You couldn't miss the big gun attorneys who were present. Said one attendee, "a fair number of them (with business before the district) were of the mind that if you can't grant us a continuance or give us what we're asking for now, then it's litigation."
Send your comments and news tips to online.editor@valleyspringcomm.net or to the HTGCD, manager@haysgroundwater.com
By Bob Ochoa
RoundUp Editor
Doug Wierman, president of the board of the Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District and a registered Texas professional geoscientist, reported this morning that the district's new water waste Rule 9 was adopted by a healthy margin of votes at last night's public hearing.
The beefed up rule will require water systems, big and small in western Hays County, to hold line losses (wasted groundwater) to no more than 15%. Rule 9, Mr. Wierman said, is based on Texas Water Development Board guidelines for water systems. "If we find they are over 15% for more than 90 days, they will have to come to us with a plan as to how they will remedy the situation," he said. Aqua Texas, by far one of the region's biggest water wasters, is due to turn in its water waste prevention plan to the district's office by Sept. 22.
The district's Thursday public hearing and meeting began at 5 p.m. at Dripping Springs City Hall and ended around 9:15. About 25 citizens, attorneys and folks who had business before the district, were in attendance. Sprinkled about were a few golfing enthusiasts who were lamenting the dry conditions of their golf course fairways.
You couldn't miss the big gun attorneys who were present. Said one attendee, "a fair number of them were of the mind that if you can't grant us a continuance or give us what we're asking for now, then it's litigation."
The district had three groundwater permits to consider. According to board president Wierman, the Ron White Dripping Springs Dental Clinic commerical permit was approved for 50,000 gallons per year. The Howard Ranch development, at FM 150 & RR 12 south of Dripping, has requested 400 acre-feet of groundwater use (130,400,000 gallons) for landscape irrigation for full build out. The permit was not approved, but was set aside for another meeting between the parties some time in October. The groundwater management plan, Wierman said, calls for only 11 acre feet. "That's why we're talking about it," he said.
Quicksand, or Wimberley Springs Partners, has had a 900-acre feet (293,400,000 gallons) yearly permit pending before the district. (We're checking on the actual number). It was also granted a continuance.
Three notice of groundwater rule violations went before the district: The Frank Leal notice (2100 Creek Rd, Dripping Springs) was referred to the district's counsel for possible penalties. The case involves a very large groundwater-filled pond. "We view pumping of ponds and evaporation as a waste of water – a very well defined term in the (state) water code," Wierman noted. The Cobb notice of violation (Jon Cobb, 31300 Ranch Road 12, Dripping Springs) was granted a delay to attempt a settlement before enforcement action is taken. This case involves non-permitted irrigation of two ball fields (up to as many as nine). The Browning Ranch notice (Alfred Albert, LLC, Browning Ranch, Dripping Springs) was granted a continuance at the request of Browning counsel. This one involves pumping groundwater into a pond about a half acre in size.
____________________
Editor's Note: We can't help but make a comment about the tough challenges the district faces at almost every turn in the road on its long journey to protect and preserve our groundwater beneath the hills and valleys in western Hays. They are a brave lot, considering the constant threats of lawsuits and all those high powered attorneys always lurking in the background, chomping at the bit.
We should not forget that the district is functioning on a shoestring budget, always has, thanks to no help from our elected representatives in the legislature, save for members of our county commissioners court who always seem to come through with funding assistance. Thanks district, and thanks commissioners. If you counted up the dollars available for bar room legal brawls, the district is probably out-gunned 20 to 1. That's a shame.
We asked Mr. Wierman, "Are you afraid of their attorneys?" Well, in keeping with the western True Grit spirit, Wierman responded, "No, I think ours is as good as theirs." So here's another hat tip to the district, and to the district's counsel, Greg Ellis.
15 comments:
The folks in Howard Ranch need to learn to live in the Hill Country- this ain't Houston!
I think it is disgraceful that they've got surface water, but use ground water to water their yards.
Perhaps they can learn something from the Wildflower Center about drought tolerant lawns? http://www.wildflower.org/nativelawns/
Kathi, I agree totally that the obscene Howard Ranch request should be reject out of hand. Here we are in a drought of epic proportions and these clowns want millions of gallons of drinking water from the aquifer for irrigation of some 25 acres of turf, water features, and God knows what else. They advertise as a Community Amenity, “Community irrigation well; $50.00 monthly fee for unlimited landscape water usage (saves hundreds)!” and “Planned 4 acre lake” Now that’s cajones! I guess they never heard of xeriscape, oh shame on me, that’s right, the rich don’t think they have to conserve.
