What we have in trying to manage our scarce water resources is a failure to communicate, and a lot of waste

Councilman Flocke was certainly right when he said we need to be talking to each other, not going off into separate camps to imagine what our “opponents” are thinking and doing

–––––––––––––––

If we want a real issue to discuss, the 3.15 million gallon “water loss” by Wimberley Water Supply in February was more than the total water sold (3.05 million gallons)

Send your comments and news tips to online.editor@valleyspringcomm.net
or to Jack Hollon, jhollon37tx@yahoo.com

For a map of the groundwater district in western Hays County and more information visit the district's web site, haysgroundwater.com

Guest Column

By Jack Hollon

At its April 2 meeting, the Wimberley City Council considered a resolution supporting new legislation and funding for the Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District (HTGCD). Near the end of the discussion Mayor Haley stated that in an email exchange with the District’s president he had learned that the GCD wanted to charge a fee on water used for fire fighting. He then pointedly asked me (a GCD Director in the audience) if this were true. I said that I had seen the emails and that water for fighting fires was not the main issue.

I was cut off and asked to give a “yes” or “no” answer. When I requested to make a statement to provide context, the Mayor said “No.” I was not allowed to speak, and the Council moved on.

So perhaps I can speak here.

The main issue addressed in the emails concerned production fees – one possible way of funding District operations. As part of proposed funding, the GCD had suggested a production fee of up to 17 cents per thousand gallons, to be charged on water produced from permitted wells, such as those that supply Wimberley Water (WWSC), Aqua Texas Inc, and Wimberley Springs Partners’ golf course(s).

The question the mayor and Wimberley Water Supply general manager Haley asked in his email was: Would that fee be placed on the quantity of water pumped (produced from the aquifer), or on the quantity sold to customers?

Mr. Backus’ reply was that he thought it should be charged on the water pumped, as this provides an incentive to keep the difference between “pumped” and “sold,”… the gross system “loss,” as small as possible.

There is no doubt that if this issue came before the groundwater board, the policy would likely be to exempt water used for fire fighting from the production fee. However, Mr. Haley seized on this hot button as an opportunity to criticize the District and make it look insensitive to an emotional subject, fighting fires – even though the quantity of water and money at stake is relatively small.

For example, if a hundred thousand gallons were used in fighting a fire, at the 17-cent rate, that is only $17. And the quantity of water is only about 3% of the gross “water loss,” in the February 2009 data for WWSC – water mostly lost to leaks and line breaks, but also including fire-fighting and line-flushing.

In fact, if we want a real issue to discuss, the 3.15 million gallon “water loss” by Wimberley Water Supply in February was more than the total water sold (3.05 million gallons) to the 1,208 accounts, out of 1,667, that each used less than 6,000 gallons for February in the Wimberley system. Mr. Backus’ statement was aimed at this serious conservation problem. WWSC’s general manager Haley changed the subject and attacked the District for suggesting a fee on wasted water as unfair.

From the email: “If Hays Trinity is going to use water produced as their guide line, then Wimberley Water will do everything in its power to see that chapter 36 fails. We cannot support something that is totally unfair for the people in the Wimberley Valley.”

Mr. Haley gave no reason why charging a fee for wasted water is “…totally unfair for the people in theWimberley Valley.” I expect citizens would support the District on this one.

One reason why we have this huge “loss” problem (and Aqua Texas loses far more than WWSC) is that water from the aquifer is regarded as a free good – which our old Rule-of-Capture mentality says we can take without regard for our neighbor.

But the number of “neighbors” has grown exponentially, so much so our collective demands now threaten decline or destruction of this basic resource. That is the reason we need management, not because of “…hunger for power and control… by some imagined bureaucracy...,” as implied by Mr. Rietz and Mr. Huth in their statements to the Council, and by the ruminations and context-free excerpts from Chapter 36 read by some Council members. These folks need to attend a few GCD meetings to observe first-hand what is going on.

On the one hand we have a real aquifer, facing real problems, which require intelligent management. Local volunteers are working hard to deal with the problems, in a lean and effective way. On the other hand we have dark suspicions and fears, and little trust in the ability and integrity of local people, operating in an open process, to act in the best interest of the community.

This is a sad situation. And we are receiving no real leadership from Rep. Rose and Sen. Wentworth, or from the City ofWimberley. County leaders are divided.

Councilman Flocke was certainly right when he said we need to be talking to each other, not going off into separate camps to imagine what our “opponents” are thinking and doing. Those of us from the District must do more to support timely and accurate communications about our water resources. We shall keep working on the problems.

I welcome your views – Jack Hollon, HTGCD Director, Place 5/Wimberley