. This means that in order to receive state funding for local water projects, projects and plans prepared by municipalities, river authorities, groundwater districts

A Survey of Regional Planning Officials As part of its statutory obligation to conduct research leading to information and education programs, the Texas Agricultural Extension Service and the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station conducted a survey of regional planning officials. A questionnaire was mailed to all regional water planning officials in the 16 planning regions of the state. The mailing list for the survey was provided by the Texas Water Development Board. Three planning officials on the list, either moved or resigned, leaving a total of 312 possible respondents.

Plans gave serious attention to demonstrating that part of the answer to Texas’ water needs could be found in more frugally managing the water that we have instead of building more reservoirs

Sixty-five percent (n=205) of the regional planning officials responded to the survey. At least 10 surveys were returned from each planning region. Region F had the lowest response rate at 46 percent and Region O the highest at 85 percent. Other than Region F all other regions responded at 50 percent or above on the survey.

and municipal utility districts must conform to the adopted regional and state water plan. Planning Regions The Texas Water Development Board divided the state into 16 planning regions and appointed an initial coordinating body to begin the process of preparing a regional water plan. Each regional planning group is required to have at a minimum one person representing—

The information presented in this report is a small part of a larger data base that was provided by the questionnaire. Other information and comments from the questionnaire will be presented elsewhere.

(1) counties, (2) municipalities, (3) electric utilities, (4) river authorities, (5) water districts, (6) water utilities, (7) industries, (8) small businesses, (9) agricultural interests, (10) the public, (11) environmental interests. In addition to these 11 statutorily mandated interests, regional planning groups may appoint other voting and nonvoting representatives to their group.

Water Demand and Supply Management Strategies While regional water plans may consider the development of new water supplies through water transfers, reuse, and sites for new reservoirs, they must also incorporate demand management and reduction strategies. Some of the most critical elements of regional water plans are improved conservation, reuse, reallocation of existing supplies, demand reduction and drought management strategies. Opportunities for developing regional water supply and distribution systems may be included in the plan.

Time is of the essence in planning, as Senate Bill 1 demanded an ambitious timetable for the development and approval of regional water plans. Draft copies of the initial plan must be submitted to the Texas Water Development Board for their consideration by January of 2001. 5

Preference–Feasibity Analysis for Water Management Strategies

Preference–Feasibility Process

higher

As noted, regional plans must consider all feasible demand management and supply development strategies. A strategy that is possible in one region may not be in another. This survey was developed to help planning officials sort through these various strategy options. The survey sought opinions on 20 water demand management and supply development strategies derived from the water-planning literature, existing planning practices, and from state water plans.

high preference but lower feasibility scores. Efforts should be directed at determining which economic, environmental, legal, political, or technical factors are creating this feeling of lower feasibility in respondents. The lower left quadrant contains strategies that have merit but they need further study and effort directed at increasing both preference and feasibility factors.

Work on improving

Adopt

lower

Preference

A preference-feasibility analysis (P– feasibility FA) was used to measure regional planning officials acceptance of a particular strategy. This analysis uses a three-step process. First, regional water officials were asked to rank their preference for a particuWork on improving Acceptable but work on lar strategy on a five-point scale preference both preference and from “do not prefer” to “strongly feasibility prefer.” They were then asked to rank how feasible each strategy was on a five-point scale from “not fealower higher Feasibility sible” to “very feasible.” In determining the feasibility ranking, offiP-FA Action Grid cials were asked in the questionnaire to consider any combination of economic, environmental, legal, political, or technical factors that limited the feasibility of a strategy. Next, median preferAnalysis of Regional Options ence and feasibility scores were calculated for each of Preference-feasibility analyses for each planning the 20 strategies. Finally, each median score was plotregion follow. Strategies eliciting very low prefted on a two-dimensional action grid. erence and feasibility scores are noted, but are P-FA Action Grid excluded from the action grid. We have intentionally made no interpretations nor drawn any P-FA is a useful tool for graphically helping to define, conclusions from this data, but have chosen to direct and understand various water management let the data speak for itself. Any conclusions from strategies. Strategies appearing in the upper right the data is left to the discretion of regional planquadrant are both strongly preferred and believed to ning officials. We offer this report to present inbe feasible by regional planning officials; therefore, formation to regional planning groups in order efforts should focus on these strategies. The lower to stimulate their further discussion of water right quadrant of the grid contains those strategies demand management and supply development that are believed to be feasible but are not strongly strategies and options preferred. This suggests that further information is needed regarding why these strategies are not strongly preferred. Strategies in the upper left quadrant have 6

