In this issue:
Beyond the Drought
Water Alternatives
Ag Output Dries Up
From the Comptroller: Lighting the Path
Deposit on the Future
Theory of Devolution
Bees-ness is Buzzing
Mesquite Mystique
If Texas seems to be drying up, that shouldn't come as a big surprise. In every decade of the 20th century, at least one major drought has troubled some part of the state. Rain has been scarce again this year, and each of Texas' 10 climatic regions entered the summer facing a moderate to severe drought.
While current conditions aren't as severe as the drought from 1950 to 1956--when 94 percent of Texas counties were declared disaster areas--demands on the state's water resources are much greater now because the population has doubled since the 1950s.
This year, 86 percent of Texas counties have qualified for emergency drought assistance through the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Drought has damaged some of the state's major cash crops. Local governments in several regions have restricted municipal water uses such as landscape watering and car washing.
Soaking rain would be welcome but won't solve Texas' long-term water supply concerns. By 2030, demand for water could exceed supply in some regions unless successful conservation programs are put in place, according to the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), the agency charged with maintaining a statewide water plan. Regional water authorities are addressing the threat of long-term shortages with strategies that emphasize conservation, waste prevention and drought management.
Dry statistics: Texans use more than 14 million acre-feet of water each year--nearly 8 million acre-feet from groundwater resources (aquifers and wells) and the rest from surface reservoirs. One acre-foot equals 325,851 gallons.
Irrigation accounts for about two-thirds of Texas' annual water consumption. Municipal use--for households, businesses, restaurants, public offices, sanitation, fire protection and landscaping--drinks up about one-fifth, while manufacturing, mining, power generation and livestock consume the rest. TWDB projections, based on normal rainfall and expected conservation, indicate that water use for irrigation will decline 16 percent from 2000 to 2050, while municipal use will rise more than 50 percent.
Texas receives an average 366 million acre-feet of rainfall annually, a primary source of water to recharge aquifers. But in the massive Ogallala Aquifer under the High Plains and Texas Panhandle--a region that receives relatively little rain--annual water withdrawals exceed replenishment. Similarly, water demand in the southern part of the Edwards Aquifer--the sole source of drinking water for 1.5 million people in Central and South Texas--has outpaced recharge in recent years.
Surface water storage in Texas is on a three-year decline. In late April 1996, the state's 77 largest reservoirs stored only 75 percent of their capacity. The total amount of water stored, about 25.8 million acre-feet, was down 16 percent from April 1995. Unless storage recovers this summer, Texas faces an all-time low of 63 percent of water capacity, according to TWDB.
Typically, reservoir storage levels recover in the fall, following the summer drawdown. But from September 1995 through January 1996, Texas' surface water storage dropped by 1.4 million acre-feet.
Along the border: The Lower Rio Grande Basin is entering the fourth year of a drought that threatens to cripple the region's citrus, cattle and cotton industries.
Hidalgo County normally receives about 23 inches of precipitation per year; however, in the first three months of 1996, less than one-quarter of an inch of rain fell. Near the end of May, Texas had only one-third of its reserves remaining in Amistad and Falcon, the two international reservoirs on the Rio Grande that supply water to users on both sides of the border.
To compound the problem, the drought in northern Mexico is the worst in more than 40 years. In November 1995, Texas agreed to provide emergency water aid to Mexico for non-irrigation purposes. The water "loan" is contingent on Mexican reserves dropping below a certain level and on Texas having adequate reserves. Mexico would repay the water as reserves improved.
Glenn Jarvis, coordinator for the Lower Rio Grande Water Policy and Management Council, said he expects there will be enough water for Valley farmers this year, but some areas will go dry.
Texas irrigates nearly 1 million acres within the Rio Grande Basin, according to a study by the Texas Water Resources Institute at Texas A&M University. TWDB projections indicate that by 2040, the Rio Grande and its tributaries and aquifers will fall about 274,000 acre-feet per year short of being able to meet demand from users on the U.S. side.
The water management council has developed a public information campaign, Water Smart, that stresses conservation by agricultural and municipal water users. Water Smart is designed to raise awareness of the water supply shortage facing the Lower Rio Grande Valley and to stimulate good water-use habits. Solutions to the regional water supply shortage will be effective only if they are based on public understanding of the issues and of the costs and the benefits of various options, Jarvis said.
No rain on the plain: Water management and conservation are a way of life for farmers in another part of the state familiar with depleting water reserves. The Ogallala Aquifer in the High Plains has been drying up for 40 years.
Nearly 90 percent of the 4 million acre-feet of water pumped out of the Ogallala each year is used to irrigate 4 million acres in the Texas High Plains. About two-thirds of all irrigation in Texas occurs in the High Plains; the 20 percent of Texans who live west of Interstate 35 use nearly 44 percent of the state's water, according to TWDB.
