Hickory Underground Water Conservation District  No. 1

 

Groundwater Management Plan

 2019-2024

 

 

 

 

  Table of Contents:

District Mission

Time Period

History

Regional Cooperation and Coordination

Regional Water Planning

GMA 7

West Texas Regional Groundwater Alliance

District Location and Extent

Topography

Economic Enterprise in the Hickory District

Statement of Guiding Principles

Groundwater Resources of the District

Hickory Aquifer

Edwards-Trinity Aquifer

Ellenburger-San Saba Aquifer

Marble Falls Aquifer

Modeled Available Groundwater in District Aquifers

Edwards-Trinity Aquifer

Ellenburger-San Saba Aquifer

Hickory Aquifer

Marble Falls Aquifer

Methodology for Calculating District Water Usage, Supply and Demand

Irrigation and Livestock

Mining, Electric Generation and Manufacturing

Muncipal and County Other

Table 1: Summary of Historical Groundwater Use Within the District

Concho

Kimble

Mason

McCulloch

Menard

San Saba

Table 2: Estimates of Recharge from Precipitation, Discharges to Surface Water Bodies, and Flows Into, Out of and Between Aquifer in the Edwards-Trinity Aquifer within the District Boundaries

Table 3: Estimates of Recharge from Precipitation, Discharges to Surface Water Bodies, and Flows Into, Out of and Between Aquifer in the Ellenburger-San Saba Aquifer within the District Boundaries

Table 4: Estimates of Recharge from Precipitation, Discharges to Surface Water Bodies, and Flows Into, Out of and Between Aquifer in the Hickory Aquifer within the District Boundaries

Table 5: Estimates of Recharge from Precipitation, Discharges to Surface Water Bodies, and Flows Into, Out of and Between Aquifer in the Marble Falls Aquifer within the District Boundaries

Table 6: Projected Water Demands

Surface Water Resources

Table 7: Projected Surface Water Supplies

Table 8: Project Water Supply Needs

Projected Water Management Strategies in the 2017 Adopted State Water Plan

Projected Water Supply Needs inthe Adopted 2007 State Water Plan

Actions, Procedures, Performance and Avoidance for Plan Implementation

Tracking Methodology

Management Goals, Objectives and Performance Standards

Goal 1

Goal 2

Goal 3

Goal 4

Goal 5

Goal 6

Goal 7

Management Goals Not Applicable to the District

Statement of Commitment by Hickory Underground Water Conservation District No. 1 to Effectuation of the District Groundwater Management Plan

Bibliography

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

District Mission

The Hickory Underground Water Conservation District No. 1 (“District”) strives to conserve, preserve, prevent waste, protect, and recharge the underground waters of all aquifers within its legal boundaries, as far as practicable, to minimize the draw-down of the water table and the reduction of artesian pressure within the District Boundaries.

Time Period

This amended plan becomes effective upon approval by the Board of Directors and remains in effect until an amended plan is approved or December 1, 2023, whichever is later. The plan may be revised at anytime, or after five years when the plan will be reviewed, revised or amended and is approved as administratively complete by the Texas Water Development Board.

History

At the request of area citizens, the Texas Water Development Board entered an order on December 29, 1975, delineating a subdivision of the Hickory Aquifer Underground Water Reservoir in Concho, Kimble, Llano, Mason, McCulloch, Menard and San Saba Counties. In November 1981, a petition was submitted to the Texas Water Commission calling for the creation of the Hickory Underground Water Conservation District No. 1 (District). At a hearing on June 9, 1982, before the Texas Water Commission the petition was granted and the District thus created.

The confirmation election required by state statute was held on August 14, 1982; the District was officially established with a 94% approval of voters in those areas   of Concho, Kimble, Mason, McCulloch, Menard and San Saba within the District boundaries.

On August 12, 1999 the petition of creation was amended by the TNRCC (now Texas Commission on Environmental Quality) to include all aquifers within the legal boundaries and management jurisdiction of the District.


On January 11, 2003, landowners of Mason County petitioned the District to annex the remainder of Mason County not currently in the District, and on May 03, 2003, in a special election held at the Mason County Courthouse the remainder of Mason County was annexed into the District with approval of 88% of the voters.

Regional Cooperation and Coordination

Regional Water Planning Groups

In 1998 the District was apportioned into two Regional Water Planning Groups established pursuant to § 16.053 of the Texas Water Code  Concho, Kimble, Mason, McCulloch and Menard are located in Region F and  San Saba County is in the Lower Colorado Regional Water Planning Group (Region K). The District’s Regional planning responsibilities are within a 46-county area, stretching from Matagorda Bay to the Pecos River in West Texas.

