. . . somehow, we must come together to work on the goals we have in common. We are dealing with REAL STUFF here, our community’s extraordinary groundwater and flowing spring resources
 |
| Cypress Creek |
Editor's note: Jack Hollon has served a combined 26 years on the boards of the Wimberley Valley Watershed Association and the Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District. He currently serves as president of the WVWA board. He retired from the HTGCD board in the spring of 2010. Hollon is a much respected voice on water conservation. His response to Mark Key's article (scroll down to "The story that won't go away") is, hands down, an excellent and eloquent defense of Jacob's Well, Cypress Creek and Blue Hole and their importance to the local ecology and economy. But there's another side to this coin relating to the details of the county's and the WVWA's funding and contractual relationship over the years, details still not fully reported nor explained. Perhaps Hollon or the WVWA can address the flip side of the coin in a follow up. A long range development plan for the Jacob's Well Natural Area is expected to go before commissioners court soon for consideration. The plan may come with a price tag of more than $3 million – over and above the nearly $5 million already contributed by the county. According to Hollon, the sources for possible future funding for Jacob's Well have yet to be identified. We have a feeling this story will linger large for a while longer.
Send your comments and questions to roundup.editor@gmail.com, to Mr. Hollon at jhollon37tx@yahoo.com or click on the "comments" below the post
Guest commentary
By Jack Hollon
By Jack Hollon
On April 3, RoundUp Editor Bob Ochoa posted an article by Mark Key, a board member of the HTGCD. The piece attacks the Wimberley Valley Watershed Association and its Executive Director David Baker for working with Hays County to direct some of the County’s Parks and Open Space Bond Fund toward purchasing and protecting land around Jacob’s Well, the great Trinity Aquifer spring that is the source of Cypress Creek.
For background we should note that the bond fund received a huge majority vote from Hays residents when it was proposed, and the Jacob’s Well Natural Area was later ranked one of the top projects in the county to receive a portion of the funds. Add in the Blue Hole Regional Park and swimming hole downstream and the value of these iconic water resources goes off the chart.
The cool clear spring-fed creek, winding its way through Woodcreek and Wimberley between cypress-lined banks, accounts for a good share of the Valley’s quality of life: beauty, culture, economy, recreation, property values, and the very identity of those who live here. Wimberley without the Creek is unthinkable. At least it was before the last couple of decades, when the combination of pumping demand for development and recurrent periods of drought began to shut down the flow: 2000, 2009, and 2011 saw the worst episodes.
In Ochoa’s introduction there is a puzzling quote from the piece, comparing some WVWA expenses for legal and environmental categories, without any context. This renders the comparison meaningless unless one is going for a knee-jerk reaction to “legal.” He also comments that the story “won’t go away.” That does seem true for Mr. Key and his obsession with the project and with Mr. Baker, who used to serve with Mark on the HTGCD Board, where they had substantial disagreements on policy. The idea that the non-profit WVWA actually pays Mr. Baker for his work as executive director seems to upset Mr. Key. I have also served on both those boards: for WVWA since its creation in response to drought in 1996, and on the HTGCD Board for the first ten years of its existence.
I am confident of two things. First, Mr. Baker is justly paid for the excellent work he does for all of us here in protecting our water resources. He holds one of the most complicated and demanding jobs I have ever observed closely. Those who attended last November’s hearing (before the Texas Water Development Board Examiner, in Wimberley) concerning WVWA’s appeal of the decision by GMA-9 to allow a 30 ft. drawdown in the Hill Country Trinity Aquifer over the next 50 years will know what I am speaking about. You saw the result of David’s organization and hard work – arranging for the presentation of local history, law, hydrogeology and other scientific evidence, community leader testimony, and computer modeling results – to help us make sense of the “desired future conditions” process and what that DFC would mean for this specific area.
Second, Mr. Baker’s salary comes entirely from funds raised by the WVWA in grants and member donations. None of it is taxpayer money from Hays County; that goes to purchase the land and for certain maintenance expenses at the new Jacob’s Well Natural Area.
