Update on county’s interest in LCRA assets

While no price range was mentioned for Hays County’s potential investment at this point, Commissioner Whisenant did state that new debt would have to be issued since it will be more money than the county can afford in cash

Note: We are informed that Pct. 1 Commissioner Debbie Ingalsbe pulled the $6 million Old Bastrop Rd reconstruction project item from the Court's Tuesday agenda. Mr. Brannon and Judge Bert Cobb went toe-to-toe during public comments about what "truth" means. This was a 'must watch' session of the commissioners court, with lots of interesting info and action. Unfortunately for court watchers and the public (or conveniently for court members) the court's live stream video service unexplainably went off the air.

Send your comments and news tips to roundup.editor@gmail.com, to Mr. Brannon (see below) or click on the "comments" button at the bottom of the story

By Sam Brannon
Hays Citizens' Budget Project

This past Sunday we alerted readers to two items on the agenda for Tuesday morning’s Hays County Commissioners Court meeting. This update addresses the proposed LCRA Asset purchase.

LCRA Story Link – http://hayscountyroundup.blogspot.com/2011/04/countys-bid-for-lcra-water-and.html

One of the concerns on the LCRA Asset Purchase agenda item was that there was no backup documentation provided prior to the meeting, and the agenda stated that some action was to be taken. On Tuesday morning in court, no backup materials were provided so we have limited additional insight to what the county is really trying to accomplish here. The good news is that no action was taken, largely due to resistance from Commissioners Ingalsbe and Jones. Commissioner Jones has stated several times that he doesn’t think Hays County should be in the water pipeline business.

Commissioner Conley left the meeting to head to D.C. before this item came up for discussion, so Commissioner Whisenant shared what he knew about it, which he admitted was not a great deal. The backup materials were to come from LCRA but Whisenant noted that getting any information from LCRA has been difficult.

Here’s what we gathered from Commissioner Whisenant’s discussion:

1) There is a coalition of municipalities (20+?), and possibly other organizations, who are considering making an offer together for the collection of LCRA assets for sale. I’ve requested a list of the coalition members from Commissioner Whisenant.

2) LCRA’s current deadline for an offer is May 23rd, which seems to be extremely aggressive given the complexity of putting a deal like this together – a wide variety of assets, a large number of participants, complex valuations and other diligence, negotiations, debt agreements, etc.

3) While no price range was mentioned for Hays County’s potential investment at this point, Commissioner Whisenant did state that new debt would have to be issued since it will be more money than the county can afford in cash. Given the short time frame for putting together an offer, Hays residents will not be given an opportunity to vote on the issuance of the debt. This is VERY concerning given that Hays County is already scheduled to have $357 million in debt within one year, and that the collateral for the existing and new debt from this purchase is all of the taxable property in Hays County.

4) Commissioner Whisenant explained that due to confidentiality required by LCRA, the public will have very little view into mechanics of the deal. I find this is completely unacceptable. If county officials can not enter into an agreement with LCRA that allow taxpayers to have a full view of the deal, then we should not be moving forward on the this project at all.

5) Commissioner Whisenant confirmed that the water lines currently serve about 3,000 retail customers, and about another 7,000 through water supply companies.

6) He also confirmed that the purchase of the water lines will likely trigger other investments in infrastructure, so this is a big question mark. It sounded as if there is a much broader plan in play.

In short, there are many unanswered questions to cover in a very short amount of time, and firm, healthy skepticism is in order. Further, some of the comments left on the previous story from Sunday indicate there may be a substantial back story here that we need to understand.

At this point I’m very uncomfortable with the aggressive time line and the lack of a full view by taxpayers, as well as taking on additional non-voter-approved debt. We would want full-on Public Hearings on the county's financial situation and full-disclosure on all aspects of this deal before moving forward.

If you share these concerns, please write or call your County Judge and Commissioner(s) today.

For further updates as I get them, write to me at: LoveHaysCounty@hotmail.com

SB 1901 proposes changing terms of office for groundwater district board

[Please see the comments. There are actually important changes in the proposed legislation.]

Finally, a proposed piece of legislation related to the Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District was introduced this week by State Sen. Jeff Wentworth. New provisions are added to the current legislation governing the District regarding notice to neighboring property owners within a quarter mile by permit applicants of high volume groundwater wells (25,000 gallons per day and above).

Other provisions address well exemptions. Overall, it's a relatively innocuous bill, considering the numerous and major recommended changes that came out of the Hays County water stakeholder group a few months ago and subsequently passed along to Sen. Wentworth.

State Rep. Jason Isaac should have no problem with this bill, as it does nothing beyond the notification requirement and would change the terms of office for the HTGCD's five board directors, from two years to four years.

Read the text of SB 1901 at this link: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/billtext/html/SB01901I.htm. The bill has been referred to the Senate Natural Resources Committee.

Ogden vents frustration at business over taxes; Allaway says remarks 'unfair'

"We've got a tax system that is no longer equal [and] uniform, and it's not very efficient," Ogden said. "I would feel a little bit better if businesses who are here testifying against us would help us fix the business tax . . . "

He also said they should try to stop the hemorrhaging of the revenue base through tax giveaways

Note: There's nothing new about Texas' business taxes and public school financing being unstable. Question is, will our lawmakers in the Legislature properly fix things as they should before their end of May adjournment.

Send your comments, questions and news tips to roundup.editor@gmail.com, to Sen. Ogden's office, (512) 463-0105, or click on the "comments" button at the bottom of the story

By Robert T. Garrett/Reporter
dallasnews.com
rtgarrett@dallasnews.com
April 6, 2011

Sen. Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, said (last week) that Texas has a tax and school-finance system "that's fundamentally unstable." A day earlier, Ogden, the head of the tax- and budget-writing Senate Finance Committee, scolded business lobbyists before him for blocking every effort he's made this session to put the state's fiscal edifice on a firmer foundation.

But a veteran business lobbyist, who'd testified against an Ogden bill not long before the senator sounded off, said it isn't fair to label the business lobby as obstructionist on the question of sound tax policy.

"Yesterday, Senator Ogden was feeling a little bit beat down," said Bill Allaway, senior adviser to the business-backed Texas Taxpayers and Research Association. "He got voted down two or three times on the Senate floor and then people didn't stand up and salute his [tax abatement limitation] bill [in committee]. He was feeling a little down at that point."

