An aquifer, like a bank account experiencing over-withdrawals, needs recharging, i.e. deposits, to keep it in balance and healthy
** Please plan to attend the Tuesday, July 21 Commissioners Court Workshop at 6 p.m. in the Wimberley Council Chambers on RR 12 and support the proposed development regulations including the 6.5 acre sustainable lot size. Call city hall for directions, 847.0025.
Click on the link to download a pdf file of the latest proposed new subdivision rules: http://www.co.hays.tx.us/ProposedDevelopmentbrRegulationDocuments/tabid/154/Default.aspx
Send your comments and news tips to online.editor@valleyspringcomm.net or to Mr. Glenn, david.glenn@vownet.net *Read the comments or add you own by clicking on the "comments" button below the story
By David Glenn
Guest commentary
Water availability is one of the most critical issues facing future growth and development in Hays County. The proposed Hays County Development Regulations represent a three year stakeholder driven public process to deal with this critical issue in two important ways. First, they protect the citizens and voters who live here and are already invested in the County. Second, the proposed revisions will also provide protection for the people who will be coming as unparalleled growth continues.This unprecedented growth and development in the Hays County portion of the Austin-San Antonio corridor served as the catalyst for the Commissioners Court taking another look at existing regulations beginning in August 2006.
A stakeholder driven public process led by Naismith Engineering in conjunction with Hart & Hart, P.C. was begun. The goal was straightforward. Prepare an update of the County’s subdivision regulations. Stakeholder representatives from the following groups met from August 2006 through October 2007 to provide public input during the updating of regulations:
*Real estate development community, *concerned citizens, *environmental/public interest groups, *municipalities, *economic interests, *other governmental entities, *agricultural interests, *neighborhood interests, *property owners, and *utility providers.
Other activities including Commissioners Court briefings, workshops, public hearings, public notice of proposed regulations, County-hosted public meetings and a Takings Impact Assessment were conducted during review and revision of the proposed development regulations.
Hays County is located on the edge of the Great Southwestern Desert of North America. Concern about water supply sources and availability arose at the first stakeholders meetings in 2006 and has continued throughout the process. SCIENCE + POLICY = WATER AVAILABILITY was the process agreed to in addressing water concerns.
An aquifer, like a bank account experiencing over-withdrawals, needs recharging, i.e. deposits, to keep it in balance and healthy. Where rural subdivisions are planned that depend on drilling individual lot water wells in the Priority Ground Water Area (PGMA) of the northern half of Hays County, a sustainable minimum lot size of 6.5 acres is proposed to support recharge of the aquifer in this area for the people living on the lot and nearby.
The HTGCD recommended a 9 acre lot size for sustainable groundwater development on individual water wells. Following public hearing input by water experts, public comment, and further technical review the sustainable lot size was further reduced by Naismith Engineering to 6.5 acres which is proposed in Table 705.05.01-Minimum Lot Sizes (in Acres). This lot sizing approach is based on sustainability of the aquifer and should err on the side of caution when the science of the aquifer isn’t perfectly understood.
REMEMBER: 6.5 KEEPS OUR SPRINGS FLOWING AND WELLS PUMPING!
Mr. Glenn is a member of the Wimberley city planning & zoning commission and serves on the Hays County Comprehensive Plan steering committee. Last year, he spearheaded an extensive water study for the city.
11 comments:
So the 6.5 acres will keep our "springs running and our wells pumping"?
If everyone is so sure that enlarging the lot size will be sustainable, why not go with what Andrew Backus said several times which was that 27 acres was the prime number for sustainable development?
The politicians are politicking the minimum lot size. There is no science behind it - the County Judge as much as admitted it in an editorial from a few weeks back, where she said (paraphrasing) "it's all very complicated, a lot of science no one really understands". Well, if no one understands it why continue jockeying with the minimum lot size? Are you really sure that the one that you have is broken?
If truly there is a sustainability problem, put on a moratorium from more wells being drilled. The increase in minimum lot size is just gaming the problem. There are ways around that - in fact if you use rainwater collection, or public water from surface water sources, etc., the rules effectively aren't being changed, the small lot sizes still are in place.
Another method would be for several lot owners, or the developer, to drill one well for multiple lots. TCEQ's regs allow for one well to serve more than one lot, up to (I believe) 5 lots without triggering the public water supply requirements. So, you could have lots tagged for "rainwater collection", but have access to or utilize a common well, and thus circumvent the rules. There is no requirement for each lot to have an individual well, that is either a fallacy or a misunderstanding. Each individual lot must have their own wastewater system, there is no "sharing" OSSF's, once that is done you are into the area of public wastewater systems (another area of TCEQ's authority - which would include cluster systems, which TCEQ typically won't allow).
