Send your comments and news tips to roundup.editor@gmail.com, to the Hays Trinity GCD at manager2@haysgroundwater.com or click on the "comments" button at the bottom of the story
Here's the link to the groundwater district's website: www.haysgroundwater.com
By Bob Ochoa
Editor
The Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District Board of Directors met yesterday at the Wimberley Community Center. Too bad if you missed it. To say the meeting was "lively" would be an understatement.
More citizens were in attendance, more members of the media were present and more video cameras were rolling than had ever been seen at a Board meeting in the District's near 10-year existence.The meeting started with a real shocker. District General Manager Rick Broun announced that in early November someone impersonating a member of the board had illegally withdrawn more than $29,000 from the District's Dripping Springs bank account. (See it in the video below.) Then board president Jimmy Skipton issued a warning to the public to be careful about sending threatening e-mails to board members, citing one worrisome named e-mail in particular.
More than half of the marathon 5 and 1/2 hour meeting was consumed by citizen comments, many delivering stern reminders to the board of its main mission to preserve, protect and prevent the waste of groundwater.
It was plainly evident that people are waking up to the crucial role of the District's 5-member Board in managing the Trinity Aquifer's finite groundwater resources in the western half of Hays County – virtually the sole source of water for an estimated 35,000 inhabitants.
Drawing a lot of attention of late is a contentious and controversial proposal by the District and its sister groundwater districts in the Hill Country (Groundwater Management Area 9) to allow a 30-foot drawdown of the aquifer over the next 50 years. (You can go to the RoundUp's report of the board's last meeting here for more details. Or enter Hays Trinity in the blog search window in the left hand column.)
Click on map to enlarge
The aquifer's underground water reserves reportedly are being pumped faster than they can be replenished by normal rainfall – already, conservation advocates say, there too many users and too much water being withdrawn. Another school of thought contends there is plenty of water beneath the ground and plenty of recharge from annual rainfall.The two sides are colliding. Perhaps the best course is set by the old dictum: Better to be safe than sorry.
Public attention has become particularly acute since the drought of 2008-09, and the results of the election in May of three new members to the board. They include board president Skipton of District 1 (Henly and the western environs of Dripping Springs); Joan Jernigan, District 5 (Wimberley and environs); and board treasurer Mark Key, District 3 (Dripping Springs eastern and southern environs).
The seats of the two other members -- David Baker, District 4 (Woodcreek and western environs) and Greg Nesbitt, District 2 (Dripping Springs north) will be up for election in May of 2011.
The board's current makeup is weighted more heavily to representation from the Dripping northern region than to the southern Wimberley/Woodcreek region, 3 seats to 2. This is why clashes on the board over management policies and political views, since the May election, are being characterized increasingly as a showdown between the Dripping Springs and Wimberley contingents.
Here's a video of the citizen comments portion of the meeting. If it is slow to load let it play to the end then replay it without interruption. We'll have more coverage of the meeting in upcoming posts.
29 comments:
The large crowd was partially due to Jim McMeans and his organization, CARD’s scare tactics and personal attacks on the HTGCD Board members. CARD’s press release announcing the meeting called the last HTGCD board election a hostile takeover. I challenged the education level of the person that wrote that. saying the needed to go back to school. A democratic election and our right to vote are basic to our American system.
Their presser included many other inflammatory and untrue statements about the board and their actions. Apparently this stirred up the usual suspects and brought them out of the Cedar Brakes to hoot and holler at the board. It was very disrespectful and it seemed they were each trying to out do each other. Some of the verbal attacks were over the top and showed more emotion than a grasp of the facts.
I have met Mr. McMeans and can say he seems like a very nice gentleman, but somebody in his organization need to be talked to and held accountable for their viciousness. CARD’s credibility is suffering due to their latest negative attack ads disguised as press releases.
Mr. Sullivan,
You insult the audience present at
the HTGCD meeting on Nov. 18. We
are not excitable yokels from the cedar breaks, and we were not in attendance because of Jim McMeans.
Give us a little credit for being
able to see that under the present HTGCD Board's "leadership," we are on a collision course with nature.
A great many of the audience have
no idea at all who Jim McMeans is --they are just "mad as hell and
won't take it anymore."
