Wednesday, April 13, 2011
SB 1901 proposes changing terms of office for groundwater district board
[Please see the comments. There are actually important changes in the proposed legislation.]
Finally, a proposed piece of legislation related to the Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District was introduced this week by State Sen. Jeff Wentworth. New provisions are added to the current legislation governing the District regarding notice to neighboring property owners within a quarter mile by permit applicants of high volume groundwater wells (25,000 gallons per day and above).
Other provisions address well exemptions. Overall, it's a relatively innocuous bill, considering the numerous and major recommended changes that came out of the Hays County water stakeholder group a few months ago and subsequently passed along to Sen. Wentworth.
State Rep. Jason Isaac should have no problem with this bill, as it does nothing beyond the notification requirement and would change the terms of office for the HTGCD's five board directors, from two years to four years.
Read the text of SB 1901 at this link: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/billtext/html/SB01901I.htm. The bill has been referred to the Senate Natural Resources Committee.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
"Innocuous"? Let's see:
1. Eliminates residential (exempt) wells under HTGCD's enabling statute
2. Eliminates exemption for people with 10 acres but only in HTGCD. This means anyone else in the state with more than 10 acres can have a residential well. Only property owners in HTGCD would be prohibited.
3. Removes caps on well construction fees paid to HTGCD. Right now that fee is $300. The rumor is those behind this hope to regain control of the HTGCD board again and hike the fee to $10,000-$12,000. This is in addition to actual construction costs.
4. Requires property owners seeking a residential well to obtain a permit for domestic wells. However, the people pushing this (David Baker, Jack Hollon, WVWA) have adamantly opposed issuing permits since 2008 and have taken the position that the area is "over-allocated" and therefore no permits will be granted.
5. Well construction standards - GCDs are currently prohibited from imposing more stringent well construction standards than imposed by the state. This bill exempts HTGCD from this restriction. Rumor has it that the proponents of this bill intend to impose absurd construction standards like stainless steel casing the full depth of the well in the event they are forced to issue permits.
Not one affected property owner in the HTGCD territory was allowed to participate in the "stakeholder" process run by Wentworth and his buddy Andy Sansom at the River Institute in San Marcos. Only astroturfing organizations and out-of-area groups were allowed to participate.
Bottom line - this is about rendering your property uninhabitable and valueless as part of the "vision" of Jack Hollon, David Baker, and the WVWA cult. You will be invited to sell it "cheap" to the county, WVWA, or The Nature Conservancy - they are attempting to acquire 30,000 acres in Hays County for "conservation" and rendering the property valueless and uninhabitable is the approach.
1st anonymous is correct. On second, closer review, there are wholesale changes/additions prosposed in the bill - huge implications for either side of the Great Groundwater Conservation Divide. Obviously, it will make the outcome of May's election for two seats on the District's board all the more critical.
Another change in SB 1901 is that
anyone elected to a director post in May 2011 will have a 3-year
spot on the HTGCD Board. Then,
beginning May 2012, directors will
be elected to four-year positions.
To 1st Anonymous, 5:56 PM:
In 2 of your 5 assertions (#3 & #5)
you use the word "rumor." It's the old Fox News trick of scaring the public with "rumor has it" or "some
say."
Just give us facts, not rumor.
Anon #1:
Your #1 -- Where in SB 1901 is it
written that there will be no
exempt residential wells?
Your #2 -- Ditto
Your #3 -- It's true the hook-up
fee is no longer $300, but the fee is not stated. I strongly doubt that HTGCD would attempt to charge tie-on fees of anywhere near $10,000 and up. The Board would be chucked out -- to put it mildly. Anyhow, when I moved to Woodcreek North, I paid over $650 to tie on to what was then AquaSource. What do other GCDs -- which are like HTGCD in having no ad valorem tax -- charge to tie on?
And you admit --- "rumor."
