GSA Annual Meeting, November 5-8, 2001

Paper No. 0
Presentation Time: 9:40 AM

THE SHOT-GUN WEDDING OF GROUNDWATER MODELING AND POLICY DOWN IN TEXAS


MACE, Robert E., Groundwater Availability Modeling, Texas Water Development Board, P.O. Box 13231, Austin, TX 78711 and MULLICAN, William F., Water Resources Planning, Texas Water Development Board, P.O. Box 13231, Austin, TX 78711-3231, robert.mace@twdb.state.tx.us

As population grows and the need for water increases, Texans are quickly realizing that water is a limited resource. Additional groundwater is likely to get tapped with the predicted doubling of population in the next 50 years. Even now, large well fields are being proposed around the State to help meet the needs of growing cities. As the demand for groundwater increases, people are asking: "How much groundwater is available from my aquifer?" To answer this question, Texas is developing numerical groundwater flow models for the 9 major and 21 minor aquifers in the state (including 17 models of the major aquifers). This effort has been named Groundwater Availability Modeling or GAM. Just as water planning in Texas now includes the intimate involvement of local water interests in regional and state-wide water planning, there is substantial public participation in the development and use of these models. Technical Advisory Groups helped guide the requirements of GAM. Each model has a Stakeholder Advisory Forum that meets every quarter to review progress on the model and to question technical staff. Completed models and source information will be posted on a Web site for all to use. After the models are completed, we plan to work with Regional Water Planning Groups and Groundwater Conservation Districts to try and establish a 'consensus yield,' or groundwater availability, for their aquifers. Stakeholders will be consulted when the model is updated as better information is gained. Developing and using a complicated tool such as a groundwater model and involving the public is deeply challenging. Complicated hydrologic and modeling processes have to be explained to a lay audience so that they understand what is happening and why. Their involvement has to be meaningful and productive. In several cases, the policy implications of model results are substantial, and stakeholders may hold opposing policy views. It doesn’t help that, in general, scientists, including groundwater modelers, often prefer to work exclusive to the public. However, down in Texas, we have married the modeling process to the policy process so that folks can make informed and educated decisions about the State's groundwater resources and help answer a question pregnant with policy implications: "How much groundwater is available from my aquifer?"