Dear Mad as Hell,
I am sorry that you took offence at my comment about the Cedar Brakes, the term is not a pejorative one as far as I know; at least I did not mean for it to be. I often refer to our area as the “Cedar Barrens of Texas”; I thik it is more descriptive than Wimberley Valley. I'm just sayin...
I do believe that such terms as “Hostile Takeover”, “actively promote over-pumping of the aquifer”, “poised to take more destructive action” and others chosen by CARD in their Press Release were meant to incite some individuals and “stuff the hall” with sympathizers and board haters. I was surprised at the rude verbal attacks against the Board and its work. The statement that really set me off and made ME “Mad as Hell” was comparing an election to a Hostile Takeover. I really think CARD owes an apology to the HTGCD board for that one.
Surely there were some levelheaded anti-growth environmentalists in the room that behaved like adults. I should have acknowledged that fact. I was certainly not referring to those of us that have legitimate differences with the board. I don’t buy everything they’re selling but I can disagree without being disagreeable. I don’t know if you stayed for the whole meeting, but I disagreed strongly with the proposed deal with Aqua-Texas. My neighbors in Woodcreek I & II and I cannot tolerate any more costs for our water and wastewater. The 80 million gallon annual waste by ATI is inexcusable and they should not profit from it, nor should my neighbors have to pay for it.
Again, I apologize if I offended anyone including Jim McMeans.
There is another perspective---a perspective I believe is more accurate than a "hostile takeover."
Those voters who stayed away from the election polls abdicated their responsibility and thereby made a "willing handover."
And had those now complaining about decisions being made by elected officials worked half as hard during the election as circumstances now require, record attendance at HTGCD board meetings wouldn't be necessary.
In fact, all they had to do was get three (3) additional supporters of Andrew Backus to the polls and a "willing handover" wouldn't have occured.
If my frustrations from years of working hard to motivate voters by informing them, only to be disappointed by low voter turnout is apparent, you got my message.
It takes much less time and effort to vote than it does to complain.
@ Richard,
"...I disagreed strongly with the proposed deal with Aqua-Texas. My neighbors in Woodcreek I & II and I cannot tolerate any more costs for our water and wastewater. The 80 million gallon annual waste by ATI is inexcusable and they should not profit from it, nor should my neighbors have to pay for it."
Who, pray tell, do you expect to pay for making the investment necessary to elimnate the 80 million gallon annual waste?
Water is fundamental to every person in every household, and is not a commodity as Ozarka and other water purveyors would have us believe. To ensure reliable, fair and local availability of our groundwater, two conditions must prevail---the Aquifer is preserved through responsible management and, users must pay the necessary cost for water.
Basic public utilities best serve the public when in the hands of those who depend on those utilities. That's a role of an elected government.
Charles, you never fail to surprise me. Your statement is apparently a product ignorance that you would say that the customers of ATI should pay the bill to fix ATI’s leaking System. Apparently you are unaware that the system was leaking when ATI bought it. ATI made a bad buy and they like you or me or anyone else that does not perform our due diligence should pay for their mistake. No one knows whether they knew about the leaks when they bought the system, but either way it is theirs to absorb the cost to fix. If you don’t understand that basic fact, you are beyond help. Have you been bought by Aqua Texas?
O'Dell:
The issue is not as simple as you have indicated since there are 5 single member districts. People in one district can only elect their rep.
There are more people happy that Backus is gone than there were willing to grant him another two year fiefdom. Was the victory narrow? Well, isn't efficiency a virtue?
Backus and David Baker can be readily exposed for using various astroturfing groups to give the appearance that they have more support than they actually have and/or to conceal their lack of arms-length involvement in various matters.
Recall the "stakeholder committee" set up by Rose in 2008? No real property owners were permitted to participate. Only water companies, the HTGCD (which was in control of the water company permits), and various astroturfing "environmental" groups were allowed to participate. The one thing in common? Control by Baker and Backus. This wasn't a "stakeholder group" - it was a Backus, et al ceremony designed to look like a "democratic" process. The most important "stakeholder" left out was the one that counts the most - the citizens of the district.
Since that time, Backus was booted from office and Baker is now a minority vote.
