Many residents were upset because the development (of Wimberley Springs) also includes the possibility of adding another 1,300 homes in the area
Note: This report is from Fox News, Channel 7 in Austin – the only report we could find on yesterday's intense HTGCD board meeting and action at Dripping Springs City Hall. Read it at this link. We have edited it slightly for style. The video story says that one-acre-foot of water equals about 32,600 gallons. The correct number is 326,000 gallons – technically, 325,851 gallons.
Send your comments, questions and news tips to roundup.editor@gmail.com, to the Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District at manager2@haysgroundwater.com or click on the "comments" button at the bottom of the story
Published: Monday, 21 Feb 2011, 9:58 PM CST
DRIPPING SPRINGS, TX - Hundreds of residents (many from Wimberley) packed a meeting Monday to persuade the Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District to vote down two deals that would pump millions of gallons of water out of the Trinity Aquifer.
The entire meeting went about 6 hours and the board approved those two requests for water.
One of the requests was for developer Wimberley Springs Partners, to use 250 acre feet (81 million gallons) of water per year for a golf course already on the property. The other request was for the existing Wimberley Water Supply Corp. [to] expand its usage from 695 to 770 acre feet per year.
To put it into context, 1 acre-foot equals a football field (covered in one foot of water). A large majority of the residents who spoke out at the meeting stated that 1 acre-foot of water is too much.
"Those of us here are extremely concerned about staying here and having water. Nobody will be able to come here. They'll be no growth if there is no water," said Linda Kaye Rogers, a Wimberley area resident.
All of the water permitted on Monday is pumped out of the Trinity Aquifer. The golf course development is also in the watershed recharging zone for Jacob's Well. Many residents were upset because the development (of Wimberley Springs) also includes the possibility of adding another 1,300 homes in the area.
Board members were split. Board Vice-President David Baker who is also executive director of the Wimberley Valley Watershed Association voted against the deals saying they're already pumping about 2-thousand acre feet per year more than their plan for the Trinity Aquifer allows.
Board President Jimmy Skipton says Wimberley Springs Partners has been around longer than the district so they've been allowed to pump even more water than they permitted during that time.
"These permits that were granted today are essentially like deficit spending. It's deficit pumping. It's pumping more than annually comes into the aquifer and it's going to continue the degradation and depletion of our groundwater in the hill country," said Baker.
"For 5 years they've tried to get a permit and have not been able to. With us issuing this permit for 250 acre feet. They will now fall under our jurisdiction which means they'll fall under our district which means they'll follow our drought management plans and we'll know exactly what they're pumping," said Skipton.
Exactly how much more water can be safely pumped from the Aquifer? That number is what's called managed available groundwater (ultimately set by the state) and those estimates varied widely. One report found only 331 acre per feet should be pumped a year another report said 5,000 acre feet.
In the coming weeks board members with the conservation district will have to find a number that gives them a better idea of what the Aquifer can take.
Wimberley Water Wars - Residents Fight Golf Course: MyFoxAUSTIN.com
19 comments:
""For 5 years they've tried to get a permit and have not been able to. With us issuing this permit for 250 acre feet. They will now fall under our jurisdiction which means they'll fall under our district which means they'll follow our drought management plans and we'll know exactly what they're pumping," said Skipton."
Mumbo jumbo.
These wells have been under the jurisdiction of the HTGCD since it was created in 1999. Permitting them now doesn't establish any more jurisdiction than existed before.
If HTGCD couldn't afford a contested case hearing (legal suit) before a permit was issued; the HTGCD can't afford a contested case hearing now that a permit has been issued.
Winton Porterfield (Wimberley Springs Partner; Loomis Partners; etc.) never attends a vote session unless it it wired. When I saw Winton yesterday I knew he had the vote.
I don't blame Winton or any of his special interest cronies who only care about profits. I blame the three voters who failed to go to the polls and allowed Mark Key to be elected---giving Skipton a majority with Greg Nesbitt and Key.
Not voting does make a difference.
