The agency has had to play catch up after many years and changes in state law mandating the creation of groundwater management districts in the state where groundwater shortages are expected
Send your comments and news tips to online.editor@valleyspringcomm.net or click on the "comments" button at the bottom of the story
TCEQ draft report. Click to enlarge.
Note: We'll have periodic updates (along with relevant links) on this important story as they develop, and keep our eyes peeled for the behind-the-scenes politicking that is sure to follow. We are told that the process, from draft report to a final order of the Commission, can take ten to 20 months.By Bob Ochoa
RoundUp Editor
Will the Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District, with jurisdiction over western Hays County, be expanded to include southwest Travis County and western Comal County and receive sufficient funding to effectively manage the region's diminishing groundwater resources?
This is one of the central take out questions of a draft report now circulating from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). "Our goal is to have a good solid final report ready about January," said Kelly Mills of TCEQ's Groundwater Planning and Assessment office.
After a public comment period that ends Wednesday, Nov. 11, Mills said the process is likely to lead to a contested hearing called by the State Office of Administrative Hearings and end with a final order by the three-member Commission, or get referred to the Legislature for action.
"Our report is a policy report," Mills told the RoundUp. "We're not looking at or trying to make the argument or case that the area has groundwater problems. In our minds that case was made in 1990. The statute says once designated as a PGMA (priority groundwater management area), it cannot be changed."
In 1990, The Texas Water Development Board designated five Hill Country counties as a critical groundwater management area, along with western Hays County, the southwestern quadrant of Travis County and a chunk of western Comal County. Studies found a steady decline in the region's water table since 1920 and the Water Board concluded that "the area's groundwater demand would (eventually) exceed availability."
Members of the Hays Trinity GCD board have repeatedly warned that time already has arrived in western Hays County. District staff are currently compiling a "desired future conditions" review to determine the maximum amount of groundwater pumping it can permit. The process must be completed by September of 2010. District board president Doug Wierman says creek and stream flows and drought are being factored in. "Onion Creek, until two weeks ago, hasn't had a flow for two years. If you don't care about springs and creeks flowing then there is more in the aquifer to be used."
Wierman said the board is preparing a response to the TCEQ draft report. A consensus seems to be forming around one of the report's recommended options to combine the Hays groundwater district with southwest Travis and western Comal counties. Wierman said he'd like to see the new district come with full Chapter 36 (Texas Water Code) authority and receive adequate funding to carry out its mission.
"Just the fact they prepared this report tells us they're serious about this issue that has been lingering for many years," Wierman said. "We knew it was under development but no idea of the timing."
Click on graphic to enlarge
Since 1990, Bandera, Blanco, Gillespie, Kendall and Kerr counties and western Hays have formed groundwater districts to manage the resources of the Trinity Aquifer. The Hays Trinity District was formed in 2000 through special legislation that left it with less management authority and fewer funding sources than its sister districts. Voters in western Comal and southwest Travis have turned down attempts to create their own districts.
TCEQ's Mills said the agency has had to play catch up after many years and changes in state law mandating the creation of groundwater management districts in the state where groundwater shortages exist or are expected, and it has finally come around to addressing the holes in part of what is known as the Hill Country PGMA. The holes are southwestern Travis County, western Comal and the Hays Trinity GCD.
The report notes that the minimum funding amount for a groundwater district to operate effectively is $250,000. The Hays Trinity District's permit-based funding brings in only about $80,000 annually, which is assisted by a $100,000 grant from Hays County and that could change depending on the temperament of the county commissioners court. Critics of permit or production-based funding argue that they are counterproductive to conservation of groundwater in areas deemed short, or approaching a shortage.
According to TCEQ's report, most of the Hill Country PGMA districts are funded through voter approved ad valorem taxes, with an average rate of one and a half cents per hundred.
4 comments:
Of course Wierman, Backus & friends want "full chapter 36 powers" over all real estate in the area. They've been trying to get more power for themselves for several years now.
The voters said "no" originally but that hasn't stopped HTGCD! This last legislative session, the vast majority of the residents of HTGCD said "no" but that didn't stop the HTGCD board from spending $12,000+ on lobbyists in an effort to get themselves salaries, retirement benefits, etc.; to impose transfer fees payable to HTGCD imposed upon your property; to have the power to enter your property at their whim without a warrant or probable cause; to outlaw all residential wells; to require all other wells to pay production fees to pay for the operation of HTGCD, etc.
What can't be accomplished because of voter opposition will be attempted DESPITE the fact that the voters of Hays County, western Comal County, and Southwestern Travis County OPPOSE HAVING A GCD IMPOSE TAXES AND EXERT SUCH CONTROL OVER THEIR PROPERTY. The HTGCD is going to try to annex more property and merge with a Chapter 36 district to try to subject all residents of these areas to this abomination. If you value having a residential well as opposed to having access to YOUR water denied at the whims of Wierman, et al. or being forced to purchase from an organization such as AquaTexas so that HTGCD can exact production fees for their own self-preservation, then you need to actively work to dethrone the despots, oppose them at the legislature, and oppose them at these public hearings.
What a bunch of crock! Nothing you posted is true or factual. Your post demonstrates just how low special interests will go to keep existing private wells unprotected.
“Full chapter 36 powers” are contained in the Texas WATER Code, not the Texas Local Government Code that deals with land use (real estate development regulations).
