Pages

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Grassroots fight for local water control takes shape


“We have to say to the few people who are putting this plan together that this does not serve the state of Texas or the people of Texas . . . Moving water does not work.”

There are numerous other ways citizens can get involved, especially helping to organize and support a planned statewide water conference slated for Saturday, March 19 at McKinney Roughs

Note: Here's the latest installment in the escalating war over the transfer of groundwater and groundwater rights in neighboring Bastrop and Lee counties. The map of the proposed pipeline by the Guadalupe Blanco River Authority clearly shows a spur connecting to San Marcos. Future supplemental water supplies to Hays and western Hays County may depend heavily on completion of this pipeline. Whether it can overcome the mounting resistance from Bastrop and Lee county citizens is the key question. There is an oblique reference to the project in a draft long range water plan for Hays County presented at a public meeting last night at the Wimberley Community Center. Here's what it states: "
About the year 2030 when the interim supply agreement with (Canyon Lake Water Supply Corporation) would expire, construct an 18 mile, 16” diameter treated water pipeline from GBRA facilities at the San Marcos Water Treatment Plant, along RR 12, to the City of Wimberley." Download a copy of the draft Hays County Water and Wastewater Facilities Plan here. Comments from the public are being taken until Feb. 3. Call the county's grants administration office at 512.393.2211 for more information.

On another water-related front, we are informed to be on the lookout for legislation from State Sen. Jeff Wentworth that will empower the Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District to levy – with voter approval – an ad valorem property tax rate of up to 5-cents to fund district operations. Some would say, "Better late than never." And others, "Over my dead body!" What will be new State Rep. Jason Isaac's position, will he agree to co-author the bill in the House? Will the groundwater district's current board even allow the question to be brought to a vote?

Send your comments and news tips to roundup.editor@gmail.com or click on the "comments" button at the bottom of the story


For more information on the March water conference and how to get involved, contact Linda Curtis at 512.535.0989.


Read the complete story in the Bastrop Advertiser at
this link.


Wednesday, January 19, 2011 | By Cyndi Wright


Summoning the specter of the Trans-Texas Corridor project that was halted after a successful grassroots mobilization, a mixture of people and groups staged a standing-room only forum Saturday to organize a similar push against recent state decisions concerning water.

Smithville Times / click on graphic to enlarge
Specifically targeted was the Dec. 16 Texas Water Development Board’s approval of a $2.5 million loan to the Guadalupe Blanco River Authority for a pipeline project, dubbed by opponents as the Trans-Texas Water Highway, that is projected to pump an estimated 56,000 acre-feet of water per year from Bastrop and Lee counties to GBRA customers in Hays, Caldwell, Comal, Guadalupe and Kendall counties.

Billed as “The Texas Water War: Will the People Unite?”, the meeting was led by Independent Texan Linda Curtis at Bastrop’s public library on Saturday. The rainy weather seemed especially appropriate for a meeting designed to organize local Texans into finding some measure of control over the limited water resources in the state.

“We are here because this is something we are all concerned about,” Curtis said. “We all drink water.”

Besides Curtis, other organizers of the forum included Environmental Stewardship founder Steve Box; political candidate and local rancher Pati Jacobs; and Phil Cook, representing himself and the Sierra Club.

Not present due to illness was organizer Judith McGeary, founder of the Farm & Ranch Freedom Alliance, which was formed to fight the proposed National Animal Identification System, a governmental solution to tracking diseased livestock that opponents say will drive small and medium-size farmers and ranchers out of business while increasing the consolidation of the food supply into the hands of a few large, multinational corporations.

“The Farm & Ranch Freedom Alliance will play a major role in forming this coalition,” Curtis said.

The grassroots campaign that seriously wounded the Trans-Texas Corridor project was led by Fayetteville couple David and Linda Stall, who received a standing ovation when they joined the meeting Saturday. “You will have to create pressure on your elected officials to get them to make this a priority,” Linda Stall told the crowd. Curtis worked with the Stalls as they led their fight against the TTC. “We learned a lot during the organization of that movement,” she said. Who rules?

Organizers and speakers on Saturday agreed a major problem is the lack of a true, clear, legal definition of who owns groundwater. “Water law is unsettled,” Cook said. “Ownership of groundwater is undecided in Texas.”

The current legal definition, the Rule of Capture, states that whoever owns a piece of property owns the water beneath it. Absent malice or willful waste, landowners have the right to take all the water they can capture from under their land and to do with the water what they please. But according to Cook, it’s still questionable and mostly unclear when that ownership takes place.

“If it is owned, when and where does that take place? While it’s under the ground or when you bring it up and capture it? Water law is highly controversial,” Cook said, explaining why he thinks it has yet to be clearly defined in a legislative session. “For about 20 years we’ve been hearing ‘we’ll deal with that in the next session.’”