Saw disorder in an American Elected Council Meeting yesterday by our supposed water guardians of the Hays Trinity Aquifer. "Water Court" went on for 6 hours! Was so impressed with my Wimberley Valley neighbors!!! So eloquent, caring and well-informed Guardians of our Water Resources. Learned of the concept of “water budget” and we are overdrawn, in water deficit!
Yet, based on the votes of those attending to speak, the outcome would have been about 2 dozen against permitting more water drawn-down, to the 6 or so, who wanted the water for an unnecessary golf course. The group calling themselves, Wimberley Springs Partners,though not local AT ALL, applied for a water permit, adding to our deficit. Based on the vote of the "Water Court," the short-term-profit takers won 3-2. How?
Two Wimberley Water Officers, Baker and Jernigan, voted against the excessive water permit. The 3 Water North County Officers voted to “give our water” to absentee land-owners, with seemingly endless oil money from Midland, the Black family.
Unfortunately, WSP also seems to have poor taste, aesthetically and environmentally. The new WSP limestone entrance is over-built, not in keeping with Wimberley at all, built to "impress the prospective buyers."
The owner-developers call themselves the Wimberley SP, though the owners are "hidden" live way out in west Texas oil fields. See http://ridge-runner.org/?p=140 Their paid project manager and lawyer appeared for them. The WSP commercial group also has created a classic take-over of a subdivision, where the developer owners also "run" that neighborhood citizens owners association, through their general manager, Winton Porterfield, as President of the neighborhood association. WSP owns almost all undeveloped lots, so they have many votes to determine local "neighborhood" outcomes.
Yes, the Wimberley Valley IS beautiful. Profit-takers want to buy in cheap, sell high, and let the Devil take what is left. That would make us, the long-term WV owners likened to their Devil, as we were treates. Yesterday, WSP would not even agree to NOT drawn down all their water from their well adjacent to our bio-regional water treasure, Jacob's Well, an aesthetic, environmentally, historic, tourist-attracting, educational site: called a sacred site, by many. They seemed to know they had the "necessary" votes to get what they were threatening for......
WSP will take their profit and leave; property here is already being massively devalued by the drastic drop in the water table. For the first time in history, Jacob's Well has stopped flowing, twice in the last ten years. It used to spout 20 feet in the air. "We," the locals and tourists, have to be happy, when and if it is flowing now.
Are we at the mercy of "a disorder in these Texas courts and legal systems?" Saw the WSP lawyer talked long of the "old water taking code" of Texas water law; if you own the land, you take what you wish! Even your neighbor's water, if you well runs deep enough. That law has been replaced by the current "water courts," the Hayes Trinity Water Conservation District, based on the more recent water management district law. If current law did not apply, why were they applying for a permit?
The WSP lawyer was nice for a long time, to earn his rumored $400 an hour. Then, he threatened those assembled, [knowing he has deep-oil-filled Midland oil resources] that they "would sue for their water rights," if they "did not get a permit." Is this a major game, by the "monied ones," who seem to be "winning" at the moment.
We will not give up, as guardians of the Wimberley Valley and its water treasures. The water wars are more open now? Who really will win?
Namaste, Roberta Shoemaker-Beal
Headline: Residents fight golf course.
A golf course doesn't have to fight if the referee is owned and paid by the golf course's manager.
In the boxing world we call that a rigged match.
O'Dell,
For once we have a board where the majority recognizes the rights of the individual property owners instead of some Wimberley cult. The bottom line is that there was really no legitimate basis for denying a permit
Roberta Shoemaker-Beal,
If folks followed your logic then it would be okay to take property from anyone you please if you get enough disciples to yell, jeer, and whine. Fortunately, that isn't the way the district works.
You are a member of the public that can provide public input - that's all. This isn't a number game where the HTGCD board is ceremonial only and simply counts the votes of the audience. The bottom line is that you aren't a party to the action. Your vote really doesn't count at all EXCEPT when you are electing YOUR board member for YOUR district. Your group also isn't representative of the remainder of the county in any event.
