Another big change, possibly a nod to groundwater conservationists, is a reduction in the amount of groundwater a private residential well may produce to remain exempt and unregulated
Update, Thursday May 5: Rep. Isaac called from the House floor to mention a few things about his bill. In drafting the proposed legislation, Isaac said he and his office have worked with members of the Water Stakeholder Group put together by former State Rep. Patrick Rose . . . Andy Sansom, Will Conley, others, and "Jimmy Skipton in particular." "I forwarded the draft language to some other people to see what they thought . . . there was a lot of back and forth." State Sen. Wentworth has not yet personally agreed to support Isaac's HB 3865. Wentworth's version is SB 1901. On the proposed permit fee increase: "I understand the concern for additional funds (for the District) . . . I do believe our groundwater is a limited resource; the district should have the authority to charge fees and I don't think $300 was enough." On lowering daily production from 25,000 gallons to 15,000 gallons: "I wanted to see a reduction in that number. 25,000 gallons a day is way too high. I think we need to decrease the pumping and the reliance on groundwater as much as possible."
Note: Nothing in Isaac's bill and nothing in the legislation currently granting minimal regulatory powers to the HTGCD allows a property tax or an election for a property tax, nor do they allow unannounced inspections on private property. Anyone passing around such rumors are sorely misinformed. The bill does contain a clause which appears to make it an ex post facto law, Section 8(c): "A member of the board of directors of the Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District elected in May 2011 serves a three-year term." The law currently says that terms are for 2 years. Citizens have already voted early and by mail in the May 14, 2011 election, and they were voting with the belief that candidates would be serving terms of only two years. Isaac should not be changing the rules in the middle of an election. He should either remove the clause or change the language so that new terms of office become effective in the next election.
Send your comments and questions to roundup.editor@gmail.com, to Rep. Isaac at Jason.Isaac@house.state.tx.us (512. 463.0647) or click on the "comments" at the bottom of the story
By Bob OchoaEditor
State Rep. Jason Isaac, R-Dripping Springs, yesterday filed HB 3865, proposing amendments to the legislation that created the Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District in 2001.
See the bill text here.
HTGCD Board President Jimmy Skipton said only that he is "very comfortable" with the bill from Isaac.
The legislation would increase fees the District may charge for new groundwater well construction permits and water utility connections, up to $1,000, from the current maximum of $300. It proposes 4-year terms for District Directors and would require that District elections be held in May on even numbered years. Language is stricken from the bill that allow elections be held in November.
Another big change, possibly a nod to groundwater conservationists, is a reduction in the amount of groundwater a private residential well may produce to remain exempt and unregulated. Currently, home wells are exempt from permitting and regulation if they are producing less than 25,000 gallons daily. HB 3865 would lower the maximum daily allowable production to 15,000 gallons.
55 comments:
Bob said: "Nothing in Isaac's bill and nothing in the legislation currently granting minimal regulatory powers to the HTGCD allows a property tax or an election for a property tax, nor do they allow unannounced inspections on private property. Anyone passing around such rumors are sorely misinformed."
This is a bit misleading Bob. No one could have said such a thing about Isaac's bill since it was just filed. You are at least partially incorrect about "current legislation" if you are referring to existing statutes such as the enabling statutes for HTGCD or Chapter 36 of the Water Code.
You know darn well that Sen Wentworth's SB 1901 would empower the district to require all wells (including those currently deemed exempt) to have operating permits. Don't try to suggest that those promoting such powers would "never try to exercise them". The power to require operating permits is also the power to deny them and your domestic well along with it.
The ONLY protection homeowners have from this is found in HTGCD's enabling statute which prohibits HTGCD from being able to require operating permits for domestic wells. Wentworth seeks to eliminate such a prohibition on the HTGCD's authority. Without such a limitation the next board could simply say "we're not going to allow any exempt wells and all wells require operating permits".
A permitted well is subject to metering, production fees, and unwarranted inspections. Most people would consider production fees to be a TAX. Thus it is quite appropriate to say that Wentworth's bill SB 1901 empowers the district to TAX without any vote at all. Ad valorem taxation is not the only form of taxation.
As to inspections,§36.123(b) of the Water Code purports to allow agents of the district to enter public or private property without consent of the property owner, without a warrant, and without probable cause to search for violations of "rule, regulation, permit, or other order of the district". About the only limitations on the authority to enter are that the district's agents are required to enter at a "reasonable time" and to show "proper identification" to occupants. So you see Bob, if you are reduced to a permittee your "property right" has just been reduced to that of a licensee who is subject to metering, production fees (i.e., TAXES), and unwarranted searches for doing nothing more than providing groundwater beneath your property to your own house.
For the reasons indicated above, candidates actively opposing taxation and unwarranted intrusions are responding Sen Wentworth's SB 1901 and the illegitimate "stakeholders" promoting such trash.
Whoa, IC_deLight! You started out responding to Bob Ochoa's statements about Rep. Isaac's HB 3865. You agree that it says nothing about a property tax for HTGCD or about unannounced property inspections. Then, in paragraph 3, you abruptly change to complaining about Sen. Wentworth's SB 1901. Way to change the subject! (And the subject IS Isaac's HB 3865.)
So, I guess you favor Isaac's HB 3865 and detest Wentworth's SB 1901?
Thanks IC. Again, there is nothing in HTGCD's enabling legislation nor in Isaac's bill that would allow taxation or unnannonced visits onto private property. Wenthworth's SB 1901 has some wiggle room in it w/ regards to home exemptions. If there are issues with the state water code, that's a whole other dog fight. Isaac's and Wenthwhorth's bills must be reconciled. That's not likely to happen simply due to not much time remaining in the session, the bills are very far apart, and Isaac clearly has the upper hand. Congrats are in order to both for kicking the HTGCD tin can down the road for another two years and to whomever is really pulling the strings.
