Note: Woodcreek resident Richard Sullivan, a regular at Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District board meetings, attended last night's special meeting. This is his take on the action. The next regular board meeting is scheduled Monday, March 28 at the Sunset Canyon Baptist Church. Click on the link to download the agenda. HTGCD website: http://haysgroundwater.com/
Send your comments and news tips to roundup.editor@gmail.com, to Mr. Sullivan at rlsnpjs@anvilcom.com, to the District's general manager at manager2@haysgroundwater.com or click on the "comments" button at the bottom of the story
Special to the RoundUp
The Board passed a resolution offered by District 3 Director Mark Key, that recognizes a vested ownership interest by a landowner in the groundwater beneath their property while protecting groundwater for the future.
The audience was comprised mostly of landowners and no one spoke against the resolution except Board Vice President David Baker, of District 4, who read a rather long alternate resolution that he credited to Greg Ellis the HTGCD’s attorney. It was so long and rambling that nobody appeared to take it seriously.
Board President Jimmy Skipton, District 1, stated that the Board had not authorized Ellis to offer that version and he wasn’t going to pay for the submission. It was claimed by Baker to be an improvement and would be better at preventing legal challenges than the original. No one on the Board or in the audience seemed to buy that argument and some speakers stated that it confused or completely gutted the original while a few in the audience mumbled that the board should hire a new lawyer. The alternative resolution never gained traction.
The vote was taken as 3 to 1 for the resolution within one hour and the meeting was adjourned.
Board member, Dr. Joan Jernigan did not attend.
The Resolution as presented and passed:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, private ownership of groundwater has been recognized in the State of Texas since 1904; and
WHEREAS, the Texas Legislature recognized the ownership and rights of landowners in groundwater under Section 36.002 of the Water Code; and
WHEREAS, the long-term management of groundwater will likely require the amount of groundwater that can be produced by property owners to be limited;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that we, the Board of the Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District, hereby recognize that all property owners have a vested ownership interest in groundwater beneath their property; and
THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we believe this vested ownership interest entitles all property owners to produce a reasonable amount of groundwater; and
THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we believe that this right is subject to fair and reasonable regulation by the district that recognizes this vested ownership interest while protecting groundwater for the future.
54 comments:
What does this resolution mean? I have read it several times and to me it says nothing.
If groundwater needs to be limited then when, how and by what methods.
If the landowner owns the groundwater can they drill a well and if so where and how many wells per acre will be permitted? This resolution says absolutely nothing about anything.
David Baker's resolution made more sense than this pandering to the masses statement.
Thanks, good report. Seems that the HTGCD Directors, from the Dripping Spring area, have again out-voted the Wimberley Valley voices, and passed a motion, in a special meeting, that contradicts the very purpose of the board they got elected to serve on, under the newer Chapter 36 Water Protection Legislation. Seems the North Hays Directors wish to go back to the "ranch era" older law, of "the right to capture water" by ranch-sized landowner. This Texas law which has been superceeded, especially around urban and develping areas, by Water Districts Legislation to manage how water resources can be fairly shared, by smaller parcel land owners. HWY 290 HTGCD electd officials seem not to care or feel any responbilitiy for their neighbors, down the hills in the Wimberley Valley. Since their votes divide 3-2 on almost all votes, and the North Hays County no-longer-drip folks seem to dismiss the "voice of the elected official of the WV," seems to me that these elected officials are more about "winning-water-wars," on the level of personality struggles, than solving water management issues. As a member of the HTGCD I do not feel served by these Water District Directors, again. At leaset they have stated their position; the Hays North would rather "defeat David Baker" than be good, functional water mangers for all their neighbors in their Hays district! Can there be such a bio-region variance from the North and South Hays country regions? If so, maybe the Wimberley Valley DOES need its own Water District,since the current elected HTGCD directors have moved to do away with the ascribed funtions that they were elected to pursue!!! This is a dark time in democracy... How can we get elected officials to work for us,not against us?
Roberta Shoemaker-Beal
Hey, Riohard. Welcome to the Roundup team of wide spectrum opinions and writer's cantankerousness.
Thanks for the information.
The uninitiated will think that this is the resurrection of the “Rule of Capture”, which it is not. If you do, you need to educate yourself. The Rule of Capture dealt in part with, and was objected to, by its opponents for its lack of liability, not the ownership decree. There are of course some extreme groups that oppose private property rights except for themselves.
Most of the lawmakers and the public in this State believe that property owners have a vested ownership interest in the groundwater below their property and the right to produce that water. Most of them also believe that production should be regulated and protected by their GCD. That is exactly what this resolution says.
Private Property Rights are a really big deal in Texas.
SB 332 Will Harm Groundwater Management in Texas
●SB 332 is not good for the future of the management of groundwater resources in Texas. It would compromise and diminish the ability of GCDs (the state’s preferred method of groundwater management) to manage groundwater resources and regulate withdrawals. It would prevent or impede GCDs from fulfilling their duties to effectively conserve, manage and protect the groundwater within their jurisdiction.
●SB 332 will increase takings claims against GCDs. It will subject GCDs to more
litigation and potentially cripple them, regardless of the merits of any particular claim.
●SB 332’s protection of a right to produce groundwater is at the expense of other
rights and interests of landowners, such as those associated with maintaining aquifer levels (e.g., to protect spring or river flow) or slowing their rate of decline, or with sustaining groundwater resources over the long term.
