John Montgomery
Texas Water Policy
Fall 2014
Wastewater Reuse in Texas
Executive Summary
Wastewater is on the cusp of a revolution in Texas, but there are crucial stumbling blocks that
must be removed before it can succeed. Wastewater has a long history of reuse in Texas, and its
current preeminence is driven by both external and internal pressures. Externally, population
growth and climate change are forcing rapidly expanding metropolitan areas to seek new sources
of water or to stretch out existing supplies. Internally, the rising cost of obtaining new water
sources is driving cities to seek bolder conservation measures.
The obstacles to broader wastewater adoption include systemic water ownership issues in
the Texas legal system and resulting regulatory hurdles. Legally, the separation of groundwater
and surface water ownership into different classifications fractures management of wastewater
reuse projects. This is because very different requirements exist depending on the origin of the
water to be reused. Regulation-wise, this separation foments a complicated hierarchy of rules
that serve to protect prior appropriations of surface water rights owners. In terms of groundwater,
the state’s tradition of supporting private property rights and local control creates a fractured
system that prevents the advancement of new projects.
Solutions to these problems are incremental and constructive. The first solution is to
establish regulations for direct potable reuse projects. The second solution is to establish
environmental flows as a part of return flow requirements for municipalities. Finally, common
standards for managing Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) projects need to be given to all
Groundwater Conservation Districts (GCD) in Texas. Making the rules clear will remove much
of the regulatory ambiguity that is caused by Texas’ water ownership rules, and will foster a new
era of wastewater reuse projects in the state.
Important Terms in Wastewater
Wastewater: Water that has been beneficially used and is ready for treatment and either reuse or
discharge back into the natural environment.
Raw water: Untreated water, either from an aquifer or from a surface water source.
John Montgomery
Wastewater Reuse in Texas
Return Flow: The minimum amount of water a rights holder must return to the raw water origin.
Direct Reuse: When treated wastewater is sent for distribution within a network immediately
after being treated.
Potable: (less common) When treated wastewater is further purified for drinking water
purposes and distributed to customers directly. Sometimes this system can be pejoratively
known as “toilet to tap”.
Nonpotable: (more common) When treated wastewater is distributed for non-human
consumption or contact, usually for landscaping, agriculture, or industrial uses.
Indirect Reuse: When treated wastewater is returned to a natural water body for storage and later
extraction. “Accidental Indirect Reuse” has been occurring throughout human history.
Environmental Buffer: The natural filtration and purification properties of a water body
Aquifer Storage and Recovery: The injection of purified water into an aquifer for storage
and later extraction. Instead of a surface body, the underground formation is the buffer.
Bed and Banks Permit: TCEQ’s permit for using a state waterway as storage
Environmental Flows: Water in mandated return flows reserved to benefit the environment
A Context for Wastewater Reuse in Texas
Wastewater reuse has a long history in Texas, a state with a legendarily arid climate. Originally
the practice of reusing wastewater was limited to agriculture, but due to population growth and
changing resource needs this practice has expanded to the industrial and municipal sectors as
well. This section provides a brief history of wastewater reuse, a history that provides critical
context for the future of wastewater reuse in Texas.
Agriculture
Agricultural reuse of wastewater goes back to the late 19th Century, predating water planning on
the state level which did not begin in earnest until 1907. In 1901, the City of San Antonio leased
all future rights to its raw sewage not otherwise claimed to the San Antonio Irrigation Company
for growing cotton and sorghum. This practice expanded during the 1920s, especially in the arid
Panhandle regions which were beginning to suffer from the climate disaster which would
become known as the Dust Bowl. The City of Amarillo provided treated wastewater to ranchers
in the area to provide for their cattle. Not only do these examples show the expansion of
2
John Montgomery
Wastewater Reuse in Texas
wastewater reuse, but also the increasing attention to environmental and public health concerns
with wastewater reuse.
Industry
The Second World War saw the rapid expansion of electrical generation and industrial
production in the state of Texas. The war effort demanded greater and greater amounts of natural
resources, especially water since it is involved in every industrial process. Of the industries that
rely on water, petrochemicals are the most demanding next to electricity generation. As such, the
petrochemical industry is one of the leaders in industrial wastewater reuse in Texas. In 1944, the
City of Big Spring began providing treated wastewater to the Cosden Oil and Chemical refinery.
This treated wastewater was of a higher quality than the brackish groundwater the refinery had
been relying on in the past, and marked a cost reduction for both the city and the company. The
area around Big Spring is rich in petroleum and poor in water, a theme which will repeat in
Texas history. In addition to the Big Spring facility, Odessa, Amarillo, and Lubbock began deals
with petrochemical companies to not only reuse wastewater but also to improve the treatment
infrastructure of the cities providing the water. These agreements allowed cities to leverage
private funding to improve treatment, which in turn benefitted companies with cleaner water.