Measurements in Ogallala wells showed an average decline of 1.9 feet during 1995 because of the continuing drought that began in mid-1992 and heavy pumpage to meet crop water demand. Over the past 10 years, groundwater levels in the 15 counties of the High Plains Underground Water Conservation District fell by an average three-quarters of a foot per year. From 1991 to 1996, the average annual decline was 1.2 feet.
Improved irrigation methods are preventing greater declines in the Ogallala, according to the conservation district. Two leading practices to prevent rainwater runoff are conservation tilling (plowing land to reduce erosion) and furrow diking (mounding soil in furrows to form dams or basins). Surge flow irrigation, drip irrigation and Low Energy Precision Application (LEPA) center-pivot sprinkler systems help capture and retain rainfall.
In surge irrigation, a timed valve alternates the flow of water between two sets of pipes. During the off period of the cycle, the water that was in the furrow infiltrates the soil, creating a seal to reduce water loss. In drip irrigation, buried lines and emitters are used to apply water to the soil around the plant roots.
The LEPA center-pivot sprinkler is positioned so water is discharged at low pressure evenly across the field, reducing evaporation. More than 95 percent of the water gets to the plant roots. Nearly 10,000 center-pivot systems operate in the High Plains district.
Irrigators in Texas are aware of the critical importance of groundwater supplies. A 1994 report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board and TWDB noted that groundwater use accounts for nearly three-quarters of on-farm water use for irrigation in the state. "The diminution of this resource is a threat to Texas' agricultural economy and will ultimately have an adverse effect on the overall economy of the state and the nation," the report said.
Easing up on the Edwards: The Edwards Aquifer in Central and South Texas, which supplies irrigation water for farmers in six counties and drinking water for 1.5 million people, has more demands on it than ever before. Low rainfall, an increase in water wells and a growing population all contribute to low groundwater levels in the aquifer. In response, San Antonio and San Marcos are developing new water sources to supplement the Edwards.
Two major wastewater reuse projects in San Antonio could eventually reduce the city's drain on the aquifer by as much as 25 percent per year. The Central East Project will pipe as much as 13,000 acre-feet per year of treated wastewater from a plant in southwest San Antonio to irrigate golf courses, parks, cemeteries and a botanical center. The remaining water, about 40 percent, will be used to augment the San Antonio River and Salado Creek.
The $22.5 million project is expected to be complete by 1998, though several sections will be operating before then. One San Antonio golf course already receives treated wastewater. The San Antonio River Flood Control Tunnel Project, now under construction near downtown, will serve as a conduit for a portion of the water.
The Central East Project is the largest of its kind in the state, according to Susan Butler, manager of water resources for the San Antonio Water System. Wastewater reuse costs $300-$400 per acre-foot, compared to costs of $500-$750 per acre-foot for interbasin transfers and $700 per acre-foot to build recharge dams.
The city has hired a consultant to design the West South Project, which could supply up to 35,000 acre-feet of treated wastewater for irrigation and industrial use. The project, estimated to cost between $33 million and $50 million, should be completed by 2000.
In April 1996, the San Marcos City Council and the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority agreed to build a treatment plant, intake and pipeline system to tap water from the Guadalupe River and Canyon Lake. The agreement lays the groundwork for a $15-$20 million system to serve San Marcos, nearby cities and rural water districts, which now rely solely on underground water from the Edwards Aquifer. Initially the system will distribute less than 10,000 acre-feet of water per year, with 70 percent going to San Marcos. When fully operational in 2030, the system is expected to transport more than 30,000 acre-feet per year.
Only 3.7 inches of rain fell on San Antonio between October 1, 1995, and May 10, 1996, 12 inches less than normal. Mandatory conservation measures such as restrictions on landscape watering and car washing take effect when water levels in the aquifer fall so low that they threaten endangered species, including the fountain darter, the San Marcos gambusia fish and the Texas wild rice plant.
Water for growth: Strategies to prevent long-term water shortages are standard in western states that must provide water for fast-growing populations.
In California, where environmental restrictions make it difficult to develop new water supplies, a five-year drought beginning in 1987 spurred water transfers between suppliers and users. The state created a Drought Water Bank in 1991 and ordered cities and counties to adopt water-efficient landscape ordinances by 1993. Major agriculture water suppliers must submit water management plans if an opportunity for conservation exists.
In Arizona, water demand has exceeded supply for many years, resulting in laws that limit groundwater pumping. The state has sought to secure its future water supply through the Central Arizona Project (CAP), a massive conveyance system completed in 1993 at a cost of $3.4 billion.