●SB 332 would establish a vested right to groundwater in place –i.e., below the
surface –of an unknown quantity and value, and well as a vested right to produce an unknown quantity. The amount of groundwater below the surface to which the
landowner would have a vested right is impossible or nearly impossible to quantify. Because groundwater is not static and, in some cases, moves dynamically, there also will be confusion on what is the relevant moment in time in which the amount of groundwater would need to be quantified. Likewise, the amount of water that would be subject to a vested right to produce is unclear. Under the rule of capture, a landowner has the right to pump as much as he or she wants, as long is it could be used, on or off the property. Will a landowner now have a vested right to this unlimited amount? If so, what does that say about the supposedly vested rights of the neighboring landowner in the groundwater beneath his property?
●SB 332 would establish ownership in place of, and codify correlative rights to,
groundwater. Accordingly, SB 332 would represent a significant shift away from the “rule of capture”first applied by the Texas Supreme Court in 1904 in the East case. SB 332 would significantly limit local control of groundwater resources because it would compel groundwater districts to manage groundwater on a correlative rights basis and apportion rights based on acres of surface owned or controlled without regard to existing or historic use. Existing or historical use approaches would be, in essence, forbidden. Districts will no longer be able to manage appropriately for their region and in accordance with local groundwater uses and aquifer conditions.
●SB 332 would apply many principles from Texas oil and gas law gas to groundwater for the first time. Applying oil and gas law to groundwater is a bad idea. Oil and gas are commodities that are transported long distances and traded on international markets. The goals of oil and gas regulation are to avoid waste and maximize profits. Sensible groundwater management is very different. Generally speaking, groundwater is used locally and is a life- and community-sustaining substance. There are many reasons to allow for the management of groundwater resources so that they are sustainable over the long term. Such goals and interests are absent with respect to oil and gas.
What the HTGCD majority (The Three Stooges) did last night was further assert some very primitive property rights ideas that we as a culture might want to re-visit.
Did they really intend to give every 1/4 acre lot in a subdivision the right to dig their own well?
Did they really intend to make it possible to pump pretty much any amount of water if some lawyer can convince somebody that amount is "reasonable"?
Did they really think anyone thought this was about "the little guys", the "farmers and ranchers" when the people in that room were DS developers and business people who simply want to open the spigot for short-term gain until the well runs dry?
Truth is, there are people with large and convenient land waiting to make money on that land and they cannot if water beneath that land is regulated in a way that ensures water for us all into the future.
Mark Key got to drone on last night in his typical paranoid fashion about how "government is chipping away at our rights" and how "it is the landowners who always suffer"in these encounters because this meeting was packed with others of his ilk.
The DS Chamber of Commerce finally came out of the woodwork to make fun of conservation.
Mr. Key's inimitable logic used his "Granddaddy's" problems with Austin and DS over territorial boundaries as the corollary for the current water issue. Since his granddaddy had some problems with these municipal governments back in the day, then that means that the government is out to get your water.
That was really his argument. That was supposed to make sense, I guess. You cannot make this stuff up.
This stroll through Key's logic was reminiscent of his claim during his campaign about how "the springs were simply leaks and we needed to plug them leaks up and this would solve our water problems". Although Mr. Key nowadays denies ever having said this, he said it too many times in front of too many people for us all to simply forget he said it. Yes, Mark, it was a weird thing to say, but at least 'fess up to having said it, apologize for being so stupid and move on.
These DS business folks think there is unlimited water or simply do not care what happens if we overpump the aquifer. They literally laughed when notions of conservation or regulation were talked about. They had a jolly old time at the expense of our shared water resources last night.
Joke will be on them, though, since their part of the aquifer will be the first to go dry.
But somehow, I got the feeling those present last night either didn't believe there was any water supply problem or simply did not care if the landowners who depend on wells had any water left after these guys brought in all the new businesses and housing developments.
It was like recognizing the vulnerability of the water was admitting weakness in themselves and these guys were not about to do that. Conservation is for pussies, I guess.
Someone has convinced these people up the road in DS that the former HTGCD was out to get them and keep them from having water and that the new majority came in and is saving them from the boogie man of big government out to take away their freedom.
I wonder if any of them realize that their "friends" on the HTGCD just gave away at least 250 acre feet to a private developer just last week?
Farmers and ranchers better watch out, the DS Chamber of Commerce is after your water, not the government.
You know it's amazing that people cannot read the text before their eyes. The resolution does not recognize "ownership in place" as some seem to think (e.g., Anon #1).
David Baker's resolution is actually attorney Greg Ellis' position - and his perspective is that you have NO rights in the groundwater. Sure they dance around talking about the "rights" you have but then they get extremely sensitive about whether the rights are "vested" and express concern that "vesting" has "constitutional implications". Sure it does - when you try to take it away. You see, that IS the intent of Ellis.
What Baker is selling is snake oil. He isn't willing to recognize rights at all and wants to the district to take the position that you have none.
Ellis and Baker claim that they are protecting the "rights" of people that are here now but then start shuffling when it comes to vesting - which means that the "people that are here now" aren't protected at all by Baker & Ellis' scheme.
Feel free Shoemaker-Beal to try to form your own despotic arid island because outside your regime property rights will be recognized.
@ Anonymous 03/16/2011 3:50 PM who said:
"SB 332 Will Harm Groundwater Management in Texas"
No. It only states existing law and proposes specifically codifying it in the Water Code because of the conduct of certain GCDs.