I do thank Mr. Key for pointing out that my individual share (as a resident of Hays Co) of the bond funds going to purchase the JWNA is $29.91. I consider that an excellent investment and am willing to pitch in a few more dollars each year to support staffing and programs there, so we can bring school groups, conduct tours, continue restoration, and maintain this extraordinary place. Many potential partners are also willing to help in this way.
I must observe that the two organizations, HTGCD and WVWA, have a huge area of overlap in their missions. The “GC” is for “Groundwater Conservation,” a central part of the very name of the District. And that idea/goal is central also to the mission of WVWA. So, somehow, we must come together to work on the goals we have in common. We are dealing with REAL STUFF here, our community’s extraordinary groundwater and flowing spring resources. These treasures are under extreme threat and in dire need of intelligent and considered investment and management. Mark Key’s article had not one word to say about these special places and resources that need our attention and protection. He seemed totally focused on imagined motives, law suits, enemies, division, and most of all money.
We need to meet in respectful conversation, to work on these water supply and “creek problems,” aimed at insuring that in future summers our grand kids can still have the experience of “flying across Blue Hole” on a long rope swing suspended from a well-watered cypress, and splashing into cool clear flowing water.
That is our Vision and our Hope.
46 comments:
If the County won't let anyone see the purchase contracts for JWNA land, maybe WVWA will. If David, Jack, and crew truly want to increase the community's trust in them, they should show us THEIR copies of the contracts.
How 'bout it, Jack and David?
With all due respect to Jack Hollon and the environmental Jedi masters over at WVWA, it is beginning to look like the original mission to "save" Jacob's Well is morphing into an expensive Jacob's Well Memorial Park fund. Can anyone answer whether all these resources will save the well? Conley, the county and WVWA need to come clean on this question.
Jack, you should leave the poetry to the poets. What fluff piece you have written! You left out the unicorns, pink bunnies and angels flittering about.
Why doesn't the culprit David Bake himself respond to the accusations made by Key? I think he doesn't want to perjure himself any more than he already has.
I just read yesterday's paper about Blue Hole Phase II and I feel it is a preview of what is in store for the JWNA. Another 3 million dollars for what. We would have been better off turning the whole thing over to the Developers.
To the water hippies of Wimberley, Be careful what you wish for. You guys real screwed this one up. The taxpayers will be poorer, Baker will be enriched and you hippies will still not get what you wanted because YOU weren't willing to pay for it yourselves.
Trusting that drifter Baker will surely be a mistake that you will not want your grandchildren associate with you. What a bunch of gullible fools!
Both Blue Hole and Jacob's Well should have been left as essentially natural areas, much like they were before it all became about big, fancy parks.
Neither of these areas needed the bells and whistles they are attracting.
This is just big ideas where none were needed.
Both Blue Hole and Jacob's Well require big areas around them to remain completely undeveloped in order to reduce stress on the water.
That was and still is all that is needed.
Oh, well, that and stop encouraging people to move to Wimberley!
We cannot have water and a large population. One or the other, but not both.
I vote water.
Jack's forté is peacemaking and that is what we need here.
Stop trying to decrease the ability of Wimberley to protect its water treasures. We need positive solutions that do not indebt the county or anyone else.
First off, people like Will Conley need to stop encouraging big money solutions to what could have been, and still could be, affordable ideas for low-impact ecological restoration.
So, the ends ("protecting Jacob's Well") justify the means (lying, using a non-profit for lobbying, supporting the Blue Hole permit, etc.).
"environmentalists" have no ethics, therefore, they can have no shame.
WVWA and CARD (Hollon and McMeans) can't tell the truth.
Question: IF THEY REALLY CARE ABOUT WATER, WHY DO THEY SUPPORT PUMPING WATER TO WATER SOCCER FIELDS AT BLUE HOLE?
Answer: More donations and political support.
