Report of the Texas House of Representatives, Natural Resources Committee a report to the House of the 64th Texas Legislature

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Coastal Zone
Ir 3
Information
Center PUL 2 0 1976

AFORMArgam CUTER

go.,

HC
107
-T4
A45
1974

REPORT

OF THE

TEXAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE

A Report to the House of the

64th Texas Legislature

Gibson D. Lewis,

Chairman

Property of CSC Library

STAFF:
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER Jack Gullahorn
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
William S. Rose
CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413

NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE P.O. BOX 2910
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78767
GIBSON D. (GIB) LEWIS, CHAIRMAN

SUBCOMMITTEES:
State of Texas

OIL AND GAS House of Representative

DICK SLACK, CHAIRMAN Austin
JON NEWTON, VICE-CHAIRMAN
MILTON FOX January 8, 1974
TERRY CANALES
TOM SCHIEFFER
TOM CRADDICK
JOE HANNA
WATER
BILL CLAYTON, CHAIRMAN
PHIL CATES, VICE-CHAIRMAN
BOB HENDRICKS
WAYNE PEVETO
TOM MASSEY
LINDSEY RODRIGUEZ
JOHN HOESTENBACH

LAND AND FORESTRY
DEAN COBB, CHAIRMAN
BILL BLYTHE, VICE-CHAIRMAN
SAMUEL HUDSON
AL KORIOTH
JAMES NOWLIN
ED WATSON
JOHN WILSON

The Honorable Price Daniel Jr.
Speaker of the House of Representatives

Members, Texas House of Representatives
64th Texas Legislature

Dear Mr. Speaker and Members:

Transmitted herewith is the Report of the
Natural Resources Committee which is to be submitted
to the 64th Texas Legislature.

Sincerely,

Gibson D.(Gib)Lewis
Chairman

GDL:pc

The Report of the Natural Resources Committee has been

approved by the following Committee members: Chairman Gibson D.

Lewis, Vice Chairman Henry Sanchez, Representatives Phil Cates,

Dean Cobb, Milton Fox, Joe Hanna, John Hoestenbach, Jon Newton,

James R. Nowlin, Wayne A. Peveto, and John Wilson.

The following members approved all portions of the report

but disapproved Recommendation No. 1; to wit, that the Texas

Legislature enact into law the unitization bill (H.B.311) adopted

by the House of Representatives in the 63rd Legislature: Rep-

resentatives Bob Hendricks, Tom Massey, and Richard C. Slack.

The following member approved the report with reservations:

Representative Al Korioth.

The following members disapproved the report: Representatives

Tom Craddick and Ed R. Watson.

The following members were recorded present not voting:

Representatives W. J. Bill Blythe, Jr. and Bill Clayton.

The following members had not voted at the time of publication:

Representatives Terry Canales, Samuel W. Hudson, III, Lindsay

Rodriguez, and Tom Schieffer.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

ENERGY 3

A. Energy Crisis Committee 3

B. Rural Energy Crisis Committee 3

C. Unitization 6

CONSERVATION AND RECLAMATION-
COMMITTEE ACTION AND RELATED STUDIES 10

A. Surface Mining Reclamation 10

B. Water Resources 11

C. House Interim Committee on Water
Supply and Waste Disposal 13

FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS 15

A. Land Surface Subsidence 15

B. Water Resource Planning 16

REPORT

OF THE

TEXAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE

INTRODUCTION

At the commencement of the 63rd Legislature, the Honorable

Price Daniel, Jr., Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives

appointed the House Committee on Natural Resources.

The Committee membership includes twenty-four members, all

of whom are members of the House of Representatives. The following

Representatives were named to the Committee at the beginning of

,the 63rd Session: Gibson D. Lewis of Fort Worth, Chairman, Henry

Sanchez of Brownsville, Vice Chairman, W. J. Bill Blythe, Jr. of

Houston, Terry Canales of Premont, Phil Cates of Lefors, Bill

Clayton of Springlake, Dean Cobb of Dumas, Tom Craddick of Midland,

Milton E. Fox of Houston, Joe C. Hanna of Breckenridge, Bob

Hendricks of McKinney, John Hoestenbach of Odessa, Samuel W.