Municipalities
Municipal reuse of wastewater did not occur until after the legendary seven-year drought of the
1950s (The Drought of Record), which lasted seven years and resulted in untold costs. The early
adoption of municipal wastewater reuse was out of a desire to limit potable water waste on
landscaping and park space. The City of El Paso was the first to offer treated wastewater to
municipal customers, and this service was utilized on athletic fields and park space. El Paso
continues to be a leader in water management and reuse. The majority of these early wastewater
reuse projects were direct nonpotable reuse, meaning that the treated wastewater was never
returned to drinking water standards and was primarily intended for landscaping use. The
practice of municipal wastewater reuse continues today, though the majority still represents
either direct nonpotable of indirect reuse systems.
Current Reuse
3
John Montgomery
Wastewater Reuse in Texas
A survey by the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) of water producers across the state
shows that in 2010 approximately 62,000 acre-feet of wastewater was used annually as direct
nonpotable reuse. In addition, about 76,000 acre-feet of wastewater was used annually as bed
and banks permitted indirect reuse (relying on environmental buffers and natural formations to
store and purify wastewater). The number of entities receiving permits from the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for direct non-potable water reuse rose from 1 in
1990 to 187 by June 2010. There is a legacy here, and the City of Austin’s “purple pipes”
represent a practice that has been in place for over 40 years. The growing reliance on wastewater
by agriculture, industry, and municipalities has created a complex system of regulation that will
be examined further.
This review of historical wastewater reuse demonstrates its usefulness in dry periods. The
public still reels at the notion of wastewater for direct potable reuse, but there is no motivation
like survival to change peoples’ minds. What those in the past learned, and what Texas will need
to act on, is the importance of conservation in arid climates. Wastewater reuse represents lowhanging fruit for industry and cities when it comes to stretching water resources. It took a World
War for industry to get on board, and it took the Drought of Record for municipalities to see the
need for wastewater reuse. Texas will always have pressure on its water supplies, but the
changes in supply and demand now seen are rapid and multifaceted. The next section examines
how demographics, climate change, and economics are forcing Texans to reconsider wastewater
reuse, and how state agencies are coping.
Statewide Trends Increase Pressure to Reuse Wastewater
This section explores the external trends that are driving water conservation efforts in Texas,
with wastewater reuse among them. After these considerations, projections of future water
supplies in the state according to the TCEQ and the TWDB will be reviewed. Texas has become
one of the most desirable places to live in the United States. This popularity drives explosive
population growth, city expansion, increasing industrial output, and new land uses. With more
people and the same amount of natural resources, competing claims are inevitable. All of these
trends mean increased demand for water, and new pressure to either find new sources or to
stretch out those that already exist. This need is exacerbated by a changing climate and projected
water shortages.
4
John Montgomery
Wastewater Reuse in Texas
Population and Industry Growth
The growing population is perhaps the largest driver of the state’s current water woes and will
continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Between the years 1950 and 2000 Texas’ population
went from 7.7 million to 20.8 million. According to the United States Census Bureau, over 1000
new residents move to Texas each day. One can only assume that they are not bringing their own
water supply with them. The current population continues to grow and is expected to double by
the year 2060. This population growth is engaged in a feedback loop with industrial output. Jobs
attract more people to the state but industry also relies on a steady supply of skilled labor to
remain competitive. This industrial output, combined with population increases, has driven up
demand for electricity (a water intensive industry). In the next ten years, the Electric Reliability
Council of Texas projects demand increasing by 14%, or by 10,000MW. To put this in
perspective, electricity generation accounts for 49% of the water withdrawn from state water
ways each year. Therefore an increase in electricity demand also spells growing need for new
water supplies and conservation. Unless Texans act, at some point in the future the state’s new
urban population will be faced with either keeping the lights on or keeping the faucet flowing.
Urban Sprawl and Land Use
Along with this increase in population comes new land uses, namely the expansion of cities into
former rural countryside. According to a report done by the Texas A&M Institute of Renewable
Natural Resources, Texas lost over 1 million acres of rural land between 1997 and 2012. These
rural land losses correlate to increasing property values, which can be linked to population
pressure on urban areas. The loss of these rural lands is especially significant for the water cycle,
since undeveloped open space stores and filters water more effectively than developed space.
The expansion of Texas’ cities into the countryside is fueled by relatively cheap land prices, a
lack of planning and weak regulations. This means that as Texas cities expand, there is little to
stop them from adversely affecting the state’s water supply. Therefore, as the population
continues to grow, cities will have to grapple with sprawling infrastructure and drier surrounding
areas.