I felt that their rather insulting and arrogant attorney didn’t help their case on bit. Her threatening attitude was out front and she was very critical in a personal way toward the District’s staff. The subdivision will use water from Dripping Springs Water in homes and pump water for irrigation from their well they are asking for a permit to pump 400 acre-feet of ground water. I don’t even live close to that subdivision but it made me mad as hell.
The board didn’t seem too impressed with their request but it would be nice if more people would show up at the next meeting to support the board and severely criticize the Howard Ranch request. Trhe boaed should hold the line with the 11 acre-feet they calculated. If it were up to me I’d shut them down.
I’ll add my attaboy for district's counsel, Greg Ellis. This guy knows more about water law than all of his counterparts put together. He is accurate and does not offend when telling the other lawyers they are wrong. I learn something every time he speaks. The District couldn’t do any better.
Just to add, the entire board is to be congratulated for their unselfish work on our behalf. Keep it up, guys.
Before ranting on "those people" in Howard Ranch, you folks need to understand that the restrictive covenants are imposed by the developers - NOT the homeowners. The subdivision is a developer-controlled subdivision just like so many others. The developers want to forced everyone to purchase 100% of their water from developer controlled entities AND the developers use the HOA to create an artificial demand for the water (the homeowners are involuntary funders of the HOA). The developers want you to consume as much water as possible and to purchase every single last drop of it from them. Quit blaming the homeowners. Blame Hays County Commissioners for forcing every new subdivision into mandatory HOAs.
Our Hays County Commissioners fell right into the developer game plan by making sure that homeowners can't have wells in new subdivisions unless they're on 6.5 acres, but there's no minimum lot size for developers using central groundwater-based water system. If it was really about conservation, then shouldn't there have been an average 6.5 acre lot size irrespective of whether the source is a residential well or a central water system?
Your "elected officials" aren't working in your best interests. HTGCD wants everyone to pay for permits to collect production fees. After all they need some source of income for retirement and salaries which they have been pushing for in the last legislative session. It's one thing to eliminate waste (and they already have the power to do that). It's something else to deny landowners the right to access water entirely. Instead of compensating you for taking away your right to access the water, they want to force you to purchase the water from someone else without any offset for the water you are prevented from taking under your own property.
After reading Dr. Charles' response to a question on the previous blog about this business regarding John Gorman, why wasn't his property and his name laid out for consideration for a fine, if as Charles has now alluded he is in violation of several rules? What gives? When does it reach a point of being wasteful, and when is it not? Come on Charles, what does your evidence tell you? Is he wasting water, working in the creekbed, what? Or a combination of it all?
Anonymous #4, I fail to see where anyone ranted on “those people” or ever mentioned “homeowners”, it’s the developer, specifically Erik Howard that’s making to obscene request for water. Since you mentioned it however, I find it hard to feel sorry for “those people” who bought property in Howard Ranch without doing their part in researching the development, HOA, and water situation, etc.
Buying property or homes on a dead creek (Onion Creek) at exorbitant prices with only promises of future over-the-top amenities is frankly, foolish. Not to mention terms like “$50.00 monthly fee for unlimited landscape water usage (saves hundreds)!”, from their add. Anyone that knows this area and sees “unlimited” and “water usage” in the same sentence should know better.
The Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District needs community support in order to achieve any kind of viable groundwater management program in Hays County. It needs your support now! I know that there are many good citizens out there who can help the District and are willing to lend a hand in the defense of common sense and the protection of this commodity of necessity - water. Come to the Board meetings, ask your questions, state your opinions, be part of the effort or we will lose the few leaders we now have. Volunteers have made this District run in the past. You must be the volunteers of the future. The District needs your involvement now! Don't like what you see, read and hear? Take a stand.
I hope the editors realize that all Govt. should operate on a shoestring budget. We do not need more Govt.. HTGCD is doing a very good job on the budget they have so why do we want to spend more tax dollars on more regulations? I think we need to talk to Rep. Rose and work on legislation that gives Cities and Counties authority over water and abolish most water districts.
Sound reasoning - let cities and counties regulate the water. One less layer of government bureaucracy, and one less fiefdom of someone who wants to be a powermonger, but can't win an election otherwise.
Coordination between counties and cities would help with the idea, but why add one more layer of government to have to contend with? Get rid of the Groundwater Districts, they suck almost as much as our wells do.
Anon #9, what are you smoking, bro?
The groundwater districts are the only thing standing between us homeowner one-well owners (6,000 or more of us) and the greedy developers and water systems who could care less if they sucked our aquifer dry by morning.
I suggest you do some research on the law and the Texas Water Code. You will discover that the legislature has determined that groundwater districts are the preferred management tools for our groundwater, all across the state.
