Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, October 12, 2010,
Item 3
Number 3 is a public hearing to receive comments regarding an amendment to chapter 82, Travis County code, to adopt temporary subdivision plat approval requirements regarding the availability and protection of ground water from the trinity group aquifers.
>> move the public hearing be open.
>> second.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> good morning, anna bolin and to be webber, Travis County t.n.r.
>> good morning.
>> it has been contemplated that we amend our chapter 82 to add a plat approval requirement regarding the availability of water from the trinity group aquifers.
Travis County is rapidly growing and it's estimated that there will be an 84% increase in population between 2000 and 2040.
and with that growth also comes corresponding growth and water demand.
portions of western Travis County have experienced some difficulty getting water during times of drought in the past, and this is an area that although it's in a priority ground water management area, there's not a conservation district to help regulate the water that comes out of those wells in that area.
so chapter 82 is proposed to be modified to have -- to apply in western Travis County for areas that are outside of the city of Austin's e.t.j., to suspend the ability to do a final plat using water from the trinity until there is more information about the trinity.
also, I would want to point out that this -- it's proposed that there is a suspension that would last until October 31, 2011, but that suspension could either be shortened in time or extended depending on -- on whether or not we have rules in place to help -- to help deal with this situation.
tom, do you have anything to add?
>> yes, I'd like to add just two points before we open this up for comment.
with regard to the trinity aquifer, it's important to understand the fate of ground water that once it's recharged into this aquifer.
there's a lot of discharges from this aquifer that occur pretty readily.
in order of most importance to least, there's the loss of water right out this aquifer back into streams and springs.
there's lateral flow of this ground water that leaks into the edwards aquifer to the east, pumping, of course, is a big loss, and there's vertical leakage to the lower trinity aquifer from the higher zones.
so to subpoena rise, the trinity you can -- to summarize, the trinity only gains water when it rains and when it rains the water that is gained is readily lost.
at least one model developed by Texas water development board in 2000 indicates that the trinity group aquifers in Travis County may experience declines of 50 to 100 feet in response to projected demands and droughts similar to what we experience understand the 1950s, which was the drought of record.
the second point I wanted to make was to add on to what was discussed about the one-year potential suspension, short or long.
what we anticipate doing in that period of time is first off internal research and analysis of nearby county regulations who have also looked closely at management of the trinity aquifer.
meeting with local and state hydro geologists and experts to get feedback on managing this aquifer, and internal development of a straw proposal rule, then to host, facilitate and have a series of four -- approximately four, less or more, stakeholder meetings that we would like to ensure was inclusive of all interests on this issue.
then to actually get to the formal rule proposal for court consideration, publication, holding a public hearing, revising the draft as necessary and review of those comments.
and then finally adoption of that rule.
so that's -- that's what the suspension anticipates in terms of what we would be doing during that time.
I think I'll leave it at that at this point.
>> a point of clarification, this proposed rule only applies to those subdivisions using the trinity aquifer as a source of water, right?
>> yes, ma'am.
>> I was asked a question about projects already in place and whether they would be grandfathered.
what's the answer to that?
>> well, that's a legal question and naturally we would consult very closely with our attorney, but depending on how the rule is written, if the court elected to go forward with this proposed modification, that could be addressed in even the writing of the rule.
>> but are we asked today to adopt a proposal?
>> I believe that's the recommendation.
>> well, as of today, though, would the projects in place already be grandfathered or not?
>> you would first have to look at the circumstances surrounding the particular project.
the chapter 245 of the local government code, which is the grandfathering law, is very complicated and often requires a very fact specific evaluation of the project, when it's started, what stage of the project it's in.
the -- it's a statute that there is leeway to interpret, so I think the answer I'm most comfortable giving right now is I'd like to go to executive session and I can explain some of the details of that and tell the court what your options are with regard to the grandfathering issue in this rule.
>> okay.
court members, anything else before we start getting citizens comments?
>> I had one other question with regard to the table in the back of the backup.
it appears from the table that these other rural counties, bandera, gillespie, kerr and medina, all have stronger policies than ours as they currently stand.
is that a fair description?
>> yes.
>> and that all of these counties are certainly less populated, now I want to make sure I'm not jumping to conclusion, because there is significant use of agriculture in these counties she but would it be a true statement to say that these counties have less of a demand overall for the ground water than travis does?
>> I think there's probably a mixture of issues here, but some of these counties don't have surface water supplies to the extent that we're blessed with.
exceptions might be things like canyon lake, but I think there's individual situations in each of these.
some have more agriculture than others, for instance, and some have urbanized areas greater than others.
>> would it -- and the way I'm looking at this is it appears that these other counties on the trinity are -- are behaving responsibly and we should -- we could through this suspension see how we could be a better partner lest we be sort of the water hogs in the neighborhood.
I think that we have the potential if not having arrived at being the water hogs on the trinity aquifer.
>> if I may.
>> is that a question or statement?
>> that was a statement.
>> [laughter]
>> tom, you might want to elaborate just ever so briefly on the pigma status in southwest Travis County and how that relates to the seven other counties in the trinity that were designated as a pigma in 1990.
>> yes, in 1990, what was then the Texas water commission designated the hill country, several counties in the hill country, I think the once that Commissioner Eckhardt just mentioned as part of the hill country priority management area because of known and expected ground water shortages.
