Environmental justice and sustainability have both become major concerns for water resource management, particularly with recent federal emphasis on environmental justice under the Biden administration in the United States. Texas, like many U.S. states, lags behind the federal government in this emphasis. While many localities have made progress in some respects—for example, some major Texas municipalities have included equity and sustainability metrics in their recent climate action plans—others have not. This has left a patchwork of persistent water management and availability issues that are exacerbated by extreme weather and worsening impacts of climate change. We provide a review of many of Texas’s water equity and sustainability challenges, both now and in a more extreme climate future. These include water access, affordability, contamination, flooding, drought, and aging infrastructure. For example, many Texas counties rank highest in the nation for flood risk, including coastal counties with high populations of disadvantaged communities and counties containing populations that live in persistent poverty in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Additionally, approximately 44,000 Texans, or about 0.4% of the state population, lack access to complete plumbing facilities in their homes. The costs of water infrastructure leaks (estimated at about 51 gallons of water per day statewide) are shared across customers of all income levels, though they place a disproportionate burden on low-income customers. We then assess existing statewide and local policy and planning efforts and gaps in addressing these concerns in Texas. We focus particularly on the role of efforts to incorporate community voice—the ideas, concerns, needs, and expertise of impacted community members, dismantle causes of injustice, and improve equity in spending. If communities are not intentional with future development, new water infrastructure could continue to perpetuate existing harms. Thus, we provide a research agenda and recommendations for addressing some of the policy and planning gaps and persistent environmental justice issues. We aim to help water managers and policy makers identify and dismantle sources of inequity, particularly through including community voice.

Up until the end of the oil and gas boom in 2014, much of the sand used in the Permian Basin for hydraulic fracturing was sourced from upper Midwest of the United States. Because of substantial cost savings, producers in the Permian Basin began using local sand resources, creating an associated boom in local frac-sand mining in the Monahans-Mescalaro Sand Ecosystem. By December 2018, 17 frac-sand operations had registered with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality with 16 being operational with a cumulative annual capacity of 56.8 million tons and a self-reported 2,927 acres of disturbed land. We identified 230 production wells for the 16 facilities with depths ranging from 80 to 1,199 feet and most completed in the Pecos Valley Alluvium and/or Dockum aquifers. Estimated frac sand facility water use (10,000 to 40,000 acre-feet per year, based on 60 to 250 gallons of water consumed per ton of produced sand) rivals or exceeds that of water used in the four counties (Crane, Ector, Ward, and Winkler) with active frac sand facilities (23,500 acre-feet per year). Modeling suggests that long-term pumping of the unconfined Pecos Valley Aquifer may be a challenge requiring additional wells over time or the use of alternative water supplies. For the confined Dockum Aquifer, simulations suggest that pumping might completely deplete artesian pressure at the well field after 10 years.

Springs are ecosystems influenced by the exposure of groundwater at the Earth's surface. Springs are abundant and have played important, highly interactive ecological, cultural, and socio-economic roles in arid, mesic, and subaqueous environments throughout human evolution and history. However, springs also are widely regarded as being highly threatened by human impacts. Cantonati et al. (2020a) recommended increased global awareness of springs, including basic mapping, inventory and assessment of the distribution and ecological integrity of springs. We conducted a preliminary global analysis on the ecological integrity of springs by reviewing information on the distribution, ecohydrogeology, associated species, kinds and intensity of human uses, and level of ecological impairment of spring ecosystems. We reviewed information on an estimated 250,000 spring ecosystems among 78 countries across much of the world. Available literature on spring ecological integrity is sparse, widely scattered, and spatially erratic, with major gaps in knowledge. We report large differences in the quality and extent of information among countries and continents, with only moderate data availability even among developed countries, and limited information across most of the developing world. Among countries with available data, ecological impairment of springs is everywhere rampant, sometimes exceeding 90% in developed regions. Impairment among Holarctic nations is generally negatively related to distance from human development, elevation, and latitude, but such patterns are less evident in Africa, Australia, and South America. Declining trends in ecosystem condition, compounding threat factors, and spring-dependent population declines, extirpation, and extinctions of plants, invertebrates, fish, and herpetofauna are widely reported. Overall, available information indicates a global crisis in spring ecosystem integrity, with levels of ecosystem impairment ranging from Vulnerable to fully Collapsed. The threats to aquifers and the ecological integrity of springs vary spatially. Many springs are impaired by local impacts due to flow diversion, geomorphic alteration, land use practices, recreation impacts, and the introduction of non-native species. These threats can be reduced through education, rehabilitation of geomorphology and habitat quality, and species reintroductions if the supporting aquifer remains relatively intact. However, springs also are widely threatened by regional to global factors, including groundwater extraction and pollution, as well as climate change. Such coarse-scale, pre-emergence impacts negatively affect the sustainability of spring ecosystems and the aquifers that support them. Improving understanding and stewardship of springs will require much additional systematic inventory and assessment, improved information management, and reconsideration of basic conservation concepts (e.g., habitat connectivity), as well as cultural and socio-economic valuation. Substantial societal recognition, discussion, and policy reform are needed within and among nations to better protect and sustainably rehabilitate springs, their supporting aquifers, and the spring-dependent human and biotic populations that depend upon them.