When an applicant follows all the "rules" then Baker stoops to moving the goal yet again - attempting to administratively defer a decision he knows he has no legitimate reason to deny. Add this to Baker's multiple misrepresentations to state officials (surreptitiously submitting his own personal management plan as if it were the HTGCD plan, submitting false numbers to the TWDB to game the MAG, etc.) and it seems that the real problem on the board is the Wimberley/Woodcreek rep: David Baker. Heck, even the Woodcreek mayor supported granting of the permit
As to the comment about "The new WSP limestone entrance is over-built, not in keeping with Wimberley at all" - who cares what "in keeping" with Wimberley is or means. If, however, you mean it doesn't suffer from old age, crumbling infrastructure, obvious disrepair, etc. then good for them. That's more can be said for the vast majority of the protesters.
When I saw Ms. Shoemaker-Beal’s salutation, “Namaste”, I wondered what it meant so I Googled it. There were several definitions but this one seemed most appropriate;
Namasté, a Beastie Boys track from the album “Check Your Head”
To anonymous 7:40 AM
Very good! At least you tried to look outside of your limited, selfish and myopic world view, cowboy. So kudos to you, sport! Now keep on growing... you can do it.... we know you can.
"Board Vice-President David Baker who is also executive director of the Wimberley Valley Watershed Association voted against the deals saying they're already pumping about 2-thousand acre feet per year more than their plan for the Trinity Aquifer allows."
Where is there any reliable numerical data to support David Baker's claims?
The ONLY source of this claim is David Baker and it is not supported by actual numbers. The only Trinity "plan" Baker could be referring to is the anti-people plan of his WVWA cult - which is not a recognized governing authority or expert on this subject.
The presenters did a much better job with the numbers and reality.
The WVWA folks (and CARD as well) can't handle math or logic because this isn't about math or logic. WVWA and CARD are simply anti-growth, anti-change, and anti-development activists - at least when the subject matter is property owned by others.
O'Dell said "I blame the three voters who failed to go to the polls....."
Mathematically of course you have a problem. First you assume that Backus would have received additional votes. Second, if the ratio kept up, it would not have mattered if 300 more people voted. Finally, giving Backus what is likely an undeserved benefit of the doubt, you are assuming that if Backus had been elected that he would have trampled on the property rights of the applicant. I wouldn't doubt that he would but you shouldn't presume so. "What the majority wants" is irrelevant when you are talking about property and rights that belongs to someone else. To the extent that this board's actions were supported by law there was absolutely no reason to deny the application.
The rights of thousands of residents are being trumped by ONE GOLF COURSE. The water and property rights of Woodcreek and Wimberley residents are being eroded by unwise water uses like this. Yes, this is about property rights, those of the people who live here and depend on that water being available for many years to come.
I don't understand what this whole things symbolizes to those of you who would like to characterize the concern felt by citizens throughout the district for their water as some kind of Hippies vs. Somebody Else (?) debate, but you seem to be playing out some kind of unrelated problem on the water issue.
I almost came unglued during that meeting while having to sit there and listen to that imbecile Greg Nesbitt lecture us on how, because of rainfall multiplied by land acreage, the amount of water they were permitting this golf course was a tiny fraction of the total of water available. Using this same line of reasoning, why doesn't the golf course simply use the massive amount of rainfall its large acreage gives it access to to water it grass?
Nesbitt truly does not understand that rainfall is not the same as the water pumped out of an aquifer. The man sees no difference between water that has slowly trickled into the aquifer over, in some cases, thousands of years, to yesterday's rainfall.
It is the massive misunderstandings of water science like this that underscore every thought (and community decision) that is enacted by men like this. When a man is so poorly educated on the very topic he has been elected to make decisions, we are being led by children who have no idea who they are dealing with and have terribly underestimated the intelligence of their community.
We really need to replace guys like Nesbitt, Key and Skipton as as their terms come due (Nesbitt in May, the other two the next year) and get some scientists and well-informed citizens back onto the Board before the corporate interests talk them into any more stupid decisions with our shared water resources.
What is it about water conservation that is so threatening to how you see the world?
How can making wise decisions about how we use our water be framed by WSP and the pro-development members of the HTGCD as a bad thing?
This is not a conservative vs. liberal issue, this is about water and quality of life and if we trade that away now, we may not have another chance to get it back.