Travis County is among those.
now, this entire pigma area has decided to move forward and manage ground water through the formation of conservation districts with the exception of western comal and southwestern Travis County.
the other counties all have -- have -- have ground water conservation districts.
in some ways I like to consider that the default role when you don't have a ground water conservation district is to look at what other ways in which you have to manage ground water and one of them is what we can do during platting as kind of a consumer protection effort.
there's -- there's not -- but even that falls short of what we ultimately should be trying to do to manage this limited resource because we don't have the capability or the capacity, I should say, to -- to research and regulate things at the pump to ensure that, you know, there's a lot of -- we can manage things through the platting of subdivisions, but there's a lot of other things besides platting of subdivisions that would result in withdrawals of ground water.
so we find ourselves in a situation where we have frequent droughts and trying to do what we can to just manage this resource better.
>> thank you.
>> I guess I might just add that the tceq has determined that it's going to move forward and propose a ground water conservation district and in late October there's a preliminary hearing and then a formal hearing after that to take evidence on the formation of a proposed district which would include southwestern travis and western comal as well as the western part of hays county into sort of a new -- new ground water conservation district.
that hearing and everything would take several months and then a formation of a district could be -- could be determined by the Texas commission on environmental quality.
the Commissioners would act and then there would be a matter before the voters of that area to confirm and establish that district.
>> thank you.
>> we probably need one of those chairs.
is the mic on the end live?
is it?
>> yes.
>> do you want to sit there then.
we have a sign-in slip that somebody was thoughtful enough to provide with the following.
would the five individuals please come forward, pepper, jane lowenthal and jennifer phillips.
as one speaker furnishes, I will call another name.
>> judge, could I request to be first because I have to leave.
would that be okay?
>> that's fine with me.
>> all right.
my name is gene lowenthal.
I live in the hampton area.
as tom pointed out, southwest Travis County is in a pigma.
we should have had a ground water conservation district many, many years ago yet we in the community who depend upon well water for daily essentials are still unprotected.
so I and many other homeowners in our community applaud the efforts of the Commissioners court to put in place interim rules until the tceq does take that step to create a ground water conservation district.
I'd like to emphasize that m.u.d.
areas.
by way of example I point out that we have a subdivision in our neighborhood where the homeowners get lcra water, no problem, right?
but the developer has pumped hundreds of thousands of water to keep an amenity pond full.
I talked to several gcd representatives and they all say if southwest Travis County had been covered by a gcd, such application would have been severely limited or possibly even prohibited as waste.
so I guess by way of example, I would also say that's a good reason why we ought to consider grandfathering for this particular subdivision or any other subdivision currently using ground water not only for homes but common areas.
thanks you for your attention.
>> thank you.
pepper -- is it pfister?
>> pfister.
I am going to read from a paper written by kelly preen, who passed away in 2007.
this paper was written probably 2005 or 2006.
kelly was born in blanco county in the early '50s and I don't know for sure, but I'm pretty sure that kelly in his lifetime walked every inch of our hill country out in western Travis County and in blanco county.
an amazing man.
we all miss him.
the title that he used on this is a lesson to learn, and I think we are learning it.
it's taken way too much time but we're learning, we're on our way.
he says in Texas the drought of the 50s is the drought that all others are measured by.
the fragile soils of Texas in our case the hill country were overstocked with cattle and sheep.
irrepairable damage was done from overgrazing and plowing soils not suitable for cultivation.
the ranchers went from cattle too to sheep and finally angora goats to try to scratch out a living during a seemingly endless drought.
there was enough rain for hope but not enough for calves, land or cotton.
soil and water conservation guidelines and livestock stocking rates were all revised after this relentless dry stretch that lingered from 1951 to the fall of 1957.
our then topsoil soils either blew away or washed away after it finally did rain.
the families that lived on these farms and ranches did not intentionally damage the country.
they were trying to survive the best way that they could.
I currently live in western Travis County just a mile or so from the blanco county line.
the growth in this area has been tremendous in the past 10 years.
with property now in short supply, this area is a microcosm for what blanco county may look like in years to come.
it started in blanco county several years ago.
western travis and western hays counties are examples of what can happen when unregulated growth is allowed.
there are currently over 8,000 lots approved residential development within a 4-mile radius of highway 71 in the pedernales river.
one subdivision, west cypress hills, has built 60 homes with another 340 to be added.
they draw their water from the trinity aquifer, the same aquifer that serves much of blanco, burnet, hays and Travis County.
with 60 homes currently occupied a conservation estimate is they are using 1.5 million gallons of water per month.
this water used includes roadway medians and right-of-ways.
they have five 3-horsepower pumps available or running 24 hours a day and that may have changed.
there are over 50 wells that have run out of water, mine being one of them.
in my particular situation, I had 100 feet of water over the pump when it was installed in 1976.
I recently dropped the pump 10 additional feet and production was extended for another three weeks, but I am now seeing muddy water.
the number of failed wells in western hays county especially in the hamilton pool road area is over 100.
the water shortages are brought on by development, drought and a lack of conservation efforts.
by looking at the areas that have been overdeveloped, we can see the limitations on the aquifer.
it is really simple.
if you try to take out more than is being put in, you run out.
after these high density subdivisions are approved by county officials, the doors open for problems. Water is a concern.
excuse me.
but there is also traffic, septic and other infrastructure items to consider.
we learned in the 50s that we had overestimated the livestock carrying capacity for the land.
today we must add people to the equation and realize that there are limitations to our water resources.
there are solutions and they start with careful planning and prudent decisions being made by state and local officials.
and that's the end of this, but I know if kelly was alive, he would give you all two thumb up for the effort.
thank you.
>> thank you.
hank smith is next and david smith and hugh winkler come forward.
>> thank you.