I've been reading Hays County Roundup for some time, and it seems to me that the most vituperative and just plain nasty remarks are almost always posted by people who post as 'Anonymous.' It would be good if these people had the integrity and just plain guts to put their names to their diatribes. -William N. Trent
I do not believe that CARD supported the Blue Hole well permit.
If you people need a tit for tat accounting of all the ways money was allocated to WVWA and Jacob's Well, why not ask your County Commissioner?
Surely Road Boss Conley will be forthcoming about how he spent your tax money.
Ask him about all those roads and the promises he has made to Winton Porterfield while you are at it.
"Question: IF THEY REALLY CARE ABOUT WATER, WHY DO THEY SUPPORT PUMPING WATER TO WATER SOCCER FIELDS AT BLUE HOLE?"
Because they cut a deal with the City of Wimberley for them to support the special GMA in the Jacob’s Well area that WVWA and Card need to redeem themselves.
Since they had their butts handed to them by the Texas WDB when they challenged the 30 foot draw-down they now look totally impotent. The special GMA will empower those two pseudo-environmentalist groups so they can continue to suck money from the taxpayers.
In San Marcos and Buda, local economies are bolstered by roads and other infrastructure improvements.
In Wimberley, we are not asking for roads, or for the county to fund development infrastructure, we just need some help protecting our water.
As an investment in the future, I know which one is more valuable.
There is evidence that David Baker's WVWA and Jim McMeans' C.A.R.D. are both silently supporting the City of Wimberley in their effort to seek a permit from the HTGCD to open a derelict non-functioning well at Blue Hole and pump 15 acre feet of ground water per year. The City claims they need the water for the ostensive purpose of irrigating two new soccer fields at Blue Hole. Mayor Flocke and Don Ferguson also claim it is for "Fire Protection" when there is really nothing to burn at Blue Hole ... yet. Their testimony before the HTGCD hearings has been inconsistent, contradictive and many think less than truthful.
One C.A.R.D. member was overheard defending the Huge, 700,000 gallons (over 2 acre feet) of potable water that Wimberley wasted on St. Augustine Grass last fall at Blue Hole. This was during the emergency watering restrictions brought on by the worst drought in recent times. That water was supplied by WWSC which still has taps available at Blue Hole. The member of C.A.R.D. defended the practice outside the City Hall after the Council meeting where she had just delivered and read C.A.R.D.'s "Where As, Where As..." statements asking for a Special GMA for the Jacob's Well area which the City Council adopted as their own. This was the first time I ever heard a member of Jim's group defend any water waste such as that. Jim has remained silent. In fact the silence of both groups has been deafening.
Jim McMeans of C.A.R.D. has been at every HTGCD meeting and hearing on the subject but he and fellow member Jack Hollon have sat uncharacteristically silent. Even when President Skipton asked them what they thought, they did not respond but sat there like statues. It was eerie that they did not object to a permit to pump 15 acre feet of "our precious groundwater" so close to their icon, Jacob's Well. They have always objected to other pumping permits for as little as 1 acre foot. Where is their love for the aquifer? Hypocrites! Shame on them for allowing this pumping without a single word of objection or concern.
It appears that these two pseudo-environmentalists, no-growth groups are so desperate for power and donations they have sold out to the City of Wimberley and now support that Disney World styled Water Park, Blue Hole. Now it seems that the Libertarian property owner advocates on the HTGCD Board including President Skipton are fast tracking the permit process for Wimberley for reasons we can only guess. Maybe it is to set a new precedent for future requests for aquifer pumping. Pump-Baby-Pump!
THE QUID PRO QUO -
Support my Jacob's Well Special Groundwater Management Area creation and I won't challenge your wasteful Blue Hole pumping permit or any other horrors you may inflict on our natural resources.
And on this episode of Hollon knows best...
Jack has to bail that rascally David Baker out again after he gets cought with his hand in the cookie jar.
Look forward to next weeks exciting episode when Hollon explains how Baker's wife is the second hardest working person he knows and deserves every penny WVWA pays her.
Jack,
How many millions have you and Baker taken from the people of Hays County?
Did you save a single drop of water?
