An Audit Report on Selected Groundwater Conservation Districts
April 2012
Report Number 12-028
Overall Conclusion
Auditors selected 14 groundwater conservation districts (districts) and audited their (1) achievement of selected groundwater management plan goals and (2) compliance with selected statutory requirements. Results are summarized below.
Districts' Achievement of Groundwater Management Plan Goals
Six (43 percent) of the 14 districts fully or partially achieved all of the applicable objectives for groundwater management plan goals audited. Texas Water Code, Chapter 36, requires districts to establish groundwater management plans (see text box for additional details on those plans). Those six districts were:
- The Bee Groundwater Conservation District.
- The Central Texas Groundwater Conservation District.
- The Lone Wolf Groundwater Conservation District.
- The Pecan Valley Groundwater Conservation District.
- The Southeast Texas Groundwater Conservation District.
- The Victoria County Groundwater Conservation District.
Six (43 percent) of the 14 districts fully or partially achieved objectives for all but one applicable groundwater management plan goals audited. Those six districts were:
- The Brazoria County Groundwater Conservation District.
- The Brewster County Groundwater Conservation District.
- The Guadalupe County Groundwater Conservation District.
- The Kenedy County Groundwater Conservation District.
- The Middle Trinity Groundwater Conservation District.
- The Panola County Groundwater Conservation District.
Two (14 percent) of the 14 districts--the Red Sands Groundwater Conservation District and the Refugio Groundwater Conservation District--fully achieved one or fewer of the groundwater management plan goals audited.
Auditors reviewed activities that the districts performed to achieve selected management plan goals. Examples of those goals were the goals of providing the most efficient use of groundwater, controlling and preventing waste, addressing drought conditions, and addressing conservation. A list of the eight statutorily required groundwater management plan goals is presented in Appendix 4.
Districts' Compliance with Statutory Requirements
Twelve (86 percent) of the 14 districts audited fully or partially complied with 7 or more of the 10 Texas Water Code statutory requirements audited. Two of those 12 districts, the Central Texas Groundwater Conservation District and the Pecan Valley Groundwater Conservation District, fully complied with all applicable Texas Water Code requirements audited.
The remaining 2 districts fully complied with 5 or fewer of the 10 Texas Water Code requirements audited. Specifically:
- The Red Sands Groundwater Conservation District fully complied with 2 (20 percent) of the 10 audited Texas Water Code requirements, partially complied with 5 (50 percent) requirements, and did not comply with 3 (30 percent) requirements.
- The Refugio Groundwater Conservation District fully complied with 5 (56 percent) of the 9 audited Texas Water Code requirements that were applicable to it and partially complied with 4 (44 percent) requirements.
Examples of the Texas Water Code requirements audited included requirements for the districts to obtain surety bonds for employees and members of their boards of directors, obtain an annual financial audit, adopt annual budgets, hold quarterly board meetings, and adopt policies and rules. In some instances, certain statutory requirements did not apply to a district. See Table 16 in Chapter 2 for detailed results.
Of the 10 Texas Water Code statutory requirements audited, the highest level of noncompliance was with Section 36.057(d), which requires districts to obtain surety bonds for employees or others handling district funds. Seven (50 percent) of the 14 districts audited did not fully comply with that requirement. Surety bonds protect districts from financial loss and provide some assurance that the districts properly safeguard funds and can meet financial obligations.
Texas Water Code, Section 36.060, which allows districts to pay board members for verified fees of office and reimburse them for reasonable and necessarily incurred expenses, did not apply to 8 (57 percent) of the 14 districts audited because those districts did not pay board members. The remaining six districts either fully or partially complied with that requirement.