Preference–Feasibility Analysis for Water Management Strategies 5.0

Statewide

4.8 4.6

Preference

4.4 4.2

15 1

4.0

17 3.8

2

20

7

3.6 3.4

14

5

3 12

13

16 11 18

3.2 3.0 3.0

4

6

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

Feasibility

Strategies Feasibility Preference

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Reuse treated wastewater Purchase and/or lease water rights Build new reservoirs Drill new water wells Aquifer storage & recovery Interbasin water transfers Brush management Cloud seeding/weather modification* Desalination* Cancellation of unused water rights* Residential rainwater harvesting Residential greywater reuse Require low-flow plumbing fixtures Require water-efficient appliances Require industrial water reuse systems Require planting drought-tolerant crops Require efficient agricultural irrigation equipment Require agricultural irrigation water schedule Require lining of water conveyance canals* Require water-saving landscape ordinances *Low feasibility and/or preference.

7

4.18 3.85 3.39 3.51 3.45 3.20 3.44 2.84 2.84 2.74 3.17 3.31 3.73 3.81 4.00 3.10 3.60 3.09 2.94 3.60

4.06 3.70 3.76 3.26 3.76 3.24 3.67 2.98 3.39 2.84 3.42 3.55 3.52 3.76 4.13 3.41 3.95 3.28 3.43 3.64

5.0

Preference–Feasibility Analysis for Water Management Strategies 5.0

Region A Panhandle

4.8 4.6

Preference

4.4

1

4.2

13

4.0

17

2 15

3.8

4

8

3.6

7 3.4

5 11 16 6

3.2 3.0 3.0

3.2

3.4

20

12

18

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5.0

Feasibility

Strategies Feasibility Preference

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Reuse treated wastewater Purchase and/or lease water rights Build new reservoirs* Drill new water wells Aquifer storage and recovery Interbasin water transfers Brush management Cloud seeding/weather modification Desalination* Cancellation of unused water rights* Residential rainwater harvesting Residential greywater reuse Require low-flow plumbing fixtures Require water-efficient appliances* Require industrial water reuse systems Require planting drought-tolerant crops Require efficient agricultural irrigation equipment Require agricultural irrigation water schedule Require lining of water conveyance canals* Require water-saving landscape ordinances *Low feasibility and/or preference.

8

4.25 3.58 3.33 3.25 3.58 3.08 3.75 3.92 3.17 2.75 3.67 3.75 3.92 3.83 4.17 3.75 4.33 3.50 3.67 3.92

4.25 3.92 2.58 3.75 3.33 3.25 3.50 3.67 2.33 2.83 3.33 3.25 4.16 1.67 3.83 3.33 4.00 3.25 2.83 3.34

Preference–Feasibility Analysis for Water Management Strategies 5.0

Region B

4.8 4.6

Preference

4.4

9

4.2

3

4.0 3.8

1

2

15 3.6

4 3.4 17

7

3.2 3.0 3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5.0

Feasibility

Strategies Feasibility Preference

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Reuse treated wastewater Purchase and/or lease water rights Build new reservoirs Drill new water wells Aquifer storage and recovery* Interbasin water transfers* Brush management Cloud seeding/weather modification* Desalination Cancellation of unused water rights* Residential rainwater harvesting* Residential greywater reuse* Require low-flow plumbing fixtures* Require water-efficient appliances* Require industrial water reuse systems Require planting drought-tolerant crops* Require efficient agricultural irrigation equipment Require agricultural irrigation water schedule* Require lining of water conveyance canals* Require water-saving landscape ordinances* *Low feasibility and/or preference.