Now the well is just another two bit tourist trap. Happy Cinco De Mayo, Happy ROT rally, Happy Conley family reunion.
I can see it now dirty diapers and red solo cups all down Cypress Creek.
WVWA has failed in every sense of the word.
Jacob's Well should remain undeveloped, in the traditional sense.
Restored prairies: YES
Protected creekbanks: YES
An educational center at the current site of Camp Jacob: YES
More buildings: NO
Tourist attractions: NO
Playgrounds or sports fields: NO
Building this up will not save the water.
To "Loves Cypress Creek" who said...
"In San Marcos and Buda, local economies are bolstered by roads and other infrastructure improvements.
In Wimberley, we are not asking for roads, or for the county to fund development infrastructure, we just need some help protecting our water."
Having said that, how do you feel about what the City of Wimberley is doing to Blue Hole and what the Baker Clan at the WVWA and the County are doing to Jacob's Well? How is that protecting "our water"? It looks more like Rape and Pillage of the taxpayers and the environment to me.
Jack,
There was no vote by the taxpayers to spend taxpayer money on JW. As far as the ranking of the JW "project", what outcome would one expect when WVWA had paid agents (Baker) on the Parks and Open Spaces committee?
It's revealing that you believe Baker has one of the more complicated or demanding jobs that you have ever seen. Baker is little more than a con man. I'm not sure which of you is giving the other lessons.
Baker has not protected ANY water resources. If one is to believe WVWA's claims of harm in the lawsuit WVWA provoked with HTGCD then Baker's acts of voting on permits and failing to file a disclosure affidavit while on the HTGCD board were clearly criminal. Your support for Baker's conduct and your role as a director/officer of WVWA are reflective of the type of folks making up WVWA and the type of conduct they solicit from public officials. Your organization sounds more like a crime syndicate - and WVWA reps have all but bragged as to how they've tried to hold up applicants for permits from the HTGCD until the applicants give WVWA something. Sure sounds like a protection racket to me.
WVWA and HTGCD have NO overlap in their "missions". HTGCD is a political subdivision of the state tasked with managing groundwater among property owners. WVWA is a cult/crime ring formed with the goal of bilking gullible individuals and businesses out of money under the pretext of "conservation" in order that Baker get a paycheck. WVWA has zero authority to manage groundwater on behalf of property owners. WVWA's goals have never been to "manage" groundwater nor to conserve. WVWA's goals have been to shaft property owners under the theory that denial of groundwater permits would somehow guarantee flow/existence of surface water amenities such as Jacobs Well and Cypress Creek. That objective is not HTGCD's at all.
As far as ensuring that others can have the "experience of flying across Blue Hole", you'll just have to tell them about your experience for the umpteenth time, Jack. Make sure to tell them you remember when it didn't cost $15-$20 per person for that "experience".
It is really past time that Jack and David step down. Ed Pope and Linda Kay Rogers have been doing good work and could do well on the board of WVWA.
How about Liz Sumter for executive director at WVWA. She has a strong leadership background and voted against "Baker's Folly".
Anon 10:36
I do not know Linda or Ed that well, but think Liz would do great as leader of WVWA. I always felt that as Judge she did a much better job than given credit for.
Liz Sumter was a good county judge and would have been a great one had Will Conley and Jeff Barton not worked against her from Day One.
I wish she were County Judge right now and we could get rid of Will Conley (like we got rid of Jeff Barton) and maybe the Commissioners Court could run itself as logical, practical organization that listened to what the people wanted to do with their money.
David Baker is a great environmental leader and has an honest, intelligent board to work with on the WVWA. David is knowledgeable, personable, intelligent and has dedicated a good part of his life to the health of the water in the Wimberley Valley.
Liz Sumter is a good manager, a down-to-earth thinker, but to suggest that she would be better than David running this particular kind of environmental effort is not exactly on the right track.
This isn't Liz's area of expertise, though someone of her caliber would be an excellent asset to this project, perhaps as a board member.