Examine the 11/23/2010 Commissioners Court agenda. Note the attachments for the "resolution" for new legislation for HTGCD. Note who is representing one astroturfing group - Backus. Note who is representing another astroturfing group - Baker. The difference between 2008 and today is that they no longer also have majority control over HTGCD nor can they single-handedly control the issuance of permits for the listed water utilities.
Backus deservedly lost on his legislation, his primary against Rose, and on his bid for yet another term on the HTGCD. Efficiency in getting rid of the despots should be admired. Baker's term ends next May. Shall we try for a 1 vote margin?
So O'Dell, you would support preserving the right of the individual land owner to be able to have a well instead of being a customer of a water utility, right?
Instead of "choice", we have various governmental bodies and special interest groups (who want to grandfather themselves) operating to prevent any such choice.
Also, ATI is not a "public utility" if you mean municipal water supply. ATI is an investor-owned utility.
The county bears as much responsibility for this as anyone else since the county was trying to force these on people in subdivisions then and trying harder to do so now with the new subdivision rules. As if that weren't enough look at the new "resolutions" being promoted by those seeking to eliminate options for others while grandfathering themselves. (See November 23, 2010 County Commissioners Agenda, item #19 and Letter to Rose & Wentworth)
While you sit on your high horse O'Dell perhaps you should consider sharing in the higher expenses being forced on others purely through arbitrary governmental forces.
@ Richard
"Apparently you are unaware that the system was leaking when ATI bought it."
What difference does it make when the system was leaking?
Anyone paying attention knows that the original system was inferior (design, materials and perhaps workmanship), and that the system wasn't properly maintained over the years. For god's sake, it was built by a developer!
What difference does it make if the original owners of the water system or the more recent owners make the investment that should have been made over the years? The water customers still have to pay the cost of that investment.
"No one knows whether they knew about the leaks when they bought the system, but either way it is theirs to absorb the cost to fix. If you don’t understand that basic fact, you are beyond help."
It's clear that you, for all appearances otherwise, haven't learned a basic and important fact of life in our modern society---the end user pays the full load, including the profit margin in the private sector, and that is just one more reason for the public to own a public utility. Cut out the middleman and hire and fire the directors if they don't operate in the interests of their member/customers.
AT pruchased the ailing system knowing full well it would eventually have to be rehabed. And they knew their end users would pay for that investment. Surely you don't believe TCEQ will forbid AT from passing the investment costs along to the end users, do you? "If you don’t understand that basic fact, you are beyond help."
@ Anonymous,
"The issue is not as simple as you have indicated since there are 5 single member districts."
It really is that simple.
Those whose interest Backus represented in the HTGCD (those with water wells) had more important things to do at election time than to vote.
Mark Key took advantage of that apathy, and using misinformation, convinced his voters (those in Belterra, Sawyer Ranch and other subdivision on LCRA water, not wells) that the HTGCD acted against their best interests, i.e., opposed the Belterra permit amendment to direct discharge treated sewage into Bear Creek. Ironically, the HTGCD was only one of many governmental entities who opposed that precedent setting pollution act, and HTGCD didn't contribute a dime to that contested case hearing at TCEQ. Those misinformed voters raging with unfounded anger took their misinformed anger to the polls.
Key went on with his fear mongering propaganda toward the LCRA customers by claiming they did or would have a special assessment on their utility bills for the $1.4 million in legal fees caused by a greed driven developer who wanted to convert 165 acres of wastewater subsurface drip irrigation into more profitable homes. Open records show Key's claim of an assessment to be blatently false.
So please don't preach to me about "despots."
"Since that time, Backus was booted from office..."
So you are contradicting my perspective of a "willing handover" and agreeing with those who call it a "hostile takeover."
Who am I to argue with those who mounted the takeover as to whether they are hostle toward well owners.
@Anonymous,
"So O'Dell, you would support preserving the right of the individual land owner to be able to have a well instead of being a customer of a water utility, right?"
Apparently you don't understand that individual residential and agricultural wells are exempt from permit regulation. Residential wells are physically restricted to a maximum daily usage of 25,000 gallons, and ag wells to "no waste." Neither condition provides for equitable and efficient water usage in a finite Aquifer.
"Also, ATI is not a "public utility" if you mean municipal water supply. ATI is an investor-owned utility."
You simply describe two different ownership types of a public utility.
