China's investments in water reach record high

China invested $52.8 Billion in water conservation in 2011, with $15.9 Billion invested by the central government, alone.

Read the full story from Energy Enviro Finland by following the link below:

China's investments in water reach record high

Groundwater levels dropping around the world

Groundwater levels have dropped in many places across the globe over the past nine years, a pair of gravity-monitoring satellites finds, writes ScienceNews. The decline is especially pronounced in parts of California, India, the Middle East and China, where expanding agriculture has increased water demand, according to a study carried out by the University of California Center for Hydrologic Modeling in Irvine.

Read the full story in Science News.

BexarMet is Dead! Long Live BexarMet

Even given their different demographics, six of seven Bexar Metropolitan Water District service areas voted Tuesday to dissolve the utility, most by overwhelming margins.

Read more at MySA.com

Red River Shootout -- North Texas seeks Oklahoma rivers as water source

From the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal


DALLAS — A lot of flat, dusty distance separates the pavement and St. Augustine grass of North Texas from the relative oasis of southeastern Oklahoma.

But the 100-mile stretch isn’t the biggest thing keeping Texas sprawl from tapping Oklahoma rivers as a much-needed water source.

First, there’s that so-far impermeable state line, reinforced by suspicions on both sides. Also, a compact already divides up the water, essentially guaranteeing each state a prescribed share.

And federal courts, one as recent as Sept. 7, have weighed in, stopping North Texas’ attempts to secure a bigger slice.

Further complicating the matter: a lawsuit filed by the region’s longtime inhabitants, the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations. They assert that the water descending toward the Red River doesn’t belong to Oklahoma at all, but to them — thanks to a 181-year-old treaty with the U.S.

Given the obstacles, the prospect that Oklahoma water will flow to the urban expanse of Dallas-Fort Worth anytime soon — that is, anytime in the next decade or so — seems remote.

That doesn’t mean North Texas water planners have given up on Oklahoma, but they’ll need a different approach.

“We had hoped that Oklahoma would (receive) a fairly fast acceptance, but it looks like it’s going to be a lot slower,” said David Marshall, director of engineering services for the Tarrant Regional Water District, which led the unsuccessful court fight for access to Oklahoma water.

Texas’ would-be Oklahoma water venture is part of a long-term strategy to make sure Dallas-Fort Worth has enough water after about 2030 or 2035, when existing supplies might run short.

This summer’s nearly relentless string of 100-degree-plus days and cloudless skies put North Texas on notice: Cut water use drastically, develop new sources, or both — or else face a shaky economic future.

The region’s population growth and high per-capita water use, worsened by periodic droughts such as the current, historic dry spell, have made finding future water supplies a priority.

New reservoirs, bigger pipelines from existing ones, re-use of treated wastewater and conservation are all on the table. The options requiring construction can take years of decades for permitting and building.

The failure so far to get Oklahoma water isn’t the first setback for North Texas planners. Dallas’ bid to build a reservoir on the Neches River in East Texas failed because of prevailing plans for a new national wildlife refuge on the same site.

Some things have gone the regional planners’ way. Perhaps the brightest news is that conservation campaigns during the last couple years seem to have worked.

Opponents of North Texas’ water plans, including some Oklahoma officials and Northeast Texas landowners fighting the proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir, have long assailed Dallas-Fort Worth as a water waster. “Watering their sidewalks” is an oft-heard slight.

Marshall said the Tarrant district has seen about a 7.5 percent decrease in water use because of conservation. This summer’s peak demand set a record, but a smaller one than might have been expected during a blazing drought, he said.

Jody Puckett, head of Dallas Water Utilities, said the future outlook is more hopeful now than several years ago, when a crisis seemed to be looming.

Tighter plumbing codes have helped cut indoor water use, but there’s still work to be done on landscaping, Puckett said. Lawns and landscapes account for most of the region’s water use, especially in hot weather.

“It’s a whole business change — native (plants) versus non-native,” Puckett said. “No one gets a primer on how to take care of the landscape when they buy their first house.”

Barring huge cuts in demand, however, North Texas still needs more water. Looking to the state’s northern neighbor for help has been a seemingly attractive option.

Much of Oklahoma earns its reputation as water-challenged, but the state’s southeastern corner is an exception. With plenty of mountain streams, rivers and reservoirs and no urban complex to suck them dry, that area has beckoned for years.

North Texas officials listed obtaining water from southeastern Oklahoma among their “recommended strategies” in 2001, 2005 and 2011 regional plans.

In the 2011 version, five public suppliers serving Dallas-Fort Worth hoped to split about 46 billion gallons a year at some future point. They would also split the capital costs of obtaining and transporting the water, estimated at about $941 million.