Your #4. Getting a permit for
residential wells is not a devious
thing. Shoot, little old backward
Cherokee County (excuse me) makes
all new wells register. It's a tool
for getting a handle on how much
groundwater really is used in HTGCD. Right now, the amount used by all the exempt wells (over 90% of all the wells) is anybody's guess, leading to quarrels among
Board members about the guestimates.
Your #5. Again the HTGCD Board would be run out of the county if
it tried to implement well
construction standards that are
prohibitively costly.
And again, "rumor."
From Anonymous #1 to:
Anonymous #2-
"Believe" what you want. The conduct of Baker, Hollon, WVWA, Conley, and Ford in seeking power to impose unlimited requirements on well construction should speak loudly enough. Also, instead of increasing the cap on the well construction fee, the bill simply eliminates any cap.
Anonymous #3-
A registration fee is what exempt wells pay. A well construction fee is what a well requiring a permit pays. "Exempt" means used for domestic purposes and exempt from having to have a permit or paying production fees. "Permitted" wells on the other hand may be denied simply by denying a permit.
1. Elimination of exempt wells? Look at Section 5(2) which repeals the exempt well provision 3.0305(a),(b) under the HTGCD enabling act.
2. Elimination of 10 acre exemption? Section 3A.0353 states that Water Code §36.117(b)(1) does not apply to the district. This is the 10 acre exemption. Still a non-believer?
3. You have confused "hook up" fees with registration fees and well construction fees. These are completely different fees - some paid to other entities. The objective of this bill is to eliminate exempt wells thus requiring you to obtain a permit before you can drill or operate a well. The people behind this have no intention of issuing permits should they regain control of the HTGCD. The fallback position is to charge exorbitant "well construction fees" for permitted wells to achieve the same result. This bill removes any upper limit on the fee charged for a permit.
The $650 you paid to AquaSource has absolutely nothing to do with HTGCD fees. You paid a tap fee or other fee allowed under Aqua's TCEQ-approved water tariff.
HTGCD has the ability to charge production fees to permit holders and certain other fees. In your case such fees would be passed on to the customers. If money was really the issue, HTGCD can raise funds without taxes. But money is not the issue. The issue is putting everyone on "permitted" systems and then denying permits by any means possible. This is no rumor. Attend an HTGCD meeting and watch the antics of Baker and his followers.
As to kicking elected officials out, there is no authority to recall a director of a GCD.
4. Registration vs Permitted wells. You misunderstand the distinction between registration and permits. Exempt wells in HTGCD must register. Exempt wells are those used for domestic purposes which meet several other constraints. The folks behind this bill seek to eliminate exempt wells and provide only for "permitted wells". This means you can't have the well without a permit. They have no intention of issuing permits should they come into power again.
5. Construction standards. This is hidden in Section 5(1) with the repeal of 3.0304(e). They certainly intend to impose cost prohibitive standards, that's why there are no limitations on the standards they could impose.
As for "running them out of office", GCD board members are not subject to recall. This is one of the reasons that HTGCD's terms are currently 2 years. People did not trust the folks pushing for the creation of the district to begin with. When you increase the term and cannot recall them, they can wreak considerable damage over 4 years. The people pushing this already lost their control over the HTGCD and have sought these changes through other means.
I've addressed your questions and supported my position. Believe what you want. It's quite apparent what Baker, Hollon, WVWA, Conley, and Karen Ford are up to.
SB 1901 is an evil stealthy backdoor attack on our Private Property Rights by those that wish to take away our rights to have our own well while leaving theirs intact. This will make future exempt wells unobtainable and it will only be a matter of time before they come after all exempt residential wells. The water hippies wish to emasculate the HTGCD and prevent any more growth in Hays County. This will have the effect of lowering property values and subsequently the County tax revenues. This is something I would expect in a turd world country not in the great State of Texas. Senator Wentworth should be ashamed and be made to explain himself.
The proponents of this bill are not seeking to "emasculate HTGCD" per se - they are seeking to create an authoritarian regime that they hope to control.