Ogden said Tuesday that he wasn't directing his criticism at any particular segment of business. But he stood by his remarks Monday night that Texas is hobbled by "a large structural deficit," created when lawmakers permanently reduced available state revenue by inadequately offsetting local property tax cuts they pushed through in a 2006 special session.

Ogden said lawmakers are "failing in our duty to the public" by not taking a hard look this session at tweaking the state's business tax, which produces $2 billion a year less than expected when lawmakers five years ago broadened it to apply to all businesses and cut its rate.

He also said they should try to stop the hemorrhaging of the revenue base through tax giveaways.

Late Monday (last week), Ogden's committee heard testimony on his bill to cap a school property tax break used in some major economic-development deals – a break the locals give away but the state reimburses them for, to the tune of $200 million a year.

A long list of potent business lobbies, from petrochemicals and utilities to tech companies and wind farms, came out in force against Ogden's bill. He fired back, saying his bill may look "hard to pass" but his principles remain valid – tax subsidies distort markets, and a good system treats everyone alike.

"We've got a tax system that is no longer equal [and] uniform, and it's not very efficient," Ogden said. "I would feel a little bit better if businesses who are here testifying against us would help us fix the business tax. But it just seems like, well, we can't fix that, either. So we're continuing to struggle to get a budget that will work."

Allaway, though, said business groups are willing to discuss how the state should raise money for "legitimate needs." He continued, "Part of the problem is that the Legislature has systematically spent more money than it had for the last few years ... digging a deeper and deeper hole."

"I'm not quite sure what he wants the business community to do that it hasn't done – to volunteer to bail the state out?" Allaway said, referring to Ogden. "... The guy's gotta lot of strain on his shoulders. And I'm not sure that he's getting all that much help from his colleagues."

PEC to upgrade electric systems in Dripping, Wimberley areas

MEDIA CONTACT: Anne Harvey, (830) 868-4933; Austin line, (512) 219-2602

Pedernales Electric Cooperative crews will perform system improvements to better serve the growing energy needs of its members in the Dripping Springs and Wimberley areas over the next several weeks, beginning on Tuesday, April 19.

The improvements will create additional line capacity and help increase system reliability, and PEC is mailing letters with more specific information to members affected by the work. The upgrades will require staggered, three-hour interruptions of electric service for members during the following periods:

– Between 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, April 19, and 4:30 p.m. on Friday, April 22. Affects about 2,000 members in the central and northern Dripping Springs areas, from downtown to Hamilton Pool Road. This area includes PEC’s Dripping Springs office, which will close April 22 from 1:30 to 4:30 p.m. to accommodate the planned power interruption. The office will reopen from 4:30 to 5:30 p.m.

– Between 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, May 3, and 4:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 5. Affects about 2,000 members in the eastern Dripping Springs and Driftwood areas.

– Between 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, May 17, and 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday, May 18. Affects about 1,000 members in the southern Dripping Springs and northern Wimberley areas.

Crews and contractors from PEC’s Oak Hill office will need access to PEC equipment on members’ property to complete these improvements. Workers will climb poles and use bucket trucks to access transformers and manually perform the improvements. PEC has requested that affected members leave gates unlocked and make sure animals are restrained. In the event of inclement weather, the work will be rescheduled for one week later.

Every effort will be made to restore service as quickly as possible. However, if electricity has not been restored by noon for morning interruptions or 5 p.m. for afternoon interruptions, members should contact PEC’s Oak Hill Engineering Department at 1-888-554-4732, Ext. 7925.

County road project raises interesting questions: Can it really be justified?

What community need is served by this road being built today? Does that need, if any, justify an additional $6 million in debt spending?

Note: If you haven't contacted your county commissioner or county judge in a while just to check in and see how things are going, this might be a good time. Tuesday's April 12 commissioners court meeting is chock full of potentially big ticket spending items and other very interesting matters. We've got a lot more information to share in later updates but we figure the court ought to be doing some of its own honest explaining for a change out from behind their big desks and official agendas.

County Judge Bert Cobb bert.cobb@co.hays.tx.us (512) 393-2205
Commissioner Debbie Ingalsbe (Pct.1) debbiei@co.hays.tx.us (512) 393-2243
Commissioner Mark Jones(Pct 2) mark.jones@co.hays.tx.us (512) 262-2091
Commissioner Will Conley (Pct. 3) will.conley@co.hays.tx.us (512) 847-3159
Commissioner Ray Whisenant(Pct 4) ray.whisenant@co.hays.tx.us (512) 858-7268

From Sam Brannon
Hays Citizens' Budget Project

With over $100 million in road projects soon to begin, and with tens of millions in dollars in other new projects being discussed (new Pct. 2 building, jail, 911 dispatch consolidation, roads, LCRA water pipelines, and others), we taxpayers would be well-served to pay closer attention to the money being spent.

A growing number of Hays residents are joining our call for full-on Public Hearings on debt and spending at the county government, as well as whether it makes sense to move forward on all of the construction projects as they are currently designed and scheduled.

Re-Evaluating Road Projects – Old Bastrop Highway

Our common goals of mobility and safety are valid, but whether the current list of projects meets these goals in a manner that Hays County residents can afford in 2011 and 2012 is seriously challenged by many facts.

The Old Bastrop Highway project is on Tuesday’s agenda in Commissioners Court as a closed-door Executive Session for right-of-way acquisition. I’ll be speaking on this item in court, asking that Commissioner Ingalsbe pull this item from discussion.

The $6 million Bastrop Highway project is a 1.8 mile stretch of road in the southeastern most part of the county, connecting pretty much nothing to pretty much nothing.

Click on images to enlarge

The Hays County website describes this project as a lane-widening and shoulder addition, with additional right-of-way to be acquired for future use. Nowhere is it mentioned that Pct.1 Commissioner Debbie Ingalsbe’s property/home sits in the middle of the proposed improvements.

Several months ago when I asked Commissioner Ingalsbe for the justification for improving this lightly-traveled stretch of road, she informed me that this road gets a lot of bicycle traffic. I’ve never seen that in my passes, but that’s not a very compelling argument for another $6 million in debt in any event. Even the "student safety" argument is entirely unsupported.