Altogether, the Tarrant Regional Water District, heading a North Texas coalition, planned to file applications to get about 150 billion gallons of Oklahoma water a year. In a 2007 federal lawsuit, the district said the vast majority of the Red River watershed’s flow was “wasted” by running downstream toward the gulf.

Oklahoma told the Tarrant district it could have no water. State laws and rules blocked non-residents from obtaining Oklahoma water rights.

The North Texans said the Oklahoma blockade was illegal and unconstitutional.

A U.S. district judge ruled for Oklahoma in 2009, and on Sept. 7, a three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals agreed, rejecting the Texas arguments. On Wednesday, the Tarrant district asked for a rehearing before the full circuit court.

The court rulings state that North Texas planners do not have a right to obtain Oklahoma water simply by filing applications for it. However, they leave open other avenues, such as negotiating a purchase agreement from Oklahoma or some authorized entity within that state.

The Tarrant district is re-examining its list of options and is considering its next move on Oklahoma water, the agency’s Marshall said.

However, the Choctaws’ and Chickasaws’ lawsuit, filed against the state on Aug. 18, puts up another potential roadblock. Their national sovereignty could become the major factor in whether any water in tribal territory leaves Oklahoma.

The tribes say the waters of southeastern Oklahoma belong to them and have since Sept. 27, 1830, when Maj. John H. Eaton, Gen. John Coffee, Musholatubbee, Nittucachee and dozens of other U.S. and tribal representatives signed the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek.Subsequent treaties affirmed those rights, said Michael Burrage, the tribes’ attorney and a former federal judge.

“It’s the position of the Choctaw Nation and the Chickasaw Nation that the state of Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Water Resources Board have absolutely no jurisdiction, because of the sovereignty rights granted in the treaty, to control any of the in-territory water,” and clearly have no authority to allow water exports, Burrage said.

Oklahoma has not filed its reply to the suit.

If the tribes prevail, Burrage said, they would become the governing authority over the water. The treaty supersedes state and federal laws and the interstate Red River compact, he said.

Existing users have been assured they wouldn’t lose water, Burrage said, adding that the tribes aren’t asserting their water rights in order to make money. They want to establish their sovereignty and make sure the water is protected and used wisely, based on a tribal study to be completed soon, he said.

Burrage was asked whether a water planner in North Texas, seeking ways to supply water to millions of people, should view the tribes’ lawsuit as good news or bad.

He chuckled.

“I can’t answer that,” he said.

Public Forum on Local Water Issues Scheduled for Sept. 28 in San Antonio

St. Mary’s University will kick off its new public issues forum series on Sept. 28, bringing together business, public and government leaders for a dialogue on the area’s water issues.

The series, called Community Conversations at St. Mary’s University, will begin with a discussion of water issues in the San Antonio area titled “Is San Antonio Running Dry? Meeting Our Current and Future Water Needs.” The discussion will feature Robert Puente, President and CEO of San Antonio Water System; State Sen. Carlos Uresti; and Sam Dawson, Chairman of the Board for the Greater San Antonio Chamber of Commerce. It will be held in a moderated format that will included opening statements from each of the panelists, followed by a question–and–answer session.

The event, which will be in the St. Mary’s University Center’s Conference Room A, begins at 6 p.m. with a reception, followed by the program at 6:30 p.m. The series is free and open to the public.

The Community Conversations series is a part of the newly created Institute for Public Administration, Politics and Public Policy at St. Mary’s University, which is housed within the St. Mary’s Graduate School. One of the primary goals of the Institute is to develop outreach programs that foster dialogue between the University, the public, government agencies and nonprofits to address important public issues.

Austin Water plant finally gets long-overdue go-ahead

An editorial from the Austin American Statesman

The Austin City Council finally found unanimity on continuing construction on a third water treatment plant an issue that consumed an inordinate amount of time, money and attention.

Although designated Water Treatment Plant 4, the facility under construction at RM 620 and RM 2222 would be Austin's third operational water treatment plant. It is scheduled for completion in 2014, but if plant opponents had their way, that date would have been pushed back. Better yet, in their view, the plant would have been scrapped.

Aggressive water conservation would mitigate the need for a new plant was one argument. Austinites have embraced water conservation — as we will discuss Monday — but won't obviate the need for more treatment capacity. As we have noted on previous occasions, the numbers that plant opponents blithely ignored were 1954 and 1969 — the years that the city's two operational water treatment plants went online. The life span of such infrastructure is 50 years, or so say water professionals.