Climate Change
Just in case things did not seem desperate enough, there is also mounting evidence that the
climate will become more extreme in the coming century, placing additional strain on Texas’
5
John Montgomery
Wastewater Reuse in Texas
water supply. According to the State Climatologist, John Nielson-Gammon of Texas A&M
University, climate change will negatively affect the state’s water supply from 5 to 15% over the
next 50 years. This means that in the face of increasing demand, the supply will also shrink.
Surface water will be particularly hard hit, since it is subject to extreme evaporation rates in
hotter and drier weather. In addition to diminished water supplies, rising sea levels threaten
coastal aquifers with becoming too brackish. Finally, the increasing temperatures projected with
climate change will strain aging infrastructure in sprawling metropolitan areas. Water will be
more expensive to source, treat, and distribute. State water planners are aware of this
information, but the planning and regulatory structure of the state precludes them from taking
bold action (see next section).
State Water Planning
These trends of climate change, population growth, industrial growth, and urban land use will
put a severe strain on Texas’ already thin supply of fresh water. The TWDB, to its credit, has
taken a fresh look at the state’s water planning efforts and has produced reports that forecasts
supply and demand for Texas groundwater through the year 2060. Some of these reports include
Groundwater Availability Models (GAMs) and Modeled Available Groundwater (MAG), which
are based on local input, scientific data, and economic forecasting. While the TWDB does not
have direct control over local long-term planning, GAMs and MAGs act as an important beacon
for policy makers since they provide computer simulations of local aquifer conditions. While
conditions vary from aquifer to aquifer, the overall projections show a depletion of groundwater
over the time period studied. As cities rely more on groundwater for their supplies, heeding these
projections will become crucial.
In addition to these local aquifer projections, the TWDB offers a state-wide assessment of
water conditions called the State Water Plan (SWP), which was last released in 2012. Included in
the SWP are projections on how the water shortfalls will be made up and recommended
strategies for governments to address drought. This report dives into great detail on the past of
wastewater reuse in Texas, and also discusses strategies for moving forward over the next 50ish
years. Some key highlights from the SWP regarding wastewater reuse are highlighted below.
6
John Montgomery
Wastewater Reuse in Texas
FIGURE 1
The graph on the left shows where new supplies of
water are projected to come from by 2060.
Wastewater reuse will account for 14% of new
supplies, which is a significant increase over its
current allocation. The graph presented below
shows the growth in wastewater reuse through
2060.
Source: TWDB History of Water Reuse in Texas
FIGURE 2
Source: TWDB: State Water Plan 2012
The above chart demonstrates that reuse supplies will increase by 27% through 2060.
This fascinating chart also shows that the most gain for water reuse will come from indirect reuse
projects, which include bed and banks permits as well as reservoir storage. As the next section
will discuss, these sorts of indirect reuse projects are subject to unique regulation and complexity
that make them more difficult to execute. It is also important to mention the lack of information
on direct potable reuse projects, because the state does not yet have regulations for these in place.
7
John Montgomery
Wastewater Reuse in Texas
There have been two pilot projects exploring the possibility direct potable reuse, one in
Brownwood, TX and the other in Wichita Falls, TX, with that project coming online in 2014.
These sorts of projects show what lengths cities are willing to strive to secure new sources of
water.
Cities Face Rising Expenses
In the face of all the outside pressures, cities and industry are going to greater lengths to obtain
water. Brownwood’s and Wichita Falls’s hunt for new water is indicative of systemic failures in
the Texas water system. Past reliance on surface water, which is more sensitive to changing
climate, has created a crisis in many parts of the state and has shifted water resource
development to groundwater. Some areas have a head start in solving these problems. Kerrville
and the Upper Guadalupe River Authority have implemented ASR which lets them store reuse
water underground where it is not subject to evaporation. In addition, the city of El Paso has
been operating the world’s largest inland desalination facility to manufacture new water for its
needs. Finally, the City of San Antonio has settled a costly deal that will deliver it CarrizoWilcox Aquifer water far into the future. These cities have turned to groundwater to help meet
the demand for new water sources.
The bottom line is that water is becoming more expensive to obtain, and that wastewater
reuse is rapidly becoming the “low-hanging fruit”, which will allow cities to stretch out these
more expensive sources of water. Despite this promise, there are numerous regulatory pressures
on cities that preventer wider wastewater reuse projects. As water costs rise and cities look
further afield for new water sources, the following regulatory issues need to be addressed.
Regulatory Obstacles for Municipal Wastewater Reuse
Present-day wastewater reuse is administered by a mix of state and federal rules. These have
evolved over time to address environmental concerns and to meet strict public health standards.
Many of these rules create confusion and prevent wider adoption of wastewater reuse. Texas’
two-tiered water management structure, the rights of downstream water rights holders, the
storage and transportation of treated wastewater, and narrowly defined terms in regulation create
friction for those seeking wastewater project approvals from the state. This section will examine
the current state of federal and state regulation of wastewater, and then delve into how these
regulations prevent wider adoption of this conservation measure.
