North Plains Groundwater Conservation District

1
North Plains Groundwater Conservation District
Stakeholders Meeting March 25, 2008
2
Meeting Purpose

• Provide information about recent State Laws and
  planning that North Plains GCD must follow in
  managing the Ogallala

3

• Receive input regarding the effect of the
  District

• Adopting its management standard as
• its Desired Future Conditions (DFC)
• Revising rules regarding the current
• production cap to a different production
• cap to meet DFC

4

• If production cap revised, the appropriate time
  frame that the implementation should occur and
• Transitioning from some or all of its allowed
  alternative metering methods to flow meters to
  more accurately measure groundwater production
  against managed available groundwater.

5
Senate Bill 1 - 1997

• Required certain content in groundwater
  management plans.
• Created the regional water planning process.
• Groundwater plans needed to address water supply
  needs not in conflict with the appropriate
  regional water plan.

6
(No Transcript)
7
Regional Water Planning Area -Region A

• Panhandle Regional Water Planning Group
• Panhandle Regional Water Plan 1998
• 50 of the water left in the aquifer in 50 years
  (50/50).
• Panhandle Regional Water Plan 2006
• 1.25 withdrawal of saturated thickness of the
  source aquifer.

8
2007 State Water Plan

• The state water plan shall provide for the
  orderly development, management, and conservation
  of water resources and preparation for and
  response to drought conditions, in order that
  sufficient water will be available at a
  reasonable cost to ensure public health, safety,
  and welfare further economic development and
  protect the agricultural and natural resources of
  the entire state. Texas Water Code, 16.051

9
Senate Bill 2 - 2001

• Texas Water Development Board to designate
  groundwater management areas (GMA) that would
  include all major and minor aquifers of the
  state.
• Required GCDs to share our groundwater plans with
  other districts in the GMA.
• Allowed a GCD to call for joint planning among
  districts in a GMA.

10
Groundwater Management Area 1

• North Plains Groundwater Conservation District.
• High Plains Underground Water Conservation
  District
• Hemphill County Underground Water Conservation
  District
• Panhandle Groundwater Conservation District
• (Each with one vote)

11
(No Transcript)
12
House Bill 1763 - 2005

• Required GCDs in GMAs to meet at least once every
  year and to define the desired future conditions
  (DFC) of the groundwater resources within the
  groundwater management area.

13
House Bill 1763 2005 (contd)

• Based on the DFC, the Texas Water Development
  Board delivers managed available groundwater
  (MAG) values to groundwater conservation
  districts and regional water planning groups for
  inclusion in their plans.

14
House Bill 1763

• Regionalizes decisions on groundwater
  availability,
• Requires regional water planning groups to use
  groundwater availability numbers from the
  groundwater conservation districts, and
• Defines a permitting target for groundwater
  production.

15
Desired Future Conditions (DFC)

• The desired, quantified conditions of groundwater
  resources (such as water levels, water quality,
  spring flows, or volumes) at a specified time or
  times in the future or in perpetuity.

16
DFC Requirements

• Consider groundwater availability models and
  other data or information for the relevant
  aquifers
• Consider uses or conditions of an aquifer that
  differ substantially from one geographic area to
  another.

17
DFC Requirements (contd)

• May establish different DFCs for
• each aquifer, subdivision of an aquifer, or
  geologic strata located in whole or in part,
• each geographic area overlying an aquifer in
  whole or in part or subdivision of an aquifer.

18
Groundwater Management Area 1

• May develop different DFCs for different areas.
• Districts must permit to the Managed Available
  Groundwater
• District Rules and Management Plan must mirror
  DFC
• Must submit the DFC to the Texas Water
  Development Board by September 1, 2010.

19
Groundwater Management Area 1

• Must be approved TWDB by mid 2008 to be included
  in the State Water Plan
• DFC must be evaluated every 5 years
• Districts own storage and use numbers may be
  submitted to the TWDB to calculate DFC instead of
  Groundwater Availability Model numbers use by
  TWDB

20
Appealing a DFC or DFC Process

• A person with a legally defined interest in the
  GMA can appeal the Process (district rules not
  designed to achieve DFC) and appeal the DFC
  itself (District did not establish a reasonable
  desired future condition of the groundwater
  resources in the GMA).

21
Managed Available Groundwater (MAG)

• The amount of water that may be permitted by a
  district for beneficial use in accordance with
  the desired future condition of the aquifer.