Our HTGCD is the ONLY district in Texas (I think more than 50 of them) that has been severely hamstrung in its funding and authority due to the attitudes of one-sided, developer-protecting local politicians. Like you, they spread misinformation and fear about the mission and motivations of our district. And while the public is distracted with their lies, their developer buddies are given free pass to suck up and waste as much groundwater as they want without any regard to the small one-well owners.
WASTE and GREED and FEAR and LIES . . . that's the only plan that some of our politicians, and folks like you, have to offer. Screw 'em! May our Trinity Aquifer and our groundwater district live long and prosper, inspite of you all.
I say, keep our district, and give it more money to do its mission. Our county and cities can set water rates and manage the infrastructure all the want, but I won't trust them for one minute to protect our groundwater from waste and abuse.
I have no problem with HTGWD and what they are doing but why do we need more taxes. Let the people who have wells pay them. If you have a rainwater collection system for your water why should you have to pay more taxes. I fail to see how I have done anything you say 'WASTE and GREED and FEAR and LIES" People like you are the reason water districts have bad reputations. Let's look for reasonable solutions NOT MORE REGULATIONS. More Govt. never solves problems.
AAnonymous (post #4) here again Don,
With respect to your remark questioning the my post, Kathi Thomas' and Anonymous (post #2) clearly support the ”those people” remark:
Kathi Thomas: "The folks in Howard Ranch need to learn..."
Anonymous (post #2): "the rich don't think they have to conserve", "these clowns", and perhaps "the Howard Ranch request"
As to your other comments, there is no amount of research that could alter anything. The developers control the restrictive covenants and can change them at any time. Quit faulting the homeowners.
Your HTGCD Board wanted to develop rules to specifically punish homeowners in Belterra for using groundwater to irrigate some “common areas”. Belterra is developer controlled. The area in question is owned by the developer controlled HOA. Your HTGCD Board wanted to “punish” the homeowners who are nothing more than involuntary funders of the HOA. Since HOA records are not subject to the public information act, the homeowners would likely never know that there dues were being used to pay fines to HTGCD and they couldn’t do anything about it even if they did know.
As to counsel, I have personally been present when Greg Ellis a) chose to participate in a public HTGCD hearing by cell phone such that the public couldn't hear or address him, and b) he quite clearly misrepresented water law in Texas as well as the holdings of two cases that he LOST in San Antonio. In fact he cited them as supporting his position when he had very personal knowledge that the holding was just the opposite of what he claimed.
Greg Ellis wants all water districts in Texas to pay membership fees to his private "Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts" organization. Quite a gig - use taxpayer resources for "membership fees" and get legal work from the districts on the side. This is a private association where GCD's secretly vote and plan without public participation. You shouldn't be surprised if the activities of TAGD are oriented to create more business for Greg Ellis personally.
Finally on the issue of "our" groundwater, let's be clear. The groundwater isn't "ours". The right to access the groundwater belongs to the surface owner. Whether you agree or disagree is irrelevant but your position still supports the proposition that denying residential properties the right to have a well is a TAKING and that such a taking must be compensated. Instead, your GCD is actively trying to eliminate all residential wells and to force homeowners to have to purchase water from "public water supply" systems that will be mandated to pay production fees to HTGCD. That's created a whole new opportunity for graft and corruption in the bartering and selling of these "permits" to the detriment of all the residents of the district. These central systems are inefficient at delivering water but efficient at delivering pathogens and cancer causing substances and they are more costly to the homeowner. Ask AquaTexas customers
Wake up. The water is being protected for a few corporations to argue about which one of them is going to sell it to you and at what price. Hays County is forcing the water corporations as evidenced by the recent change in subdivision platting rules. HTGCD wants the water corporations for the production fees. More taxes for both of them and more profits for the investor owned central water system.
Dowsing for truth:
Unfortunately, the county and developers have found another scheme called HOAs and restrictive covenants to "regulate" (i.e., force) water consumption and even to require you to consume it from a particular vendor - usually one affiliated with or controlled by the developer.
If GCDs are the preferred method of regulating groundwater use, then support voiding restrictive covenants relating to water usage as being pre-empted by HTGCD's regulatory authority.
I would not trust HTGCD to act in your best interests, however. You should have seen the legislation that would allow them to eliminate any residential well exemption, charge a transfer fee when your property was sold, impose ad valorem taxes, change district boundaries at their discretion, and enter your property without your consent, probable cause, or a warrant.
HTGCD was seeking to turn that 6,000 number into a 0 by demonizing all residential well owners. This was the same tactic that the county used to justify a change in subdivision platting rules. Do you think that the investor owned "central water systems" have any goal other than force-feeding as much water as possible to the involuntary customers of those utilities?