Any water system with sixteen or more connections or serving 25 or more individuals is a public water supply (TCEQ definition). That's why TCEQ regulates AT (investor owned) and Wimberley Water Supply (municipal) and Dripping Water Supply Corp (member owned). There are also condominum public water supplies (kind of a HOA).
"Instead of "choice", we have various governmental bodies and special interest groups (who want to grandfather themselves) operating to prevent any such choice."
I must admit to not understanding your point about choice.
If by choice you mean eliminating minimum lot size regulations, then its clear that you adhere to the principle of "absolute property rights," and the uncivilized law of the jungle chaos that principle represents. (Rule of Capture is one example--I can suck your well dry and you can't do anything to prevent me from that exercise of my "absolute property right."
Actually, being a customer of a public water supply that can help to allocate equitable and efficient use of water through usage rates and other measures is to my mind preferable where possible than private wells that have no practical limits on usage short of over puming the Aquifer. Being a member/customer is even better.
Perhaps I just don't understand your comment.
Unfortunately Richard and Charles are missing each other's point. Yet it is really just a matter of timing and business semantics.
First of all, I believe ATI had to know about the leaks in the system when they did their due diligence before the purchase of the assets. If not, they are very incompetent - or just plain sleazy to raise the water rates to where they are while not fixing the leaks.
Second, of course end users pay for the infrastructure improvements and repairs through rate increases. And that is especially true when it comes to distant publicly-traded water corporations.
What is most important to understand about why ATI is such a bad business model is they appear to have raised water rates beyond affordablity for some (and just plain greedy for others) - AND they still have the leaks that are being paid for by end users.
Hey guys, we should all be on the same page with ATI. The question is not who can piss the farthest with knowledge of how ATI works, but how to deal with a big Wall Street firm with an unlimited legal war chest when we are a small unincorporated area?
I'm sure ATI is just loving the "hands tied" discord between us all as they sit idly by negotiating and passively scooping up more potential deals like Swimberely and other "no other option but ATI" developments.
This is what the many predatory firms of corporate America want us citizens to do: fight among ourselves as we abdicate all cooperative consumer power to the firms like ATI.
As long as it is left vs. right, growth vs. environment, etc., Wall Street firms like ATI continue to suck the wealth of the middle class up into their corporate boardrooms.
We can agree to disagree on social and general free markets issues. But when it comes to a firm like ATI, we should all be working together to hold them accountable for their "permission to do business in our community" responsibities.
If they refuse, we need to do what is necessary to "throw the bums out."
Thanks Rocky for your common sense analysis of this silly debate. I think I am a little biased since I already have to pay Aqua Texas $160 to $180 per month for water and sewer and I suspect Charles does not. Those kinds of bills will make you biased. I will stand by my point that I should only have to pay for the service and product they supply. It is a commercial enterprise selling a service and product that I chose to consume. I shouldn’t have to pay for repairs to their equipment (pipes), buy them trucks or send their kids to college. I don’t do that for any other utilities I receive. None of the others are wasting huge amounts of our natural resources with impunity either.
Actually, the majority of the leaks are occurring on the new lines installed by ATI since they blew into town. TCEQ does not inspect these new lines...ATI self inspects.
“TCEQ does not inspect these new lines...ATI self inspects.”
I am not surprised at anything about either entity, especially here in Texas. I moved here from a dry western State that took regulation of these predatory corporations seriously. At times, I thought they over did it but they had much less pollution and waste. Utility bills were less than mentioned here as well. The Governor in Texas panders to any business that asks for his ear and the intermittent Legislature busies itself with gerrymandering and Nannie State issues. If the other party would stop trying to “out liberal” each other and come up with some acceptable main stream candidates there might be hope.
Thanks, Richard for your supportive words. Ideally, I wish you were entitled to reasonable user fees based only on your personal use.
However, as a money manager who invests in publicly traded companies for a living, I also have my biases. I, for one, am entirely against water services being traded on the stock exchanges. It is too laden with monopoly-like manipulation of a resource that should be protected from the profit sociopathy of shareholder value. I can see almost anything being for-profit if it is a good business model - but not water.
And to last Anonymous. Expand on your knowledge about the leaks. We would all like to have more accurate information. Also, how do you know there were no leaks pre-existing to ATI's takeover?