This road construction begins 1 mile south of the school and continues south in a very lightly populated area. San Marcos High School only has one bus route running in this tiny corner of the county, and traffic is sparse, even during the 4:10p-4:20p “rush hour.”

On left is the northward view of Old Bastrop Highway from Francis Harris Road toward Centerpoint Drive, 1.8 miles away. And at Centerpoint, where the project stops, is the northern view (below) toward San Marcos High School, still another mile away.

I and more than 90 others expect Public Hearings to take place before spending any money on this project.

We want to know: What community need is served by this road being built today? Does that need, if any, justify an additional $6 million in debt spending? Why has Commissioner Ingalsbe not disclosed that she owns property along this road?

Please join us writing or calling Commissioner Ingalsbe today and ask that she pull this agenda item until Public Hearings are held, copying all of our elected officials.

Community meeting Wednesday April 13: 'Adapting to your water environment'

A report completed for the Pacific Institute, “Waste Not, Want Not” determined that flushing toilets accounts for 33% of indoor water use, making it the largest use of water inside the home

Note: Dr. Joan Jernigan forwarded this announcement to the RoundUp. Jernigan is a member of the board of directors of the Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District. She represents District 5, an area encompassing Wimberley and its environs. She has led the District's public education efforts since elected to the board in May of 2010. For more information or questions, please contact Dr. Jernigan at jerniganjs@austin.rr.com. For more about the HTGCD's mission and activities, visit the website at www.haysgroundwater.com.

Water shortages in Texas are becoming monumental challenges in meeting water demand of current and projected population, and yet, the public remains largely unaware of the major issues confronting Texas’ water supply.

Adapting to Your Environment will be the focus of a meeting Wednesday April 13, 6 pm–7:45 pm, at the Wimberley Community Center Blanco Room. A film, "When the Water Tap Runs Dry," and small group discussions will result in recommendations from participants for living in an environment with less water. Politics are not to be discussed, as the meeting will be more of a thought-provoking, sharing process.

This discussion, however, is not focusing on limiting population growth, but rather planning for it. People love to live here – that’s why most of us are here. We are focusing on HOW TO LIVE HERE, and adapting to our environment, such as limiting outdoor use of water on yards, and learning to use recycled wastewater and runoff water.

A report completed for the Pacific Institute, “Waste Not, Want Not” determined that flushing toilets accounts for 33% of indoor water use, making it the largest use of water inside the home. Older models can use 3 to 5 gallons per flush, while more efficient models use much less.

Other measured uses were: showers 225%, faucets, 18%, while washing machines use about 14% and dishwashers only account for 1%. Most surprisingly, an estimated 12% of indoor water use was a result of leaks. Designs for homebuilding and maintenance are a most important element for living in the Hill Country.

The Nation’s Building News, March 28, 2011, observes “We’re seeing the front end of the baby boom – the participants in the early environmental movement – getting its legs. They’re more pragmatic than the 50-plus group we worked with a decade ago. Those on fixed incomes want low maintenance and operating costs and a more durable house, and that tends to be more expensive.”

According to climatologists, warmer temperatures may cause more precipitation, but, as described in the Hill Country, “our reported rainfall may be 40 inches, but this does not explain that 20 inches fell one month, and we were without rain for six months.” The severe run off of our “flood alley” area is a problem, when it might become a part of the solution—how we get this water fed back into the aquifers.

Water recycling is reusing treated wastewater for landscape and agricultural irrigation, industrial processes, and toilet flushing. The most controversial aspect of recycled water is using it to replenish groundwater basins or to augment reservoirs, sometimes referred to as “toilet to tap.” Although such methods are available, and less costly than our current method of collecting all the wastewater in one big pond, we have not yet been able to change our paradigm (public opinion) for its use.

Recycled water can undergo further treatment, called ‘tertiary treatment’. This treatment produces water that exceeds drinking water quality standards. This ultra purified water is then allowed to percolate into an aquifer to replenish it, or potentially could be added to a reservoir.

These discussions may raise more questions than answers, but we can at least become more aware of how to live in our environment!

County's bid for LCRA water and wastewater holdings raises red flag

Why is the project good for the 157,000 residents/taxpayers of Hays County, when it appears to affect so few (10-12,000, according to Commissioner Ray Whisenant during our discussion on March 22nd)?

Com. Whisenant

Note: Just a few weeks ago, Pct. 4 Commissioner Ray Whisenant, R-Dripping Springs, was assigned the job of doing a "due diligence" review of the financially failing LCRA regional water systems that LCRA has had up for sale for the past three years. LCRA formally announced its intent to sell the systems in February. Pct. 3 Commissioner Will Conley, in e-mail responses to citizens curious about the county's interest in the systems, has said Whisenant is the commissioners court's go-to guy, so talk to him. This prospect is moving quickly. Somehow, the county has become very interested in LCRA's broke and deeply in debt water and wastewater holdings in southwest Travis and north Hays County (West Travis County Regional Water System). Watch for sound bites from our county officials reported in the local media like these: "We are doing what is best for the citizens" and "Hays County must have control of its water supply future." This one has a lot of interconnecting dots. On its face, all or part of a $140 million debt investment on a revenue-losing utility system, looks like a raw deal for the taxpayers of Hays County.

Tuesday's April 12 commissioners court agenda states, Item 12 (Whisenant/Conley): "Discussion and possible action in regard to the participation of Hays County Water and Wastewater Authority in the current customer coalition effort to prepare an indicative bid for purchase of LCRA water & wastewater holdings . . . Additional information or supporting material will be available at the Court."

Send your comments, questions and news tips to roundup.editor@gmail.com, to Mr. Brannon at sam_brannon@hotmail.com, to Commissioner Whisenant at ray.whisenant@co.hays.tx.us or click on the "comments" button at the bottom of the story

The letter is from Sam Brannon, organizer of the Hays Citizens' Budget Project.

Judge Cobb and Commissioners Conley, Whisenant, Ingalsbe and Jones:

I'm not sure how concerned the People of Hays County should be about Tuesday's Agenda Item #12, "possible action . . . preparing a bid for the purchase of LCRA water and wastewater holdings." At this point I suspect we should classify this under "Very Concerned."