8
John Montgomery
Wastewater Reuse in Texas
Federal Regulations
As far as federal rules are concerned, the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act are
the main mechanisms for enforcement. The Clean Water Act applies for indirect reuse projects,
where treated wastewater is discharged back into natural waterways. This is in keeping with the
federal government’s desire to preserve the waterways of the United States. If bacteria or
chemical contamination went undetected, there could be dire consequences. Similarly, the Safe
Drinking Water Act comes into play when the treated wastewater is intended for human
consumption. This enforcement is intended to protect human health, and the Safe Drinking
Water Act standards act as the golden standard for clean drinking water. Even if the treated water
is not intended for direct human consumption, potential contact with people is enough to trigger
this regulatory mechanism. Enforcement of these rules is done by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ).
State Regulations
In addition to enforcing federal rules, the TCEQ recommends additional quality standards for
Texas. The Texas Surface Water Quality Standards are the TCEQ’s main set of guidelines for the
treatment and management of wastewater for indirect potable reuse and direct nonpotable reuse.
These applications, while they may come into contact with people, are not intended for direct
human consumption. Treated wastewater can be released into a state waterway, and even if
people swim in that waterway it will not be considered potable or for direct reuse. As stated
throughout this research, the state of Texas does not yet have rules in place for direct potable
water reuse projects. This means that the few projects that are currently active rely either on
federal standards or an ad hoc set of guidelines from the state. The current state regulations by
the TCEQ and the TWDB promote conservation measures while not giving cities the tools they
need to more widely implement wastewater reuse.
Texas’ Two Tiers
Texas has a fractured water ownership system that establishes separate legal frameworks for
surface and ground waters. Groundwater is governed by the common law “rule of capture”
which means property rights extend to the center of the earth and that property owners can
exploit as much groundwater as they want. If a property owner wants to sell their water to a
neighbor or a far-flung city, there is little in state law to prevent these transfers. This ease of
9
John Montgomery
Wastewater Reuse in Texas
access can account for most of the state’s reliance on groundwater resources. Approximately
60% of the state’s water sources are groundwater, and cities like San Antonio are able to secure
groundwater from private property owners in distant counties.
Contrarily, surface water is deemed the property of the state and is strictly administered
through a system of permits and water rights. While the TCEQ issues permits for surface water
rights, each river basin is administered by a river authority that oversees the management of
these water rights. Many water rights are actually owned by river authorities who “sell’ the use
of that water to their customers and the authorities’ water management plans must be submitted
to TCEQ on a regular basis for approval. This surface water rights system is based on the rule of
prior appropriation, meaning an entity’s claim to water is based on how early it obtained that
right. Seniority rules, and those downstream can file grievances with the TCEQ to redress any
perceived shortfalls in water supply. There is an entire paper to be written about how this dual
system complicates wastewater issues, but this section will focus on how the origin of recycled
water affects its permitting.
Wastewater that is to be reused can originate from groundwater or state-administered
surface water. In the case of the former, there is almost an unlimited amount of discretion for the
entity wishing to reuse groundwater. This is because according to common law, that entity owns
the groundwater in perpetuity or until it is released into a state water way. This promotes cities
and industry to seek groundwater sources since it diminishes the legal complications of
ownership. Many cities, such as San Antonio, want to release treated wastewater that originates
as groundwater into a state water way and then retrieve it once it has run the course of the river.
San Antonio would argue that this is a benefit to downstream water rights holders (discussed in
the next section). However, state regulations (Texas Water Code § 11.042(b)) prevent this sort of
offset from happening since surface water based return flows must be complete, and cannot be
supplemented by groundwater based return flows. Wastewater that originated from a state
surface water body is subject to more restrictions and cannot be replaced with groundwaterbased outflows. Entities are obliged to release treated wastewater that is the same or more as the
original water they were allocated from the state. This means that a city like Houston must be
able to release the entirety of its surface water allocation and cannot use groundwater to make up
for a shortcoming. These requirements that prevent substitution of groundwater create a drag on
10
John Montgomery
Wastewater Reuse in Texas
indirect reuse projects since they rely on state surface water courses to act as storage mediums
via the bed and banks permitting system.
Water Rights
All of the aforementioned rules that dictate return flows are in place to protect the rights of
downstream water rights holders. These water right holders are often a major stumbling block
against advancing wastewater reuse. For instance, the City of Houston relies on the reliable
outflow of wastewater from Dallas in order to maintain its surface supplies. This is doubly
important because of subsidence-related groundwater pumping restrictions in the Houston area.
If Dallas were to more aggressively pursue water reuse, it could potentially be at the detriment of
those downstream. Dallas would have to ensure that all the water taken from the rivers was put
back in them or they could face a suit from downstream water rights holders. This issue of water
rights plays out across all the state managed surface water ways of Texas.