"●SB 332 is not good for the future of the management of groundwater resources in Texas. It would compromise and diminish the ability of GCDs (the state’s preferred method of groundwater management) to manage groundwater resources and regulate withdrawals•••"
Not true. The problem is that GCDs advised by Ellis tend to take the position contrary to long-established law.
"●SB 332 will increase takings claims against GCDs. It will subject GCDs to more litigation and potentially cripple them, regardless of the merits of any particular claim."
Purely speculative. However, GCDs that provoke litigation as a result of indefensible conduct might want to change their attorney. GCDs that follow the law and recognize property rights (the actual ones not the imaginary ones) need not worry about litigation.
"●SB 332’s protection of a right to produce groundwater is at the expense of other rights and interests of landowners, such as those associated with maintaining aquifer levels (e.g., to protect spring or river flow) or slowing their rate of decline, or with sustaining groundwater resources over the long term."
SB 332 is not adding new rights - and there is not a right of any landowner to having a certain level of water beneath their property nor any right whatsoever to demand a spring or river flow. This is meaningless dribble.
"●SB 332 would establish a vested right to groundwater in place –i.e., below the
surface –of an unknown quantity and value, and well as a vested right to produce an unknown quantity...."
This is 100% false. The plain text of SB 332 refers to ownership interest not ownership. All the speakers (except for Ellis) who have testified on this recognize that none of the bills are claiming "ownership in place".
"●SB 332 would establish ownership in place of, and codify correlative rights to, groundwater. Accordingly, SB 332 would represent a significant shift away from the “rule of capture”first applied by the Texas Supreme Court in 1904 in the East case. ...."
SB 332 does not establish "ownership in place" of groundwater. The remainder misrepresents the East case and present a false dichotomy to boot. If a correlative rights regime were established there is a complete spectrum of possibilities as to how the rights are to be proportioned. The "rule of capture" as described in East was a defense against liability- not a limitation on when rights vest. The "rule of capture" never said that you only have an interest in the groundwater after capture. Baker & Ellis (a holdover vendor from prior boards) seek to claim that you have no vested rights in the groundwater and only have vested rights if groundwater is captured. They then take the position that there is no taking if they prohibit you from capturing any groundwater at all. This scheme can't work when one recognizes that ownership interests vest by virtue of ownership of the property. So they try to deny that such ownership interests are already vested. That's why Baker and Ellis start dancing around about vested rights in their resolution. Keep that in mind when listening to all the other "rights" they offer up and you realize Ellis' resolution and illusory "rights" aren't worth the paper they're written on.
"●SB 332 would apply many principles from Texas oil and gas law gas to groundwater for the first time..."
Not really. Groundwater is considered to be part of the surface estate, not the mineral estate. SB 332 isn't doing anything "for the first time" and it does not change the state of the law at all.
So how is this for idiotic? The HT Board gave away 250 acre feet of water!!! Holy crap batman there goes the farm! Oh, you mean this was a better deal because the old permit that the group had allowed them to pump 75% more and actually encouraged waste through a leaky system? You mean they gave up the water they really didn't need so they wouldn't waste it, just like Feds do with money? Wow, so you mean that the HT board actually did what the mealy-mouths like Jim McMeans wanted to do - conserve water by dealing with water Easters with valid permits? Wow! That was pretty stupid alright! Guess them WV folks need to stop marrying their pretty cousins and having cross-eyed kids so they can get some real good smarts.
These words sound so mean-spirited:
"Stooges"; "paranoid"; "stupid".
Let me try and offer more polite words or phrases that could be used to replace each one:
1)Use "supplicants" instead of "stooges."
2) Use "reality challenged" instead of "paranoid."
3) Use "insipid" or "cognitively challenged: instead of "stupid."
I will promise to also TRY to be more gentle and caring when I imply someone "doesn't agree with me" or "doesn't see things the way I do" - to put it constructively.
I propose that the Hays Trinity OverPumping Board just stops inviting the two board members from Wimberley to their meetings. They play no role in these proceedings, so why bother showing up?
Those pesky citizens with all their silly talk about protecting and managing the aquifer can stay home, too.
That way, the Dripping Springs contingent can do whatever they have been told to do by the developers and be home in time for dinner.
At best our water rights are severely limited.
If people like T. Boone Pickings continue to be permitted, as he has in the Texas Panhandle, to purchase huge acreage ontop of large underground reservoirs, and then dig wells that feed pipelines to sell water to Dallas, Houston, El Paso and even sell to other nations, e.g., China via tanker --- with the permission and approval of our governmens (State and Federal) --- then what chance do the rest of us have to continue the right to have access to water?
Billions of gallons of our precious water is being sold to nations like China, which then dumps OUR water into their own lakes and reservoirs for their own use. Often they resell our water to companies and individuals.
In addition, on the domestic levelthese wealthy folks take free water from the ground and resell it back to us at costs higher than the current gallon of gasoline.
Our water and our rights to it are swiftly disappearing and it seems there is little we can do about it.
Jernigan avoided taking any stance on property rights by skipping the meeting. No one knows where you stand when you refuse to vote.
The Wimberley crowd has become little more than obstructionist for the sake of attention. For those that are utility customers, the complete opposition to permits, permit renewals, and permit changes for the utility they have to get their water from is puzzling to say the least. Your actions do, however, illustrate why the ability to have a well must be preserved for all property owners rather than having different classes of citizenship depending upon where you live.