Given the complete lack of public scrutiny that this project has received so far, I certainly hope that this session is only informative and will result in no action.

When this purchase was first mentioned several weeks ago there was an unsettling sense of urgency about it, in spite of the fact that LCRA first announced the intent to sell these assets 3 years ago. To this point the only dollar amount that has been mentioned is $140 million, which is an extraordinary amount, particularly given the fact that in less than one year Hays County is expected to be carrying $357 million in debt.

Before any action is taken on this project at any price, there are many questions that deserve public discussion, including:

• Justification of need. Why is the project good for the 157,000 residents/taxpayers of Hays County, when it appears to affect so few (10-12,000, according to Commissioner Ray Whisenant during our discussion on March 22nd)?

• Complete Back Story. Is this project in any way associated with the planned Caliterra development? If so, we expect full disclosure to prevent the perception of this being another developer subsidy. Few, if any, taxpayers are of the mind in 2011 to subsidize private interests.

• Thorough Evaluation of Alternatives. We'll want the court to demonstrate that every option other than "taxpayer-funded" has been thoroughly evaluated. If not, you are not fulfilling your fiduciary duty to the People of Hays County.

• Meaningful Public Input / Public Vote. What are you plans to gather input/approval from Hays County taxpayers? If Hays County taxpayers are going to be on the hook for this project, then you should be prepared to take it to the voters under full-disclosure.

In short, our call for full-on Public Hearings on debt, spending and taxes is fully justified, and a growing number of Hays taxpayers are insisting that they be held in good faith.

Perhaps if there was any backup provided we would be a bit more at ease about this discussion. It's in the best interest of everybody involved to maintain a deliberate pace in the discussion of this and other coming spending items, and to make sure you've got widespread public support for any spending actions the court decides to take.

Commissioners Conley and Whisenant: Please forward any back up documentation prior to Tuesday's court meeting so that we can begin our review, and please clarify what actions may be voted upon in court.

A call for public hearings on county finances

The stakes are high, we may be nearing $500 million in debt by the end of 2013, perhaps even without voter approval

Editor's note: County financing and budgets admittedly are not the sexiest topics around. Where it does get interesting though is when our local elected officials start spending our taxes unwisely, throwing money around because they think they can and without much of a challenge from the public. Several projects worth tens of millions and more debt are on the drawing board. They deserve a lot more public scrutiny than what commissioners court and Judge Cobb, the county's budget officer, have been willing to allow. The court and judge should bend over backwards for the taxpayers to ensure they are getting a square deal. That should include a series of public hearings in each precinct, before the expenditures are made and before the budget writing process gets too far along. No sweat. Put all the spending and debt on the table and let the taxpayers ask their questions. We'll have more information on some of the projects on the county's spending list in upcoming posts.

By Sam Brannon
Guest Commentary

The 93 members of the Hays Citizens’ Budget Project are justifiably concerned about the level of debt and spending at Hays County in recent years. With over $100 million in road projects soon to begin, and with our county elected officials already planning tens of millions in dollars in new projects (new Pct. 2 building, jail, 911 dispatch consolidation, roads, LCRA water pipelines, and others), we taxpayers would be well-served to pay closer attention to the money being spent.

A growing number of Hays residents are joining our call for full-on Public Hearings. We feel there needs to be more honest public discussion on debt and spending at the county government. We must also discuss whether it makes sense to move forward on all of the construction projects as they are currently designed and scheduled, or whether a re-prioritization of spending makes sense in these difficult economic times.

We want open discussion and straight answers on debt, spending and taxes. That’s not radical. It’s very reasonable.

County Officials Refuse to Level with Us

I first met with County Auditor Bill Herzog in November of 2010 regarding the budget and debt. In our several hours of meetings, Herzog never once pointed out that the information in the official Budget Book was incorrect. In our several reviews of the data that I was to present, he consistently confirmed to me that our presentation was on-target.

At the March 22nd Budget Workshop, I asked Mr. Herzog directly “What will be the end-of-year debt for 2011?” Herzog responded with a year-end 2013 number of $360 million. I restated my question, “How about the end of 2011?” Herzog responded with a 2012 number. Once again, “How about the end of 2011?” Rather than answer the question directly, Herzog gave me a series of numbers to calculate.

Why all the secrecy? The County Auditor’s job is to provide an accurate picture of finances to the public, but it appears that he and our elected officials felt they would get more mileage with smoke and mirrors. Herzog’s incorrect numbers have since been quoted to the public in at least two news publications. Shame on our auditor and the entire court for this taking place (and shame on the publications for not following up with the right questions).

County Judge Bert Cobb in particular ran on open and responsible county government. Since taking office, he has twice committed to me that he would support full-on Public Hearings in each precinct, giving taxpayers a chance to weigh in on finances and scheduled road projects. Frankly, I knew he didn’t intend to keep his word the first time he said it, so I made a point to ask him again – better to have him backtrack early before I started telling very many people we had his support on it.

When I asked him again a week later and he reconfirmed his commitment, I sensed that even he didn’t believe what he was saying, but I chose to take him at his word. So while I’m not necessarily surprised, I am very disappointed that our new County Judge is capable of being so insincere.

Until we can get straight answers from our elected officials and our County Auditor without pointed cross-examinations, formal Public Hearings are certainly in order, and we expect them to take place sooner rather than later. The stakes are high – we may be nearing $500 million in debt by the end of 2013, perhaps even without voter approval.

And just so you know, the 2011 end-of-year debt is scheduled to be $311 million. The last road bond debt issue is scheduled for March 2012, and Hays County debt will then stand at more than $357 million (plus any other new projects).

That’s not so hard to say, unless you’re trying to hide something. If you feel that straight answers on debt, spending and taxes should be forthcoming, I suggest that you contact Judge Cobb and each of our county commissioners today to let them know.