Republican Senator Troy Fraser from Horseshoe Bay introduced SB 332 last week, relating to the vested ownership interest in groundwater beneath the surface and the right to produce that groundwater, which states in part: A (grounwater) district may make and enforce rules, including rules limiting groundwater production based on tract size or the spacing of wells, to provide for conserving, preserving, protecting and recharging of the groundwater or of a groundwater reservoir or its subdivisions in order to control subsidence, prevent degradation of water quality or prevent waste of groundwater.

But “it doesn’t solve the problem,” Cook said.

According to Jacobs, a local rancher who owns Bastrop Cattle Company, 75-80 percent of Texas’ population will end up somewhere along the I-35 corridor. “And they need water,” she said. “These people are not our enemies. We need to turn them into our allies.”

According to Jacobs, the rising cost of gasoline will dictate a “seismic” change in the way things are done. “We are going to have to change from a petrochemical society,” she said. “There are tremendous opportunities for change, but you cannot do it without water. In 20 years, there will be no water on I-35 or out here if moving water is how they try to solve it.”

Jacobs said people just need to say no. “We have to say to the few people who are putting this plan together that this does not serve the state of Texas or the people of Texas,” she said. “Moving water does not work.”

With gas prices rising, Jacobs said it will no longer be feasible to truck vegetables from California to Texas – or anywhere else. “We need to build jobs and development around regional agriculture,” she said. “This is not pie in the sky. We have doubled our sales every year for the last four years and used less water doing it.”

One man, identified as Austinite Gordon Walton, told participants that it was going to be an uphill fight against the water marketers and politicians. “Everybody here is going to have to get very passionate,” he said. “This is not going to be a hand-holding thing. The only way we are going to get to them is to get in their faces and make them very uncomfortable. Organizations like this need money to fight this.”

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

We already pay taxes for zero services to Hays County. The county gives a pittance from the taxpayer coffers to HTGCD each year while BORROWING money and throwing it in the trash can to benefit private organizations such as WVWA.

The county GAVE WVWA around $3 million about two years ago. That amount of money would have paid for HTGCD for more than twenty years. 3 months ago, the county foolishly spends another $1.7 million for the benefit of WVWA - enough for ten or more years of HTGCD operation.

WVWA is already at the trough indicating they will be asking for more. I'd much rather that the county use taxpayer funds for HTGCD than WVWA. At the very least the amount is a pittance compared to what the county has wasted on WVWA. Instead of giving the county more lead to waste taxpayer dollars why not ensure HTGCD is in the budget so the county is left with less to waste on WVWA?

Given the counties mismanagement of the taxes it has already collected, it would be a poor idea to allow the county to keep more of that money to be spent on private organizations such as WVWA.

Anonymous said...

I have read this article and the links twice and I have good reading comprehension but for the life of me I have no idea what this is all about. Why would they, whoever ‘they’ is, want to pump water from Bastrop and Lee Counties to San Marcos or San Antonio? Nowhere does this article or the related website explain the proposed use of all this water. While I think I agree in principal with those that say it shouldn’t be done, I’d have to hear the other side before I can form an opinion. It seems a bit presumptuous to ask people to join you in a petition drive when you cannot or will not explain the entire situation. This is just a half story or less. Shame on the Author/s and Editor for presenting a non-story.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 1 is consumed by his own anger and keeps repeating the same old story we have been reading about and gripping about since Jack Hollon's article weeks ago. Get a life, Anon 1 or shut up.

I agree with Anon 2. The story needs more background, other than the usual water profiteers vs. common folk David vs Goliath inference story.

DonQ said...

I first commented as Anonymous #2, asking for more information and since then I have searched further and still haven’t found any information as to why “they” want to ship water across County lines to San Marcos and San Antonio. Is this action illegal or is this just some of our neighbors to the north wishing it were? Someone please explain the similarity between this water pipeline and the “Trans-Texas Corridor”?

I have wasted a lot of time pursuing this Impossible Dream. Since there is no mention of a reason for this and the person’s responsible for the pipeline, I will reserve my opinion until someone comes up with more than “I don’t want it” and silly metaphors. I checked into the so-called independent groups sponsoring this movement and I think that they are anything but independent. They may have a legitimate complaint but they appear to be just another of those, “Not in my backyard clubs”. The term “independent groups” appears to be an oxymoron, anyway.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of water wars, instead of the Milagro Beanfield Wars, we should call this the "Bubba Scheisskopf Wars," in honor of our extremist parody blogger.

Just one suggestion, quite watering down the story to make it insipid and incomplete.

RoundUp Editor said...

Don Quixote, go to the Search This Blog window in the left hand column and type Bastrop Simsboro for more background.