 

 

Groundwater Management Area 7

In 2003 the Texas Water Development Board designated the boundaries of 16 groundwater management areas in Texas. The District lies entirely within Groundwater Management Area 7, which encompasses 34 counties and 20 groundwater conservation districts within an area of approximately 42,000 square miles. The groundwater management area was designated for the Edwards-Trinity aquifer, but also includes all or portions of the minor Lipan-Kickapoo, Hickory, Ellenburger-San Saba, and Dockum aquifers, as well as a small portion of the Ogallala aquifer,

The District participates in the mandatory joint planning process mandated by 36.108 of the Texas Water Code and is actively working with the other 19 GMA 7districts to develop Desired Future Conditions for the Edwards-Trinity aquifer. Since the adoption of the most recent Management Plan in 2014 the District has met with relevant GMA 7 districts and worked with the Texas Water Development Board to develop a Groundwater Availability Model to assist in establishing Desired Future Conditions and the calculation of Managed Available Groundwater for the Hickory and Ellenburger-San Saba aquifers.

West Texas Regional Groundwater Alliance

The District is a member of the West Texas Regional Groundwater Alliance. The regional alliance consists of seventeen (17) locally created and locally funded districts that encompass almost 8.75 million acres or 13,000 square miles of West Texas. This West Texas region is as diverse as the State of Texas, making it necessary for each member district to develop its own unique priority management goals and rules to best serve the needs of its constituents.
In  1988, four (4) groundwater districts; Coke County UWCD, Glasscock GCD, Irion County WCD, and Sterling County UWCD signed the original Cooperative Agreement. Since then the number of groundwater conservation districts in the area has more than quadrupled. The current member districts are:

Coke County UWCD

Crockett County GCD

Glasscock GCD

Hickory UWCD

Irion County WCD

Lipan-Kickapoo WCD

Plateau UWC & SD

Santa Rita UWCD

Sterling County UWCD

Sutton County UWCD

Menard County UWD

Lone Wolf GCD

Hill Country UWCD

Jeff Davis County UWCD

Middle Pecos GCD

Permian Basin UWCD

Wes-Tex GCD

 

The Alliance was created to implement common objectives of coordinating and facilitating the conservation, preservation, and beneficial use of water and related sources. Local districts monitor the water-related activities of the farming and ranching, oil and gas, industrial entities and municipalities

District Location and Extent

The Hickory Underground Water Conservation District No. 1 is located near the geographical center of Texas and is comprised of approximately 1,683,080 acres, including portions of McCulloch, Menard, Kimble, San Saba, Concho counties and the entirety of Mason County. In 2003 the District gained approximately 433,000 acres with the annexation of the remainder of Mason County that had not been included when the District was initially created.

Principal industries of the District are listed in the table below. The District's economy is based to a large degree on agriculture; 12% of the acreage in the District is cropland. Principal municipalities in or near the district boundaries are Brady, San Saba, Mason and Eden.

Topography

The District is within the Colorado River basin and is bisected by the Llano and San Saba Rivers, as well as numerous other creeks. Drainage is typically from west to east.
There are two major geologic features within the District. The Llano Uplift (Central Basin) is in the eastern and southern portions of the District. This feature is made up of ancient Cambrian Age rocks ranging in age from 1.0 to 1.2 billion years old and comprises granite and older metamorphic rocks. The northern and western parts of the District are in the Edwards Plateau region and are made up of Cretaceous Age limestone, dolomite, and marble.
The District elevation ranges from 1,100 to 2,300 feet above sea level.

 

Economic Enterprise in the Hickory District1

County

       Economy

Concho

Livestock production, tourism, hunting, fishing

Kimble

Livestock production, tourism, hunting, fishing

McCulloch

Agribusiness, tourism, manufacturing, silica sand

Mason

Ranching, hunting, tourism

Menard

Agribusiness, hunting and tourism, minor oil and gas production

San Saba

Gov/Services, retail pecan industry, tourism, hunting

 

Statement of Guiding Principles

The Hickory Underground Water Conservation District No. 1 (District) is created and organized under the terms and provisions of Article XVI, Section 59, of the Constitution of Texas and Chapter 36 (formerly Chapter 52) of the Texas Water Code, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes, and the District’s actions are authorized by, and consistent with this constitutional and statutory provision, including all amendments and additions. The District is created for the purpose of conserving, preserving, recharging, controlling subsidence, protecting and preventing waste and as far as practicable to minimize the drawdown of the water table and the reduction of artesian pressure in all aquifers within the district boundaries. In order to carry out its constitutional and statutory purposes, the District has all the powers authorized by Article XVI, Section 59, of the Texas Constitution, and Chapter 36 of the Texas Water Code, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes, together with all amendments and additions.

The District's purposes and powers are implemented through promulgation and enforcement of the District's rules which are adopted and revised under the authority of Subchapter E, Chapter 36, Texas Water Code, and are incorporated herein as a part of the District's management plan.  A copy of the District Rules is available on the District website at http://www.hickoryuwcd.org/HickoryRules.htm

GROUNDWATER RESOURCES OF THE DISTRICT

  Hickory Aquifer2

The Hickory Aquifer is the primary source of the District’s groundwater, which is used for irrigation, public water supply, industrial, stock, and the domestic needs of the people and entities served.