In 2007, the 80th Texas Legislature enacted Senate Bill 3 on the 140th and last day of session. This bill was the third far-reaching piece of water legislation after Senate Bill 1 passed in 1997 and Senate Billl 2 passed in 2001. Collectively, these bills changed how Texas plans for future water needs, regulates groundwater, promotes conservation, studies the need for environmental flows balanced with population needs, and establishes environmental flow standards for Texas’ rivers, bays, and estuaries. Senate Bill 3 created a process through which scientists, stakeholders, and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality set environmental flow standards. Over 12 years have passed since Senate Bill 3 became law, allowing us to consider the efficacy of the enabling legislation and the resulting rules. In short, identifying and securing water for the environment has been difficult due to little if any unallocated water in the state’s river basins and limitations in Senate Bill 3 and Texas Water Code. We identified seven options for the stakeholders and the state to consider to increase the protection of environmental flows while respecting private property rights: (1) protecting water-right owners that participate in forbearance agreements from cancellation, (2) pursuing cancellations and affirming abandonments, (3) requiring that cancelled or abandoned water be set-aside to meet environmental flow standards, (4) modernizing how surface-water use and diversions are tracked, (5) requiring water rights holders to demonstrate the pursuit of other water supplies before suspending environmental flows, (6) studying ways how environmental flows can co-exist and be protected within a prior-appropriation system, and (7) studying how dedications of water under existing water rights can be considered for tax credit or deductions so as to further incentivize transactions for environmental benefit. If implemented, these options could allow Texas and Texans to more closely achieve the desired outcomes hoped for from Senate Bill 3.

Alley WM, Alley R. 2022. The Water Recycling Revolution: Tapping into the Future. Lanham (Maryland): Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 9781538160411. 231 p. Reviewed by Robert E. Mace

We synthesize the interconnected impacts of Texas’ water and energy resources and infrastructure including the cascading effects due to Winter Storm Uri. The government’s preparedness, communication, policies, and response as well as storm impacts on vulnerable communities are evaluated using available information and data. Where knowledge gaps exist, we propose potential research to elucidate health, environmental, policy, and economic impacts of the extreme weather event. We expect that recommendations made here — while specific to the situation and outcomes of Winter Storm Uri — will increase Texas’ resilience to other extreme weather events not discussed in this paper. We found that out of 14 million residents who were on boil water notices, those who were served by very small water systems went, on average, a minimum of three days longer without potable water. Available county-level data do not indicate vulnerable communities went longer periods of time without power or water during the event. More resolved data are required to understand who was most heavily impacted at the community or neighborhood level. Gaps in government communication, response, and policy are discussed, including issues with identifying — and securing power to — critical infrastructure and the fact that the state’s Emergency Alert System was not used consistently to update Texans during the crisis. Finally, research recommendations are made to bolster weaknesses discovered during and after the storm including (1) reliable communication strategies, (2) reducing disproportionate impacts to vulnerable communities, (3) human health impacts, (4) increasing water infrastructure resilience, and (5) how climate change could impact infrastructure resilience into the future.

Freshwater scarcity is a growing concern in Texas and the issues that surround it are expected to grow in the coming years. As climate change impacts the variability of precipitation patterns, some of the most useful tools to help allocate this precious, limited resource may be the tools that are most adaptable in the face of growing uncertainty. While market mechanisms are budding in the state, another market-based tool can create opportunities for efficient water allocation among stakeholders: the water option. An option is a financial product that provides a vehicle to interested parties (buyers and sellers) to create a contract that formalizes the terms of the possible future delivery of water. In cash markets for resources, the exchange of cash and the resource happens when the trade is made; in options markets, the flexibility of delivery is amplified considerably, making them useful for mitigating risk. The buyer of the contract is securing the right—not the obligation—to buy a specific amount of a resource, by a specific time, for a defined price and has the ability to decide if and when the contract gets exercised over the term of the contract. This work discusses the utility of these contracts and outlines a method to price them.

Editor-in-Chief's Note: The Texas Water Journal accepted a request by Robert E. Mace, Executive Director and Chief Water Policy Officer at The Meadows Center for Water and the Environment, to share his thoughts on the article, Exploring Groundwater Recoverability in Texas: Maximum Economically Recoverable Storage,” published in the Texas Water Journal (2020) 11(1):152-171, by Justin C. Thompson, Charles W. Kreitler, and Michael H. Young. The opinion expressed in this commentary is the opinion of the individual author and not the opinion of the Texas Water Journal or the Texas Water Resources Institute.

