Texas water wars: how politics and scientific uncertainty influence environmental flow decision-making in the Lone Star state

In 2007, Texas passed Senate Bill (SB) 3 mandating formation of science and stakeholder committees to make recommendations on the environmental flows (e-flows) needed to maintain the ecological integrity of river basins through a collaborative process designed to achieve consensus. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), the state agency that issues water rights permits, was to promulgate these recommendations and develop e-flow rules. For the first two basins to complete the SB3 process, the Sabine and Neches Basins and Sabine Lake Bay and the Trinity and San Jacinto Basins and Galveston Bay, final e-flow rules did not mimic a natural flow regime, rather, only subsistence flows, one level of base flows, and low flow pulses at a limited number of sites were adopted. In this article, I describe why the SB3 process was derailed for these basins. Science and stakeholder committees were skewed with more members representing short-term economic than ecological and recreational interests in freshwater. Many individuals on the science and stakeholder committees worked for river authorities, semiautonomous state agencies that receive the majority of their funding from surface water sales, and consulting firms that regularly contract with the river authorities. Water rights holders were from the outset distrustful of the SB3 process. There was a high degree of uncertainty associated with e-flow science, and adaptive management was used as justification for making low e-flow recommendations. In the end, TCEQ set environmental flow rules at levels lower than those recommended for protection of environmental benefits by the science teams.