The Hickory Aquifer occurs in parts of the counties in the Llano uplift region of Central Texas. Discontinuous outcrops of the Hickory Sandstone overlie or flank exposed Precambrian rocks that form the central core of the uplift. The down dip artesian portion of the aquifer encircles the uplift and extends to maximum depths approaching 4000 ft. Most of the water pumped from the aquifer is used for irrigation. The largest capacity wells, however, have been completed for municipal water supply and industrial purposes in the Mason, Eden and Brady area.

The Hickory Sandstone Member of the Cambrian Riley Formation is composed of some of the oldest sedimentary rocks found in Texas. In most of the northern and western portions of the aquifer, the Hickory can be differentiated into lower, middle, and upper units, which reach a maximum thickness of 480 feet in southwestern McCulloch County. In the southern and eastern extent of the aquifer, the Hickory consists of only two units. Extensive block faulting has compartmentalized the Hickory Aquifer, thus restricting hydrologic connection from one area to another.

Edwards-Trinity Aquifer3

The Edwards-Trinity Plateau Aquifer underlies the Edwards Plateau east of the Pecos River and the Stockton Plateau west of the Pecos River, supplying water to all or parts of 38 counties.

The aquifer consists of saturated sediments of lower Cretaceous age Trinity Group formations. Natural chemical quality of water ranges from fresh to slightly saline. The water is typically hard and may vary widely in concentrations of dissolved solids and bicarbonate. The salinity of the groundwater tends to increase toward the west.

Well yields are typically low in the eastern portion of the Edwards-Trinity, consequently there is little pumpage from the aquifer within the District. Nevertheless, in some instances water levels have declined as a result of pumpage. Historical declines have occurred in the northwestern part of the District.

 

Ellenburger-San Saba Aquifer4

The Ellenburger-San Saba Aquifer underlies 4,000 square miles in parts of 15 counties in the Llano Uplift area of Central Texas. Discontinuous outcrops of the aquifer generally encircle older rocks in the core of the Uplift. The remaining down-dip portion contains fresh to slightly saline water to depths of approximately 3,000 feet below land and surface.


Water produced from the aquifer has a range in dissolved solids between 200 and 3,000 mg/l, but usually less than 1,000 mg/l. The quality of water deteriorates rapidly away from the outcrop areas. Approximately, 20 miles of more down-dip from the outcrop, water is typically unsuitable for most uses.


Most of the deep municipal wells, which supply the City of Brady, produce an unknown amount of water from the Ellenburger-San Saba sequence of rocks. A large portion of the water supply for the City of San Saba is believed to be from the Ellenberger-San Saba and Marble Falls Aquifer.


Marble Falls Aquifer5

The Marble Falls Aquifer occurs primarily in the portions of McCulloch and San Saba counties within the District. Smaller amounts of water are also used for rural domestic supplies, watering of livestock and irrigation. Only small portions of Mason and Kimble counties are affected by this aquifer.
The Marble Falls Aquifer occurs in several outcrops, primarily along the northern and eastern flanks of the Llano Uplift Region of Central Texas. Groundwater occurs in fractures, solution cavities, and channels in the limestone of the Marble Falls Formation of the Pennsylvanian Bend Group. Maximum thickness of the formation is 600 feet. Numerous large springs issue from the aquifer and provide a significant part of the base-flow to the San Saba River in McCulloch and San Saba counties and to the Colorado River in San Saba and Lampasas counties.

Existing data for the Marble Falls aquifer show that it contains mostly fresh water in outcrop areas and becomes mineralized a short distance down-dip from the outcrop areas. However, very few data exist to evaluate the brackish water that is present.

Most wells producing from the Marble Falls aquifer produce fresh groundwater on the outcrop, while groundwater becomes highly mineralized within a relatively short distance of the down-dip. However, because the areal extent of the Marble Falls aquifer is relatively limited, and because much of the existing data indicate that the aquifer has limited groundwater availability, the Marble Falls aquifer must be considered a very limited source of brackish groundwater. Due to the presumed deep nature where brackish groundwater would be located, and the low productivity of the aquifer, relative costs are expected to be moderate to high.

 

MODELED AVAILABLE GROUNDWATER IN DISTRICT AQUIFERS

The District actively participates in joint planning with 19 other groundwater conservation districts (GCDs) in Groundwater Management Area (GMA) 7 pursuant to Section 36.108 of the Texas Water Code. The estimates of Modeled Available Groundwater (MAG) for each GCD in GMA 7 are based on the Desired Future Conditions adopted by GMA 7’s member districts on September 22, 2016 and March 22, 2017. 

The models used in determining the MAGS and the parameters and assumptions relied upon for the aquifers of the Hickory district are more fully described in pages 17-18 and page 20 of GAM Run16-026 MAG Version 2: Modeled Available Groundwater for the Aquifers of Groundwater Management  Area 7, Texas Water Development Board, September 21, 2018, attached hereto as Appendix “A”.