If a municipality wants to apply for a wastewater reuse permit, it has to demonstrate to
the TCEQ and the TWDB that its reuse scheme will not negatively impact downstream water
rights holders (Texas Water Code § 11.046(c)). Since wastewater return flows often constitute
the whole of a river’s flow, they often constitute the whole of a downstream water right holder’s
supply. If this high hurdle cannot be overcome, then a wastewater reuse project will not be
permitted. The burden of proof is even more difficult since every river in the state has had its
water over appropriated. The permitting requirement for ensuring reliable return flows coexists
with the previously mentioned restrictions on return flow source water. Either the state’s strange
water ownership laws need to be revisited or the wastewater permitting process needs to change
how it deals with downstream water rights holders. While wastewater reuse can proceed under
the current two tiered system, meaningful reform of the state’s water ownership laws would help
push wastewater reuse into a new era. These ownership issues that affect water rights also
influence how treated wastewater is stored and transported.
Narrowly Defined Terms
Perhaps the most problematic term in the wastewater reuse permitting system in Texas is
“beneficial use”. Prior to action by the TCEQ in 2012, municipalities had to apply for an
agricultural wastewater reuse permit to water public spaces and parks. This is because the term
“beneficial use” was too narrowly defined and did not include municipal applications. While the
11
John Montgomery
Wastewater Reuse in Texas
TCEQ has remedied this issue somewhat, the applications for wastewater reuse are still too
narrowly defined. For instance, direct potable reuse projects or projects that seek to ensure
environmental flows are not considered under the current TCEQ rules. That means if a city wants
to discharge wastewater into a river system to ensure enough water flows to the coast for marine
and wildlife use, it cannot officially be permitted to do so. Furthermore, the lack of provisions
for direct potable reuse are holding cities back from implementing these new projects.
Storage and Transportation
As mentioned previously, the regulatory framework in Texas favors indirect reuse projects while
making them more complicated at the same time. Indirect reuse projects, by their very nature,
require a natural body of water to act as a storage and filtration system. As shown in the previous
section, the TWDB forecasts that most growth in wastewater reuse projects will be with indirect
systems featuring environmental buffers. The problem with relying on indirect systems is that
they are susceptible to evaporation, management issues and complicated permitting processes.
The bed and banks applications essentially request the use of a state waterway as a storage
medium but cannot interfere with water rights holders in a broken system. It is curious to see the
TWDB foresee indirect reuse as the most viable alternative since there are so many disincentives
for its use. For instance, interbasin transfers between river systems are generally frowned upon
despite their ability to move water where it is needed. The idea of storing water for future use in
rivers which are over appropriated and over regulated hardly seems reliable. New ways to store
water have been pursued by many cities in the state. Aquifer Storage and Recovery is a viable
alternative to these indirect reuse systems, but it too faces many regulatory obstacles to wider
adoption.
Aquifer Storage and Recovery
ASR is a newer form of indirect reuse that relies on underground formations to store waste and
act as an environmental buffer. Instead of treating wastewater and then pumping it into a surface
wateway, treated wastewater is purified to drinking water standards and then pumped at fixed
rates into suitably isolated aquifers.
12
John Montgomery
Wastewater Reuse in Texas
FIGURE 3:
Source: United States Geological Survey
The aquifers used for ASR projects must be geologically isolated for a number of
reasons: pumping water into aquifers can disrupt the operation of nearby wells; nearby wells can
draw on water that was placed there by the original injector because of common property rights;
and environmental regulations require monitoring of water quality throughout the process. These
restrictions mean that if a city wants to undertake an ASR project, they have to ensure they can
own the water they pump into the ground. If not enough steps are taken to ensure ownership,
then any adjacent landowner can effectively take their water. Cities can ensure this ownership
either by buying the water rights of adjacent properties from landowners, buying the physical
land over an aquifer, or by forming a GCD to operate the ASR project and enforce pumping
restrictions.
The fractured nature of GCD administration in Texas, combined with state's common law
ownership structure for groundwater, makes the commissioning of ASR projects especially
difficult. Of the nearly 100 GCDs in the state of Texas, only 12 have rules adopted for ASR
projects. The very nature of local groundwater control means that even if the TCEQ or the
TWDB wanted to promote ASR across Texas, they would face the opposition of locals. In
addition to this, a city could be required to offer water services to all of the residents of a GCD
13
John Montgomery
Wastewater Reuse in Texas
that allows ASR. This requirement alone can make ASR unattractive to many cities that do not
wish to expand their service network.
