Note: Wimberley Valley resident Jim McMeans is a founder and steering committee member of the Citizens Alliance for Responsible Development of Hays County.
Send your comments and news tips to roundup.editor@gmail.com, to info@hayscard.org, to the HTGCD at manager2@haysgroundwater.com or click on the "comments" button at the bottom of the story. Click on the link to the Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District website.
As of Monday, 10/18 we have collected 570 petition signatures from citizens throughout the Hill Country supporting a sustainable groundwater supply from the Trinity Aquifer within Hays County. These have been copied and will be presented to the HTGCD Board of Directors at their meeting in Wimberley on Thursday, Oct. 21 starting at 6 PM at the Wimberley Community Center.The HTGCD Board has previously received a petition from the city of Woodcreek (1300 residents) asking the HTGCD to reverse the 30' drawdown and vote for a sustainable aquifer production rate as outlined in Scenario Four of the Texas Water Development Board model runs.
Petitions will also be presented to the HTGCD Board from the Woodcreek Property Owners Association asking for a future aquifer decline of less than 10' and from the Friendship Alliance, representing five POA's with approximately 1000 residents, asking for a future aquifer decline of less than 10'.
I hope you will be able to attend the meeting on Thursday and support all those citizens who have asked the HTGCD Board to vote in favor of a sustainable Trinity Aquifer within western Hays County.
Thanks. Jim McMeans
8 comments:
Hey Jim, is this the same lying petition that you circulated before? Or is it actually factual this time? Wow 500 signatures out of the 10s of thousands of residents in the District. You've definitely got a majority going there homeboy.
I can’t believe Mr. McMeans and Card still insist on circulating and presenting a petition that is based on lies and misinformation. I hope President Skipton and the Board will reject the petition as invalid since it is based on false statements. I think most of the signers were duped, since who can argue with conserving our groundwater. The people over at CARD must be victims of their own “no growth” propaganda. Be assured that IS their real goal, No Growth.
Here is the BIG LIE;
“A recent decision by the HTGCD, along with eight other Hill Country groundwater conservation districts, called for a major increase in aquifer pumping that will lower the aquifer by an average thirty feet, called "mining" the aquifer, and cause a steady degradation of the groundwater resource.”
My Rebuttal;
The decision on setting a drawdown figure DID NOT call for a “major increase in aquifer pumping”. “Mining the aquifer” is a meaningless phrase invented by the opponents of the present makeup of HTGCD Board. Causing “a steady degradation to the groundwater resource” is a scare tactic and exaggeration to reinforce a false premise and conclusion. Notice that CARD failed to mention that the drawdown figure is projected over the next 50 years.
Reversing the decision will have no effect on pumping since the other 8 GCDs will still be at 30ft. The drawdown rate does not control the pumping and nobody knows what the recharge rate is. The so-called “aquifer science” is weakly based on a keyhole view and anecdotal information of the natural groundwater system and is still evolving.
I am for conserving our aquifers but these types of tactics will only harm the effort. I think CARD has lost a lot of respect from the citizens of Hays County. They have certainly lost my mine.
Ole fossil head anonymous "lying petition" is apparently frozen in deep underground denial.
There's an awakening occurring out there in the 10s of thousands of residents in the District to protect our groundwater. It's a good thing. Long overdue.
No amount of denial, criticism, bitchin and whining from the deadheads will stop it. Embrace your fossilized fate, fossil head.
Knowing Mr. McMeans, I doubt he will respond to your baseless rants. He's on a mission from God.
I hope some of you that oppose the lying petition will show up at the meeting Thursday night to counter the CARD, leftist demonstrators, and POA board members.
Well from an ole fossil head to an obvious Richard cranium, if there is such an awakening among the tens of thousands where are their signatures? Math wasn't my strongsuit in school but I seem to recall enough about percentages that 500 out 25,000 would be somewhere in the two percent range making CARD statistically insignificant.
Richard Sullivan said:
"The people over at CARD must be victims of their own “no growth” propaganda."
The issue of growth/no-growth involves two distinct mentalities:
Personal financial benefit vs. a reliable and affordable supply of clean water for everyone.
In reality, no community can sustain widespread economic benefits without a reliable, adequate and affordable supply of clean water.
Those who insist on requiring that any new development coincide with water availability without having a detrimental impact on existing water users are tagged, "no-growth."
Those who personally benefit from new residential growth/development, even at the loss of water by those already invested in the community, dismiss any notion that water supplies are finite and deny evidence produced by scientists identifying the finiteness of our local groundwater supplies. Increased Aquifer drawdown is a matter of public record.
The growth/development group isn’t concerned about folks turning on their faucets and not having water. Those whose wells have gone dry are dismissed with, “Your well was too shallow.” I know. After six years of build-out in Belterra, at least eight wells in our downstream area suddenly went dry.
The direct cause and effect relationship between population growth and increased water use seems immutable to me. (Belterra has two wells in addition to LCRA water.)
Having the responsible people at CARD draw attention to a growing threat for our community and offering solutions is laudable. Where are the science and supporting data from those growth/development advocates who deny that our water supply is at increasing risk for those already invested in our community?
Charles,
There are a few "true believers" anxious to follow their chosen prophet. A prophet who has profited many times over at taxpayer expense. Fortunately, that (false) prophet represents only 1 of the 5 districts.
re: "Those who personally benefit from new residential growth/development, even at the loss of water by those already invested in the community"
You have a funny idea of "community". Apparently, you believe you are entitled to water because you built first?
Just because a fellow property owner hasn't built a house on their property doesn't mean that your "investment" is superior to theirs. Your expectation that their property rights be curtailed for your benefit or your "historical use" is unreasonable, unjustified, and downright unneighborly.
Propose another option.
All of this constant complaining that some evil developers want to “mine the aquifer” just does not make sense. First of all the phrase has no meaning since no one is, or is advocating taking the contents of the aquifer away. The last thing a developer wants is for his “workplace” or product to go away.
CARD and other so-called alliances just don’t want anyone else to move into their selfish little corner of the world. These alliances need to be understood for what they are. They claim to represent citizens od a particular area. They, in truth, represent the Board members of HOAs and POAs. Who ever said that a HOAs or POAs represent anything but their own Board members? They certainly don’t represent their member citizens.
Probably the weirdest argument out there is the drawdown controversy. They treat the drawdown value as if it means something sinister, but when asked they can’t explain it except to say it’s bad for “our water”. This drawdown figure has become the target for the environmentalist and no growth advocates because it has been assigned a particular value. This is unique in the debate since so many vague and non-quantified terms are bandied about with out any real definitions.
The interaction between the various GMAs and the individual aquifers themselves is ignored when they advocate a drawdown figure. It is important realize that the drawdown figure is part of a 50 year plan. I seriously doubt any plan for the next 50 years will hold up very long. Look back to where we were 50 years ago and I think you will see the futility of such a plan. This mythical drawdown value is nothing more than a red herring used by the environmentalists for their own self gratification.
I believe that some of the former HTGCD Board members created the confusion in their veiled attempt to establish a conservation monarchy of sorts. Sadly, the activists do not have a plan to save the aquifers except to build a fence around the area and not let anybody else in until someone leaves or dies. Sort of a “I was here first” mentality. I wish at least one of them would come forward with an actual plan to save the aquifer, springs and rivers they claim are theirs.
Post a Comment