To One Rant at a Time and editor Ochoa:
I did not "change the subject". I addressed the editor's remarks about HB 3865 and "existing legislation". "Existing legislation" can certainly encompass pending bills along with existing statutes.
For his rebuttal, the editor has changed the phrase to "enabling legislation" which is not the same as "existing legislation". In addition, you forgot about the provisions of Chapter 36.
Contrary to representations made otherwise, existing statutes empower the district to enter onto private property "unannounced" and without consent, warrant, or probable cause. Water Code §36.123. The only protection homeowners have against such a thing is the express provision in HTGCD's enabling legislation which prohibits such intrusions with respect to exempt wells. Isaac's bill does not try to eliminate this protection but Wentworth's bill (i.e., "existing legislation") does.
There has not even been time for anyone to pass around rumors about Isaac's bill because it was so new.
The implication that you made about "rumors" and "existing legislation" inappropriately casts a false light on candidates who have properly identified and warned citizens about "existing legislation" and made i) protection of property rights and ii) opposition to taxation and permits for domestic wells a campaign platform.
Existing legislation would extend the power of the district to include unwarranted "inspections" of your in addition to those already provided by existing statutes. The existing statute is Water Code §36.123. The existing legislation is SB 1901.
Pointing at HB 3865 or the original enabling legislation as "proof" that "existing legislation" does not allow taxes or unannounced inspections is rather misleading given that other existing legislation would.
..and for the record, I would not support Isaac's bill in its current form.
For example, exempt wells are currently divided into two categories:
1) a well used for domestic use by a single private residential household and producing not more than 25,000 gallons per day; and
2) a well used for conventional farming and ranching activities, including such intensive operations as aquaculture, livestock feedlots, or poultry operations
Note that exempt wells may not be regulated, permitted, or metered by the district.
Isaac's bill lowers the cap for exempt well type #1 to 15,000 gallons per day. Type #2 is left intact.
However, Isaac adds in a provision that requires a permit for any well capable of producing more than 15,000 gallons per day for any use. There is now clearly a conflict with wells defined as exempt. Moreover, this would affect existing type #2 well owners who would be forced to now go apply for an operating permit, be subject to inspections under 36.123 of the Water Code, the potential for production fees, etc.
The bill is not internally consistent. Is a permit required or not? Are all the ag well owners out here aware that they are about to be subjected to permitting, metering, production fees, and unwarranted inspections?
This bill is a significant improvement over Wentworth's. Wentworth clearly intended a complete evisceration of property rights. I hope that Isaac will clarify the internal consistency and preserve type #1 and type #2 exemptions.
So no, I would not support this bill as written.
Seems like Isaac made solid changes to Sen. Wentworth's bill,
Anonymous of May 4, 2011 8:45 PM said... "Seems like Isaac made solid changes to Sen. Wentworth's bill"
Solid, yes but no cigar. The new bill still has some onerous provisions, making it as bad or worse that SB 1901 as my friend, "IC_deLight" explained above. The agendas are clear that there are some people (mostly in the Wimberley area) that simply want to put an end to future exempt wells, while preserving THEIR present ones.
The ones behind that attempt are Pope sponsored by CARD and Janda sponsored by Karen Ford in the present election. Banks and Nesbitt want to protect the water rights of all property owners.
Isaac's HB 3865 changes fees from
$300 to $1,000. And, as many remind us, "fees are the same as taxes."
Where is the outrage against Jason Isaac for increasing taxes? Or are
those conservatives who already have their own wells not concerned about newcomers who -- if this bill becomes law -- will now have to pay higher fees to have THEIR wells?
Got news for you. The "permit" provisions of Isaac's bill apply to ALL wells regardless of use.
So existing residential wells and all ag wells built with the physical ability to pump more than 15,000 gpm would be required to obtain an operating permit. (see sections 1 and 5 of the bill)
This is ill-advised and should be removed. Don't forget that "permits" mean unwarranted inspections and the prospect for metering and production fees (i.e., taxes).
No homeowner or ag user should be turned into an involuntary "applicant" that has to deal with the vagaries of Jim McMeans (CARD) or WVWA and be put through the false propaganda, delay tactics, public hearings, meritless multiple hearings over informal protests, petitions, contested case threats, or threats of litigation over whether the applicant should be allowed to have a permit.
Think its over after you receive the permit? Think again. Members of WVWA and CARD have tried to get Commissioners Court to authorize an election to overturn a permit approval and have threatened litigation over approved permits.
Even after you get a permit - you get to deal with these ne'er do well groups again when you request renewal of your permit.
WVWA and McMeans (CARD) have a history of engaging in abusive tactics to achieve their vision for "people-free zones", "no-growth", or "anti-change" - at the expense and to the detriment of the actual property owners.
In fact, the antics of the members of these groups (WVWA and CARD) should cause voters to be particular concerned about whether voter should be cautious about HTGCD candidate affiliation's with WVWA or CARD - particularly in view of the pending legislation.
Getting rid of a paid agent of the WVWA on the HTGCD board is a positive step. Merely replacing WVWA directors with CARD directors/steering members/advisors is probably not a positive step for property owners - particularly in view of both of these organizations public attempts to outlaw/eliminate exempt wells - the kind of wells voters have.
To Uncommon Cents and IC_deLight
What happened to you? Who took away your Tonka toy as a child?
You act like you are noble heros fighting against an oppressor, who given a chance, would swoop in and take what is yours! Give me a break!
You wave your (our) American flag around like you have personal ownership of it... like you, yourself, created the constitution... like that flag does and always has stood for your own personal agenda. This is egomaniacal!
in truth, you come off more like spoiled, selfish brats than heros.
We are all in this together, boys! I can promise you that none of us here want what it is you think you have. No one's trying to take away your toys! But what would you do with your time if you realized that? You'd have nothing! You'd have absolutely nothing to do! Try gardening.
Please, get over yourselves!
Property appraisals from Hays County Appraisal District (CAD) will soon be in your mailbox. You have until June 1 to protest the valued placed on your property.