Anyone interested in attending:
DALLAS, TX (KERA) - The Sunset Advisory Commission is recommending the state continue the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality for another 12 years, but with some improvements. KERA's BJ Austin reports.
The report recognizes controversies, such as the battle with the EPA over pollution permits for industry, greenhouse gas emission regulation, and a "flat-footed" response to air quality concerns in areas of Barnett Shale gas drilling.
The Sunset Commission's report recommends that groundwater protection regarding oil and gas activities be transferred from TCEQ to the Texas Railroad Commission.
Other recommendations include changes in the way the TCEQ measures industry compliance with regulations; and more clearly defined enforcement policies, including higher penalty caps.
Public hearings on the future of the TCEQ are set for next month. After final Sunset Commission approval, the report goes to the Legislature.
I am no ATI fan and I get frustrated by all the talk and no action.
Float bonds and purchase the ATI system as a municipal system.
There is no alternative to getting an efficient public water supply. It's going to cost users one way or the other. Pay the high water bills to ATI at their call and beckon for all times, or submit to self taxation and get control of your future.
Quit complaining and act!
Right on, Charles. When it comes to my water, I am all for the self taxation community ownership route.
Rocky:
Gladly. Just take a drive through the Woodcreek North neighborhood and note the patchwork quilt of line repairs along the roads where the majority of homes were built after Aqua bought the system. The builders paid Aqua to bring the lines throughout the subdivision. The installation of these lines and the subsequent repair after repair after repair are the result of Aqua installing faulty lines.
O'Dell: "Apparently you don't understand that individual residential and agricultural wells are exempt from permit regulation."
McMeans, Backus, et al. seek to eradicate this exemption for anyone that doesn't currently have a well while pursuing grandfathering for themselves.
O'Dell: "You simply describe two different ownership types of a public utility. "
No, I discourage the use of "public utility" because it is misleading. You made the error yourself. WWSC is not a municipal utility. It is a member-owned utility like DSWSC. Reference Atty Gen Op. GA-0597
O'Dell: "If by choice you mean eliminating minimum lot size regulations, then its clear that you adhere to the principle of "absolute property rights," and the uncivilized law of the jungle chaos that principle represents. (Rule of Capture is one example--I can suck your well dry and you can't do anything to prevent me from that exercise of my "absolute property right."
Your comment is hypocritical and ironic. There is no Rule of Capture within a GCD. Be intellectually honest. Why do the development regulations set a 6-acre min lot size for residential wells but only a 0.5 min lot size for central groundwater systems? The water comes from the same place. Intellectual honesty would demand an average 6-acre lot size for the entire subdivision for groundwater. This was about forcing people onto water utilities not about conserving or protecting groundwater. The prime beneficiaries are the GCD which will profit from production fees as well as other residents of the district who will operate to oppose permits or renewals to the detriment of the utility customers, their property, and the utility. This is EXACTLY what McMeans and Backus and their affiliates are doing now.
O'Dell: "Actually, being a customer of a public water supply that can help to allocate equitable and efficient use of water through usage rates and other measures is to my mind preferable..."
Not to the people you want to force onto the system. Since the "larger community" will profit by forcing others onto this system, perhaps the "larger community" should be willing to share in the allocation of usage rates and other measures.
@ Anon
I can only assume that you confuse the readers on purpose, or through your own confusion.
“McMeans, Backus, et al. seek to eradicate this exemption for anyone that doesn't currently have a well while pursuing grandfathering for themselves.”
For this to be correct would require these individuals to have power over our legislature that has declared single residential wells exempt from HTGCD usage permits.
“Why do the development regulations set a 6-acre min lot size for residential wells but only a 0.5 min lot size for central groundwater systems?”
You confuse county and municipal development ordinances with the HTGCD mission and jurisdiction. The HTGCD has no control or jurisdiction over development ordinances. Each home or subdivision built within the HTGCD is approved by the County or a municipality. The HTGCD can only permit construction of each single residential water well (for example, say a hundred residents), but it can regulate the central water well usage for a hundred subdivision residents with a water usage permit.
Since about 90% of groundwater within the HTGCD is pumped from about 6,500 individual residential water wells, preserving and managing the Aquifer isn’t practical, if not impossible.