County Judge Bert Cobb
bert.cobb@co.hays.tx.us
(512) 393-2205

Commissioner Debbie Ingalsbe (Pct.1)
debbiei@co.hays.tx.us
(512) 393-2243

Commissioner Mark Jones(Pct 2)
mark.jones@co.hays.tx.us
(512) 262-2091

Commissioner Will Conley (Pct. 3)
will.conley@co.hays.tx.us
(512) 847-3159

Commissioner Ray Whisenant(Pct 4)
ray.whisenant@co.hays.tx.us
(512) 858-7268

HTGCD Board denies prostesters' standing, contested hearing over WSP permit

As a result of the lack of requests for contested case status, the board had no reason to not act on the permit and it was granted on 02/21/2011

Note: Last night's vote was 3 to 1, with board member Joan Jernigan (District 5-Wimberley) voting against, in effect, a finding of a lack of standing by protesters (and pretty much dashing any hope of a contested hearing) over the District's groundwater pumping permit issued Feb. 21 to Wimberley Springs Partners Ltd. The permit grants WSP 250 acre-feet (81.5 million gallons) annually for three years and a one-time 250 acre-feet "Re-Growth" permit for its golf course and other development needs. When the gavel dropped at last night's meeting, it freed the District to sign the final permit agreement with WSP.

The groundwater district's office received at least 11 letters from Wimberley area residents and the Wimberley Valley Watershed Association several days after WSP's permit was approved in February. Problem is, the protests requesting a contested hearing did not conform to District rules, most specifically Rule 3.2 (Operating Permit/ Hearings Required). It states: "The Board shall schedule a hearing, which may be held at a regular Board meeting, where the Board shall consider the application (by applicant) and any evidence presented at the hearing. Any interested person may provide oral or written testimony at the hearing, or may file a formal protest against the proposed action."

You can download the District rules at this link: http://haysgroundwater.com/regulatory. Click on HTGCD Rules adopted June 14, 2007. Rule 5.6 governs contested hearings.

Send your comments and questions to roundup.editor@gmail.com, to the HTGCD office at manager2@haysgroundwater.com (512-858-9253), to board president Jimmy Skipton at jimmyskipton@gmail.com, to Mrs. Jernigan at jerniganjs@austin.rr.com or click on the "comments" button at the bottom of the story

Sent by an attendee at last night's meeting, edited slightly for style:

The meeting of the HTGCD board in Wimberley was well attended last night at the Wimberley Community Center – a pre-hearing conference to determine whether a contested hearing should be granted.

At issue was whether the "requests for contested case status" filed by a number of protesters would be considered timely filed.

A substitute attorney appeared on behalf of the Wimberley Valley Watershed Association's attorney in order to argue their case. David Baker, WVWA's executive director and a member of groundwater district board did not attend although many in attendance were from WVWA.

The protesters argued that (WVWA's letter of protest) was "less than 15 minutes late," lack of adequate notice, and threatened legal action for alleged violations of the open meetings act. The board inquired as to what those violations might be, noted that the 02/21/2011 meeting was in fact well-attended and many of the protesters had attended the meeting as well as prior meetings regarding the same permit application. The notice for 02/21/2011 indicated the proposed permit and identified it as a possible action. Protesters presented opinions at the meeting but none requested to become a party in a legal proceeding. As a result of the lack of requests for contested case status, the board had no reason to not act on the permit and it was granted on 02/21/2011.

WVWA's attorney argued that there was a "lack of explicit instructions" instructing the protesters to file on or before the hearing of 02/21/2011.

The board went into executive session with its attorney (Greg Ellis) and emerged about 1/2 hour later. The board moved to find that the requests were not timely filed and would be denied. The reasoning was that none of the requests were timely filed. All of them were 7-10 days late and made well after the permit had been granted. The 12 minutes WVWA was arguing about did not explain the 10 days delay before that. In addition, there had been no provision in the rules for the protesters to file AFTER the action granting the permit on 02/21/2011.

House must slow groundwater bill

An analysis distributed by the Sierra Club states, if the Senate bill “becomes law, it will be the agent of both immediate and long-term ill effects on Texas' current groundwater management system.”

texaswaterlaw

Note: An editorial from the San Antonio Express-News about the groundwater vested ownership bill fast advancing in the Legislature. Below the editorial, the take from Independent Texans. A hearing on House Bill 1730 by Rep. Allan Ritter was held yesterday before the House Committee on Natural Resources. Ritter chairs the committee. Companion SB 332 passed the Senate on March 30. Check these links for the Senate bill text, Senate Research Center analysis and Senate Natural Resources Committee witness list.

Send your comments and news tips to roundup.editor@gmail.com, contact your legislators or click on the "comments" button at the bottom of the story

Read the complete editorial

Updated 01:34 a.m., Tuesday, April 5, 2011

The House should slam the brakes on legislation that would codify landowners' “vested right” to water underneath their property.

This legislation — which could have vast, complex repercussions — has not been thoroughly examined, having been subjected to a single hearing in the Senate.

The bill that passed the Senate is a merger of separate legislation filed by Senate Natural Resources Committee Chairman Troy Fraser, R-Horseshoe Bay, and Sen. Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock.

Observers say the bills were pushing for competing goals, and the merged result is confusing as a result.

The legislation appears to be a step away from the comprehensive water planning procedures that lawmakers have been working on for the last 20 years.

[snip]

The legislation, which passed the Senate 28-3, requires a deep examination and must not be rubber-stamped.

We urge House members to slow down this train. In fact, this topic is so complex and important to planning for Texas' future, the issue should be explored in-depth by an interim committee — not rushed to law without thorough vetting.

Media release from Independent Texans
Linda Curtis

The people of Texas killed the grand scheme of the Trans-Texas Corridor. But according to Independent Texans, the state's only voter association for non-aligned and independent voters, the tentacles of the TTC still need to be cut-off, namely: the legislature's dangerous plan to move groundwater around the state.

The Natural Resources Committee in the Texas House deliberated Tuesday on the house version of SB 332, HB 1730 for "vested" water rights. They say that the bill is just part of an overall plan for groundwater transport that includes constitutional amendments that will make taxpayers pay for expensive pipelines and other projects, and to gain new taxing authority for the state – all to enrich private developers and water profiteers. (See SJR 25, HJR 137 and HJR 138.)

Larry Joe Doherty is a well-known wildlife advocate and attorney from Washington County who recently resigned from the Texas Wildlife Association Board because of their support for vested water rights.

Doherty said, "The water pipelines of the Trans-Texas Corridor did not die with the pavement. Profiteers are still trying to steal water from rural Texas and use so-called eminent domain land reform to triple-tax us to pay for it – first, to the big landowners who are selling their water rights, second to the companies who want to move the water, and third to the state for a whole new taxing authority."