Commissioners Huber, Eckhardt and judge Biscoe for having this hearing.
my name is hank smith, district engineer for cypress ranch wcid number 1, which serves west cypress hills which was talked about by pepper.
we currently have over 100 residents.
we've grown since that report was written to over 100 at this point in time.
we do rely on ground water.
we draw that water out of the trinity aquifer.
we have a treatment facility that treats that water and distributes it to residents.
we do have a fairly stringent ground water water conservation program.
we monitor every user's use every month, print that up, look at it.
if someone is cruising more water than they should be we give them a letter telling them they are using more water than they should.
we got approval from a 210 permit from tceq so we can irrigate the medians with wastewater effluent.
we've also gone to the lcra and gotten a permit from the lcra to withdraw water from Lake Travis and got even permission from them in written form to extend the waterline down 71 to our property to serve the back half of the development.
if the economics work out on that situation, we would extend that.
right now where we're at with 100 units, it doesn't make sense to spend $4 million to serve 100 residents.
but if development continues and we build up that development, then the economy what we have estimated will support a waterline down 71 to serve the development.
the district has four wells in the trinity aquifer right now.
one thing is a curious note, during this drought ofni record over the drought the last several years, our wells were virtually unaffected.
we had no draw down and we monitored them on a weekly basis, we monitored the level of the aquifers and wells and had no issues whatsoever pulling water out of the trinity.
talking to some of the hydro geologist ins that area, the trinity is very unique in that it's -- you may have a 10-acre tract of land and you can put a well in and get all the water you need.
you may have a 10-acre tract next door and can't get any water.
it's very unique on where you are located more so than the amount of water you are pulling out of the aquifer.
so there are some unique circumstances there.
our district is relying on the future growth in order to pay for itself.
we have sold bonds for our district.
and if we cannot continue to grow and develop the property within our development, the existing homes on the ground can't support the infrastructure we put in place.
that district would go bankrupt and go out of business.
and so grandfathering is a critical aspect for what we are looking at.
we have to be grandfathered.
the district was created by the state legislature.
we have a ccn, a right and obligation to provide service to these customers.
we have approved preliminary plans and plats and have to continue growing those areas.
the trinity aquifer is unique also in that it is not local to the hill country.
the trinity aquifer extends north up at least to the oklahoma border.
I didn't go on past oklahoma looking at the map.
it goes at least to oklahoma and south through uvalde county almost into mexico.
it is a huge aquifer.
so by looking at just a small part of western Travis County, you're looking at just an in fin test mall percentage.
the aquifer is massive going through dallas fort worth, the oklahoma area.
so the impact of a moratorium in a small area is going to have no impact on the overall status of that aquifer and how it relates to the other areas.
the district again has implemented some very extensive water conservation programs. We've worked with the lcra on those programs and implementing those as well.
I have talked to state representatives in this area, state regulators and the tceq and water development board about the need for on moratorium and consensus is there is no need for a moratorium in this area.
there is a need for additional studying.
everybody agrees the smart step is put together like a coalition to go out and study and find out what the going on and what regulations the county needs and build consensus among stakeholders and present that back to the legislature as a consensus and say this is the additional authority we need to properly management this resource.
what we have found in recent years is if the counties go to the legislature asking for more authority but don't do that with did consensus of everybody involved, it's going to be very difficult to get anything passed.
it's difficult enough to get things passed when you have concensus among the stakeholders, but to go without consensus is going to be even tougher.
and we would like to sit down and build concensus with the county in a cooperative effort and then go to the legislature where we all sign off and say this is the right approach.
I don't think a moratorium gets us to that point.
but I do think studying that matter will get us there.
in terms of the ground water conservation district that's looking to be created, there's 96 water conservation districts in Texas right now.
adding the 97th is not going to be the solution.
when you look at the fact that Texas has roughly nine major aquifers running through it, there's 16 planning regions.
the planning regions are based on a county by county basis.
the ground water issues aren't base on the aquifer, they are not based on the planning areas.
it's a very mixed bag of regulatory authority out there.
and I don't think anybody is going to stand up and say it's the right way to regulate things.
it will come in and try to get a different set of regulations on just a quarter of a county makes it even worse.
you've got to look at this thing as a global perspective and a regional solution as to what needs to be had, bringing in the city of Austin, lcra, the other ground water conservation districts in the area to all come to a single solution is what's going to solve the problem, not creating a ground water conservation district over one quarter of Travis County.
in summary, I don't think this is an issue that warrants a moratorium but warrants planning which Travis County can take the lead and I would applaud them taking this effort.
why are we by passing tceq process?
they are looking at hearings at the end of the month.
it's not going to be a short process.
it's going to drag on for a long time.
the legislative session is nearly here.
why not youth lies the stakeholder process to notice the needs and develop consensus on legislative solution.
the trinity aquifer covers a huge part of Texas.
we are talking about a small impact but could have a very large impact on western Travis County.
with virtually no benefit to the trinity aquifer.
with that I'll be available to answer any questions and again, I applaud your effort, but I don't think the moratorium is the right approach to take.
>> any questions?
>> I would just like to make a comment or two.
first of all, it's a I want room rule, it could be short wered or length end as we look at the stakeholder process.
secondly, you pointed out early in your testimony that the trinity aquifer is unique in that you may have a pocket of water like you have found apparently at west cypress hills that is fruitful and demonstrated sustainability.
I would argue that is just exactly the reason why we need to look at western Travis County and focus on it because it is ahigh population growth.
the interim rule could benefit in maybe keeping a 40 or 50-acre subdivision going in next to it and pulling off your well.
the legislature, we have tried to go the route of the legislature for the ground water district.
we have not received the kind of support that we would like to have enjoyed from the real estate community to get the ground water district in plays with the appropriate structure.