For those protesters that have their own wells, their opposition to recognizing any vested ownership interest in groundwater is likewise puzzling since if no one else has vested ownership interests then neither can the protesters. You aren't being "protected" by anything Baker or Ellis are offering. You are being set up for a taking. Feel free to be a lemming on your own - not everyone else is so gullible.
Perhaps the anti-property-rights astroturfing Wimberley crowd could come up with something other than tantrums for the sake of attention.
Those in Wimberley and Woodcreek who get their water from a centralized supplier are still dependent upon the aquifer as that is where their water comes from.
Not only have the Wimberley and Woodcreek citizens awakened to the common problems we all face if the groundwater supply is overpumped, but this part of the county has a number of really nice recreational areas along the creeks and the Blanco River that they have an aesthetic interest in protecting.
Wimberley and Woodcreek would like to invite our neighbors in the Dripping Springs area to join us in learning how we may better protect, preserve and encourage re-charge of the Trinity Aquifer.
Seems to me what is going on with the HTGCD and with the underlying sentiments of that recent resolution is to make it really clear that any water you can pump from beneath your property is yours and neither the State nor a GCD can take that right away from you.
This includes anyone who owns land, no matter how small a parcel of land, this includes developers who need water to make money turning their land into houses or a shopping center and makes it impossible for people who live in a community today to protect their water supply from being pumped dry by new populations or business interests.
This isn't about the people who live here now, though they get brought into the conversation as if they were who was being protected by such laws, this is all about encouraging and enabling growth into the Hill Country and how to best profit on new land uses.
The real divide here is between those who use water for modest domestic uses and those who would like to find ways to make money on water or the promise of water.
The people who speak so loudly for new commercial permits are not the friends of the small landowner, the rancher or hay farmer. They have a vision for this area that doesn't even take you into account. In fact, in order to accomplish their goals, they will need your land and the water rights that go with it.
People, this is the Cowboys vs. the Indians all over again, only this time, we are the Indians.
This debate is all about property rights: the ability for those who live here now to protect the value of their property and their quality of life by protecting their water source.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?
As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
"It is commonly understood that governments are instituted to provide certain protections that citizens individually cannot provide for themselves.
But governments have tended to assume that this responsibility can be fulfilled mainly by the police and the military. They have used their regulatory powers reluctantly and often poorly.
Our governments have only occasionally recognized the need of land and people to be protected against economic violence. It is true that economic violence is not always as swift, and is rarely as bloody, as the violence of war, but it can be devastating nonetheless.
Acts of economic aggression can destroy a landscape or a community or the center of a town or city, and they routinely do so.
Such damage is justified by its corporate perpetrators and their political abettors in the name of the “free market” and “free enterprise,” but this is a freedom that makes greed the dominant economic virtue, and it destroys the freedom of other people along with their communities and livelihoods."
-Wendell Berry, farmer, novelist, poet, agrarian activist and philosopher
Hey Texas Woman, AKA Susan
I think you do protest too much. Maybe a little cross party love for Mr. Key?
@Thinking Long Term who said "This debate is all about property rights: the ability for those who live here now to protect the value of their property and their quality of life by protecting their water source."
So many errors in such a short span...where does one begin?
You are the one trying to make it a debate. Contrary to your misguided and self-serving beliefs you don't have any special privileges for being here "first" - nor were you "here first".
The water source is not "yours" and you forget that the right you wish to exert to withdraw water stems from your ownership of the surface estate. Other property owners have the same right you do.
Your complaint is that you should be free to continue withdrawing water..but your fellow landowners should be prohibited from doing so. Get real. Your position is indefensible and pitiful.
There are 3 board members covering Wimberley Valley - not 2. This isn't "Dripping Springs vs Wimberley" but rather an irrational minority in the general Wimberley area that expects everyone else throughout the HTGCD territory to do their whimsical bidding. Must be something in the water.
"Must be something in the water.” That cracked me up. What a great line! Your whole comment was excellent and spot on.
“Building sustainable communities by assisting people to assert their right to local self-government and the rights of nature.”
"We believe that we are in the midst of an escalating ecological crisis, and that the crisis is the result of decisions made by a relatively few people who run corporations and government.
We believe that sustainability will never be achieved by leaving those decisions in the hands of a few – both because of their belief in limitless economic production and because their decisions are made at a distance from the communities experiencing the impact of those decisions.
Therefore, we believe that to attain sustainability, a right to local self-government must be asserted that places decisions affecting communities in the hands of those closest to the impacts.
That right to local self-government must enable communities to reject unsustainable economic and environmental policies set by state and federal governments, and must enable communities to construct legal frameworks for charting a future towards sustainable energy production, sustainable land development, and sustainable water use, among others."
Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund accessed at http://www.celdf.org/about-us
What about sustaining individual rights? They are the first thing to go in the "sustainability" movement.
You'll also note by "community" that they mean being able to control who is permitted to live there and vote there.
"Sustainability" is largely a fraud used to take property from many to give to a few under the pretext of "community" - along the lines of Marxism and/or socialism.
to Anonymous 8:26 PM:
For sure there's something in the
water where YOU are. There ARE
3 HTGCD Board members (out of 5) in
the Dripping Springs area: Jimmy
Skipton, Greg Nesbitt, and Mark Key.
Two Board members are from Woodcreek/Wimberley: David Baker
and Joan Jernigan.