Texans are calling their legislators and signing the “Kill the Trans-Texas Water Highway” petition at the Independent Texans’ website at www.IndyTexans.org.

Isaac explains reasons for MUD legislation and county development district bill

"I will not inhibit the growth in our district; it's a big reason a lot of us are here."

Note: State Rep. Jason Isaac's response regarding Proposed MUDs in HD45 (see story below, "Isaac churning out the MUD bills"), and why he opposes a local option tax election for the Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District.

Send your comments and news tips to roundup.editor@gmail.com, to Rep. Isaac at Jason.Isaac@house.state.tx.us or click on the "comments" button at the bottom of the story


I appreciate you giving me a chance to explain the reasoning behind certain legislation before jumping to conclusions.

Municipal Utility Districts are a common model (authorized by the Texas Water Code) used to provide water, sewage, drainage, and other services outside city limits. They enable developments to provide essential services that might not be available otherwise. They are common throughout Texas, especially in non-urban areas that are experiencing growth, so that tax payers who live within the city limits don't have to pay for the expansion of services that they do not benefit from.

MUDs are governed by an elected Board of Directors who handle the services of the district. Although the facilities of districts vary, those who choose to live within the MUD have the ability to vote to fund services that they want the MUD to provide. I have been adamant about my commitment not to raise taxes, but there is a big difference between a state mandated tax and a tax that people within a development choose to approve. (In addition to basic services, residents might choose to build pools, sports courts, and other community recreation facilities.) Those who move into a MUD are alerted before they buy the property about the associated costs; such as I did when I moved into our neighborhood. These developments give people more control over the services that are offered in their area. Tax rates in MUDs tend to decrease over time. In fact, some older MUDs near Austin have tax rates more than 22% lower than the city.

In regards to concerns specific to HB 3832, that bill is intended to clarify existing powers of an existing district, from 2000, to prevent future confusion. In the sections that reference voter approval, it is my understanding that because this is an existing district, the elections have already happened, therefore negating the need for an election in statute. This bill is currently a work in progress, but with time in the legislature running short, it was necessary to file a bill from which to work. I am currently working on a draft that will address certain discrepancies and clarify intent. I do not plan to request a hearing on this bill until we have made some improvements.

Some things to keep in mind:

• I have received approval from Hays and Caldwell County commissioners court for all of the developments that are being proposed.
• You won't pay any additional taxes due to these developments unless you plan to move into one of them.
• People cannot be annexed by a MUD and forced to pay a tax, you knowingly move into one.
• The MUDs I have proposed have NO power of eminent domain.

I have received many criticisms because I won't support a local option (vote) for a tax of the HTGCD (Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District). If there was such an option and it passed, everyone within the district, even those like myself that don't use groundwater, would be forced to pay the tax. This is much different than a MUD. I will not inhibit the growth in our district; it's a big reason a lot of us are here. However, the first questions I ask when presented with a MUD: Where's the water coming from and do you have a resolution of support from the county commissioners court?

On Vision and the Trinity Aquifer's Desired Future Condition

This vision, which I share with many local residents, is to imagine a Hill Country landscape, mostly rural, with beautiful vistas, healthy wildlife habitat, and clear flowing valley streams. Add the possibility of quiet and solitude and you have perhaps the opposite of crowding and noise and traffic

Note: Jack Hollon, here representing the Wimberley Valley Watershed Association, the keeper of Jacob's Well and the Jacob's Well Natural Area, offers a simple vision that in all likelihood matches what the great silent majority in western Hays County would like to see – it's probably why everybody moved to the Hill Country in the first place. Yet the pressures politically and otherwise for growth, expansion and development are great. Clear examples are the MUD bills and the county development district bill sponsored by State Rep. Jason Isaac (scroll down two stories). Unfortunately, growth by itself is not a vision. If you know of anyone with a better or more perfect vision, and what it is, please share it with your local elected officials. Their eyes glaze over usually when asked for their own vision.

Send your comments and news tips to roundup.editor@gmail.com, to Mr. Hollon at jhollon37tx@yahoo.com or click on the "comments" button at the bottom of the story

By Jack Hollon
Guest Commentary

Recently I had an opportunity to visit briefly with County Judge Bert Cobb when he came to Jacob’s Well for a Saturday tour of Hays County property there. He asked a question that has stayed with me, though we had no time to discuss it then: “What is your vision for this area? What would you like to see here?”

After some thought, my short response for the Spring-Creek system is: “Keep it clean, clear, and flowing,” a sort of mantra for those who have worked on the Cypress Creek Project. But we recognize that achieving this will not be easy. The trajectory we are on is demanding more and more from the aquifer, more than natural recharge supplies, which leads to a gradual lowering of the water table. Some call this “mining.”

The result is that when rainfall is below average, the aquifer’s base flow to springs and streams falters much earlier than it used to. During the 7-to-10 year “drought of record” (1950s), Jacob’s Well continued to flow. However, twice in the past decade (2000 and 2009), with many new wells competing for the same water, the flow ceased during dry times of about two years each.

salsa verde/statesman.com/click on image to enlarge

So, our vision or plan to keep the well and Creek flowing must involve area-wide support to do two things, along with sound water conservation: First, protect and enhance recharge through land conservation in the recharge area; and Second, reduce demand on the aquifer by making rainwater (RW) harvesting systems the standard Hill Country-Western Hays water supply choice, basically for all new construction, plus an incentive to phase out many wells now pumping and replace with RW systems. (This proposal will be expanded in a future article and compared with the costs of bringing in surface water or groundwater – if any such water exists – via big pipes.)

Back to the Judge’s vision question: Surveys of area residents preceding the vote on Hays Parks and Open Space Bonds showed a large majority concerned about our water resources, as well as open space and habitat for wildlife. The bond issue passed by a large margin.

This vision, which I share with many local residents, is to imagine a Hill Country landscape, mostly rural, with beautiful vistas, healthy wildlife habitat, and clear flowing valley streams. Add the possibility of quiet and solitude and you have perhaps the opposite of crowding and noise and traffic. This is not a selfish vision, for our fellow urban dwellers will be thankful that such places have been preserved for them to visit and enjoy . . . for re-Creation.

