Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Neither Houston nor Dallas need to worry too much about water, so I wouldn't consider that a true limiting factor. They have more population than the states north of them, so sorry Arkansas and Oklahoma and anywhere else north and east with low populations and available water, you will lose that battle. Sure, Texas will have to pay a bit more for it, but it'll be available and not expensive enough to limit growth in any real terms.
You know when I read these links,(and I do read links before I comment on them unlike some posters on this board) It is obvious that these water disputes are driven by the Metroplex's need to look outside its region for water. Is any other part of this state a part of this? TBP (Toledo Bend Partners) claims that other cities in Texas are potential customers for the water they want from Louisiana, but that is just smoke, this is about DFW and it's need for water.
As far as I know Houston has not found it necessary to file lawsuites or try to con any of our neighboring states to satisfy our water consumption. I would say this is pretty good evidence that Houston is planning for future water consumption growth better than DFW.
I voted for SA, because it really doesn't have a lot of "suburbs" persay, and it is revitalizing the urban core. However, the only area with any real public transit is DFW. So, I'm starting to think I voted too quickly. SA has none and has no plans for it. The interior towns of DFW are already almost built out.
You know when I read these links,(and I do read links before I comment on them unlike some posters on this board) It is obvious that these water disputes are driven by the Metroplex's need to look outside its region for water. Is any other part of this state a part of this? TBP (Toledo Bend Partners) claims that other cities in Texas are potential customers for the water they want from Louisiana, but that is just smoke, this is about DFW and it's need for water.
As far as I know Houston has not found it necessary to file lawsuites or try to con any of our neighboring states to satisfy our water consumption. I would say this is pretty good evidence that Houston is planning for future water consumption growth better than DFW.
As stated in the regional summaries link I also provided, it specifically states that a pipeline from Toledo Bend to the DFW is a major project for their region. It does not mention Houston, although one would expect them to pursue it if that group does get that massive amount of water rights from LA.
DFW's main option is Oklahoma water, and if they can't secure those rights, then expect some huge water bills in order to pursue their other options. Houston does have needs, but a higher percentage is in the industrial sector, not the municipal sector like DFW. For Houston, it is just a matter of infrastructure connecting to already in place water, for DFW it is actually needing to find water.
Evaporation and precipitation are the two key factors. The DFW area expriences roughly 40 inches of precip, but has roughly 60 inches of evaporation. Houston averages roughly 50 inches of precip, and 50 inches of evaporation. Precipitation & Evaporation | Texas Water Development Board
As stated in the regional summaries link I also provided, it specifically states that a pipeline from Toledo Bend to the DFW is a major project for their region. It does not mention Houston, although one would expect them to pursue it if that group does get that massive amount of water rights from LA.
DFW's main option is Oklahoma water, and if they can't secure those rights, then expect some huge water bills in order to pursue their other options. Houston does have needs, but a higher percentage is in the industrial sector, not the municipal sector like DFW. For Houston, it is just a matter of infrastructure connecting to already in place water, for DFW it is actually needing to find water.
Evaporation and precipitation are the two key factors. The DFW area expriences roughly 40 inches of precip, but has roughly 60 inches of evaporation. Houston averages roughly 50 inches of precip, and 50 inches of evaporation. Precipitation & Evaporation | Texas Water Development Board
Thanks, this is a very interesting source of information. The grid numbers are a bit hard to read but I managed to confirm your numbers.
I found another link Data App: Track Texas Reservoir Levels" on a Texas Tribune webpage. YOu can check the water levels of every reservoir in Texas, it gives you the acre feet at capacity and current levels in both acre feet and percent of capacity.
At first glance you find that the number of reservoirs in the DFW area would seem to suggest that they have an abundance of water but when you check the levels and the small capacity of the reservoirs along with the info you researched, one starts to get an idea of why they may need additional resources. Also notice that the reservoirs to the west of the metroplex are very dry.
The state of Oklahoma and so far all the court rulings disagree with you on that
Texas has more representatives and more clout on the national scene. If TX growth continues, the US isn't gonna let a little thing like water hold down the GDP. CA will be taking water from the north and east as well, and probably Arizona will be too. DFW area lawns might be brown for a couple of years, but growth will not be constricted.
Just like the Canadian oil pipeline, it will be built when if it becomes necessary.
You may accuse me of being glib in the face of current evidence; I would only point to cases such as womens rights and civil rights as situations where the court rules one thing at one time and when facts change, the courts rule differently.
Also, Oklahoma is going to feel a bit more friendly 25 years down the road when the northern suburbs of DFW are in Oklahoma.
Last edited by TheOverdog; 02-13-2013 at 08:42 PM..
Texas has more representatives and more clout on the national scene. If TX growth continues, the US isn't gonna let a little thing like water hold down the GDP. CA will be taking water from the north and east as well, and probably Arizona will be too. DFW area lawns might be brown for a couple of years, but growth will not be constricted.
Just like the Canadian oil pipeline, it will be built when if it becomes necessary.
You may accuse me of being glib in the face of current evidence; I would only point to cases such as womens rights and civil rights as situations where the court rules one thing at one time and when facts change, the courts rule differently.
Also, Oklahoma is going to feel a bit more friendly 25 years down the road when the northern suburbs of DFW are in Oklahoma.
I think only some of the posters here are giving the water situation the gravity and seriousness it deserves as an issue. I formerly worked in the water planning industry in the Austin area, and water availability will be a major issue in Texas in the coming years. None of the four major metropolitan areas are in a great position as of now. The reason why is the climate and high demand.
Austin and San Antonio, despite being drier rely more on groundwater than Houston and DFW do. This is a mixed blessing. On one hand, groundwater is less sensitive to rainfall than the surface reservoirs are. On the other hand, provision of groundwater is finite, pollution of groundwater is much easier, and most of Texas's comes from the Edwards, which will be under increasing pressure as growth continues in Central Texas. Austin is probably in the absolute worst position of the four metro areas.