One thing you should do is compare your appraisal to that of your neighbors with comparable lots and/or homes. You can go to www.txcountydata.com and search for "Hays" County. Once there, you can search for an address, an owner, or a Property ID (an "R" number). The R number of your property is shown on your tax appraisal -- usually R plus 5 numbers (e.g., R57875), or plus 6 numbers for recently platted parcels. If your R# is R57875, for example, you can search for R57874,
R57876, and other nearby properties.
If you live in Woodcreek North, City of Woodcreek, or Wimberley Springs, you will want to compare the value placed on your lot (NOT your home) to nearby lots owned by
Wimberley Springs Partners (WSP). Almost always (unless CAD has just made re-evaluation of WSP lots) WSP lots will be at a lower valuation than yours. Ask that your
lot value be decreased to that of the WSP lot.
You can find the lots owned by WSP by searching on "owner" at www.txcountydata.com. Where the computer screen asks for "owner," put all of this in the "LAST Name" box: Wimberley Springs Partners. Leave the "First Name" box blank.
Here's an example taken from the tax records of differing values placed on lots owned by WSP and on nearby lots owned by individuals:
R49408 IND $6,500
R49409 IND 6,500
R49410 IND 6,500
R49411 WSP 5,270
R49412 WSP 5,270
R49413 WSP 5,270
R49414 IND 6,500
R49415 WSP 5,270
R49416 WSP 5,270
R49417 WSP 5,270
R49418 IND 6,500.
Good luck!
@Anonymous 9:31 AM May 5, 2011 said:
"What happened to you? Who took away your Tonka toy as a child?
You act like you are noble heros fighting against an oppressor, who given a chance, would swoop in and take what is yours! Give me a break!"
Gardening requires irrigation.
You can go apply for your permit or be comfortable being a slave to an investor owned utility such as AquaTex. No doubt, some will choose the Lotus Eater route. Others will continue to work to preserve their individual right to be free of such nonsense.
IC, uh, maybe the initials are for Intensive Care where you need to be, pronto to stabilize your hyper-ventilating. You are starting to sound like the little boy who cried wolf one too many times. Try giving it a rest.
I will at least give some credit to Isaac for providing some additional financial support to the District thru an increase in the fees.
The lowering of the maximum home well production to 15,000 gallons a day seems more than reasonable to me. Who on God's earth needs 15,000 gallons of water for home use every day?? Looks like this has more do to with sound conservation of groundwater than a violation of anybody's private property rights.
I think it is kind of strange that those that have not supported the HTGCD in their work are now all of a sudden concerned about their funding. In fact it is disingenuous, considering they are the ones getting ready to sue the Board over legally granting the permit for WSP. Oh, I get it. you want someone to protect the groundwater so you sue the organization chosen by the State for that purpose, and cause them to divert their time and money to fight your groundless lawsuit. What a plan!
It is to be expected of the no-growthers who care only about themselves. What a sad bunch of individuals. Do you really expect Pope-on-a-Rope to make things better for your tribe?
I'm not an Isaac fan, but I will give him credit on two accounts:
1. His HB 3865 would raise the groundwater well permit fees from $300 to $1,000. That fee is a mainstay of HTGCD support.
2. He voted against lowering the tax on chewing tobacco yesterday. In fact, according to p.B1 of May 5 Austin A-S, Isaac was the only House member who even "questioned the measure." But the bill (HB 2599) passed the House by a 83-53 vote.
Jimmy Skipton gave a workshop on the HTGCD to Commissioners Court on April 26, 2011. It was merely to inform the Court.
At one point Judge Cobb said that he felt 25,000 gallons of water per day for a residence was way too high. (Isaac's bill HB 3865 would cut that to an improved 15,000 gallons per day.)
Mr. Skipton said -- as he has many times before -- that when he first became a member of the Board of HTGCD, he had no idea how many large groundwater users were pumping water without a permit from
HTGCD. I believe him. But it has now been a year since Skipton joined the Board, and there has been no effort that any of us
can see that the Board has asked
Dripping Springs Water Supply Corp
to apply for a permit -- or threatened them with a fine if they
don't apply by a date certain.
The Board HAS managed to get WSP
signed up with a permit -- for a
very generous amount of groundwater
per year. Half of the groundwater allotment is supposedly for rebuilding a second WSP golf course, but that water actually will be used for drinking water for
the homes in WSP's new subdivision.
The golf courses will be "watered"
with sewage effluent. (Aqua Texas
can't process more sewage. According to TCEQ's own regs, Aqua
should already be either enlarging their current WWTP or building a new one. But we know how well TCEQ
fulfills its regulation functions, don't we?)
to Anon May 5, 12:06 PM:
I am not an employee of or volunteer for WPOA, nor do I live in Woodcreek North. Any idiot knows how to access CAD tax appraisals. If not, I've just informed him/her.
Also, you claim "the appraisals are in line with the County guidelines." No, they are not -- as the example I used has shown.
Lots that are practically the same
(as these side-by-side lots are) are supposed to be given the same
valuation. I can give you literally
hundreds of examples like these, in
which WSP lots have been given lower tax appraisals (and therefore lower taxes) than lots
owned by individuals who in most cases are not aware of the inequity. I'm trying to let them
know about it.
To Anonymous, May 5, 11:59 AM:
There aren't any no-growthers. We all know that Hays County will continue to grow. We'd just like growth to pay its own way instead of causing our taxes to go up and
force us to sell our homes. I don't
think that's being selfish. In fact, I think it's unkind for newcomers to think we all should
pay so they can come here.
Re: Not a No-Growther...
Once a month on the Courthouse steps they have an auction of tax lien foreclosures, properties where the owners got behind on their taxes and can not pay.
Last month I saw a $75,000 property being auctioned for $30,000 to cure a $1,900 tax bill. There were 25 properties up for sale that day.