The League of Women Voters-Wimberley Valley will have its
Candidates Forum on Monday, April
18 at 7 p.m. at the Wimberley
Community Center.
Both candidates for HTGCD Place 2(Dripping Springs/Driftwood) have
agreed to show up. They are Greg
Nesbitt (incumbent) and Steve Janda.
Candidates Dirk Bauer and Ed Pope
for HTGCD Place 4 (Wimberley/
Woodcreek) will be present. Erin
Banks has not yet replied.
Candidates for the Wimberley City
Council will also appear.
To "Know whereof ye speak!"
Take some of your own advice. There are 5 single member districts. Three different districts cover the Wimberley area. See,
About HTGCD
Again, this is nothing but a few irrationals in the Wimberley area. As noted by one author, calls for "community" are usually veiled excuses to express oppressive sentiments such as nationalism, militarism, racism, and religious and other intolerances. In your case you have tried to make this a Dripping Springs vs. Wimberley issue.
As also noted by the afore-mentioned author, there have always those claiming superior intelligence, insight, and ability to recognize, understand, and articulate the "common good" and who seek to impose their idea of a good society on others. We understand that you think you know what's best for us and your argument is that the "community" is divided because we don't agree with you. Suck it up and take care of your own property instead of "caring" as the pretext for taking from everyone else.
For Anonymous 11:47 AM:
You said:
" 'Sustainability' is largely a
fraud used to take property from many to give to a few under the pretext of 'community'...."
What a mouthful of nothing.
One thing you attempt here is to
give to two perfectly mild and
reasonable words ("sustainabilty"
and "community") some dark
connotation by tossing them into
a paragraph with words like "fraud"
and "take property." Incoherent
and misleading.
Next you give no evidence at all
as to how sustainability and
community equate with fraud
and taking. Give us a couple of
examples of what you mean instead of merely spewing flashpoint phrases.
to Anon 12:35 PM:
Take YOUR own advice, pal. Maybe you need to enlarge sections of the
HTGCD map so you can see what is
included in each of the 5 districts.
The Wimberley/Woodcreek area has:
all of District 5, about 1/2 of
District 4, and about 1/3 of
District 3.
Dripping Springs/Driftwood, on the
other hand, has all of Districts
1 and 2, about 2/3 of District 3,
and about 1/2 of District 4. All
this described area has a Dripping
Springs zip code, and the children
in this area go to DSISD.
If that doesn't mean DS/Driftwood
has more representation on the
HTGCD Board, I don't know what
would convince you. BUT, If the DS/
Driftwood areas have more population than the Wimberley/
Woodcreek areas, that's how it should be -- districts are represented on the Board on
the basis of population, not area.
And I'm not trying to pit Dripping
Springs and Wimberley against each
other. That's your approach. Even as DS people revile Wimberley people as "hooters, rednecks, and incestuous hillbillies," we in Wimberley dearly want to unite with the rational folk of DS to conserve and preserve our groundwater.
Now that the new census figures are
out, HTGCD will presumably be
redrawing their district maps.
Anon above regarding distribution of population...
I agree with much of what you said except the following:
Not all of the area you described is 78620 zip code. Driftwood, for example, is 78619. Property owners in Driftwood could be in one or more of the Wimberley, Hays Consolidated, or Dripping Springs school districts. My only point is that your argument is even stronger that this isn't "Dripping Springs vs. Wimberley" as a few in the irrational Wimberley cults keep trying to suggest.
To the Anonymous March 18, 2011 1:37 PM
The sustainability "movement" is largely a fraud. "Sustainability" is just a new marketing term used to greenwash conduct that is hardly admirable.
The folks showing up at HTGCD claiming "sustainability" are only promoting that they should be entitled to have wells and that no one else should be able to. They believe they have a right to "shut the door" and impose their will on all other property owners out here. They sure aren't willing to give up what they want taken away from everyone else. They claim a need to conserve but only so long as someone else is paying the price.
This whole DS vs. Wimberley thing started back when I commented that the Wimberley people appeared not to care that DSWSC did not have a pumping permit. The purpose of the post was to expose the hypocrisy and selfishness of the Wimberley protestors. Then, some moron in the “Valley” assumed I was in DS (I am not) and commented that DS needs to get on board and protest from my community. This stirred their little robot minds into hammering on DS, which brought out the present debate. It appears that IQ levels rise as you travel north on RR12.
A big contingent of the Wimberley “don’t drill, pump, or come here” movement are the *self entitled Senior Citizens of the Valley. They don’t care if there are no jobs or activities for young people, they want the area for themselves and nothing to change. They usually live out their days reminiscing about the good ole days while contributing nothing of any importance to the community. They tend to migrate or drift toward religion and environmentalism due to some kind of guilt complex. They are the self appointed experts of our communities although none of their experiences or educations are current.
Due to advances in medicine and food stuffs they live longer and sort of clog up the advance of civilization. A noted radio commentator once called these people “Greedy Geezers” which seem to fit the Wimberley protestors very well. They jealously protect their land and water wells while denying anyone else the have them because “they think” it will interfere with theirs. If they exist in high enough concentrations as they do in the Wimberley Valley only stagnation and decline can be expected. These types of anthropological anomalies are usually self-limiting. Only time will tell.
Dripping Springs is populated with more pragmatic younger people, which support improvements to their community while maintaining respect and protection for the environment. I think that applies to other areas of our County as well. Only this pitiful little Valley remains a place to visit for junk sales, especially old junk.
