Friday, May 8, 2009
'I'm a Realtor: It's how I make my money; water is how I live'
. . . as a Realtor dealing with investment properties (rentals) and people looking to buy and move into the area, it’s impossible to miss the exodus away from Aqua, Inc. areas is only growing stronger
Send your comments and news tips to online.editor@valleyspringcomm.net
or to Mr. Ewing, clayeewing@gmail.com
Read the comments or add your own by clicking on the "comments" button at the bottom of the story
Guest Commentary
By Clay E. Ewing
I’m curious about the seeming hypocrisy concerning water in western Hays County.
On the one hand, we have people up in arms over the idea of vesting full authority in Chapter 36 for the Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District, for reasons that cannot seem to bear up to any level of scrutiny.
On the other, we allow an out-of-state corporation to run carte blanche over the reasonable right to water at a competitive rate, while also allowing them the leeway to let raw sewage flow freely from manhole covers during rainstorms or when one of the pumps goes out, not to even mention how they lose more water to leakage than they pump into homes.
We have loud and acrimonious meetings to shout down new subdivisions because of the astonishingly bad planning that promotes a thousand wells and septic tanks in less than a thousand acres, but do not seem capable of supporting the idea to promote—through tax breaks and incentives—the very proven rain water harvesting concept instead of all those wells.
In thinking about things like this, one thought keeps coming back up: we don’t think beyond our own life spans. We say we do, we might even think we do. But, a people who think a hundred years ahead don’t act as though we can burn, pump, cut down, or pollute all the resources we want to now, and still have any for our children and grandchildren’s needs. It’s just not reasonable to believe the person who gives themselves everything their heart desires, is thinking past those desires.
And, to not put any more fine a point than a simple one: there will be no subject, there will be nothing of greater importance not just to Western Hays County, but to the nation as a whole, than water. If your car runs out of gas, you walk, if my home runs out of electricity to run my air conditioner, I’ll sweat. If we run out of water, we die. Individually, collectively, we. Not you, not me. We.
Thus, it was with great disappointment I read how Mr.s Rose and Wentworth killed full vestment of Chapter 36. As a Realtor, I should jump and dance and shout hosannas, but the fact of the matter is, real estate is how I make money, but water is how I live. I try hard not to confuse the two, as they are very different things, and we, as a nation, confuse them all the time.
The scrutiny of Chapter 36? The nays say we don’t need another level of government, we don’t need to track our water usage, we don’t need to jeopardize our economy by layering new fees and rules onto our area. I hear that.
But I also note this: The layer of government they don’t want is there already, in volunteer form for something that will define our very existence for decades to come. So, do we really want well intentioned, even well educated, volunteers to handle this on a part-time basis, or do we want people, elected and hired people, who represent our interests—not some corporation, not some developer, but our interests—to handle this issue?
But, you don’t want to put a meter on your well and pay for the water you use? Well, the legislation Rose and Wentworth is letting die wouldn’t do that; in fact, the last writing of the legislation was very emphatic: existing wells are exempt from meters and fees, and of the new wells, only commercial wells are covered. Which means about 98% of the new wells would be exempt.
I would also note this: as a Realtor dealing with investment properties (rentals) and people looking to buy and move into the area, it’s impossible to miss the exodus away from Aqua, Inc. areas is only growing stronger. So, having a private water company running roughshod over your pocketbook, and providing nearly nothing in return for the three or four times the ‘normal’ base charges found all over America, is hurting sales and rentals far more than anything Chapter 36 would do.
In fact, our ground water district is the only one in Texas without full vestment of 36, and so far as I’ve read, none of the others have seen a dip in real estate activity that can be tied to before and after vestment. Which leads me to believe the arguments thus far are probably more hysterical than real.
Messieurs Rose and Wentworth, if you’re reading this: I’m actually very disappointed in your short-sightedness in this matter. I’m not all that surprised, because so far from what I’ve heard, your loudest constituents are making all the noises most associated with the short-term fever than, ultimately, is what has stricken our national economy and brought the world nearly to its knees, and it’s hard to suddenly stand up and say, This is wrong, we have to do something different.
It’s hard, and it’s perhaps frightening. We’ve been living short-term for so long we don’t seem to know any different any more. But the fact is, if we don’t think into our children’s lifetimes, when they’re the age we are now, we can probably kiss goodbye the life we know for them then, because our lack of vision will have killed it.
If there is never a question that something should be done to right a wrong, the question then becomes, What am I going to do?
Clay Ewing is a former op-ed columnist for the Texan Express (Goliad ’84-’86), edited a regional bicycling newsletter in South Texas (1990-2000), on-going blogger and writer of short stories, landscape and color abstract photographer. Mr. Ewing is a practicing Realtor in the Wimberley area.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
What a beautiful commentary. it is evident that Mr. Ewing has thought long and hard and deep about this incredible issue before us. Mr. Ewing your thoughts are so very appropriate and I hear you loud and clear. Let's hope this visionary letter makes the rounds. Your children should be proud and happy to have a father always putting them first and foremost. Kudos!
Mr. Ewing, you are a gentleman and a scholar. Will you consider running for public office? Perhaps that would be asking too much. You sound far too intelligent and insightful.
Where, in either the US or Texas constitutions, does it say that people have a "right to water at a competitive rate"?
No new taxing authority. No new taxes.
Thank You Mr. Ewing! Finally, a Realtor with a soul. I was beginning to think, none cared. I take you at your word Sir, although my cynical nature still tugs at my sleeve.