The City of San Antonio has taken this concept a step further and is diverting their access
Edwards Aquifer water into the Carrizo Aquifer through an elaborate ASR scheme. The city
purchased a 3200 acre land tract to base their ASR project over and adjacent well owners had to
be compensated. In addition, a special agreement had to be reached with the Evergreen
Groundwater Conservation District to facilitate the project. This included the expansion of this
GCD in order to win over adjacent well operators who were afraid of having their supply cut off
by ASR. Finally, in an effort to placate worried residents, San Antonio promised not to draw
down water from the project unless Stage III drought restrictions were in place. ASR is an
attractive possibility for new water storage in Texas, but the San Antonio case demonstrates that
there are too many regulatory hurdles to be crossed.
The obstacles to wider wastewater reuse are many and the preceding sections have laid
out just a few of them. Texas’ two levels of water administration, between surface and
groundwater, create numerous regulatory glitches that have to be accounted for in a wastewater
reuse project. Perhaps most damning from this system is the complex water rights that restrict
new water projects on state water courses. Narrowly tailored regulations within the TCEQ make
wastewater projects harder to approve. The issue of water storage is exacerbated by this complex
system of water rights, with surface storage becoming less viable. The major potential solution
for storage can be found in ASR, but it still has many regulatory wrinkles to be ironed out. The
next section will discuss policy recommendations that can help fix these ailments.
Potential Policy Solutions to Promote Wastewater Reuse:
#1 Establish Direct Potable Reuse Regulations
More and more cities will begin direct reuse projects for the many reasons outlined in this paper.
Similar to its provisions for other forms of wastewater reuse, the TCEQ and the TWDB should
adopt rules which make direct potable reuse projects easier across the state. Examples of
successful systems can be found in Australia, which has an entirely different water ownership
system as in Texas. Concerns in that country, however, are driven by competing water quality
standards. The TCEQ can avoid these issues by relying on the federal Clean Drinking Water Act
14
John Montgomery
Wastewater Reuse in Texas
standards. In these new provisions for direct potable reuse, the TCEQ should also take care to
incorporate individual river basin concerns.
Pros: The introduction of rules for potable reuse would establish uniformity across the
many projects already under way in the state. Direct potable reuse would eliminate much
of the evaporation loss that is incurred through traditional indirect reuse projects.
Regulation for this type of reuse system has extensive precedent in other countries, such
as Australia. Also, the TCEQ has a ready supply of regulatory language to choose from
within the Texas Water Code. Administratively, these sorts of projects are no more
complicated than other wastewater reuse projects.
Cons: Direct potable reuse would eliminate many of the return flows that are currently
required in most water rights permits. The process of amending a water rights permit is
currently difficult to navigate, and it is likely that the TCEQ would incorporate many of
these obstacles into a new direct potable reuse scheme. The restriction of return flows
would also potentially impugn the water rights of downstream rights holders. Any actions
in the past that might affect water rights holders have been a nonstarter for the TCEQ. To
this point, the individual river basin authorities would see these moves as an
encroachment on their authority to regulate rivers.
#2 Establish Environmental Flow Allowances for Bed and Banks Permits
Cities will seek more ways to utilize natural bodies of water for the storage of water, as
evidenced by TWDB projections. San Antonio sought additional justification for this bed and
banks approach through environmental flows, which were denied by the TCEQ. Environmental
flows should be a legitimate reason for the discharge of water into state surface water courses,
and the TCEQ should adopt such an allowance.
Pros: Establishing environmental flows for wastewater reuse projects would give more
stable access to water supplies for the lower portions of river systems. In a system that is
over allocated, there is no buffer or extra that can be used as flexible supply. Establishing
an appropriate environmental flow buffer would cancel out some of the uncertainty over
supply that would arise from direct potable reuse, and could be used as a “sweetener” to
allow greater direct potable reuse in upper river basins: If Dallas is going to reuse more
wastewater, then they should also have to ensure enough discharge for environmental
functions as well as municipal use down river. Furthermore, the environmental impacts of
15
John Montgomery
Wastewater Reuse in Texas
river over allocation could be mitigated if there was a specific set aside for the
environment. This is especially crucial where rivers flow into bays and estuaries since
marine life and wildlife in these areas are dependent upon a careful balance of fresh and
salty water. Finally, environmental flows would raise the cost of water overall and would
drive the development of more wastewater reuse projects. Since return flows would have
to include environmental flows, water users would enforce conservation measures more
robustly. This would help Texas make the most of its water.
Cons: Just as with recommendation #1, the downstream water rights holders in a river
system would likely be opposed to reserving some water (or as they would see it, some of
their water) for environmental purposes. This is despite the fact that this newly reserved
environmental flow water would be available to them, when before such a change there
would have been no consideration of additional outflows for any purpose. In addition, the
quality of the treated wastewater would have to be carefully assessed and monitored to
prevent harm to those that depend on it. Finally, the creation of an environmental flow
requirement would add to the return flow requirements for upstream cities and other big
water rights holders. This means that water users would have to minimize waste and
invest in new infrastructure. Finally, the higher cost of water that would incorporate
environmental flows would put a strain on municipal water systems which traditionally
operate at a loss.