BTW, I am quite old and I live/exist in this God Forsaken Valley.
*Self entitled: This attitude has been described by some as being a person that believes people owe them something or that they deserve certain things from others.
Anonymous @ 11:51am I feel for you. It must be bad to have to live in a place that you hate so much. If you can't afford to move then I hope you can fine peace with others who think like you. May God bless you with peace in your final years.
The majority of our present HTGCD
Board seems to feel that whatever
they decide is writ in stone, but there are already appeals and petition processes available to us.
Now State Senators Hegar and Duncan
have authored SB 1306, "relating to
the procedures for and appeals of
desired future conditions adopted by groundwater managements areas."
And so we may be able to appeal those decisions as well. (Several Groundwater Conservation Districts
make up a Groundwater Management
Area.)
@FYI
Let me see if I understand. The Legislature of the State of Texas responding to those with concerns about Groundwater authorized the HTGCD as the preferred method of protecting and regulating the groundwater of the district. Five citizens if the areas are elected from five single member districts as Directors each with a vote on the business of the District. The Legislature, due to pressures of the electorate in the area purposely handicapped the HTGCD in the area of funding and authority to enforce its rules. Ergo a weakened GCD like no other in the State.
Now, when the HTGCD makes a decision regarding pumping permits or adopts a Resolution, all hell breaks loose with loud protests, bogus hearing requests, phony petitions, and now proposed legislation to allow endless appeals of their decisions. Meanwhile some protestors primarily from a little valley in the southern reaches of the District continue to demonize the duly elected members of the HTGCD Board. See the trend? The protests have taken on a life of their own much like the Union Thug’s protests in Wisconsin. It appears that the more vocal protestors and in particular the ones with more time on their hands want to weaken the District even more. You can bet as the District becomes tied up in court fighting the assault those protestors will be the first to complain that the HTGCD is doing nothing to save our groundwater.
@FYI....
There have always been appeals processes open. The complaint that folks have about the protesters is that the protesters aren't willing to follow any of the processes. Instead they just whine and complain and re-hash the same complaints over and over again at virtually every HTGCD meeting.
• To initiate a contested case you have to timely file the request/protest PRIOR to the rendering of a decision and within a 20 day window - not asking for one only after a decision that you disagree with comes out. But the protesters did not make such a request.
• To request a re-hearing in an uncontested or contested case, you have to make the request within 20 days of the decision - but the protesters didn't do that either. (see Water Code §36.412)
• One can appeal the decision to Hays County district court. However, prior to going to district court you have to exhaust your administrative remedies (i.e., by first requesting the re-hearing) - but the protesters did not do that either (see Water Code §36.413)
• For protest or appeal before any political subdivision of the state or court you must have standing. In other words, you can't be an astroturfing group claiming to represent "the community". Yet most if not all of the protesters have no standing in ANY forum. They simply whine
In short, FYI is correct in that there already exists processes for requesting reconsideration or appealing a decision that protesters take issue with. Unfortunately, the protesters prefer throwing tantrums, making various insinuations, etc. in an effort to bully rather than persuade. The reason of course is because most have no standing and their arguments are meritless.
By the way, the complaints about the DFC process run both ways. You might want the number to be less others wanted it to be more. The complaint in general was that landowners were not part of the process at all. So the bills are designed to open the process up in general. Of course those willing to read will be able to competently protest.
to Anonymous 5:35 AM:
Most of the protesters don't want
to weaken the HTGCD as you suggest,
but to strengthen it. We know, as
you do, that our GCD is one of the
weakest in the State. But that is
not the fault of the electorate,
as you say. Jim Powers and other
politicians in office at the time
our HGTCD was formed wanted to have
a weak GCD so that they could continue to wield influence (i.e.,
influence peddling) over water
happenings in Hays County. It was
they who controlled the wording of
the HTGCD legislation -- not the
electorate. We were merely given
the chance to vote for or against
a weak bill, and we took one fourth
of a loaf rather than none.
If YOU truly want a stronger HTGCD,
then why don't you, as an HTGCD
Board member, use your voice to
persuade our Rep. Jason Isaac to
get behind an effort to author a
House bill that will strengthen
HTGCD? Our state senator, Jeff
Wentworth, has already agreed to
push such a bill in the Senate,
if Isaac will cooperate on the
House side.
Thanks!
@FYI March 21, 2011 6:11 PM who said:
"Most of the protesters don't want to weaken the HTGCD as you suggest, but to strengthen it."
Not really. What the protesters have consistently sought is to define a privileged use for themselves and a class distinction: property owners that had a well could keep it; property owners that did not have a well would be prohibited from having one - or reduced to a "licensee". You won't find any of the protesters requesting to be held to the standard they want imposed on everyone else.
You said: "We know, as you do, that our GCD is one of the weakest in the State."
Actually our GCD and several others take a strong stand on recognizing the rights of property owners. Not everyone agrees with you that it is a "weakness" for a governmental entity to respect property rights.
You said: "We were merely given the chance to vote for or against a weak bill, and we took one fourth of a loaf rather than none."
Actually TCEQ has been trying to force oppressive GCD regimes onto populations across the state that did not want them at all. TCEQ has lost this battle in numerous locations and sometimes multiple times in the same location. Nearby, the residents of western Comal county have twice said "no".