Edwards-Trinity Plateau Aquifer     

There are very limited supplies of groundwater from the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer within the boundaries of the District; those are used almost exclusively for domestic and livestock purposes. Therefore GMA 7 districts declared that the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) aquifer is not relevant for joint planning purposes in the District and did not adopt Desired Future Conditions for the 2010-2070 planning period. Consequently MAGs are not estimated  for the aquifer within the District.

A map showing the area of the aquifer is on page 28 of the above-referenced Appendix B,             

 GAM Run 16-026 MAG Version 2.

Ellenburger-San Saba Aquifer

Total Modeled Available Groundwater (MAG) for the Ellenburger-San Saba Aquifer within the District is 12,887 acre-feet/year for each decade of the 2011-2070 period.

See page 38 Appendix B, GAM Run16-026 MAG Version 2: Modeled Available Groundwater for the Aquifers of Groundwater Management  Area 7 Texas Water Development Board, September 21, 2018, attached hereto as Appendix “A”, for total Modeled Available Groundwater and the MAGs for the Ellenburger-San Saba Aquifer located in each county, or portion thereof, within the District.

A map showing the area of the aquifer is on page 37 of Appendix B, GAM Run 16-026 MAG Version 2.

Hickory Aquifer

Total Modeled Available Groundwater for the Hickory Aquifer is 44,843 acre-feet/year for each   decade of the 2011-2070 period.

See page 41 of Appendix B, GAM Run16-026 MAG Version 2: Modeled Available Groundwater for the Aquifers of Groundwater Management  Area 7, Texas Water Development Board, September 21, 2018, for total Modeled Available Groundwater

and the MAGs for the aquifer in each county, or portion thereof, located within the District.

A map of the area of the aquifer is on page 40 of GAM Run 16-026 MAG Version 2.

 Marble Falls Aquifer

The Marble Falls Aquifer was declared irrelevant for joint planning purposes within the boundaries of GMA 7. No Desired Future Conditions were adopted for this aquifer, nor MAGs calculated.

Methodology for Calculating District Water Usage, Supply, and Demand

Irrigation and Livestock: Irrigation and livestock numbers for counties are allocated to the District in proportion to the percentage of the area of the respective counties within the District as follows: Concho, 11.43%; Kimble, 2.55%; Mason, 100%; McCulloch 73.03%; Menard, 13.45%; San Saba, 55.71%.

Mining, Electric Generation and Manufacturing: No mining, electric generation or manufacturing takes place within the District in Concho, Kimble and Menard Counties. All mining in Mason, McCulloch and San Saba counties takes place within District boundaries. Electric generation estimates for Mason, McCulloch and San Saba Counties are included within District boundaries, but all estimates are zero. All manufacturing in Mason, McCulloch and San Saba counties takes place within the District.

Municipal and County Other: The municipalities of Brady (McCulloch County), Eden (Concho County), Mason (Mason County), and San Saba (San Saba County), and the Millersview-Doole WSC (Concho and McCulloch Counties) and Richland SUD (San Saba and McCulloch Counties) are within District boundaries and are included in the respective data tables. The municipalities of Junction (Kimble County) and Menard (Menard County) are outside of District boundaries and are excluded from the data tables. The county data for the County Other Water user Group is apportioned in all counties based upon the percentage of county area located within the District. See the Irrigation and Livestock methodology discussion for the respective percentage values.

District totals within tables may vary by an acre-foot due to rounding of numbers.

 

TABLE 1.

Summary of Historical Groundwater Use Within the District

(See the Methodology section for data apportionment criteria.)

(Source: Appendix A, Estimated Historical Groundwater Use and 2017 State Water Plan Dataset, Hickory Underground Water Conservation District No. 1, Texas Water Development Board, July 30, 2018

(All values are in acre-feet)

   

CONCHO COUNTY

(11.44% of land area is within the District)

 

Year

Municipal

Manufacturing

Electric

Irrigation

Mining

Livestock

Total

2016

     56

0

0

504

0

19

 579

2015

     58

0

0

473

0

19

550

2014

51

0

0

509

0

19

579

2013

     53

0

0

564

0

18

 635

2012

     46

0

0

539

0

22

  607

 

 

KIMBLE COUNTY

(2.55% of land area is within the District)

 

Year

Municipal

Manufacturing

Electric

Irrigation

Mining

Livestock

Total

2016

1

0

0

9

0

4

14

2015

3

0

0

3

0

4

10

2014

4

0

0

8

0

4

16

2013

6

0

0

5

5

4

20

2012

6

0

0

10

0

5

21

 

MASON COUNTY

(100% of land area is within District)

 

Year

Municipal

Manufacturing

Electric

Irrigation

Mining

Livestock

Total

2016

639

0

0

4,791

187

509

6,126

2015

670

0

0

4,888

116

499

6,173

2014

737

0

0

5,126

266

489

6,618

2013

776

0

0

4,695

311

474

6,256

2012

777

0

0

5,203

313

608

6,901

 