22
Proposed 50 Year Management Goals (DFCs)

• West Counties 40
• Dallam
• Hartley
• Sherman
• Moore

• East Counties 60
• Hansford
• Hutchinson
• Ochiltree
• Lipscomb

23
How we arrived at the Proposed Desired Future
Conditions
24
(No Transcript)
25
Saturated Thickness Decline Based on 2006
Production Amounts
At 50 Saturated Thickness, the Area is Already
Doing Something Different
26
Percent Left in 2060 Based on 2006 Production
Amounts
27
Groundwater Availability Modeling

• 1.25 Decline Rate
• Future Conditions Simulation
• Uncertainty in Results
• 50-ft Intervals
• White Denotes lt50ft

28
1950

• OKLAHOMA

TEXAS
SHERMAN
DALLAM
HANSFORD
OCHILTREE
LIPSCOMB
MOORE
HARTLEY
HUTCHINSON
ROBERTS
HEMPHILL
POTTER
OLDHAM
CARSON
GRAY
WHEELER
RANDALL
ARMSTRONG
DONLEY
COLLINGSWORTH
29
1960
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
SHERMAN
DALLAM
HANSFORD
OCHILTREE
LIPSCOMB
MOORE
HARTLEY
HUTCHINSON
ROBERTS
HEMPHILL
POTTER
OLDHAM
CARSON
GRAY
WHEELER
RANDALL
ARMSTRONG
DONLEY
COLLINGSWORTH
30
1970
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
SHERMAN
DALLAM
HANSFORD
OCHILTREE
LIPSCOMB
MOORE
HARTLEY
HUTCHINSON
ROBERTS
HEMPHILL
POTTER
OLDHAM
CARSON
GRAY
WHEELER
RANDALL
ARMSTRONG
DONLEY
COLLINGSWORTH
31
1980
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
SHERMAN
DALLAM
HANSFORD
OCHILTREE
LIPSCOMB
MOORE
HARTLEY
HUTCHINSON
ROBERTS
HEMPHILL
POTTER
OLDHAM
CARSON
GRAY
WHEELER
RANDALL
ARMSTRONG
DONLEY
COLLINGSWORTH
32
1990
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
SHERMAN
DALLAM
HANSFORD
OCHILTREE
LIPSCOMB
MOORE
HARTLEY
HUTCHINSON
ROBERTS
HEMPHILL
POTTER
OLDHAM
CARSON
GRAY
WHEELER
RANDALL
ARMSTRONG
DONLEY
COLLINGSWORTH
33
2000
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
SHERMAN
DALLAM
HANSFORD
OCHILTREE
LIPSCOMB
MOORE
HARTLEY
HUTCHINSON
ROBERTS
HEMPHILL
POTTER
OLDHAM
CARSON
GRAY
WHEELER
RANDALL
ARMSTRONG
DONLEY
COLLINGSWORTH
34
2010
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
SHERMAN
DALLAM
HANSFORD
OCHILTREE
LIPSCOMB
MOORE
HARTLEY
HUTCHINSON
ROBERTS
HEMPHILL
POTTER
OLDHAM
CARSON
GRAY
WHEELER
RANDALL
ARMSTRONG
DONLEY
COLLINGSWORTH
35
2020
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
SHERMAN
DALLAM
HANSFORD
OCHILTREE
LIPSCOMB
MOORE
HARTLEY
HUTCHINSON
ROBERTS
HEMPHILL
POTTER
OLDHAM
CARSON
GRAY
WHEELER
RANDALL
ARMSTRONG
DONLEY
COLLINGSWORTH
36
2030
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
SHERMAN
DALLAM
HANSFORD
OCHILTREE
LIPSCOMB
MOORE
HARTLEY
HUTCHINSON
ROBERTS
HEMPHILL
POTTER
OLDHAM
CARSON
GRAY
WHEELER
RANDALL
ARMSTRONG
DONLEY
COLLINGSWORTH
37
2040
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
SHERMAN
DALLAM
HANSFORD
OCHILTREE
LIPSCOMB
MOORE
HARTLEY
HUTCHINSON
ROBERTS
HEMPHILL
POTTER
OLDHAM
CARSON
GRAY
WHEELER
RANDALL
ARMSTRONG
DONLEY
COLLINGSWORTH
38
2050
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
SHERMAN
DALLAM
HANSFORD
OCHILTREE
LIPSCOMB
MOORE
HARTLEY
HUTCHINSON
ROBERTS
HEMPHILL
POTTER
OLDHAM
CARSON
GRAY
WHEELER
RANDALL
ARMSTRONG
DONLEY
COLLINGSWORTH
39
2060
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
SHERMAN
DALLAM
HANSFORD
OCHILTREE
LIPSCOMB
MOORE
HARTLEY
HUTCHINSON
ROBERTS
HEMPHILL
POTTER
OLDHAM
CARSON
GRAY
WHEELER
RANDALL
ARMSTRONG
DONLEY
COLLINGSWORTH
40
1950