But as the American-Statesman's Marty Toohey reported Thursday, the seven-member council is now in full agreement that shutting down or delaying plant construction would cost too much. The city already has more than $300 million tied up in the plant. Delaying construction or stopping it altogether would easily cost the city more than $100 million.

It took a study and review by the city auditor to explain that obvious fact of life to council members who were obviously looking for a different answer. Council Member Bill Spelman, for instance, said when the council voted on the resolution to study the costs associated with postponing further construction that they could be contained to say, $5 million to $10 million, and the amount would be an acceptable trade-off. Eating $5 million to $10 million is considered a modest snack at City Hall, apparently.

No one with even passing knowledge of construction and contract law expected the number to be that low, but city staffers went through the exercise and returned to the council with an estimate north of $100 million — an amount that even the most ardent of plant opponents couldn't ignore or explain away.

The number should finally put an end to the argument over the need for another treatment plant. Long before the advent of the 24-hour news cycle, though, Austin's players in municipal politics had developed, nurtured and sustained the 25-year civic debate. It has been at least 25 years since the proposal to build Water Treatment Plant 4 was first aired. Two years ago, the council finally took a vote, and the plant was narrowly approved, 4-3.

The defeat of Randi Shade in the spring council elections revived opponents' hopes of killing the plant.

Spelman offered a resolution that moved in that direction, but Mayor Pro Tem Sheryl Cole engineered a compromise that included the study of the costs of delaying the plant that produced a convincing fiscal argument to move ahead. Given the circumstances, it was an adroit move, but one that would have been unnecessary but for City Hall's appetite for never-ending debate, discussion and delay.

The unanimous support for the plant is long overdue, but nonetheless welcome.

"I still don't believe we should have started" construction, Spelman told Toohey. "But here we are halfway through building it, and I think we should finish."

Indeed, it's way past time to close the debate and move toward opening the plant.

Texas slow to prepare for future water needs

SANFORD, Texas (AP) — On paper, at least, Texas is well-prepared to meet the water needs of its rapidly expanding population — even when Mother Nature lays down a harsh and lengthy drought.

The price tag on the plan: $53 billion. State money allocated: $1.4 billion.

If there were funds, Texas would be able to build the dams, reservoirs, pipelines, wells and other infrastructure that would ideally avoid tight water-use restrictions imposed on residents, farmers and ranchers during times of drought while also guaranteeing there would be enough water for the state's rapidly growing population — even in 2060.
Instead, now, more than four years after the latest blueprint was published, deadlines have passed with some work barely begun, and many projects never started. Meanwhile, lakes are shrinking, rivers are drying up and temperatures are rising.

Read more here

Texas State senators hold hearing on water and sewer rates in rural and semi-rural areas

A panel of state senators will hold a public hearing today on soaring water and sewage rates in small communities around the state, including in Central Texas, as part of a probe into investor-owned utilities.

In eastern Travis County, residents have raised concerns for months about high water rates and plans for further water rate hikes. About 2,000 Texans have submitted protests against SouthWest Water Co. -owned Monarch Utilities I, L.P. 's proposed rate increase that goes into effect Monday in rural and semi-rural communities in at least 31 Texas counties, including Travis, Williamson and Hays.

The new base water rate for communities served by Monarch will be about eight times larger than the rate in Austin. The base wastewater rate will be more than five times the Austin rate.

The inquiry will explore investor-owned utilities, such as Monarch, as well as how rate increases are regulated by the state. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality typically approves or disapproves rate changes long after they have gone into effect. There is currently no statutory cap or limitation on the amount a utility can request in its application for a proposed increase in its water or sewer rates.

The hearing of a joint subcommittee of members of the Senate Business and Commerce Committee and Natural Resources Committee will include testimony by officials from the environmental commission, State Office of Administrative Hearings , SouthWest and representatives of communities that would be affected by the rate increase.

"We need to be at the forefront to make sure there's not lax oversight," said state Sen. Kirk Watson, D-Austin, co-chair of the effort , adding that he is not criticizing regulatory agencies. "I see this as getting to the bottom of a very important issue. It's time for us to look at it."

"The law needs to be changed. We need to build protections into the Water Code for Texans. We can't allow this to continue," said Thomas Fritzinger , president of Austin's Colony Homeowners Association, Inc. The eastern Travis County subdivision is served by Monarch.

"We look forward to participating in what we believe will be a positive and constructive exchange of dialogue between the governing agency, the ratepayers and the industry," SouthWest spokeswoman Janice Hayes said.

California-based SouthWest is primarily owned by institutional investors, 90 percent of which are advised by J.P. Morgan Asset Management and 10 percent by Water Asset Management LLC.