#3 Establish Statewide GCD Standards for ASR Projects
ASR projects are complicated, and their potential impacts can be far reaching. As such, the
citizens in communities around the geologic formations selected for ASR projects need adequate
representation of their interests. While it would not be possible to establish uniform scientific
standards, there are some basic administrative principles that should be implemented by all
GCDs. GCDs are in unique positions to offer this representation, but are currently lacking in
policies and regulations for the execution of ASR. Therefore, the TWDB should establish
minimum state wide ASR standards for GCDs that represent consensus administrative needs. In
addition to this, the TCEQ should work more closely with ASR-linked GCDs to ensure all
environmental concerns are addressed before a project is allowed to raise capital. It tends to be
the case that once capital is raised for a project, it creates momentum that is hard to reverse.
16
John Montgomery
Wastewater Reuse in Texas
Education of the local community would also go a long way. Focusing on establishing uniform
best practices for GCD administrators would help pave a clearer path for ASR projects.
Pros: Empowering GCDs to work on ASR would maintain local control of these projects.
Citizens can elect GCD board members, and would be able to exert more influence in
ASR accommodations. In addition, GCDs are one of the few entities in the state that has
the legal authority to limit groundwater pumping. This crucial amount of control over the
management of aquifers makes them a natural fit for ASR. Finally, the introduction of
standards for GCDs and ASR would open the gate to further reforms of GCDs, which are
sorely lacking at the present. This could create a domino effect that brings groundwater
under better public management.
Cons: Any efforts to exert uniform standards on GCDs have been met with intense
skepticism in the past, due largely to the ethos of local control. In addition, local
ignorance about the science of ASR makes adoption difficult. Area property owners
would see the inclusion of ASR management and pumping restrictions as a usurpation of
their property rights. In addition to this, ASR projects may be undertaken in areas that do
not presently contain GCDs. It is likely that an ASR project executor would establish a
special GCD for this situation, but it is not guaranteed. In addition, municipalities that
wish to undertake ASR projects may find additional regulation of these projects by the
state objectionable. Finally, the TCEQ has a poor track record of enforcing water quality
standards and this would place additional burdens on this capability.
Conclusions
Water is not going to get any more plentiful or inexpensive in Texas. Climate change is driving
up temperatures, evaporation, and moisture loss, while also lowering the frequency of rain.
Population pressures the state to find greater amounts of new water. Sometimes the best new
source is making the most of the old. There are many small scale projects currently underway to
enhance Texas’ wastewater reuse, but there are obstacles to wider adoption. Regulation by the
TCEQ, inaction by GCDs, and the confusing structure of water ownership in Texas mean that
wastewater reuse is only shuffling along when it should be leaping. This report has highlighted
some of the most egregious obstacles to wider wastewater reuse adoption, and has offered some
17
John Montgomery
Wastewater Reuse in Texas
concrete suggestions for improving Texas policy. There is no cure all for the state’s water woes,
but reusing wastewater is a proven system that can help.
18
John Montgomery
Wastewater Reuse in Texas
Bibliography
Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering. (2014). DIRECT POTABLE
REUSE IN AUSTRALIA - A DISCUSSION PAPER. Retrieved December 6, 2014, from
Australian Water Recycling Center of Excellence:
http://www.australianwaterrecycling.com.au/projects/direct-potable-reuse-in-australia-adiscussion-paper
Brown, J. (2013, March 7). Water Reuse Will Require Regulatory Revisions; in Texas, TCEQ is
Revising Its Rules. Retrieved December 6, 2014, from The University of Texas School of
Law, Energy Law Center: http://www.utexas.edu/law/centers/energy/blog/2013/03/waterreuse-will-require-regulatory-revisions-in-texas-tceq-is-revising-its-rules/
Brown, J. (2014, January 31). SAWS Application for Bed-and-Banks Permit Highlights Tension
in Having Dual Surface Water and Groundwater Regimes. Retrieved December 6, 2014,
from University of Texas at Austin School of Law, Energy Law Center:
http://www.utexas.edu/law/centers/energy/blog/2014/01/saws-application-for-bed-andbanks-permit-highlights-tension-in-having-dual-surface-water-and-groundwater-regimes/
Ekhardt, G. (2012). Aquifer Storage and Recovery. Retrieved December 6, 2014, from The
Edwards Aquifer Website: http://www.edwardsaquifer.net/asr.html
Electric Reliability Council of Texas. (2013, July 11). WATER USE AND AVAILABILITY IN
THE ERCOT REGION. Retrieved December 6, 2014, from •
http://www.ercot.com/content/committees/other/lts/keydocs/2013/ERCOT_Water_Use_a
nd_Availablility_-_DrtRpt_1DF.pdf
Electric Reliability Council of Texas. (2014, March 31). Long-Term Hourly Peak Demand and
Energy Forecast. Retrieved December 6, 2014, from 2014 ERCOT Planning: •
http://www.ercot.com/gridinfo/load/forecast/Docs/2014_LongTerm_Hourly_Peak_Demand_and_Energy_Forecast.pdf
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. (2011, February). An Assessment of Aquifer Storage and Recovery in Texas.
