Groundwater Supply in Texas: Private Land Considerations in a Rule-of-Capture State

Abstract

Texas is a top water-consuming state in the United States and is increasingly relying on groundwater. Groundwater markets are attracting greater attention as a mechanism for transferring water from rural to urban areas. However, excessive extraction is being exacerbated by the ''rule-of-capture'' that governs the use of groundwater in Texas combined with widespread subdivision of land. Overexploitation of common-pool resources is not inevitable. A cooperative approach to groundwater management could reduce the negative economic impacts of water transfers in the area of origin and provide landowner incentives to regulate extraction. Landowner associations, monitored by local groundwater conservation districts, offer an instructive model for sustainably managing groundwater while at the same reallocating water resources from rural to municipal uses.

Network governance for large‐scale natural resource conservation and the challenge of capture

“…Although private-sector hydrological modeling studies indicate negligible drawdown of aquifer levels with increased pumping (in many cases to move water from rural to metropolitan areas), other investigations not only contradict these findings but also report negative impacts on surface-water flows (Figure 2). These competing technical claims, in combination with a fragmented policy and governance framework (Wagner and Kreuter 2004), have resulted in a network of governance that is vulnerable to capture by corporate interests promoting "water sustainability", given the underlying scientific uncertainty as to what constitutes sustainable water use.…”

Managing the Commons Texas Style: Wildlife Management and Ground‐Water Associations on Private Lands1

“…The most commonly cited measure of social capital is trust (Coleman, 1990; Brehm and Rahn, 1997; Putnam, 2000; Silverman, 2004; Halpern, 2005). Understanding the role of social capital in the cooperative management of common‐pool resources on private land may lead to other public benefits including sustained water supply (Wagner and Kreuter, 2004), restoration of biodiversity (Pretty and Smith, 2004), and protection of scenic open spaces. Furthermore, effective common‐pool resource management is contingent upon collective choice arrangements grounded in measures of social capital including trust and reciprocity (Ostrom, 1990).…”

Rule of Capture and Urban Sprawl: A Potential Federal Financial Risk in Groundwater-Dependent Areas

“…The task is complicated by the fact that water managers often have limited financial, scientific, and institutional support and resources on which to base decisions on how to manage groundwater resources (Rainwater et al, 2003). Groundwater overdraft damages groundwater-dependent ecosystems (Brune, 2002) and has major socio-economic impacts through land subsidence (Zekster, Loáicigia & Wolf, 2004;Wagner & Kreuter, 2004).…”

“…Urbanization in rural Southwestern areas is dependent largely on water resource availability (Schlager, 2005;Foster, 2001;Collins & Bolin, 2007;Wagner & Kreuter, 2004), and water rights are becoming contentious as access becomes limited. Surface water in many regions of the arid and semi-arid Southwest are over-allocated to users (Schlager, 2005); with the pioneer mindset embedded in the culture, strong property rights make groundwater conservation challenging (Schlager, 2005;Rainwater et al, 2003).…”