The CAP is a 336-mile series of canals, tunnels, siphons and pipelines stretching from the Colorado River along the Arizona-California border to the San Xavier Indian Reservation near Tucson. Water is lifted as much as 2,900 feet by 14 pumping plants that can deliver up to 1.5 million acre-feet of river water annually to cities, irrigation districts and tribes.
According to a report by the Water Resources Research Center at the University of Arizona, this water "supports new growth, replaces current groundwater use to reduce overdraft and provides surplus water for groundwater recharge."
Texas is learning that providing for future water needs depends both on increasing supply through new reservoir construction or water transfers and on reducing demand through conservation. Water-short regions in the state are configuring these strategies to meet their needs and manage growth into the 21st century.
Contributing to this article:
Julie CrimminsTexans know how to create water supplies by building dams and reservoirs or drilling wells, but they are less familiar with the concept of reallocating water through rights exchanges or physical transfers between river basins. Recently, widespread dry conditions have focused more attention on these approaches.
The two-year-old Trans-Texas Water Program (TTWP) evaluates water management strategies for an area that holds about one-third of the state's population, including Houston, San Antonio, Austin and Corpus Christi. This program--run by the Texas Water Development Board, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Coastal Coordination Council and 26 local and regional water agencies--emphasizes physical transfers of surplus water and rights exchanges.
TTWP participants maintain that transfers can help meet emergency needs, such as during droughts, and could defer the need to build new reservoirs. Other approaches being explored include water reuse, desalination, groundwater recharge enhancement, the combined use of surface and groundwater, improved operation of existing reservoirs and demand management during drought.
The program has spent about $7.2 million on research to identify cost-effective, environmentally sensitive water management approaches. Some preliminary findings follow.
Houston: Municipal water needs are expected to nearly double to 625,000 acre-feet per year over the next 50 years, but an active conservation program could reduce those needs by about 63,000 acre-feet per year. The city should remain a regional water supplier and may expand its activity as a wholesale supplier. The area could receive surplus water from Toledo Bend Reservoir on the Sabine River.
Corpus Christi: With uncertain yields from Lake Corpus Christi and Choke Canyon Reservoir, plus mandated environmental releases from those projects, the city will need additional water supplies before 2010 and as much as 100,000 acre-feet per year of additional water by 2050. Possible solutions include an expanded water reuse program and water transfers from Lake Texana, a future Palmetto Bend II Reservoir or other basins to the east. Associated pipeline construction would be required.
San Antonio: Pumpage from the southern Edwards Aquifer plus water needed at Comal and San Marcos springs for environmental and downstream uses already exceed average recharge. Supply alternatives are the Lindenau and Cuero reservoirs in the Guadalupe River Basin and Goliad and Cibolo Creek reservoirs in the San Antonio River Basin. Other solutions may include new reservoirs or groundwater sources, reuse of wastewater, purchase of already developed supplies or augmentation of the Edwards Aquifer. Sharing water from other basins is a realistic option in view of current restrictions on aquifer use and surface water development.
Austin: By 2015, the city could be using all of its water rights from Lake Austin and Town Lake of the Colorado River. Water supplies are available to meet short-term growth demands in the metro area, but new pipelines probably will be needed before 2005. In the long term--2015 to 2050--the city will need additional water supplies.
For the state's farmers and ranchers, the drought of 1996 extends the suffering of the past two years.
To date, the dry spell appears to have hit cattle and wheat the hardest. Many ranchers are short on feed for their cattle, and the projected 1996 wheat crop of 57 million bushels is only about half of a normal year's production. To a lesser extent, cotton, rice and grain sorghum have suffered from a lack of moisture dating back to 1994.
Earlier this year, agricultural economists at Texas A&M University predicted that farmers and ranchers would pump nearly $15 billion into the state's economy. That figure is falling, though, as the drought blisters Texas' agricultural landscape. A May 1996 study by Texas A&M estimated that losses in crop and livestock production this year could reach $2.4 billion.
If the drought persists, many growers and ranchers may not be able to stay in business. Texas A&M Extension Economist Carl Anderson warns that continuing dry conditions could cause severe economic stress in rural Texas and could force many agribusinesses to consolidate. Financial institutions that have invested heavily in agriculture would suffer as well.
As of April 1996, 115 of Texas' 254 counties qualified for low-interest emergency loans from the federal government, according to the Farm Service Agency. Also, 219 counties were eligible for the Emergency Feed Program, through which the government pays up to 50 percent of livestock feed costs. That program is due to be eliminated by the new federal farm bill, but current contracts will remain in effect until August 31, 1996.