Hudson III of Dallas, Al Korioth of Farmers Branch, Herman Lauhoff

of Houston, Tom Massey of San Angelo, Jon Newton of Beeville,

James Nowlin of San Antonio, Wayne Peveto of Orange, Lindsay

Rodriguez of Hidalgo, Tom Schieffer of Fort Worth, Richard C.

Slack of Pecos, Ed R. Watson of Deer Park, and John Wilson of La

Grange.

This Report will not attempt to describe the committee's

activity during the Regular Session of the 63rd Legislature. All

of the Committee's work during the Regular Session was confined

to the consideration of legislation then pending before the House

of Representatives. Attached as an Addendum (Addendum A) to this

Report is a statement of the disposition of the bills which were

considered by the Committee during the Regular Session.

This Report will summarize the Committee's activity since

the close of the Regular Session. The Committee's work was

interrupted by the Constitutional Convention convened in January

1974 and adjourned on July 30, 1974 at midnight. During this

period, the Convention required the full attention and energies

of the Committee's membership. For the balance of the interim

the Committee has remained active.

This Report has three major topics: (I.) Energy; (II.)

Conservation and Reclamation; and (III.) Future Considerations.

These three topics encompass the general areas of concern with

which the committee and related study committees dealt during the

interim period.

I. Energy

Within the first two months after the Regular Session, the

reality of an energy crisis was still being questioned. Then

skyrocketing gasoline prices, higher home and industrial fuel

bills, and the curtailment of petroleum production and petroleum

exports by Middle Eastern and South American countries provided

an affirmative answer.

A. Energ Crisis Committee

To respond to this critical situation and to determine

its impact and possible solutions, Speaker Daniel appointed all

seven members of the Energy Crisis Committee from the Natural

Resources Committee pursuant to H.S.R. 59. Representative Jon

Newton was appointed Chairman and Representative Gibson D. Lewis

was appointed Vice-Chairman. Representatives Dean Cobb, Milton

Fox, Joe Hanna, Samuel Hudson and Tom Schieffer constituted the

remaining membership of the Committee. During the interim, the

Natural Resources Committee provided staff assistance to supplement

the Energy Crisis Committee's staff. While this Report will not

attempt to summarize the activities of the Energy Crisis Committee,

a separate,, comprehensive report will be filed by that Committee.

Those interested in the findings and conclusions of the Energy

Crisis Committee are referred to that Committee's report.

B. Rural,Energy Crisis Subcommittee

In December of 1973, it became apparent that the fuel

shortage was acutely affecting Texas Agriculture. At the request

of Speaker Daniel, Chairman Lewis assigned a study of the energy

crisis in rural areas to a subcommittee chaired by Representative

Joe Hanna. Representative Tom Craddick was appointed Vice-

- 3 -

Chairman. Other members appointed included: Representatives

Phil Cates, Bill Clayton, Tom Massey, Wayne Peveto and John

Wilson.

This subcommittee received testimony from the Agriculture

Commissioner, the Railroad Commission, representatives from the

Governor and Lt. Governor, legislators, the Texas Sheep and Goat

Raiserl� Association, the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers

Association, the Texas Farm Bureau, the American Rice Growers

Coop. Assn., and ranchers. From the testimony received, the

subcommittee determined that many Texas rural residents were not

receiving all of the fuel they were entitled to under recently

implemented federal regulations governing allocations of middle

distillates (including diesel fuel, kerosene, home heating oil,

range oil, stove oil and gas oil). The subcommittee further

determined that continuing changes in the federal regulations and

continuous transfers of energy responsibilities among federal

agencies had resulted in confusion among rural wholesale suppliers

and wholesale purchasers resulting in the wholesale purchaser's

often being denied the fuel they were entitled to receive. As a

result, Texas agriculture was imperiled by loss of fuel to operate

machinery and to deliver goods and crops.