9

4.10 3.90 3.70 3.20 2.50 2.60 3.20 2.60 3.80 2.60 2.70 2.50 3.20 3.50 3.40 2.40 3.00 2.80 2.70 2.80

3.70 3.70 4.00 3.50 3.56 2.60 3.40 3.10 4.20 2.10 3.30 3.00 2.70 2.90 3.70 2.20 3.40 2.80 2.90 3.00

Preference–Feasibility Analysis for Water Management Strategies 5.0

Region C

4.8 4.6

Preference

4.4 4.2

6

17

15

3.8 3.6 3.4

2 5 11 20

3.2

1

3

4.0

18 18 12 7 4

3.0 3.0

14

16

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

Feasibility

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5.0

Strategies Feasibility Preference

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Reuse treated wastewater Purchase and/or lease water rights Build new reservoirs Drill new water wells Aquifer storage and recovery Interbasin water transfers Brush management Cloud seeding/weather modification* Desalination* Cancellation of unused water rights* Residential rainwater harvesting Residential greywater reuse Require low-flow plumbing fixtures* Require water-efficient appliances Require industrial water reuse systems Require planting drought-tolerant crops Require efficient agricultural irrigation equipment Require agricultural irrigation water schedule Require lining of water conveyance canals* Require water-saving landscape ordinances *Low feasibility and/or preference.

10

4.50 4.00 3.45 3.10 3.00 4.20 3.20 1.64 2.64 2.91 3.00 3.14 3.23 3.73 4.00 3.36 3.64 3.10 2.64 3.36

4.10 3.73 4.00 3.10 3.64 4.18 3.18 1.73 3.00 3.10 3.45 3.18 2.73 3.27 3.82 3.18 3.91 3.18 3.18 3.27

Preference–Feasibility Analysis for Water Management Strategies 5.0

Region D North East

4.8 4.6

Preference

4.4 4.2

14

5

4.0

2

3.8

13

15

6

18

3.6

17

3

1 20

3.4

4 16

3.2 3.0 3.0

12

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5.0

Feasibility

Strategies Feasibility Preference

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Reuse treated wastewater Purchase and/or lease water rights Build new reservoirs Drill new water wells Aquifer storage and recovery Interbasin water transfers Brush management* Cloud seeding/weather modification* Desalination* Cancellation of unused water rights* Residential rainwater harvesting* Residential greywater reuse Require low-flow plumbing fixtures Require water-efficient appliances Require industrial water reuse systems Require planting drought-tolerant crops Require efficient agricultural irrigation equipment Require agricultural irrigation water schedule Require lining of water conveyance canals* Require water-saving landscape ordinances *Low feasibility and/or preference.

11

3.73 3.60 4.07 3.40 3.47 3.47 2.53 2.00 2.40 2.73 2.93 3.53 3.93 4.13 4.13 3.27 3.73 3.33 2.53 3.47

3.60 3.86 3.93 3.36 4.00 3.67 3.13 2.00 5.00 3.07 2.93 3.20 3.87 4.00 3.87 3.29 3.93 3.64 3.13 3.53

Preference–Feasibility Analysis for Water Management Strategies 5.0

Region E Far West

4.8

1 4.6

12

Preference

4.4

17

15

4.2

2

9 18

4.0

5 3.8

7

16

3.6 3.4

13

11 3

20

3.2

4

6 3.0 3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5.0

Feasibility

Strategies Feasibility Preference

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Reuse treated wastewater Purchase and/or lease water rights Build new reservoirs Drill new water wells Aquifer storage and recovery Interbasin water transfers Brush management Cloud seeding/weather modification* Desalination Cancellation of unused water rights* Residential rainwater harvesting Residential greywater reuse Require low-flow plumbing fixtures Require water-efficient appliances Require industrial water reuse systems Require planting drought-tolerant crops Require efficient agricultural irrigation equipment Require agricultural irrigation water schedule Require lining of water conveyance canals Require water-saving landscape ordinances *Low feasibility and/or preference.