As far as Houston and DFW go, Houston is unquestionably in a better position for the future, water-wise than is DFW, but this position is dependent on a stable climate. If the climate changes to create a drier Houston (and likely a drier Texas as a whole) all bets are off. DFW is in an OK position, but is very beholden to rainfall (or lack thereof), and already uses up most of its average yearly available supply. Significant investment will be required by the state and/or DFW localities. Piping water in from other states can be extremely expensive, generally requiring large upfront costs (creating reservoirs, dams, etc.) and/or large maintainence costs (water pipelines). The lack of supply and high demand is why water is so expensive in many places in the West. Texas, given its climate, high growth levels, and nature of its economy is at extreme risk of getting into the same situation.
I also wanted to say a little bit about the other drivers of this conversation, such as traffic, urbanity, available land area, sprawl, planning, etc. None (and I do mean NONE) of those issues are different enough between Houston and DFW to make a difference in which city is better positioned to handle future growth. Here in the DC area, we have the worst traffic in the country and it remains a desirable area. Same with NYC, LA, and even Dallas and Houston. Some people like zoning, some don't. Some like a suburban lifestyle, some don't. Both of these areas offer enough options for people that as long as they are economically viable, they will continue to grow. Same can be said about Austin and SA to a slightly lesser extent. People will tolerate a lot of negative externalities, if there are enough positive ones to make a place a good place to live overall.
Three of the four metro areas still have lots of physical room to grow. Austin is a bit constrained but still has signficant growth potential, which will be enhanced by infrastructure improvements. But water is indeed the main limiting factor - not any of those other things. And I'm not purely talking about supply, I'm talking about price.
Say, for example, 30 years from now Austin has significant water issues compared to the rest of the metro areas. Whatever solution that Austin will have to undertake in order to solve this problem will cost money. And unless the money is coming purely from the state or the feds (unlikely) Austin will have to invest in its water infrastructure, and this investment will result in higher water prices. Higher water prices mean less economic competitiveness compared to other Texas metros as well as other US metros that don't have high water prices. Of course there are other factors involved when speaking of a metro area's economic competitiveness but water has the potential to significantly harm the economic competitiveness of Texas as a whole. Water intensive business will not open here. Agriculture will suffer. A whole host of consequences would result from this and whichever metro is not prepared will suffer.
And this will cost a lot of money. In 2011, DFW was estimating $21 billion of investment by 2060 while Houston was estimating $13 billion for those metro areas alone to meet water needs. The entire state needs to take this seriously and if there is a metro area that does not, they will get left behind.
Is that a year or in total? The company I work for plans on spending about that much in 2013 alone on infrastructure. If that is in today's dollars and not indexed to inflation, spending an additional $21b by 2060 is basically nothing. If that's $21b in 2060 dollars, then it is more accurately represented as something like $70billion.
The only thing that will limit TX's growth will be its finances and education. If something happens and Texas is not able to maintain its 'low cost/low tax' business climate, then there is nothing else that special about Texas to keep companies coming here. It's distance to major east coast population centers is actually a pretty big detraction as fuel and electricity prices will also rise substantially over that same time period. Ohio, Georgia, and the Carolinas could easily step in if Texas falls. Colorado could also step up in the middle of the country.
I can't speak to the finances, but in terms of education I think Houston's grooming of UofH into a large research university and UT's continued dominance speak well of their future preparedness; DFW slightly less so at the university level, but at the high school and lower level, they are also doing exceptionally well.
Is that a year or in total? The company I work for plans on spending about that much in 2013 alone on infrastructure. If that is in today's dollars and not indexed to inflation, spending an additional $21b by 2060 is basically nothing. If that's $21b in 2060 dollars, then it is more accurately represented as something like $70billion.
The only thing that will limit TX's growth will be its finances and education. If something happens and Texas is not able to maintain its 'low cost/low tax' business climate, then there is nothing else that special about Texas to keep companies coming here. It's distance to major east coast population centers is actually a pretty big detraction as fuel and electricity prices will also rise substantially over that same time period. Ohio, Georgia, and the Carolinas could easily step in if Texas falls. Colorado could also step up in the middle of the country.
I can't speak to the finances, but in terms of education I think Houston's grooming of UofH into a large research university and UT's continued dominance speak well of their future preparedness; DFW slightly less so at the university level, but at the high school and lower level, they are also doing exceptionally well.
I'm actually not completely sure whether that's indexed or not but I'm assuming that's $21B in 2011 dollars or like you said ~$70B in 2060 dollars. The total state exposure will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $60-$70 billion in projects, so about $210-240 billion in 2060 dollars using your multiplier. None of my sources say whether or not the dollars are indexed which is frustrating. I'm no financial expert - how should it be handled when you're spending money that's reflected in 2011 dollars across a longer period of time and taking inflation into account? I say that because the projects will be built between now and 2060, so of course it won't be $60 billion nor $240 billion, but somewhere in between.
Your company is spending $21 billion for infrastructure in one year? That is a huge amount. What kind of company is it if you don't mind me asking?
And keep in mind Texas state budget averages about $80-90 billion per year these days for everything. Finding what is likely to be well over $100 billion (in total cash spent) over 35 years would be a big investment, and it appears the state government is quite aware of the problem.
The real question is can successive governments promote a unified state vision over a sustained period of time that will invest in these water resources and spare all of these metro areas higher water prices and lower availability and economic competitiveness in the future? That's a true open-ended question, but I'm hopeful they will give water development the support it needs in order to head this issue off at the pass.
Last edited by majicdonjuan; 02-14-2013 at 02:40 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Water litigation
