enviroment cover design 102610 -...
TRANSCRIPT
ENVIRONMENT
T H E M E A D O W S F O U N D A T I O Napproved by The Meadows Foundation’s Board of Directors - November 2011
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3
The 2001 Environmental Plan ........................................................................................................................ 5
Guiding Principles ................................................................................................................................................ 5
Program Focus ..................................................................................................................................................... 5
Grantmaking Strategy ......................................................................................................................................... 5
Financial Target ................................................................................................................................................... 6
Program Goals ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
Water............................................................................................................................................................... 6
Land and Habitat Conservation ..................................................................................................................... 12
Stewardship ................................................................................................................................................... 17
Public Education and Advocacy ..................................................................................................................... 19
Air Quality ..................................................................................................................................................... 22
Energy Efficiency ........................................................................................................................................... 23
The Environment in Texas ............................................................................................................................ 29
Water................................................................................................................................................................. 29
Water Supply ................................................................................................................................................. 29
Water Demand .............................................................................................................................................. 31
Water Management ...................................................................................................................................... 33
Water Regulation .......................................................................................................................................... 37
Grantmaking Opportunities in Water ........................................................................................................... 39
Land and Habitat Conservation ......................................................................................................................... 41
Ecological Diversity ........................................................................................................................................ 41
Private Landowners ....................................................................................................................................... 41
Conservation Easements ............................................................................................................................... 41
Parks and Public Spaces ................................................................................................................................ 41
Endangered Species ...................................................................................................................................... 42
Coastal Resources ......................................................................................................................................... 43
Gulf of Mexico Pollution ................................................................................................................................ 44
Overfishing .................................................................................................................................................... 45
Grantmaking Opportunities in Land and Habitat Conservation ................................................................... 45
Air Quality ......................................................................................................................................................... 46
Federal Air Quality Standards ....................................................................................................................... 46
2
Particulate Matter ......................................................................................................................................... 46
Lead ............................................................................................................................................................... 47
Carbon Monoxide .......................................................................................................................................... 47
Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrogen Dioxide, and Ozone ............................................................................................... 48
Greenhouse Gases ........................................................................................................................................ 48
Grantmaking Opportunities in Air Quality .................................................................................................... 48
Energy Efficiency ............................................................................................................................................... 49
Traditional Energy Sources ............................................................................................................................ 49
Renewable Energy ......................................................................................................................................... 51
Green Building ............................................................................................................................................... 55
Green Jobs ..................................................................................................................................................... 57
Grantmaking Opportunities in Energy Efficiency .......................................................................................... 57
Environmental Awareness ................................................................................................................................ 59
Underexposed Public .................................................................................................................................... 59
Stewardship among Private Landowners ...................................................................................................... 60
Nature Tourism ............................................................................................................................................. 60
Environmental Education Programs ............................................................................................................. 61
Grantmaking Opportunities in Environmental Awareness ........................................................................... 61
What Have We Learned and Where We Are Going ....................................................................................... 63
Water................................................................................................................................................................. 64
Land and Habitat Conservation ......................................................................................................................... 65
Sustainable Energy ............................................................................................................................................ 66
Environmental Awareness ................................................................................................................................ 67
Guiding Principles .............................................................................................................................................. 68
References ................................................................................................................................................... 69
Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 75
3
Introduction
This document presents the Meadows Foundation Strategic Plan for the Environment, 2012 – 2021. Included
in the plan is a summary of the 2001 Environmental Plan that served as a guide for grantmaking through 2010,
as well as progress toward the goals and objectives of the 2001 plan. Also included is a look at the current
state of the environment in Texas which assisted in developing our environment goals and strategies for the
next ten years. The final section of the document contains the goals and strategies for the next ten years.
4
5
The 2001 Environmental Plan
In March of 2001, a strategic plan for the environment was approved by the Meadows Foundation Board of
Directors. The overall goal was to improve the environment in the State of Texas. In order to achieve this
goal, the Foundation chose to focus on four primary areas: water to ensure adequate water supply for
environmental and human needs; land and habitat conservation to reduce loss and threat to wildlife, plants,
and landscape as a result of population growth, industrialization, and urbanization; stewardship because
personal decisions and behaviors have a cumulative impact on the management of the environment; and
public education and advocacy to inform the general public and policy makers and promote efforts to improve
the environment. In the years following the adoption of the 2001 strategic plan, the Foundation was
presented with the opportunity to make investments in two additional areas, air quality and energy efficiency,
due to their significant contribution to the overall health of the environment. The first air quality grant was
awarded in May 2004 and the first energy efficiency grant was awarded in March 2007.
Approved in the 2001 plan was a set of guiding principles, program focus areas, grantmaking strategies,
financial targets, and program goals for the Foundation to follow. A summary of the principles, strategies, and
targets follows, along with progress made towards reaching the targets and goals, where appropriate.
Guiding Principles
Build on our strengths on what we have been doing as appropriate:
- Encouraging ecotourism; and
- Expanding park development.
Look for opportunities to leverage our dollars for maximum impact.
Provide a leadership role in the area of foundation support for the environment.
Identify partners with similar goals to participate in joint projects.
Look for opportunities to address the underlying causes of problems.
Program Focus
Preservation and restoration of native plant, fish, and wildlife species.
Responsible and efficient use of natural resources.
Ensure adequate water supply.
Promote stewardship of the environment.
Create and distribute information for the general public and policy makers, and promote
environmental advocacy.
Grantmaking Strategy
Make grants on two levels: those designed to have a statewide impact and those focused on regional
and community needs.
6
Financial Target
The 2001 strategic plan set an annual target of approximately $2‐4 million for grants to the environment.
Between 2001 and 2010, 138 environment grants totaling over $23 million were awarded in the areas of
water, land and habitat conservation, stewardship, advocacy and education, air quality, and energy efficiency.
Land and habitat conservation grants accounted for the largest percent of dollars awarded (32%), followed by
stewardship (28%), water (26%), and public education and advocacy (4%). Air quality and energy efficiency
grants, which were not included in the 2001 plan, accounted for 1% and 9% respectively.
Program Goals
Water
Managing and protecting our water sources is the most critical environmental issue facing Texas today.
Because of increased development and population growth on the Gulf coast, wetlands and estuaries are
threatened, compromising their ability to maintain coastal water quality by filtering pollutants out of water,
controlling excess runoff, and providing critical habitats for plants and animals. One third of Texas surface
water is impaired and Texas ranks 1st in the nation for the quantity of hazardous water, the number of water
treatment facilities in noncompliance, and toxic surface water. Despite the low level of water quality, Texas
ranks 47th in per capita spending on water quality and resources ($2.96 per person annually). And finally,
Texas’ water usage is unsustainable. Unless Texas engages in tough water conservation measures, water
supplies will not meet increasing municipal and industrial water demands by 2050. Even with conservation,
the water supply will not meet irrigation demands by 2050, causing some types of farming to no longer be
affordable. With Texas ranking 2nd and 4th in the nation in farm income and agricultural exports, respectively,
this potential shortage will have large economic consequences. For these reasons, the following three water‐
related program goals were laid out in the 2001 plan:
Ensure adequate quantity and quality of water to support healthy land and water ecosystems and
enhance our economy and quality of life.
Protect Texas’ wetlands and coastal estuaries that are critical to aquatic ecologies and coastal water
quality.
Protect underground aquifers that are important sources of water for human consumption and the
environment.
Between 2001 and 2010, 20 grants were awarded in the area of water totaling $6,048,532.
Developing the Living Waters Coalition not only helped reshape public debate regarding water
management but lead to the 81st Legislature passing a historic, omnibus water bill and separate water
conservation legislation. These legislative bills impacted how the state manages its water resources by
recognizing the right of the environment in the allocation of water and establishing conservation as
the preeminent water supply method.
Over 256,000 acres were conserved in order to protect water sources.
7
Education and awareness of critical water issues in Texas increased among landowners and the public:
1,178 visited wetland parks, 13 educational workshops for landowners trained nearly 200 landowners
on conservation techniques, and 10,000 individuals were made aware of water conservation issues.
Water conservation increased through the completion of two water conservation projects; 75 districts
participated in water conservation programs; and one project reduced daily per capita water
consumption in Dallas from 262 gallons to 212 gallons.
Other projects that increased water ecosystem health included developing a scientifically credible in‐
stream flow method for seven river segments to fortify environmentally critical river areas.
Water Lessons Learned
Advocacy is powerful: with the right partners coordinating a straight‐forward, cohesive message to
state officials, the Living Waters Coalition was able to significantly alter state policy.
Great strides have been made with surface water, but little has been gained with groundwater,
particularly with regard to the connection between groundwater and surface water.
If current patterns of water degradation continue, there will be significant consequences.
Given the severity of the consequences, we should focus on systemic change rather than trying to fix
resulting symptoms of critical water issues.
Banking water rights is an effective tool to restore the health of rivers across Texas.
The number of people and interest groups that are engaged in the water issue is relatively narrow and
must be expanded to better represent the diversity of the Texas population and its institutions.
There are large amounts of water in the system available for our use but we must become much more
aggressive about conserving it.
Notable Water Grants, 2001–2010
Notable water grants awarded between 2001 and 2010, with progress made to date, are highlighted below. A
complete list of grants awarded is provided in the Appendix.
Trans‐Pecos Water Trust
$72,000 in 2010, $125,300 in 2007
The Trans‐Pecos Water Trust is the first private water trust in the state. Its mission is to restore the health of a
portion of the Rio Grande River called the Forgotten River, which runs below El Paso through Big Bend National
Park to the Amistad Reservoir. The Trust also works with landowners within the watershed who want to
improve the habitat of their riverside properties. The Trust was established in 2004 by the cooperating
partners of the Living Waters project (MFI grantee) and seed money was provided by the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation (MFI grantee). The flow of the Forgotten River is sustained by summer rains, inflow from
tributaries, and the Rio Conchos in Mexico. However, because of seven diversion dams used to ensure
electrical power, water for irrigation, and control floods in New Mexico and El Paso, the flow of the river is
approximately 80% less than when the river was unimpeded by dams. This reduced flow not only causes
8
silting of the river, which affects the aquatic life that depends upon river flow for nutrients and oxygen, but it
negatively affects the ecotourism industry comprised of hiking, camping, and river rafting. The Forgotten River
is further threatened by a large stand of saltcedar, an alien and invasive species of plant that is highly
aggressive and will monopolize available water and replace all other plant life, causing wildlife dependent on
those other plants to vanish.
In 2007, MFI funding enabled the Trust to acquire 1,840 acre‐feet of water rights from six local landowners.
These water rights give the Trust the authority to regulate river water levels in order to preserve river flow
throughout the year in the Rio Grande River. MFI funds went toward nine landowner workshops to educate
landowners on how to improve their land’s habitats through saltcedar control, backwater habitat, native grass
restoration, and spring protection. MFI gave the Trust additional funding in 2010 to hire a project manager to
assist in developing the Alamito Creek Preserve and increasing their banked water rights.
Caddo Lake Institute
$120,000 in 2008
The Caddo Lake Institute is a scientific and educational organization dedicated to protecting the unique Caddo
Lake ecosystem. As the state’s only naturally‐formed lake, Caddo is one of the world’s best examples of a
mature bald cypress wetland forest. In addition to hosting over 200 species of birds and 90 species of fish,
many of which are endangered, these wetlands are also important in recharging groundwater by impounding
flood water and releasing it during dry periods. Since 1959 when the Lake O’ the Pines was created upstream
from Caddo, stream inflow has been constant per agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. As a
result, approximately half of the wetlands around the lake’s channel have been lost and the natural inflow
disruption has threatened or endangered many species native to the area.
The Institute engaged scientists to begin a series of field tests to determine the exact amount of water inflows
needed to appropriately feed the lake throughout the year, while also considering the water needs of
neighboring communities. With MFI funding, the Institute developed a protocol for the Army Corps of
Engineers to follow when releasing water each season and is working toward increasing the amount of Caddo
Lake wetlands from 20,000 to 50,000 acres and returning the population of endangered fish species to natural
levels by June 2014.
National Wildlife Federation
$650,000 in 2007, $535,900 in 2003, $1,000,000 in 2001
In 2001, the National Wildlife Federation, along with Environmental Defense and the Sierra Club, joined
together to form the Living Waters Coalition. The goal of the Coalition is to promote environmentally and
economically sound water resource management practices within the state’s planning process. The Coalition
has four objectives:
1. Ensure an adequate supply of water for rivers, bays, and estuaries as well as consumptive needs by
reserving water for environmental uses in trust;
2. Reduce future demands for water and foster efficient use of existing supplies through alternative
methods such as use of market mechanisms and increased conservation;
9
3. Educate decision‐makers and the public about the environmental and economic impact of wasteful
water development and the availability of cost‐effective alternatives; and
4. Involve citizens in decisions about water resource management.
Over six years, MFI gave over $2.1 million to the Living Waters Coalition which helped reshape public debate
by bringing together multiple shareholders to develop common ground. This consensus‐building has had
significant results in three areas:
1. Public officials, water users, and water suppliers better understand the importance of in‐stream water
flows that ensure the health of rivers and estuaries. The Coalition met with water developers to reach
a consensus on formulating statutes to reserve water for environmental purposes, which served as the
basis for successful legislation passed in 2007.
2. Rural landowners are beginning to face the growing uncertainty surrounding the supply of
groundwater. As underground water supplies diminish and water developers begin to tap rural
supplies for urban use, rural communities are establishing groundwater conservation districts to
regulate pumping and exporting groundwater.
3. Water conservation is beginning to be considered a serious strategy for meeting water demands. In
2003, Coalition members were appointed to the Task Force on Water Conservation Implementation
created by the Legislature to study and recommend practices to encourage large scale conservation
measures.
On the last day of the 2007 Legislative Session, MFI’s investment in the Living Waters efforts achieved a
historic legislative victory when the Legislature passed an omnibus water bill (SB3 and HB3) and separate
water conservation legislation (HB4) that will impact how the state manages its water resources in the future.
Together, the bills legally recognize the right of the environment in the allocation of water and establish
conservation as the preeminent water supply method.
Since 2007, the Coalition has continued their work toward more effective water conservation and
management policies throughout Texas. Through MFI’s 2007 grant, they worked with stakeholders to help the
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) establish improved environmental flow protection
standards for the Sabine/Neches/Sabine Lake and Trinity/San Jacinto/Galveston Bay river systems, which are
scheduled to be released in summer 2011. Living Waters also acquired over 1,500 additional acres of water
rights for the Trans‐Pecos Water Trust and developed information about the hydrology of the Val Verde
springs, which will help develop a more appropriate groundwater district for that area. Further, they had
significant success in influencing the deliberations of Groundwater Management Areas toward improving
spring flow protection and aquifer‐level sustainability in their jurisdictions. Finally, through technical
assistance to city governments and through public education of conservation measures, Living Waters has
helped improve water conservation efforts in Austin, Dallas, and Houston, and plan to continue helping each
city’s water conservation measures further in the future.
10
Guadalupe Blanco River Trust
$104,800 in 2007
The Guadalupe Blanco River Trust was established in 2001 to promote and encourage the conservation and
stewardship of the land and water of the Guadalupe River watershed in 12 counties from Kerrville to San
Antonio Bay. By purchasing or receiving land, or receiving conservation easements on land, the Trust can
permanently restrict land use for certain purposes such as farming, ranching, wildlife preservation, or
cultural/historical. MFI funding allowed the Trust to hire a full‐time conservation specialist and complete two
major conservation projects: increasing the Guadalupe River acreage under protection from 1,100 to 9,485
acres and bringing consistent water to the Whitmire Unit, which is a part of the Lavaca Bay estuary where
approximately 18% of all migratory birds rest. The project, which included building a 2.25 mile canal with
water impoundment and delivery structures to approximately 750 acres of Whitmire Unit wetlands, allowed
an additional 100 acres to become suitable habitat for waterfowl such as Whooping cranes and Peregrine
falcons, both of which are endangered species.
City of San Marcos
$355,670 in 2006
The City of San Marcos took a lead role in the purchase and preservation of approximately 250 acres of aquifer
recharge land that was threatened by development. In 1994, Texas State University acquired Aquarena
Springs to preserve the San Marcos Springs and to return the area to its natural state. The original owners of
Aquarena Springs retained 251 acres located above the spring’s primary recharge zone, which is a major
recharge area for the Edwards Aquifer. This property was later sold to a developer who proposed to construct
a 250‐room resort center on it, which would be disastrous to both the springs and the recharge area. If too
much development occurs above a recharge zone and filtration does not occur, the aquifer will die, taking
away the sole source of drinking water for approximately two million people in the Hill Country. In order to
avoid this problem, the Nature Conservancy (MFI grantee) agreed to purchase the property under the
stipulation that the City of San Marcos would repay the conservancy and take ownership of the property by
May 31, 2008. MFI provided matching funds to supplement the City’s fundraising efforts, allowing the City to
purchase the property from the Nature Conservancy, bring 251 acres of recharge zone under public ownership,
develop the site as a public park, and begin hydrological studies of the area.
Texas State University – San Marcos
$610,000 in 2006, $375,000 in 2002
MFI grants in 2002 and 2006 established the River Systems Institute. The Institute, led by Andy Sansom the
former Executive Director of the Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife, initiated projects for obtaining data
on critical river basins. All are designed to build a complete model of the basins. Once completed, the models
can be manipulated to determine the outcomes for the basin under varying changes in conditions, such as land
use and climate.
In the Rio Grande Basin, the Institute partnered with the National Autonomous University of Mexico, the
Environmental Protection Agency, Sul Ross University and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to establish a
11
central clearinghouse for information and data about the Rio Grande River basin. The U.N. Environment
Program will join the effort to assist in collecting and analyzing the hydrology of the basin to develop a clear
picture of water usage, quality and quantity, biological integrity and land use along the river. When complete,
the project will be able to depict the past, present and future patterns of all variables. As a result of work done
to date, the United Nation’s Global Environment Facility has agreed to fund sustainable water projects in the
Rio Grande basin for irrigation improvement projects to reduce water loss.
In the Guadalupe River Basin, the Institute partnered with the Texas Nature Conservancy to develop the most
effective conservation strategies for the Blanco River, the primary tributary of the San Marcos River. The joint
project identifies key conservation targets, sources of system stress and will generally improve the health of
the basin. As a result of the conservation plan, three critical land parcels have been purchased. The cities of
San Marcos and Wimberley purchased land for protection of the aquifer recharge zone. Also, the Institute’s
scientific work is contributing to the public debate regarding water permitting in the Guadalupe basin where
MFI has made other significant investments to protect environmental river inflows.
In the Pedernales and Brazos watersheds, the Institute partnered with the Texas Nature Conservancy for an
assessment of the watershed to add to its database of critical river basins. The Institute is currently restoring
the second largest spring in the western United States, located on the Texas State University Campus which is
home to eight federally listed endangered or threatened species. With federal funding, a world class observing
system has been established to monitor every aspect of water quality and quantity in this globally significant
resource.
The Institute has been continually called upon to help facilitate difficult water policy issues, including the
passage of environmental flows legislation in Senate Bill 3, improvements to groundwater management in the
Hill Country, preparation of Watershed Protection Plans, and community conflicts between recreational use of
water resources and environmental and safety concerns. The Institute has assembled a leading team of
scientists and policy analysts to deal with the growing concerns of environmental flows and has been engaged
in both stakeholder and scientific processes for four out of the six Texas Rivers addressed to date. In
partnership with Ducks Unlimited, the Institute has begun an initiative in conservation leadership to prepare
the next generation of professional conservationists, particularly for service in the non‐governmental sector.
In addition to its river basin research, the Institute used MFI funds to enter into agreements with 30
groundwater conservation districts to assist them in monitoring aquifer properties and groundwater levels and
quality.