“This was about forcing people onto water utilities not about conserving or protecting groundwater. The prime beneficiaries are the GCD which will profit from production fees as well as other residents of the district who will operate to oppose permits or renewals to the detriment of the utility customers, their property, and the utility.”
The HTGCD lacks authority to levy production fees.
So the basic law (Chpt 36) is flawed. The HTGCD is unable to preserve and manage the Aquifer because it can only manage 10% of the water usage, which by law it is required to do through water usage permits. As new residential wells on six acre tracts are drilled, more existing wells and springs will go dry more frequently.
Blame the legislature, commissioners’ court and the municipalities for inequities and overuse of our Aquifer---not the HTGCD.
Doesn't say much for the bank letting someone leave with that much money and no ID.
O'Dell: "For this to be correct would require these individuals to have power over our legislature that has declared single residential wells exempt from HTGCD usage permits."
Well Charles, these individuals seek legislation to terminate such exemptions. Backus did and failed. They are at it again with the super District and you'll find these same individuals as 'undersigneds' on the letter being sent from the "stakeholder" group to legislators in search of the elimination of the exemption. (see 11/23/2010 Commissioners Court backup materials) In addition, the super District would replace the current HTGCD as well as eliminate any rights you currently have under HTGCD enabling legislation.
O'Dell: "You confuse county and municipal development ordinances with the HTGCD mission and jurisdiction."
No Charles I saw right through the chaff. The ordinance had nothing to do with "preserving groundwater". As to groundwater it was an enabling act to accelerate consumption.
O'Dell: "As new residential wells on six acre tracts are drilled, more existing wells and springs will go dry more frequently. "
Quit demonizing residential wells. Do you think subdivisions with 6 acre tracts are even being applied for? The subdivision rule authorizes 0.5 acre tracts if you utilize a central well. So the county says its okay to put 12 homes into the same space as long as you get the water from a central groundwater system. Which do you think will consume more water? The county's misguided planning and attempts to control are actually ensuring a higher rate of consumption per acre!
Of course the theory of the despots is that now there is only a single source of water for an entire subdivision that they can simply work to yank the water utility permit or strangle entire subdivisions and sizeable populations by protesting permits (which is EXACTLY why McMeans, et al. have been trying to do for several HTGCD meetings now).
O'Dell: "So the basic law (Chpt 36) is flawed. The HTGCD is unable to preserve and manage the Aquifer because it can only manage 10% of the water usage, which by law it is required to do through water usage permits. As new residential wells on six acre tracts are drilled, more existing wells and springs will go dry more frequently.
Blame the legislature, commissioners’ court and the municipalities for inequities and overuse of our Aquifer---not the HTGCD."
I agree that the "fault" does not lie with the HTGCD. Not everyone shares your view about what "managing the aquifer" means. However, the "sustainable" crowd is really the "no-growth" crowd that thinks the world should stop once they moved to the area. You have a growing population and that means more water is going to get used, period.
Anonymous said..."Doesn't say much for the bank letting someone leave with that much money and no ID."
The thief accessed the HTGCD bank account electronically with a userid and password.
The thief accessed the HTGCD bank account electronically with a userid and password
And the ID & password belonged to?
Doesn't say much for HTGCD internal security
We're on mobile at the moment and this is the quickest way to post an update. The RoundUp has learned that David Baker is the member of the HTGCD who someone impersonated in a bank fraud theft of $17,500 of District funds in early November. A reliable source told us the money was wired to banks in Dallas and Wisconsin.
District GM Rick Broun said Wells Fargo Bank of Dripping Springs has reimbursed the District the full amount and the bank is conducting it's own investigation of the theft. He said the Sheriff's Department had not reported any suspects as of today.
In another matter, the District' board president Jimmy Skipton told the RoundUp today he has no intention of posting his bio on the District's website as he was pointedly requested to do by a citizen at the board's Thursday meeting. Too much risk these days of identity theft, he said.
Skipton is the only board member to list both his cell number and e-mail address on the website. Folks can give him a call and talk about groundwater issues before the board any time, he said. He also wondered aloud why the other board members have not listed their own mobile numbers and e-mail addresses on the website.
Skipton did say he hopes to have more information on future meeting agendas, including some background material on individual items.
Post a Comment