 

MCCULLOCH COUNTY

(79.92% of land area is in District)

 

Year

Municipal

Manufacturing

Electric

Irrigation

Mining

Livestock

Total

2016

1,111

53

0

637

3,681

283

5,765

2015

1,034

28

0

1,475

 3,128

281

5,946

2014

1,113

28

0

1,456

2,772

273

5,642

2013

1,101

29

0

1,331

2,045

267

4,773

2012

1,187

53

0

1,504

2,230

308

5,282

 

 

MENARD COUNTY

(13.51% of land area is in District)

 

Year

Municipal

Manufacturing

Electric

Irrigation*

Mining

Livestock

Total

2016

4

0

0

52

0

34

90

2015

6

0

0

69

0

34

109

2014

10

0

0

54

0

33

97

2013

12

0

0

63

0

33

108

2012

13

0

0

136

0

30

179

 

 

SAN SABA COUNTY

(55.88% of land area is in District)

 

Year

Municipal

Manufacturing

Electric

Irrigation

Mining

Livestock

Total

2016

849

2

0

1,297

0

168

2,316

2015

873

2

0

1,798

0

164

2,837

2014

785

2

0

2,248

0

161

3,196

2013

957

2

0

1,617

0

157

2,733

2012

1,228

5

0

2,012

6

165

3,416

 

  

TABLE 2.

 

 Estimates of Recharge from Precipitation, Discharges to Surface Water Bodies, and

Flows Into, Out of and Between Aquifers

in the Edwards-Trinity Aquifer within District  Boundaries

 (acre-feet/year. All numbers rounded to nearest acre-foot )

 

Management Plan

Requirement

Aquifer or Confining Unit

Results

Estimated annual amount of recharge from precipitation to the district

Edwards-Trinity (Plateau)

Aquifer

 

12,278

Estimated annual volume of

water that discharges from the aquifer to springs and any surface water body including lakes, streams and rivers

 

Edwards-Trinity (Plateau)

Aquifer

 

 

15,069

 

Estimated annual volume of flow into the district within each aquifer in the district

 

Edwards-Trinity (Plateau)

Aquifer

 

6,885

 

Estimated annual volume of flow out of the

district within each aquifer in the District

 

Edwards-Trinity (Plateau)

Aquifer

 

3,857

 

 

Estimated net annual volume of flow between each aquifer in the district

To the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau Aquifer from the  Hickory Aquifer

 

 31

To the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer from the Ellenburger-San Saba Aquifer

 

367

To the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer from the Marble Falls Aquifer

 

7

(Source: Appendix C, GAM Run 18-007, TWDB, July 12, 2018)

 

TABLE 3.

  Estimates of Recharge from Precipitation, Discharges to Surface Water Bodies, and

 Flows Into, Out of and Between Aquifers

 in the Ellenburger-San Saba Aquifer

within District Boundaries

 
(acre-feet/year. All numbers rounded to nearest acre-foot )

 

Management Plan

Requirement

Aquifer or Confining Unit

Results

Estimated annual amount of recharge from precipitation to the district

 

Ellenburger-San Saba Aquifer

 

56,007

Estimated annual volume of

water that discharges from the aquifer to springs and any surface water body including lakes, streams and rivers

 

 

Ellenburger-San Saba Aquifer

 

 

 176,861

Estimated annual volume of flow into the District within the Ellenburger-San Saba aquifer

 

Ellenburger-San Saba Aquifer

 

11,160

Estimated annual volume of flow out of the

district within the Ellenburger-San Saba aquifer

 

Ellenburger-San Saba Aquifer

 

31,784

 

 

 

 

Estimated net annual volume of flow between each aquifers  in the district

From Ellenburger-San Saba Aquifer to Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer

 

409

From Ellenburger-San Saba Aquifer to Marble Falls Aquifer

 

1,840

To Ellenburger-San Saba Aquifer from Ellenburger-San Saba brackish zone

 

11,084

From Ellenburger-San Saba Aquifer to Hickory Aquifer

 

3,315

Source: Appendix C, GAM Run 18-007: HCUWD No. 1 Groundwater Management Plan, TWDB, July 12, 2018

 

 

TABLE 4.

Estimates of Recharge from Precipitation, Discharges to Surface Water Bodies, and

Flows Into, Out of and Between Aquifers

 in the Hickory Aquifer

 within District  Boundaries

 (acre-feet/year. All numbers rounded to nearest acre-foot )

 

Management Plan

Requirement

Aquifer or Confining Unit

Results

Estimated annual amount of recharge from precipitation

 

Hickory Aquifer

 

 9,994

Estimated annual volume of

water that discharges from the aquifer to springs and any surface water body including lakes, streams and rivers

 

Hickory Aquifer

 

17,286

Estimated annual volume of flow into the District within the Hickory aquifer

 

Hickory Aquifer

 

 21,475

Estimated annual volume of flow out of the

District within the Hickory aquifer

 

Hickory Aquifer

 

 15,310

 

 

 

Estimated net annual volume of flow between aquifers  in the District

From Hickory Aquifer to Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer

 

31

Between Hickory Aquifer and Marble Falls Aquifer

 

0

To Hickory Aquifer from Ellenburger-San Saba Aquifer

 

3,332

From Hickory Aquifer to Hickory brackish zone

 1,039

(Source: Appendix C, GAM Run 18-007: HCUWD No. 1 Groundwater Management Plan, TWDB, July 12, 2018

 

 

 

 

TABLE 5.