12

4.20 3.78 3.00 4.00 3.38 3.11 4.22 2.56 3.38 2.75 3.00 4.00 3.56 3.56 4.11 3.00 3.56 3.44 3.56 3.56

4.67 4.00 3.33 3.16 3.88 3.11 3.78 2.56 4.00 2.56 3.33 4.44 3.44 3.44 4.33 3.78 4.33 4.00 4.33 3.44

Preference–Feasibility Analysis for Water Management Strategies 5.0

Region F Upper Colorado

4.8

7 4.6

Preference

4.4 4.2

20

17

8

1

4.0 3.8

15

18 16

19

14 2 13 11

3.6

4 3.4

5

9 12

3.2 3.0 3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5.0

Feasibility

Strategies Feasibility Preference

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Reuse treated wastewater Purchase and/or lease water rights Build new reservoirs* Drill new water wells Aquifer storage & recovery Interbasin water transfers* Brush management Cloud seeding/weather modification Desalination Cancellation of unused water rights* Residential rainwater harvesting Residential greywater reuse Require low-flow plumbing fixtures Require water-efficient appliances Require industrial water reuse systems Require planting drought-tolerant crops Require efficient agricultural irrigation equipment Require agricultural irrigation water schedule Require lining of water conveyance canals Require water saving-landscape ordinances *Low feasibility and/or preference.

13

3.90 3.40 2.80 3.30 3.60 2.00 4.90 4.10 3.10 2.60 3.60 3.20 3.50 3.70 4.20 3.33 3.67 3.22 3.00 4.00

4.00 3.60 3.60 3.50 3.50 2.10 4.70 4.10 3.40 2.60 3.60 3.40 3.60 3.70 4.00 3.70 4.10 3.78 3.70 4.10

Preference–Feasibility Analysis for Water Management Strategies 5.0

Region G Brazos

4.8 4.6

Preference

4.4 4.2

1 17

4.0

3

3.8

14

7 5

6

15 2

3.6

12 16

3.4

20

9

13

18

3.2

19

3.0 3.0

11 3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

Feasibility

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5.0

Strategies Feasibility Preference

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Reuse treated wastewater Purchase and/or lease water rights Build new reservoirs Drill new water wells* Aquifer storage & recovery Interbasin water transfers Brush management Cloud seeding/weather modification* Desalination Cancellation of unused water rights* Residential rainwater harvesting Residential greywater reuse Require low-flow plumbing fixtures Require water-efficient appliances Require industrial water reuse systems Require planting drought-tolerant crops Require efficient agricultural irrigation equipment Require agricultural irrigation water schedule Require lining of water conveyance canals Require water saving-landscape ordinances *Low feasibility and/or preference.

14

3.93 3.67 3.67 3.53 3.60 3.27 3.67 2.20 3.33 2.67 3.40 3.73 3.71 3.80 3.87 3.20 3.53 3.13 3.00 3.60

4.13 3.60 3.93 2.93 3.67 3.64 3.79 2.67 3.33 2.33 3.00 3.53 3.33 3.93 3.67 3.43 4.00 3.20 3.00 3.36

Preference–Feasibility Analysis for Water Management Strategies 5.0

Region H

4.8 4.6

Preference

4.4

3

4.2

17

4.0

2

14

6

15

3.8

1

12

3.6

11

16

13

20

5 3.4

18 3.2 7 3.0 3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5.0

Feasibility

Strategies Feasibility Preference

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Reuse treated wastewater Purchase and/or lease water rights Build new reservoirs Drill new water wells* Aquifer storage & recovery Interbasin water transfers Brush management Cloud seeding/weather modification* Desalination* Cancellation of unused water rights* Residential rainwater harvesting Residential greywater reuse Require low-flow plumbing fixtures Require water-efficient appliances Require industrial water reuse systems Require planting drought-tolerant crops Require efficient agricultural irrigation equipment Require agricultural irrigation water schedule Require lining of water conveyance canals* Require wate-saving landscape ordinances *Low feasibility and/or preference.