This is what happens when ever-growing property taxes cross paths with human beings suffering through a tail-spinning economy.
The taxes to fund development are not for the benefit of new neighbors, but for the developers.
And we keep telling our elected officials "Thank you, sir, may I have another."
In case you think that the variation between WSP lot appraisals and individuals' lot
appraisals are ONLY a small matter, here are some lots in Sec. 15, Lots 30-38 in Woodcreek North in which the tax appraisals for
individuals are more than TWICE the appraisals for WSP:
R50902 WSP $6,480
R50903 WSP 6,480
R50904 IND 13,000
R50905 WSP 6,480
R50906 WSP 6,480
R50907 WSP 6,480
R50908 WSP 6,480
R50909 IND 13,000
R50910 IND 13,000.
This variance is happening all over
Woodcreek North. If WSP were paying
its far share of taxes, WISD and the Hays County treasuries would be
considerably enhanced!
Just one more perk of being a developer, I guess....
Anonymous of May 5, 2:37 PM makes a good point.
But many foreclosures are not just because of delinquent property tax payments.
Most of the foreclosures this time around are a result of unfettered and unplanned growth - which creates a housing glut. Then, the developers must get their inventories off the books and their lender cronies push the properties off to buyers who are not "qualified" financially. They call those "liar loans."
If a buyer is not qualified to make the monthly mortgage payment, they certainly are not going to pay the property tax. Why would they if they are going to lose the house anyway.
So the NO-GROWTH critics are talking out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to development. Bad development planning creates foolish growth.
Growth just for the sake of growth - say as an American Dream patriotic duty - is nonsense.
Jason Isaac's HB 3832 would change the legislation which created Hays County Development District #1 in Nov. 2000. He would change Sec.5 (b)(2)POWERS by striking out these tremendously significant words: "after approval by voters at an election conducted within the boundaries of the district." This means that people in HCDD#1 who have approved by vote the initial issuance of bonds for the District, would NOT be allowed to
vote when the developers want to
issue further bonds (which the district residents would have to pay off.) Here come those heliports
and lakes and skywalks.
Hey, you guys who fear that someone's out to get you -- if you
buy in HCDD (which will contain
Caliterra, among other things),
someone IS!
If this bill becomes law, I hope you'll join me in parading along the boundaries of Caliterra to warn
prospective buyers of the financial disaster which awaits them if they buy there.
Right or wrong I can't say, but the WSP lots are valued as inventory, which is why the value is lower. Again, not saying if it's right or wrong, just why.
Rocky, you are being far too polite, what is happening is that the lenders are cooking the books. Falsifying income, basing loan qualification on the initial payments on an ARM loan. Not including escrows in the payment to make the borrower qualify. Fraud, just plain fraud.
Here's a great study by the American Farmland Trust: http://www.farmland.org/programs/states/tx/TexasHaysCOCS.asp
"Agricultural lands and open space generate three times more in revenues for the county than they require in public service costs."
"Commercial and industrial lands pay more into the county budget than they require in service costs."
"Residential lands do not provide enough tax revenues for the county to cover the costs of public services."
It's too late for Isaac to just now be filing a bill. It will never get through the House in time. Had he really cared about HTGCD he would have filed a bill months ago.
Anonymous 12:06pm Get out your tape recorder and listen to it. No one in the WPOA hates the WSP. As adults we sometimes disagree but we get over it. You on the other hand are arrested in childhood. You see hate where none exists. No I will not sign my name because you did not sign yours. Grow Up will you we are tired of your childish rants.
THE WPOA DOES NOT HATE WSP! I am not an employee of the WPOA but I do live in woodcreek north.
to Anon May 5, 6:03 PM:
You know, Isaac's HB 3865 COULD just get through the Lege in time to become law. The bill was assigned yesterday (May 4) to the House Natural Resources Committee.
Since the bill deals only with
Hays County GCD, the committee usually passes it along for the
sponsoring House member. Then if
Isaac can get the bill on the Local & Consent Calendar, he might make it.
I think Isaac may actually want the bill to pass. He knows he's not
doing anything to give more power
to HTGCD; he's just allowing it to
increase its fees so it will have
funds with which to operate.
Wentworth has been telling Hays
County residents that Isaac wouldn't introduce in the House an HTGCD companion bill to his SB
1901, and so Isaac comes up with this much tamer HB 3865.
@Anon May 5, 2011 11:18 PM
You said... "I think Isaac may actually want the bill to pass. He knows he's not doing anything to give more power to HTGCD; he's just allowing it to increase its fees so it will have funds with which to operate."
It is apparent that you have not read the Bill or understand it. The Bill has the sole purpose of incrementally denying Exempt Wells to the citizens of this District. Giving more power to the HTGD in exchange for an increase in fees for registering an exempt well from $300 to $1,000 is simply a tax increase. The Bill also changes the tem of office for Directors from 2 to 4 years. That allows an abusive or incompetent director to remain in office for a up to a 4 year period since there is no mechanism to remove them. It kind of works out that if you like the makeup of the board, 4 years sounds like a good thing. If you don't like...
to Anon May 6, 7:22 AM:
Please cite the section of HB 3865 which you believe leads to "denying exempt wells."
@ Anonymous May 5, 2011 11:21 AM said:
"The lowering of the maximum home well production to 15,000 gallons a day seems more than reasonable to me. Who on God's earth needs 15,000 gallons of water for home use every day?? Looks like this has more do to with sound conservation of groundwater than a violation of anybody's private property rights."
You don't seem to understand. FIrst of all, the 25,000 gpd is a pumping RATE not reflective of actual amount pumped. That pumping rate equates to 17 gpm. You can still have 17 gpm so long as their is an intermediary storage tank - it will just take 67% more time to fill the tank. However, this is a diversion, you seem to be missing the real point.
When a property owner invested in the well in the first place, they generally didn't "go cheap" on the pump after paying so much money for boring the well to begin with. So generally, virtually every well that could be was built to the 25,000 gpd standard. That does not mean that homeowners are pumping 25,000 gallons every day.