Estimates of Recharge from Precipitation, Discharges to Surface Water Bodies, and

Flows Into, Out of and Between  Aquifers

 in the Marble Falls Aquifer

within District  Boundaries

 (acre-feet/year. All numbers rounded to nearest acre-foot )

 

Management Plan

Requirement

Aquifer or Confining Unit

Results

Estimated annual amount of recharge from precipitation

 

Marble Falls Aquifer

 

7,895

Estimated annual volume of

water that discharges from the aquifer to springs and any surface water body including lakes, streams and rivers

 

 

Marble Falls Aquifer

 

 

20,108

Estimated annual volume of flow into the District within the Hickory aquifer

 

Marble Falls Aquifer

 

 76

Estimated annual volume of flow out of the

District within the Marble Falls aquifer

 

Marble Falls Aquifer

 

 0

 

 

 

Estimated net annual volume of flow between aquifers  in the District

From Marble Falls Aquifer to Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer

 

7

From Marble Falls Aquifer to Marble Falls subcrop equivalent formation

 

2,242

To Marble Falls Aquifer from Ellenburger-San Saba Aquifer

 

1,838

Between Marble Falls Aquifer and Hickory Aquifer

 

 0

(Source: Appendix C, GAM Run 18-007: HCUWD No. 1 Groundwater Management Plan, TWDB, July 12, 2018

 

 

TABLE 6.

 

PROJECTED WATER DEMANDS

2017 ADOPTED STATE WATER PLAN

(See the Methodology section for data apportionment criteria.)

 

Total projected water demands for the 2020-2-70 planning period are as follows:

(all values in acre-feet)

 

 

County

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

CONCHO

 

1,837

1,828

1,808

1,792

1,781

1,772

 

KIMBLE

 

737

727

716

709

707

706

MASON

 

11,493

11,274

10,907

10,640

10,412

10,207

 

MCCULLOCH

 

11,794

11,403

10,128

9,388

8,618

8,368

 

MENARD

 

903

891

868

848

832

818

SAN SABA

 

5,856

5,806

5,615

5,464

5,386

5,323

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISTRICT  Total

 

32,620

31,929

30,042

28,841

27,736

27,194

             

               Source: The projected water demands for each water user group in the respective

   counties for each decade of  the planning period are detailed in pages 12-14 of Appendix

   A,   Estimated Historical Groundwater Use and 2017 State Water Plan Data Set,

   The largest increases in demand over the fifty-year planning period will be in municipal

    use and the largest decreases will be in irrigation use.

Surface Water Resources of the Hickory UWCD No. 1

The only surface water impoundment used for purposes other than livestock consumption is Brady Lake. The normal pool capacity is 30,000 acre-feet with a calculated annual firm yield of 2,2528 acre-feet. Currently the City of Brady is not utilizing this water; however the city will construct a 3mgd R.O. Treatment Plant to provide the City of Brady adequate water supplies to blend with the Hickory Aquifer wells in order to maintain a Radium 226/228 level below state and federal standards. Current Brady Lake pumpage is approximately 9 acre-feet annually for domestic purposes.

The San Saba and Llano Rivers bisect the District; however, only a small amount is used for other than livestock and domestic purposes.

TABLE 7.

PROJECTED SURFACE WATER SUPPLIES

(See the Methodology section for data apportionment criteria.)

(all values in acre-feet)

 

 

 

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

 

DISTRICT TOTAL

 

2,978

 

3,023

 

3,006

 

2,990

 

2,976

 

2,965

 

                         Source:  Projected surface water supplies, and their source, for each water

 user group in each county located in the district are detailed in pages 9-11 of

 Appendix A, Estimated Historical Groundwater Use and 2017 State Water

 Plan Data Set, TWDB, July 30, 2018

 

TABLE 8.

PROJECTED WATER SUPPLY NEEDS

(See the Methodology section for data apportionment criteria.)

(all values in acre-feet)

 

 

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

DISTRICT TOTAL

 

17,174

 

16,523

 

14,644

 

13,449

 

12,847

 

12,740

              Source: Projected Water Supply needs for each water user group in the respective counties for each decade of the planning period are detailed  in  pages 15-16 of Appendix B, Estimated Historical Groundwater Use  and 2017 State Water Plan Data Set.

 

PROJECTED WATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

IN THE 2017 ADOPTED STATE WATER PLAN

(See the Methodology section for data apportionment criteria.)