The subcommittee unanimously agreed that there was a communication

problem and that the legal rights of the purchasers and the legal

responsibilities of the suppliers needed to be publicized and

enforced. Through press releases, the subcommittee disseminated

information to rural Texas residents and their suppliers in order

to ameliorate this problem. When federal regulations changed in

January of 1974, the subcommittee issued further press releases

- 4 -

to advise the wholesale suppliers and purchasers of their legal

rights and responsibilities.

The Committee determined that under current federal regulations,

rural purchasers are generally entitled, on a monthly basis, to

the same allocation of supplies as they received in the corresponding

month in 1972. Currently, there are no extensive shortages and

those willing to pay increased prices are able to obtain petroleum

supplies to satisfy their needs. The state set-aside has served

as a buffer against scarcity.

The Committee did not find that the rural energy crisis has

been solved. The Committee determined that federal regulations

governing the federal mandatory allocation program make it very

difficult for a consumer to increase his entitlement over 1972

allocations. If petroleum supplies become more scarce, the

inflexibility of the federal regulations limiting entitlements

will become very apparent. Three events loom in the near future

which may cause shortages of fuel to rural Texans:

(1) a prolonged refinery strike which may commence

in January;

(2) an increased number of natural gas curtailments

in 1975 together with a colder winter; and

(3) a reimposition of the Arab oil embargo.

Under existing regulations and a scarcity of fuel, rural

residents will be prevented from expanding their production and

will be forced to absorb ever increasing fuel prices into the

economics of their operations.

Recommendation: That the Texas Legislature adopt a resolution

urging greater flexibility in the federal regulations prescribing

entitlements in the mandatory allocation program.

C. Unitization

Responding to the possibility that the Governor might

call a Special Session of the Legislature for consideration of a

Unitization Bill, the full Committee on Natural Resources met

December 18, 1973 and received testimony on the bill that passed

the House of Representatives during the Regular Session of the

63rd Legislature (H.B.311) but failed to pass the Senate.

"Unitization" is a method of achieving cooperative development

of oil and gas properties. It is, in general, the development

and operation of an oil reservoir, gas reservoir, or oil and gas

reservoir as a unit and involves the consolidation or merging of

all interests in the parcel and the designation of one or more of
the parties as unit operator.1

At the present time, no one (working interest owner or

otherwise) can be compelled to unitize his mineral producing

tract against his will, or can be compelled to participate in any
secondary recovery programs.2 However, persons owning or controlling

production, leases, royalties, or other interests in separate

1 Unitization should not be confused with "pooling" which
brings together two or more small, irregularly shaped
tracts to form a drill site in order to conform with the
spacing and density rules of the Texas Railroad Commission.
2 Pickens v. Railroad Commission, 387 S.W.2d 35 (Texas--
1965)

properties in the same oil, gas, or oil and gas field may voluntarily
enter into unitization.3

The bill considered by the committee provided a procedure by

which the owners of at least seventy-five per cent (75%) of the

royalty interests and at least seventy-five per cent (75%) of the

working interests could compel the remaining interest owners to

unitize the operations of the common reservoir. Testimony was

offered claiming the following advantages and disadvantages to

such a bill:

Purported Advantages

1. Unitization results in greater production from oil and

gas fields:

(a) only a small percentage of Texas oil fields

are unitized.

(b) The energy crisis requires that the state optimally

develop its natural resources.

2. Under current Texas Law, the overwhelming majority of

working interest and royalty interest owners may wish to

unitize but are prevented from doing so by small minority

owners:

(a) The Legislature has the obligation to protect the

majority as well as the minority.

(b) Twenty-eight other states have some form of

majority consent unitization legislation.

3. Unitization will prolong the life of a field, allowing

the implementation of new and better recovery processes

that are currently under research.