The district has generally determined permit requirements based upon capability rather than actual (even though the statute relates to actual rather than capability). Lowering the standard to 15,000 gpd will not alter pumping in this district one iota. What it will do is result in attempts to force permits for virtually every currently exempt well in the district. (see Section 5)
@ Anon May 5, 11:18 PM said...
"Please cite the section of HB 3865 which you believe leads to "denying exempt wells."
That would be Section 5 of the bill which treats all >15,000 gpd wells as "high volume wells" subject to permit regardless of use (i.e., this includes all existing ag wells and most if not all residential wells).
To Anon May 6, 12:17 PM:
You didn't read carefully enough.
Residential and agricultural use wells are still exempt. See Section 1(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 [HTGCD]:
(1) a well used for domestic use by a single private residential household and producing NOT MORE THAN 15,000 gallons per day; and,
(2) a well used for conventional farming and ranching activities, including such intensive operations as aquaculture, livestock feedlots, or poultry operations."
So household and agricultural wells
are still exempt (and they make up
probably 90% of water usage).
Section 5 which you refer to states that High Volume Wells will
be "those producing MORE THAN 15,000 gallons per day." Section 5 is aimed at water suppliers and land developers. It is NOT saying
that they cannot pump more than
15,000 gallons per day, but that they must be registered.
Barbara,
I disagree with you. The statutory scheme is as follows. Chapter 36 empowers a GCD to require permits. HTGCD's enabling legislation puts some limits on when HTGCD can impose permits. This bill limits what qualifies as an "exempt well" and would now mandate that previously exempt wells be subject to permit.
The enabling legislation (before amendment) limits the authority of the HTGCD so that it cannot require a permit for certain classes of wells, namely domestic wells that pump less than 25,000 gpd and ag wells.
This bill re-defines "exempt" for domestic use by lowering the threshold from 25,000 to 15,000 for starters.
In Section 5, the bill MANDATES permits FOR ALL USES (residential or ag > 15,000). You also need to understand that "25,000 gpd" is a RATE. The way the HTGCD determines exemption now is by determining whether the well is capable of pumping more than 25,000 gpd. If it is, then it cannot be exempt unless it is ag. If it cannot pump more than 25,000 and is used for domestic purposes then it can be exempt. Current domestic wells are designed for 25,000 gpd whether it pumps that much or not.
This bill would MANDATE permits for existing residential wells unless the well is incapable of pumping more than 15,000 gpd. Most if not all residential wells in the territory are designed for 25,000 so this would capture most of them. In addition, despite the fact that ag wells are supposed to be exempt regardless of volume, this section would likewise mandate permits for ag wells, too.
Please note the inconsistency between the definition of "exempt" which is based upon "use" and the subsequent Section 5 provision that purports to require a permit "regardless of use". Surely you would agree that there is an inconsistency.
From a realistic standpoint, the 25,000 to 15,000 should be removed as well. This is a "feel good" provision that accomplishes nothing but will be the focus of litigation. 99.999% of the people are not out pumping 25,000 gallons every day. Even if they pumped 1,000 gallons every day this bill would have no reduction in water pumped.
What this bill will do is create litigation over whether existing domestic well owners (those designed with the capability of pumping more than 15,000 but less than 25,000) will be forced to obtain a permit because of Section 5. Likewise, the same problem is created for all ag well owners.
and one more followup Barbara,
"Registration" is not the same as requiring an operating permit. "Exempt" wells must be registered, not permitted, Wells that are not exempt must have an operating permit. Operating permits are granted at the discretion of the board and can be denied.
Section 5 is aimed at ALL users REGARDLESS of USE. Section 5 is not a registration requirement but rather a mandatory permitting requirement. The language conflicts with the exemption language for ag wells and would bring virtually all ag wells and existing domestic wells within the purview of requiring an operational permit as that threshold requirement is presently determined.
The hearings for operating permits are extremely contentious due to the actions of groups like CARD and WVWA. WVWA's director, David Baker, also sits on the HTGCD board. You will find him on record for opposing, delaying, and voting against virtually every application for permit. His WVWA organization concurrently uses the public speaking time to actively speak out against allowing or extending existing permits at every such hearing.
CARD similarly opposes permits. Instead of having an "inside man" on the HTGCD board, however, CARD resorts to outright false propaganda. Of course, CARD will have their "inside man" on the board is candidate Ed Pope is elected.
Both CARD and WVWA have put applicants through meritless protests, attempted to create "community" hatred towards applicants and board members through false and misleading statements, tried to subject applicants to contested case proceedings, and threatened legal action despite having no standing to either protest or sue.
Even if Section 5 of the bill was removed, the lowering of the threshold would allow the HTGCD board to require operating permits for most domestic wells because Chapter 36 of the Water Code gives HTGCD the authority to require permits for all wells that are not exempt.
The only redeeming part about Section 5 of this bill is that it would subject some of WVWA's and CARD's members to the possibility of getting some of their own medicine and some of us will be there to ensure they get a proper dosage if this bill ultimately passes.
Dear IC,
I'm sorry -- I must be particularly dense today, but I still don't understand why you are upset.
I understand that HB 3865 would lower from 25,000 gallons per day (gpd) to 15,000 gpd the amount of water a single-family residence could pump for household use and still be considered exempt. I see that you might consider that lowering of the daily usage to be ominous, but, from what people tell me, it would be a rare household indeed that pumped over 15,000 gpd for purely household use. And so, frankly, I don't see anything sinister in that change.
I understand, too, that you say most residential wells are manufactured to be CAPABLE of pumping 25,000 gpd. Surely HTGCD knows that and would merely tell
residential well owners that they
should not pump over 15,000 gpd if
they wish to remain exempt. Section 1 of HB 3865 plainly says that exempt wells cannot be regulated, permitted, or metered by HTGCD. Most importantly, the Lege will not risk the ire of people all over the state by making
their household wells no longer exempt.