But just in case, they seek to eliminate domestic (exempt) wells to render property valueless and uninhabitable. Without exempt wells, you can only have a well if you can obtain a permit. Of course, this group already opposes permits. In fact, I think you will find them actively opposing Wimberley Springs Partners permit even though they have absolutely no standing to do so. They are anti-change and they seek to render YOUR property worthless and uninhabitable for THEIR "Vision". What do you think they will do if allowed to control the HTGCD again?
Read more about Hollon's article entitled "Vision..." and maybe you will "see the light". Remember "people-free zones" are what this group is seeking. Rendering your property uninhabitable and worthless is a means to their objectives.
to IC_delight:
Neither David Baker nor WVWA nor
Jack Hollon wishes to have "people-
free zones." (Latest buzz word of the ... what? Go-Growthers?) What
they do want is enough water -- now
and in the future -- for all of us.
Dripping Springs people who speak
at the HTGCD meetings frequently say "When the water runs out, it
will happen first in Dripping Springs [instead of Wimberley]."
Whether that is true or not doesn't
matter; what does matter is that
people there are saying that, and yet seem either unaware or
unalarmed at the massive development that their city govt.
and their Chamber of Commerce have
signed them on to. There is a list
somewhere on this blog showing a
long list of subdivisions in the
works in the DS area. Having enough water for them is the main worry, but with those houses will come children for which expensive schools will have to be built, roads needed (which eventually seem to end up on the county's maintenance list), hospitals needed, etc. Estimates are that $25,000 per new house
in unfunded expenses come with
each one. Property taxes (which
already are almost unbearable) will
rise for everyone in the county --
we will be paying to educate many
new children.
If I sound like a no-growther to
you, so be it. I think I'm a
realist.
I am impressed by the recent comments and articles by Barbara Hopson. She appears to be as factual and as apolitical as one can be in an era of extreme political dysfunction and divisiveness.
I appreciate the great work of keeping me informed with your matter of fact simplicity and your positive solution focused submissions. Keep writing. We can all benefit from your research and thoughts.
Senator Wentworth’s SB 1901 is an obvious rush job created by someone who has an agenda of “fixing” the often mentioned “exempt well problem” in Hays County. The HTGCD does not have any real control over exempt wells, hence the title, “Exempt”. This fact angers and disturbs those few that favor more government control over private property. The more we have the government in our every day lives the less this land looks like America.
The present makeup of the HTGCD Board does not favor any attempt at placing further restrictions on exempt wells but an election is nearly upon us. Things can change and we could be back in the clutches of the control advocates that formerly inhabited the board or even worse. This Bill is designed to grease the rails for that eventuality.
Barbara Hopson said...
“Another change in SB 1901 is thatanyone elected to a director post in May 2011 will have a 3-year
spot on the HTGCD Board. Then, beginning May 2012, directors will be elected to four-year positions.”
This is only if you don’t take into consideration that the present election is for 2 persons to serve for two year terms and that is what the voters are presently deciding. The bill, if it becomes law cannot change the outcome of an election that was decided before its enactment. Therefore the directors elected in May of 2011 will only be allowed to serve for two year terms.
Even if the bill were to be rocketed through, that part would be unconstitutional. This is one example of the sloppiness in this hurry-up bill that came from an agenda driven group and will have to be amended, or should it pass, challenged in court.
The Lege can change the laws governing exempt wells but not monkey with the regulatory body that manages conserves, preserves recharge and prevents the waste of the property owner’s groundwater.
This does not sound like Senator Wentworth’s work and one can only guess at which group might be pushing this kind of thing. Since the bulk of the bill would stifle growth in the County, you can make up your own mind. There are plenty of rumors running around but I will not spread them here.
To Anon April 16, 7:38 AM:
Yes, I realize that if SB 1901 does
not become law before May 14, then
the winning HTGCD candidates will serve terms of only 2 years, not 3.