3 Article 6008b Texas Revised Civil Statutes.

4. Through unitization, royalty interest owners would

receive a great deal more money at no cost. Schools

and teachers would receive substantial amounts in.

state and local schoolboard funds and teacher

retirement funds.

5. Local governments would enjoy a broader tax base,

stronger economy, and higher employment if unitization

were authorized.

Pur2orted Disadvantages

1. Forced unitization results in governmental confiscation

of private property.

2. There is no clear and present need for forced

unitization. Under the 75% consent requirement, no

fields in Texas could be forced to unitize.

3. Voluntary unitization has worked well. Why abandon

it?

4. Forced unitization would have a retroactive effect,

affecting operations that have been established for

years. After forced unitization, an operator or royalty

owner could find his income substantially reduced and

an operator could find his expenses substantially increased.

5. Portions of reservoirs can be unitized to the detriment

of those royalty owners and working interest owners that

are frozen out.

No action at the time of the hearing was taken by the Committee

on the unitization bill before it.

Recommendation: That the Texas Legislature enact into

legislation the unitization bill (H.B.311) adopted by the House

of Representatives in the 63rd Legislature. (See Addendum B)

- 9 -

II. Conservation and Reclamation-
Committee Action and Related Studies

A. Surface Mining Reclamation

With the acknowledged shortage of natural gas and crude

petroleum, coal and lignite must now play an important role in

the near future as natural resources to be utilized in electric

generating plants. Lignite is currently being used in one electric

generating plant visited by some of the committee's members in

Fairfield, Texas. The employment of lignite and coal as power

generating resources will substantially increase surface mining

in Texas. If there is no surface restoration after the mining, a

great deal of Texas land will be removed from useful production,

will lose its aesthetic beauty, and could in certain areas present

danger to man and animal kind.

At least fourteen states currently have'some form of surface

mining legislation. There is a great variance in the provisions

of these acts depending, in part, on how extensive surface mining

is within a particular state.

It is time for Texas to adopt a law regulating surface

mining. Several basic decisions must be made with respect to

such a law:

A. Minerals to be regulated. Because surface mining is not

as extensive in Texas as in many states, it might be

best to commence with regulation of coal and lignite

surface mining, including other minerals within the

scope of the law by future amendments as necessary.

B. Administrator. The Land Commissioner and the Land

Office should probably administer the law.

10 -

C. Areas exempted from surface mining. Some areas

could be exempted in the law and the Land Commissioner,

upon a hearing, could provide for the exemption of

other areas.

D. Surface mining permits. A permit for each surface

mining operation should be required, with the permit to

be issued by the Land Commissioner upon approval of an

application. The application should contain a plan

of reclamation.

E. Extent of reclamation. Lands that have been surface

mined should be returned to original or more valuable

condition.

The Speaker of the House, in conjunction with the Lt. Governor,

has appointed a Joint Interim Surface Mining operations Study

Committee. Representatives Lewis, Clayton and Cobb of the Natural

Resources Committee have been appointed as members of the Committee.

The Natural Resources Committee staff has worked on a proposed

draft of a Surface Mining Reclamation Act but will defer recommending

its submission to any recommendation of the Surface Mining Reclamation

Study Committee.

B. Water Resources

On May 31, 1973, the Legislature passed HSR 198, which gave

interim committee status and authority to the Water Subcommittee

of the 63rd session's Committee on Natural Resources. The members

of The Interim Water Study Subcommittee are: Representatives

Bill Clayton (Chairman), Tom Massey, Wayne Peveto, Phil Cates,

Bob Hendricks, John Hoestenbach and Lindsey Rodrigues.

This interim committee was charged with the responsibility

of studying the need for revision of water development and conservation

laws and the need for reorganization of any of the statutory

provisions found in the Texas Water Code. Vested with this

authority, the committee could take testimony, develop research

and hold hearings on any aspect of statutorily-related water

problems.