The Nature Conservancy
$240,000 in 2006, $845,000 in 2002
The Nature Conservancy of Texas is devoted to protecting natural communities in Texas. Through its own
nature preserves and through cooperative agreements with private landowners, the Conservancy conserves
and manages over 558,000 acres in Texas in addition to offering opportunities for landowners to learn about
biology, conservation, and proper land management techniques. With MFI help, the Conservancy has
concentrated acquisitions to West Texas leading to a specialty in the science of renewing natural springs. The
Conservancy also purchased land or easements in five important West Texas watersheds. It now owns or has
12
easements on 220,000 acres that include the entire Independence Creek watershed. The creek’s headwaters
are found in Caroline Springs, a major feeder of the lower Pecos River (42% of its flow comes from the creek)
which in turn feeds the Rio Grande River.
In addition, the Conservancy acquired over 10,000 acres of the Madera Creek watershed at the Livermore
preserve, putting the watershed completely under the Conservancy’s control. When the Livermore preserve
was first established, the Madera ran only with summer rains. But through the Conservancy’s efforts to return
a significant portion of the property to its vegetative state of the 1800s, the Madera returned to year‐round
flow. This is important because Madera Creek is not only the recharge vehicle for the one aquifer serving Jeff
Davis County but it also feeds Balmorhea Springs.
MFI’s 2002 grant also helped the Conservancy purchase 88,000 acres along the Devils River, another major
feed into the Rio Grande. The Devils River is considered to be the most pristine river in Texas. Although the
river’s headwaters, Pecan Springs, are still in private hands, the Conservancy owns all land surrounding the
springs as well as half of the river’s 60 mile run to the Rio Grande, including Dolan Falls, the greatest Texas
waterfall by volume. MFI funding also allowed the Conservancy to complete scientific studies of the Devils
River and the lower Pecos to determine appropriate in‐stream flows and needs for actions and for additional
hydrology studies.
In 2006, the Conservancy received additional funding to focus on protecting land around critical watersheds.
MFI’s grant allowed the Conservancy to help the City of San Antonio protect over 45,000 acres of high priority
land in the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone, the primary water source for San Antonio and the Hill Country.
Further, the Conservancy mapped high‐priority aquatic conservation sites throughout Texas as well as species
inventories and calculations of in‐river flows needed to sustain rivers. Partnering with the River Systems
Institute (MFI grantee), the Conservancy uses this baseline information to obtain conservation easements from
landowners on the properties deemed to be the most important watershed preservation targets in Texas.
Land and Habitat Conservation
With 171.1 million acres within its borders, Texas is recognized as one of the most ecologically diverse states in
the nation and is home to thousands of species of plants and animals. Because of uncontrolled and
unsustainable development, however, Texas has the 6th highest number of endangered species in the U.S.,
with 78 federally endangered plants and animals living within the state. Despite this problem, Texas ranks 43rd
in per capita spending on fish and wildlife ($3.60 per person) and dedicates only 3% of its land to the public
domain. Without responsible urban planning and development, designations of critical habitats and
endangered species, and the mitigation of agricultural and industrial activities that poison and erode the soil,
widespread habitat loss and species extinction will continue. For these reasons, the following land and habitat
conservation goals were laid out in the 2001 plan:
Encourage landowners to protect critical habitats and be conservation‐minded in their use.
Reduce the number of species in Texas that are threatened or endangered.
Acquire and preserve lands that meet the state’s strategic conservation and outdoor recreation needs.
Encourage ecotourism as a way to expose the public to the benefits of nature and provide economic
development opportunities.
13
Between 2001 and 2010, 39 grants were awarded in the area of land and habitat conservation totaling
$7,390,900.
Nearly 195,000 acres were preserved for land conservation, including Green spaces, and
approximately 1.35 million acres were restored or dedicated for animal habitats.
28 workshops were held and 870 landowners were trained in conservation methods.
A total of 84 parks, habitats, and educational centers were constructed.
Nesting pairs increased for the following endangered species: 390 Aplomado falcon pairs, 50 black‐
capped vireo pairs, 5 golden‐cheeked warbler pairs, and 12 Kemp’s ridley sea turtle nests.
One project retired 152 shrimp licenses, helping to restore the marine health of Texas bays and
estuaries.
Endangered Species
Number of MFI
Grants (2001‐2010)
Total
Awarded
Aplomado Falcon 4 $490,000
Black‐Capped Vireo 1 $25,000
Black‐Capped Vireo & Golden‐Cheeked Warbler 3 $417,500
Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle 2 $93,200
Land and Habitat Conservation Lessons Learned
Safe Harbor agreements are an effective tool for wildlife and habitat conservation.
Species can recover relatively quickly when private landowners receive incentives and assistance in
returning land to its native habitat.
Significant habitat corridors can be established with relatively low investments.
If current patterns of land degradation continue, there will be significant consequences.
Notable Land and Habitat Conservation Grants, 2001–2010
Notable land and habitat conservation grants awarded between 2001 and 2010, with progress made to date,
are highlighted below. A complete list of grants awarded is provided in the Appendix.
Peregrine Fund
$75,000 in 2010, $45,000 in 2009, $190,000 in 2006, $180,000 in 2003
The Peregrine Fund is a conservation group with a focus on birds of prey. In 1993, the Fund began a campaign
to save the Aplomado falcon, the only falcon remaining on the endangered species list. Native to Texas, the
Aplomado falcon had not been seen in the state since the 1950s. Over the years, MFI has helped the Peregrine
Foundation re‐establish the Aplomado falcon population in Texas and work toward removing the falcon from
the endangered species list. In order to do this, in 2003 MFI helped the Fund develop safe harbor agreements
14
with Texas landowners to release fledglings on their properties. Since then, at least 2.3 million acres have
been enrolled in the program in West and South Texas with MFI funds. But in order for the falcon to be taken
off the Endangered Species List, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requires two independent nesting
populations consisting of at least 100 pairs in total be established. After the Fund determined that the South
Texas falcon population was established (through the help of the Safe Harbor program), MFI funds in 2006,
2009, and 2010 helped the Fund release young falcons into the wild in order to establish a second established
habitat in West Texas. The fund has released 925 falcons since 2002 and they are currently on track to
establishing a stable West Texas Aplomado falcon population with 45 confirmed nesting pairs in West Texas in
2010.
Texas Rice Industry Coalition
$25,000 in 2010, $100,000 in 2007
The Texas Rice Industry Coalition was created in 1995 by former rice producers to promote habitat
conservation and other environmental initiatives within the rice belt of Texas. In the mid‐1980s,
approximately 500,000 acres of wetland bird habitat were reshaped and cultivated as rice fields. For rice
agriculture, the land was made level and a system of levees were constructed to make sure the water depth of
the rice fields was always 1‐2 inches. However, rising water prices in Texas forced many farmers to abandon
their rice farms. Once these farms were abandoned, they did not return to their natural wetland state,
thereby taking away an important food source for migratory birds. In 2007, MFI funds helped the Coalition to
restore 1,110 acres of park land to wetland conditions for migratory birds in Anahuac National Wildlife
Reserve, Mad Island Wildlife Management Area, and Guadalupe Delta Wildlife Management Area. MFI’s 2010
grant helped the Coalition restore 15,000 acres to wetland conditions in Brazoria National Wildlife Refuge and
increased the number of shore, wading, and water fowl from zero to 40,000 that annually visit the area.
The Conservation Fund
$750,000 in 2007, $92,500 in 2004, $1,000,000 in 2003
MFI’s $1 million PRI loan to the Conservation Fund in 2003 went toward the purchase of 33,000 acres of
bottomland along the hardwood Neches River in East Texas. This area of land is considered a critical
conservation piece in the Piney Woods ecosystem. Upon purchasing the land, over 1,000 clear‐cut acres were
reforested. The purchased land provided a connection between the Davy Crockett and Angelina national
forests, creating a larger habitat to protect threatened animals such as the Bald Eagle, Red‐Cockaded
Woodpecker, and the Louisiana Black Bear. After the successful purchase of the Neches River acreage, interest
in the Fund spiked as many residents and conservationists in East Texas wanted the Fund to acquire and help
preserve even more land in East Texas. In order to accommodate the increased requests and projects, MFI
made a grant to hire a program director for the Fund in 2004. MFI’s 2007 grant completed the Fund’s funding
requirement for purchasing an additional 27,000 acres along the Neches River within the Big Thicket. These
parcels buffer the middle Neches project and expand and protect the Big Thicket from damaging
developments that would hurt its diverse habitat with species of plants and animals that only exist in that
habitat.
15
Turtle Island Restoration Network
$72,200 in 2007, $21,000 in 2004
Kemp’s ridley sea turtles are some of the most endangered sea turtles in the world. Native to Texas and
Mexico, their population suffered a drastic reduction and completely vanished from the Texas Gulf coast. In
addition to U.S. and Mexican governmental policies changing to protect and recover these turtles, the Mexican
government has allowed turtle eggs to be brought to the United States for incubation and release along the
Texas coast. By 2002, there were 38 nests discovered on the Texas Gulf coast. In order for this turtle
population to continue in its growth, the general public needs to be able to identify Kemp’s ridley turtle eggs
and hatchlings, recognize that the animal is protected by federal law, and understand what to do if a sea turtle
is caught accidently. To make this possible, the Turtle Island Restoration Network received an MFI grant in
2004 to develop and distribute public information posters, brochures, fact sheets, and lesson plans to educate
the public about Kemp’s ridley sea turtles so that their species can continue to rebound. MFI provided
additional funding in 2007 to expand the Network’s successful turtle identification and public awareness
program to new turtle nesting areas in the northern Gulf communities. This funding allowed the Network to
make more than 12 public presentations to north coast communities and recruit and train over 50 volunteer
north coast spotters annually to raise awareness and knowledge about how to better protect the endangered
Kemp’s ridley sea turtle.
Ducks Unlimited
$225,000 in 2006
Ducks Unlimited is dedicated to restoring small wetlands in an effort to protect waterfowl breeding grounds.
Texas hosts 90% of the North American migratory waterfowl population as it winters along the coast or rests
before continuing to Mexico. However, an estimated 210,000 acres of wetlands along the Texas Gulf coast
have been lost in the last 50 years due to poor land management practices, which leads to shoreline erosion.
Additional loss of land is due to the conversion of wetlands for commercial, residential, and agricultural use.
This loss not only negatively affects the animals and plants that rely on the wetlands, but the billion dollar
Texas wildlife watching ecotourism industry as well. In order to halt the continued loss of coastal wetlands,
Ducks Unlimited instituted a land recovery and restoration program among private landowners. If the land is
deemed to be vital to the migratory Flyway, Ducks staff develops cost projections for constructing wetland
retention projects and land and species management plans. If landowners agree to maintain waterfowl
habitat management procedures for at least 10 years on their newly constructed wetlands, as well as pumping
or purchasing water for projects to ensure annual flooding of the wetland structures, landowners receive
financial and technical assistance from Ducks Unlimited and their federal partners. MFI’s grant helped the
organization conserve an additional 6,804 wetland acres along the Texas Gulf Coast.
National Audubon Society
$25,000 in 2003
The National Audubon Society received an MFI grant to improve the habitat of the endangered Black‐capped
Vireo on a property that was previously the Dallas Nature Center. Originally owned and operated by the
Greenhills Foundation, the City of Dallas took over the operation of the nature center which in turn contracted
16
with the National Audubon Society to manage the preserve. The escarpment is the northernmost extent of
the Vireo’s natural habitat and Vireos have returned to the area.
Environmental Defense Fund
$250,000 in 2002
Texas is home to 93 endangered species, two of which are the Black‐capped Vireo and the Golden‐cheeked
Warbler. The birds are threatened because their nesting grounds in south and central Texas are being reduced
by urban development, fire suppression, and the overgrazing of livestock. To reverse this trend, a 1998 MFI
grant to the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) established a stewardship fund on a pilot scale in the Hill
Country. Grants were awarded to private landowners who were willing to make land improvements to restore
or enhance habitat preferred by Vireo and Warblers. In addition, EDF sought Safe Harbor agreements from the
federal government for participating landowners. Through its work aided by two additional MFI grants (in
1999 and 2000), EDF was designated as the regional administrator of Safe Harbor agreements, meaning that
they can directly extend U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Safe Harbor designations. In coordination with the Texas
Department of Parks and Wildlife, the Nature Conservancy, and the Texas Farm Bureau, landowners were
identified and workshops were conducted to promote the program in the Hill Country. The Hill Country
project was very successful, enrolling 78,000 acres into Safe Harbor agreements and both species are
recovering well with 209 nesting pairs of Vireo on the preserved properties (a 25% increase in the population
since the beginning of the MFI‐sponsored program). In conjunction with a National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation grant, MFI provided additional funds in 2002 to expand the scope of the restoration project from
the central nesting grounds in the Hill Country to the far northern reaches of the habitat in the Chalk Mountain
ecosystem in Somervell County. Partnering with Fossil Rim Wildlife Center, EDF restored 1,786 acres of Vireo
habitat at Fossil Rim Wildlife Center, increased the number of Vireo to 50 pairs, and restored 120 acres of
Warbler habitat.
North American Butterfly
$250,000 in 2008, $197,000 in 2002
MFI funds contributed to acquiring the land for the first natural outdoor butterfly park in the nation, located
along a corridor that is part of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge. Of the 720 North
American butterfly species, 300 are found in the Valley and half of these are only found in the Valley. The
butterfly park was planned in conjunction with the World Birding Center, which is adjacent to the park. Since
it opened, the park has returned approximately half of the area to its native condition and has attracted
significant numbers and varieties of butterflies (as many as 3,300 can be seen in a day). The addition of the
butterfly park contributed significantly to the region’s ecotourism because butterflies and neotropical birds
migrate at different times of year, which gives tourists a reason to visit the park up to four times a year. After
opening in October 2003, the park had 10,000 visitors in the first year. To further foster ecotourism to the
area, in 2008 MFI contributed to the construction of a 3,500 SF Visitor Center (silver LEED certification) to
increase the park capacity, receive and serve visitors, and increase the number of educational field trips and
programs for children and adults. The new structure can better serve the 100,000 people projected to visit the
park by 2012. At this level of visitation, the local economy can expect $150 million in economic impact.
17
Stewardship
The more experiences an individual has in nature, the more likely they are to feel a personal responsibility to
protect the environment. Inner‐city youth and minorities, however, do not have the same exposure to the
outdoors and camping as other youth demographics. Since environmental protection is ultimately everyone’s
responsibility, programs promoting stewardship in the environment are critical to establishing personal
environmental responsibility at an early age, especially for inner‐city and minority youth. The following goals
were laid out in the 2001 plan in the area of stewardship:
Support programs that have demonstrated success in improving stewardship of natural resources.
Utilize zoos, aquaria, botanical gardens, and preserves as ways to introduce the message of
conservation.
Between 2001 and 2010, 45 grants totaling $6,138,200 were awarded in the area of stewardship.
Over 1.6 million individuals visited environmental education centers such as museums, zoos, and
wildlife reserves.
70,100 youth participated in stewardship and educational programming.
To improve educational instruction, over 800 teachers and landowners received training in water and
soil conservation, 72 educational workshops were administered, and over 3,500 books, pamphlets,
DVDs, and lesson plans were distributed to Texas school districts.
Eleven environmental centers and exhibits were created or renovated.
2,155 acres of land were protected in addition to creating nearly 200 landscape projects, trails, and
community gardens.
Twenty animal and wildlife rehabilitation centers were created and 8,200 animals were rescued and
rehabilitated.
Stewardship Lessons Learned
Bringing up the next generation of conservationists/environmentalists is more difficult than expected.
Without a physical connection to the land, it is hard to instill an appreciation of natural resources
among individuals.
Engendering environmental stewardship among youth is critical for advancing future environmental
policies and legislation.
Although well intentioned, nature centers are ineffective tools for promoting environmental
stewardship.
Notable Stewardship Grants, 2001–2010
Notable stewardship grants awarded between 2001 and 2010, with progress made to date, are highlighted
below. A complete list of grants awarded is provided in the Appendix.
18
City of McAllen, Texas
$75,000 in 2007
Approximately 95% of the natural habitat and wildlife in the Rio Grande Valley has been destroyed by urban
and agricultural development. In response to the lack of natural habitat and wildlife, the City of McAllen
removed non‐native plants and restored the habitat around Quinta Mazatlan, a 70‐year‐old, 10,000 SF private
residence. The 15 acre native habitat surrounding the property was developed into nature, hiking, and birding
trails and a habitat stewardship education center for the public in 2006. MFI’s grant to the City of McAllen
went toward the construction of a 3,000 SF “Glassroom” for use as a conservation laboratory and additional
classroom space at Quinta Mazatlan. Although the construction of the Glassroom is still in progress, the City
has already contracted with McAllen ISD and over 1,900 third graders are visiting Quinta Mazatlan annually.
The City hopes to expand the children’s education program to serve not only elementary school students but
middle and high school students as well. Further, Quinta Mazatlan provides an average of 42 presentations
per year centering on adult scientific literacy and stewardship conservation.
National Audubon Society
$1,000,000 in 2007
In 2008, the National Audubon Society constructed the Trinity Audubon Center, a 21,000 SF learning center
that also serves as the headquarters of the Texas Audubon Society. This unique mix of habitat located in the
center of an urban area offers Dallas an extraordinary opportunity to provide extensive land, habitat, water,
and wildlife conservation stewardship educational opportunities to children with otherwise little chance for
exposure to the outdoors. Approximately half of the floor space in the building is dedicated to educational
pursuits by providing classrooms, wet laboratories, and interactive exhibits. The building contains a large
exhibit hall to interpret the biological and geological features of the forest as well as a scale model of the
Trinity River where students can control the river system in order to demonstrate the effects of 100, 200, and
500‐year floods. Because of MFI’s grant, the Society was able to make the Center platinum LEED certified, the
highest level the U.S. Green Builders’ Council will certify, and construct two miles of trails throughout the
grounds of the Center. MFI funds also helped provide stewardship educational opportunities to more than
25,000 school‐aged children and provided the funds necessary for 15,000 low‐income students to attend
programs at the Center at no cost. More than 90% of the low‐income students came from the DISD and Grand
Prairie School Districts.
Parks and Wildlife Foundation of Texas
$600,000 in 2003
This grant is notable because it represents the culmination of all of MFI’s granting in the area of nature
centers. The Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife developed a South Texas Birding Trail which consists of a
13,000 SF World Birding Center in McAllen, which is adjacent to the North American Butterfly Park (MFI
funded), and six satellite sites along the 120‐mile historic Los Caminos corridor from Brownsville to Roma. The
entire network contains over 3,000 acres of restored habitat, viewing stations, and walking trails. Agricultural
land that was donated to the Trail went through extensive re‐vegetation to return the land to its native state,
attracting migratory birds, and helping Texas become one of the premiere bird‐watching destinations in the
19
country. In 2010, the World Birding Center attracted over 32,000 visitors and nearly 60,000 visited all three
main birding centers, creating a positive economic impact on the area.
Public Education and Advocacy
In order to combat the various environmental issues facing Texas, state and local governments, as well as
individual citizens, need to reevaluate the way we view our role in improving our environment and protecting
it for future generations through increased public education. Because Texas is far behind other states in its
willingness to dedicate sufficient public resources for environmental protection programs, environmental
issues such as land, water, and air quality will become more serious without advocacy efforts to state and local
governments. For these reasons, the following five goals were laid out in the 2001 plan:
Help build the capacity of the environmental nonprofit infrastructure in Texas.
Encourage citizen involvement at the state and local levels in decisions about managing the
environment.
Educate the public on economic and environmental impacts of cost‐effective alternatives to wasteful
water use.
Provide research data and analysis as tools to address needs.
Employ a variety of media to communicate information – web‐based, video, publications, consumer
guides, etc.
Between 2001 and 2010, 15 grants totaling $900,800 were awarded in the area of public education and
advocacy.
Over $3.6 million increase in annual giving by Texas foundations for climate change projects.