Retrieved December 6, 2014, from Texas Water Development Board Report #
0904830940: http://www.edwardsaquifer.net/pdf/TWDB_2011_ASR_assessment.pdf
Neely, J. (2014). Interbasin Transfers: A Water Solution for Texas. Austin, TX: Texas Public
Policy Foundation.
19
John Montgomery
Wastewater Reuse in Texas
O'Rourke, C. (2010, January 13). Perry says 1,000 people move to Texas daily. Retrieved
December 6, 2014, from PolitiFact Texas: •
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/jan/13/rick-perry/perry-says-1000people-move-texas-daily/
San Antonio Water System. (2009, April 30). Application for Permit to Convey and Reuse
Privately Owned Groundwater Based Return Flows. San Antonio, Texas, United States of
America. Retrieved from https://www.utexas.edu/law/centers/energy/wp/wpcontent/uploads/centers/energy/SAWS-Permit-Application.pdf
San Antonio Water System. (2012, December). Twin Oaks - Aquifer Storage & Recovery.
Retrieved December 6, 2014, from San Antonio Water System, Current Water Supply
Projects: http://www.saws.org/Your_Water/WaterResources/projects/asr.cfmTwin Oaks Aquifer Storage & Recovery
Satija, N. (2014, September 3). A Tale of 2 Water Districts: 1 Aquifer, 2 Strategies. Retrieved
December 6, 2014, from The Texas Tribune:
http://www.texastribune.org/2014/09/03/tale-two-groundwater-districts/
Satija, N. (2014, July 13). Climate Scientists: Texas is Missing an Opportunity. Retrieved
December 6, 2014, from The Texas Tribune:
http://www.texastribune.org/2014/07/13/growth-adds-denial-and-vulnerability-climatechang/
Satija, N. (2014, May 14). No Joke: Most Drinking Supplies Flush With "Potty Water".
Retrieved December 6, 2014, from The Texas Tribune:
http://www.texastribune.org/2014/05/14/dont-point-and-jeer-wichita-falls/
Satija, N. (2014, July 11). State to San Antonio: No, You Can't Own Your Wastewater. Retrieved
December 6, 2014, from The Texas Tribune:
http://www.texastribune.org/2014/07/11/state-san-antonio-no-you-cant-own-yourwastewater/
Satija, N. (2014, July 14). Water Planners Focus on Bigger Texas, Not a Hotter One. Retrieved
December 6, 2014, from The Texas Tribune:
http://www.texastribune.org/2014/07/14/state-only-planning-bigger-texas-not-hotter-one/
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. (2013, July 5). Texas Regulations, Commission
on Environmental Quality. Retrieved December 6, 2014, from
20
John Montgomery
Wastewater Reuse in Texas
http://bnaregs.bna.com/default.aspx?id=TX_24260&vdte=20130201&act=Proposed%20
Rule&aid=1&cyear=2013
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. (2014, July 8). Application No. 13098 for Water
Use Permit. Retrieved December 6, 2014, from
https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.texastribune.org/media/documents/13098.SAWS.RFI.07
.08.2014.pdf
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. (2014, August 29). Requirements for Reclaimed
Water. Retrieved December 6, 2014, from Water Compliance Resources:
http://www.tceq.texas.gov/assistance/water/reclaimed_water.html
Texas Living Waters. (2003). Spotlight on Groundwater Conservation Districts in Texas. Austin,
TX: Environmental Defense.
Texas Water Development Board. (2012, January). Water for Texas, State Water Plan 2012.
Retrieved December 6, 2014, from Texas Water Development Board:
http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/publications/state_water_plan/2012/2012_SWP.pdf
Texas Water Development Board. (2013). Groundwater Availability Models. Retrieved
December 6, 2014, from Texas Water Development Board, Groundwater Models:
http://www.twdb.texas.gov/groundwater/models/index.asp
Texas Water Development Board. (2014). State Water Implementation Fund for Texas (SWIFT).
Retrieved December 6, 2014, from Texas Water Development Board:
http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/swift/index.asp
Vanetta, M. (2014, October 3). Texas Sees Significant Decline in Rural Land. Retrieved
December 6, 2014, from Texas Tribune: http://www.texastribune.org/2014/10/14/openspace-texas/
21