Locally, residents were extremely wary of a GCD and for reasons that have become quite apparent during the last few years. The proponents of the GCD represented that such a GCD would not seek production fees or demand permits for residential use. The supporters also claimed no property taxes.
Yet almost since inception - and particularly during the years 2006-2010, we've seen an overly aggressive grab for power and control over property of residents by now-former members of the HTGCD board. They wanted taxing authority. They wanted the power to enter your property without your consent, without a warrant, and without even probable cause. They wanted production fees. Most of all, they wanted the power to demand permits (and therefore prohibit) residential wells - at least for everyone else. The former board members supporting such a regime lost the last election and the protesters have never been able to live it down.
Let's look at it another way. Politicians that support eviscerating property owners rights of citizens didn't last another term in office. The astroturfing protest groups were just that - astroturf groups, no roots, just the personal agendas of the self-appointed "leaders".
When you see fictional stakeholders being given say over properties belonging to property owners while excluding those same property owners from the process ... well the voters aren't going to be shut out at the polls. Some politicians (former commissioners come to mind) have become corrupted by the fictional "stakeholder" process that they aren't even willing to recognize individual property owners (i.e., the voters) any more.
Note to protesters and politicians: Astroturf organizations don't vote, people do.
Some of you folks are arguing and cited statements WITHOUT referring to any real factual data.
""Most of the protesters don't want to weaken the HTGCD as you suggest, but to strengthen it."
and...
"Not really. What the protesters have consistently sought is to define a privileged use for themselves and a class distinction: property owners that had a well could keep it; property owners that did not have a well would be prohibited from having one - or reduced to a "licensee". You won't find any of the protesters requesting to be held to the standard they want imposed on everyone else."
Neither of you can speak for Hays County residents. Your comments are merely your own opinions, nothing more.
And honestly, it doesn't matter what you think or what the facts really are.
What matters is that our rights are protected and that people become more informed about various issues, including the water problem.
While I commend you all for getting and being involved, please provide some facts with your opinion, otherwise, they are merely opinions and are not proven to be correct.
to Hard to Get Real Info....
As someone who has frequently observed the protesters, I would invite you to attend the HTGCD meetings and see for yourself what the "facts" are. As anyone who attends the meetings can attest, the protesters are definitely seeking to create a special right for themselves that they want to deny fellow property owners. If you want more "facts", feel free to request copies of the audio and/or video recordings of the HTGCD meetings.
As to speaking for Hays County residents, I can certainly speak for myself. However, I have never claimed to speak for the protesters (some of which are not Hays County residents) - only about them.
You also said: "What matters is that our rights are protected and that people become more informed about various issues, including the water problem."
What rights are you referring to and what do you mean by "our"? The protesters frequently claim "rights" they do not have or "ownership" of what does not belong to them. If you are interested in becoming informed, perhaps you should first identify what rights you (and other property owners) have. Only then can you determine whether your "rights" are being protected or not or whether you are pursuing something that simply was never a right to begin with. By the way, that's a legal issue not a fact issue.
State Sen. Troy Fraser's SB 332
was passed by the Senate Natural
Resources Committee on Mar. 22. It
will now be considered by the entire Senate.
Although the March 24 Austin American-Statesman says, "The Fraser proposal is likely to
end up stripping groundwater districts of some clout," and though HTGCD Board member David
Baker had voiced precisely that
concern, the HTGCD Board voted to pass a resolution supporting Fraser's HB 332. As usual, Skipton,
Key, Nesbitt voted yes, with Baker
& Jernigan voing no.
Anon said... “Skipton, Key, Nesbitt voted yes, with Baker & Jernigan voing no.”
Correction, Jernigan did not vote because she was absent. There is nothing wrong with the resolution or SB-332. If you think Baker is shooting straight you need to reconsider.
What is it you object to in the Resolution or SB-332? Please explain more than just that Baker is against it.
to Anon 6:30 PM:
Like the writer in the March 24
Statesman, I think that SB 332 will--whether intended or not --,
actually cause confusion and litigation.
We don't need this bill. The rule
of capture (from 1904) already
says that landowners have a right to capture the water beneath their
land. Adding the words "vested
personal ownership" to the bill is
going to have lawyers parsing over
every part of that phrase. The net
effect of SB 332, if it passes
both houses, will be to muddy the
waters so badly that water
governance will be tied up (litigated) in court for years
while groundwater districts, water
suppliers, and legislators try to
figure out what to do next.
I truly believe we need for the
Texas Supreme Court to make some
decisions about water issues, but
they don't seem to want to touch
those problems with a 10-foot pole.
Not while judges are still elected
in Texas, at any rate.
Sorry I said Jernigan voted no. I
forgot she was absent that time.
Anon said... "The Fraser proposal is likely to end up stripping groundwater districts of some clout ... HTGCD Board member David Baker had voiced precisely that concern”
Baker is full of prunes and he knows that if SB-332 is passed it will only reestablish that a landowner “has vested ownership interest in and right to produce groundwater below the surface of the landowner's real property”. It also reinforces the fact that the Groundwater districts will continue to manage and protect that groundwater for future generations. What is wrong with that? Senator Fraser who introduced the bill has gone on record as saying, “... there is a big difference between managing how much water is pumped and denying property owners the right to access the water beneath their land.”
The bill is very popular around the State especially with ranchers, farmers and other landowners and will likely become law. The only opponents are a few pockets of “growth resisters” and “water crazies”. The Edwards Aquifer Authority will of course oppose anything that looks like it might empower landowners and diminish their draconian hold on their domain.
