Send your comments, questions and news tips to roundup.editor@gmail.com, to the HTGCD at manager2@haysgroundwater.com or click on the "comments" button at the bottom of the story
By Bob Ochoa
Editor
Rick Broun, general manager of the Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District, confirmed today that the District's office has received three contested hearing requests in response to recent action of the HTGCD Board to approve a three-year groundwater permit for Wimberley Springs Partners.
The Board – in a 3 to 2 vote at its Feb. 21 meeting held in Dripping Springs – approved a permit for less than what WSP had requested, according to Board president Jimmy Skipton. The vote nonetheless drew a barrage of criticism from citizens concerned that the groundwater would be used for future dense development in the Wimberley Valley and for irrigation of WSP-owned golf courses. (For background, scroll down to related stories.)
Waldron Ltr/Click on image to enlarge
Broun said the first contested hearing request was received Monday from valley resident Jim McMeans, a co-founder of Citizens Alliance for Responsible Development and a frequent critic of the District. Two additional contested hearing requests were received at the District office soon after McMean's, according to Broun. One is from Frank and Pam Sullivan and the third from Jerral and Alyson Waldron.Broun said he is checking with the District's attorney, Greg Ellis, for the next steps. The procedures are likely to be explained, and a pre-hearing possibly held, at the District's next board meeting, March 24, 6 pm at Dripping Springs City Hall. The procedure could involve taking the cases to the State Office of Administrative Hearings or the hiring of an independent hearing examiner. Standing of the parties initially will probably have be determined.
Meanwhile, the status of the permit granted by the District to WSP is said to now be "temporary" until the contested hearing requests are resolved, according to one source but as yet not confirmed by the RoundUp.
McMeans sent the following statement to the RoundUp:
Jim McMeans/RoundUp
"My reasons for doing this are straightforward and reasonable. The permit approved by the three members of the Board represents a gross expenditure of the water budget for the Trinity Aquifer. This permit would allow WSP to draw up to 250 acre feet of water from the aquifer for a second golf course and perhaps also allow that water to be transferred to Aqua Texas for the residential development envisioned by the WSP in Woodcreek North. During a normal rainfall year WSP would be allowed to pump up to 500 acre feet for the development phase of the second golf course.
"During the meeting of the HTGCD President Skipton asserted that the 500 acre feet would be a one-time authorization, but the text of the request submitted by WSP asks that the 500 acre feet be allowed any time there is adequate rainfall. I have not seen the staff write-up of the permit, so am not clear on how this is being handled.
"I am the owner of a water well that serves my property and my property value is dependent on an adequate, permanent supply of groundwater from the Trinity Aquifer. I believe that the issuance of such a huge permit will drawdown the aquifer over time and cause damage to my property by loss of its reliable water supply.
"The three members of the Board did not appear to have any technical justification for the huge permit issued to WSP. They approved the permit before the issuance of the final Managed Available Groundwater by the Texas Water Development Board. The WSP permit appears to exceed the current water budget in the District's Management Plan.
"The amount of water approved by the three members of the board exceeds the water permitted for the entire city of Woodcreek (321 acre feet per year). WSP does not hold a CCN for public water supply within the area. That CCN is owned by Aqua Texas. If WSP were to attempt to transfer any of the permitted water to Aqua Texas to benefit their proposed residential development, it may constitute a gross violation of the permitting process."
18 comments:
McMeans has no standing to contest the permit. He will lose before he gets out the gate. He is not a legitimate "under-dog" in any of this.
Finally, some citizens with the courage to WALK the talk! I would find it hard to accept that voting, tax-paying ctizens whose property and ground water supply are impacted by permitting decisions of the HTGCD have no standing in this matter. If they/we who have the most to lose do not have standing then who does?