• OKLAHOMA

TEXAS
SHERMAN
DALLAM
HANSFORD
OCHILTREE
LIPSCOMB
MOORE
HARTLEY
HUTCHINSON
ROBERTS
HEMPHILL
POTTER
OLDHAM
CARSON
GRAY
WHEELER
RANDALL
ARMSTRONG
DONLEY
COLLINGSWORTH
41
1960
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
SHERMAN
DALLAM
HANSFORD
OCHILTREE
LIPSCOMB
MOORE
HARTLEY
HUTCHINSON
ROBERTS
HEMPHILL
POTTER
OLDHAM
CARSON
GRAY
WHEELER
RANDALL
ARMSTRONG
DONLEY
COLLINGSWORTH
42
1970
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
SHERMAN
DALLAM
HANSFORD
OCHILTREE
LIPSCOMB
MOORE
HARTLEY
HUTCHINSON
ROBERTS
HEMPHILL
POTTER
OLDHAM
CARSON
GRAY
WHEELER
RANDALL
ARMSTRONG
DONLEY
COLLINGSWORTH
43
1980
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
SHERMAN
DALLAM
HANSFORD
OCHILTREE
LIPSCOMB
MOORE
HARTLEY
HUTCHINSON
ROBERTS
HEMPHILL
POTTER
OLDHAM
CARSON
GRAY
WHEELER
RANDALL
ARMSTRONG
DONLEY
COLLINGSWORTH
44
1990
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
SHERMAN
DALLAM
HANSFORD
OCHILTREE
LIPSCOMB
MOORE
HARTLEY
HUTCHINSON
ROBERTS
HEMPHILL
POTTER
OLDHAM
CARSON
GRAY
WHEELER
RANDALL
ARMSTRONG
DONLEY
COLLINGSWORTH
45
2000
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
SHERMAN
DALLAM
HANSFORD
OCHILTREE
LIPSCOMB
MOORE
HARTLEY
HUTCHINSON
ROBERTS
HEMPHILL
POTTER
OLDHAM
CARSON
GRAY
WHEELER
RANDALL
ARMSTRONG
DONLEY
COLLINGSWORTH
46
2010
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
SHERMAN
DALLAM
HANSFORD
OCHILTREE
LIPSCOMB
MOORE
HARTLEY
HUTCHINSON
ROBERTS
HEMPHILL
POTTER
OLDHAM
CARSON
GRAY
WHEELER
RANDALL
ARMSTRONG
DONLEY
COLLINGSWORTH
47
2020
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
SHERMAN
DALLAM
HANSFORD
OCHILTREE
LIPSCOMB
MOORE
HARTLEY
HUTCHINSON
ROBERTS
HEMPHILL
POTTER
OLDHAM
CARSON
GRAY
WHEELER
RANDALL
ARMSTRONG
DONLEY
COLLINGSWORTH
48
2030
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
SHERMAN
DALLAM
HANSFORD
OCHILTREE
LIPSCOMB
MOORE
HARTLEY
HUTCHINSON
ROBERTS
HEMPHILL
POTTER
OLDHAM
CARSON
GRAY
WHEELER
RANDALL
ARMSTRONG
DONLEY
COLLINGSWORTH
49
2040
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
SHERMAN
DALLAM
HANSFORD
OCHILTREE
LIPSCOMB
MOORE
HARTLEY
HUTCHINSON
ROBERTS
HEMPHILL
POTTER
OLDHAM
CARSON
GRAY
WHEELER
RANDALL
ARMSTRONG
DONLEY
COLLINGSWORTH
50
2050
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
SHERMAN
DALLAM
HANSFORD
OCHILTREE
LIPSCOMB
MOORE
HARTLEY
HUTCHINSON
ROBERTS
HEMPHILL
POTTER
OLDHAM
CARSON
GRAY
WHEELER
RANDALL
ARMSTRONG
DONLEY
COLLINGSWORTH
51
2060
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
SHERMAN
DALLAM
HANSFORD
OCHILTREE
LIPSCOMB
MOORE
HARTLEY
HUTCHINSON
ROBERTS
HEMPHILL
POTTER
OLDHAM
CARSON
GRAY
WHEELER
RANDALL
ARMSTRONG
DONLEY
COLLINGSWORTH
52
Groundwater Management Plan

