United States | Water in Texas

The thirsty road ahead

Drought may force the state to take tougher measures

|AUSTIN

THIS year Texas had the hottest summer ever recorded in any state. In September wildfires swept through the town of Bastrop, outside Austin, destroying more than 1,000 homes. Thousands of cattle have been sold. The town of Big Spring, up the road from the oil hub of Midland, is planning to recycle wastewater for drinking; two of the reservoirs that supply the city are almost empty. The severe drought that has parched most of the state this year shows no signs of abating. The state climatologist reckons that it could last for the rest of the decade.

But the most sobering fact may be that Texas's water woes are structural. A growing population needs more water. As it stands, the state needs about 18m acre-feet of water a year, according to the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB). By 2060 demand is projected to rise to 22m acre-feet a year. The available supply is expected to decline from 17m acre-feet to about 15.3m, as some aquifers are being depleted and areas of the state will come under new regulations. The TWDB forecasts a total statewide shortfall of 8.3m acre-feet by 2060, because the regions that have enough water cannot simply pipe it to the driest places. If nothing is done, it warns, the economic losses could reach $115.7 billion a year by 2060.

The agency's water plan for 2012, which is set to be approved later this month, recommends 562 new projects—developing new reservoirs, improving conservation, preventing erosion—that would free millions of additional acre-feet. On November 8th voters narrowly approved a ballot initiative that will authorise the state to issue up to an additional $6 billion in bonds for such efforts. But the TWDB's recommended projects would cost an estimated $53 billion, and still leave some places short. “Well, I think we need to pray for rain,” says Chris Wingert, the general manager of the West Central Texas Municipal Water District in Abilene.

At least water cannot be ignored. “I don't know what you mean by conservationist,” says John DeLaney, a pecan farmer from Comanche, politely. But, he continues, he does try to save water when he irrigates his trees, just as a person would ration snacks from the fridge if they had to last for three months: “It doesn't take much sense to do that.”

That is becoming the consensus view. And while some heavy users are pursuing conservation out of necessity—agricultural demand is projected to decline as irrigation systems become more efficient—others, such as energy companies, may get a stronger signal. “I'm telling the industry it's not a choice,” says Troy Fraser, a Republican state senator from Horseshoe Bay and chair of the state Senate's Committee on Natural Resources . The gas industry, for example, uses several million gallons of freshwater when “fracking” a well, and the water is not recycled for drinking, thanks to the additives that are used. If the companies do not change voluntarily, Mr Fraser warns, they could face new rules in the 2013 legislative session. That would be a real change in the weather.

This article appeared in the United States section of the print edition under the headline "The thirsty road ahead"

That’s all, folks

From the November 12th 2011 edition

Discover stories from this section and more in the list of contents

Explore the edition

More from United States

The Supreme Court seems divided over Donald Trump’s immunity

Whether Mr Trump stands trial for trying to steal the 2020 election may come down to one justice

Will the dramatic burst of bipartisanship in Congress last?

For all its procedural power, America’s hard right has had stunningly little influence on policy


The most important climate agency you’ve never heard of

An inept Congress puts America’s Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in the spotlight