Feed shortage: Cattle ranchers face especially dire conditions. Texas is the nation's leading cattle producer with about 15 million head, 40 percent of which are beef cattle. The price of beef cattle has dropped 23 percent in the past three years, reaching $58.05 per 100 pounds in April 1996, according to the Texas Agricultural Statistics Service (TASS).
This year, few ranchers have had enough grass to feed their herds, and hay prices are high. The average cost of a ton of hay was $67 in March 1996, up 21 percent from March 1995, TASS reports. Prices vary widely by region. In April, a ton cost as much as $200 in Uvalde, and ranchers in other regions would likely pay as much or more if any hay were available.
Even in good years, many Texas ranchers have to haul in feed from other states. Normally, cattle will graze on grass while it lasts, then ranchers will switch them to hay or wheat. This year, with pastures dried up and hay and wheat virtually unavailable, some ranchers began hauling in feed early. Many have been using chicken litter as a high-protein substitute for regular feeds.
The scarcity of feed and resulting higher prices have forced many ranchers to sell cattle they cannot afford to feed, further reducing the already depressed value of the cattle. Farmers around the state are growing feed for livestock in fields normally used for rice, cotton and other crops. In Wharton County, as many as 20,000 acres of rice fields were planted with corn or grain sorghum, and some farmers in Matagorda County have plowed up pasturelands so they can plant more corn.
The wheat shortage in Texas was not much of a problem in 1994 and 1995, according to Texas A&M Extension Economist Mark Waller, because other states had plenty of wheat and prices remained relatively low. This year, other states--including Kansas, the nation's top wheat producer--are suffering from drought too and expect meager wheat yields.
Lack of rain has caused many Texas wheat producers to miss out on some of the highest prices in recent history. Prices surged as high as $6.35 a bushel in May 1996, more than double the price in 1990.
Other crops threatened: Some of Texas' other cash crops are also in danger. Cotton, sorghum, rice and corn planted in the spring will likely see below-average yields unless rainfall levels increase. Drought conditions have hurt these crops in the past two years, but not as badly as expected in 1996. Many producers have switched acreage from corn to grain sorghum, which is more drought-resistant and costs less to plant. The profit margin is smaller, but as producers have learned, corn that won't grow yields no profit.
Cotton growers are looking at another bleak year after 1995's beet armyworm infestation. Irrigated cotton should grow fairly well despite the drought, but irrigated acreage makes up only about a third of the 5.5 million acres planted in cotton each year in Texas. Production of dryland cotton will probably be much leaner.
Conditions in spring were extremely dry for much of the cotton crop, especially in Central Texas. Texas A&M's Carl Anderson said conditions in Williamson County were the worst he's seen there since 1956, when drought wiped out the entire crop.
Contributing to this article:
Greg Mt.Joy
From the Comptroller:
Lighting the PathThe news media have reported extensively on Family Pathfinders, my new program that enlists community-based organizations to help local welfare families find jobs and learn to support themselves. I'm grateful for the strong support this program has received from civic, business and religious leaders throughout Texas.
In early June, representatives of 750 community organizations gathered in Austin for the formal kickoff of Family Pathfinders. As I told them, the goal of this program is to tackle welfare reform one family at a time. That process has begun with a bang. Nearly a thousand people have called to express interest in sponsoring a family. My staff has begun training local volunteer teams to work with welfare recipients and matching the volunteers with needy families in their communities.
While my agency coordinates the program and provides technical support, Family Pathfinders builds on the philanthropic work that local service groups have been doing for a long time.
For example, a local Lions Club in East Texas sponsored a single mother on welfare, providing her with clothing and other basics until she landed a job. Even then, their concern didn't end.
Wondering why the mother never smiled, a member of the club discovered that she needed dental work. The club member told a dentist and fellow Lion, who quickly performed the needed dental work free of charge. Not only did they give this woman and her two young children a new start on life--they restored her smile, too.
I'm sure Family Pathfinders will produce many success stories like that in the years to come.
--John Sharp
This fall, more than 100 Texas teen-agers will be able to enroll at Texas colleges or universities with their tuition and required fees already paid through one of the Texas Tomorrow Fund's college prepayment plans. In the coming years, tens of thousands of youngsters will follow in their footsteps.
During the fund's initial enrollment period--January through March 1996--the Comptroller's Office received more than 40,000 applications to open tuition accounts for Texas children or the nonresident children of Texas parents. All told, an estimated $372 million was pledged in prepaid tuition payments.
The largest portion of contracts--11 percent--was purchased for children under the age of one. Among other age groups, recipients were fairly evenly distributed through the ninth grade, after which participation declined.