208,000 trees were planted in the Lower Rio Grande Valley with the help of 38 communities.
22 presentations were conducted and over 50 volunteers were trained as part of a public awareness
campaign to protect the endangered Kemp’s ridley sea turtle along the Gulf Coast.
The documentary “Living on the Trinity: A River Story” and ten Trinity River public radio shows were
produced.
Public Education and Advocacy Lessons Learned
Advocacy is a powerful mechanism for change: through the advocacy efforts of the Living Waters
Coalition, they have changed the entire planning process of restoring rivers in Texas.
The development and distribution of science‐based information is a powerful advocacy tool.
Advocacy campaigns are most effective when they promote a focused message and work with quality
partnering organizations dedicated to the same cause.
Notable Public Education and Advocacy Grants, 2001–2010
Notable public education and advocacy grants awarded between 2001 and 2010, with progress made to date,
are highlighted below. A complete list of grants awarded is provided in the Appendix.
20
Northeast Texas Community College
$85,000 in 2010
Northeast Texas Community College received an MFI grant to construct a silver to gold LEED‐certified, 13,000
SF agricultural facility that will become the center for a sustainable agriculture program. The new program will
incorporate basic academic instruction, advanced research, and practical demonstrations for career‐minded
students and practitioners in the area. The new center will also contain an alternative energy laboratory where
they hope to produce at least 250 gallons of bio‐diesel monthly for use in campus vehicles. In addition, the
alternative energy laboratory will contain solar and wind generating devices for experimentation and
demonstrations for farms and residences as well as area science classes and teachers. Although the facility
construction is still in progress, the college has already increased the number of agricultural majors and started
offering new classes in environmental sciences and alternative energy production. These new classes allow
students and community members to take advantage of the growing interest in green farm technology and be
competitive in the green technology field.
Texas Impact Education Fund
$75,000 in 2010
Established in 2000, Texas Impact Education Fund is a statewide, interfaith network that encourages religious
communities to participate in public policy debates regarding racial, economic, and social justice issues on
behalf of the poor and disadvantaged. The organization acted as the lead agency of 14 environmental groups
to provide input into the Texas Sunset Advisory Commission’s 2010 review process for the Texas Commission
on Environmental Quality, Public Utilities Commission, Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Railroad
Commission, and Water Development Board. The Sunset Commission’s review process looks at the policies
and programs of government agencies, questions the need for each agency, looks for potential duplication of
other public services or programs, and considers new and innovative changes to improve each agency’s
operations and activities.
MFI funding allowed Texas Impact to:
Conduct and disseminate the findings of a poll assessing public views on environmental topics relevant
to the sunset review;
Carry out more than 19 “community conversations” to solicit public input and to inform the public on
how to become more involved in the sunset process;
Produce and disseminate seven policy research publications on the roles of state agencies in
environmental regulation; and
Circulate the content of policy analyses, polling results, and other public commentary through a new
website.
As a result of Texas Impact’s efforts, the Sunset Commission continued funding for each of these agencies.
21
Texas Coalition for Conservation
$30,000 in 2009, $68,000 in 2006, $58,000 in 2004
Since 1995, funding for the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) to maintain and acquire land has
come from a portion of the state sales tax collected on the sale of sporting, camping, and hiking goods. The
portion of tax revenues set aside for Parks and Wildlife has remained capped at $32 million, even though the
sales taxes on sporting, camping, and hiking goods generate over $100 million a year in Texas. In order to raise
the funding cap, MFI’s 2004 grant allowed the Texas Coalition for Conservation to conduct three different
studies and distribute them to the public and elected officials during the 79th Texas Legislature:
1. The Coalition partnered with Texas A&M to complete an economic impact study of all 78 parks in the
state park system, including the impact parks have on sales, personal income, and the number of jobs
created in the county where the park is located.
2. They conducted a state‐wide opinion poll to assess citizen’s perceptions of the benefits of
conservation and the best way to finance parks.
3. They created a series of economic impact statements about the value of conservation.
With an MFI grant in 2006, the Coalition updated their studies, distributed the information to the public and
elected officials during the 80th Texas Legislature, and convinced the Legislature to remove the cap on Parks
and Wildlife funding. Prior to removing the cap, the Legislature commissioned a two‐year study to determine
the appropriate level of funding for Texas parks. In order for parks to receive the highest level of funding
possible, MFI’s 2009 funding helped the Coalition update their study once again for the 81st Texas Legislature.
Through the Coalition’s studies and persistence, the Texas Legislature now determines the level of funding
TPWD will receive each year. As a result, the appropriation going to Parks and Wildlife has grown each
session: $129 million in 2006‐07, $212 million in 2008‐09, and $216 million in 2010‐11.
North Texas Public Broadcasting (KERA – Channel 13)
$234,200 in 2008
MFI funding allowed KERA to produce educational programs about the environmental, cultural, and historical
aspects of the Trinity River. The programs included an hour‐long TV documentary, ten radio documentary
segments focusing on the cultural and ecological history of the river, and a website including links to the
documentaries and additional information about the Trinity River. The goal of this programming was to make
citizens and public officials more aware of the importance of the Trinity River as a critical water resource and a
source for recreation and economic development. This programming also highlights the effects the Trinity has
on the quality of life of people, not only in North Texas, but also downstream in Houston and in other
communities in the river basin.
Environmental Fund for Texas
$68,600 in 2001
The Environmental Fund for Texas was established to provide a method for raising donations for
environmental groups in the workplace. Traditional United Way workplace giving does not include
22
environmental organizations as recipients. The Fund is now a part of workplace giving at major Texas
corporations such as American Airlines, Compaq, Samsung and United Health Group. In 2000, $600,000 was
raised from the workplace and distributed to environmental agencies. MFI funding enabled the Fund to
expand their services throughout Texas, retaining Dallas and San Antonio campaign managers where
workplace campaigns were lacking. In addition, the Fund added 20 new companies to the workplace campaign.
Air Quality
Air pollution not only threatens plants, animals, and the environment, but can also be hazardous to human
health and cause additional problems by dirtying buildings and corroding monuments and statues. Because of
the sheer size of the state and the type of industries the state houses, Texas has many air quality problems.
Although toxic air levels are on the decline, Texas still leads the nation in emissions of toxic air pollutants,
carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, and carbon dioxide, all of which have been
shown to contribute to the greenhouse effect. Until Texas is willing to dedicate sufficient resources to
environmental protection projects, relying solely on voluntary pollution reduction efforts will not be enough to
solve the air quality issues currently facing Texas. For these reasons, MFI funding has focused on:
Educating the public on the health and environmental impacts of air pollution and clean air
alternatives; and
Providing research data and analysis as tools to address needs.
Between 2001 and 2010, three air quality grants were awarded totaling $217,500.
Three air quality symposia were held.
Three research studies related to clean air were conducted.
Air Quality Lessons Learned
Air quality issues are increasingly difficult to fix at a state or local level since air quality and industrial
emissions are federally regulated.
Notable Air Quality Grants, 2001–2010
Notable air quality grants awarded between 2001 and 2010, with progress made to date, are highlighted
below. A complete list of grants awarded is provided in the Appendix.
Dallas Foundation for Texas Business for Clean Air
$40,000 in 2008
Texas Business for Clean Air (TBCA) was established in response to TXU Energy’s announcement to build 11
coal‐fired generating plants to meet future power demands. TBCA believes that the continuing economic
vitality of the state depends on the utility industry’s ability to adopt technologies that promote energy
efficiencies while reducing harmful emissions. TBCA received an MFI grant to collect relevant engineering,
legal, and economic data regarding the balance between power supply and demand, and federal mandates to
23
improve air quality. The study, carried out by two Rice University professors, a Houston Advanced Research
Center scientist (both MFI grantee institutions), an attorney, and an economist, reviewed:
The latest understanding of source emissions and concentrations of ozone, particulate matter, and
mercury, and the impacts of possible climate change on Texas;
The current status of the state’s electric power generation capacity, including current demand by
sector, emission rates, and potential impact of emission control technology;
Existing technologies to reduce power emissions, reduce electrical consumption, or replace fossil fuel
generation; and
Approaches taken by other states to promote sustainable electricity generation and clean air.
Based on their findings, the researchers examined the impact of all options to promote sustainable energy and
clean air. This study was disseminated to the general public and to legislative leaders. The study also provided
baseline data that complemented the work of the MFI‐funded coalition led by the Environmental Defense
Fund to inform the public and legislative leaders on energy alternatives and the promotion of more energy
efficient policies.
Energy Efficiency
Energy efficiency policy seeks to facilitate the everyday operations of homes, businesses, and municipalities
using as little energy as possible. In addition to energy efficiency programs for utility companies and their
customers that lower greenhouse gas emissions, energy efficient building programs have been successful as
well. Green buildings have lower emission levels, conserve water, manage storm water, moderate
temperature, and reduce waste. These building also provide businesses and residents with economic savings
through reduced energy and water costs, increased property value, decreased infrastructure strain, and an
increase in employee attendance and productivity. Further, green buildings have been found to provide social
benefits, improved health, and healthier lifestyles and more recreation for the occupants of the buildings.
Green homes use on average 25‐30% less energy a month than an average home, saving residents potentially
hundreds of dollars annually. For these reasons, MFI funding has focused on:
Building and renovating green homes and LEED certified facilities.
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from municipal and government operations.
Encouraging and facilitating cities’ efforts to improve energy standards and sustainability operations.
Encouraging energy efficient goals for all of its capital grant recipients.
Between 2001 and 2010, 16 energy efficiency grants were awarded totaling $2,379,700.
17 green, low‐income homes were renovated.
Nearly 140 builders were trained in energy‐efficient technologies and nine college‐level architecture
courses were redesigned to incorporate green building practices.
10 million tons of carbon emissions were reduced from municipal operations and a savings of $80
million in municipal energy and fuel costs were realized.
15 cities gained ICLEI membership and Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio revised its city energy codes.
24
In the fall of 2008, MFI’s Board of Directors approved a green building policy encouraging grant applicants to
adopt the following energy‐ and water‐related goals when constructing new buildings or renovating existing
buildings:
30% reduced operational energy use for new buildings;
15% reduced operational energy use for existing buildings;
35% of grid‐connected energy is provided by Green‐e certified renewable energy sources;
20% reduced indoor potable water use; and
Landscape plants comprised of water‐wise native and non‐invasive adapted plant species.
While adoption of these goals are not required to be eligible for grant support, the Foundation looks with favor
on those construction projects that include significant energy savings and other environmentally friendly
features. Of the 93 capital construction grants MFI has awarded since November 2008, 28 (30%) of them
contain one or more of the Foundation’s green building performance goals. Due to the lengthy nature of
construction projects, however, not enough time has elapsed between construction completion and a
realization of energy savings for most grantees. Of the 28 grants containing green building goals, five
organizations have reported back to the foundation on their goals, all of which have met or exceeded their
goals. One project included the construction of a LEED gold‐certified home and the renovation of five homes
that meet LEED certification standards.
Energy Efficiency Lessons Learned
Environmentalism can incorporate lower operating costs.
Notable Energy Efficiency Grants, 2001–2010
Notable energy efficiency grants awarded between 2001 and 2010, with progress made to date, are
highlighted below. A complete list of grants awarded is provided in the Appendix.
Environmental Defense Fund
$150,000 in 2010, $150,000 in 2009, $303,000 in 2007
The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) wanted to build on its previous accomplishments in the energy
efficiency field by helping Texas develop a balanced energy policy that considers both the interests of
consumers and the environment. Through an MFI grant in 2007, EDF commissioned a report by the American
Council for an Energy Efficient Economy to develop an assessment of potential demand reduction strategies in
Texas based on achieving energy efficiency, reducing demand, and developing renewable measures. This
report, presented to the Texas Legislature in 2007, led to the passage of an energy efficient bill that required:
State utility companies to meet 20% of future energy demand through energy efficiency programs;
Establishment of incentives for utility company investments to exceed the 20% efficiency target; and
The Public Utility Commission (PUC) to prepare its own study on the amount of energy efficiency
achievable in Texas.
25
In addition to the energy efficient bill, MFI funds in 2007 and 2009 helped EDF accomplish the following:
46 cities in Texas with a population over 50,000 adopted stronger green building codes;
An additional staff member was hired to apply for federal stimulus funds for green energy projects for
EDF, increase local government interest in smart grid technology, and provide those governments
assistance in applying for stimulus funds; as a result, over $50 million in stimulus money was awarded
for Texas projects; and
EDF developed a comprehensive database of jobs and job descriptions of green jobs in Texas; this
database was distributed to high schools and high school vocational counselors were enlisted to
develop student interest in the new green vocations.
EDF received additional MFI funding in 2010 to further increase energy efficient standards in Texas. Through
EDF’s efforts, the Texas State Energy Conservation Office adopted the 2009 International Energy Conservation
code, which requires new residential and commercial structures to meet energy efficient standards for
insulation materials in ceilings, walls, and floors as well as mechanical, water heating, electrical, and lighting
equipment. In addition, EDF is conducting a pilot project in Austin to test the viability of on‐bill financing to
recoup the upfront investments needed for new green technology in multifamily apartments with at least 200
units. They are also monitoring a pilot project for water metering smart technology in 200 homes through the
Pecan Street Project in order to start linking state water and energy planning.
Real Estate Council Foundation
$75,000 in 2010
The Real Estate Council Foundation supports low‐income neighborhood revitalization, economic development,
and workforce housing initiatives through financial and technical assistance. In April 2008, the Dallas City
Council passed an ordinance that would require all new homes and commercial buildings to reduce energy and
water consumption effective October 2009. Beginning in 2011, all new buildings must be LEED‐certified.
Because of the recession and the decline in city revenue, however, plans to train staff (including building
inspectors, plan reviewers, engineers, etc.) on the new ordinance had to be postponed. As a result, the city
was not ready to handle the review and certification of new building plans for compliance with the ordinance
when it became effective. In 2010, the Real Estate Council Foundation received an MFI grant to provide
training workshops on the new ordinances. This funding allowed the Council to develop training curricula for
six aspects of city and federal sustainable development policies and to train over 200 developers, architects,
and other real estate professionals. The Foundation is currently working to train 100 City of Dallas building
inspectors and real estate development staff and is working with the city to reduce Dallas carbon emissions by
7% from 1990 levels.
Dallas Foundation for BuildingCommunity Workshop
$142,000 in 2009
The BuildingCommunity Workshop was created as a community design center to provide architectural
planning, design, and development services to low and moderate income communities. The goal of the
Workshop is to improve the architectural environment of neighborhoods, including affordable housing with
26
energy‐efficient features. MFI’s grant went toward a collaboration of the Workshop and Jubilee Park (another
MFI‐supported community development group) to repair six homes on a particular street in Jubilee Park using
energy‐efficient, sustainable designs. Five homes have been repaired to U.S. Green Building Council
renovation standards and one gold LEED‐certified affordable home has been built with another in progress.
MFI’s grant also allowed the Workshop to partner with the SMU Bobby Lyle School of Engineering to begin
building new street infrastructure with a state‐of‐the‐art storm water management system. Beyond energy
efficiency, the Workshop and Jubilee Park hope to transform the neighborhood from one consisting of many
vacant lots and abandoned homes that were safe havens for drug transactions, to a safe, thriving
neighborhood.
University of Houston, Gerald D. Hines College of Architecture
$319,000 in 2008
The Hines College of Architecture’s Industrial Design program is the first of its kind in Texas, integrating
elements of art and engineering to develop concepts and specifications that optimize the function, value, and
appearance of building products and systems. The College seeks to meet the Architecture 2030 Challenge
issued by Architect Ed Mazria to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions by changing the way buildings
are planned, designed, and constructed. The College seeks to meet the 2030 Challenge by requiring Industrial
Design students to take one architectural design studio in building components and requiring Architecture
students to take a comprehensive design studio focused on sustainable design and affordable products. In
addition, with MFI funding, the College hired faculty and student researchers to conduct applied research and
work directly with manufacturers to design environmentally responsible building components. The team
produced 16 sustainable material and component prototypes that were rolled out at an Expo held at the
College of Architecture and four of those projects are in the beginning stages of commercialization.
ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability U.S.A.
$312,500 in 2007
The U.S. International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) was established in 1995 to promote
the Cities for Climate Protection Campaign to assist local governments reduce their carbon emissions, improve
local air quality, and promote urban economic growth through sustainability. The Campaign provides member
cities with tools and resources to reduce carbon emissions so that cities can realize a financial savings in
reduced utility and fuel costs, in addition to improving local air quality and stimulating economic development
and job creation through new alternative energy industries. Municipal governments may become members of
ICLEI USA if they agree to enact city council resolutions to reduce carbon emissions from their own operations
and promote similar actions throughout their communities.
In 2006, Mayor Cluck of Arlington convened a meeting of Texas mayors to consider the merits of ICLEI.
Officials from 14 Texas cities attended and as a result, Arlington, Austin, Dallas, Denton, Houston, Plano, and
San Antonio joined the Campaign. In response to MFI staff approaching ICLEI to see how ICLEI could better
serve the Texas member cities and recruit additional members, ICLEI proposed opening a Regional Capacity
Center for Texas in Houston. MFI’s 2007 grant allowed ICLEI to hire two staff members for the Regional office
27
to provide technical assistance to member cities, recruit 11 new cities to join the Campaign, eliminate 15.9
million tons of carbon gases, and save over $121 million in annual municipal and fuel costs statewide.
The University of Texas at Austin for the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center
$262,200 in 2007
The Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center was founded in 1982 to improve the environment through land
preservation and re‐establishing native wildflowers, grasses, and trees in nature as well as planned landscapes.
The Center, now a part of the University of Texas, works through educational outreach and research to restore
natural biodiversity essential to healthy ecosystems. With MFI assistance, 136 acres were purchased in 2000
to become the base for the Center’s Land Restoration Program. The Land Restoration Program extends land
restoration and native plant conservation concepts to a larger scale that includes parks, ranches, preserves,
and roadsides. Private and public land managers come to the center to learn restoration practices and staff
provides off‐site technical assistance to landowners and developers.
In 2007, the Center received additional MFI funds for the first stage of its expansion of the Land Restoration
Program, the creation of a national program for establishing voluntary standards for sustainable landscape
development. MFI’s grant provided the initial support that allowed the Center to launch SITES, and has
leveraged more than $1 million in additional support to date.
The program, now known as the Sustainable Sites Initiative (SITES), is modeled after the LEED (Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design) ranking system developed by the U.S. Green Building Council. Recognizing
the impact that LEED has had on the building industry, the Center developed a parallel system of guidelines,
credits, and ratings for planned landscapes. The Center now leads the SITES partnership, which includes the
American Society of Landscape Architects and the U.S. Botanic Garden, with support from the Environmental
Protection Agency and dozens of public and private technical experts. SITES guidelines address the sustainable
design, creation, and management of landscapes, and provide a system whereby these projects can be
evaluated for their performance. Widespread adoption of the SITES guidelines has tremendous potential to
reduce pollution, control flooding, and other environmental problems that can result from conventional land
development. Following a three‐year process of engaging technical experts in developing the guidelines and
credits, the Center is now conducting a pilot project program to field‐test the system. From 350 applicants,
152 projects have been selected as pilots for SITES certification. The SITES Initiative has received tremendous
media attention and generated great interest in the landscape and construction community. The White House
Council on Environmental Quality has developed draft guidance for federal agency landscaping based on the
SITES system, and the U.S. Green Building Council has incorporated related SITES credits into the LEED system.
28
29
One acre‐foot is equal
to 325,851 gallons –
an area the size of a
football field covered
with one foot of water.
The Environment in Texas
Water
Managing and protecting our water sources is the most critical environmental issue facing Texas today. The
Texas population is expected to increase by 82%, growing from 25.4 million in 2010 to 46.3 million people in
2060. In order to meet the water demands of the state’s growing population and avoid serious social,
economic, and environmental consequences, sound water management strategies must be implemented.