@ Present and accounted for said:
"The rights of thousands of residents are being trumped by ONE GOLF COURSE. The water and property rights of Woodcreek and Wimberley residents are being eroded by unwise water uses like this. Yes, this is about property rights, those of the people who live here and depend on that water being available for many years to come."
You seem to be mistaken as to what your rights are. You don't have an entitlement to the water or its availability. You certainly don't have a right to preclude other property owners from accessing the water. What "rights" are you referring to?
There are plenty of folks who don't care for golf or golf curses (that was not a typo). But if legally speaking such courses are deemed a "beneficial use" then irrigating such a course is not considered wasteful.
To 8:03 pm 2/23/11
Legal! Legal to you is everything isn’t it? What about Moral? Responsible? Considerate? Neighborly? Christian? What about caring for God’s own remarkable creation – this beautiful land he’s given us stewardship over?
Legally, we’ve no entitlement to the air we breathe, either. Does this mean if you could suck it from our lungs and sell it you would? I have no doubt that you would! I have not a single doubt!
Anon 8:03PM is absolutely correct. People don't have rights, only corporations have rights.
@Anonymous 02/24/2011 7:15 PM said:
"Legal! Legal to you is everything isn’t it? What about Moral? Responsible? Considerate? Neighborly? Christian? What about caring for God’s own remarkable creation – this beautiful land he’s given us stewardship over? "
What's moral about denying someone else their property rights? What's moral about saying "I can have a well but you can't"? You expect an entitlement (that you don't have) AND you want to deny others similar rights or entitlements.
As for caring for the land, there is nothing immoral about building houses - not everyone can live under a rock.
No doubt you are writing from the comfort of you own house as you try to prevent change elsewhere in the area. Some might view that as hypocritical.
We need to redefine "beneficial" use.
Seems to me this golf course benefits NO ONE in this community and threatens to put the water supply in further danger of depletion.
“For once we have a board where the majority recognizes the rights of the individual property owners instead of some Wimberley cult.“
Translated: “Anarchists have hijacked the HTGCD under the guise of property rights.”
The HTGCD was created by state law confirmed by a 2/3 majority of HTGCD voters.
An open public process was instrumental in formulating local Rules for achieving a legally mandated HTGCD mission to protect, preserve and manage a common resource for all current and future property owners.
HTGCD scientists immediately set out collecting data and information about the Aquifer that would underpin application of those Rules to preserve the Aquifer for all citizens.
To override the lawful protection of common interests ~ protection that is necessary to protect individual interests ~ is anarchy.
Anarchy - a state of society without government or law.
“The bottom line is that there was really no legitimate basis for denying a permit.”
This describes the logical conclusion of an anarchist driven by self-interest and who fails to understand that individual interests can’t be safeguarded outside common interests. Thus, individual property rights cannot be absolute, only reasonable and responsible.
Common interests are the essence of democracy, and passive citizens open the door to anarchy.
Charles: You nailed it! The anarchists in this particular scenario are big oil speculators and their bought and paid for elected officials, WSP and Aqua Texas employees, and the most incidious of all, those in the neighborhood who have extracted a promise of future entitlement from Mr. Porterfield by serving on boards and voting in the interest of WSP and against the best interest of the community they are supposed to represent. And of course by showing up in meetings and hearings spouting WSP's talking points. Sickening!
@Anon Feb. 26th 11:04
"As for caring for the land, there is nothing immoral about building houses - not everyone can live under a rock."
You make it sound as if there are countless people out there who are "living under rocks", desperate for homes. So in your mind a high density development is what...? A service to your community? Give me a break!
The immoral part comes to play when Jacob's Well, Cypress Creek, and surrounding water wells run dry due to over-pumping by greedy developers with no scruples.
An entire town will be affected on several levels. Property values will plummet,tourists will no longer come here for the beauty, shopkeepers will close down and the poor fools who bought land from those developers will wonder why they were so stupid (as many in Woodcreek Phase II are already wondering). And all this because these developers were "within their legal rights?" They will sell the beauty here as a feature, affectively destroy it, pollute the groundwater with chemicals and hightail it back to Midland with their pockets full and their self-righteousness in tact.
If you don't see this as a possibility, nor see any problem with this scenario then I pity you.
Post a Comment