These requests, if not thrown out because the petitioners have no standing will make some lawyers richer and the complainants a whole lot poorer. In the end the permits will stand on their own merit. The petitioners are just trying to keep the ball in the air even though the game is over. Okay now the anti-growth bloggers will have additional space to complain and whine.
to Anonymous March 1, 6:05 PM:
You seem unable to write a single
post here without throwing in some
jab about "anti-growth bloggers"
bitching and whining. It's tiresome, bud.
Fact is, you seem to be whining
yourself. Why don't you just TRY
to write at least one post which
merely states your facts/opinions,
without an ad hominem attack on
someone else? We would all be
grateful.
Yeah, the ball NEEDS to be kept in the air!!! This is NOT a matter of anti-growth, it is a matter of survival. Does greed and a golf course and mass development by contract builders/speculators take precedence over a community's need for water. Growth can continue but in a responsible manner. This golf course has come and gone for all the years that WSP has been in the neighborhood; it needs to stay GONE. WSP truly has not done anything positive for the community as a whole unless a stone monolith at Valley Springs Road, wrought iron gates and a "party house" constitute a positive. "Legal theft" of water does not create a positive!!
C'mon folks!! Do your homework!! Find out what the developer/speculators have done to your neighborhoods in the not too distant past!! Different name, same game! Some of you living here now are probably not aware of our history; WAKE UP!!
"LEGAL" don't necessarily make it right!!
You can keep up with when the
HTGCD has scheduled meetings by
going to www.haysgroundwater.com.
That's their website. If you click
on "Calendar" or "Events" on the
left side of the home page, you
will be taken to a month-by-month
listing of their meetings.
I see they have tentatively
scheduled both a Board meeting and
an extremely important hearing
(involving the WSP permit to
pump groundwater) at 6 p.m. on
Thursday, March 24.
Read the article "Who owns groundwater?" on the front page of
March 2 Austin American-Statesman.
It gives pros and cons of Troy
Fraser's SB 332 concerning groundwater.
Though the bill seems harmless at
first, the Statesman writer, Asher Price, says there are reasons that
Lost Pines GCD and the Sierra Club
and many other groups are against
it.
Anonymous said:
"Does greed and a golf course and mass development by contract builders/speculators take precedence over a community's need for water."
If you mean property owners in the area, then the developer and those who purchase from him are likewise members of the "community". However "community" in and of itself is a meaningless, abstract term.
"WSP truly has not done anything positive for the community as a whole unless a stone monolith at Valley Springs Road, wrought iron gates and a "party house" constitute a positive."
From the perspective of another property owner that has no affiliations with WSP whatsoever - and someone that dislikes golf or golf courses - perhaps the most important thing they have done is achieve a permit after years of enduring the former HTGCD regime. That usage of groundwater is also dual purpose since it really part of a sewage treatment process. At least they have a novel (for the area) means for handling the sewage. The golf course is almost an incidental use in view of the not-so-optional need to deal with sewage.
WSP don't owe you anything nor does any other property owner out here. After listening to their presentation at the last HTGCD meeting it sounds like some of the side benefits of their operations have been a rather large payroll for people in the area, significant contributions to the sales tax base, and new business for the area. These benefits should not be and are not "pre-requisites" for the granting of any permit. Instead they are mentioned here solely to rebut your bogus claims.
Anonymous said: "Growth can continue but in a responsible manner."
Yeah, that's what McMeans' CARD claims - except they tend to oppose any change whatsoever.
Anonymous said: " 'Legal theft' of water does not create a positive!!"
Uh, the folks trying to prevent a permit want to deny other property owner's exercise of property rights. These same protesters are adamant that restrictions they want to impose on others should not apply to them. There is no "theft" by any definition of the word. The water does not belong to those who oppose all permits.
McMeans and his followers are just looking for publicity like 2 year olds throwing a temper tantrum. They might believe their own self-perpetuated propaganda but they've got no legal standing for this contested case.
"From the perspective of another property owner that has no affiliations with WSP whatsoever..."
Quite frankly, I don't believe you.
The only way to confirm your claim is for you to post your real name and let everyone know if your post is personal opinion or WSP propaganda.