 

 Projected Water Management Strategies in the 2017 Adopted State Water

 Plan for each water user group in each county within the District for each

 decade of the planning period are detailed in pages 15-16 of Appendix

 A, Estimated Historical Groundwater Use and 2017 State Water Plan Data Set.

 

 

    PROJECTED WATER SUPPLY NEEDS

IN THE ADOPTED 2007 STATE WATER PLAN

(See the Methodology section for data apportionment criteria.)

 

 Projected Water Supply Needs included in the 2017 Adopted State Water

 Plan for each water user group in each county within the District for each

 decade of the planning period are detailed in pages 15-16 of Appendix

 A, Estimated Historical Groundwater Use and 2017 State Water Plan Data Set.

 

In the year 2070 the total projected water demands of the District are estimated at 27,194 acre-feet. While this number appears to be well within available supplies, Federal Drinking Water Standards relating to the levels of radionuclides in much of the Hickory water supply will significantly diminish the availability of groundwater for public water supply purposes. According to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, public water supplies in Mason County do not exceed the Federal radionuclide standards. However, the cities of Brady and Eden, as well as other municipal systems, may be impacted by the Federal standards.

The City of San Angelo well field is permitted for production of 12,000 acre-feet from the Hickory aquifer. The wellfield has not been developed, so permitted supplies are not yet being conveyed to and used by the City. However, levels of radionuclides exceeding Federal drinking water standards in the San Angelo well field will render the supply unusable without treatment or blending with water from other sources.

ACTIONS, PROCEDURES, PERFORMANCE AND AVOIDANCE

FOR PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

 

The District will implement the provisions of this plan and will utilize the provisions of this plan as a guidepost for determining the direction or priority for District operations and activities. Operations of the District, all agreements entered into by the District and any additional planning efforts in which the District may participate will be consistent with the provisions of this plan.

 

The District has adopted rules relating to the permitting of wells and the production of groundwater and continues to review and revise those rules in accordance with the best scientific evidence available and pursuant to changes in state laws and regulations. The rules adopted by the District shall be pursuant to TWC § 36 and the provisions of this plan. All rules will be adhered to and enforced. The promulgation and enforcement of the rules will be based on the best technical evidence available.

 

The District shall treat all citizens indiscriminately.  Citizens may apply to the District for discretion in enforcement of the rules on grounds of adverse economic effect or unique local conditions. In granting of discretion to any rule, the Board of Directors shall consider the potential for adverse effect on adjacent landowners. The exercise of said discretion by the District Board shall not be construed as limiting the power of the District Board.

 

The District will seek cooperation in the implementation of this plan and the management of groundwater supplies within the District. All activities of the District will be undertaken in cooperation and coordinated with the appropriate state, regional or local management entity.”

 

Tracking Methodology

The District manager will provide a report of staff activities to the Board of Directors at quarterly board meetings to insure management objectives and goals are being achieved.

MANAGEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Goal 1.0 To provide the most efficient use of groundwater

Management Objective
1.1 Annually the district will provide educational materials identifying conservation measures for the efficient use of water. Annually, two (2) District newsletter issues will be published that contain water conservation information. Handout packets with conservation literature will be provided at the annual McCulloch County Soil and Water Conservation 5th Grade Field Day or one other water-related function.

Performance Standard
1.1a Number of newsletters published annually containing water conservation information.
1.1b Number of events annually where conservation material was provided.

Management Objective
1.2 To monitor groundwater availability over the five-year management period; the District will identify and monitor 50 wells for water levels and obtain quarterly water levels on the monitored wells.

Performance Standards
1.2  Number of monitor wells measured quarterly.


Goal 2.0 To control and prevent the waste of groundwater.

Management Objective                                                 

 2.1 Once each year the District will lend flow meters to assist at least one irrigating farmer within the District to evaluate irrigation systems and reduce waste.

Performance Standard
2.1 The number of District farmers who receive loans of flow-meters to assist in evaluating their irrigation systems.
.

Goal 3.0 Addressing natural resource issues that impact the use and availability of groundwater and are impacted by the use of groundwater

Management Objective                                                                                             

 3.1 The District will identify at least twenty (20) wells to be used as water quality monitoring wells that will be sampled annually.

Performance Standard                                                                                              

3.1 Number of monitor wells sampled annually for water quality.


Goal 4.0 Addressing conjunctive surface water management issues.

Management Objective                                                                                       

4.1 Meet at least once annually with City of Brady to discuss and review potential use of surface water resources in the area. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Performance Standard
4.1 Number of meetings with City representatives annually.

Management Objective

4.2 Meet at least once annually with a Lower Colorado River Authority staff member to review potential conjunctive groundwater/surface water resources in the area. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Performance Standard
4.2 Number of meetings with LCRA staff annually.

Goal 5.0 Addressing Drought Conditions

Management Objective                                                                                        

5.1a Annually monitor the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI), notifying all District public water suppliers of severe drought conditions when they occur.   