I would be very surprised if Liz were even interested in getting involved in this controversial matter. She is too smart for that.
I would rather see Sumter as Mayor of Wimberley or back in the hot seat as Hays County Judge.
I think it is time to encourage Liz to take a leadership role in Hays County politics again.
Like someone said earlier: Adult supervision.
Neither Linda Kay Rogers or Ed Pope possesses the leadership skills or the backbone to stand up to the powerful forces that daily seek to pump all the water out of the Trinity Aquifer and cover every square foot of the Wimberley Valley in houses and golf courses.
Linda and Ed are new to this game, amateurs, if you will, in a battle that is funded by big money from out of town that sees this area as little more than an investment.
Those of us who call these hills home cannot stand idly by and allow any further damage or degradation to the literal sources of life here in this beautiful part of the universe.
Work for the environment as though your life depends on it. It does.
We need to use less groundwater in this area, it is as simple as that.
You can try to demonize the good people over at Jacob's Well or Blue Hole, but the real culprits in all this are the housing developers who keep trying to get more people to move here so that they can turn a profit building them houses.
These same housing (and road) companies think that the answer to our water scarcity is to simply take water from someone else's aquifer and pipe it here so that their development schemes can continue unabated.
There is nothing sensible whatsoever in this kind of thinking.
People need to settle where water IS, not where water ISN'T.
Jack,
The Texas Water Development Board 2012 Management Plan is a plan for obtaining more water to meet the needs of the population. These are for all needs, not just residential.
The recommended groundwater strategies involve some combination of: 1) installing new wells; 2) increasing production from existing wells; 3) installing supplemental wells; 4) temporarily over-drafting aquifers to supplement supplies; 5) building, expanding, or replacing treatment plants to make groundwater meet water quality standards; and 6) reallocating or transferring groundwater supplies from areas where projections indicate that surplus groundwater will exist to areas with needs. (TWDP 2012 Plan, pg 194) Notice a trend?
Groundwater management is expected to provide less than 10% of the additional water. Guess where the TWDB (and therefore the State of Texas) expects the remaining 90% of the water to come from? Surface water management. That's right, creeks, streams, rivers, etc. Surface water belongs to the state, Jack.
The #1 management objective with respect to surface water was stream diversion. Keep that in mind.
The creek there never belonged to you, the litoral land owners, WVWA, the city of Wimberley, or Woodcreek. You might enjoy looking at it or swimming in it but believe it or not, you have no inherent right to demand or even to expect that it be there. You certainly have no right or reason to demand that property owners "compromise" with you on this issue.
Conley's continued funneling of taxpayer money to your organization or this project is really quite an abomination. Perhaps one of the lessons learned is that one shouldn't spend so many taxpayer dollars pursuing a park centered around a soon-to-be gone surface water amenity.
To Anon April 18, 1:23 PM:
You say that surface water will provide 90% of "the additional water."
1. There is NO "additional water." All the water that ever has been or ever will be is already here on the planet. The bad news is that lots of it is has been rendered unpotable by various kinds of contamination.
2. Yes, the surface water IS owned by the state of Texas, and the state set up various River Authorites around the state (LCRA, GBRA, etc.) to manage surface water. And, guess what? In most River Authority basins the surface water is already 100% permitted to someone or some entity.
3.So what is the hat trick by which you fantasize that "additional water" will become available from surface sources?
Anon April 18, 2012 4:20 PM, you said:
You say that surface water will provide 90% of "the additional water."
I believe I said, "Guess where the TWDB (and therefore the State of Texas) expects the remaining 90% of the water to come from? Surface water management."
Feel free to read the TWDB 2012 State Water Management Plan - the
Water Management Strategies chapter.
If you have some issue with their plan, take it up with them not me.
1. There is NO "additional water." All the water that ever has been or ever will be is already here on the planet. The bad news is that lots of it is has been rendered unpotable by various kinds of contamination.