But it is a real possibility that
such a lightning passage could happen. Since the bill concerns
only HTGCD -- not all GCDs -- it
could skate to victory via the Local and Consenst Calendar.
Ms. Hopson, the determining date will not be Election Day, May 14th, but when the voting starts. Think early voting and mail in ballots. It is the fact of what the voter is notified he/she is voting for, not the day the votes are counted.
In any case the Bill is not scheduled for a hearing and it would still have to go to the House in the unlikely event our heroes in the senate pass it. The Chairman of the Natural Resources committee, Troy Fraser may not even let it be considered since he was shoved around over SB 332.
It is already too late for the 3-year term to be valid for this election since the mail in ballots are being processed and sent out. I’m sure it will be amended if it ever comes up for a hearing.
It is a bad bill and there is certain to be a lot of debates if it is considered at all. If this thing passes you can say goodbye to exempt wells in future and probably tons of restrictions placed on those exempt wells that already exist. I am told the lobbying against the bill is intense!
To Anon April 16, 4:33 PM:
Thanks for setting me straight about any legislation's having to
be passed before mail-in and early
voting begins -- not just before
Election Day. That makes sense.
It is interesting that only one candidate in the HTGCD Candidates Form held last night in Wimberley, went on record as favoring Wentworth’s Bill 1901. That candidate was Steve Janda running for District 2. He is known to be backed by the past Hays County Commissioner, Karen Ford and was noticeably glancing at her when the statements were made. Mr. Janda is well spoken and seems to have a grasp of the job but he may be too invested in the wishes of Ms. Ford to be an independent Director on the Board. It may be that Ford is one of the few dignitaries that are pushing the Bill. Mr. Janda should be his own candidate and he will be better served.
Mr. Janda was not real clear but he seemed to favor an ad valorem tax (Complete Chapt. 36) to finance the HTGCD also known to be a Karen Ford favorite. I’m concerned that Ms. Ford may be trying to regain control of these issues through the candidacy of Steve Janda. What a pity since I believe Steve Janda could be a viable candidate otherwise.
I thought Mr. Janda was well spoken as well!
But I especially loved what Mr. Nesbitt said!
Oh.... wait.... Greg didn't show up to say anything now did he?!
Go figure....
I wouldn’t read too much into the fact that Mr. Nesbitt chose not to attend the “forum”. May incumbents would make that choice since they would be scrutinized and have every word parsed due to pending actions before the District especially in the Wimberley area.
Regarding Senate Bill 1901, at the HTGCD Candidates Forum last Monday:
Candidate for the HTGCD position 4, Ed Pope, kind of danced round the subject of Senate Bill 1901, but did caution about “unintended consequences” of the bill. He did however, stop short of opposing to the Bill. It is known that the organization, C.A.R.D., of which he is a member, supports the bill.
On the question of Wentworth’s Senate Bill 1901, Erin Banks, candidate for position 4 on the HTGCD was unequivocal in her opposition to its contents and intent. She called it “far reaching” and “intrusive on property rights” and said it gives too much power to the District. She further said it is not in the best interest of the property owners or the District, therefore she opposes it.
The third candidate for position 4, Dirk Bauer admitted he has only recently read the bill so he couldn’t or shouldn’t comment on it. Although he appeared to know less about the issues than the others, he was entertaining and refreshing during the entire forum for his humble honesty. You couldn’t help but like the guy, but voting for him ... is another story.
As reported earlier, Candidate for positon 2, Steve Janda voiced support for Senare Bill 1901.
Erin Banks was the only one of the candidates to clearly state opposition to Senate Bill 1901.
Hey McMeans, you had a year and Pope was the best you could find.
I'm voting for Banks.
I'll support the candidate who is willing to stop John Gorman from pumping his 20+ wells directly into Bear Creek.
Who is going to make this a campaign issue?
Where are our local water-priests Baker, McMeans and Hollon on this? Where is the current HTGWD board? Where are the candidates?
Most of us feel guilty if we leave the water running while brushing our teeth...
Post a Comment