The Interim Water Study Committee, which is issuing its own

report to the 64th Legislature, received testimony dealing with

the problems of different types of water districts and the solutions

offered for these problems through the Water Code and other

statutory sources. The study committee researched extensively

the problems faced by irrigation districts governed under the

provisions of Chapter 51 of the Texas Water Code, which provisions

are intended primarily for water control and improvement districts.

After consideration of several alternatives, the Interim Water

Study Committee recommended in its report the removal of irrigation-

type districts from Chapter 51 to a new chapter in the Water

Code.

The second major area of concern to the Water Study Committee

was the development of legislation to deal with the land subsidence

problem faced by many areas of the State. The changes recommended

by the Interim Water Study Committee with regard to the subsidence

problem are encompassed in the interim committee's suggested

revision of Chapter 52 of the Water Code.

The third major area of concern to the Interim Water Study

Committee was the compilation of references found in sections of

- 12

the Water Code which referred to chapter provisions other than

the one under consideration. The Committee recommended changing

these references to allow the chapters to stand alone as independent

sources when used for research purposes.

The Interim Water Study Committee operated as an independent

committee and reference herein is intended to provide the researcher

with an overview of this important area generally considered to

be within the interests of the Natural Resources Committee. For

further information one should refer to the report issued to the

64th Legislature by that committee.

C. House Interim Committee on Water Supply and Waste Disposal

The Interim Committee on Water Supply and Waste Disposal

in Metropolitan Areas was created by the 63rd Legislature with

the passage of HSR 209. The general functions of the Committee

as outlined by that Resolution were to study water districts in

Texas and to examine the effectiveness of the water district

legislation enacted by the 63rd Legislature on the known problems

of those districts. In addition, the committee was given the

responsibility of discovering any conditions relating to the

problems of water districts which required remedies in the form

of action or legislation by the next legislature.

The membership of the committee consists of seven Representatives,

four of whom serve on the Committee on Natural Resources:

Representatives Blythe (Chairman), Clayton (Vice-Chairman),

Korioth and Watson.

The Interim Water Supply and Waste Disposal Committee made

numerous recommendations in its report to the 64th Legislature

dealing generally with the Houston, Dallas and San Antonio

- 13

metropolitan areas. The Committee held five public hearings and

made recommendations peculiar to each of the areas studied, with

a special emphasis placed on municipal utility districts in

Houston and subsidence problems of the Houston area. The full

report of the Interim Water Supply and Waste Disposal Committee

will be submitted to the 64th Legislature.

III. FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS

A. Land Surface Subsidence

The problem of land surface subsidence has fallen under

the scrutiny of the Interim Water Study Committee and the House

Interim Committee on Water Supply and Waste Disposal. The 64th

Legislature will undoubtedly be faced with the subsidence dilemma

and at least several of the major proposals set forth to deal

with the problem will be presented to the legislature in the form

of proposed legislation.

In the 63rd session, HB 935 (SB 643-companion bill) addressed

the subsidence problem. After being recommended by the Committee

on Natural Resources, HB 935 was passed into law, making several

changes in Section 52 of the Water Code to provide for methods of

developing plans within underground water conservation districts

to prevent waste, provide for recharge and control subsidence.

The bill as enacted allowed underground water districts to begin

planning to control and prevent subsidence.

The problem of land surface subsidence is most prevelant in

the Houston area and in the upper portion of the Texas Coastal

Zone. The apparent major cause of subsidence is the withdrawal

of ground water and petroleum from an area. Once subsidence has

been experienced, its effects are irreversible, with the most

serious effects being the loss of land elevation, and to an

extent, the actual loss of land. Subsidence may also result in

regional changes in the slope of the land affected, which in turn

affects drainage patterns by changing not only slope but stream

gradients.

Most authorities agree that land surface subsidence will

- 15 -

continue regardless of any decrease in the withdrawal of groundwater

or other minerals, with the amount of such future subsidence

dependent on the amount of pressure reduction. Subsidence will

occur because it is not directly related to the overall volume

withdrawn, but instead to the concentration of withdrawal and its

effect on artesian conditions.