The TWDB states as follows: A water management strategy is a plan or a specific project to meet a need for additional water by a discrete user group, which can mean increasing the total water supply or maximizing an existing supply. Strategies can include development of new groundwater or surface water supplies; conservation; reuse; demand management; expansion of the use of existing supplies such as improved operations or conveying water from one location to another; or less conventional methods like weather modification, brush control, and desalination.
To meet needs within the regions, the state is trying management techniques to get 9% additional from groundwater sources. To the extent more water is needed, the management of surface water is supposed to make up the difference.
2. Yes, the surface water IS owned by the state of Texas, and the state set up various River Authorites around the state (LCRA, GBRA, etc.) to manage surface water. And, guess what? In most River Authority basins the surface water is already 100% permitted to someone or some entity.
Take it up with TWDB. Stream diversion was the first listed management technique for surface water. There are lots of streams available for diversion.
The plan relies heavily on "conservation". However, this does not mean that the water is "saved" or "not used". It means that the water is still used but a given amount might be used for two flushes whereas in the past it might only have been sufficient for a single flush of a toilet, for example. The total amount of water consumed is not necessarily less - the same amount of water can support a larger population.
3.So what is the hat trick by which you fantasize that "additional water" will become available from surface sources?
The plan is TWDB's, not mine. Read the management strategies published by TWDB at the link above.
How is it that Will Conley "serves" as stakeholder for JWNA representing Woodcreek North? He owns no property there/does not live there! Odd that both he and Winton Porterfield have been "appointed" to this group.
When Anonymous said,
"Ed Pope and Linda Kay Rogers have been doing good work and could do well on the board of WVWA."
I pondered this and realized the only person in the world who might come up with this analysis would be Jimmy Skipton, IV.
Not saying that Linda Kay and Ed are not hard workers on the water issue, but this suggestion belies a very shallow understanding of not only what is at stake here, how working for an environmental NGO might differ from working for the HTGCD, but the breadth and depth of the people involved in the local water controversies.
One of those times when I am reminded how a little knowledge can be...uh, misleading.
to Anon, April 18, 11:28 PM:
You state that "There are lots of streams available for diversion [to serve as a source of surface water]."
Don't you understand that almost all -- if not ALL--the water in streams, rivers, and lakes is 100% permitted to someone already? Unless some of those permittees are denied water they have been promised (permitted), there is no
surface water to be provided to anyone else.
To: Thinking out loud
Jimmy Skipton IV is often the smartest man in the room. He never misses a meeting and has a high level of understanding. He was the only person that asked a technical question about the Blue Hole well.
If Jimmy Skipton IV is our future, we are in very good hands.
jon cobb
Don't you understand that almost all -- if not ALL--the water in streams, rivers, and lakes is 100% permitted to someone already? Unless some of those permittees are denied water they have been promised (permitted), there is no surface water to be provided to anyone else.
First point of error: Please READ the TWDB plan before making statements like this.
Second point of error: There are plenty of streams, rivers, and lakes that have had no water allocated from them. Take for example, wet Cypress Creek. How much of that has been "permitted"? What about the San Marcos River? Of course some of these are so small they are hardly worth it. The point is that there are numerous creeks and streams for which the water has not been allocated. You are once again referred to the TWDB plan which noted that stream diversion was the first choice for getting more surface water to address shortfalls in a given region.
The water in creeks and streams does not belong to you, nor your "community" - it belongs to the state of Texas. Don't get attached to it. The groundwater under other people's property likewise does not belong to you.
Sorry, Jon, but I really don't want 18-year-old boys running my life or making decisions that affect the lives and finances of grownups.
Jimmy IV may be smart, but he has no life experience, has never had to pay rent, make a payroll, do his taxes or buy a house for starters.
We were all smart kids. But we were still kids. And so is Jimmy IV.
To thinking out loud
David Baker was a traveling carpenter in a stage production before he moved here to save us.
What life experience did he have as environmental savior?
All this talk about Skipton's kid being qualified or not is pure nonsense.
It is blatant crony nepotism, plain and simple.