Editor-in-Chief's Note: The Texas Water Journal accepted a request by Robert E. Mace, Executive Director and Chief Water Policy Officer at The Meadows Center for Water and the Environment, to share his thoughts on the article, Exploring Groundwater Recoverability in Texas: Maximum Economically Recoverable Storage,” published in the Texas Water Journal (2020) 11(1):152-171, by Justin C. Thompson, Charles W. Kreitler, and Michael H. Young. The opinion expressed in this commentary is the opinion of the individual author and not the opinion of the Texas Water Journal or the Texas Water Resources Institute.

Experts representative of Texas’ water sectors identified critical water data needs and described the design of a comprehensive open access data system that facilitates use of public water data in Texas at the April 2018 Connecting Texas Water Data Workshop as reported in the Texas Water Journal. Participants described potential use cases to initiate work on the most critical data hubs for connecting Texas water data. This update describes progress on a flood dashboard by the Texas Water Development Board and development of use cases by stakeholders with expertise in water data for drought and surface water – groundwater interactions. Citation: Rosen RA, Mace RE, Hermitte SM, Wade R. 2020. Internet of Texas water: use cases for flood, drought, and surface water–groundwater interactions. Texas Water Journal. 11(1):133-151. Available from: https://doi.org/10.21423/twj.v11i1.7109.

Long‐range water planning is complicated by factors that are rapidly changing in the 21st century, including climate, population, and water use. Here, we analyze climate factors and drought projections for Texas as an example of a diverse society straddling an aridity gradient to examine how the projections can best serve water stakeholder needs. We find that climate models are robust in projecting drying of summer‐season soil moisture and decreasing reservoir supplies for both the eastern and western portions of Texas during the 21st century. Further, projections indicate drier conditions during the latter half of the 21st century than even the most arid centuries of the last 1,000 years that included megadroughts. To illustrate how accounting for drought nonstationarity may increase water resiliency, we consider generalized case studies involving four key stakeholder groups: agricultural producers, large surface water suppliers, small groundwater management districts, and regional water planning districts. We also examine an example of customized climate information being used as input to long‐range water planning. We find that while stakeholders value the quantitative capability of climate model outputs, more specific climate‐related information better supports resilience planning across multiple stakeholder groups. New suites of tools could provide necessary capacity for both short‐ and long‐term, stakeholder‐specific adaptive planning.

GroundwaterVolume 57, Issue 2 p. 197-198 Book Review/ Advances in Groundwater Governance reviewed by Robert E. Mace, Corresponding Author Robert E. Mace robertmace@txstate.edu Corresponding author: The Meadows Center for Water and the Environment, Texas State University, 601 University Drive, San Marcos, TX 78666; robertmace@txstate.eduSearch for more papers by this authorTodd H. Votteler, Todd H. Votteler Collaborative Water Resolution LLC, 10604 Natick Lane, Austin, TX 78739Search for more papers by this author reviewed by Robert E. Mace, Corresponding Author Robert E. Mace robertmace@txstate.edu Corresponding author: The Meadows Center for Water and the Environment, Texas State University, 601 University Drive, San Marcos, TX 78666; robertmace@txstate.eduSearch for more papers by this authorTodd H. Votteler, Todd H. Votteler Collaborative Water Resolution LLC, 10604 Natick Lane, Austin, TX 78739Search for more papers by this author First published: 11 February 2019 https://doi.org/10.1111/gwat.12859Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume57, Issue2March/April 2019Pages 197-198 RelatedInformation

Global environmental challenges are increasingly complex and interdependent and the sentiment that sustainability requires new approaches to integrating science and policy is ubiquitous. This is the domain of sustainability science. Yet, major gaps exist in our understanding of the relationships between researchers from different disciplines and between science, policy, and management. While scientific research is shifting toward greater collaboration and transdisciplinarity, we need to improve our understanding of the processes and structures that lead to successful scientific collaboration and high-impact, innovative science-policy outcomes. 'Networks and networking' offer a powerful strategy for integration in sustainability science, yet empirical research assessing network-based integration is limited. Using social network analysis, we empirically investigate the integration of the Texas Water Research Network (TWRN), which comprises academic and non-academic participants from multiple universities, disciplines and research orientations seeking to address the challenges posed by complex, multilevel water resource issues across the state of Texas. We found that TWRN members were relatively well connected (an average of 3.8 ties per member), but that some research groups (e.g. water science) were way more active and connected than others (e.g. scenario building). Within the different phases of the research process, bringing results to fruition was the most transdisciplinary. Utilizing analytical methods from network science can offer techniques to analyze and evaluate, as well as prescribe interventions and enable action in transdiciplinary research networks.