These thoughts on Vision can be compared to the DFC Process now under way in area water planning. “Desired Future Condition” and “Vision” do sound roughly similar. But, hang on.

Western Hays County is part of GMA9, one of the State’s 16 groundwater management areas. By law, each GMA has been working for the past several years to determine the DFC for its local aquifer(s). Last July, the members of GMA9 voted to allow, or manage toward, a 30-f00t average drawdown over the next 50 years in the Trinity Aquifer across nine Hill Country counties.

Desired indeed. In attending many meetings and several hearings concerning the DFC process, I have never once heard an individual citizen express a desire to have the local water table lowered by any amount, much less 30 feet. Such a drawdown would be certain to cause widespread well problems and to dry up local springs and streams in all but very wet years.

The vote for a 30 ft average decline in the aquifer is a cynical and temporary victory for widespread development and urbanization, over local efforts to retain Hill Country values. It reflects the power of land speculators and developers in politics and law, and in brainwashing the populace that their “growth vision” is inevitable.

The DFC decision will not be accepted without a fight, without resistance from the people who live here and care about the Home Place and their communities. State law allows an appeal.

On March 28, the Wimberley Valley Watershed Association filed a petition protesting the DFC and its probable effects on Western Hays County. The 14-page petition was accompanied by a 6-inch stack of attachments on related science and law, testimony by professionals, and affidavits. The petition will also be sent to the other districts in GMA9 and to the Texas Water Development Board. Stay tuned.

We shall work vigorously to establish a Desired Future Condition for water resources that is consonant with the Vision that most residents hold dear for our Texas Hill Country.

“Without a vision the People perish.” (Pericles)

Texas Senate passes Groundwater Bill

By Kate Galbraith and Christopher Smith Gonzalez 3/30/2011
TEXAS TRIBUNE

The Texas Senate passed a much-discussed piece of groundwater legislation, voting 28-3 to approve a bill (SB 332) stating that landowners in the state have a "vested ownership interest" in the groundwater beneath their land.

"We're just clarifying that you do have a vested interest in that water below your property," said state Sen. Troy Fraser, R-Horseshoe Bay, who chairs the Committee on Natural Resources and sponsored the bill. However, he said, the bill also establishes that landowners' rights are subject to the rules of the groundwater conservation districts, which are locally elected bodies that seek to manage aquifers for the long term and dole out permits to farmers and other water users.

The bill approved today contains additional emphasis on the conservation districts' roles than in its original version. Fraser worked with Sen. Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock, who had introduced a different bill on landowner rights that gave more emphasis to the groundwater conservation districts' importance. Duncan's concern was that declaring landowners' vested ownership interest — something understood in Texas today but not explicitly stated in the law — would lead to litigation among the various stakeholders in Texas water. However, he declared himself "very comfortable" with the version of the bill that passed today.

The three senators voting against the bill were José R. Rodríguez, D-El Paso; Kirk Watson, D-Austin; and Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo.

[Tribpedia: Water Supply – Population growth and several droughts in the late 1990's and early 2000's led to more concern over Texas's water supply. Debate over the issue typically finds landowners on one side, environmentalists on the other. Environmental groups support restrictions on water pumping and water use, because droughts proved the risk of a low water supply, and because of the risk it poses for animal species. Landowners argue that pumping limitations could damage the livelihoods of farmers and ranchers. Much debate also surrounds the underground Edwards Aquifer, the only source of water for the San Antonio area. A legal battle that started in 1991 resulted in a ruling in favor of environmental group the Sierra Club, which warned against overpumping, because of its threat on endangered species and a contamination threat to the aquifer. In 1993, the Texas Legislature created a regional Edwards Aquifer Authority to regulate pumping from the aquifer and protect the reservoir from pollution. The law was upheld by the Texas Supreme Court in 1996. Landowners objected to the decision. The Legislature has declared that groundwater conservation districts are the preferred means to manage local groundwater resources. There are now more than 90 GCDs in the state. The Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District was formed in 2001 by special legislation.]

Isaac churning out the MUD bills; HB 3832 probably the biggest gift to developers

This far-reaching bill approves spending that citizens and taxpayers will not be able to contest, and which we can ill afford. There is increasing use of phrases in bills that say voters do not have to be consulted at all for spending that has been outlined in a very general and limitless way

Note: State Rep Jason Isaac's latest electronic newsletter to District 45 constituents (Hays, Blanco and Caldwell counties) makes no mention of the Municipal Utility District and Hays County Development District No. 1 bills he has introduced thus far in his first term in the Legislature. It looks like Isaac is doing a fine job for his land development constituency. All these bills grant taxing and bond sale authority and are skating right along in the legislative process. They will likely wind up on the Local Consent Calendar, which is the free pass place for locally directed legislation.

Three other actually worthwhile bills filed by Isaac, HB 1515 that would put a temporary hold on college tuition increases and HB 2180 that would reduce the noise from outdoor entertainment venues in unincorporated areas, have been hung up in committee since early March. Isaac's HB 3083, to exempt exemplary and recognized school districts from standardized testing for the following one or two school years, has been idle in the House Public Education Committee since mid-March.

Send your comments and questions to roundup.editor@gmail.com, to Ms. Hopson at hopsonbarbara@yahoo.com, to Rep. Isaac at Jason.Isaac@house.state.tx.us (512-463-0647) or click on the "comments" button at the bottom of the story

TexasTribune.org

By Barbara Hopson
Special to the RoundUp

State Rep Jason Isaac (R-Dripping Springs/Belterra) has so far authored four bills to create Municipal Utility Districts (MUDs). The bills all are captioned "providing authority to impose a tax and issue bonds; granting a limited power of eminent domain."

The proposed MUDs are in Hays or Caldwell counties, and the bills are HB 2182 and 2893 (Ranch at Clear Fork Creek MUD No.2), HB 2183 (Ranch at Clear Fork Creek MUD No.1), and HB 3813 (Hudson Ranch Water District). Every MUD is essentially a gift to a land developer, allowing him to tax the people who will live in the area covered by the MUD, to help him pay doing-business expenses.