• North Plains Adopted a Management Standard
• 50 of the water left in the aquifer in 50 years
  (50/50) with

West Counties 40 (40/50) Dallam Hartley Sherman M
oore
East Counties 60 (60/50) Hansford Hutchinson Ochi
ltree Lipscomb
53
West Counties Decline Rate(Dallam, Hartley,
Sherman, Moore)
1.25 Decline Rate
1.56 Decline Rate
40 left in 50 years
Current Pumping Rate (945,100 AF-Year)
54
West Counties Decline Rate(Dallam, Hartley,
Sherman, Moore)
22 years
55
2050 Instead of 2060 (1.56)
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
SHERMAN
DALLAM
HANSFORD
OCHILTREE
LIPSCOMB
MOORE
HARTLEY
HUTCHINSON
ROBERTS
HEMPHILL
POTTER
OLDHAM
CARSON
GRAY
WHEELER
RANDALL
ARMSTRONG
DONLEY
COLLINGSWORTH
56
2040 Instead of 2060 (Current)
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
SHERMAN
DALLAM
HANSFORD
OCHILTREE
LIPSCOMB
MOORE
HARTLEY
HUTCHINSON
ROBERTS
HEMPHILL
POTTER
OLDHAM
CARSON
GRAY
WHEELER
RANDALL
ARMSTRONG
DONLEY
COLLINGSWORTH
57
East Counties Decline Rate(Hansford, Hutchinson,
Ochiltree, Lipscomb)
0.53 Decline Rate
60 left in 50 years
Current Pumping Rate (244,000 AF-Year)
1.25 Decline Rate
58
Do We Adopt the Districts Management Standard as
the DFC?

• West Counties 40 (40/50)
• Dallam
• Hartley
• Sherman
• Moore
• East Counties 60 (60/50)
• Hansford
• Hutchinson
• Ochiltree
• Lipscomb

59
(No Transcript)
60
2006 Production (Acre-Feet/Acre) by Property
61
Do We Revise Our Production Cap?

• Current
• 2 Acre-feet/Acre Annual Production
• Up to 1600 acres pooled
• Possible alternatives
• 2 Acre-feet/Acre Average Annual Production for 3
  years (6 acre-feet for 3 years)
• Lower Production Cap (1.5 acre-feet)?
• Combination?
• Something Different?
• How much time we take to get to a new Production
  Cap?
• Are there any other measures that should be
  considered such as return flow, conservation
  credits etc?

62
Do we transition from alternative metering
methods to flow meters?

• Current
• 5264 wells using metering methods
• 1050 are propeller or electronic flow meters at
  well or pivot.
• 4214 alternate methods
• 2099 center pivot delivery
• 1802 gas or electric meters
• Remainder - Certified flow tests, CAFO, Diesel.

63
Alternative Metering Method Challenges

• Hour meters, Gas meters, Electric Meters, Pivot
  Track
• - Hour meters can experience frequent
  breakdowns, operate whether water is being
  produced or not. Assumes a production rate that
  may fluctuate.
• - Gas Electric meters are less preferable. Not
  verifiable. May not be in the same section as the
  wells. May be used for multiple wells in more
  than one pool.
• - Pivot Track also not verifiable.

64

• Remainder (CAFO, Diesel, Flow Tests) Less
  preferable, extremely hard to verify.
• Multiple methods in use by one farm- All the
  problems above
• Farmers required to live by the amount calculated
  produced by the method.

65
Water Meter Challenges

• Cost of installation
• Additional equipment to maintain.
• Meter sized too small for actual production

66
Water Well Flow Meter Benefits

• Flow meters show production totals (usually)
  whether the well is running or not.  
• More accurate.
• Well owner can actually monitor his own water
  production easier and track production on a real
  time basis.

67
Flow Meter Benefits (contd)

• Flow meter provides a simple verifiable amount
  that is much easier to compute. (Flow meters at
  central collection points seems to be the most
  logical)
• If the reported production numbers dont make
  sense, the District can actually verify the
  numbers with a simple field check.

68
Do we transition from alternative metering
methods to flow meters?

• Discussion
• If so, which alternative metering methods we
  transition from?
• If so, what is the time frame for transition?

69
Any Other Issues?
70
Conclusion

• North Plains GCD Address
• PO Box 795, Dumas, Texas 79029
• 603 East 1st, Dumas, Texas 79029
• 806-935-6401 Fax [phone]
• www.npwd.org
• Steve Walthour
• 806-922-7402 email swalthour_at_npwd.org