Most participants chose one of the monthly payment options. About 42 percent elected to stretch out tuition prepayments and pay monthly until the child is ready to enter college. Seventeen percent chose a five-year monthly installment payment plan, and 15 percent opted for the 10-year installment plan. One-fourth prepaid the child's college tuition and required fees in a single lump sum.
Five of every six contracts were for one or more years of the senior college plan. The next most popular was the junior-senior plan, which combines two years of tuition and required fees at a community or technical college with two years at a senior-level institution.
About 98 percent of the contract holders are parents or grandparents of the beneficiary. The remaining purchasers were relatives, friends or organizations.
Where will these future collegians find a campus to call home? While school selection is optional and nonbinding in the contracts, seven out of 10 applications named one of three schools as their first choice: the University of Texas at Austin, Texas A&M University at College Station and Texas Tech University in Lubbock.
The next enrollment period for prepaid tuition contracts will be held November 18, 1996, through February 17, 1997.
Contributing to this article:
Jeff Cole
Theory of Devolution
Is Texas ready for expanded block grants?The debate over the scope of federal versus state government powers has been part of American politics since the first days of the republic. Efforts to balance the federal budget, however, have sharpened the fiscal focus of the debate.
Both of the major political parties agree on the need to balance the budget; the question is how. One possible way is to "devolve" large federal entitlement programs such as welfare and Medicaid to the states in the form of block grant programs. Both parties support the concept of devolution for at least some programs.
Under a block grant system, the states would receive fewer federal dollars but would enjoy greater flexibility in administering programs and delivering services. Block grants would end the entitlement programs that set eligibility rules and benefits nationally without recognizing the varying levels of need among state populations. In theory, the states can better determine how to spend limited funds to address their specific needs; decentralized decision-making would result in administrative savings and greater innovation.
Currently, federal funds appropriated for block grants to Texas are estimated to account for one-ninth of Texas' total federal receipts. If both welfare and Medicaid were added to the mix of block grant programs, however, the share of federal funds Texas receives through block grants would jump to about two-thirds of the total. Are Texas' state and local governments prepared for the new responsibilities that would come with a significant expansion of block grants?
What are block grants? As traditionally defined, a block grant is a grant-in-aid from one level of government to another for broad purposes. Categorical grants, in contrast, are structured narrowly to provide funding for specific purposes.
All grants-in-aid include terms and conditions. The grant recipient often must match the grantor's funding with a financial contribution of its own. Strings are usually attached as to how the funds will be used, how the program will be managed and how the grant recipient will report to the grantor.
Block grant funding levels are capped and allocated to the recipients according to formulas. These grants generally carry fewer restrictions on how funds are spent and how eligible clients are served.
Most funds associated with block grants generally flow from the federal agency that oversees the program, through the state agency that administers the program and on to local service providers. In a few cases--mainly among the health and human service programs where the state agency has a direct responsibility for delivering services--the funds are not distributed further to local entities.
Historical devolution: In the early 1900s, most federal grants-in-aid to the states were categorical grants for agriculture, road construction and similar purposes. During the New Deal era of the 1930s, the government increased categorical grants to cope with economic and social problems caused by the Great Depression.
President Johnson's Great Society program in the mid-1960s greatly expanded federal grants to help states, cities and individuals address racial discrimination, poverty and urban and rural development problems. Almost all of the new grants were categorical, but some closely related grants for law enforcement and health care were combined into a broader-based grant allocated by formula.
The Nixon administration's "New Federalism" attempted to shift power from Washington to state and local governments through block grants and revenue sharing. During this period, Congress adopted block grants for employment and training, social services and community development.
Revenue sharing, enacted in 1972, allocated grant money to state and local governments with few restrictions as to use. Congress abolished revenue sharing in 1986 as concerns about the federal deficit grew. Many critics of the program believed that federal grants should be targeted on the basis of need.
In 1960, federal aid to state and local governments totaled $24.7 billion for 132 grant programs. By 1975, grants-in-aid had tripled to $87.1 billion for 442 programs.
President Reagan proposed combining more than 100 categorical grants into a series of block grants. In the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1981, Congress created nine block grants from about 50 categorical programs, while cutting overall federal funding by 12 percent or $1 billion.
The new block grants covered health care services, low-income home energy assistance, substance abuse and mental health, social services, community development and community services. The largest existing block grant program, Surface Transportation, was created in 1991 during the Bush administration.
By 1993, federal grants-in-aid totaled $206 billion for 593 programs. About $182 billion went for 578 categorical programs; the remaining $24 billion went to 15 block grant programs. According to Texas' Legislative Budget Board, the existing block grant programs provided slightly more than $1.25 billion in federal aid to Texas in fiscal 1995.