The voters gave a resounding (2/3rds) “YES” vote to confirming the local groundwater conservation district, and elected five pro-district directors despite all the fear tactics of special interests like you. The voters have NEVER said “no” to the district, and that’s exactly why Rose refuses to introduce a bill in the legislature that would give our local district full chapter 36 authority. Rose’s special interests (including his family real estate business) don’t want any requirements for developers to demonstrate they can provide water for new homes without depleting nearby wells, and they know voters would say “YES” to the local district again.
If voters are so opposed to chapter 36 authority for our local GCD as you claim, why not give them an opportunity to vote “no”?
It won’t happen while Rose is in office. He is protecting unfettered development despite existing wells going dry and water trucks unable to keep up with deliveries. Rose will sponsor development district legislation anywhere, any time, but screw existing well owners.
django - Anonymous #1 never stated that "full chapter 36 powers were in the local government code". Chapter 36 powers for htgcd would impact all the real estate within the geographic territory of the district. Exactly what part do find false?
The voters only supported a gcd that was expressly prohibited from outlawing residential wells, expressly prohibited from metering residential wells, expressly prohibited from charging production fees for residential wells, etc. The voters also opposed allowing yet another district to impose an ad valorem tax on their property. Above all, the justifiably suspicious voters absolutely objected to giving this gcd full chapter 36 powers.
HTGCD previously had the brochure used to "sell" the creation of the district on their website. The brochure touted that the gcd would not prohibit residential wells, would not meter residential wells, and would not be charging production fees on residential wells. That document no longer appears to be in the archived documents section of the website. Apparently, they would prefer residents forget the representations made.
As to the draft legislation floated by Backus, et al. you are obviously unaware of a) the lobbyist fees paid, or b) the text of the draft legislation. The HTGCD authorized $12,000 to be paid to TexasStakeholders to lobby for the insidious legislation. It's not like the Board members wanted the residents to be aware of the text of the legislation that they wanted.
Both Wentworth and Rose recognized HTGCD's power and property grab as being beyond the pale. Ask for a copy of legislation proposed by the Board and their self-serving attorney, Greg Ellis. I doubt htgcd would post it on their website to give actual NOTICE to residents of the district of what kind of powers the Board was seeking.
Your comments about Rose are odd given the inconsistency of the powers that Chapter 36 would give the htgcd versus the reason you claimed Rose opposed them. The water availability issue you refer to is a subdivision platting issue. All these private investor owned utilities are already under the purview of htgcd - and no chapter 36 powers are needed.
As to submitting something to a vote, fundamental property rights are not subject to the "majority vote". Besides, the voters have already voted "no". Indeed, that's why the Board bypassed the residents of the district on much of the legislation.
The other problem with Chapter 36 is that there is simply no compensation for the taking when HTGCD board members decide they would prefer making money by allocating the water under your property to one of the developer subdivisions under their permit process.
You need to take a closer look at what your HTGCD is doing. They claim that have no intention of prohibiting residential wells, and yet they've tried to do just that with the legislation they floated around. They aren't protecting the water for residential well users. Your HTGCD wanted the authority to outlaw them and to be able to allocate the water to others. They've readily admitted in open meetings that they want groundwater users to pay for water - really? Pay who? Why shouldn't the landowner be compensated for the taking of his right to access the groundwater? The htgcd Board tried to sidestep this by a) not allowing new residential wells under the pretext that this was not a taking, and b) outlawing existing residential wells upon sale of the property (plus they wanted you to pay a transfer fee for the privilege of not being able to convey what you had.)
Exactly what part do you still wish to dispute? Did you actually ever read the legislation that HTGCD paid lobbyists to promote to give them the right to take away all residential wells in the district, meter all residential wells, and charge production fees and transfer fees on wells?
django - take a look at the following link at the HTGCD website. Note that HTGCD was granted full chapter 36 powers with certain exceptions. The ruckus is because HTGCD is not content with being restrained as the voters commanded a decade ago. See Part 3 of Senate Bill 2 which authorized HTGCD
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/77R/billtext/html/SB00002F.htm
Note the legislation provides:
"(a) The district has all of the rights, powers, privileges, authority, functions, and duties provided by the general law of this state, including Chapter 36, Water Code, applicable to groundwater conservation districts created under Section 59, Article XVI, Texas Constitution..."
So there's your chapter 36 powers already, however there are exceptions including the following:
1. "(c) The district may not enter property to inspect an exempt well without the property owner's permission." Backus did not like this at all and insisted upon the right to enter onto property at any time without consent, without a warrant, and without probable cause.
2. "(a) The following wells are exempt from the requirements of Chapter 36, Water Code, and may not be regulated, permitted, or metered by the district: (1) a well used for domestic use by a single private residential household and producing less than 25,000 gallons per day; ..." HTGCD did not like this either and wanted it repealed so that they could require permits and charge production fees and impose meters.
There were a few other items, but generally HTGCD demanded a repeal of anything that limited their authority. Moreover the tried to outlaw "residential wells" that had not been installed by June 1, 2009; required all wells including residential wells installed after June 1, 2009 to have to seek a (renewable) permit, pay production fees, and be metered. They sought the authority to outlaw residential wells already in the ground prior to June 1, 2009 by eliminating the exemption at the time your property was sold. There were many other provisions that went well beyond Chapter 36 powers.
Post a Comment