I personally have problems with the structure tour as proposed with tceq right now.
we need to work together on those.
you said yourself it was a very long process.
I don't think we can wait with the kind that they are projecting southwest Travis County to be one if not the most intensive growth efforts as this economy turns around in this area.
so we are at risk.
people with wells, even west cypress hills are at risk.
I would like to say this too.
hank, you were not on board when this was planned.
I was not in this office when west cypress hills was planned and I want to applaud alan and you for coming together to solve the problems that were there.
I believe that any subdivision that's already out there under construction approved should be grandfathered.
that's me speaking.
but I believe that we really need this now as we move forward because of the intense population growth.
>> thank you, mr. Smith.
mr. Topfer is next and would john ducalek please come forward.
>> good morning.
alan topfer and I am the developer of west cypress hills.
I've been an investor in west cypress hills since its on set and we had some issues that forced me to move into an area business that I had not had history, but we've taken over the project and that goes back about six years now probably.
I think we right the ship and moved in the right direction over time.
since this has all been put forward, I've been working with mr. Smith to try to understand the implications of the language in the interim moratorium and as the county attorney referenced, it's somewhat ambiguous.
my purpose here today is to understand the grandfathering aspect and request that a project that's currently eight years old has a vision to get on surface water as we can work with lcra and potentially Briarcliff as an alternative source of water is certainly our objective and it's something we've been working on for a very long time, but it's been a long process.
so I can't say I'm for or against the moratorium because it's ambiguous.
hanks has met with a number of city officials -- or staff, I should say, to try to understand the language in the moratorium.
and we look forward to the clarity that will come later.
hopefully this is going to apply to new projects, not ones that currently have preliminary plans approved like west cypress hills.
west cypress hills is a three phase project and it is just phases 1 and 2 that have preliminary plans that we're looking for ground water, trinity be the source.
the third phase which we are targeting to be a surface water solution.
I worked with ms. Morris through the tough times and the good times.
the letter she referenced in '07 referenced 60 homes.
we just do have shortly over 100 homes out there now.
as hank mentioned, we have not had any issues with the -- with the drought that existed over the last few years.
we have been working with lcra and with the city of Briarcliff.
we have a letter from lcra saying they would provide water, but a lot of this is economic.
there's a great deal of capital tied up in this project already and there will be a great deal of capital required to put outgoing forward in order to provide a surface water solution.
it's something that we are inclined to do.
the economy needs to turn around and we need to get enough rooftops out there to warranted it.
we've got 1100 acres in our project and there's an adjoining landowner, it's about 100 units of water.
mr. Smith can talk about that after me.
we're also going to provide them water as well.
our long-term solution is surface, but right now in dealing with lcra and city of Briarcliff it's been tough to get there thus far.
I believe chapter 245 should give us the grandfathering that we require for our project and hopefully based on the final language that's to this moratorium if it happens it will accommodate that.
since I've been the developer at west cypress hills, we have done a lot of things to fix problems of the former regime.
we have built 72 lots in the subdivision.
we've built a significant amenity center and we've also built a walking trail system in the proximity to a waterway, although mostly dry, but when it rains it gets wet and I've not gone notified of any negative issues that we've caused and I think that's represent it commitment we have to develop appropriately in the hill country.
and the last point I would make on that is when the interim rules that are currently in place came out, we self-elected to comply with them.
we had preliminary plans already approved, but seeing the way they laid out and that it was the right way to develop in the hill country, we experienced a lot of the negatives that can potentially happen if not done appropriately.
we self-elected to comply with those interim rules and we would hope that coupled with existing approvals would give us the grandfathering for the phases 1 and 2 of our project so we can continue to move forward.
thank you for your time.
appreciate it.
>> may I ask a question.
>> thank you.
yes.
>> actually perhaps it's an assurance, but it's my understanding that we can't go beyond -- we are bound by the local government code 245.
so if that provides you assurance with regard to the grandfathering provision, we cannot provide less grandfathering than the local government code requires.
>> okay.
>> alan, I just want to say thank you because I know the effort you've put into trying to look to the future for this project.
and I want you to know that you can count on me for any help you need in moving towards your surface water destination.
because -- and I applaud you for recognizing that that's the answer in the long run.
>> thank you.
>> deeply appreciate it.
>> thank you.
ms. Phillips is next and would christian muse please come forward.
>> good morning, Commissioners.
>> good morning.
>> my name is jennifer phillips.
and I would like to say a few things.
the policy director for Karen Huber provided me with the rough draft 2011 plan for region k.
the state demographics states that the population has risen above the previously projected estimation for 2010, primarily in the hill country.
I'll be educating you on the importance of water conservation, how it affects the people locally and how you can help.
we all know it's important to conserve water, but really it's now more important than ever.
region k, the lower colorado river authority is my home.
the land site sweetwater is approximately five miles down the road from my house.
this area was foreclosured upon and reclaimed by bank midwest after a developer's vision for 1500 homes failed due to the economy.
now there are at least four capable developers interested in the land.
local spicewood resident alice rotz her well ran dry and she had to bring in a truckload of water three separate times each amounting to around $80.
my own family had to lower our well in search of tapping into some water.
this was shortly after the development west cypress hills appeared right across the street from my neighborhood.
an interview with michael nellie reveals there are certain areas of land just not suitable for large scale development.
there are natural limitations to development in some regions.
just like you wouldn't put a ski resort in west Texas, you should not put a large neighborhood in an area that lacks water.
personally I'm concerned with spicewood's well-being because it's my home and community.
on a greater scale, stated in a study done by researcher r.j.
foster, there are nine endangered Texas regions for conservation necessity and trinity aquifer is one of those nine.
with all the recent rain is there a water shortage?
we live in Texas.
honestly the droughts are going to come.
in the same study, foster presents us with the data that water demand is expected to grow by 27% in the next 50 years from 2010 to 2060.
and during that same period water supplies may decrease 18% based on current contracts, permits and infrastructures.