The Clinton administration has proposed consolidating 271 categorical grant programs into 27 "performance partnership grants," flexible pools of funds for public health, rural development, education and training, housing and urban development and transportation. Grantees would determine how to use these funds but would have to show progress toward specific performance goals.
Pros and cons: Block grant supporters often praise the looser sets of conditions that accompany these grants, compared to the numerous, sometimes conflicting rules on planning, organization, personnel and paperwork that accompany categorical grants.
In a study of the OBRA block grants, the U.S. General Accounting Office found that these changes initially reduced federal reporting requirements and data collection substantially. Although the states received less money, they generally welcomed the changes because the relaxation of federal rules allowed states to devote more of their administrative resources to planning and executing program activities.
While the positive aspects of block grants make them attractive "fixes" for real and perceived problems in the categorical programs they replace, block grants come with their own problems. What begins as a less restrictive funding stream often picks up new rules and conditions to reassure congressional oversight committees that they are getting the most bang for their buck.
Consider the Surface Transportation Program (STP), the largest source of block grant money Texas now receives. Created under the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), this program dramatically altered the process for allocating federal highway funds, which formerly were distributed to the states by road system categories (rural, urban, primary and secondary).
The STP now sends each state a lump sum to spend or funnel to local areas according to statewide objectives. To ensure that ISTEA's goals are met, however, states must follow spending guidelines that earmark STP funds for certain "set-asides" or predetermined categories. For example, 10 percent of the funds must be spent on "transportation enhancement" activities such as building pedestrian and bicycle trails, mitigating highway pollution and preserving historic sites.
Another 10 percent must be used to improve the safety of state highways. Of the remaining money, states have discretion over 37.5 percent but must distribute 62.5 percent among larger urban areas and other political subdivisions on the basis of population.
If all this makes you wonder whether block grants are as flexible as advertised, you are in good company.
Moreover, block grant funding formulas based on traditional categorical grant funding may fail to reflect the states' changing populations and economic patterns. Texas Comptroller John Sharp pointed out this problem with 1995 congressional proposals to replace the current Medicaid and welfare funding programs with block grants. The formulas in those proposals, if adopted, would have cost Texas more than $1 billion in federal funds the state was counting on for fiscal 1996-97.
The potential mismatch between funding formulas and the states' changing needs--while a boon to states with traditionally high levels of funding--is a major problem for fast-growing states like Texas. Congress will have to address this issue when considering any new legislation.
State-local relations: One of the most widely publicized aspects of devolution is the issue of block grants to local governments. These grants potentially could create conflict between state and local governments in the following areas:
Performance measures: Some state officials believe local governments should develop block grant administration plans that conform to performance measures the state sets. Local officials, though, may consider it more logical to develop performance measures for each local unit based on that unit's administration plan.
Locally specific performance measures may be more meaningful than statewide measures. With a typical block grant, a local government plans its spending by identifying local priorities through community involvement. For instance, one local government might want to spend a lot of its criminal justice block grant funds on education to prevent drug abuse, while another might not want to spend funds on that function because another program in the community already does that.
On the other hand, developing unique local performance measures would make it impossible to weigh one local program against another to see who is and who isn't doing a good job. Furthermore, state legislators may prefer performance measures that channel local government funding into meeting specific priorities.
Reconciling state and local performance measures also can be tricky because certain measures may be hard to quantify at the local level or because of conflicting program requirements. For instance, the Older Americans Act prohibits identifying specific clients for its programs, but the state requires the services delivered to be matched with the individuals served. The funds help support community-based programs such as group and in-home meals, transportation and housekeeping for elderly Americans.
Local participation: Local governments would like to ensure that appointments to statewide boards and commissions that allocate grant funds to local communities fairly represent the whole state. In a state with 254 counties and more than 18 million residents, that is no easy task.
Conflicts may arise if local citizens are required to hold public hearings, conduct research and spend time on committees and task forces, only to find that the state's policies do not reflect any of the conclusions they reached. From the state's perspective, the quality of information the local groups report may be uneven, depending on the level of local expertise and time commitments. In some cases, local opinions about issues such as the health status of community members may be at odds with data the state has collected from other sources.
These factors mean that the state must develop grant allocation systems that rely mostly on readily available, widely accepted data such as total population, poverty and other common measures of need.
Technology: To be successful, block grant programs cannot simply push responsibility down to the lowest level. If a state or federal agency does not organize the block grant well, local governments will find it hard to implement the program, and, in turn, their performance measures will be confusing or unsatisfactory.