5.1b  Notify area residents, in the District newsletter, of severe drought conditions when they occur and advise them that they may find useful information on the current drought status at the TWDB Water Data for Texas drought link at https://waterdatafortexas.org/drought .

Performance Standards                                                                                   

5.1a  Report the current drought status of the District to the Board of Directors at quarterly meetings.           

5. 1b Annually report to the Board of Directors the number of times area residents are notified of severe drought conditions in the District newsletter and the number of times that letters are sent to public water suppliers warning of severe drought conditions.  

Goal 6.0a) Addressing Conservation

Management Objectives                                                                                        

6.a)1. At least once annually the District will provide educational literature promoting water conservation in a public educational presentation.

Performance Standard

 6.a)1. Report to Board of Directors annually number of times water conservation information was distributed to area residents or in public informational or educational meetings.

Goal 6.0 (b) Addressing rainwater harvesting

Management Objective      

 6.b)1 The District will display rainwater harvesting manuals publicly at the district office and at least once annually provide notice in the District newsletter that  manuals on rainwater harvesting are available to residents in the District office.

Performance Standards                                                                                        

6.b)1 Report to the Board of Directors annually on the number  of times notice was published in the District newsletter about the availability of Rainwater Harvesting manuals in the District office.

Management Objective                                                                                          

6.b)2  Include information on rainwater harvesting in one public education presentation annually

Performance Standards                                                                                     

 6.b)2 Report to Board of Directors annually the number of educational presentations that included rainwater harvesting information.

Goal 6.0 (c) Addressing brush control

Management Objective                                                                                       

6.c)1  Meet once annually with NRCS to discuss prioritizing brush control for EQIP funds or other federal conservation funding.

Performance Standards                                                                                    

6.c)1  Report to Board of Directors annually on the number of meetings held with NRCS officials regarding priority conservation funding for brush control.

Goal 7.0 Addressing the Desired Future Conditions of the District aquifers.

Management Objective

7.1 Monitor three (3) well levels annually in the Hickory aquifer outcrop area and one (1) well level annually in the Ellenburger-San Saba outcrop area of the district to determine whether the drawdown objectives of the District’s DFCs are being met.

Performance Standard

7.1. Annual report to Board of Director on monitor wells measured annually to determine whether drawdown objectives are being met.

 

36.1071 (a) Management Goals Not Applicable to the District

Goal 1.0 Controlling and Preventing Subsidence


Following District review of the TWDB report Identification of the Vulnerability of the Major and Minor Aquifers of Texas with Subsidence with Regard to Groundwater Pumping the District concluded that this goal is not applicable to the operation of the District. The report may be accessed at https://www.twdb.texas.gov/groundwater/models/research/subsidence/subsidence.asp

 

Goal 2.0 Addressing recharge enhancement


The Texas Water Development Board, at the request of the District, completed a study of an area within the District to evaluate the possibility of beneficial artificial recharge of this area of the Hickory Aquifer. Evaluation of the Hickory Aquifer and Its Relationship to Katemcy Creek and Its Major Tributaries for Beneficial Recharge, McCulloch and Mason Counties, Texas, is available in the District Office. This study, along with subsequent studies, does not support an economically feasible recharge program.

Goal 3.0 Addressing precipitation enhancement

The District has investigated participation in the West Texas Weather Modification program which performs cloud-seeding operations out of San Angelo, Texas, but had determined that it is not economically feasible.

 

Statement of Commitment by Hickory Underground Water Conservation District No. 1, to Effectuation of the District Groundwater Management Plan.

The District will implement the provisions of this plan and/or future amendments and will utilize the provisions of this plan, or amended plan, as guidance for implementation of District goals, in promulgating District Rules and selecting, evaluating, and carrying our district programs, activities and hydrogeologic studies.

 

Bibliography

1 Texas Almanac 2002-2003, 2000 Census Data, The Dallas Morning News
2 “Hickory Water Data” prepared for Hickory UWCD No. 1 by Harden and Associates, August 1986, and aquifer maps obtained from Water for Texas, 1997, TWDB
3 Edwards-Trinity Aquifer information obtained from TWDB website: http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/publications/reports/GroundWaterReports/GWReports/Brackish%20GW%20Manual/08-Edwards-Trinity(Plateau).pdf Report by LBG-Guyton Associates
4 Aquifer maps obtained from Water for Texas, 1997, TWDB
5 Ellenburger-San Saba Aquifer information obtained from TWDB website:     http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/publications/reports/GroundWaterReports/GWReports/Brackish%20GW%20Manual/26-Ellenburger-SanSaba.pdf Report by LBG-Guyton Associates
6 Marble Falls Aquifer information obtained from TWDB website: http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/publications/reports/GroundWaterReports/GWReports/Brackish%20GW%20Manual/27-MarbleFalls.pdf Report by LBG-Guyton Associate

7 Table 3.1-1, Region F Regional Water Plan, TWDB,  January 2006

8 Table 3.2-2 Region F Regional Water Plan, January 2006