The story - Bastrop, Lee counties under siege from water marketers - includes the most detailed source links with answers to some of your questions. Hope this helps. Thanks for asking.

DonQ said...

Thanks for the tip, Bob. Sorry for my less than charitable comment earlier. Now I think I get it and it looks like our elected officials in Austin are corrupt, who could have known! Everyone that said we didn’t need term limits for the Governor should pay close attention to this developing story. The Perry cronies have been in there so long they have grown into the furniture. The TWDB and the TCEQ are just two examples. If only the Democrats would put up a moderate candidate we would have probably voted their way but they failed to do so. Most Texans have had it with liberals, more than they have had it with Perry, hence he’s back and emboldened by the conservative runaway election last November. The Democrats share much of the blame for holding onto their extreme liberal base so tight and electing a failure for a President. Now we have to deal with those that think they have a mandate to do as they wish. God Bless us all.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous #3 is obviously on the receiving end of taxpayer monies as opposed to the forced contribution end.

Anon #1 was commenting on the proposed legislation mentioned by Conley. Conley is the primary conduit from the taxpayer coffers to WVWA. Conley is pushing the agenda of WVWA and its affiliates who have sought to prohibit residential wells except for those belonging to members of their group - they call it "grandfathering". They want to push prohibitions on everyone else while specifically excepting themselves. Class acts, all of them.

Anonymous said...

re: " legislation from State Sen. Jeff Wentworth that will empower the Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District to levy – with voter approval – an ad valorem property tax of up to 5-cents to fund district operations."

and the way this will be accomplished is by placing equivocal statements on the ballot so that voters will not realize that they are voting to impose a tax upon themselves - just like the ACC tax issue last election for those in HCISD.

Contact Wentworth's office and express your concern about any legislation that proposes to eliminate the right to residential wells (there is no other reason for "grandfathering" to be in unless the plan is to eliminate rights moving forward). Let them know that you support Fraser's SB 332 which recognizes a vested right in groundwater. Let him know that his stakeholders list did not include voters. Wentworth's legislative office number is (512) 463-0125.

Anonymous said...

Second to last Al-Anonymous needs to get his right wing hate talking points in order.

I probably pay more taxes than either you and your Anonymous 1 combined. So clarify my comment if you want, but don't show us your stupidity by saying I'm on the receiving side of your redneck tax money.

There is another blog called "Goober Talk" that I suggest you write to instead.

Attention! said...

Concerning the tree cutting at
the Junction: Some citizens have
wondered why the tree cutting
extends towards San Marcos
so far from the Junction itself.
They say, well, I understand that
room has to be made for the new
intersection being made at the Junction, but why are trees being
sacrificed way beyond that point?

It all fits together in the plan
that Commissioner Conley and his
backers have for development along
RR 12 between Wimberley and San
Marcos. They got a bond issue passed that allows the commissioners to authorize buying
and clearing right-of-way along
that route. Now, under the guise
of making a safer intersection,
they are clearing land at the
Junction -- but also far beyond it.
It's ultimately to make the route
more appealing to the homeowners
that Conley et al want to lure to
the area. The new bypass at San
Marcos is another part of the
road lure.

Also, they are getting us dulled
to one horror at a time. First the
clearing of all trees on each side
of RR 12. They'll give us a couple
of years to get over that loss,
and eventually-- with no trees in
the way -- they can start laying
the large water lines which are
planned to bring water along RR 12
from San Marcos to Wimberley. That
water will be funneled to San Marcos by the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority and/or from the Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation
District (against the wishes and
protests of people in Bastrop and
Lee Counties). Conveniently, then,
there will be water along RR 12
for the homes developers want to
build there.

Meanwhile, we will be paying higher
taxes to provide roads, utilties,
and other services to the new
homes and to provide schools
and teachers for the children who
live in them. It's a fact that the taxes on people in new subdivisions never come close to
paying for the roads, schools, and
other services which those new
homeowners receive.

Prediction said...

Once the right of way all along
RR 12 is cleared from San Marcos to
the Junction, county commissioners will have some expensive trees planted (like those planted sporadically along the new bypass) along RR 12, but the trees will be
well out of the way of room for
large water lines.

The HDR water report (commissioned
at $200,000 by Commissioners Court)
conveniently suggests that additional future water for
Wimberley will have to come from
San Marcos and/or from Canyon Lake.
My bet is on San Marcos, because
1)water from Canyon Lake is being bought by San Antonio as
fast as they can arrange it; 2) a
Canyon Lake pipeline would be far
more expensive than one from San
Marcos; and 3) there is more water
in the Lost Pines Groundwater GCD
than in Canyon Lake.

The HDR report includes Canyon Lake
as an option just to give us the
illusion of a choice.

















a Canyon Lake pipeline would be