Area subdivisions affected

Dozens of Central Texas subdivisions are affected by the proposed Monarch rate increases, including Forest Bluff and Hornsby Bend subdivisions in Travis County; Dove Hill Estates and River Oaks Ranch in Hays County; and Windermere and Forest Creek in Williamson County . Monarch customers affected by the rate increases live outside city limits.

For water service alone, customers of Hornsby Bend Utility Co. , a SouthWest-owned utility that will be consolidated into Monarch, now pay $36 a month.

Under the rate increase that goes into effect Monday , those customers will pay a minimum of $53.47 a month. Starting July 1, 2012, they will pay a minimum of $59.82 a month.

Wastewater rates would jump from $35 minimum a month to $46.59 on Aug. 1.

By contrast, Austin Water Utility charges as little as $7.10 a month as a water service tap fee and $8.95 a month for wastewater service.

Watson said he asked the state environmental commission to consider interim rates for customers who would be affected by the rate increases.

'Who can afford that?'

A June meeting held outside of the Austin's Colony Community Center drew a couple hundred concerned residents from the area. People complained about steep bills and poor water quality — cloudy and undrinkable, they said.

Some residents have moved out of their homes and communities because of the high bills. "And when they can't sell their homes, they rent and they leave," Fritzinger said.

Community leaders also have been looking into the possibility of forming their own incorporated city in part to provide additional safeguards against rate increases.

"There are some of us who can afford it for a while," Fritzinger said of the high bills, "but when your water bill is a quarter to a third of your mortgage payments, who can afford that?"

Rate increases have history

Residents' gripes are familiar. The American-Statesman first reported on unexplained water rate increases in Kennedy Ridge Estates , a low-income community in eastern Travis County that was rocked by soaring water bills a year ago. Kennedy Ridge is among the communities protesting Monarch's proposed increase, which would affect the Kennedy Ridge Water Supply Corp. on a different timetable .

The state recently reached agreements with the Kennedy Ridge Water Supply Corp. and its wholesale water and wastewater provider, SWWC Utilities Inc. , a subsidiary of SouthWest. Under its agreement with the state, SWWC agreed to credit Kennedy Ridge nearly $77,000 in restitution and to follow certain rules on increasing rates.

The agreements follow an investigation by the Texas attorney general, prompted by the American-Statesman report last year.

Bills that were once as high as $325 are now less than half that, a Kennedy Ridge leader said, but some residents this month saw bills that were more than $200.

In a lawsuit filed by the state on May 27, the attorney general alleged that SWWC, doing business as Hornsby Bend Utility, violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act . It increased the rates to the Kennedy Ridge corporation, even though SWWC indicated in a news release and other "carefully crafted" communications that the increase would not affect the Kennedy Ridge community, the lawsuit states. Moreover, the lawsuit says, SWWC applied the increased rates retroactively for 12 months, leaving Kennedy Ridge owing more than $64,000 in back bills.

In addition to the $77,000 credited to Kennedy Ridge, the wholesaler paid $50,000 in attorney fees to the state as ordered, an attorney general spokesman said.

The agreement between the state and SWWC resolved the allegations made in the lawsuit. Hornsby Bend denies violating the law, a statement posted on SouthWest's website said.

By Suzannah Gonzales
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Trey Wilson elected Secretary of Cadillac Water Corporation

On July 19, 2011, I was elected to a third consecutive term as a Director of the Cadillac Water Corporation. I also was honored by being elected Secretary of the Corporation. We are proud of our small water system located in the Shearer Oaks subdivision of San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas, and I look forward to serving the best interests of all members of the Corporation.

Wells Fargo terminates BexarMet's line of credit

Water utility blames financial bind on new law that puts board's fate in the hands of voters.

The Bexar Metropolitan Water District is blaming a new state law for the loss of its $50 million line of bank credit, forcing it into a financial crisis that will cause the layoffs of some of its 311 employees as soon as next week and bring capital improvements to a halt.

The bank, Wells Fargo, also asked BexarMet to repay by December $10 million that it has borrowed so far, according to the utility, which said it has $13 million in cash reserves.

With short-term borrowing power cut off, BexarMet will point to its predicament to bolster its lawsuit against the legislation, which allows ratepayers to vote on whether to dissolve the utility's board.

If it can convince the courts that the law is doing real harm even before a dissolution vote, BexarMet could win at least a delay of the November election, if not a cancellation.

“This credit freeze effectively locks us out of the credit and bond markets nearly every utility uses to manage its capital project funding and creates an artificial crisis,” BexarMet interim General Manager Tom Gallier said Tuesday. “This is entirely the result of uncertainty over the district's future given the dissolution election mandated in (Senate Bill) 341.”

Read more in the SA Express news.