I a representative of spicewood support a moratorium in order to prevent further harm or additional costs to existing homeowners.
why do people move to the country?
there's serenity and wide open spaces and peace.
we left the city in order to be at peace.
you hear birds chirping all around you, not the sound of construction all day every day for the last three years.
what can we do though?
people are going to come and they are going to develop.
at least we can be smart about it.
as beautifully proclaimed by the film flow for the love of water, it's not a democratic issue, it's not a republican issue, it's a people issue.
thank you.
>> thank you, ms. Phillips.
david smith is next.
>> my name is david smith.
a consulting engineer.
I represent both the large projects.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners] the trinity aquifer extends all the way under Travis County to arbitrarily stop it at i-35 and say that subdivision and growth that's happening in the east Austin is not going affect the trinity aquifer is simply wrong.
you can drill through the edward's and hit the trinity in eastern Travis County.
why do they get the break and continue to use the water when western Travis County does not?
a groundwater conservation district based on your staff's analysis is not financially viable.
it -- according to the information it cost about $250,000 a year to run.
the income is between 20 and 40,000.
that's not a very good business model that we want to get an entity that loses $250,000 a year.
the option is to have a tax district.
I don't think anybody here feels undertaxed and will vote to create more taxes, especially through a groundwater district that most of the people paying the tax already are on surface water.
residents of Lakeway, Bee Caves and the other areas aren't going to vote for a taxing district.
so there's the viability issue.
the small property owners are going to get hammered by this.
a person that owns 20 to 40 acres, wishes to divide it into three or four lots and meeting all of the interim rules, are suddenly faced with an indefinite moratorium based on the well water availability.
I think it's a fairness issue.
the large landowners can get around it and have the financial resources to provide surface water.
the county has the ability to finance surface water.
probably not the interest in doing that.
but my primary concern is the grandfathering.
that projects with existing approved preliminary plans and final plats should be grandfathered.
thank you.
>> thank you, mr. Smith.
>> I have one question for mr. Smith.
how would you respond to the situation where have you -- let's hypothetically say someone who is from out of state, didn't familiar with Texas, comes in and buys 60 acres of land in western Travis County, subdivides it into 40 lots with the purpose of each lot -- the source of water would be a well on each lot for the trinity.
and then they go out and sell it to someone who wants to come and live in the hill country without the water wells having been drilled.
what is to protect those people who come from houston and want to retire in the hill country and lie bye a lot thinking they're buying a lot in a subdivision and they will have water available without the proof of it?
>> the current county regulations require well tests, and I don't think that any well driller will guarantee that if I go to this location and punch a hole that you're going to have water.
I don't know that there's a good solution other than extending surface water, which I'm a proponent of, but there are economic considerations.
and as -- I agree with hank smith that it's a difficult problem and need as larger solution than a moratorium, indefinite moratorium in a portion of Travis County.
>> the other point I would like clarification from tom maybe, I've seen maps of the aquifers in Texas.
I don't believe the trinity goes east of i-35.
can you speak to that?
>> the trinity aquifer is east of i-35, but it's -- it's a down dip and it's become saline.
>> thank you, mr. Smith.
hugh winkler is next and would raymond slade please come forth?
mr. Winkler?
>> thanks, Commissioners.
I'm hugh winkler, a resident of Moore drive right off of hamilton pool road in western Travis County.
and we have a well in the trinity where an updip, I would say, from these developments here, west cypress hills, which is competing with us for water, and other future developments.
and I would just like to say I eagerly look forward to voting for extra taxes for groundwater conservation district to help protect homeowners like me and for the developers who have mentioned their economic issues, drawing down our water and our home would be a huge economic issue for us personally.
so I think that we can make that -- both of us have competing interests there.
>> I think that this proposal to have a moratorium for the duration until we can get that gcd in place is just super reasonable.
I don't see that it's gcd not happening.
we really need it badly out there.
and we need something to protect us in the meantime until we can all get together and make the right rules.
so thanks a lot for your attention.
>> thank you.
mr. Duplek is next.
and if you did not sign this sheet, but plan to testify on item number 3, please come forward.
yes, sir.
>> thank you for the opportunity to speak before on this important matter.
my name is john dupelek.
>> [ laughter ] I'm representing the barton springs edward's aquifer conservation district.
I'm a licensed professional geo scientist and I'm also a staff member at the district.
and we're here to serve as a resource in order to aid your decision in this very important matter.
our district and our board feels like it's very important to encourage any efforts aimed at achieving organized and coordinated groundwater management in this area.
in fact, as most of you know, our district supported legislation last session, sb 2474 filed by senator kirk watson and a companion bill filed by representative bolton to annex the area into our district.
as Commissioner Huber alowe lewded, that effort failed.
we believe not due to the merits of the bill, you but for other reasons.
the issue of creating and establishing district coverage in the area is very important priority and remains a priority to our district.
so first offer -- I've got a handout if you mind if we would get them.
>> if you would hand them over, we'll pass them down.