Lastly, the raising of the minimum lot size does nothing about the existing lots that are not built on, of which there are many (probably in the hundreds if not thousands). These lots are from precedent grandfathered for wells (at least residentially) and septics (we encountered this at Environmental Health in the early 2000's when a resident in Saddletree challenged the County's attempt on enforcing new OSSF rules on his lot). He hired an attorney and proved either administratively or through court (I am not as familiar with it as the higher ups in the department) that existing platted lots are grandfathered in regards to OSSF rules. I am not saying I agreed with that rendering or that I disagreed with it, that is just a factor that has to be considered when thinking about the effect of raising minimum lot sizes in regard to sustainability of the aquifer based on development.
Here's the kicker - we are fighting over groundwater which is obviously limited. Yet, the very people who are charged with protecting the aquifer are at the same time not doing a blessed thing about developing other resources for water availability. Options? Not perfect but here's a few ideas (if you have better ones suggest them): damming up either the Blanco or the Pedernales River, creating small impoundments on the bigger creeks (Onion and Barton). The impoundments don't necessarily have to be permanent catchments, but could act as recharge impoundments by capturing more water that could be cleaned up and then injected into the aquifer. Rainwater collection on a larger scale - catching commercial stormwater - and then placing in an impoundment that would be available for water use. Desalinization of the saline portion of the Edwards east of Kyle. Does it cost money? Of course it does, but so does the operation of the Groundwater District, and since they are asking for $200K of taxpayer money from the Commissioners Court for funding their operations, there should be strings attached that they begin to develop plans for water availability.
These are my thoughts on it all anyway. Let's see how many people turn this into a personal attach somehow rather than engage in constructive dialogue.
Hey Jon: BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH.
Used to be a time when even extreme right wingers like you understood common sense, or at least knew when to get out of the way. Now all you guys are good for is making hay for profiteers like Conley and Rose and a few others with your very same arguments. You sound like a spokesman and spin meister for a water utility/developer.
Some of your positions add up to nothing more than a blind push for MORE development and MORE consumption. There are some places on God's Green Earth where MORE DEVELOPMENT AND MORE CONSUMPTION (equals more taxes and more strain on resources) just isn't in the plan, man. Who you kiddin'?
Our groundwater district is not in the business of developing other water sources, they are in the business of preserving and protecting what we've got.
I would advocate 10-fold more incentives, including grants, from our county and the state for rainwater collection. Make it affordable for the average joe.
Daming up the Blanco and Pedernales are tired old ideas (straw men), same with impoundments on Onion and Barton – requiring condemnation of lots of private property, something I can't imagine you supporting.
You speak of the thousands of grandfathered lots. That's nothing compared to the tens of thousands of acres still out there just waiting for the right price to be chopped up into tiny little residential lots.
I imagine the 6.5-acre rule is geared more towards reasonable, yes, sustainable, lot sizing in the future.
We're down to our last few options, bro. Making more hay is not one of them.
Support your local groundwater district.
See what I mean, Cruisin'? Can't miss the opportunity to make it personal can you?
I said my suggestions were not perfect, but they are ideas. They aren't just straw men, as you seem to suggest. The "straw man" is the 6.5 acres which seems to change every time the policy wonks at the County want to tweak it up or down. All I said was that if the 6.5 acres were the right thing, then prove it. The County Judge thought at one time 9 acres was best. Andrew Backus thought 27 acres was best. (Based on his scientific analysis.) I am just saying that if it is that extreme, then do it. If our elected leaders feel the need to push ahead with their agenda go for it. Why stop at 6.5? Go for what they think is right, don't be a sell out. It's hard to respect a sell-out, I can respect someone with the gumption to hold to their beliefs and mean what they say. I don't have to agree with them.
So, you throw out an idea - "10-fold more incentives for rainwater harvesting, including grants". Well "Cruisin" that is an idea. One that if I wanted to could come up with all kinds of holes. Such as unsustainable for most types of development. But I give you kudos for coming up with something. I think that's not a bad idea in some instances.
As for creating water availability does not immediately create development. (That in the language of another day and time would be called your basic type of tar baby.) You create this sticky wicket idea that "developers" get water availability and development follows. Let me introduce you to a new thought - development comes whether there is water or not most of the time, and with the way water rules are in Texas, you had better damn well have water thought out in advance rather than stick your head in the sand and avoid the reality of what will most likely happen.