Water Supply
Rainfall
Average annual rainfall in Texas varies from
10 inches in the west to over 55 inches in the
eastern part of the state.
This rainfall feeds:
- Surface water (streams, lakes, rivers,
reservoirs, wetlands, estuaries); and
- Groundwater held in vast natural
underground aquifers.
Surface Water
Surface water in Texas is held in trust by the
state, which in turn, grants the right to use
this water to individuals, cities, industries,
businesses, and other public and private
entities.
Surface water statistics in Texas:
- 6,700 dams and reservoirs;
- 12 estuaries;
- 191,000 miles of streams and rivers;
- 15 major river basins; and
- 8 coastal basins.
Surface water accounted for approximately 40%, or 6.4 million, of the 16.1
million acre‐feet of water used in the state in 2008.
In 2010, there was 8.4 million acre‐feet per year of existing surface water
supply in Texas that was physically and legally available.
- The amount of water permitted through surface water permits is
estimated to be 20 million acre‐feet per year, or twice as much than what
is actually in them.
Texas Almanac, 2010
30
Recharge rate is the amount of
precipitation and infiltration of
surface water that adds to the
level of an aquifer each year.
The supply of surface water is projected to increase to 9.0 million acre‐feet by 2060.
- Supply is projected to increase the most for the Neches River Basin due to additional supply from
existing contracts, which will outpace the loss of supply due to sediment accumulation.
Reservoirs
Reservoirs are artificially created bodies of water from damming, excavation, or other methods that can be
used for water supply, hydroelectricity, water balance, and recreational purposes, among others.
Reservoirs provide approximately half of the available surface water in the state (4.5 million acre‐feet per
year out of a total of 8.4 million acre‐feet of surface water per year).
Reservoir water levels decrease, however, because of evaporation, especially in the summer when the rate
of evaporation increases.
The construction of new reservoirs has slowed in recent years due, in part, to a lack of viable sites for new
major reservoirs, the fact that permits are much more difficult to obtain due primarily to environmental
concerns, and because construction costs have exceeded the rate of inflation.
Major Rivers and Coastal Basins
Texas has 15 major river basins and eight coastal basins.
Factors contributing to the uniqueness of each river basin include precipitation, evaporation, vegetation,
soil type, and runoff.
Over pumping has created problems for many growing population centers in coastal basins as the supply
of freshwater available has decreased, making it difficult to meet future water supply needs.
Groundwater
Groundwater provided approximately 60%, or 9.7 million, of the 16.1 million acre‐feet of water used in the
state in 2008.
- The majority of groundwater (80%) is used for irrigating crops on approximately 6.3 million acres of
agricultural land across the state.
An estimated 3 to 4 billion acre‐feet of groundwater is stored in nine major and 21 minor aquifers around
the state.
- Aquifers are underground layers of water‐bearing rock, gravel,
sand, silt, or clay.
- Some aquifers recharge themselves with rainwater; however,
others do not which results in permanent water level declines.
Groundwater supply, which is the amount of water that can be produced with current permits and existing
infrastructure, is projected to decrease 30% between now and 2060. The Texas Water Development
Board (TWDB) projects existing groundwater supplies of 8.1 million acre‐feet per year to decrease to 5.7
million acre‐feet per year by 2060.
- The decline is due primarily to projected decreases in six of the 30 aquifers, including the Ogallala
Aquifer, which yields approximately two‐thirds of all groundwater in Texas.
31
Municipal water use includes residential and
commercial water use, but does not include
industrial water use. Residential and commercial
water uses are categorized together because both
use water similarly for drinking, cleaning,
sanitation, cooling, and landscape watering.
Texas Water Development Board, 2011
- If Texans continue to pump water out of the Ogallala at nearly six times the rate of recharge, however,
the Ogallala’s water volume will fall 52% by 2060.
o With practically no available surface water and little rainfall in the Texas High Plains region, the
Amarillo‐Lubbock area will run out of water if the Ogallala runs dry.
Overall, the state’s existing water supply, consisting mainly of surface water, groundwater, and reuse
water, is expected to decrease 10% by 2060.
- The water reuse supply comes from domestic or municipal wastewater that has been treated to a level
appropriate for beneficial use.
Water Demand
Historically, irrigation of agricultural crops has been the largest user of water across the state, followed by
municipal and manufacturing needs.
- By 2060, however, statewide irrigation demand is projected to decline by 17% primarily due to
efficiency improvements in irrigation techniques and loss of agricultural land to urban development.
Statewide per capita use from municipal sources,
however, is expected to increase from 4.9 million
acre‐feet in 2010 to 8.4 million acre‐feet by 2060.
Manufacturing, steam electric, and livestock
demand are also expected to increase while
mining demands are expected to decline just 1%.
14,600,000
14,800,000
15,000,000
15,200,000
15,400,000
15,600,000
15,800,000
16,000,000
16,200,000
16,400,000
16,600,000
2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Projected Existing Water Supplies (acre‐feet per year)
32
Texas Water Development Board, 2011
Texas Water Development Board, 2011
Based on the Texas Water Development Board’s 2012 State Water Plan, projected water demands exceed
projected water supplies, and as a result, the state is potentially facing a serious water supply shortage.
The TWDB indicates that significant socioeconomic impacts could occur if sound water management
strategies are not put into place in the near future. The agency’s impact analysis shows that Texas
businesses and workers could lose an estimated $116 billion and local and state business tax losses could
reach $9.8 billion by 2060.
‐
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Projected Water Supplies, Demands, and Needs (acre‐feet per year)
Supply Demand Need
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Water Demand Projections (acre‐feet per year)
Municipal Irrigation Manufacturing Steam Electric Livestock Mining
33
Texas Water Development Board, 2011
Water Management
The 2011 year proved to be the worst one‐year drought in Texas history, where 95% of the state fell under
severe or exceptional drought status during the year. Devastated by the drought, Texas farmers and
ranchers endured more than $5.2 billion in agricultural losses. Hundreds of wildfires scorched
approximately 130,000 acres in the summer months alone, and lake levels fell as much as 50 feet or more.
Several West Texas lakes dried up completely. In addition, 50% of the rivers in Texas flowed at 10% or less
of their normal capacity. It is projected that most of the state will remain under major drought conditions
through the summer of 2012, but it could easily stay around for years, even into 2020.
TWDB’s 2012 State Water Plan identifies 562 water management strategies, designed to meet the needs
for additional water supplies during times of drought, which could add 9 million acre‐feet of additional
water per year to the Texas water supply by 2060.
- TWDB estimates total capital costs for these projects at $53 billion.
The recommended water management strategies fall into the following categories:
- Water conservation (low‐flow fixtures, native landscape)
- Surface water strategies (stream diversions, new reservoirs)
- Groundwater strategies (new wells, increased production on existing wells, building/expanding
groundwater treatment plants)
- Water Reuse strategies (wastewater reuse)
- Other strategies (conjunctive use, desalination, brush control)
The percentage that each of the management strategies account for in adding additional water supply in
2060 are illustrated in the pie chart below.
- Surface water strategies account for the largest percentage of supply increase at 51% of the total.
- Conservation practices will help increase supply in 2060 by 24%.
Groundwater8.9% Reuse
10.2%
Groundwater Desalination
2.0%Conjunctive Use
1.5%Aquifer Storage and
Recovery0.9%
Weather Modification0.2%
Drought Management0.0%Brush Control
0.2%
Seawater Desalination1.4%
Surface Water Desalination
0.0%
Municipal Conservation
7.2%
Irrigation Conservation16.7%
Other Conservation0.3%
New Major Reservoir16.7%
Other Surface Water33.8%
34
Water Conservation
Water conservation is a low‐cost strategy to increase available water for municipal and irrigation purposes
through practices that include:
- Low‐flow water fixtures, such as shower heads and toilets;
- Xeriscaping and irrigation landscape management systems;
- Rain harvesting;
- Drought restrictions; and
- Using “gray water” when drinking water is not required.
In 2004 the TWDB Water Conservation Implementation Task Force recommended that water utilities
reduce their per capita water use by a minimum of 1% per year until water use reaches 140 gallons per
capita per day (GPCD).
- The table below highlights the resulting five‐ and ten‐year GPCD goals set by municipal water utilities,
many of which fail to meet the recommendations of the task force.
City Current GPCD 5‐year goal 10‐year goal
Arlington 161 153 146
Austin 170 156 150
Brownsville 124 120.9 114.9
Corpus Christi 234 223 212
Dallas 240 227 223
El Paso 133 140 or < 140 or <
Fort Worth 192 179 170
Houston 140 137 136
Lubbock 190 180 170
San Antonio* NA 110/120/133 106/116/126
*San Antonio uses a dry year/normal year/wet year format for expressing their goals.
Outdoor water use in 18 Texas cities increases an average 58% in the summer months compared to winter
months. If these cities achieved a 25% reduction in outdoor water use, they would collectively save 147
million gallons on average every day during the summer.
Fair rate structure pricing for water utilities encourages customers to use water efficiently by charging
lower rates to customers who use less water and significantly higher rates to those who are the heaviest
water users.
- The City of Austin has the strongest fair rate structure in Texas, with customers who use over 25,000
gallons a month paying $6.21 per thousand gallons while customers who use 5,000 gallons a month
pay $2.91 per thousand gallons.
- In Plano, however, customers who use over 25,000 gallons per month pay a lower rate per thousand
gallons than more efficient customers who use 5,000 per month ($2.22 versus $3.49, respectively).
Despite conservation efforts, the Edwards Aquifer, the primary water source for San Antonio and the Hill
Country is still vulnerable.
Conservation alone could help
supply 24% of the state’s water
needs in 2060.
35
- Under average weather conditions and with continued conservation, San Antonio has enough water to
meet demands through 2034.
- A sustained, multi‐year drought, however, would reduce the Edwards Aquifer by 40% and San Antonio
would have to secure 37,000 more acre‐feet of additional water rights to meet peak demand by 2015.
Although El Paso has decreased its per capita water use from 200 gallons a day in 1991 to 133 gallons per
day in 2010, current water supplies can only meet expected future water demands until sometime
between 2015 and 2020.
Desalination
Desalination is the process of converting salty seawater or brackish groundwater into potable water or
water for industrial or agricultural use.
The Kay Bailey Hutchison Desalination Plant, built by Fort Bliss and the City of El Paso, is the second largest
inland desalination plant in the world. The plant produces 27.5 million gallons of fresh water daily using
reverse osmosis to obtain potable water from brackish water drawn from the Hueco Bolson. The amount
of brackish water in the Hueco Bolson exceeds the amount of potable water by approximately 600%.
New research is focused on building desalination plants powered by wind energy, which could use low‐
cost, off‐peak wind power to extract fresh water from seawater to meet rising water demands.
Water Banking
The Texas Water Development Board manages the Texas Water Bank, which facilitates the transfer, sale,
or lease of water rights, and the Texas Water Trust, where water rights are held for environmental flow
maintenance purposes.
By acquiring water rights for land on aquifer recharge zones, riverbanks, estuaries, and wetlands, TWDB
can limit harmful developments, industries, and invasive plant species.
- The Trans‐Pecos Water Trust successfully leased almost 2,000 acre‐feet of Rio Grande water rights for
in‐stream flow, a beneficial use of water for recreation, wildlife habitats, preserves, and livestock.
- Facilitated by the River Systems Institute, Texas State University‐San Marcos has made a deposit in the
Trans‐Pecos Water Trust of 40,000 acre‐feet of water for environmental flows, the largest such
commitment ever made in Texas.
- The Guadalupe‐Blanco River Trust holds conservations easements on over 9,000 acres of land that
preserves wildlife corridors, native grasses, river and stream frontages, ranches, and farms.
Private investors also can buy water sources to re‐sell at a profit as “innovative investments.”
- T. Boone Pickens bought thousands of acres of land over the Ogallala Aquifer and now expects to sell
the water rights to the public water authority in the nearby town of Lubbock.
Environmental Flow Standards
Environmental flow standards establish the amount of water needed to maintain the health and
productivity of rivers, estuaries, or other freshwater systems.
36
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is working with stakeholders and experts throughout
the state, including the Living Waters Coalition (MFI Grantee), to establish and enforce environmental flow
standards for all major river basins in Texas.
Thus far, the results of the Senate Bill 3 process have been spotty at best, necessitating much more work
ahead for entities like the Living Waters Coalition, the River Systems Institute, and many others.
The River Systems Institute
The River Systems Institute (MFI Grantee) collaborates with other agencies to obtain data on critical river
basins in Texas to ultimately build a complete model of the river basins. Data collected includes:
- Water usage, quality, and quantity;
- Biological integrity;
- Land use along the river;
- Sources of stress;
- Hydrogeomorphic assessments; and
- Occurrence and abundance of fish and wildlife.
With this data and subsequent models, the River Systems Institute has used this information to:
- Influence irrigation improvement projects in the Rio Grande River Basin to reduce water loss;
- Contribute to the public debate regarding water permitting in the Guadalupe, Rio Grande, Brazos,
Pedernales, Blanco, Comal, and Cypress Creek River Basins;
- Recommend purchases of critical land parcels in the Guadalupe, Blanco, Pedernales, Cypress Creek,
and Brazos River Basins for conservation purposes;
- Train and place in rivers and streams across the state over 2,000 volunteer water quality monitors who
measure the health of Texas’ freshwater systems regularly as part of the Texas Stream Team;
- Strengthen the capacity of institutions in the state to address environmental flow requirements, both
from a scientific and stakeholder perspective;
- Develop the most advanced observing system for a freshwater resource in the United States;
- Provide enlightened stewardship of one of America’s most significant freshwater resources, the San
Marcos Springs;
- Assist 30 Groundwater Conservation Districts in monitoring aquifer properties and groundwater levels
and quality; and
- Educate over 100,000 visitors a year at its Aquatic Nature Center located at the San Marcos Springs.
Living Waters Coalition
In 2001, the National Wildlife Federation (MFI Grantee), Environmental Defense (MFI Grantee), and the
Sierra Club joined together to form the Living Waters Coalition.
The goal of the Living Waters Coalition is to promote environmentally and economically sound water
resource management practices within the state’s planning process by:
37
- Ensuring an adequate supply of water for rivers, bays, and estuaries, as well as consumptive needs by
reserving water for environmental uses in trust;
- Reducing future demands for water and fostering
efficient use of existing supplies through alternative
methods such as use of market mechanism and increased
conservation;
- Educating decision‐makers and the public about the
environmental and economic impact of wasteful water
development and the availability of cost‐effective alternatives; and
- Involving citizens in decisions about water resource management.
Through the Coalition’s research and advocacy efforts among public officials, water suppliers, and water
users, the Texas Legislature passed an omnibus water bill and water conservation legislation in 2007 that
altered how the state will manage its water resources in the future.
Since then, Living Waters has:
- Worked with TCEQ to establish improved environmental flow protection standards for the
Sabine/Neches/Sabine Lake and Trinity/San Jacinto/Galveston Bay river systems;
- Influenced deliberations of Groundwater Management Areas toward improving spring flow protection
and aquifer‐level sustainability in their jurisdictions; and
- Helped improve water conservation efforts in Austin, Dallas, and Houston.
Water Regulation
Water Quality
The Clean Water Act (1977) was designed to reduce water pollution through regulation and requires states
to establish standards for how their water sources are to be used. The goal of the act was to eliminate
discharge pollutants into the nation’s waterways by 1985. More than 20 years past the deadline, we are
still a long way from realizing this goal.
With nearly 200,000 miles of streams and rivers, 6.5 million acres of inland wetlands, 1.7 million acres of
coastal wetlands, 3 million acres of reservoirs and lakes, 2,400 square miles of bays and estuaries, and
3,900 square miles of open Gulf under jurisdiction, monitoring the quality of water in Texas is a difficult
task.
Because it is impossible to regularly test and monitor all of the state’s water bodies, choices must be made
about which areas to test and how often.
- In 2004, approximately 11% of total river miles, 80% of lake area, 85% of bay area, and 100% of open
Gulf jurisdiction was assessed.
Water Pollution
Point source pollution comes from a specific point or location, such as wastewater plants, oil and chemical
spills, and abandoned oil and water wells which allow contaminants to reach groundwater.
In the next decade, pollutant
concentrations in rivers and streams
may increase to a point where they
have a detrimental effect on aquatic
life including low oxygen, harmful algal
growth, and fish kills.
38
- Texas has one of the highest numbers of point source discharges of any state.
Nonpoint source pollution comes from runoff from roads that often contain residual petroleum or
agricultural activities such as feedlots, dairies, and poultry operations.
- Because it is difficult to regulate, and public awareness of the problem is low, nonpoint source
pollution is the major water quality issue in Texas.
Unless proper disposal methods are used, wastewater can contaminate the state’s water supply by
contributing pathogens, organics, and metals to storm water runoff.
- Texas ranks fourth in the nation for highest total volume of toxic discharges to waterways.
- In 2000, nearly half (46%) of water bodies in Texas were not in compliance with the state’s water
quality standards.
- The Red River is ranked ninth in the nation for discharges of cancer‐causing chemicals.
Drinking Water
Over 11.5 million people in Texas receive drinking water from public drinking water systems that rely at
least in part on water sources that exist only when rainfall is favorable—known as intermittent or
ephemeral streams—which are NOT regulated by the Clean Water Act.
In a 2009 national ranking of 100 big city water ratings, three Texas cities made the top ten list for best
water quality—Arlington (#1), Fort Worth (#3), and Austin (#7)—and one Texas city fell in the bottom
ten—Houston (#95).
The Colonias
Approximately 500,000 Texans live in 2,300 colonias communities
along the 1,248‐mile stretch from Cameron County on the Gulf of
Mexico to El Paso County in the west.
- Colonias are unincorporated, isolated settlements where local public funds and other resources are
limited.
A lack of running water, wastewater treatment, and solid waste disposal, as well as the absence of
centrally‐located health facilities, create serious public
health problems for colonias residents.
Water Managers
Surface water is held in trust by the state and the
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)
issues usage permits.
Groundwater Conservation Districts (GCDs) manage
groundwater by regulating well spacing and limiting
groundwater production.
Texas is home to more colonias
residents than any other state.
39
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, 2011
Priority Groundwater Management Areas
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, 2011
- There are 97 established GCDs in Texas covering all or part of 172 counties.
TCEQ has identified seven Priority Groundwater Management Areas in Texas.
- Covering a total of 35 counties, each of these areas is over a major aquifer in Texas.
- Proper groundwater management will strengthen
aquifer recharge zones and help protect against
excessive pumping.
The Rule of Capture, however, gives landowners the
right to pump an unlimited amount of groundwater
from their own property in areas without GCDs.
Because surface water and groundwater are
interconnected, and degrading one source will
negatively affect the other, ground and surface water
quality and sustainability will not improve until both
are properly managed together in a comprehensive
water management plan.
Water Planning Groups
TCEQ is responsible for protecting the state’s water
quality and allocating the use of surface water.
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD)
ensures that the state’s wildlife have sustainable
supplies of fresh water.
The Texas Water Development Board’s (TWDB) mission is to provide leadership, planning, financial
assistance, information, and education for the conservation and responsible development of water for
Texas.
Regional Water Planning Groups (RWPGs) are responsible for assessing the current and future state of
water use, supply, and management for their region in Texas.
- There are 16 regional planning groups in Texas.
Grantmaking Opportunities in Water
Based on the information presented in this section, possible grantmaking opportunities to improve water
quality and management include supporting programs and initiatives that seek to:
Develop a comprehensive water management plan for both surface and groundwater to maximize the
efficiency of water planning efforts;
Establish environmental flow standards for all major river basins in Texas to ensure an adequate
amount of water exists for area ecosystems;
Establish new Groundwater Conservation Districts and strengthen the capacity of existing districts to
ensure supplies of groundwater exist for the future;
40
Promote water conservation strategies throughout the state of Texas to ensure adequate supplies of
water exist in the future;
Broaden the conservation about Texas’ future water resources by encouraging efforts to reach out to
sectors of society not traditionally engaged in the water issue; and
In all of its environmental grantmaking, including land management, habitat conservation, energy
efficiency and public awareness, the Foundation will look for opportunities to improve water quality
and quantity.