Hey Jack, you said
Those who attended last November’s hearing (before the Texas Water Development Board Examiner, in Wimberley) concerning WVWA’s appeal of the decision by GMA-9 to allow a 30 ft. drawdown in the Hill Country Trinity Aquifer over the next 50 years will know what I am speaking about. You saw the result of David’s organization and hard work – arranging for the presentation of local history, law, hydrogeology and other scientific evidence, community leader testimony, and computer modeling results – to help us make sense of the “desired future conditions” process and what that DFC would mean for this specific area.
What I saw were a bunch of people who misrepresented the law and failed to address the actual source of water for JW among other things. Time and time again Baker referred to "loss of property rights" as did his speakers. But they never could actually identify any "right" that was being lost. I was not impressed. In addition, WVWA failed to address the legal issue of reasonableness at all. As is typical, WVWA put on a circus side show to divert attention away from the issues at hand.
When WVWA appeared before the TWDB board a few months later, you and Baker and the rest of your fellow cult members attempted to change the subject of the entire hearing. Instead of addressing your own petition, you attempted to turn the meeting into a hearing about a "special groundwater management area". Both the TWDB board attorney and the staff attorney independently informed you and the board that i) a SGMA was not on the agenda, ii) the board would not and could not address a SGMA at this hearing, iii) your speakers were directed to address the WVWA petition and the reasonableness of the GMA 9 decision - which of course you failed to address at all even though YOU filed the petition protesting reasonableness.
None of your speakers addressed the legal issue. None of your speakers heeded the warnings of the TWDB board or staff attorney or the board's instructions regarding disregard of any discussion of a SGMA. You and Baker rudely ignored the board's admonitions and insisted upon a circus of speakers who wasted the board's and the attendees' time with completely off-topic discussions. Despite representations to the contrary in various propaganda pieces WVWA has circulated since losing the ridiculous protest, the TWDB did not "hear" or consider your SGMA propaganda at all.
Jack, history repeats itself. You "protested" Mark Key's letter, yet you really didn't address any of the points raise. Instead you try to divert attention away from the issues Mr. Key has raised. Not everyone is gullible enough to fall for WVWA's false propaganda and diversion tactics.
Speaking of diversion tactics, the "Donate Now" button on the WVWA website says "Your contributions go towards the preservation and restoration of the Jacobs Well Natural Area, publishing a biannual newsletter, and include entrance into the annual fund raising event". Shouldn't you also disclose payments to Baker and the conditions as to when the contributions "go towards" the cited items? Perhaps something along the lines of "your contributions go toward paying for these things once contributions exceed David Baker's annual salary"
To Anon, April 19, 11:23 PM:
You say, "There are plenty of streams, rivers, and lakes that have had no water allocated from them....Of course some of these are so small they are hardly worth it."
Exactly! If they aren't already permitted (allocated), you can bet the supply isn't worth anyone's attention.
"What about the San Marcos River?" you say.
That river is part of the San Marcos River Authority, which has
permitted all the water in its area.
Look, we can mention each particular stream or river back and forth, but the prevailing fact is that there is little surface water that is not already permitted (i.e., left for anyone else to use).
Hey Anon 04/20/12 @ 4:31PM,
Chapter 5 of the 2012 TWDB State Water Plan shows major rivers and the water still available to be obtained from them. Chapter 7 discusses how water sufficient to meet regional needs can be obtained from a combination of surface water and groundwater sources over the next 50 years.
The population in Texas is expected to increase 82 percent between the years 2010 and 2060, growing from 25.4 million to 46.3 million people. Hays County is projected to have more than 100% increase in population.
Overall, surface water management is expected to take care of about 91% of the water needs which are increasing due to population growth. Groundwater will be used to the extent surface water is not used to meet water needs.
You might want to actually read the 2012 TWDB State Water Plan (especially, e.g. Chapters 5, 7). Your "prevailing fact" isn't prevailing and it isn't fact. The TWDB doesn't rely upon myths or unsupported beliefs such as those you have espoused.