I agree with you that this bill has some at least seeming inconsistencies in it (esp. in
Sec. 5, Part 3A), as well as a clause about 3-year terms which makes it an ex post facto law. My feeling is that Isaac threw something together in a hurry, taking some parts of Wentworth's bill. He didn't do a good job of making sure the parts were consistent. Rewording will surely come in committee.
Thanks for taking the time to write to me/us at such length.
Barbara said... "Surely HTGCD knows that and would merely tell residential well owners that they should not pump over 15,000 gpd if they wish to remain exempt. Section 1 of HB 3865 plainly says that exempt wells cannot be regulated, permitted, or metered by HTGCD."
Barbara, don't you see how ridiculous that sounds. Whose going to know if they pump over 15K gpd if the exempt well is not allowed to be metered in he first place?
This whole change from 25K gpd to 15K gpd is nothing more than a feel good thing to impress the water fairies but will have absolutely no effect at all on groundwater pumping. Here, Isaac disappoints! This is a bad Bill and should die in committee.
@Anon May 6, 2011 3:17 PM
"The only redeeming part about Section 5 of this bill is that it would subject some of WVWA's and CARD's members to the possibility of getting some of their own medicine and some of us will be there to ensure they get a proper dosage if this bill ultimately passes."
How would this subject them to "their own medicine"? And how are you going to "ensure they get a proper dosage"?
I learned just today that a bond election for Hays County Development District No. 1 (HCDD) is on the May 14, 2011 ballot. Here's what the election is about:
"This election involves only one voter and is located at the intersection of County Road 150 and RR 12, north of the cemetery. This is not a County bond election. It is a development district, but you can get contact information for the district from the County Elections Office, 512-393-7310" (from Voters Guide, League of Women Voters, San Marcos).
The one voter will be the owner of the land included in HCDD, or his representative. That voter will vote "For" whatever the proposition says. And with the casting of that one vote, all the people who eventually live within the boundaries of the District (which will include Caliterra) will be paying off the bonds which the developer has signed them on to. And there may be a special sales tax, too.
When he was a State Rep, Patrick Rose did an identical deal for the Salt Lick. The Salt Lick formed its many acres into the Driftwood Economic Development Municipal Management District, and one voter was allowed to vote "For" to establish the District. At the same time, a small sales tax was created for the District, and you pay that tax every time you eat at the Salt Lick or use any of their facilities. The Salt Lick people get to keep that additional tax to
use to improve their District however they wish -- lakes, golf courses, archery fields, spa, etc.
There will be many expensive homes
in the Salt Lake District, and the
homeowners there (like the ones in
HCDD) will be paying off bonds for a long time.
A really bad outcome of these
Districts, though, is that, when
they are allowed to create a new
sales tax, then the total taxing
availability of the whole District
is diminished. The State sales tax is 6.25%. Counties and municipalities are allowed to add
other sales taxes up to a total of
8.25%. Most cities add 1.5% or 2% to the 6.25%, to have close to the
total allowable sales tax. At the
time the Salt Lick District was
being formed, both the Salt Lick
and an EMS group were wanting to have an election for sales tax. There was enough sales taxing room
left for only one tax -- either Salt Lick or the EMS. For unknown
reasons the Salt Lick got to have
its tax voted on, and the EMS did
not. So when we voters vote for
anything that says "Development
District," we may be giving them
the ability to tax us when we would
rather pay a tax for a library or
a hospital, for example, instead of
enriching an already-fat cat.
The proposed purchase of some LCRA facilities for northern Hays County cannot be accomplished by bonded indebtedness incurred by Hays County or by any of the municipalities served. That's what the Coalition's Articles of Incorporation say. Commissioner Ray Whisenant has said that only the users of the LCRA facilities will pay to buy them.
There are only about 10,000 current LCRA users in northern Hays County. They alone won't be able to pay LCRA AND pay to renovate and extend the water lines. More taxpayers will have to be involved.
Do I sense another "Development District" forming in the wings? An area larger than just northern Hays
County?
Barbara said:
"I understand, too, that you say most residential wells are manufactured to be CAPABLE of pumping 25,000 gpd. Surely HTGCD knows that and would merely tell residential well owners that they should not pump over 15,000 gpd if they wish to remain exempt. "
This bill mandates permits. The people pushing permits are looking for control over you and your property not your voluntary "co-operation",
"Section 1 of HB 3865 plainly says that exempt wells cannot be regulated, permitted, or metered by HTGCD. Most importantly, the Lege will not risk the ire of people all over the state by making
their household wells no longer exempt."
You are under some mistaken impression as to who this bill affects. This bill does not affect people "all over the state". This bill doesn't even affect everyone in Hays County. This bill targets solely the residents of HTGCD. Section 5 of the bill conflicts with Section 1.
As to the "lege" caring, let's consider other bills such as SB 1901 which was proposed by your own Sen Wentworth as a favor to a political appointee. This appointee - Andy Sansom - does not live or own property in the district but he has fed at the trough of the taxpayers for far too long. SB 1901 is downright abusive and confiscatory. SB 1901 actually takes away rights for people here that everyone else in the state has.
The point is that the "lege" is a cesspool of special interests and your own Sen Wentworth sold you out in a heartbeat for political favors. If your own Senator would do that to you, what does the rest of the lege care?
"I understand that HB 3865 would lower from 25,000 gallons per day (gpd) to 15,000 gpd the amount of water a single-family residence could pump for household use and still be considered exempt. I see that you might consider that lowering of the daily usage to be ominous, but, from what people tell me, it would be a rare household indeed that pumped over 15,000 gpd for purely household use. And so, frankly, I don't see anything sinister in that change."
Your point corroborates the statement that this will NOT save one iota of water. "Water savings" is the pre-text, but it is not saving any water at all. The bill does, however, have a new mandatory permit requirement.