41
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 2011
Land and Habitat Conservation
Ecological Diversity
Texas is recognized as one of the most
ecologically diverse states in the nation. Within
its boundaries are 12 distinct ecoregions
including piney wood forests, prairies, coastal
marshes, canyon lands, wetlands, and deserts.
Texas is also amazingly biodiverse with the
highest number of bird and reptile species and
the second highest number of plant and mammal
species.
Private Landowners
More than 95% of Texas land is privately owned.
It is essential for private landowners to be aware
of the significance and benefits of well‐managed
lands and waters.
- Runoff from private land is the primary source of water pollution.
- Land fragmentation, or the division of private land into smaller tracts, is a serious land management
challenge for Texas; it negatively affects wildlife habitats, open space, watershed function, and aquifer
recharge.
Conservation Easements
Conservation easements are voluntary agreements between landowners and conservation organizations
that limit the type or amount of environmentally harmful development on an individual’s land, but the
individual retains ownership of the property.
- In Texas, conservation easements are generally donated to nonprofit land trust organizations.
Over 1.3 million acres are conserved by Texas land trusts.
More recently, through funding from cities and the federal government, opportunities have been created
for landowners unable to donate conservation easements to sell their development rights.
Parks and Public Spaces
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) operates 93 state parks and natural areas, 50 wildlife
management areas, and 8 fish hatcheries, totaling 1.4 million acres.
Texas ranks last nationwide in the amount of land dedicated for state parks and in the amount of funding
for state parks.
Natural Regions of Texas
42
Due to population growth and urban sprawl, Dallas and Houston are each predicted to lose over 1,400
square miles of green space by 2025.
Endangered Species
Due primarily to habitat loss, extinction of animal species has increased dramatically in Texas with ten
species disappearing since 1959, some of which are now globally extinct.
Texas is home to 94 federally identified and 172 state indentified endangered or threatened species.
- Endangered species are at the brink of extinction now. Threatened species are likely to be at the brink
in the near future.
Endangered and Threatened Species in Texas
Type of Species State Federal
Endangered Threatened Endangered Threatened
Amphibians 3 10 3 1
Birds 10 20 9 2
Fish 9 21 9 2
Mammals 9 20 9 2
Reptiles 3 21 3 3
Invertebrates 2 15 21 0
Plants 23 6 24 6
Total 59 113 78 16
The Interagency Task Force on Economic Growth and Endangered Species, created by the 81st Texas
Legislature, developed a list of the ten highest priority threatened or endangered species in the state,
based on the threats the species face and their importance to economic development.
- The priority species identified include: Attwater’s prairie chicken, black‐capped vireo, Edwards Aquifer
species, freshwater mussels, golden‐cheeked warbler, Houston toad, lesser prairie‐chicken, ocelot, and
whooping crane.
TPWD estimates that 25% of native freshwater fish species are threatened, endangered, or already extinct.
In the Edwards Aquifer, the Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program (EARIP) has been created,
which incorporates a stakeholder process grounded in science to reach a consensus in the region as to how
to protect the endangered organisms inhabiting the aquifer while allowing economic growth to continue.
The loss of and threats to wildlife and plants are a direct result of human activities such as habitat
alteration, fragmentation, or destruction caused by urbanization, development, timber production,
building of reservoirs, and agriculture.
43
Texas General Land Office, 2009
Safe Harbor Agreements
Safe Harbor Agreements are voluntary agreements by private landowners that allow the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to engage in measures on privately owned land
that contributes to the recovery of threatened and endangered
species.
Conservation benefits from these agreements include:
- Reduced habitat fragmentation;
- Restoration or improvements in existing habitats;
- Increased habitat connectivity and protection for vulnerable habitats; and
- Opportunities to test and development new habitat management techniques.
Coastal Resources
Texas has 367 miles of Gulf‐fronting beaches, over 3,300 miles of bay shoreline, and the third longest
coastline in the nation.
- Two‐thirds of the state’s Gulf shoreline is dedicated to parks, wildlife refuges, and natural areas.
The state leads the nation in marine commerce and the beaches, bays, marshes, prairies, and other fish
and wildlife habitats of the coast provide numerous recreational activities.
Approximately 64% of the Texas Gulf coast is experiencing long‐term critical erosion, putting great strain
on the coastal habitats.
- It is necessary for the state to prioritize beach
and dune restoration, habitat restoration, and
shoreline protection programs, otherwise
erosion will continue to cause damage to
coastal habitats.
Coastal Wetlands
Among the most important habitats in Texas,
wetlands improve water quality and decrease
pollution by trapping water, sediments and
nutrients.
- Wetlands not only act as a natural
groundwater filter and a defense against floods,
Coastal erosion is the loss of coastal features
due to natural occurrences, construction, river
diversion, wakes from boats and barges,
groundwater and petroleum extraction.
More than 234.6 million acres are
currently enrolled in Safe Harbor
Agreements in Texas
44
Texas Water Development Board, 2007
they are also the most biologically rich of all
ecosystems.
Texas hosts 90% of the North American migratory
waterfowl population as it winters along the coast
or rests before continuing on to Mexico.
An estimated 210,000 acres of wetlands along the
Texas coast have been lost over the past 50 years
due to agriculture, industrial development, and
the biggest contributor, urban and suburban
sprawl.
Bays and Estuaries
The bay and estuary systems along the Texas Gulf
Coast have tremendous commercial, recreational,
and conservation value.
- The state’s seven major estuaries contribute
an estimated $2.5 billion per year to the state
economy.
Texas estuaries are characterized by a mixture of
fresh and salt waters that support a diverse array of marine
species.
The conditions of estuaries range from nearly 100% fresh water (e.g., Sabine Lake) to hyper‐saline (e.g.,
Baffin Bay in Laguna Madre Estuary).
The freshwater flow into estuaries from rivers is important to maintaining natural salinity and nutrients
that support unique biological communities and ensure healthy ecosystems.
Texas estuaries are among the state’s most endangered waters.
- The greatest threat to the health and productivity of the bay and estuary systems is diminished
freshwater inflows.
- More immediate challenges to these systems include habitat loss, poor water quality, and fisheries
management conflicts.
Gulf of Mexico Pollution
Because 41% of continental North America drains into the Gulf of Mexico via the Mississippi River system,
pollutants from America’s heartland affect creek, stream, and river flows into the Gulf of Mexico.
Materials thrown off of waste transport ships often entangle, maim, and kill aquatic creatures.
The Gulf coast states of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama make up four of the five top states for
the greatest surface water discharge of toxic chemicals in the U.S.
Toxic discharge and farm and urban runoff cause dead zones in the Gulf where fish, shrimp, and shellfish
cannot survive and must either move or die.
Estuaries of Texas
45
Overfishing
Without proper management, the Gulf can easily become overfished—removing fish faster than they can
replenish themselves.
Species currently in danger of being overfished in the Gulf include Red Snapper, Grouper, Greater
Amberjack, Gray Triggerfish, Sharks, Menhaden, and Sea Turtles.
Even species that are not the target of fishing, such as sea turtles
and seabirds, are affected by bycatch, the incidental catch of
non‐target animals during commercial fishing operations.
Grantmaking Opportunities in Land and Habitat Conservation
Based on the information presented in this section, possible grantmaking opportunities to improve land and
habitat conservation include supporting programs and initiatives that seek to:
Preserve and enhance environmental conservation efforts on private land through conservation
easements as a cost‐effective approach to protecting the environment;
Protect and restore endangered and threatened species and their habitats on private land through Safe
Harbor Agreements and other land management practices; and
Preserve and improve critical wetlands as a means of improving animal habitats and towards improving
the health of estuaries and coastal areas.
Bycatch has become a leading factor in
population declines of a wide range of
marine wildlife, especially turtles, in the
Gulf of Mexico.
46
Air Quality
Breathing polluted air can seriously harm the health and safety of all Texans; however, certain groups are
especially vulnerable to the effects of air pollutions, such as infants, older adults, and people with lung
diseases like asthma. Minorities and lower income groups are often disproportionately affected by air
pollution, putting them at greater risk for illness.
The 1990 Clean Air Act is the most recent version of the original Clean Air Act which was first passed in 1970 in
an effort to clean up air pollution. The Clean Air Act is a federal law covering the entire country. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for enforcing the law. Under the law, the EPA sets limits
on certain air pollutants, including pollutants emitted from sources like chemical plants, utilities, and steel
mills, to help ensure basic health and environmental protection from air pollution for all Americans.
Federal Air Quality Standards
The EPA has set limits, or National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), for six principle pollutants:
particulate matter, lead, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone.
- If the concentration of one or more pollutants in a geographic area exceeds the regulated level
outlined by the NAAQS, the area is classified as a nonattainment area.
- Currently, Dallas‐Fort Worth, Houston‐Galveston‐Brazoria, San Antonio, El Paso, and Frisco are the
only areas with nonattainment status; however, other areas are at risk, including Beaumont‐Port
Arthur, Victoria, Corpus Christi, Austin, and the Tyler‐Longview area.
The most widespread kinds of air pollution are ozone (smog) and particle matter.
Pollutant Texas Nonattainment Areas ( 8/30/11)
Ozone (8 hour or 1 hour) Dallas‐Ft. Worth & Houston‐Galveston‐Brazoria (8‐hour); San Antonio (1‐hour)
Carbon Monoxide None
Nitrogen Dioxide None
Sulfur Dioxide None
Particulate Matter El Paso
Lead Frisco Environmental Protection Agency, 2011
More stringent national ozone standards are expected to be announced in 2013 following a review of the
ozone levels adopted in 2008.
Particulate Matter
Particulate matter includes liquids, hydrocarbons, soot, dusts,
acid from aerosols, and smoke particles that are smaller than 10
microns in diameter.
A particle of 10 microns is about
1/5th the width of a human hair.
47
Environmental Protection Agency, 2011
Because they are so small, the particles are able to pass through the throat and nose and enter the lungs,
which can affect the heart and lungs, causing serious health affects, especially to children, the elderly, and
individuals with pre‐existing respiratory or heart problems.
Environmental effects include reduced visibility (haze), making water sources acidic, changing nutrient
balance in coastal waters, depleting soil nutrients, and damaging forests and farms.
Although particulate matter is emitted directly from construction
sites, unpaved roads, smokestacks, and fires, most particulate
matter is a result of chemical reactions from power plants,
industries, and cars.
Lead
Lead can contaminate air, food, water, or soil in addition to being present in paint, toys, and other
commercial products.
- Children are most at risk for absorbing lead into their system which can cause learning and behavior
disorders.
After years of research, scientists realized lead posed a greater health risk than once thought, and so in
2008 the NAAQS acceptable lead levels decreased by a factor of ten (from 1.5 to 0.15 µg/m3).
The top sources of lead in the Texas environment come from gasoline emissions from planes, trains, ships,
and other non‐road equipment, industrial processes, waste disposal, solvent use (including dry cleaning),
and fossil fuel combustion.
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas resulting from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels,
most often in vehicles and power plants.
CO reduces the blood’s
ability to deliver
oxygen to vital tissues
and organs as well as
contributing to and
exacerbating
cardiovascular and
nervous system
ailments.
Carbon monoxide
contributes to the
formation of ground‐
level ozone (smog),
which can trigger
respiratory problems.
El Paso has the highest level of
particulate matter in Texas.
365,611
221,224
69,808
3.9M
554
0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000
Fuel Combustion
Industrial Processes
Miscellaneous
Mobile
Solvent
Tons
Carbon Monoxide Emissions by Source Sector, Texas 2008
48
Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrogen Dioxide, and Ozone
Sulfur dioxide emissions are from fossil fuel combustion at power plants and other industrial facilities.
Car and utility emissions produce nitrogen dioxide.
Sulfur and nitrogen dioxide are the building blocks for acid rain.
Ozone is formed when pollutants emitted by cars, power plants, industrial boilers, refineries, chemical
plants, and other sources chemically react in the presence of
sunlight and is the main component in smog.
Each of these air pollutants can cause lung damage and other
respiratory illnesses especially in children, the elderly, and
individuals with pre‐existing respiratory conditions.
Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse gases, which include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases, trap heat
in the atmosphere.
- Carbon dioxide (CO2) is produced through the burning of
fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees and
wood products, and through certain chemical reactions
caused from things such as manufacturing cement.
- Methane is emitted through the transport and production
of coal, oil, and natural gas, as well as from livestock, agricultural practice, and decaying organic waste
in landfills.
- In addition to agricultural and industrial activities, nitrous oxide is produced during fossil fuel and solid
waste combustion.
- Fluorinated gases are synthetic gases emitted from several industrial processes.
The Environmental Protection Agency is finalizing new emission standards for 2012 for fossil fuel power
plants and petroleum refineries, which emit approximately 40% of U.S. greenhouse gases. These
standards are currently being challenged by the affected industries and the State of Texas.
Grantmaking Opportunities in Air Quality
Based on the information presented in this section, possible grantmaking opportunities to increase air quality
include supporting programs and initiatives that seek to:
Provide cities with affordable strategies and technical assistance to meet federal air quality standards.
Houston has the 8th highest level of
ground‐level ozone in the nation.
Over 85% of human‐generated
greenhouse gas emissions come from
energy‐related activities, especially
from the burning of fossil fuels.
49
Electric Reliability Council of Texas, 2011
Energy Efficiency
Due to its large population, hot climate, and energy‐intensive economy, Texas leads the nation in energy
consumption, accounting for more than one‐tenth of total U.S. energy use.
Texas has had no sense of urgency to reduce energy use among its residents due to the abundance and
relatively low cost of energy supplies.
- In 2010, coal and natural gas generated 77.7% of the state’s electricity.
Because fossil fuels—oil, natural gas, and coal—are non‐renewable and can create a negative
environmental impact, energy efficiency and conservation efforts that include alternative energy sources
are important to creating sustainability.
The American Council on an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) ranks Texas 23rd in the nation for programs
to promote energy efficiency.
Traditional Energy Sources
Coal
Primarily used for electricity production, coal generated 39.5% of the state’s electricity in 2010.
Thirty‐ to 35‐year‐old coal‐fired plants were “grandfathered” under the Clean Air Act so plant owners were
not required to seek permits under the new law nor future permits for minor modifications.
- Texas Senate Bill 7, enacted in 1999, required grandfathered plants to reduce their nitrogen dioxide
(NOx) emissions by 50% and their sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions by 25% by May 2003.
- Many of these grandfathered coal plants are reaching the end of their useful lives and have more
emissions than newer plants.
38.2%
39.5%
13.1%
7.8%
0.3%
1.1%
Natural Gas
Coal
Nuclear
Wind
Water
Other
Electricity Generation by Fuel Type
50
Texas Electric Utility, Commercial, and Industrial Air Emissions, 2006
Emissions Carbon Dioxide
(Metric Tons)
Sulphur Dioxide
(Metric Tons)
Nitrous Oxide
(Metric Tons)
Total U.S. Emissions 2,459,800,018 9,523,561 3,799,447
Total Texas Emissions 257,552,164 558,350 260,057
Texas Emissions as a Percent of U.S. 10.5% 5.9% 6.8%
Emissions from Coal in Texas 150,589,481 523,073 119,910
Percent of State Emissions from Coal 58.5% 93.7% 46.1%
Percent of U.S. emissions from Coal in Texas 6.1% 5.5% 3.2%
Petroleum/Crude Oil
Primarily used for transportation and heating, Texas is the leading crude oil producing state in the nation.
The state’s 27 petroleum refineries can process more than 4.7 million barrels of crude oil per day, and they
account for more than one‐fourth of total U.S. refining capacity.
Natural Gas
Natural gas is used primarily for electricity production and industrial applications.
Texas is the nation’s leading natural gas producer with
approximately three‐tenths of total U.S. natural gas production
occurring in Texas.
In 2010, natural gas generated 38.2% of the state’s electricity.
Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG)
LPG refers to a group of gases derived from crude oil or natural gas.
Mostly propane, butane, or a mix of the two, LPG is used for electricity,
fuel, heating, and cooking.
Texas is the nation’s largest producer and consumer of LPG.
Although LPG is a cleaner alternative to many fuels, propane has a lower energy output than gasoline,
making it unappealing as an alternative fuel source.
Nuclear Energy
Nuclear energy is the nation’s largest source of clean‐air, carbon‐free electricity.
Texas’ two nuclear power facilities generated 13.1% of the state’s electricity in 2010.
Critics of nuclear power cite the potential environmental impact of accidents at nuclear reactors, the large
amount of water consumed, and disposal practices of high‐level radioactive waste.
Burning natural gas for electricity
releases 40% less carbon dioxide than
coal.
In rural areas, LPG is an
alternative to natural gas.
51
American Council on Renewable Energy, 2011
Renewable Energy
Since 1999, Texas has promoted renewable energy use through Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS),
which determines the number of megawatts that electricity providers must generate from renewable
energy sources, such as wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, tidal energy, and biomass.
In 2005, the Legislature increased the state’s RPS megawatt goal to 5,880 megawatts by 2015 (500 of
which must come from non‐wind sources) and 10,000 megawatts by 2025.
- Texas surpassed its goal of 10,000 megawatts 15 years ahead of schedule, with over 97% of renewable
energy generation coming from wind power.
Cumulative Renewable Energy Capacity in Texas December 2010
Source Electricity Generated
Wind 10,085 MW
Solar 25.4 MW
Water 6 MW
Biomass 82 MW
Bioethanol Less than 1 MW
Biodiesel Less than 1 MW
Total 10,200 MW
Wind
Texas is the number one producer of wind energy in the US, generating nearly 8% of the state’s electricity
in 2010 (more than three times the national average).
Wind power does not produce waste products that require disposal or gas emissions that contribute to air
pollution and it also does not consume or pollute water.
The state’s strongest winds are in the Panhandle and along the West Texas mesas, but other promising
areas for wind development are South Texas and along the
coast and off shore.
Austin Energy offered the first “green pricing” program in
the state which provides customers the choice of supporting
renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, often by
agreeing to pay a slightly higher rate that was fixed for up to
10 years.
- January 2006 marks the first time the green power fixed rate was lower than the fuel charge paid by
other Austin customers not participating in the green pricing program.
Challenges to wind‐generated energy:
- Cannot be primary source of power because it is too intermittent;
- Opposition from landowners due to appearance, noise, and potential wildlife hazards;
Texas and the Plains states are among
the nation’s lowest‐cost wind regions
due to higher performance and lower
development and installation costs.
52
- Transmission of the energy is costly since wind generation sites are often far from urban centers; and
- Excess electricity generated from wind power cannot be stored with current technology.
Solar
Solar energy can be used to provide heat, light, or generate electricity.
Solar energy accounts for less than 1% of all U.S. electricity, mainly due to the high costs of equipment and
installation.
The use of distributed solar power ‐ power produced close to
the point of use ‐ requires little to no additional use of land
in most cases since the equipment is largely installed on
rooftops.
Challenges to solar‐generated energy:
- Although they do not damage the land, utility‐scale solar power plants take land out of use for other
applications; and
- Wildlife habitats can be displaced by solar plants.
Water
Generating 73% of the nation’s renewable energy, hydropower is the most common source of renewable
electricity in the U.S.
Most American hydroelectric power is generated through the
force of falling water, by damming a stream or river to raise
its water level and then allowing the water to fall against a
turbine connected to a generator.
Hydropower requires no transportation or fuel combustion.
Challenges to hydropower:
- Hydropower is limited by droughts and other factors;
- Most of the terrain in Texas does not lend itself to large‐scale hydroelectric projects; and
- More than 12% of the state’s hydropower capacity belongs to the Sabine River Authority, which lies in
the Southeastern Electric Reliability Council Region rather than that of the state’s main power grid, the
Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT).