>> first I'll offer you some facts about the trinity offer in this area and the -- the trinity aquifer in this area and the hill country area.
as it's been discussed quite a bit, this part of Travis County was included in the hill country priority groundwater management area, which was designated in 1990.
and what that means is when an area is designated as a priority groundwater management area or a pigma, means that the area is experiencing or expected to experience critical groundwater supply shortages within the next 25 years.
so I took a look at that report in 1990 that designated the areas of pigma and I pulled out some fairly presht quotes that I think are applicable to today's situation.
in that report it says the primary problem in eart is continuing declining water levels in the aquifer and potential for groundwater shortages over the next 20 years.
that was 1990.
here 20 years later we have evidence of those shortages.
in fact, 2009-2006 in the extreme drought there are reports of hundreds of wells going dry.
so that in fact has come true.
another quote.
very significant long-term net water level declines have occurred at groundwater withdrawals for use of public water supplies that.
is also been the case as evidenced by this figure.
I've given you and I'll just briefly jibe cha it's telling you.
these are figures that were compiled in the recently completed hydro geological atmus.
it includes the western part of Travis County.
and you will notice that the second and third hydro graph there represent two wells within the middle trinity aquifer within the pigma and you will see the tree line that shows a steady decline of water levels over time from data that begins in 99.
and these annual rates of decline are on the order of about 2.3 to two feet per year and there's no reason that those trends won't persist.
another quote from the report says that the largest declines including 154 feet of decline from 1949 to 1986 at the st.
steven's episcopal school.
that was the only well of relevance in this area that I could really report to you.
I looked at the reported water levels relative to the 1950 levels that were measure understand 2009 and in fact that total decline was on the order of 210 feet.
so I think that was fairly substantial.
so as these graphs show as the trends lines show, this area is susceptible to drought.
you see the water levels come up and down.
in this area it's not a matter of if a drought will happen, it's when.
and it's just a matter of when we see another drought on the order of the one experienced in the 1950's.
all of these natural declines and susceptibility to drought are exacerbated by pump acknowledge, unmitigated an unmanaged pumpage.
we feel that's the problem without a district in place to coordinate and manage the withdrawals in the area.
to sort of demonstrate this, we looked at -- when we were looking at annexation, we looked at the number of wells in the area and just the number of wells on record at the time in 2008 were on the order of about 850 wells.
and that was just -- with 550 of those being drilled since 2002 and that's really a reflection of the data and the database that was created in 2002.
so 550 wells drilled since 2002.
I don't have more current data, but I think it's safe to say thaits probably on the order of about a thousand wells.
all these wells are just subject to the rule of capture.
there is no limitations on pumpage.
and all the things that come with the rule of capture.
and in our district we actually have selfish interest in seeing some sort of management in this area, the upper trinity aquifer is also the source of base flow and spring flow to the creeks and streams that cross our recharge zone.
Travis County I thinks that an interest in health of edward's aquifer as well.
unmanaged pumpage from those shallow trinity wells affects our aquifer by limiting the availability of recharge.
so what does all this have to do with the suspension of plat approvals that's being contemplated here today?
I think it underscores the needs for the creation of a groundwater district.
in fact, the designation of a pigma is suppose to be the first step towards creation of a groundwater district.
and when a district is not created, the tceq is actually compelled to order the creation of a district.
so I think the suspension will buy this area some time to allow that process to take place as mr. H.e.b.ar had mentioned, -- mr. Webber had mention that had process is ongoing.
there is a hearing on October 28th and we hope -- these things move slowly, but we hope to see some sort of creation, not necessarily as part of our drik.
that's not really our interest, but some sort of management of groundwater in the area.
I'll quickly go through some of the points, because as much as of that that are associated with the groundwater district and management through a district, as much as I respect hank smith's opinion, I couldn't disagree with him more in his crack characterization of districts and the groundwater platting process.
groundwater districts are the preferred method of groundwater management in the state of Texas.
it's codified in chapter thrik of the water code.
and it is the only alternative to the rule of capture.
short of a groundwater district there's nothing stopping anyone from sinking a well right next to our property line and virtually mining the water from underneath your property with impugnty.
one of the things that's not often mentioned of a groundwater district that is actually serves to protect the individual groundwater rights of existing users.
and I think that's a very important point.
it also allows the study and the characterization of the aquifer.
one of the real problems with this particular system is that there's a lot of guesswork here, a lot of the modeling, a lot of the estimates as to the condition are extrapolated from the areas in all directions because there's no organized study of it.
a district can serve to monitor, to acquire data, to characterize the aquifer and to really study it and come up with the best management approach.
I think perhaps the biggest point is that the groundwater management area planning process that is fairly recent, has just been implemented, is in process and the only people that are at the table and had a vote in deciding the future condition of the aquifer through this process are those that are represented by districts.
this area is in a pigma, which is identified as having a vulnerable, but it has no seat at the table, no representation in this process.
so if the suspension buys time, allows the creation of a district, then through that district this area gets to have a say in what the future supplies -- what the future condition of this aquifer looks like.
I think it's an important process.
I think it's a 98th district is not a bad thing.
groundwater issues are local issues and that's the intent of the districts to s.
to provide local control with locally elected officials and a local board.
so we feel like it's important to allow -- we feel like it's a prudent decision to approve the suspension and allow for that time to allow that process to develop and allow for creation of a district.
and I think the last point that tom made was that in terms of providing any semblance of management, you guys are it.
you guys are the only authority or the only entity with any sort of authority to do anything.
we feel like this decision is exercising that authority and is prudent and very important.
>> thank you very much.
thank you.
>> I'm speaking as a resident of Travis County, but also speaking as a executive director of the hill country alliance.
we've been working on these issues since 2004.
it certainly isn't new.
it's something that's been debated by community in western Travis County for a very long time.