Ag is a category of exemption that you missed. The permit requirements of Section 5 are in conflict with the exemption for ag wells. In addition, the permit requirements would bring virtually all existing residential wells into the "permit required" category due to the manner in which exemptions are determined.
Put the issue in terms of gallons per minute (gpm). The rate of 25,000 gpm is equivalent to about 17 gpm. Even today, the district does not exempt a well capable of pumping 20 gpm so long as you "promise" not to pump more than 17 gpm. No, that's not the way it works. To ensure compliance, the exemption is granted by ensuring the pump is incapable of producing more than 17.4 gpm (25,000 gpd) from the well as constructed.
This bill moves that 17 gpm down to about 10 gpm. Most if not all residential wells in the district are capable of pumping more than 10 gpm.
The bill would probably do more good by focusing on governance and administrative aspects of the district rather than risking litigation for the district over the permit argument. Attempting to fix rather than remove the permit requirement will create multiple classes of property owners - and that isn't good either.
@Anonymous May 6, 2011 11:07 PM said...
How would this subject them to "their own medicine"? And how are you going to "ensure they get a proper dosage"?
1. If the well is subject to an operating permit, the applicant must file an application which is subject to public notice and hearing. Perform the same steps as the ne'er-do-wells but without the mistakes. Contested cases can take a while. There is no "right" to a temporary permit in the interim.
2. Operating permits also mean unwarranted inspections without the consent of the landowner. Need to make sure that the protester's wells are at least up to state standard. The only limitation on inspection agents is that they must enter at a "reasonable time" and show proper identification to occupants. CARD signed off on a document claiming such access was reasonable. CARD's members can't very well complain about being subjected to inspections that their own spokesperson has signed off on as reasonable.
These protesters enjoyed shooting from behind cover in the past because those that had wells were "exempt" from being subjected to the process while their targets had to submit to the permit process and deal with the protesters. The protesters that have wells are about to be put on the same footing as those they have been harassing.
Barbara said:
"For unknown reasons the Salt Lick got to have its tax voted on, and the EMS did not."
Not true. The ESD (Emergency Services District)
supporters actually sent out misinformation and shot themselves in the foot just prior to the election. They realized that both could not prevail and that the Salt Lick tax was a "sure thing". If they hadn't done that, in all likelihood both ballot provisions would have passed by voters. Since that would have resulted in a greater sales tax than allowed under state law, both would have had to be voided and possibly set for a subsequent election.
By creating such confusion, however, the ESD supporters ended up fouling support for their own provision which allowed the Salt Lick tax to be the only one that got passed. That Salt Lick tax now hampers the ability of the entire ESD to tax unless they carve the Salt Lick territory out of the ESD.
Obviously these special districts are creating a diversion of monies for the benefit of those controlling the districts. You might want to consider putting the brakes on these things before you wind up with California's problem:
California's Secret Government
Ms. Hopson,
Just read your letter in the Wimberley View. You seem to miss an important point. Engineers do not sell lots or build subdivisions. Erin designed and got a subdivision approved with the County and State that is deed restricted to rain water collection. She did exactly as she has claimed.
BTW Ed Pope has never mentioned his B&B La Casita. I think it is because he did not have a well permit with the HTGCD.
P.S. I post here b/c the Round up has about 10x the readers as the View
To Anon May 7, 9:01 AM:
Yes, the Salt Lick tax was "a sure thing," as you said, because only Scott Roberts (owner of Salt Lick) was able to vote for (or against) it.
Thanks for the link to "California's Secret Govt." An
excellent article which illustrates once again how we average peons pay to further enrich a select group of knowledgeable people with contacts and crafty lawyers.
To Anon May 7, 4:55 AM:
You say, "This bill [HB 3865] mandates permits." Well, it does and it doesn't. As I've already said, the bill is inconsistent and seems to have been thrown together in a rush. I'm going to stop commenting on HB 3865 until we see the version that comes out of House committee. Hopefully some of the
inconsistencies will be cleared up there.
And, yes, I understand the bill does not affect people all over the
state. It IS captioned "Relating to the Hays County Groundwater Conservation District," after all. But the bill would have to be passed by legislators from all over the state. My point is that those legislators wouldn't want their constituents back home to see they had voted to nix exempt wells ANYwhere. Those constituents might fear they'd be next.
to Kill Bill:
You say, "Who's going to know if they [residential well owners] pump over 15k gpd if the exempt well is not metered in the first place?"
Exactly! I was trying to quell IC's fear that exempt wells would become metered or monitored. They can't be.
But I think the law SHOULD include the change from 25,000 gpd to 15,000 gpd for residential wells. Few, if any, households will ever exceed the 15,000 gpd, and so who
cares whether they are metered?
The law can still state a (very)
reasonable amount to be pumped per day by households.
Barbara,
How ridiculous a statement. If your own legislators would do that, why would constituents elsewhere care ?
Do you care or bother to research what bills have been passed with respect to GCDs in other jurisdictions? In the event that you were aware, your argument would have been that the legislators for those jurisdictions were representing citizens of that area. In reality, I doubt you keep up with them and I'm sure someone in any other jurisdiction could care less about what happens to property owners in the HTGCD.
Are you even aware of bills such as SB 274 which purports to allow the board of any GCD in the Hill Country PGMA to declare any area within its territory as a "management zone" in which all exempt wells are prohibited? Just think what another WVWA/CARD member would love to do with that - declare the whole HTGCD territory to be a "management zone". Former HTGCD board members tried to do just that. SB 1901 is a blatant attempt by your own Senator Wentworth. I don't hear you objecting to it - why would someone in another district?
Standing back and watching from afar or misrepresenting the effect of a bill to lull others into doing the same is how you end up with laws bad for the actual constituents.
As a resident of Woodcreek, you don't even have a stake in any of this. You have no ability to install a well of any kind and you are a customer of an investor owned utility. Apparently your lack of control over your own property has created some desire to want to subject everyone else to the same fate. No thanks.
