July 27, 2006

The concept of waste, as it pertains to water, carries two distinct meanings for people in this area.

There are those who believe water flowing from our reservoirs into the sea constitutes a lost or wasted resource. And then folks such as me believe sprinkling tapwater on non-native landscapes, among other frivolous uses, is the true waste of precious stream flow, better relegated to the sea.

Desperation should not be the trigger for water rationing.

We could temper this debate if more people routinely considered the consequences of unnecessary water use. But then we'd be forced to agree on the definition of unnecessary.

Perhaps we'd have full reservoirs and well-fed bays if desalination of ocean water becomes the norm. But until we see wholesale water conservation or affordable desalination, expect disagreement on issues surrounding water management and waste to continue.

Sure, we built reservoirs to hold water for our use. But man is not alone here. Before we dug those holes and built dams to fill them, God or nature, whichever you prefer, created rivers to flow into the sea. Nature is not wasteful.

Herein lies a conflict between two forces with seemingly opposing goals. Man must drink to live. And without freshwater inflow, ours bays would die. These really are not mutually exclusive.

If you do not believe my point about the bays, then there is no reason to continue reading this column. Instead, read about how the Colorado River (the one that snakes through the Rocky Mountains and Grand Canyon into Mexico) no longer flows into the once-rich delta system that fed the Gulf of California.

Over the past decade or so, water managers with authority over the Nueces River have compromised and tweaked a plan intended to accommodate the needs of man and estuary. This plan calls for holding unallocated water in Choke Canyon Reservoir and Lake Corpus Christi when no rain falls within those watersheds. And the plan calls for allowing a proportionate amount of water to flow through the marsh and into the bays after rainwater that falls within those watersheds reaches the reservoir system.

This is the basis of a good plan. The idea here is to mimic nature.

For each month, we've set pass-through amounts for water, based on historic flows, to maintain this balance. These monthly pass-through targets are not mandatory water release quotas. Each represents the maximum amount of water to be released, if - and this is an important if - the reservoir system receives water that month. Often, these pass-though levels are not met. This point often is lost on people complaining about low lake levels.

This plan for freshwater inflows includes a mechanism for holding water when the lakes fall below a certain level. Moderately low lake levels - below 50 percent combined storage capacity - would trigger voluntary water conservation measures in Corpus Christi. This might be a good time to erase the word voluntary. Mandatory water restrictions come when the combined reservoir level reaches 40 percent. Below 30 percent, environmental flows would cease even if the reservoirs' watersheds receive rain.

The current plan recognizes water sources other than direct flow from the reservoirs into the estuary. In other words, if a measurable amount of rain falls between Lake Corpus Christi and Nueces Bay, the amount of water allowed to escape Lake Corpus Christi would be less than the pass-through target. This system of credit regarding pass-throughs is not perfect, but arguably it is fair and reasonable.

Allow me to dispel several other misconceptions.

For those who cite discrimination when they see much lower water levels at Lake Corpus Christi compared with the level maintained at Choke Canyon, consider the dynamics at play. Water officials would be irresponsible if they didn't keep the majority of our reserves in Choke Canyon.

The percentage of water that evaporates from a shallow lake is much greater than that of a deeper lake. Choke Canyon is much deeper than Lake Corpus Christi and therefore is the more efficient storage facility.

Regarding an oft-misused point about fish stocks in Nueces Bay, don't believe that good fishing necessarily equates to a healthy system. Fishes make up a tiny fraction of an estuary's complex biodiversity. Nobody knows the early symptoms that might signal an ecosystem's collapse. Don't discount the little stuff.

It's enough for me to know that freshwater is the lifeblood of this estuary. Again, if you don't embrace this notion, then this debate ends here.

Some people who see water flowing over the saltwater barrier dam at Labonte Park assume this flow exclusively is the result of a pass-through from the reservoir. Not necessarily. This flow could be the result of permitted water not fully consumed by the buyer. The unused portion of water would be deducted from the targeted pass-though for that month.

Now if you see water flowing immediately downstream from Lake Corpus Christi at the Wesley Seale Dam, this usually is water being delivered to a town, farm or corporation that purchased water rights. The river is the delivery system. It could be a pass-through, but don't assume this automatically.

Here's another misguided argument. If you cite the Laguna Madre to support a position that an ecosystem could withstand hypersalinity, then your argument is flawed. Laguna Madre and the organisms within it have evolved for thousands of years to adapt to current conditions. Don't make the mistake of comparing apples to oranges in your zeal to denounce water releases. Nueces Bay is a much thirstier animal. This is not a political determination, but a biological one.

One way to gauge whether the estuary is getting enough freshwater is to measure salinity. This is the only way credit is given for rainfall directly into the bay. When the salinity level of Nueces Bay is low, then the flow from our reservoirs is reduced. But again, no water is released unless the reservoir receives rain.

This emphasis on salinity might lead you to believe that maintaining a livable salt level is the only benefit of freshwater inflows. It is not. River flow also supplies needed nutrients and sediments to a viable bay system and its protective marshes. Think of an estuary as a single giant organism that requires both food and water. Some estuaries such as Laguna Madre get their food from seagrasses. Nueces Bay, which has limited seagrasses, gets its food from the inflow of nutrients supplied by the Nueces River.

I'm unwilling to sacrifice Nueces and Corpus Christi bays or the economies they support for a 30-minute shower or a greener lawn. That's the definition of waste.

Outdoors writer David Sikes' column appears Thursdays and Sundays. Contact him at 886-3616 or HYPERLINK mailto:sikesd@caller.com sikesd@caller.com

MORE SIKES COLUMNS »

Copyright 2006, Caller.com. All Rights Reserved.