15

4.20 4.00 4.07 3.07 3.00 4.20 3.00 2.07 2.47 2.93 3.27 3.13 3.47 3.67 3.87 3.13 3.87 3.07 2.40 3.53

3.73 3.93 4.33 2.73 3.47 3.93 3.20 2.33 3.60 3.07 3.60 3.73 3.57 3.93 3.80 3.60 4.13 3.33 3.13 3.60

Preference–Feasibility Analysis for Water Management Strategies 5.0

Region I East Texas

4.8 4.6 4.4

Preference

3 4.2

15

4.0 3.8

14

2 5

3.6

13

20

1

17

3.4

18

3.2

12 3.0 3.0

11 3.2

4 3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

Feasibility

Strategies Feasibility Preference

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Reuse treated wastewater Purchase and/or lease water rights Build new reservoirs Drill new water wells Aquifer storage & recovery Interbasin water transfers* Brush management* Cloud seeding/weather modification* Desalination* Cancellation of unused water rights* Residential rainwater harvesting Residential greywater reuse Require low-flow plumbing fixtures Require water-efficient appliances Require industrial water reuse systems Require planting drought-tolerant crops* Require efficient agricultural irrigation equipment Require agricultural irrigation water schedule Require lining of water conveyance canals* Require water-saving landscape ordinances *Low feasibility and/or preference.

16

3.95 3.81 4.10 3.38 3.40 2.76 2.52 1.85 2.62 2.29 3.16 3.00 3.95 4.00 3.90 2.86 3.43 3.29 2.65 3.29

3.42 3.79 4.32 3.05 3.68 2.89 3.06 2.28 2.68 2.79 3.05 3.00 3.53 3.79 4.00 3.21 3.42 3.26 2.74 3.53

5.0

Preference–Feasibility Analysis for Water Management Strategies 5.0

Region J Plateau

15

4.8

5 4.6

17 1 7

Preference

4.4

18

4.2

14

11

20

19

4.0

16

12

13 8

3.8

4 3.6 3

10 2

3.4 3.2 3.0 3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5.0

Feasibility

Strategies Feasibility Preference

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Reuse treated wastewater Purchase and/or lease water rights Build new reservoirs Drill new water wells Aquifer storage & recovery Interbasin water transfers* Brush management Cloud seeding/weather modification Desalination* Cancellation of unused water rights Residential rainwater harvesting Residential greywater reuse Require low-flow plumbing fixtures Require water-efficient appliances Require industrial water reuse systems Require planting drought-tolerant crops Require efficient agricultural irrigation equipment Require agricultural irrigation water schedule Require lining of water conveyance canals Require water-saving landscape ordinances *Low feasibility and/or preference.

17

4.20 4.30 3.00 3.60 4.00 2.60 4.20 3.80 2.60 3.56 3.30 3.90 4.20 3.80 4.10 3.10 3.90 4.00 3.40 3.70

4.40 3.50 3.60 3.70 4.70 2.00 4.40 3.90 2.90 3.60 4.10 4.10 4.00 4.10 4.80 3.90 4.50 4.20 4.00 4.00