Barbara said:
"Exactly! I was trying to quell IC's fear that exempt wells would become metered or monitored. They can't be."
That's right Barbara, exempt wells can't be. However, this bill changes the definition of an exempt well. Moreover, operating permits are required based upon capability not "promises about what you won't pump".
So virtually all currently exempt domestic wells would no longer qualify as exempt. The lowering of the maximum pumping rate ensures that. The bill doesn't give HTGCD the discretion to permit. The bill mandates operating permits for ALL wells (ag and domestic) that exceed this rate REGARDLESS OF USE. The need for a permit is determined by ability to pump rather than actual pumping. Note also that the bill would create conflicts over currently exempt ag wells, too.
To Anon, May 7, 1:46 PM:
I had not realized that a household well's operating permit is based on the mere capability of that well to produce a certain gpd rate. But, to illustrate what you
point out, here is Chapter 36, Section 117(b)(1) of the Texas Water Code: "A district may not require any permit issued by the district for a well used solely for domestic use or for providing water for livestock or poultry on a tract of land larger than 10 acres that is either drilled, completed, or equipped so that it is incapable of producing more than 25,000 gallons of groundwater a day." [BTW, Isaac's bill adds "aquaculture" to the ag uses.]
So it looks as if HB 3865 may have to state that all FUTURE household wells must be incapable of pumping more than 15,000 gpd (and that existing household wells are still exempt, I suppose).
You say, "The bill mandates permits for ALL wells (ag and domestic) that exceed this rate REGARDLESS OF USE." Again, the bill does and doesn't say this. There are conflicting statements in Sections 1 and 5. The many inconsistencies in Isaac's patchwork-quilt bill will have to be sorted out.
@ anonymous 5/711 9:18, I googled La Casita and it looks like there are two units in Burnet Ranch, one is called Casita Cowboy and the other Casita Indian, I checked the Hays County tax rolls and Ed pope does own both properties, they are on the tax rolls as a bed and breakfasts, I also noticed that Ed subdivided 20 acres into 2.5 acre lots. Looks like Ed Pope is the developer in this race.
P.S. The RoundUp does seem to get a great amount of readers.
Here is the link for the description of Ed Pope's La Casita B&B.
Sounds to me like Ed Pope is playing for the other team
Taxpayers,
Beware of voting to form any entity that ends in, or contains, the word "District." That almost invariably means that you, or someone like you, is signing on to a bunch of new taxes.
The first "districts" I know of are Municipal Utility Districts (MUDS). Their genesis was from a good motive, actually; they were formed to bring utilities to an area outside a municipality. The idea was not to burden citizens of an existing city with the cost of
extending utilities to newcomers. But the possibility of utility construction ASSISTANCE was perverted by land developers to the point that they themselves would pay only a very small part of the utility construction, shoving the cost forward onto home buyers. I began to think of MUDs as "More U-paid Dollars" or "Money U paid, Dope."
Then we got the "Development Districts" which Chambers of Commerce pushed because supposedly the District would bring more business, jobs, and property taxes to the town. But what happened in actuality was that 1) developers again got infrastructure built for them from taxes within the District; 2) most well-paying jobs went to corporate employees sent in from outside the area; 3) taxpayers had to pay for schools, roads, and other facilities for newcomers; and 4) the C of C pressed the local city government to give tax abatements to the new businesses, resulting in no or low
property taxes paid by them to the
city for MANY years.
Later "Economic Districts" (Salt Lick, courtesy of Patrick Rose) and
Hays County Development Districts #1 and #2 (Caliterra) were formed.
These Districts are very easy to
pass in the Lege, too, because most
of the bills pertain to only a small area, and so legislators usually pass them without even reading them, in the time-established practice of "I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine."
In short, if the word "District" is in proposed legislation, read the bill very carefully to see how
much it's gonna cost you -- and hide your wallet.
To learn about a real life, this-moment illustration of a special taxing district, you have only to read Sunday's (May 8) front page story in the Austin American-Statesman (www.statesman.com). It's titled "As airport plan idles, skepticism accelerates" and is written by Asher Price. The article tells of developer Jim Carpenter's on-going effort to build Central Texas Airport near Bastrop. Early on the citizens and government of Bastrop were excited about the project, but their enthusiasm has waned considerably.
Here are some excerpts from the article, some chosen to illustrate how these "Districts" work:
"No bill has been filed in the Legislature to create the SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT that Carpenter needs TO FINANCE THE INFRASTRUCTURE, and the Bastrop City Council appears unlikely to lend its support...."
"...last June he [Carpenter] won a 30-YEAR PROPERTY TAX BREAK from the Bastrop County commissioners."
"In special taxing districts, a developer typically pays for roads and water and drainage infrastructure, then is reimbursed by the taxing district, WHICH ALSO CAN ISSUE BONDS."
"...some neighbors have united to oppose the airport....They initially argued that the airport would be a nuisance. Now they argue that it's a sham project."
There are four propositions which the lone voter (owner or his representative) in the Hays County
Development District No. 1 will vote in favor of. Proposition #4 is
the killer. It says bonds may be issued "for economic development." That vague catch-all phrase can be interpreted however the developer sees fit; it's through this proposition (and through Isaac's HB 3832, Section 5A) that the skywalks, heliport, lake, etc, can be justified.
To see the ballot, go to www.co.hays.tx.us. Then click on
"Elections & Voting" under "Govt."
Once at Elections page, click "May
14, 2011 General Election Info," and finally on "May 14, 2011 Sample Ballot." The 4 HCDD propositions are the last thing on the ballot. With those 4 propositions guaranteed to pass (1 voter), the developer will be able to build almost anything he wants and have the hapless residents of the District pay on the bonds for them forever.
Avoid MUDs and almost all other "Districts." You'll be paying for things the developer should have paid for himself, as a cost of doing business.
Post a Comment