The subsidence problem will not be solved easily. Several

other areas of concern complicate a legislative solution to the

subsidence problem, to wit: the restrictive nature of any flood

control measures, problems associated with depleted water-bearing

aquifers, and the availability of surplus surface water resources.

These considerations all are important when dealing with the

subsidence question. Hopefully, the 64th Legislature, and specifically

the Natural Resources Committee of the 64th Legislature will be

able to resolve all of the potential problems with a single

workable solution.

B. Water Resource Planning

The development, growth, and prosperity of the State of

Texas, its character, and its future are directly related to the

availability and reliability of water supplies. From the prehistoric

villages and encampments of the native American peoples and the

first tentative settlements by the Spanish and other Anglo-

European settlers to the development of ground-water

irrigation on the High Plains and the projected water requirements

for nuclear power plants and the State's rapidly expanding urban

areas, water has been elemental in Texas' history and in its

future. The future needs of the State, its people, and non-

Texans who rely on Texas agriculture and industry can only be met

if they are anticipated far in advance of their realization and

appropriate action is timely taken.

The Texas Water Plan, formulated by the Texas Water Development

Board in the late 1960's, with assistance from state and federal

agencies and private interests, is, by law, the basic instrument

for water resource planning on a state-wide basis. The Texas

Water Plan envisioned a multi-faceted approach to the water

problems of the state. The plan proposed construction of facilities

for the movement of water between those areas of the State where

there is a surplus of water (primarily in the eastern part of the

State) and those where the projected demand will exceed the

supply (the western and southern areas of the State and some

urban centers.) In addition to this intra-state redistribution,

the Plan also proposed importation of water into the State from

the lower reaches of the Mississippi River.

Three systems were proposed for construction to effect these

inter-basin transfers: the Eastern System, the Coastal System

and the Trans-Texas System. The Eastern System would include

storage reservoirs existing and to be built along the Sabine

River to store water imported into the State from Louisiana for

use throughout the state. The Coastal System would include the

construction of transfer facilities in the coastal and southern

parts of Texas. A canal from the Sabine River to the Rio Grande

Valley would carry water to municipalities and irrigated agriculture

of the Valley. Along the route, water would also be made available

for municipal uses in Houston, Corpus Christi and other cities

and towns, and to supply freshwater inflows into the bays and

- 17 -

estuaries of the Texas coast. The system would also provide

water for Bexar County from the Lower Guadalupe and San Antonio

River Basins and supply continued and increased irrigation along

the Middle Rio Grande and in the Winter Garden area from Amistad

Reservoir through a succession of water exchanges.

The third and, in many respec,:,ts, the most ambitious of the

systems would be the Trans-Texas System proposed to carry surplus

East Texas water and imported water into the agricultural areas

of the Texas High Plains, Eastern New Mexico, and Trans-Pecos

regions. With ground water supplies being steadily depleted and

the demand for the agricultural products of the State increasing,

the need for supplemental water has become acute. The Plan

proposed that water from the Trans-Texas Division be available

for diversion for use in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, in North

Central Texas, and as far as El Paso to alleviate tight water

supply situations.

In 1969, a proposal was submitted to the voters of the State

of Texas to amend the Constitution to permit the Texas Water

Development Board to issue $3.5 billion in bonds for an increase

in the Texas Water Development Fund to finance initial design,

construction, and operation under the Plan. The proposal was

narrowly defeated in a very light vote at the polls. Since that

time water resource development in Texas has been concentrated on

the short range needs of local and regional areas of the State.

Surface water storage and diversion projects undertaken have

included some of the works contemplated under the Plan although

the use of developed water supply has been of a localized nature.

The feasibility and desirability of intra-state transfers and

- 18

the importation of water for use in the arid parts of the State

have remained the objects of discussion among the people of the

State and their leadership. The Governor's Task Force on Water

Resource Conservation and Development has reviewed several facets
of the Texas Water Plan including importation of water, ground

water use, research into estuarine requirements, and desalinization.