What harm is there in posting your real name?
A liberal, a conservative, and a CEO are sitting at a table with a plate of a dozen cookies in the middle of it.
The CEO takes 11 cookies, turns to the conservative and says, ‘Watch out for that liberal. He wants a piece of your cookie.'
The adverse impact of the WSP permt on neighboring properties and values notwithstanding, try to picture a miles long strip of commercial development on both sides of the Blanco highway starting right about at the WS entance. The groundwater permit along with an expanded CCN for ATI are all that is needed to make it happen. Never under-estimate the planning and prowess of your local development interests and elected representatives.
Charles said:
"Quite frankly, I don't believe you...The only way to confirm your claim is for you to post your real name and let everyone know if your post is personal opinion or WSP propaganda....What harm is there in posting your real name?"
Well Charles you'll just have to be content with anonymity and whether you believe it or not I don't have anything at all to do with WSP and I really do hate golf courses (except perhaps a putt-putt course). Whether I post my name or a pseudonym is not going to change your mind or confirm anything and frankly what you "believe" will not change reality.
Anonymous speech is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. (see, McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334, 356 (1995).
By the way, I agree with Anonymous #1:
McMeans is no underdog he's just a media hound. He's got no legal standing but he'll no doubt try to claim conspiracy or blame someone else for his lack of standing problem.
"
Anonymous speech is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. (see, McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334, 356 (1995)."
You take liberty with the case you cite and no one challenged your right to post anonymously.
From the case you cite:
"Ohio maintains that the statute under review is a reasonable regulation of the electoral process. The State does not suggest that all anonymous publications are pernicious or that a statute totally excluding them from the marketplace of ideas would be valid. This is a wise (albeit implicit) concession, for the anonymity of an author is not ordinarily a sufficient reason to exclude her work product from the protections of the First Amendment."
And, "The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible."
Which is it for you? Fear of retaliation, concern about social ostracism or merely fear to have your ideas associated with who you are?
Again, no one challenged your right to post anonymously, only your motivation.
While on patroll this morning I stopped at 1 of our WI-FI coffee shops to read our Roundup. I know McMeans, O'Dell, and Rocky. They are not media hounds, just concerned citizens who love the county, know that we should good stewards who will leave our grandchildren a place better than we found it.
According to Samuel Clemons (Mark Twain), who went to California during the gold rush, he found something totally unexpected. He wrote his sister back home to say he had found something more precious than gold in the hills of California: water.
Aqua Texas has 3 pending State and HTG violations that have yet to be resolved, including an issue with the well that truck stop magnate Mike "I'm a developer" Holbrook sold to Aqua Texas.
I listen and read what McMeans, the Rock, and O'Dell have to say. They have no axe to grind. We are fortunate we have these watchdogs. I have learned lots from listening to what they say. Perhaps we all should keep an open mind on the water issue. Thanks for your time.
Thanks, Goober PaTroll. How much do I owe you for that endorsement
Two more sets of Woodcreek North tax appraisals, comparing adjacent lots owned by Wimberley Springs Partners and individual owners:
R49491 WSP $5270
R49492 WSP 5270
R49493 Ind. 6500
(No R49494)
R49495 Ind. 6500
R49496 Ind. 6500
R49497 WSP 5270
51114 WSP 3650
51115 WSP 3650
51116 Ind 6000
51117 Ind 6000
51118 WSP 3650
51119 WDP 3650
You can verify these appraisals
yourself by going to the Hays County website. And find MANY
more instances of WSP vs. individuals.
All of the requests for a “contested case hearing” will be pitched since those requests are only valid when presented BEFORE the hearing for the permit. If you read Rule 5.5 in context, you will quickly see that all references to a contested case relate only to a time before the permit hearing is held. Someone just read the rule too fast in desperation and jumped before they looked. The ship has sailed! The requests are therefore invalid or moot. The HTGCD Board will very likely announce that fact at the next meeting.
Post a Comment