Mark Key shot the bird to folks in the groundwater district when he appointed little Jimmy Skipton to the rules committee. The kid was 17 years old when he was appointed by Key. He wasn't old enough to register to vote. If that isn't shooting the bird to the electorate, I don't know what is.
Susan,
Please get over Jimmy Skipton, it's getting old.
Mark Key shoots the bird to the electorate every time he opens his mouth.
Mark Key is a joke, but sadly, the joke is on us.
Mark Key is a constant reminder of how important it is to vote.
He won by 2 votes.
I have said zero about Jimmy Skipton.
Zero. Zip. Nada.
I guess I am not the only one who thinks that was an inappropriate appointment.
In fact, ask anyone outside of your little circle and they all think that was a very odd and disrespectful move.
Texas's burgeoning population growth is somebody's business plan, not an inevitability.
Change the plan.
Save the water.
Save Texas.
@ Republican for a Change who said...
Mark Key shoots the bird to the electorate every time he opens his mouth.
In what way? Just because is isn't participating in maintaining the former dictatorial regime? Because they actually have meetings and hearings rather than refusing to allow hearings on permit applications? The previous boards actively hosed applicants for nearly a decade.
Mark Key is a joke, but sadly, the joke is on us.
Well you are a minority interest. If you prefer a regime, go elsewhere.
Mark Key is a constant reminder of how important it is to vote.
Yes and thank goodness people did. Otherwise Andrew Backus would have been back in office again engaging in various schemes to deny property owners access to groundwater (except for those he wanted to grandfather in). Let's see: Backus tried legislation in 2007 with Rose and that failed. That legislation was completely contrary to all the representations made by proponents of the district when solicit support for its creation. Apparently out of spite, Backus opposed Rose in 2008 and that failed. Backus supported trying to get more power over property owners via other schemes such as merging with other groundwater districts. Backus also sought to impose a tax over property owners in the district. Those attempts failed, were not supported by the property owners out here, and in many cases were simply not supported by the law.
He won by 2 votes.
...and thank goodness for that. The current board is cleaning up the mess created by and left by former board members and their staff (who resigned when the election results came in).
The former board members had an agenda of denying property owners access to water. They had quite a contorted explanation as to how their scheme was legit. We've had a Texas Supreme Court decision come out (EAA v Day) which has made it clear that the scheme was not legit and in fact was an unconstitutional taking of property.
The losers are never happy if the win is a small margin or a large margin. Let's face it, they're losers - what did you expect but whining? Winning by one vote is enough.
I voted for Mark and will do so again if he runs. He has brought openness and transparency to the board; worked to get the finances, budget, and funding of the district in shape; and moved the district from operating in the unlawful manner (promoted by former board members) to a lawful manner of operation where the HTGCD represents the actual property owners and respects the rights of the property owners.
Mark Key quote:
"We're the board, we can do what we want, right?"
He actually said this at a recent HTGCD meeting.
Not my idea of good government.
@ ta
Care to mention what the remark was in reference to?
Note that Hollon didn't really address Mark Key's observations at all. Instead, Hollon's entire piece was just fluff about what a great job Baker does for WVWA. Too bad he was getting paid for it by WVWA while sitting on the HTGCD board (a crime).
By the way, whatever happened to the $17,000 that disappeared from the HTGCD's coffers via David Baker's id? Whatever happened to the money that likewise disappeared from WVWA's coffers? Notice anything in common?
Baker previously claimed to have obtained 55 acres which was the subject of the earlier loan (that the county taxpayers paid off for him). By the time it came to asking for money from the taxpayers, Baker represented it was 46 acres. What happened to the other 9 acres?
If the taxpayers paid for the whole thing, why did Baker get to keep 15 acres plus an easement to Jacobs Well?
Hollon can't really deal with the facts so he is forced to try to completely change the subject matter of the discussion - just like Baker & Hollon tried to do before the Texas Water Development Board in March. No one there bought the smoke screen. If WVWA tells you differently then consider the source and the fact that their income is dependent upon maintaining a facade.
Post a Comment