>> we put together the barton springs today, the hays trinity district, then Commissioner gerald daugherty hosted the meeting with us.
this process has been going on for a long time.
and we are not entering into a new process.
I also want to remind you that they're in the southwest Travis County dialogue, another stakeholder process, the creation after groundwater district was a big topic of conversation.
we spent a lot of time at hca working with the rural landowners and were out in the rural communities.
in the hill country there's two things that are unanimous.
private property rights are the most important value to the people of the region and local control.
those are two things that are spoke of clearly and consistently.
and the landowner community out there feels that having water under their land is a vested property right, onlt way to assure that landowners, large landowners and small landowners, that there will be groundwater beneath their land is through management of that resource.
even the Texas wildlife association, which is advocated consistently for private property rights, feels like groundwater management through groundwater conservation district is the preferred method of managing that resource.
blanco county, gillespie county, bandera county, kendall county, all thieves rural counties have passed growrnd water conservation districts, encowrnd them on their own.
they paid taxes.
they do that because they recognize the value of the resource.
I also want to just reiterate a little bit of what john said about the need for a district in order for western travis to be a partner and involved in regional planning efforts.
not only the gma 9 effort that's going on right now and the hydro atlas that john mentioned, you know, but a few years ago there was the green printing process that was going on, another really valuable process, and there was a big chunk of data, a big chunk of groundwater information and science that was missing from the green print.
and had we had a groundwater district in place, we would have been able to contribute to that.
lastly, and so that I'm not redundant, because john covered a lot of what I wanted to say today, I just wanted to give you all another handout.
we did what we could in 2006 to collect data from area landowners who had suffered from dry wells, muddy wells, having to drill deeper.
pat was working with me at the time.
we set up an e-mail account for dry wells at hca.
I have lots of testimony from landowners throughout western Travis County who suffered during the last drought.
one of the big neighborhoods was deer creek and I'm sure y'all remember that.
they lost their community well.
since then they have gone to surface water, but there continues to be a problem with the small communities in western travis that are even on surface water now because the water rates are so astronomical.
deer creek has been battling double increase in their water rates.
my neighborhood just got a notification from the tceq that our water rates are getting ready to double.
so when that happens, we have residents who are currently on surface water who are not talk -- are now talking about drilling wells because our water company has doubled the water rates.
so I encourage you to take action.
I thank you for listening.
>> thank you for opportunity to comment on your proposed amendments.
I'm rick conway, a 30 year resident of precinct three.
I've been involved in the consulting business for public works and land development for those 30 years.
throughout Travis County and particularly in the western Travis County as well as serving as is city engineer for 15 years for the city of dripping springs and its very large e.t.j., which also includes the trinity aquifer.
I'm not going to talk about the science.
these gentlemen here covered the science for you quite well.
I just want to comment about the balance of the issues.
the moratorium to me is kind of the cart before the horse.
everything you're doing I think is the right thing to do, but to have the changes made such that you kind of change the rules for subdivisions without having all the public input in order to approve those rules in a finality I think is not the right way to get all the interested input that you need.
my comments are simply that I would like to see everything that the staff has proposed and that you would like to do as well with community input, with the professionals, both engineers, science and the public, both economic interests, civic interests and so forth.
but to make the rules and then go back and study it as kind of getting the cart before the horse and a little bit heavy handed when you're trying to balance a lot of competing interests.
so I just ask you to reconsider that issue.
that's my main request.
so that's my comments.
and I really appreciate all the input from the people who really know a lot about the aquifer like mr. Slade.
>> thank you very much.
mr. Slade?
>> thank you for this opportunity to speak in front of you.
I have a handout that I gave the county attorney over there.
it's a one-page handout.
I'm a certified professional hydrologist.
I've been a hydrologist for 39 years.
my entire career has been in Texas and I've authored over 100 reports on water resources throughout the state.
a lot which of include the hill country.
so I'm very familiar with the hydrology of the area.
when I'm -- on that handout I gave you, the one that shows the map, what it shows is the entire area in central Texas is covered with groundwater districts with the exception, of course, of western travis and western comal.
it was mentioned earlier I think that the trinity extends all the way to oklahoma all the way south, however the water in that portions of the aquifer is nothing to do with Travis County.
that water is totally independent from this area.
the trinity aquifer in western Travis County is fed by the local aquifers, local trinity in blanco, hays, kendall, travis and that area.
those blanco, kendall and hays as you can see do have groundwater conservation districts.
one of the problems of not having a district is those districts that are doing the groundwater availability modeling and they're claiming the water in the aquifer.
Travis County has no voice.
they are claiming, for example, the groundwater conservation district in hays is going to allow 30 feet of draw down in the availability water monitoring.
they're claiming and taking the water.
nobody is representing west Travis County.
one of the major problems about having a district is the right of free capture, as john mentioned, and john took a lot of my points, but someone would come in, a commercial industrial developer and put in some big wells and because of right of free capture just literally dry everybody's well up.
a moratorium I think is needed.
the trinity in that area west of travis, hays, comal and bexar, that's the trinity aquifer that's associated with Travis County, just that local area.
so without a district, there's no one to claim and protect the water in the wells and the trinity aquifer.
on the other side of that map, on the reverse side, you see an example of too many wells in the trinity aquifer.
this is an area in hays county down the lower left-hand corner you can see it up near the hays county line, the boundary.
this is along extreme northern hays county and this map was done in 2006, June 2006.
all those dots are wells in the area now.
all those with stars represent wells that were dry in June of 2006.
dozens of dry wells.
as a matter of fact, the drought continued through the end of 2006.
so many more other wells dried up.
this is right there adjacent to Travis County.