Therefore, I CAN support the groundwater district, if I feel like they are doing more than protecting their turf and agenda of NO GROWTH. If they are really out there for everyone, and you know that development has a better than average chance of coming, then you had best be about the business of locating more resources of water, and preserving what you have. Our own Commissioners Court is going through the exercise of doing this very thing with their water and wastewater availability and need study for the northern and western portions of the County. Would you care to categorize the County Judge and Commissioner Ford as "extreme right wingers" for supporting this? The idea is to find resources for future water needs.
Let me clue you in on one more thing "Cruisin'". If the population as it is stayed stagnant, meaning the birth and death rate were equal, the immigration of illegal aliens (undocumented workers for you lefty types) would very easily continue to push upwards the demand on water (clean water mind you, not colonia water).
So, to say that the groundwater district has no vested interest in coming up with ideas for creating water resources is kind of a very ostrich-like approach - stick your head in the sand and ignore the problem, and just hope it goes away. Poor planning "Cruisin".
I sincerely hope you are smarter than that. Anyone else care to take a stab at personal attacks? Or is this truly meant to be a medium for reasoned discussion? Whether or not the ideas are anachronistic, an idea is an idea until someone can prove or disprove its validity. No ideas is the sign of a weak imagination and a closed mind. Now that is not the America I know.
Jon - you need to review Judge Sumter's editorial that was posted on this website in March of this year. No where does she say what you have in quotes - not anywhere near. Check your facts before you hit the send button. It is time for action - no more talking about it.
I am shocked Jon didn't offer up buying into T. Boone Pickens plan to pipe water into drought stricken areas of Texas as part of his 'solutions' diatribe. Check out Mesa Water to fully understand Pickens plan and how he came to be the single largest private water owner in these United States...if you think water is expensive now you ain't seen nothing yet! Another interesting read is a new book out titled 'Unquenchable'. It documents the current water crisis and where we are heading if we do not address the issues now.
Minimum homesite lot size of 6.5 acres for developments would be a more practical solution! Minimum Lot for a well should be 40 acres and then only allow enough pumping to sustain house, crops and animals, no vanity ponds or lakes. Outlaw St. Augustine lawns and only permit Xeriscape with native species of plants. This may sound extreme but in 5 years or so it will be fact.
I hope everybody shows up for this workshop to express their support for the 6.5 acre short term solution.
With Texas entering a long period of drought conditions (with intermittent rain) we may not ever have a "surface water solution". Our neighbors, LCRA, GBRA, Kyle, San Marcos, even Dripping Springs Water Supply, are likely to want to hold on to the dwindling "surplus" they have.
Picture this: Borrowed surface water arrives in the Wimberley Valley, new and large developments start sprouting dependent on the borrowed water. Then the Mother of All Droughts sets in, and they are hung out to dry as the water loaners start pulling back their supplies.
These new subdivision regulations are the minimum required to get us through the next few years. Tell your commissioner Conley to get on board. He is resisting the changes. No surprise there. If we don't get them passed now we might as well start looking for another place to settle.
I like your little water heart posted with the story. I think we should all love our groundwater a little more, and whatever will help preserve it. Thanks.
ok, I just wrote a long and thoughtful
letter, and hit publish and lost it.
gone gone
what the ?
why do we need to be Approved by the blog author??
well well,
you guys shore can prattle on...
but speaking of wells, I have a question that I hope someone can answer- if we set a 6.5 acre size limit, but no pumping limits, how can we ever be sure that more greedy water barons like Aqua Texas are not going to come on in and put their wells in on their 6.5 acres and then pump like there's no tomorrow and sell us their water when our wells go dry?
I use about 15 gallons of water a day, total. Yet I pay almost $100
just to have the option of using ONE
gallon from the tap.
How many times does Jacob's Well have to stop flowing when Aqua Giant
pumps and wastes HALF the water they
are attempting to draw up (ok, maybe it's nearly half, or something like that) before we set some pumping limits?
Do we wait til Cypress Creek is a few mud holes?
Or do we start now?
What is it going to take to reverse this antiquated "right (or rule) of
capture" law? Can anyone tell me how many other states have such a law? Please if you can answer (or offer some insight) on these questions, I'm all ears.
thanks
The whole reason for this 6.5 acre thing is just to make us think our politicians really care about conservation of ground water. It’s just another dance to make us feel good. It harms no special interests, it costs nothing and accomplishes nothing.
Post a Comment