Preference–Feasibility Analysis for Water Management Strategies 5.0

Region K Lower Colorado

4.8

15

4.6

1 12

Preference

4.4 4.2

14

5

7

11 20

13

17

4.0

10 18

3.8

19 3.6

4

8 2

3.4 3.2 3.0 3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5.0

Feasibility

Strategies Feasibility Preference

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Reuse treated wastewater Purchase and/or lease water rights Build new reservoirs* Drill new water wells Aquifer storage & recovery Interbasin water transfers* Brush management Cloud seeding/weather modification Desalination* Cancellation of unused water rights Residential rainwater harvesting Residential greywater reuse Require low-flow plumbing fixtures Require water-efficient appliances Require industrial water reuse systems Require planting drought-tolerant crops Require efficient agricultural irrigation equipment Require agricultural irrigation water schedule Require lining of water conveyance canals Require water-saving landscape ordinances *Low feasibility and/or preference.

18

4.73 3.73 2.55 4.00 4.19 2.64 4.00 3.18 2.27 3.64 4.37 4.37 4.09 3.91 4.36 3.64 4.18 3.78 3.18 4.45

4.55 3.45 3.18 3.55 4.27 2.55 4.18 3.55 3.18 3.91 4.27 4.45 4.09 4.18 4.64 3.91 4.09 3.80 3.73 4.18

Preference–Feasibility Analysis for Water Management Strategies 5.0

Region L South Central

4.8

1

4.6

Preference

4.4

13

4.2

17

4.0 3.8

12 20 5 3

2

7

3.6

11

8

3.4 3.2

4 3.0 3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5.0

Feasibility

Strategies Feasibility Preference

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Reuse treated wastewater Purchase and/or lease water rights Build new reservoirs Drill new water wells Aquifer storage & recovery Interbasin water transfers* Brush management Cloud seeding/weather modification Desalination* Cancellation of unused water rights* Residential rainwater harvesting Residential greywater reuse Require low-flow plumbing fixtures Require water-efficient appliances* Require industrial water reuse systems* Require planting drought-tolerant crops* Require efficient agricultural irrigation equipment Require agricultural irrigation water schedule* Require lining of water conveyance canals* Require water-saving landscape ordinances *Low feasibility and/or preference.

19

4.86 4.36 3.29 3.50 3.79 2.79 3.43 3.93 1.93 2.79 3.79 3.14 4.36 4.14 4.07 2.93 3.57 2.86 2.86 3.71

4.64 3.79 3.71 3.08 3.79 3.50 3.71 3.50 2.36 3.93 3.50 3.86 4.36 2.89 2.89 3.50 4.14 3.43 4.14 3.79

Preference–Feasibility Analysis for Water Management Strategies 5.0

Region M Rio Grande

4.8 4.6

Preference

15

17

4.4

2 1

4.2

19 20

4.0 3.8 3.6 3.4

4 18

7

12

13

16 9

3.2 3.0 3.0

14

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5.0

Feasibility

Strategies Feasibility Preference

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Reuse treated wastewater Purchase and/or lease water rights Build new reservoirs* Drill new water wells Aquifer storage & recovery* Interbasin water transfers* Brush management Cloud seeding/weather modification* Desalination Cancellation of unused water rights* Residential rainwater harvesting* Residential greywater reuse Require low-flow plumbing fixtures Require water-efficient appliances Require industrial water reuse systems Require planting drought-tolerant crops Require efficient agricultural irrigation equipment Require agricultural irrigation water schedule Require lining of water conveyance canals Require water-saving landscape ordinances *Low feasibility and/or preference.

20

4.64 4.50 2.82 3.60 2.90 2.91 3.10 2.67 3.30 2.80 3.00 3.50 3.73 3.91 4.27 3.20 3.82 3.45 4.00 4.09

4.36 4.45 3.36 3.73 3.64 3.55 3.55 2.82 3.19 3.10 3.45 3.45 3.36 3.73 4.45 3.36 4.45 3.60 4.18 4.09