How many RE agents ever disclose the ugly truth of the water situation in this little world of ours? I can tell you, none. I moved here a year ago and was shocked at my first water bill and even more when I learned that Jacobs Well stopped flowing and the Trinity Aquifer was in jeopardy.
I am now seriously considering rainwater collecting since it is obvious that we can expect no help from our heroes in Austin. It is going to cost me some money and time, but at least my fate will be up to the Almighty, not the empty suits in the Legislature or Commissioners Court. I canl assure you that I will vote to throw all the bums out.
Considering rainwater collection . . . if you are a customer of AT or a woodcreek creature please check your water service contract fine print or poa restrictions. i heard recently thru the grapevine that rainwater collection systems are expressly prohibited. i was shocked when i heard this! talk about the rule of capture! don't know if this is true, and i'm not out to rain on your parade. just checking. please check and report back if you would be so kind. if true it should be reported far and wide.
no new taxes, I agree . . . please help the cause of assisting the critical mission and function of our groundwater conservation district by contacting your county commissioner and demanding more financial support to the district with fewer strings (talk about over-sized onerous government!) the county is flush with taxpayer (yours and my) cash. tell commissioner (paygo-i don't think so) conley to suck it up and reallocate taxes already being collected. from what i've heard, he's going around telling folks he's got access to a two million county slush fund. we're all in same boat soon with no water to float us. there's more than one way to skin a cat, yo.
I am quite certain that the Woodcreek POA is encouraging property owners and builders to install rainwater collection systems. As a matter of fact I noticed that the POA itself is installing a rain barrel system at the entrance to Woodcreek North...the writer who refers to restrictions against rainwater collection may be writing about Wimberley Springs Partners POA restrictions.
Every drop of rainwater harvested is a drop of rainwater that doesn't go to replenish the aquifer.
Why is rainwater harvesting legal, given the adverse environmental impact on the aquifer?
Morons and their mantras are tiresome. This is not to say that one is a moron simply for holding a view that governing institutions and their taxing authority should be minimized, rather that to simply regurgitate, from behind the shield of anonymity, an empty mantra is in no way "helpful", to either the individual or society. Government is the expression of the sort of society we want to maintain and live within. Without governance, no society is possible. Without governance, the only governor of commerce would be might, such as the point of a gun, enforcing any sort of "right". So what the debate is about is what sort of governance we want, who gets the money, and for what purposes. Your choice is to leave governance to what you call "the market" and accept the consequences, or to invest in a governance that understands and recognizes that water is "the commons", water is life, not just an instrument of commerce, and proceeds accordingly to protect and preserve the commons, so that the commerce that depends on it might be more sustainable, might endure beyond the current generation. That is what Mr. Ewing was talking about. Morons and their mantras do not address that matter, they only obstruct the dialogue that must occur about what kind of governance we want to be the guiding hand on how our common resource is managed. If the moron hiding behind "Anonymous", and Mr. Rose and Mr. Wentworth too, would come out and present their line of argument, present their plan for how to manage the commons to render it more sustainable, maybe we could come to some "reasonable" agreements on what sort of governance should be in place. But as long as it's just an exercise in raw political power, enable by morons who cannot be bothered to think any more deeply than repeating a mantra, we will continue our downward spiral toward an unsustainable society, and the eventual "crash" that being unsustainable will impart.
In answer to the last posting regarding rainwater collection in Woodcreek North....It is NOT prohibited!!! Several homes are on FULL rainwater harvesting systems and many others collect rainwater for yard maintenance. Rainwater harvesting is encouraged and I believe it is unlawful to prohibit it.
#8: Your argument doesn't hold water. You fail to consider impervious cover, ie: driveways, sideways, roadways. Why do think during a Stage 3 Drought washing driveways, sidewalks, cars, etc. are prohibited? A rainwater collection system or a simple rain barrel does NOT deplete the aquifer. Got it?
I keep looking, watching, waiting, hoping for the commenting audience, the community and our local "leadership" to at least agree on the two or three main points of disagreement (they seem pretty clear to me) – so we can all move to a reasonable effective compromise.
Rose and his gang, it seems, are in the extreme little-to-nothing groundwater management view. I believe it is they who should give a little more now since HTGCD has already offered many key concessions.
Taxation, metering and grandfathering and conveyance appear to be the big stumbling blocks to moving forward.
Focus please.
I’m starting to study and setup a rainwater capturing system for our home and have a goal of water independence. During my research I found an article about Colorado’s laws forbidding rainwater collection. Colorado does not think that you own the rain that falls on your property; they think it belongs to the State for them to use, sell and manage. One official said, “… if everyone in Denver captured rain, he says, that would upset the state's 150-year-old water-allocation system”.
Could this happen here? Although it may sound absurd now, it could later become part of Chapter 36 or some new creation by our “heros” in Austin. Of course, rainwater is not ground water, is it? One could however, make the argument that rain is where ground water comes from, therefore it is something to regulate and tax. Where would they draw the line?
#11: To the extent that intercepted rainwater would have fallen on impervious cover, run off to surface channels, and never reached the aquifer, you're correct.
To the extent that intercepted rainwater would have fallen on the ground, and would have reached the aquifer, you're wrong.
Any rainwater system that intercepts water that would otherwise replenish the aquifer, effectively depletes the aquifer over the no action (i.e., no rainwater system) scenario. No matter how organic your system is.
Post a Comment