More alarming and far-reaching than his MUDs, however, is Isaac's HB 3832, "Relating to the Hays Development District No. 1." The Texas Legislature's website shows that the bill was filed on March 31. This legislation offers extensive additions to legislation enacted by the Legislature in 2001. The upshot of the proposed additions is to grant authority to Hays County to spend taxpayer money on almost anything under the sun, and without voter approval. Read the text of the bill, which shows additions by underlining. Especially note Sec 5A which shows all the new items for which your tax money can be spent. Go to the middle icon (HTML) under "Text" and see the (marked-through) wording that is to be omitted from the legislation – phrases such as "after approval by voters at an election."

Sec. 5 is aptly named "Powers." Under Sec. 5A, "Improvement Projects," taxpayers could wind up paying for such corporate frills as advertising, ornate fountains, skywalks, heliports, lakes, golf courses, trails, archways, banners, and almost anything else the developers deem desirable.

This far-reaching bill approves spending that citizens and taxpayers will not be able to contest, and which we can ill afford. There is increasing use of phrases in bills that say voters do not have to be consulted at all for spending that has been outlined in a very general and limitless way.

Especially if you live in Hays County, you need to read HB 3832. It is lawmaker's language for "Dripping Springs Conference Center and General Boondoggle." It is brought to you by land owners and developers who want to make big bucks by selling the pipe dream that a big "conference center" will bring in jobs and business to the Dripping Springs area. This center would be off RR 12, south of the Hwy 290/RR 12 intersection. The site is more than 500 acres in size.

As is usually the case, this sort of Chamber-of-Commerce-economic development-type Trojan horse project – all the planning, construction, paying off of bonds, etc. – will cost taxpayers far more than any economic benefit the community may derive. The profit will go to the people who sell the land to the developers, and to the developers themselves.

There will be some minimum-wage jobs picking up trash and flipping burgers. Even the construction jobs will mostly go to big outfits in Austin, Houston, or San Antonio – where there are firms familiar with this large-scale construction. Local constructors may build a sidewalk or two, or put up a fence.

The local economic development ambassadors will say that people who flock to conferences at the Center will have to pay for lodging and food, but the hotels and the restaurants will be on the premises (or periphery) of the conference center, and customers will only enrich the hotel and restaurant corporate owners. Dripping Springs may take in some sales tax revenue. Visitors may have to pay a hotel occupancy tax when they come to town, but that income will be far overshadowed by the taxes and assessments that citizens will fork over to pay off the bond indebtedness for the next 30 years.

Save taxpayer money and strike a blow for justice

(Reduce or enlarge your browser
screen to fit in the right order)

Clockwise from left: Pct. 1 Commissioner Debbie Ingalsbe, Pct. 3 Commissioner Will Conley, County Judge Bert Cobb, Pct. 4 Commissioner Ray Whisenant and Pct. 2 Commissioner Mark Jones
RoundUp photos

Update Monday, April 4 – Commissioners and Judge Cobb emerged from their executive session today with the judge announcing that the county was taking no action on the case now. Judge Cobb cautioned commissioners not to make public comments while the litigation is pending. (The RoundUp erred in reporting that the special meeting and executive session was to begin at 9 a.m. today. It was posted for 1 p.m.)

Law by politics or by the book?

A special meeting of the county commissioners court is scheduled Monday at 9 a.m. Only one item is on the agenda: an executive session and possible action to follow regarding Texas Heritage Kitchens' pending lawsuit against the county (THK L.L.C. vs Hays County). This is the lawsuit referred to in the open letter (scroll down) from Carolyn Logan to Judge Cobb. All the evidence that has been publicly reported (and in court records) in this foul smelling and deeply politicized case points in one direction – it should be tossed out by the presiding judge. You can bet commissioners, in their Monday executive session, will be talking less about the legal aspects and more about the political stakes. If the court and county decide to maneuver for a cash settlement with the plaintiff, it will be a purely political call. We'll know then that somebody on the court owes somebody big time.

Contact your County Judge and county commissioners, ask them what they're thinking. Urge them to have their outside counsel, Robert Bass, timely file a motion in Judge Ramsey's district court no later than this coming Monday asking Judge Ramsey to DISMISS the Ramus suit against Hays County, and to have attorney Bass present oral argument for dismissal at the 9am hearing on April 12th at the Hays County Justice Center in San Marcos.

Background

Four years ago Hays County commissioners' court, in a 3 - 2 vote, revoked a septic system permit wrongfully issued to Nick Ramus by the County's Environmental Health Department.

Three years ago visiting district judge Robert Pfeuffer from New Braunfels granted Ramus a Partial Summary Judgment in his crooked suit against Hays County. That court order gave Ramus the green light to seek attorney fees ($78k) but the order has languished for three years without any action by Ramus or his attorney. This was a suit that former county commissioner Jeff Barton and Commissioner Will Conley encouraged, promoted and possibly facilitated to cover up wrongdoing in the County's Environmental Health Department and to use as a political club against then County Judge Liz Sumter. Conley's and Barton's sorry plan failed and they just wanted the suit to go away, especially after Ramus was convicted of deadly conduct.

Now Judge Charles Ramsey has ordered a hearing in district court on April 12th to consider why the Ramus suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. This is good news for county taxpayers if the county acts now.

It means Ramus' Dripping Springs attorney, Skip Newsom, must explain to Judge Ramsey why the order wasn't acted upon and why this suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. If Judge Ramsey dismisses the suit the County can save taxpayer money and diminish the wrongful decision by Judge Pfeuffer that in essence declared the County does not have authority to enforce its laws.

It's vitally important that you contact County Judge Bert Cobb and your county commissioners and urge them to have Bass file a motion to dismiss and to present oral argument for dismissal at the April 12 hearing.

The County has a great opportunity to save taxpayer dollars, protect its authority and to seek justice. Why would anyone on commissioners' court not want this suit dismissed? Urge them to file and argue for dismissal.

County Judge Bert Cobb
bert.cobb@co.hays.tx.us
(512) 393-2205

Commissioner Debbie Ingalsbe (Pct.1)
debbie@co.hays.tx.us
(512) 393-2243

Commissioner Mark Jones(Pct 2)
mark.jones@co.hays.tx.us
(512) 262-2091

Commissioner Ray Whisenant(Pct 4)
ray.whisenant@co.hays.tx.us
(512) 858-7268