Groundwater planning in Texas: paradigm shifts and implications for the future

Senate Bill 1 and HB 1763 have greatly changed Texas water planning. With SB1 the planning process became a bottom-up approach that allowed 16 regional water planning groups (RWPGs) to create a plan that would be combined to form the state plan. Then in 2005, HB 1763 gave groundwater conservation di...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Kelly, Vanessa Christine
Other Authors: Kaiser, Ronald A.
Format: Others
Language:en_US
Published: 2010
Subjects:
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-2128
http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-2128
id ndltd-tamu.edu-oai-repository.tamu.edu-1969.1-ETD-TAMU-2128
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-tamu.edu-oai-repository.tamu.edu-1969.1-ETD-TAMU-21282013-01-08T10:39:31ZGroundwater planning in Texas: paradigm shifts and implications for the futureKelly, Vanessa ChristineGroundwaterWater PlanningSenate Bill 1 and HB 1763 have greatly changed Texas water planning. With SB1 the planning process became a bottom-up approach that allowed 16 regional water planning groups (RWPGs) to create a plan that would be combined to form the state plan. Then in 2005, HB 1763 gave groundwater conservation districts (GCDs) the authority to determine groundwater availability instead of regions. The purpose of this research is to explore the overall impact of the regional planning process and how the change in groundwater availability determination will affect regional water planning. The findings of this research can serve as a guide for legislative changes to improve the process. This is crucial if Texas expects to meet the needs of a doubled population in less than 50 years. In order to collect opinions from water planners across Texas, a survey was sent to all 322 members of the 16 RWPGs. Also, all 72 members from 10 Groundwater Conservation Districts (GCDs) were selected in Region G. All statements were based on a Likert Scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The modified Dillman procedure was used with a response rate of 57%. Independent t-tests and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) were used to measure differences between regions, interest groups, and level of experience. Overall respondents agreed that water issue awareness, communication, and regional project support improved except for reservoirs and transfers. Also all thought GCDs were the most appropriate entity to lead groundwater planning and believed that the new process would result in greater resource protection. Several statements in the survey resulted in high levels of uncertainty. This suggests that water planning for water user groups whose future supplies are from groundwater should carefully consider broadening their strategies both in terms of quantities and sources to take this uncertainty into account.Kaiser, Ronald A.2010-01-15T00:04:25Z2010-01-16T00:25:59Z2010-01-15T00:04:25Z2010-01-16T00:25:59Z2007-122009-05-15BookThesisElectronic Thesistextelectronicapplication/pdfborn digitalhttp://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-2128http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-2128en_US
collection NDLTD
language en_US
format Others
sources NDLTD
topic Groundwater
Water Planning
spellingShingle Groundwater
Water Planning
Kelly, Vanessa Christine
Groundwater planning in Texas: paradigm shifts and implications for the future
description Senate Bill 1 and HB 1763 have greatly changed Texas water planning. With SB1 the planning process became a bottom-up approach that allowed 16 regional water planning groups (RWPGs) to create a plan that would be combined to form the state plan. Then in 2005, HB 1763 gave groundwater conservation districts (GCDs) the authority to determine groundwater availability instead of regions. The purpose of this research is to explore the overall impact of the regional planning process and how the change in groundwater availability determination will affect regional water planning. The findings of this research can serve as a guide for legislative changes to improve the process. This is crucial if Texas expects to meet the needs of a doubled population in less than 50 years. In order to collect opinions from water planners across Texas, a survey was sent to all 322 members of the 16 RWPGs. Also, all 72 members from 10 Groundwater Conservation Districts (GCDs) were selected in Region G. All statements were based on a Likert Scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The modified Dillman procedure was used with a response rate of 57%. Independent t-tests and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) were used to measure differences between regions, interest groups, and level of experience. Overall respondents agreed that water issue awareness, communication, and regional project support improved except for reservoirs and transfers. Also all thought GCDs were the most appropriate entity to lead groundwater planning and believed that the new process would result in greater resource protection. Several statements in the survey resulted in high levels of uncertainty. This suggests that water planning for water user groups whose future supplies are from groundwater should carefully consider broadening their strategies both in terms of quantities and sources to take this uncertainty into account.
author2 Kaiser, Ronald A.
author_facet Kaiser, Ronald A.
Kelly, Vanessa Christine
author Kelly, Vanessa Christine
author_sort Kelly, Vanessa Christine
title Groundwater planning in Texas: paradigm shifts and implications for the future
title_short Groundwater planning in Texas: paradigm shifts and implications for the future
title_full Groundwater planning in Texas: paradigm shifts and implications for the future
title_fullStr Groundwater planning in Texas: paradigm shifts and implications for the future
title_full_unstemmed Groundwater planning in Texas: paradigm shifts and implications for the future
title_sort groundwater planning in texas: paradigm shifts and implications for the future
publishDate 2010
url http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-2128
http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-2128
work_keys_str_mv AT kellyvanessachristine groundwaterplanningintexasparadigmshiftsandimplicationsforthefuture
_version_ 1716503976426340352