The right technology can make block grant administration easier and more effective. If a program's automated system is outdated or otherwise inadequate, local governments may not be able to communicate information efficiently. Instead, they may have to use time-consuming or error-prone procedures, or they may simply minimize the amount of information they try to communicate. This, in turn, can lead to problems with program evaluation later.
Legislative intent: Local governments often complain that incremental changes tend to occur in block grant programs over time. Typically, a new program is flexible, with broad goals and few restrictions. Gradually, lawmakers add restrictions because they see the program moving in directions they don't like, or because a lack of performance measures raises doubts about the program's success.
Some local government officials also express concern that block grants lead to a proliferation of local boards and committees. While each body may perform some necessary task with respect to a particular grant, a large number of block grants may contribute to fragmentation at the local level.
Formula for success: So what can Texas do to ensure that existing and potential block grant programs will succeed?
First, the state could set standards for public input into block grant decision-making. Although circumstances may vary from grant to grant, the state could develop guidelines for what constitutes substantive public input.
State agencies could develop information systems to handle the amounts and types of information that local, state and federal planners need to monitor block grant programs. This could prevent local governments from having to report a lot of useless information.
Through local input, the state could establish uniform accountability measures that could be adapted to a variety of programs at the state and local level.
Finally, to prevent disillusionment about block grants, legislators should make every effort to "get it right the first time." State and local officials agree that the best block grant programs are those that maintain clear, consistent goals from the start, rather than undergo countless incremental changes.
Contributing to this article:
Bee Moorhead, Brent Mears and Emmett ColemanMost Texans' first impulse upon seeing a bee in their backyard is probably to swat it. On second thought, it might be better to let that bee go about its business.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates that more than 211,000 beekeepers--mainly small-scale entrepreneurs--maintain several million honey bee colonies across the nation. Texas produces roughly 5 percent of the U.S. honey crop. Beekeepers in the state earn $9 million to $11 million per year from honey and other products and services, according to Texas A&M University's Department of Agricultural Communications.
The value of hive products, however, pales in comparison to the contribution bees make by pollinating cultivated crops--vegetables, fruits, nuts, seeds and fiber. Crop pollination by honey bees is worth about $480 million annually to Texas farmers, according to Texas A&M. The National Honey Board says one-third of the American diet depends directly or indirectly on pollination by bees.
Minding their beeswax: Many people raise bees as a hobby rather than to make money. For those in business, the profitability of beekeeping depends on unpredictable factors, including fluctuating market prices and occasional extreme weather such as droughts and floods. Beekeepers also have to guard against the spread of infectious diseases and parasitic mites that can ravage their hives. The federal government provides no subsidies or loan programs for honey producers.
Most beekeepers derive the bulk of their income from honey sales. Some sell beeswax for use in candles, cosmetics, car and furniture polish and other products. Sales of pollen, royal jelly and propolis--the resinous stuff bees use to fill holes--also provide limited income. In addition, many beekeepers rent their hives to farmers for pollination. According to the Texas A&M Extension Service's Apiary Inspection Service, beekeepers typically make $30 to $50 a hive for pollination services.
Beekeepers can get started in business by buying an established hive, or they may buy new equipment and then either order packaged bees (including queens) from bee supply companies or collect their own swarms.
In most states, beekeepers must be registered. Texas does not require this, but registered beekeepers can benefit from free advice provided by the Apiary Inspection Service. While most Texas communities do not have rules against beekeeping, prospective beekeepers may wish to check with their local government and with the inspection service before starting hives.
Busy bees: In 1995, Texas' 84,000 bee colonies produced 8.9 million pounds of honey worth about $5.7 million, according to the Texas Agricultural Statistics Service. During the 1990s, the state's annual honey production has ranged between 7.6 million and 10.9 million pounds.
U.S. demand for honey is increasing. In the past decade, honey has become an increasingly popular ingredient in breads, beers, candies, breakfast cereals, health snacks and nonfood items. Mineral waters and soft drinks containing honey are on the drawing board as well.
At the same time, U.S. honey production has declined. The 1995 crop of 210 million pounds was down 3 percent from 1994, according to USDA. As a result, the wholesale price of honey jumped to an average 64 cents per pound in 1995, up 21 percent from 1994. Retail prices for a one-pound jar rose from $1.83 to $2.16 or more. According to the Apiary Inspection Service, the price of honey nearly doubled between January and April 1996 and is likely to double again by August.
In recent years, the number of bee colonies has dropped sharply because of severe winter weather and an infestation of verroa mites. Some experts say the mites have killed as much as half of the U.S. bee population.
Because properly treated hives can survive a mite infestation, the majority of victims have been wild bees. As bees in the surviving commercial colonies face less competition for available nectar, productivity in Texas jumped from 74 pounds of honey per colony in 1994 to 106 pounds per colony in 1995.