Before you trust the counties consider Hays County's rule changes. They did not benefit the residents but rather the developers who will own these central systems. The very people you fear and loathe.
Finally, HTGCD was deliberately limited by the citizenry that lives out here. HTGCD proponents marketed HTGCD as never coming onto your property without permission, no prohibition against residential wells, no metering, permits, or production fees on residential wells and no property tax. A statute was enacted to prevent HTGCD from engaging in the very conduct that the proponents represented it would not engage in.
Since inception, the proponents of HTGCD have attempted to require permits, production fees, and metering on residential wells. They have also attempted to prohibit any new residential wells and to eliminate your "exemption" when you tried to sell your property. This legislative session HTGCD authorized at least $12,000 in lobbying fees to promote legislation to repeal all restrictions on their authority. They also sought Chapter 36 Plus powers.
They wanted property taxes on all residents, transfer fees on the sale of property, the right to change district boundaries by Board caveat, the right to require and deny permits for all wells including residential wells. All future wells would require permits, production fees, etc. and the permits would be renewable meaning that you would have to re-apply and be competing against all the developers they granted acre-feet to in the meantime.
In addition to this the Board wanted the authority to enter onto your property without your consent, without probable cause, and without a warrant in order to generate evidence of unlawful activity. Are you really promoting this type of "authority" in a local governmental entity?
Anyone purchasing property with a residential well would have to make the purchase contingent upon approval of a well permit by HTGCD. The possibility that HTGCD could simply choose not to renew a "permitted" residential well at any point in the future is hardly comforting to any owner or prospective purchaser.
In short, the arguments we hear regarding "protecting our water" are equivocal in nature because the "for whom" is deliberately left out of the discussion. Be careful about wishing to grant HTGCD the ability to take away your residential well.
Regarding Greg Ellis and his water law expertise, you might want to reconsider your position when confronted with facts rather than just Ellis' stance.
There were a couple of cases arising out of the Edwards Aquifer Authority area in San Antonio where the EAA (under advice of counsel) attempted to simply divest property owners of their groundwater and any right to access the groundwater without compensation.
Ellis took the position that the EAA could simply take the property without compensation. The landowners and courts have disagreed with Greg Ellis. However, he undoubtedly was paid for his legal advice while the property owners were forced to bear the expenses of defending their property from the EAA and the likes of Greg Ellis.
see page 9 of the Day brief at the following link:
http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs//08/08096407.pdf
Please note the references to Greg Ellis and that the positions taken by the Edwards Aquifer Authority (Ellis) were unconstitutional and what prompted the litigation. Disputes are great for the attorneys and board members but not so great for the property owners. This brief was submitted in August 2009 by Day, et al. because of the appeal filed by the EAA in response to its losses in the lower courts. When reading the "issues presented" headings in this brief you need to understand that some of the headings are simply recitation of the legal arguments raised by the EAA which are being countered by Day, et al. and are not the positions that Day, et al. is taking. Read the discussion after the heading if you are uncertain. Day, et al. stand for the rights of the property owner rather than the evisceration of those rights as promulgated by the likes of EAA, the HTGCD, and the likes of Greg Ellis.
The EAA has appealed to the Texas Supreme Court in an attempt to obtain a ruling that EAA (and thus all GCDs) have the right to divest you of your groundwater without any compensation whatsoever and to hand it over to an investor owned utility from whom you will be forced to purchase it.
Greg Ellis maintains the position at an HTGCD public hearing that the result of these San Antonio cases was that property owners do not own the groundwater or the right to access the groundwater and that no compensation was due for the taking of such property. Citing this and another case as supportive of the proposition that the GCD should have all these powers was unethical at best. It's easy to pull the wool over the eyes of those who hired him for advice and those who are giving credence to him solely because he is representing the GCD. These cases stand for just the opposite of what Ellis claimed. So far, these cases have strengthened property owners' rights of ownership and access to groundwater.
Unless and until the Supreme Court rules to change existing law previously established by the Supreme Court and the state legislature, the EAA's actions require compensation to the landowners who are recognized as having ownership rights in the groundwater and a right to access the groundwater.
Regardless of how you feel about commercial wells, it is very important to protect residential wells from the HTGCD and the county. The county and some HTGCD board members are trying to eliminate residential wells and to force residents to rely solely on commercial water providers all without compensation to the property owner. Greg Ellis' client base is the GCD - NOT the homeowners out here.
The EAA vs Day, et al. Supreme Court case citation did not appear correctly on blogger. The URL is
http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/
/08/08096407.pdf
Although broken across two lines because of blogger issues, this URL would be entered as a continuous line in your browser.
Post a Comment