Baker is apparently in league with attorney Greg Ellis who is reportedly up to his neck in a property rights case, the Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Burrell Day and Joel McDaniel, which is currently before the Texas Supreme Court. Since Ellis is at apparent odds with the HTGCD who he works for on several issues, he should recuse himself from comment. He may be doing just that and simply using Baker as a mouthpiece. I guess only he and Baker know for sure.
Hey "Aonymous":
You might want to actually read SB 332. You will not find the language that you quoted anywhere in the bill. Nowhere does SB 332 offer "vested personal ownership" nor has anyone claimed such a thing.
The bill clearly refers to vested ownership interest. There is a huge difference. For starters, you are defining ownership-in-place and that has never been the law nor has anyone been making such claims.
SB 332 already IS the law. All that it does is to place it in the Water Code because certain individuals (mostly distributed in the Wimberley area) have been scheming for years to use the HTGCD to take such an ownership interest away. The actions of such individuals is also what justifies the HTGCD's recent resolution. The resolution does not change or alter the law.
This info is old stuff to most of
us, but for the folks who know little of Jimmy Skipton, president
of the Board of Hays Trinity GCD, it would be enlightening for them
to read an article in the Hays
Free Press of March 17, 2010.
Go to www.haysfreepress.com and
search for article "Lawsuit targets
Hays County development regulations." Paragraph 5 of that
article states, "Skipton owns about 130 acres in far northwestern Hays County which he
says he might want to divide up
someday for a residential subdivision." Skipton was protesting new development regulations which require minimum-
size lots of 6 acres (instead of the former 1.7 acres) for the type
of subidivision he would develop.
So it's easy to see why, with the
future subdivision dreams he holds,
Skipton would want to go easy on
Wimberley Springs Partners and other land developers; he wants the
same okay to pump vast amounts
from the Trinity Aquifer for his own subdivision in the future. He and Mark Key make constant charges that David Baker has a conflict of interest in being on the HTGCD Board, but surely that is a case of the pots calling the kettle black.
Hey Anonymous April 3, 2011 4:37 PM,
You simply don’t know the facts about Mr. Skipton’s lawsuit. It is not about developing a subdivision; it is about the fact that Hays County lacks the authority to regulate well spacing, drilling or pumping. Like it or not the HTGCD was given that authority by the legislature in 2001. The County overstepped and Skipton will likely win his case against the County and it will be a victory for our private property rights.
To Anon April 3, 6:15 PM:
Is Mr. Skipton's suit against
Hays County? When will it be
settled?
Don't counties approve (or not)
subdivision plats? And isn't part
of the plat approval process that
it must be shown that there is
sufficient water available to the
proposed subdivision?
Hey, Anon April 3, 6:15 PM,
Isn't it true that Mr. Skipton
recently dropped his lawsuit
against Hays County?
@Anonymous 04/03/2011 4:37 PM:
Like many of the protesters that routinely show up at HTGCD meetings, you apparently cannot read.
The "new" county regulations do not require 6 acre lots at all. In fact the new regulations were a sham. What they purport to require is 6 acres if the source of water is individual residential wells. There is not a specified minimum for a central water system. The intellectual dishonesty is pretty obvious if you can read.
When was the last time a subdivision with 6 acre or larger lots was formed? If this was about "preserving" water, the county would have required an average of 6 acre lots for parity. But it wasn't. This was about forcing people onto central water systems. These County rules actually promoted much higher density development under the false premise of saving water.
These misguided rules were part of the regime building plan of former HTGCD board members. The central water systems must pay production fees to the HTGCD. Watch out for legislators trying to eliminate the right of landowners to have wells whether it is a Senator, Representative, or County Commissioner.
@Anonymous April 3, 2011 4:37 PM:
You failed to identify any legal conflicts for Key or Skipton.
On the other hand you seemed to ignore Baker's conduct which appears to give rise to criminal liability.
Baker's WVWA is claiming to be harmed as a result of the granting of the WSP permit and WVWA is protesting the permit. However, if this were the case then Baker should have abstained from voting on 02/21/2011.
Baker is defined to have a conflict by receiving more than 10% of his income from WVWA and acting on permits that allegedly (according to WVWA) affect WVWA. Instead of abstaining, Baker voted against the permit. Failure to abstain from voting and failure to file the required disclosure affidavit are each actionable as class A misdemeanors. see Local Government Code §171.
Anonymous of April 5, 2011 2:43 AM said... “These misguided rules were part of the regime building plan of former HTGCD board members. The central water systems must pay production fees to the HTGCD. Watch out for legislators trying to eliminate the right of landowners to have wells whether it is a Senator, Representative, or County Commissioner.”
Excellent points, although it may not be obvious to everyone that the “new 6 acre rule” is all about government control. If anyone wants to drill a well, all they have to do is register it with the GCD (for $300) and pump no more that 25,000 gallons per day. Your well becomes an “Exempt Well” and you will be allowed some freedom from the government. The environmental socialists and those in the various local governments hate that because they cannot control it, hence the 6 acre rule.
If you live in a POA controlled subdivision or in a city you may not be granted that freedom due to covenants or ordinances. A municipal or commercial water provider that IS controlled by Government and sometimes the POA, will likely supply your water. Every day our freedoms are under attack from so many directions by the neo-socialists.
Post a Comment