Texas beekeepers have found a booming market in California, where bees can be sent to pollinate crops in January and February--months when they are normally not making honey. In 1995, Texans sent about 100,000 hives to California. The rising price of honey should make this practice even more profitable, as farmers will have to offer better prices for pollination services to compete for the use of bees that could be making honey.
Killers on the loose: Media reports have focused attention on Africanized honey bees, the so-called "killer" bees that have migrated north from Brazil through Central America to the southwestern U.S. These bees established colonies in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas in the early 1990s, and later in New Mexico, Arizona and California.
Africanized bees have advanced as far north as Dawson County in West Texas, McLennan County in Central Texas and Fort Bend and Austin counties in East Texas. Cold winter temperatures slow the bees' northward migration. Even the light freezes that hit Houston are too cold for bees used to tropical South America.
According to USDA, an Africanized bee foraging on a blossom is no more likely than a domestic honey bee to sting a human who wanders by, although Africanized bees are more likely to sting in defense of their nests. Texas has recorded only one fatality from killer bee stings--that in the Rio Grande Valley in 1993.
Experience in South and Central America suggests that the Africanized bees could contribute to the drop in U.S. honey output as they compete with domestic bees for nectar. Researchers have seen no evidence of this yet, however.
The solution may lie in breeding the Africanized bees with domestic bees to produce a less aggressive hybrid variety. Researchers at the USDA Agricultural Research Station in Weslaco are working on an "improved" killer bee.
Contributing to this article:
Greg Mt.JoyDrive through almost any county in Texas and you're likely to see mesquite trees growing in pastures along the roadside. From the High Plains to the Rio Grande Valley, mesquite trees cover more than 55 million acres of the state. In fact, Texas contains about 70 percent of the world's mesquite.
For decades, landowners have tried to get rid of mesquite trees by burning, poisoning, chopping and bulldozing them. As all efforts to stamp out the pesky shrub have failed, some entrepreneurial Texans have decided to harvest it for profit. The mesquite industry is still in its infancy--annual sales are estimated at no more than $20 million--but is expected to grow in the future.
Mesquite products are sold across the U.S. and have been ordered by customers in Europe, Africa and Australia. Mesquite chips used for barbecuing account for the largest portion of mesquite sales, but the wood is also used for flooring, cabinets, furniture, arts and crafts. Mesquite beans are used to make syrups, jellies, meal for bread and several other specialty foods.
Many grocery stores stock mesquite chips or chunks on the barbecue briquette aisle. According to Peter Felker of Texas A&M University at Kingsville, this sector of the industry is growing at rates of 20 percent to 30 percent a year or more. Mesquite adds a distinctive flavor to barbecued meat; the wood lights faster than charcoal and burns longer and hotter.
The physical properties of mesquite are ideal for furniture and flooring. When dried, mesquite is reddish-brown and has a striking grain, the result of mineral streaks and ingrown bark.
Mesquite is twice as hard as oak and walnut and will hold up in extreme humidity that warps other kinds of wood.
Mesquite flooring appears in some famous homes--including that of Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft Corp.--and in the offices of Walt Disney Co. Closer to home, mesquite wood is found in the floor of the Neiman-Marcus store in Dallas' North Park Mall.
A major obstacle to the industry's growth--especially in the hardwoods sector--is the scarcity of cut mesquite available for processing. The supply of cut wood does not meet the demand for mesquite products, so processors have to turn away orders. Mesquite suitable for barbecue chips now sells for $80 to $90 a cord; mesquite logs suitable to be cut for flooring sell for $150 to $200 a cord, almost double the asking price of other select-grade hardwood lumber.
Texas A&M's Agriculture Extension Service and the Texas Forest Service are working to encourage landowners to form cooperatives that would allow cutters to pay the landowners for the right to cut their mesquite trees. The cutters would receive income by selling the wood to processors; the landowners, besides receiving the cutting fees, would benefit by having their land cleared of mesquite.
Another obstacle is limited marketing. Currently, mesquite products are marketed only at trade shows, by a few interior decorators and by word of mouth from those already in the industry.
In 1993, the National Hardwood Association and the National Wood Flooring Association adopted a grading system for mesquite lumber. This system benefits the mesquite hardwood industry by reassuring buyers in other states that the wood meets association standards. Mesquite lumber is graded either "select," clear of blemishes on both sides of the board, or "common," blemished on at least one side.
If the mesquite business takes off as many in the industry hope, people around the world may begin to think of Texas as the state whose residents are blessed with a mesquite mill--rather than an oil well--in every back yard.
Contributing to this article:
Troy Glasson
Fiscal Notes
July 1996
July 1996