Preference–Feasibility Analysis for Water Management Strategies 5.0

Region N Coastal Bend

4.8

15

4.6

6

19

Preference

4.4

20

2

4.2

1 4.0

9 5

17

16

3.8

14

3.6

13

7

3.4

4

3.2

18

11 3.0 3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5.0

Feasibility

Strategies Feasibility Preference

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Reuse treated wastewater Purchase and/or lease water rights Build new reservoirs* Drill new water wells Aquifer storage & recovery Interbasin water transfers Brush management Cloud seeding/weather modification* Desalination Cancellation of unused water rights* Residential rainwater harvesting Residential greywater reuse* Require low-flow plumbing fixtures Require water-efficient appliances Require industrial water reuse systems Require planting drought-tolerant crops Require efficient agricultural irrigation equipment Require agricultural irrigation water schedule Require lining of water conveyance canals Require water-saving landscape ordinances *Low feasibility and/or preference.

21

4.89 4.33 2.33 3.11 3.22 4.33 3.56 2.67 3.44 2.50 3.00 2.78 3.78 3.56 4.00 3.44 3.67 3.38 4.00 3.63

4.13 4.25 3.25 3.25 3.86 4.63 3.63 2.75 4.00 2.88 3.75 3.88 3.63 3.75 4.63 3.88 3.86 3.14 4.50 4.25

Preference–Feasibility Analysis for Water Management Strategies 5.0

Region O Llano Estacado

4.8 4.6

7

Preference

4.4 4.2

1 15

4.0 3.8

9 3.6

6 14

3

3.4 3.2

5

17

20

2

4 16

12

13 3.0 3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

Feasibility

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5.0

Strategies Feasibility Preference

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Reuse treated wastewater Purchase and/or lease water rights Build new reservoirs Drill new water wells Aquifer storage & recovery Interbasin water transfers Brush management Cloud seeding/weather modification* Desalination Cancellation of unused water rights* Residential rainwater harvesting* Residential greywater reuse Require low-flow plumbing fixtures Require water-efficient appliances Require industrial water reuse systems Require planting drought-tolerant crops Require efficient agricultural irrigation equipment Require agricultural irrigation water schedule* Require lining of water conveyance canals* Require water-saving landscape ordinances *Low feasibility and/or preference.

22

3.89 3.94 3.17 3.78 3.83 3.50 4.33 2.22 3.28 2.06 2.83 3.06 3.50 3.56 3.89 3.56 3.33 1.94 2.72 3.78

4.11 3.56 3.44 3.39 3.61 3.50 4.56 4.22 3.67 2.00 3.33 3.17 3.06 3.50 4.06 3.17 3.56 2.11 3.11 3.50

Preference–Feasibility Analysis for Water Management Strategies 5.0

Region P Lavaca

4.8 4.6

15

Preference

4.4 4.2

1

4.0 3.8

17 3.6 3.4

3

5 12 14

4 20

10 7

3.2

9

3.0 3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5.0

Feasibility

Strategies Feasibility Preference

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Reuse treated wastewater Purchase and/or lease water rights* Build new reservoirs Drill new water wells Aquifer storage & recovery Interbasin water transfers* Brush management Cloud seeding/weather modification* Desalination Cancellation of unused water rights Residential rainwater harvesting* Residential greywater reuse Require low-flow plumbing fixtures* Require water-efficient appliances Require industrial water reuse systems Require planting drought-tolerant crops* Require efficient agricultural irrigation equipment Require agricultural irrigation water schedule* Require lining of water conveyance canals* Require water-saving landscape ordinances *Low feasibility and/or preference.

23

3.64 2.73 3.82 3.91 3.55 3.09 3.36 2.64 3.27 3.18 2.82 3.18 3.00 3.36 4.27 2.64 3.00 2.45 3.00 3.55

4.00 2.82 4.00 3.45 3.73 2.82 3.27 2.82 3.18 3.36 3.20 3.64 2.91 3.45 4.55 2.91 3.73 2.45 2.91 3.36

The Texas A&M University System serves people of all ages, regardless of socioeconomic level, race, color, sex, disability, religion, or national origin. January 2000