I also want to make a point that this drought was not a severe drought.
there had been many other droughts the past 100 years that have been much worse than this.
this was not a severe drought.
it's a matter of time, folks.
we will have a drought like in the 50's, a five-year drought.
there will be a lot of dry wells.
and what's needed is a district to protect that area.
oh, one other thing I'll mention on that map.
it shows the groundwater availability modeling.
as john mentioned, without a district there, there's no one to study the aquifer and produce management tools or what's needed.
that blue scare in there shows -- you can see that's 28 acres in size showing on the map.
that's the area necessary to sustain groundwater withdrawals, according to the groundwater model that was done.
there's dozens of wells on here, maybe half acre, one acre lots or even much smaller, but -- and that's why there's so many dry wells and that's because the area is too intensely dropped and the water is not there to sustain it.
that's basically all I had.
thank you for your time.
>> let me be sure I understood.
the 28 acres in that location is what is estimated to sustain one well?
>> yes.
based on the groundwater availability model that was done, you need that size lot to sustain domestic withdrawals during a drought period.
>> okay.
thank you.
>> thank you, mr. Slade.
and our final speaker today is morris priest.
>> thank you, judge, comissers, morris priest speaking on my own behalf.
I did want to say that I believe that one of the previous speakers mentioned the cart before the horse, and that's pretty much what I believe we have with this situation where these moratoriums in this evolving legislation.
but the county has to look at its unintended consequences and one of them is this, a temporary thing with the laws changing as well as the upcoming legislative session.
I do believe anything that the court does at this time would open itself up to a lawsuit.
I do think that the science is phony.
it's nothing more than weather terrorism.
and it's not substantiated just like the last comment about the 28 acres.
it depends on if it's grass or trees growing on that 28 acres.
so there's just so many things that are -- there are wrong in the science that it's the Travis County Commissioners court saying basically that they're going to control the weather.
so I just wanted to put that on record.
thank you.
>> I would like clarification on two data questions either from john or raymond.
john, you were talking about the number of wells that you had on record.
I know that a lot of the historical wells are not recorded at tceq.
does your number address those or just those that are known and recorded?
>> no.
I think that's an important point.
our analysis was just based on the wells that were records of.
and because there's no district that's inventorying wells, it's all what's available through the department of licensing and regulation.
they license well drillers and they've been accumulating well records since 2002, since their database was online.
all of the other records are hard copy records.
they're not within a database or they've just recently been made available.
and those are all archived at the tceq.
keep dark bowels of the central records and they're just paper copies.
we didn't go through the exercise of acquiring all of those records.
I think it's -- the thousand well number is a conservative estimate.
there's probably much more that aren't on record.
>> okay.
and then also it's said frequently the strongest well pump wins or something like that.
can you address how that affects residential as opposed to a commercial well or a larger well in this aquifer?
>> well, you may be referring to the subdivision that has individual wells versus a centralized system or a large community well.
I think when you've got many straws competing for the same aquifer you can have the potential for more widespread impacts.
one centralized system has many benefits.
you know from an accounting perspective, you know exactly really what's coming out.
you know what the impact is.
it's easier to model.
individual wells, it's a lot of guesswork involved with what the real impact of those are.
but in terms of the rule of capture, it is referred to as the law of the biggest pump.
and that really is the law of the land where there is no district.
and established in 1905 in the famous east case, but it really does support the right for anybody to sink a well and draw as much water as they need as long as it's not for malicious purposes with impugnty regardless of the impact on adjacent landowners.
>> I was just going to say with an interpretation of that without a groundwater district, you mentioned earlier that there's no distance between wells that's really required.
so if you've got a long time resident with a well in one location and then you have, say, a 40-acre supervision comes in, puts a central well to surface 40 lots on there, they're probably going to have a stronger pump adjacent to or nearby proximity to the long-term well.
what would be a scenario of water availability in that sort of situation?
>> I think yeah, in that scenario there are no -- without a district there aren't any well spacing requirements.
there aren't any well construction requirements.
with some platting authority perhaps you can predesign where wells are located generally within a lot where septic systems are located, generally within a lot.
but there's nothing beyond that sort of authority that would regulate spacing.
that is really the critical thing.
without well spacing requirements you can have wells that are too closely located in proximity to each other.
one is deeper, larger, it can certainly have an influence on the larger one.
when you have wells that aren't properly spaced, the overlapping cones of depression is what they call it or the draw down is exacerbated and it can affect both wells.
>> thank you.
>> move the public hearing be closed.
>> second.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
19 is the discussion item.
I do think we time in executive session and in my view it will be who knows, an hour to an hour and a half before we could go there, based on the other items that we need to cover.
I think we should indicate our intention not to take action on 19 today.
but to call up 19 to have any continuing discussion necessary, take that item into executive session.
there are two or three legal issues that we need to discuss, and it looks to me like they may take some time.
so that is so say in my view in you're here on 19, the action item for the public hearing and number 3, I think we should indicate our intention not to take action today.
I will need at least another week on it anyway.
so for those who are here on 19, the question is what do we tell them at this point?
I have had my say.
there are two other members on the court.
>> [ laughter ]
>> I would be prepared to act today, but I see that it would be more prudent to have four members of the court available for this vote.
>> I likewise would be prepared to act today, but I think that based upon the executive session and the need to have discussion, I would be okay with another week.
>> now, I can act today, I don't think we should.
and I don't know when that action would be taken anyway.
so rather than have people waiting around, I think if they come next week, if we indicate our intention to have it on the agenda and take it up early.
you have heard the court.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, October 12, 2010 6:33 PM