Ocean/Wave Power
Tides and waves and the heat stored in the ocean can be used to capture energy.
In Texas, however, the Gulf of Mexico is too shallow and enclosed for the state to benefit from ocean
power technologies.
Because only 23 dams in the state have
a generating plant, hydropower
generates less than 1% of Texas
electricity.
Texas is one of seven states identified
as having the nation’s most plentiful
solar resources.
53
Biomass
Biomass includes any plant or animal matter used to produce energy, most commonly wood, but also food
crops, grasses, agricultural residues, manure, and methane from landfills.
Although Texas has many resources for biomass energy such as cotton, corn, and soybeans, biomass
energy accounts for less than 1% of electrical production in Texas.
- In contrast, the nation’s largest source of renewable energy is generated from biomass, accounting for
48% of total U.S. energy use in 2006.
In Texas, 72% of total biomass energy consumption was by industry, 3% by the transportation sector, and
18% by the residential sector.
The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station expects the use of biofuels to grow more rapidly than any other
forms of biomass energy.
Ethanol
Made from feedstock crops such as corn, barley, and sugarcane, ethanol is a renewable fuel used to power
vehicles and other internal combustion engines.
Texas has two operational ethanol plants and E85 fuel (85% ethanol) is only available at 26 gas stations in
Texas.
Challenges to ethanol‐generated energy:
- The increased use of ethanol has resulted in higher corn prices;
- Ethanol cannot travel in pipelines because it is water‐soluble, so it must be transported by truck, train,
or barge resulting in higher transportation costs and subsequent negative environmental impacts;
- Ethanol is less efficient than gasoline and is only cheaper because of federal tax credit; and
- Ethanol corrodes rubber, steel, and aluminum, and most vehicles are not designed with that in mind.
Biodiesel
Biodiesel is made from animal or vegetable materials (soybeans, animal fats, recycled greases) and
produces less energy than traditional gasoline.
Texas is the largest producer of biodiesel in the nation, with 22 plants capable of making 200 million
gallons of fuel each year.
An additional 12 biodiesel plants are under construction or are being expanded as well as 51 retail
biodiesel sites.
Challenges to using biodiesel:
- Biodiesel’s major disadvantage is its high cost, primarily due to the cost of feedstock;
- Controversy over amount of nitrogen oxide emissions as compared to petrodiesel; and
- Biodiesel can plug filters, solidifies in low temperatures, and will absorb and attract water.
Texas ranks 22nd in
ethanol consumption.
54
Wood
An excellent source of energy, wood can be burned directly and turned into a synthetic gas, or turned into
a liquid to create electricity.
Burning wood can reduce the amount going into landfills.
Wood‐fired power plants, however, are not completely clean,
although they release air pollutants at rates significantly lower
than those from plants using coal.
Feedlot Biomass
Feedlots produce large amounts of animal manure that emits odor, methane, nitrous oxide, carbon
dioxide, antibiotics, ammonia, and can contaminate water sources.
Manure can be used to create gas or electricity and can be combined with other ingredients for renewable
fuel, mitigating the environmental issues relating to feedlot and dairy farms.
Challenges to using feedlot biomass:
- Not popular yet in Texas or U.S.;
- Transporting manure long distances to be used as fuel is impractical because it uses more energy in
transport than it creates; and
- Long‐term storage of manure results in loss of methane, carbon dioxide, and ammonia which results in
more greenhouse gas emissions and lowers fuel value.
Landfill Gases
The natural decomposition of materials deposited in landfills creates more man‐made methane than any
other source in the U.S.
Methane has half the energy of natural gas, but using landfill methane to generate electricity, fire boilers,
or substitute for other energy sources can turn a potential
liability into a benefit.
Challenges to using landfill gases:
- Long‐term economic and environmental impacts are
difficult to calculate since landfill pollutes land in other ways;
- Methane forms as organic materials decompose—if not properly vented or collected, it can potentially
cause fires or explosions; and
- Little research and development has taken place regarding landfill gases.
Municipal Waste Combustion
The heat produced from landfill burnings can be used directly for heating, to produce steam, or generate
electricity.
Texas, however, has enough landfill space that burning is not necessary.
Texas has 24 landfill gas energy
projects and at least 57 sites suitable
for such projects.
Because wood‐fired power plants need
to be located within about 50 miles of
the wood source to be economical, the
first plant in Texas is being developed
near Nacogdoches in East Texas.
55
Architecture 2030
Debate as to whether this is a true renewable energy source continues due to the amount of air pollutants
it produces.
Geothermal
The use of high temperatures produced beneath the earth to generate electricity or to heat and cool
buildings.
Although not currently used in Texas, experts believe geothermal electric capacity could be developed in
Texas in the near future, particularly if existing depleted oil and gas wells can be converted to access
geothermal resources.
Hydrogen
Hydrogen is a flammable, highly diffuse gas that can be used
as a stand‐alone fuel but more often is an energy carrier.
Texas is a major producer and user of hydrogen, but mostly
for fertilizer manufacture and in petrochemical processes; its
use for power purposes is limited to research and demonstration projects.
There are no major controversial public issues related to hydrogen in Texas today.
Green Building
The green building industry strives to reduce the energy use,
water consumption, and environmental impact of our
structures through new construction or retrofitting.
Nearly half (49%) of all energy produced is consumed by the
Building Sector.
- Fossil fuels, which result in the production of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases, supply 76% of the
energy consumption.
After combining with oxygen to
produce power, the only emission is
water.
Buildings account for 38% of U.S. CO2
emissions and 72% of U.S. electricity
consumption.
Buildings49%
Transportation28.2%
Industry22.7%
U.S. Energy Consumption by Sector, 2009
Buildings Transportation Industry
56
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, or LEED, was developed in March 2000 by the U.S. Green
Building Council. LEED is an internationally recognized green building certification system.
The LEED rating system promotes a whole‐building approach to sustainability by recognizing performance
in key areas, including water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, and materials and resources.
LEED certification is appealing to building owners for many reasons: good public relations, environmental
stewardship, aesthetics, sustainability, health and productivity of building occupants, or to comply with
regulations.
LEED certified buildings are, on average, 25 ‐ 30% more energy efficient than non‐LEED certified buildings;
buildings certified at the Platinum or Gold LEED level save, on average, 45% more energy.
2030 Challenge
The 2030 Challenge is a global challenge to reduce fossil fuel emissions in all new building and major
renovations by increasing fossil fuel reduction standards to:
- 70% by 2015;
- 80% by 2020;
- 90% by 2025; and
- Carbon neutral by 2030 (using no fossil fuel greenhouse
gas emitting energy to operate).
The building and architecture community can achieve these
goals by implementing green building strategies, generating on‐site renewable power, and/or purchasing
renewable energy (20% maximum).
In Texas, many individuals, organizations, and governments have committed to the 2030 Challenge:
- 39 individuals (18 from the Dallas area);
- 61 firms and organizations based in Texas (33% in Dallas/Richardson);
- The City of Dallas; and
- The City of Austin, which plans for its municipal buildings and fleets to be carbon neutral by 2020.
Green Building Municipal Programs in Texas
Austin
- In 2000, it was the first city in the U.S. to pass a resolution requiring municipal buildings to be LEED
certified.
- Austin is a state and national leader in green building, consistently ranking among the top 10 green
production cities in the U.S.
Dallas
- As of summer 2010, the city completed approximately two dozen green facilities since its Green
Building Project was adopted in 2003 and has another 26 in various stages of design and construction.
The federal government and six state
governments (California, Illinois,
Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, and
Washington) are committed to the
2030 Challenge.
57
- In October 2009, new green building codes for residential and commercial construction went into
effect and will be fully implemented this year.
Houston
- The City already ranks high in energy efficient buildings, placing third on the EPA’s list of the top 25
cities with Energy Star‐qualified buildings.
- In October 2009, a residential energy efficient building code went into effect, requiring a 15% increase
in energy efficiency over previous building code requirements.
Green Jobs
Green jobs can be found in renewable energy or efficient
energy sectors, but also within traditional employment
sectors.
Texas designated $90 million from the 2009 American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (or Stimulus Act) for the Skills Development Fund, which can be used for
green job skills training.
Surveys have shown that employers in the green economy look for educational preparation in math,
science, and technology, in addition to good problem solving skills and hands‐on training.
Austin
- In 2007, the Austin Chamber of Commerce released its
five‐year economic development plan, Opportunity
Austin 2.0, for the Austin area that specifically noted
the priority of attracting green businesses to the area,
such as manufacturers of solar panels, fuel cells, wind
turbines, and electric cars.
- In 2009, the Chamber began to coordinate with local
communities to improve green job education and
training.
San Antonio
- In 2009, San Antonio’s mayor announced Mission Verde, a plan to create a 21st century economy with
an emphasis on green jobs, centered on energy efficiency and renewable energy investments.
The Pew Charitable Trusts estimates green job growth outpaced overall job growth by two and a half
times, increasing 9.1% between 1998 and 2007.
Grantmaking Opportunities in Energy Efficiency
Based on the information presented in this section, possible grantmaking opportunities to increase energy
efficiency efforts include supporting programs and initiatives that seek to:
Conserve energy usage by promoting energy efficient standards and construction practices;
Promote the use of smart grid technology to achieve energy efficiencies;
Over the next ten years, Austin‐area
employers in the renewable energy and
energy efficient industry cluster are
projected to add almost 30,000 new
green jobs representing one‐eighth of
total job growth for that period.
In Texas, 48 out of 50 community
college districts offer specialty
programs for green jobs.
58
Develop new sustainable energy technologies including ways to store and transmit renewable energy so it
is more efficient and accessible to Texas businesses and residents; and
Encourage the state to increase its renewable energy target.
59
Texas State Data Center, 2011
Environmental Awareness
Developing an environmentally conscious citizenry requires engaging Texas residents in the natural
environment. People must know the natural environment before they can start to respect and protect it.
Underexposed Public
According to the Science Advisory Board, one of the single most important drivers of future environmental
change is the environmental awareness and attitudes of people in the U.S. and abroad.
Texas residents are losing touch with the natural environment and all it has to offer.
- With the rise of electronic media, children spend 50% less time outdoors now than they did two
decades ago. In contrast, time spent in front of electronic media has increased to more than six hours
each day.
- Surveys show that the Hispanic population is less knowledgeable about the Texas park system and
participate in park programs and services at lower levels than Anglos. The Hispanic population is also
the fastest growing population in Texas, expecting to account for over 50% of the Texas population by
2030.
- Minority and inner‐city populations are also less exposed to the outdoors and environmental activities
and, therefore, rate the importance of the environment at a lower level than suburban and Anglo
populations.
53%
45%
38%
31%
25%
32%
39%
45%
51%
56%
12% 12% 11% 11% 10%
3% 5% 6%8% 9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
Percent of Texas Population by Race/Ethnicity
Anglo Hispanic Black Other
60
Studies have found that outdoor recreation leads to caring for natural resources and is critical to the future
of conservation efforts.
- A 2006 report found that people who participated in “wild” nature activities such as hiking, camping,
or playing in the woods as children were more likely to
have pro‐environmental attitudes and behaviors as
adults.
Most of the larger wildlife areas and state parks are located
far from Texas’ urban population, which means people must
make an effort to go out and experience the education programs and other offerings managed parklands
bring.
- 75% of the Texas population lives within 60 miles of the I‐35/I‐45/I‐10 corridor and the Lower Rio
Grande Valley, whereas only 27% of the available acres of TPWD sites are located within these areas.
Stewardship among Private Landowners
In a state that is 95% privately owned much of the land and wildlife resources of Texas are entrusted to the
stewardship of private landowners.
A number of resources are available to landowners interested in implementing natural resource
conservation practices on their land:
- Texas Agricultural Extension Service—Through Texas A&M University, regional centers provide
workshops and information on healthy living, economic stability, and improving stewardship of the
environment and state’s natural resources.
- Texas Forest Service—Provides landowners with resources on best management practices, forest
management, fire prevention, herbicides, pest and disease management, site preparation, tree
planting, and wildlife recreation and aesthetics.
- Texas Parks and Wildlife—Offers the Landowner Incentive Program (LIP) which focuses on efforts
aiming to create, restore, protect, and enhance the habitat of rare or at‐risk species, as well as efforts
positively impacting the state’s riparian areas and watersheds.
Wildlife Management Associations are groups formed by landowners that focus on improving wildlife
habitats and populations on private land. Over 250 of these groups currently operate in Texas.
Nature Tourism
According to the Texas State Comptroller, nature‐based tourism is one of the largest industries in Texas.
The state is internationally known as a destination for nature tourists, including hunters, birdwatchers,
anglers, campers, and hikers.
State parks play a major role in attracting in‐state and out‐of‐
state visitors to Texas. A 2006 report noted that Texas state
parks:
- Attract over 10 million visitors annually;
- Generate $793 million in sales impact;
Adults with higher incomes and
education, regardless of race, are more
likely to place a higher value on
outdoor experiences for children.
Texas is one of the top bird‐watching
states/provinces in North America.
61
- Contribute $456 million in Texans’ personal income; and
- Sustain approximately 12,000 jobs.
Environmental Education Programs
A 2009 study from the Environmental Education and Training Partnership identified the top five priorities
for environmental education in the next five years:
- Community environmental education—involving everyone in environmental education (preschool
through retirees);
- Collaboration between environmental education leaders to share best practices;
- To better understand how people interact and connect with nature;
- Environmental sustainability within communities, culture, and human health; and
- Basic environmental education training for natural resource professionals, scientists, conservation,
youth activity leaders, and classroom teachers.
Challenges to environmental education in Texas:
- The state’s large geographic area makes duplication of efforts more likely, despite a wide variety of
materials and training programs available;
- Varied venues for environmental education—formal classroom and informal educators; and
- Polarization of opinion on what is appropriate in terms of environmental education for Texas students.
Grantmaking Opportunities in Environmental Awareness
Based on the information presented in this section, possible grantmaking opportunities to promote
environmental awareness include supporting programs and initiatives that seek to:
Educate future generations, especially inner‐city and minority youth, about critical issues facing the
environment in Texas;
Expand public parks and green spaces and make them more accessible to Texas residents as a means of
connecting people to nature;
Expand programs and projects designed to promote and increase eco‐tourism; and
Promote policy research and advocacy programs about critical environmental issues facing Texas.
62
63
What Have We Learned and Where We Are Going
With our work in the environment for the past 10 years, we have gained experience and insight in the
following:
Water
Land and Habitat Conservation
Stewardship
Public Education and Advocacy
Air Quality
Green Building and Energy Efficiency
The environment is a vast, interconnected system critical to the
lives of humans, wildlife, and habitats. The destruction of one
component of the environment is never isolated and is
inextricably linked to other areas of the environment. Altering a
habitat can not only negatively impact the plants and wildlife
dependent on that habitat but can disrupt watershed function,
impact river flow levels, and lead to water shortages and
damage ecosystems far from the initial destruction. Therefore to create significant positive environmental
change, we need to look at the larger environmental system as a whole rather than its individual parts.
As a state, we must take responsibility for the condition of our natural resources and seriously commit to
reversing the environmental decline of past decades. With 15 major river basins and 11 distinct ecosystems
contained within our borders, we have a unique opportunity in Texas to achieve a wide‐range of
environmental advancements throughout our state. These environmental advancements will not only benefit
Texas’ wildlife and environmental resources, but also provide economic benefits to the state. With tourism as
the third largest industry in the state, improved parks, environmental resources, and increased wildlife will
serve as an increased source of revenue for Texas communities. Likewise, conservation and sustainable energy
improvements create long‐term economic benefits by reducing utility and maintenance costs and creating
new, green jobs while still reducing waste, depletion, and detrimental pollutions that negatively affect the
environment. By supporting programs and initiatives to promote and improve water quality and
management, land and habitat conservation, sustainable energy, and environmental awareness, the
Foundation can help Texas preserve and sustain its environmental resources for generations to come.
64
It is recommended that the Foundation adopt the following overarching goal:
To protect and enhance Texas’ wildlife and natural resources
To achieve this goal, we recommend the adoption of the following objectives and strategies:
Water ‐ Preserve a sustainable supply of clean water to support the needs of Texas’ residents, wildlife, and
natural habitats.
Objective 1: Ensure adequate and sustainable surface water quality and levels for all river basins in
Texas.
a. Strategy 1: Continue to support the River Systems Institute as a premier resource and driver of
change to create and promote comprehensive surface water and groundwater management
and conservation strategies in Texas through research, advocacy, and policy development.
i. Measure the number and impact of programs supported.
b. Strategy 2: Continue to support efforts within the state’s water planning process to establish
and enforce environmental flow standards for the 15 major river basins in Texas by 2014.
i. Track when the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) adopts each
environmental flow standard.
c. Strategy 3: Support stronger state policies related to water quality standards set by TCEQ.
i. Track when TCEQ adopts stricter water quality standards for surface water.
d. Strategy 4: Increase the number of acre‐feet of water held by water trusts and state funding
for the Texas Water Trust, for environmental and conservation purposes.
i. Measure the number of acre‐feet of water acquired.
ii. Measure the amount of state funding secured by the Texas Water Trust.
Objective 2: Encourage sustainable groundwater levels and responsible groundwater use by
promoting a more equitable system for groundwater management.
a. Strategy 1: Enable Groundwater Conservation Districts (GCDs) to effectively enforce
groundwater usage by creating new districts and strengthening all GCD’s technical and
management capacity, especially in the seven TCEQ‐designated Priority Groundwater
Management Areas.
i. Measure the number of GCDs assisted.
Water
Sustainable Energy
Environmental Awareness
Land and Habitat
65
ii. Measure the number of new districts created that fall within Priority Groundwater
Management Areas.
iii. Measure the number of training programs supporting GCD personnel.
b. Strategy 2: Support the River Systems Institute and other efforts to bridge the disconnect
between surface water and groundwater management to create a comprehensive water
management plan for Texas.
i. Measure the number of research projects supported.
ii. Measure the progress toward a comprehensive water management plan.
Objective 3: Support programs and initiatives to reduce urban per capita water use in Texas to less
than 140 gallons per day by 2021.
a. Strategy 1: Support projects that promote the use of water conserving fixtures in cities
throughout Texas.
i. Measure the number of programs supported.
ii. Measure the number of gallons of water saved.
b. Strategy 2: Support projects that promote the use of gray or recycled water for non‐potable
use.
i. Measure the number of programs supported.
ii. Measure the number of gray or recycled gallons of water used.
c. Strategy 3: Support programs and policy efforts to establish fair rate structure pricing for
water utilities1.
i. Measure the number of utilities using fair rate structures.
Objective 4: Increase water conservation in agricultural irrigation practices.
a. Support programs and projects that reduce agricultural water use.
i. Measure the number of programs and projects supported.
ii. Measure the number of crop land acres implementing conservation practices.
iii. Measure the reduction in water consumption.
Objective 5: Increase the number of private landowners engaging in land conservation practices to
maintain water quality and conserve water on their land.
a. Support programs and projects that provide training to landowners about the relationship
between land management practices and water supply.
i. Measure the number of landowners trained.
ii. Measure the number of acres being managed to improve water supply.
Land and Habitat Conservation ‐ Protect Texas’ abundant, diverse wildlife through support of projects and
initiatives to preserve critically important habitats.
Objective 1: Slow the negative impact of land fragmentation by promoting the use of native plants to
enhance wildlife and watershed function.
a. Strategy 1: Assist land trusts and other organizations to acquire over 2 million additional acres
through purchases and conservation easements.
i. Measure the number of acres of land purchased or acquired through easements.
1 Utility fair rate structures encourage customers to use water efficiently by charging lower rates to customers who use less water and significantly higher rates to those who are the heaviest water users.