The Task Force is evaluating water resource planning in Texas in

light of the changing world situation in which the State and its

people find themselves.

Since the constitutional amendment was submitted to the

electorate in-1969, the circumstances surrounding the needs for

water and water resource planning in Texas have changed drastically.

Increased demands on the agricultural productivity of the State

and the nation have caused planners to consider the possibility

that we may not be able to afford any diminution of the production

capacity of the irrigated farming areas of South and West Texas.

Further analyses of the effects of the importation of water into

those areas should shed light on the effect of threatened food

shortages, the place of food and grain production in world

markets, and the consequent advisability of a system such as the

Trans-Texas Division for maintaining and increasing agricultural

productivity.

Two other factors affecting all facets of contemporary life

are also being evaluated to determine their impact on the water

requirements of the State: fuel shortages and economic conditions.

The Texas Water Development Board's computations in 1968 indicated

that the total energy requirement would be 6.9 million kilowatts,

or 37% of the total generating capacity of the State at that

time. With electrical generation by fossil fuels becoming increasingly

more costly and nuclear power still questionable, the availability

and economics of energy required for a project on this scale will

have to be studied for feasibility. Also, the economic impact of

public spending--estimated in 1967 to total $9 billion for construction

of proposed Plan facilities--the impact on employment in the

State and the impact upon the local economics of the areas

benefited by such a project are to be re-analyzed in the light of

present economic conditions.

A final consideration in the continuing process of water

resources planning involves basic policy decisions about the

extent and character of growth and development in the State.

Such growth and development in terms of population, industry, and

agricultural production, is conditioned in part by the availability

of an adequate water supply. The extent to which the pattern of

such growth would be influenced by such a public project would

need to be determined. In addition the compatibility of such

patterns with other State and local planning would require evaluation.

In addition to the physical aspects of the program, its

political and administrative ramifications are substantial. The

coordination of governmental entities that would be involved in

the transportation of water across Texas and across state lines

would require complex legal and institutional negotiation. The

alternative possibility of concentrating control and management

in one agency would pose problems of bureaucratic growth and non-

responsiveness to local problems.

In any event, if the Texas Water Plan, or any other large

scale water program is to be financed and implemented in Texas,

objections raised to the Texas Water Plan will have to be considered.

The vote in 1969 on the constitutional amendment was too light to

be conclusive. However, its analysis suggests attitudes and

issues that generated concern with and opposition to the Water

Plan and the bonds to finance it. The costs of the Plan facilities

were a main concern, coupled with a fear that such expenditures

would necessitate an increase in taxes (although repayment of the

bonded indebtedness was to come from water sales to users) or

would benefit only a small portion of the State's citizens at the

expense of others. Some voters in the water surplus areas of

East Texas were concerned that sufficient water would not be

available to fulfill both their present and future requirements.

A perceived lack of consideration for the environmental impact of

the Plan was raised as a major issue by environmental groups

opposed to the project. Further, some reservation was expressed

that the authorization of funding for the transfer facilities was

premature in that there was no guarantee that water for import

from other States would be available, although the-Plan was

explicit that no such facilities were to be initiated until an

import was assured. Later the U. S. Corps of Engineers and U. S.

Bureau of Reclamation reported, on the basis of 1968 agricultural

commodity prices and under then existing Federal project evaluation

policies, that importing water from the Mississippi to West Texas

was not economically feasible.

In implementing any plan, and particularly the Texas Water

Plan, local governmental entities would be required to assume

responsibility for repayment of costs and some features of facility

operation. In many cases, new local or regional entities would

- 21

need to be created for this purpose.

Thus, five years after the proposed constitutional amendment

was defeated, the Texas Water Plan in Texas remains the guide to

water development. The water resource planning underway involves

reevaluation, analysis and continual revision of the Plan to meet

the rapidly changing demands for water in the State.

DA7F- DUE

GAYLORDINo. 2333 RINTO IN U.S.A.

3 6668 14106 7159