Texas's Water Crisis Deepens as Abbott Favors Private Interests

Texas stands at a crossroads, its rivers running low and its future uncertain. The Red River, a lifeline for communities in the Panhandle and Northeast Texas, is under strain from drought, over-extraction, and a warming climate. Yet, Governor Greg Abbott’s recent reappointments to the Red River Authority of Texas Board of Directors signal a troubling continuation of policies that favor private interests over the public good. Jerry Dan Davis, Mike Sandefur, and Joe L. Ward, all rooted in agriculture and land management, reflect a vision that clings to the past, ignoring the urgent need for bold, forward-thinking water management.

The stakes could not be higher. The 2022 Texas Water Plan projects a 73% population surge by 2070, while water supplies dwindle by 18%, with groundwater reserves plummeting by a third. Climate models warn of hotter, drier years ahead, with droughts gripping regions like the High Plains and Trans-Pecos. The Panhandle’s cotton fields are shrinking, and rural communities face economic collapse as the Ogallala Aquifer fades. Meanwhile, Northeast Texas grapples with contentious water sales to thirsty suburbs, leaving local residents fearful of depletion. These are not abstract problems; they are the lived realities of families, farmers, and small towns.

Advocates for sustainable water policy have long called for a reckoning. Environmental groups, urban planners, and community leaders demand investment in aging infrastructure, stricter conservation measures, and planning that prioritizes ecosystems and equitable access. Yet, the governor’s choices suggest a different path, one that entrenches the influence of agricultural stakeholders and landowners at the expense of broader public needs. This is not just a policy misstep; it is a betrayal of the common good.

The Red River Authority, tasked with managing a critical watershed, should be a beacon of innovation and fairness. Instead, its board, shaped by these reappointments, risks becoming a fortress for private interests, sidelining the voices of ordinary Texans who bear the brunt of water scarcity. The question is not whether Texas can afford to act, but whether it can afford to keep appointing stewards who fail to confront the crisis head-on.

Jerry Dan Davis, a farmer and rancher from Wellington, brings deep ties to the Panhandle’s agricultural community. Mike Sandefur, a Texarkana business leader, oversees land and farming operations. Joe L. Ward, a rancher from Telephone, carries a legacy of civic service and military background. On paper, their credentials align with the Red River Authority’s mission to manage water for agriculture and municipalities. But their appointments, announced on April 23, 2025, raise questions about whose interests they will prioritize in a state where water is increasingly a zero-sum game.

Agricultural stakeholders wield undeniable influence in Texas water policy. The Texas Farm Bureau and similar groups have secured legislative wins like the 2024 Water Delivery Transparency Act, ensuring farmers’ voices shape decisions on water shortages and treaty disputes with Mexico. In March 2025, a $280 million USDA grant bolstered Rio Grande Valley producers, underscoring the sector’s clout. These efforts are vital for farmers facing economic ruin, but they often overshadow the needs of urban residents, small communities, and ecosystems that depend on the same finite resources.

The governor’s appointees are not neutral arbiters. Their backgrounds suggest a worldview that elevates property rights and local control, principles often championed by those wary of state intervention. Davis, Sandefur, and Ward may well advocate for voluntary conservation or market-driven solutions, approaches that sound reasonable but falter against the scale of Texas’s water crisis. Historical data shows that voluntary measures alone cannot curb groundwater depletion or protect rivers from over-allocation. The Ogallala Aquifer, for instance, has been drained for decades with little meaningful restraint, threatening the Panhandle’s agricultural future.

Contrast this with the vision of environmental advocates and urban planners, who argue for robust state action. Repairing Texas’s leaking infrastructure, which loses 572,000 acre-feet of water annually, could save billions of gallons without touching a single private well. Expanding desalination, enforcing water quality standards, and protecting environmental flows in rivers are not luxuries; they are necessities for a state projected to face over 100% municipal water scarcity in some counties by 2070. The governor’s picks, however, seem poised to resist such measures, clinging to a framework that privileges a few over the many.

Texas has faced water challenges before, from the Dust Bowl of the 1930s to the brutal droughts of the 1950s. Each crisis spurred action, from the creation of river authorities to the prior appropriation doctrine that allocated water rights. But today’s challenges dwarf those of the past. Climate change is no longer a distant threat; it is reshaping Texas now, with higher temperatures and dwindling rainfall straining every basin. The Texas Water Development Board’s reliance on historical drought data underestimates these risks, leaving the state unprepared for a future where water scarcity is the norm.

Some defend the governor’s appointees, arguing their agricultural expertise equips them to balance rural and urban needs. They point to the Red River Authority’s mandate to serve both sectors and suggest that Davis, Sandefur, and Ward’s local ties ensure sensitivity to community concerns. But this argument crumbles under scrutiny. The Panhandle’s cotton gins are closing not because of urban greed but because groundwater is vanishing, a problem exacerbated by decades of lax oversight. Northeast Texas’s Lake O’ the Pines controversy, where locals opposed a water sale to North Texas suburbs, reveals the distrust bred by opaque decision-making. Expertise alone cannot bridge these divides without a commitment to fairness and transparency.

The alternative is clear. State water authorities, including the Red River Authority, must prioritize comprehensive planning that accounts for climate change, population growth, and ecosystem health. Municipal conservation programs in cities like Austin and San Antonio have slashed per capita water use, proving that bold policies work. Environmental groups advocate for similar measures statewide, coupled with investments in desalination and infrastructure upgrades. These are not anti-agriculture policies; they are pro-Texas policies, designed to ensure every community, from ranches to city apartments, has access to clean, reliable water.

Texas cannot afford to gamble its water future on appointees who may prioritize private interests over public welfare. The Red River Authority, under new leadership, must embrace its role as a steward of a shared resource, not a gatekeeper for a select few. Governor Abbott’s reappointments, while rooted in tradition, fall short of the vision needed to navigate a crisis that threatens every Texan. The Senate, tasked with confirming these appointees, has a chance to demand more, to push for leaders who will champion sustainability, equity, and resilience.

The path forward demands courage. It means investing in infrastructure to stop leaks, enforcing conservation measures that protect rivers and aquifers, and planning for a future where water is not a privilege but a right. It means listening to the voices of environmental advocates, urban residents, and rural communities alike, forging a water policy that serves all Texans. The Red River is not just a resource; it is a lifeline. We cannot let it slip away under the watch of those who fail to see the bigger picture.