66
Objective 2: Protect threatened and endangered species in Texas by encouraging conservation and
protection agreements with private landowners (e.g. Safe Harbor agreements) and other strategies.
a. Strategy 1: Support conservation programs that focus on protecting threatened and
endangered species, with priority given to the 10 highest priority endangered species in
Texas2.
i. Measure the number of threatened and endangered species supported.
b. Strategy 2: Continue to support programs that focus on protecting the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle
and the Aplomado falcon.
i. Measure the number of nests supported.
ii. Measure the number of acres protected with new conservation agreements.
Objective 3: Support restoration of 20,000 additional acres of critical migratory bird species habitat.
a. Strategy 1: Support projects that give priority to wetland critical for migratory birds and the
health of bays and estuaries.
i. Measure the number of wetland acres restored.
ii. Measure the growth in bird populations.
b. Strategy 2: Support projects to protect and restore migratory bird habitats primarily in areas
that rely heavily on birding ecotourism revenues, including wetland and threatened grassland
areas.
i. Measure the number of projects supported.
ii. Measure the number of acres restored.
Sustainable Energy ‐ Develop energy resources that are economically, biologically, and ecologically sound to
meet the growing needs of present and future Texas businesses and residents.
Objective 1: Decrease energy usage through the employment of energy efficient construction
techniques and energy efficient standards throughout municipalities and nonprofit organizations in
Texas (including organizations funded by The Meadows Foundation).
a. Strategy 1: Encourage the State of Texas and municipalities to commit to the 2030 challenge3
to make all new buildings 100 percent carbon neutral by 2030.
i. Measure the number of new cities committed to the 2030 challenge.
ii. Measure the change in building codes and energy consumption performance
standards for the State of Texas and its cities.
b. Strategy 2: Support research and development of new energy efficient and green building
technologies and pilot these programs throughout the state, including smart grid technology.
i. Measure the number of research projects supported.
ii. Measure the number of new technologies piloted and adopted.
c. Strategy 3: By 2021, MFI will adopt a policy that in order to receive MFI capital grants
buildings must be LEED certifiable or certifiable by an equivalent green‐building standard.
2 The Texas Interagency Task Force on Economic Growth and Endangered Species, with input from FWS and TPWD, developed the following list of priority species based on the threats they face and their importance to economic development: Attwater’s prairie‐chicken, Black‐capped vireo, Edwards aquifer species, Freshwater mussels, Golden‐cheeked warbler, Houston toad, Lesser prairie‐chicken, Ocelot, and Whooping crane. 3 The 2030 Challenge challenges the architecture and building community to reduce fossil fuel emissions so that all new buildings and major renovations standards will call for carbon neutrality by 2030.
67
i. Measure the number of capital grants awarded that are LEED certifiable or certifiable
by an equivalent green‐building standard.
Objective 2: Ensure all Texas cities meet federal air quality standards for pollutants considered
harmful to public health and the environment4.
a. Strategy 1: Encourage local and state authorities to adopt measures to reduce emissions
through programs such as those designed to reduce vehicle use, improve traffic flow and
vehicle standards, and reduce congested conditions.
i. Measure the number of emission reduction programs supported.
ii. Measure the change in emission levels.
Objective 3: Double the state’s renewable energy production to 20,000 megawatts.
a. Strategy 1: Support policy efforts to increase the amount of renewable energy used by utility
companies through the expansion of the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standards5 and other
incentive programs.
i. Measure the change in the level of renewable energy required in Renewable Portfolio
Standards.
b. Strategy 2: Support research and development to improve transmission and storage of energy
generated from renewable sources.
i. Measure the number of research and development programs supported.
Environmental Awareness ‐ Support efforts to develop a culture of public and political support for
protecting the state’s environmental resources.
Objective 1: Develop and promote policy responses to critical environmental issues facing Texas by
supporting policy research at the state and local levels.
a. Strategy 1: Support research and advocacy programs regarding Texas’ water, land, and
sustainable energy issues.
i. Measure the number of research and advocacy programs supported.
ii. Measure the number of policy recommendations adopted.
Objective 2: Educate Texas youth about critical environmental issues.
a. Strategy 1: Support programs that engage youth, especially minority and inner‐city youth,
constructively in protecting Texas’ water, land, and air.
i. Measure the number of programs supported.
ii. Measure the number of youth served.
iii. Measure the number of minority and inner‐city youth served.
Objective 3: Support expansion of public parks and natural areas for public recreation and enjoyment.
a. Strategy 1: Acquire 5,000 additional acres of land for public parks readily accessible to
residents in each of the five major Texas metropolitan areas.
i. Measure the number of acres of land acquired.
b. Strategy 2: Acquire 500,000 acres of natural areas with limited public access.
i. Measure the number of acres of land acquired.
4 The EPA has set National Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six principle pollutants: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, ozone, and sulfur dioxide. 5 Renewable Portfolio Standards determine the number of megawatts that electricity providers must generate from renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, tidal energy, and biomass.
68
Guiding Principles
We propose to follow the guiding principles below.
Build on our knowledge and experience.
Recognize there is an interconnection among the components of the environment.
Look for the appropriate balance between competing environmental needs.
Examine the economic costs and benefits of projects when selecting what to support.
Look for opportunities to leverage our dollars for maximum impact.
Whenever possible, efforts will be made to identify grant opportunities where goals from one or more MFI
initiatives can be achieved simultaneously.
Provide a leadership role in the area of foundation support for the environment.
Look for opportunities to address the underlying causes of problems.
Identify partners with similar goals to participate in joint projects.
69
References
Water Quality and Management
Environmental Defense. (September, 2002). “Efficient Water Use for Texas,” p. 5.
Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). “Percentage of Surface Drinking Water from Intermittent,
Ephemeral, and Headwater Streams in Texas.” Retrieved from
http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/science/surface_drinking_water/pdfs/surface_drinking_water_tx.pdf
Environmental Working Group (December 2009). “EWG’s Top‐Rated and Lowest‐Rated Water Utilities.”
Retrieved from http://www.ewg.org/files/EWG_rated‐utilities.pdf
Environment Texas Research and Policy Center. (Fall 2009). Wasting Our Waterways: Toxic Industrial Pollution
and the Unfulfilled Promise of the Clean Water Act. Retrieved from
https://pincdn.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/a8a153dd28f800866d9e03f6f6905461/Wasting‐Our‐Waterways.pdf
Galbraith, Kate. (June 7, 2010). “Environmentalists vs. Ranchers on the Clean Water Act.” The Texas Tribune.
Retrieved July 14, 2011, from http://www.texastribune.org/texas‐environmental‐news/water‐
supply/environmentalists‐vs‐ranchers‐on‐the‐clean‐water‐a/
Guadalupe‐Blanco River Trust. (2010). “Completed Projects.” Retrieved July 28, 2011, from
http://www.gbrtrust.org/completedprojects.aspx
Hall, David and Emanuele Lobina. (March 2009). “The private sector in water in 2009.” Retrieved from
http://gala.gre.ac.uk/1706/1/2009‐03‐W‐companies.pdf
National Wildlife Federation. (July 2010). “Sprayed Away: Seven Ways to Reduce Texas’ Outdoor Water Use.”
Retrieved from http://www.nwf.org/News‐and‐Magazines/Media‐
Center/Reports/Archive/2010/~/media/PDFs/Regional/South‐Central/07‐07‐10%20Sprayed%20Away%20‐
%20Seven%20Ways%20to%20Reduce%20Outdoor%20Water%20use%20in%20Texas.ashx
National Wildlife Federation and the Sierra Club. (March 2010). “Drop by Drop: Seven Ways Texas Cities Can
Conserve Water.” Retrieved August 4, 2011, from http://texaswatermatters.org/pdfs/DropByDrop.pdf
Sansom, Andrew. (2008) “Water in Texas: An Introduction,” Austin: University of Texas Press, p 227‐238.
Schafersman, Steven. (May 2011). “Groundwater and the Rule of Capture.” Retrieved July 28, 2011, from
http://texscience.org/water/rule_of_capture.htm
State Energy Conservation Office (2011). “Colonias Project.” Retrieved July 14, 2011, from
http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/colonias.htm
Texas Almanac. (2010). “Rainfall.” Retrieved from http://www.texasalmanac.com/topics/environment/rainfall
Texas A&M University. (2011). “Texas Water FAQs.” Retrieved from http://texaswater.tamu.edu/faqs
Texas Comptroller Public Accounts, Susan Combs. “Infrastructure: Water,” Texas in Focus: A Statewide View of
Opportunities. http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/tif/water.html
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. (December 2010). “Environmental Flows Advisory Group.”
Retrieved July 27, 2011, from
http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/permitting/water_supply/water_rights/eflows/group.html
70
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and Texas Water Development Board. (January 2011). “Priority
Groundwater Management Areas and Groundwater Conservation Districts, Report to the 82nd Legislature.”
Retrieved July 27, 2011, from http://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/comm_exec/pubs/sfr/053_07.pdf
Texas Water Development Board. (2011). “2011 Regional Water Plan.” Retrieved July 14, 2011, from
http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/wrpi/data/proj/popwaterdemand/2011Projections/Demand/1StateDemandbyCa
tegory.pdf
Texas Water Development Board (2010). “Groundwater Management through Groundwater Conservation
Districts.” Retrieved from
http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/publications/reports/GroundWaterReports/GWReports/R365/ch‐
20%20TAGD%20bro.pdf
Texas Water Development Board. (2009). Water Usage Trends 2008. Retrieved from
http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/wrpi/wus/2008est/2008wus.asp
Texas Water Development Board. (2007). “Groundwater Resources,” in 2007 State Water Plan, p 175‐234.
Retrieved from
http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/publications/reports/State_Water_Plan/2007/2007StateWaterPlan/CHAPTER%2
07%20FINAL_112906.pdf
Texas Water Development Board. (2007). “Surface Water Resources,” in 2007 State Water Plan, p 139‐174.
Retrieved from
http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/publications/reports/State_Water_Plan/2007/2007StateWaterPlan/CHAPTER%2
06%20FINAL_112906.pdf
Texas Water Development Board. (2002). “Report 345.” Retrieved July 27, 2011, from
http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/publications/reports/groundwaterreports/gwreports/individual%20report%20ht
m%20files/report%20345.htm
Texas Water Matters. (2011). “Water Conservation.” Retrieved July 15, 2011, from
http://www.texaswatermatters.org/conservation.htm
Trans Pecos Water & Land Trust. (2011). “Who we are.” Retrieved July 27, 2011, from
http://www.transpecoswatertrust.com/index.html
Land and Habitat Conservation
American Farmland Trust. (2011). “Texas.” Retrieved July 27, 2011, from
http://www.farmland.org/programs/states/tx/default.asp
Bean, Michael, Robert Bonnie, Tim Male, and Tim Searchinger. (2003). The Private Lands Opportunity: The Case
for Conservation Incentives. Environmental Defense. Retrieved from
http://www.environmentaldefence.org/documents/2677_ccireport.pdf
Ewing, Reid and John Kostyack. (2005). Endangered by Sprawl: How Runaway Development Threatens
America’s Wildlife. Retrieved from http://www.natureserve.org/publications/endangered_by_sprawl.pdf
GulfBase.org. (2004). “Overfishing and Bycatch.” Retrieved from
http://www.gulfbase.org/issue/view.php?iid=oab
71
Gulf Restoration Network. (2010). “Gulf Fish Forever.” Retrieved from http://healthygulf.org/our‐work/gulf‐
fish‐forever/gulf‐fish‐forever‐home
Harte Research Institute. (2011). “Why The Gulf of Mexico?” Retrieved July 13, 2011, from
http://harteresearchinstitute.org/the‐institute/why‐gulf
Nature Serve. (April 2002). States of the Union: Ranking America’s Biodiversity. Retrieved from
http://www.natureserve.org/Reports/stateofunions.pdf
Sanger, Mary and Cyrus Reed. (2000). Texas Environmental Almanac, 2nd Edition, p. 97; 152‐154.
Sansom, Andrew. “Thoughts on the Current State of the Environment in Texas.”
Texas A&M and American Farmland Trust. (2010). “Private Land, Public Business: Incentives for the
Stewardship of Texas Agricultural Lands.” Retrieved July 27, 2011, from
http://www.farmland.org/documents/Texas‐PrivateLandsPublicBenefits.pdf
Texas Coastal Wetlands. (January 2003). Retrieved from http://www.texaswetlands.org/introduction.htm
Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Susan Combs (November 2010). “Balancing Economy with Ecology: A
report to the Legislature from the Interagency Task Force on Economic Growth and Endangered Species.”
Retrieved July 27, 2011, from
http://www.texasahead.org/economic_developer/endangered_species/report/2010/96‐1430_ESR.pdf
Texas General Land Office. (January 2009). “Coastal Erosion Planning and Response Act: A Report to the 81st
Legislature.” Retrieved from http://www.glo.state.tx.us/coastal/erosion/CEPRA‐
LegReport2009/CEPRALegeReport2009.pdf
Texas Land Trust Council (2011). “About Us.” Retrieved July 27, 2011, from
http://www.texaslandtrustcouncil.org/about‐us
Texas Parks and Wildlife. (January 2011) “Natural Regions of Texas.” Retrieved June 27, 2011, from
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_mp_e0100_1070s_08.pdf
Texas Parks and Wildlife. (2010). Land and Water: Resources Conservation and Recreation Plan. Retrieved from
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_pl_e0100_867_land_water_plan_01_2010.p
df
Texas Parks and Wildlife. (May 2009). “Endangered and Threatened Species.” Retrieved July 2, 2011, from
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/endang/index.phtml
Texas Parks and Wildlife. (June 2008). “Conservation of Texas Bays and Estuaries.” Retrieved June 27, 2011,
from
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/pwd_pl_e0100_0867/water_priorities/conserve_bays/ind
ex.phtml
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2011). “Endangered Species Permits.” Retrieved July 28, 2011, from
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/permits/enhancement/sha/index.html
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2011). “Conservation Plans and Agreements Database.” Retrieved July 28, 2011,
from http://ecos.fws.gov/conserv_plans/public.jsp
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (March 2003). “What Is the Difference Between Endangered and Threatened?”
Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa‐library/pdf/t‐vs‐e.pdf
72
White, Kathleen Hartnett. (2009). “Texas Water 101.” Retrieved from http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2009‐
02‐texaswater101.pdf
Sustainable Energy
American Council on Renewable Energy. (December 2011). “Renewable Energy in Texas.” Retrieved July 28,
2011, from http://www.acore.org/files/pdfs/states/Texas.pdf
American Lung Cancer Association. (2011). State of the Air. Retrieved from http://www.stateoftheair.org/
Architecture 2030. (2011). “The 2030 Challenge.” Retrieved July 29, 2011, from
http://architecture2030.org/2030_challenge/the_2030_challenge
BuildingGreen.com. (2007). “LEED Delivers on Predicted Energy Savings.” Retrieved August, 5, 2011, from
http://www.buildinggreen.com/auth/article.cfm/2007/12/4/LEED‐Delivers‐on‐Predicted‐Energy‐Savings/
Capital Area Council of Governments. (April 2008). “8 Hour Flex Program: Austin‐Round Rock Metropolitan
Statistical Area.” Retrieved July 29, 2011, from
http://www.capcog.org/documents/airquality/reports/8o3flex/Austin‐RoundRock8‐HourOzoneFlex.pdf
Environmental Protection Agency. (July 2011). “Carbon Monoxide.” Retrieved from
http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/co/hlth1.html
Environmental Protection Agency. (July 2011). “Ground‐level Ozone Standards Designations: Frequent
Questions.” Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations/faq.htm
Environmental Protection Agency. (July 2011). “Particulate Matter.” Retrieved from
http://www.epa.gov/oar/particlepollution/index.html
Environmental Protection Agency. (July 2011). “State and County Emission Summaries.” Retrieved from
http://www.epa.gov/cgi‐
bin/broker?_service=data&_debug=0&_program=dataprog.dw_do_all_emis_2005.sas&pol=219&stfips=48
Environmental Protection Agency. (July 2011). “Sulfur Dioxide.” Retrieved from
http://www.epa.gov/air/sulfurdioxide/
Environmental Protection Agency. (October 2008). Final National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead.
Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/air/lead/pdfs/20081015presentation.pdf
Environment Texas. (October 21, 2009). “Promise of Clean Energy Program News.” Retrieved from
http://www.environmenttexas.org/newsroom/energy/energy‐program‐news/texas‐ranks‐23rd‐in‐energy‐
efficiency#idm0y6ifYm3t0cC2z07gqLcg
Green Dallas. (2008). “Green Building.” Retrieved from http://www.greendallas.net/green_buildings.html
ICLEI Local Government Sustainability U.S.A. (2011). “Member List.” Retrieved July 29, 2011, from
http://www.icleiusa.org/about‐iclei/iclei‐by_region/south‐central‐regional‐capacity‐center/about‐
iclei/members/member‐list
Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement. (2008). “U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement.”
Retrieved July 28, 2011, from http://www.usmayors.org/climateprotection/agreement.htm
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences—National Institute of Health. (2011). “Lead.” Retrieved
July 14, 2011, from http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/lead/docs/lead.pdf
73
North Central Texas Council of Governments. (June 2011). “Improving Air Quality in North Texas.” Retrieved
July 29, 2011, from http://www.nctcog.org/trans/presentations/LiveGreenInPlano_060411.pdf
Robertson, Kate. Environmental Defense Fund. (2010). Texas Green Jobs Guidebook. Retrieved from
http://www.edf.org/documents/10752_Texas‐Green‐Jobs‐Guidebook.pdf
Schwartz, Eileen. (March 2005). “Features—March 2005: The Greening of Texas.” Texas Construction.
Retrieved from http://texas.construction.com/features/archive/0503_feature3.asp
Scorecard. (2005). “Criteria Air Pollutant Descriptions.” Retrieved from www.scorecard.org/env‐
releases/cap/pollutant‐desc.tcl
Shi‐Ling Hsu. (Spring 2006). “What’s Old is New: the Problem with New Source Review,” Regulation: pp. 36‐7.
Retrieved from http://faculty.law.ubc.ca/hsu/publications/catoarticle.pdf
Simbeck, Dale. (March 18, 2003). “Gasification Repowering, The Innovative Option for Old Existing Coal‐Fired
Power Plants.” NEMS/Annual Energy Outlook 2003 Conference in Washington, D.C. Retrieved from
http://www.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=TX
Texas Business for Clean Air. (January 2009). “Policy Options for Clean Air and Sustainable Energy in Texas.”
Retrieved July 29, 2011, from http://texasbusinessforcleanair.org/PolicyOptionsAirEnergyTexas
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. (June 2011). “Texas Air Quality Successes.” Retrieved from
http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/implementation/air/airsuccess/airsuccess
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. (May 2011). “Update on the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards and the State Implementation Plan for Texas.” Retrieved July 29, 2011, from
http://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/implementation/air/sip/miscdocs/SIP101revised.pdf
Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. (May, 2008). The Energy Report. Retrieved from
http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/pdf/96‐1266EnergyReport.pdf
Texas Conference of Urban Counties. (2006). “Clean Air Working Group.” Retrieved July 29, 2011, from
http://www.cuc.org/cleanair.aspx
“Texas Permits Spur Hill Efforts to Limit CO2 Credit for New Coal Plants,” Energy Washington Week, January 31,
2007.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. (November 2009). “Map of Texas.” Retrieved from
http://www.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=TX
U.S. Green Building Council. (June 2010). “Green Building & Human Experience.” Retrieved from
http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=7383
Environmental Awareness
Fraser, John, Joe E. Heimlich, and Victor Yocco. (June 2010). “American beliefs associated with encouraging
children’s nature experience opportunities,” Children and Nature Network: Project Grow Outside. Retrieved
from http://www.childrenandnature.org/downloads/EC‐NES_Final_Report_2010.pdf
Mathis, Mitchell and Daniel Matisoff. (March 2004). “A Characterization of Ecotourism in the Texas Lower Rio
Grande Valley.” Retrieved from http://files.harc.edu/Projects/Nature/EcotourismCharacterization.pdf
Pros Consulting. (2008). Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Business Plan Update, p 11‐12.
