Texas water board outlines statewide groundwater monitoring, warns of data gaps
Loading...
Summary
Texas Water Development Board officials briefed the House Natural Resources interim committee on the state’s groundwater monitoring network, noting robust data in some aquifers but persistent gaps that rely on partner-collected measurements and urging funding to expand recorder wells and quality control for planning.
John Dubnick, deputy executive administrator for the Texas Water Development Board, told the House Natural Resources Committee that the board’s Groundwater Division exists “to collect, interpret, and provide accurate, objective information on the groundwater resources of Texas.” He said the TWDB collects water‑level and water‑quality information, operates an automated recorder‑well network of about 300 instrumented sites and compiles roughly 1,800 field measurements annually while partners — chiefly groundwater conservation districts and the U.S. Geological Survey — contribute additional observations that bring the statewide total to about 8,000 points a year.
That partner network is essential, Dubnick and other TWDB officials said, describing the difference between the board’s annual physical measurements and the several thousand supplemental records submitted by cooperators. “It fills the majority of the data gaps in the state,” Dubnick said, noting that recorder wells cost capital and require long‑term operation and maintenance to remain useful for trend analysis.
Why it matters: Members repeatedly pressed staff about geographic hotspots and short‑term trends shown in TWDB heat maps. The maps aggregate decades of water‑level data and flag areas for follow‑up; they are used to support groundwater availability models and the joint planning process that produces modeled available groundwater (MAG) numbers. Committee members asked whether local patterns — for example in the Trinity aquifer near Hays County — show an emerging long‑term trend or simply short‑term variability. Dubnick recommended using recorder wells and targeted local studies to drill into hotspots flagged by statewide maps.
What the board can do: TWDB staff described two key administrative roles: (1) packaging model outputs, water‑use surveys and hydrogeologic information into explanatory reports for groundwater management areas; and (2) performing an administrative completeness check and running GAM (groundwater availability model) simulations to derive MAG once a DFC (desired future condition) package is submitted. TWDB staff also reminded the committee of a new grant program — roughly $3.5 million per fiscal year for groundwater research and monitoring grants to GCDs — with solicitation deadlines the board said will be posted and administered this interim.
What’s next: The board stressed upcoming joint planning deadlines — proposed DFCs are due May 1, 2026, and adopted DFCs and explanatory reports are due Jan. 5, 2027 — and asked legislators to consider recurring funding for ongoing monitoring, recorder‑well expansion and model development so that MAG calculations reflect the best available data going into future state water plans.