Texas Center for Policy Studies. Texas Environmental Almanac, 2nd ed., p. 186.
74
Texas Forest Service. (2007). “Texas Landowner Survey 2007.” Retrieved from
http://txforestservice.tamu.edu/main/article.aspx?id=2866
Texas Parks and Wildlife. (June 2008). “Outdoor Recreation Analysis.” Retrieved from
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/pwd_pl_e0100_0867/land_priorities/outdoor_rec_analys
is/
75
2001 MFI Grant Amount
University of El Paso Toward improving public access to a 372‐acre
native wetland habitat along the Rio Grande
River
$200,000
National Wildlife Federation Toward a collaborative, multi‐year project to
inform and involve the public on sustainable
water use
$1,000,000
2 $1,200,000
2002
The Nature Conservancy Toward acquiring and preserving five critical
watersheds in Texas
$845,000
San Marcos River Foundation Toward acquiring water rights on the
Guadalupe River to be banked in the Water
Trust of the Texas Department of Parks and
Wildlife
$155,000
Southwest Texas State
University
Toward start‐up funding of the International
Institute for Sustainable Water Resources
$375,000
3 $1,375,0002003
National Wildlife Federation Toward the second phase of a collaborative,
multi‐year project to inform the public on
water issues and move Texas toward a
sustainable water resource plan
$535,900
1 $535,900
2004
Houston Advanced Research Center
Toward defining economic value of freshwater inflows to the Rio Grande Estuary
and San Antonio Bay
$138,862
Public Policy Information Fund Toward controlling saltcedar along the Rio
Grand River in the Big Bend area
$86,000
Texas Committee on Natural
Resources
Toward a public awareness campaign to
promote conservation methods to meet future water needs in the Dallas/Ft. Worth
metroplex
$80,000
3 $304,862
2005
Friends of Cibolo Wilderness Toward purchasing land to protect critical
watershed and habitat along the Cibolo Creek
$200,000
1 $200,000
Water
Appendix
76
2006 MFI Grant Amount
The Nature Conservancy Toward adding staff to expand watershed
conservation efforts in Texas
$240,000
City of San Marcos Toward acquiring and preserving 251 acres of
the San Marcos Springs recharge zone
$355,670
Texas State University Toward support of the River Systems
Institute's programs on sustainable water use
in Texas
$610,000
3 $1,205,670
2007
Guadalupe Blanco River Trust Toward hiring a full‐time conservation
specialist to implement two water
conservation projects
$104,800
National Wildlife Federation Toward building on the successes of a multi‐
year project to inform the public on water issues and move Texas toward a sustainable
water resource policy
$650,000
Trans‐Pecos Water Trust Toward increasing the flow of water into the
Forgotten River segment of the Rio Grande
$125,300
3 $880,100
2008
Caddo Lake Institute Toward determining the amount of river flow needed to keep Caddo Lake healthy
$120,000
Nueces River Authority Toward establishing a land and water
stewardship education program in the Nueces
River Basin
$80,000
2 $200,000
2010
Sand County Foundation Toward piloting a watershed management
project designed to increase water retention
in the Trinity River
$75,000
Trans‐Pecos Water Trust Toward employing a water rights project
manager to increase the quantity of water in
the Rio Grande River
$72,000
2 $147,000
Water Total 20 $6,048,532
Water
77
2001 MFI Grant Amount
Trust for Public Land Toward establishing a North Texas field office
and a statewide revolving loan fund for
acquiring parkland and green space for public
use in areas impacted by urban sprawl
$705,000
1 $705,000
2002
North American Butterfly Association
Toward creating a butterfly park in the Rio Grande Valley to increase ecotourism
$197,000
Environmental Defense Fund Toward expanding the Black‐Capped Vireo
and Golden‐Cheeked Warbler habitat restoration program to the Chalk Mountain
ecosystem
$250,000
National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation
Toward additional staff to increase federal
and other funding resources for environmental projects
$225,000
3 $672,000
2003
Bexar Land Trust Toward start‐up costs related to developing a natural, cultural, and historical park on 1,200
acres along the Medina River
$25,000
Katy Prairie Conservancy Toward purchasing 1,400 acres of land to
preserve and protect a portion of critical bird
and animal habitat
$250,000
The Conservation Fund To purchase 33,000 acres of bottomland
hardwoods along the Neches River in Tyler
and Polk Counties
$1,000,000
Gulf Coast Bird Observatory Toward technical assistance to private and
public owners of migratory bird habitats
along the Gulf Coast
$132,500
National Audubon Society To improve Black‐Capped Vireo Habitat on
property that was previously the Dallas
Nature Center
$25,000
National Audubon Society Toward establishing a new office of the
Society to protect nesting habitat of
migratory birds on the Gulf Coast
$158,600
Land and Habitat Conservation
78
2003 MFI Grant Amount
Peregrine Fund Toward re‐introducing the Aplomado Falcon,
an endangered species, in South and West
Texas through land management practices
and Safe Harbor agreements
$180,000
7 $1,771,100
2004
The Conservation Fund Toward adding a new program director to assist with land conservation programs in
Texas
$92,500
Turtle Island Restoration
Network
Toward support for a public awareness
campaign to protect the endangered Kemp's
ridley sea turtle
$21,000
Trust for Public Land Toward emergency operating support due to
declining economic conditions
$215,000
3 $328,5002005
Bear Springs Blossom Nature
Conservation Group
Toward acquiring land to preserve habitat for
the endangered Golden‐Cheeked Warbler and
the Black‐Capped Vireo
$25,000
Environmental Defense Fund Toward preserving ocelot habitat in the Rio
Grande Valley
$190,000
Texas Trees Foundation Toward start‐up costs associated with creating a second tree farm in order to
produce trees for urban use in Dallas
$100,000
3 $315,000
2006
Ducks Unlimited Toward protecting additional wetlands along
the Texas coast
$225,000
Peregrine Fund Toward expanding a Safe Harbor release
program for the Aplomado Falcon in order to
remove the falcon from the Endangered
Species List
$190,000
2 $415,000
2007
Friends of the Katy Trail Toward landscaping a segment of the Katy
Trail with grasses and flowers native to its
original Blackland Prairie condition
$100,000
Houston Audubon Society Toward restoring and protecting bird nesting
habitat on North Deer Island
$63,500
Big Thicket Association Toward hiring the agency's first Executive
Director
$100,000
Land and Habitat Conservation
79
2007 MFI Grant Amount
The Conservation Fund Toward acquiring and conserving critical land
and animal habitat within the East Texas
Pineywoods
$750,000
Texas Land Trust Council Toward expanding a program of technical
assistance designed to improve the
organizational capacity of Texas land and
water trusts
$167,600
Turtle Island Restoration
Network
Toward expanding a public awareness
campaign to protect the endangered Kemp's
ridley sea turtle along the Texas Gulf Coast
$72,200
Texas Rice Industry Coalition
for the Environment
Toward restoring wetland and migratory bird
habitats on the upper and middle Texas Gulf
Coast
$100,000
7 $1,353,3002008
Native Prairies Association of
Texas
Toward hiring professional staff to protect
tallgrass prairies
$192,000
Trust for Public Land Toward a revolving loan fund to purchase land for parks and community development
$500,000
American Farmland Trust Toward establishing a Texas agricultural land
trust
$135,000
North American Butterfly
Association
Toward constructing a visitor center and 30‐
acre butterfly garden
$250,000
Parks and Wildlife Foundation
of Texas
Toward restoring the marine health of Texas
bays and estuaries
$125,000
5 $1,202,000
2009
Friends of The Trinity Strand
Trail
Toward emergency operating support to
complete a system of urban trails and to apply for federal stimulus funding
$41,000
South Padre Island Birding &
Nature Center
Toward constructing the South Padre Island
Birding and Nature Center as an economic
generator
$50,000
Texas Trees Foundation Toward emergency operating support to
maintain tree planting programs in North
Texas
$70,000
Peregrine Fund Toward continuing a Safe Harbor release
program for the Aplomado Falcon in order to remove the falcon from the Endangered
Species List
$45,000
4 $206,000
Land and Habitat Conservation
80
2010 MFI Grant Amount
Dallas Parks Foundation Toward employing a fund development
director
$73,000
The Nature Conservancy Toward restoring an oyster reef in Matagorda
Bay that can also serve as a source of oysters
to repopulate other areas of the coast
destroyed by the recent Gulf of Mexico oil
spill
$250,000
Peregrine Fund Toward continuing a Safe Harbor release
program for the Aplomado Falcon in order to
remove the falcon from the Endangered
Species List
$75,000
Texas Rice Industry Coalition
for the Environment
Toward restoring 17,000 acres of wetlands
and native prairies within Brazoria National
Wildlife Refuge
$25,000
4 $423,000
Land and Habitat Conservation Total 39 $7,390,900
2001
Chinati Hot Springs Toward staff salaries to develop a historic site
into a nature preserve and educational center
$60,000
Student Conservation
Association
Toward hiring a student recruiter to increase
the number and diversity of young Texans participating in conservation and service‐
learning projects at natural resource
management sites
$77,000
Fort Worth Zoological
Association
Toward new educational exhibits featuring
interactive media for teaching conservation and wildlife management of the ecosystems
of Texas
$250,000
Wildlife Rescue and
Rehabilitation
Toward creating a model sanctuary for the
care and rehabilitation of wildlife
$75,000
YouthLaunch, Inc. Toward expanding an environmental
conservation program in selected Texas
school districts
$145,000
5 $607,000
2002
Austin College Toward two educational staff positions at the
Center for Environmental Studies
$138,000
Stewardship
Land and Habitat Conservation
81
2002 MFI Grant Amount
Northwest Texas Museum
Association
Toward travel and educational expenses
associated with a traveling exhibit on the
importance of playas in the Texas
environment
$15,000
The University of Texas at
Austin for the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center
Toward emergency operating support due to
difficult economic conditions
$155,500
Westcave Preserve
Corporation
Toward constructing an environmental
learning center
$150,000
Animal Protection Institute Toward emergency repairs to the Snow
Monkey sanctuary resulting from damage
caused by recent flooding
$25,000
Dallas Arboretum & Botanical Society
Toward emergency operating support to replace revenue losses suffered as a result of
difficult economic conditions and to meet
increasing demand for services
$100,000
6 $583,500
2003
Earth Promise dba Fossil Rim
Wildlife Center
Toward funding the position of a
development officer for two years
$151,800
Friends of Cibolo Wilderness Toward constructing an environmental
education and research center
$200,000
Parks and Wildlife Foundation
of Texas
Toward constructing the World Birding Center
in Mission as part of the South Texas Bird Trail
$600,000
Texas 4‐H Youth Development
Foundation
Toward developing additional curriculum to
teach youth about water and the earth's
resources
$118,300
4 $1,070,1002004
Don Harrington Discovery Center
Toward renovating a science museum and installing new exhibits focusing on the
environment and life sciences
$250,000
Houston Wilderness Toward expanding an environmental
stewardship program in the Houston area
$100,000
River Bend Nature Works Toward constructing a nature center in which
to offer expanded environmental exhibits and education programs to children and families
$125,000
Stewardship
82
2004 MFI Grant Amount
Wildlife Rescue and
Rehabilitation
Toward expanding rescue and rehabilitation
services to native and exotic wildlife in and
around San Antonio
$50,000
San Antonio Zoological Society Toward renovating and restructuring zoo exhibits to focus on habitat and water
conservation issues
$250,000
5 $775,0002005
El Paso Zoological Society Toward constructing a building in which to
offer educational programs on wildlife protection and habitat conservation
$131,000
San Antonio Botanical Center
Society
Toward enhancements to an 11‐acre visitor
nature trail
$14,300
Stephen F. Austin State
University
Toward developing science and
environmental education programs for public
school students and teachers
$107,000
Student Conservation
Association
Toward establishing a Dallas office in order to
expand urban student conservation programs
$160,000
Texas Discovery Gardens Toward updating and renovating the Hall of
Horticulture at Fair Park to include a year‐round butterfly house
$200,000
University of Texas at Austin Toward expanding a student monitoring program of coastal conditions along the Texas
Gulf
$85,000
6 $697,300
2006
Endangered Species Media
Project
To print and distribute a book on wildlife in
Texas for public schools in the DFW area
$25,000
Fort Worth Botanical Society Toward completing the Texas Native Forest Boardwalk designed to enhance the
educational value of the Botanical Garden
$70,000
Twelve Hills Nature Center Toward creating a new urban nature preserve
in Oak Cliff
$69,000
Stewardship
83
Stewardship2006 MFI Grant Amount
University of Houston ‐ Clear
Lake
Toward expanding environmental education
program to additional schools in the Greater Houston area
$18,000
4 $182,000
2007
Buffalo Bayou Partnership Toward the redevelopment of the historic
Sunset Coffee Building as part of a pedestrian‐
oriented waterfront district
$50,000
Endangered Species Media
Project
To print and distribute a book on Texas
wildlife for Austin area public schools
$25,000
Lee Park and Arlington Hall Conservancy
Toward restoring and landscaping the Children's Park at Lee Park
$75,000
Lower Rio Grande Valley
Nature Center
Toward producing a DVD about wildlife along
the Rio Grande River for distribution to Rio
Grande Valley schools
$25,000
City of McAllen Toward constructing a classroom addition to
the World Birding satellite center in McAllen
$75,000
Friends of the Ellen Trout Zoo Toward constructing a facility to provide
expanded environmental and conservation
education programs to area students and
teachers
$100,000
Houston Zoo Toward constructing a 13‐acre African Forest $350,000
International Exotic Feline Sanctuary
Toward expanding an Intern Program $25,000
National Audubon Society Toward constructing the Trinity River
Audubon Center and providing programs for
low‐income students in the first year of
Center operations
$1,000,000
9 $1,725,000
2008
American Youthworks Toward bridge funding for the Environmental
Corps program
$151,000
84
2008 MFI Grant Amount
Sibley Environmental Learning
Center Foundation
Toward improving the educational capacity of
an environmental stewardship center
$49,000
Cameron Park Zoological & Botanical Society
Toward constructing a new exhibit focused on endangered species from Asia
$85,300
3 $285,3002009
Gardeners in Community Development
Toward emergency operating support to meet the increasing demand for community
gardening projects during the current economic downturn
$74,000
1 $74,0002010
Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation
Toward emergency operating support to meet increase demand for animal rescue
services during the current economic downturn
$114,000
International Exotic Feline
Sanctuary
Toward continuation of the education intern
program
$25,000
2 $139,000
Total Stewardship 45 $6,138,200
2001
Environmental Fund for Texas Toward expanding workplace giving to
environmental nonprofit organizations
$68,600
1 $68,6002002
Conservation History
Association of Texas
Toward developing an oral history of the
conservation movement in Texas and making it accessible via the Web
$15,000
1 $15,0002004
Texas Coalition for Conservation
Toward a public awareness campaign on the economic value of public parkland
$58,000
Environmental Support Center Toward building organizational capacity and effectiveness of small environmental
organizations in Texas
$165,000
Stewardship
Public Education and Advocacy
85
2004 MFI Grant Amount
Texas A&M University ‐
Kingsville
Toward constructing a research aviary $58,000
3 $281,0002006
The University of Texas Law
School Foundation
Toward community‐based projects sponsored
by the Environmental Law Clinic for the 2006‐
2007 school year
$25,000
1 $25,0002007
Valley Proud Environmental
Council
Toward a program to increase the number of
trees planted each year in the Lower Rio
Grande Valley
$20,000
1 $20,000
2008
Environmental Fund of Texas
for Texas Environmental
Grantmakers Group
Toward operating support for a collaborative
effort to increase the impact of
environmental grantmaking in Texas
$7,000
North Texas Public
Broadcasting (KERA‐Channel
13)
Toward the multimedia project, Living on the
Trinity: a River Story
$234,200
World Hunger Relief Toward constructing a residential facility to
accommodate a growing number of staff and interns who provide environmental and
sustainable agriculture programs
$25,000
3 $266,200
2009
Texas Coalition for Conservation
Toward a public awareness campaign on the economic value of public parkland
$30,000
1 $30,000
2010
Marfa Public Radio Corporation
Toward expanding and enhancing a weekly radio series on the plants and animals of the
Chihuahuan Desert
$25,000
Texas Campaign for the
Environment Fund
Toward a public awareness campaign about
recycling electronic products
$10,000
Public Education and Advocacy
86
2010 MFI Grant Amount
Texas Impact Education Fund Toward a public awareness campaign during
the sunset review process of state
environmental agencies
$75,000
Northeast Texas Community
College
Toward constructing a LEED‐certified center
for sustainable agriculture and alternative
energy studies
$85,000
4 $195,000
Total Public Education and Advocacy 15 $900,800
2004
Texas Environmental Research
Consortium
To increase public and private involvement in
reducing air pollution in Texas
$128,500
Texas Impact Education Fund Toward training faith communities conducting
an air quality public awareness campaign
among religious groups
$49,000
2 $177,5002008
Dallas Foundation for Texas
Business for Clean Air
Toward a study of power supply and demand,
federal clean air requirements, and to design
a Green Fleet Certification Program to reduce
vehicular emissions
$40,000
1 $40,000
Total Air Quality 3 $217,500
2007
Cameron Works Toward funding an energy conservation and
green building conference in the Rio Grande
Valley
$14,000
Waco Chamber of Commerce
Community Development
Foundation
Toward constructing a LEED‐certified center
for collaborative economic development
activities
$100,000
Environmental Defense Fund Toward a collaborative, multi‐year project to
inform the public on energy alternatives and
to promote more efficient energy policies
$303,000
Energy Efficiency
Air Quality
Public Education and Advocacy
87
2007 MFI Grant Amount
The University of Texas at
Austin for the Lady Bird
Johnson Wildflower Center
Toward developing a voluntary certification
system for environmentally sustainable large‐
scale landscape projects
$262,200
ICLEI ‐ Local Governments for
Sustainability U.S.A.
Toward establishing a statewide office of
ICLEI to promote energy efficiency and reduce
carbon emissions in Texas municipalities
$312,500
5 $991,700
2008
Galveston Historical
Foundation
Toward hiring a staff and training to expand
field services by combining environmental
components with historic preservation
initiatives
$25,000
University of Houston, Gerald
D. Hines College of
Architecture
Toward expanding the Industrial Design
department to design, test, and build energy
efficient affordable housing components
$319,000
University of Texas at Austin Toward redesigning curricula for 12 core
architecture studio and seminar courses to
focus on sustainable design
$240,000
Environment Texas Research
and Policy Center
Toward reducing energy demand through
conservation and improved building operating
efficiencies
$50,000
The Process of Collaboration A
Circle of Ten
Toward training local builders and electricians
in the use of energy‐saving devices in
affordable housing
$97,000
5 $731,000
2009
Community Partnership for
the Homeless
Toward renovating six deteriorating multi‐
family properties into green, affordable
housing for low‐income residents
$50,000
Dallas Foundation for
BuildingCommunity Workshop
Toward building and renovating low‐income
affordable housing to green construction
standards
$142,000
Environmental Defense Fund Toward two projects designed to create green
industries and employment
$150,000
3 $342,000
Energy Efficiency
88
2010 MFI Grant Amount
Environmental Defense Fund Toward a collaborative project to inform the
public on energy alternatives and to promote more efficient state and local energy policies
$150,000
Real Estate Council Foundation Toward training for city building staff and
private developers on compliance with the city's new Green Building Ordinance
$75,000
BuildingCommunity Workshop Toward expanding the staff of a Dallas community design center
$90,000
3 $315,000
Total Energy Efficiency 16 $2,379,700
Total for Environment 138 $23,075,632
Energy Efficiency