|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Friday, November 21, 2014
The Election Day story you never heard
Land Trust Alliance
Thursday, November 20, 2014
[SaveBartonCreekAssociation] Hays Water Pipeline Plan Falls Short
19 Nov 2014
Austin
American-Statesman
By Sean
Collins Walsh scwalsh@statesman.com
Regional Water Group Plan Runs Dry
The Hays County Commissioners Court on Tuesday defeated a
proposal to establish the Central Texas
Water Development Corp., a governmental entity that would have attempted to recruit
regional actors in the hopes of building
a water pipeline to growing counties.
After the 3-2 vote,
County Judge Bert Cobb, who championed the measure, said he didn’t see the
defeat coming and that he was
“disappointed” in the court. “Politics
is a contact sport,” he said. “Nobody has any solutions. They only have
negativity.” Cobb singled out Commissioner Will Conley, who gave a speech criticizing the
plan before the vote. Conley said the task of developing water sources could be
accomplished by an existing entity that has credibility in the Legislature and
that the proposal lacked important details, such as where its initial funding
would come from.
“I think it’s quite a fantasy to think you can
create an organization within the next two months and that you can walk into
the Legislature with any sense of credibility,” Conley said. To Cobb’s criticism,
Conley said he understands the judge is “passionate” about the issue of water
security. “I think when he takes a deep breath and calms
down, he’ll realize that we’re not opposed
to his goal,” he said. “We just want to be smart and strategic.”
Commissioners Debbie Gonzales Ingalsbe and Mark Jones also
voted no, saying they didn’t have enough information about the proposal. Cobb said
he hasn’t decided whether he would try to raise the issue again anytime soon. Travis County and Leander were expected to
join the initial board of the water development corporation. Following the Hays
decision, the Travis County commissioners tabled the measure Tuesday, and the Leander
City Council is expected to do the same Thursday.
The original goal for the corporation was to bring together
counties and cities across the region to build a public pipeline carrying water
from sparsely populated areas with ample supplies, said Pix Howell, a consultant who helped create the proposal. But
the group failed to recruit the water-rich jurisdictions — such as Bastrop, Lee
and Burleson counties — and the goal shifted to starting a conversation on Central Texas’ water needs, educating
potential members about water opportunities and lobbying the Legislature.
“What became apparent
is everybody had a completely different idea of what was necessary,” said
Howell, who received a $25,000 retainer from the county to develop the plan.
“If you could identify how you put a regional system together, something that’s
controlled by the public but can have lots of private investment, at least then
there’s an honest broker.”
Lee County Judge Paul Fischer said Tuesday that he “did not
feel comfortable” with the proposed organization because he fears building a
pipeline could result in over pumping as such counties as Hays, Travis and
Williamson continue to grow and deplete their own water sources. “We don’t mind sharing water, but we need to
do it slowly,” Fischer said. “We could have 15 straws down there bringing the
water up and shipping it out.”
The Hays
commissioners this year voted to buy water rights in Lee and Bastrop counties
from the Austin firm Forestar, but so far there is no way to get that water to
Hays County. Conley was the lone dissenting vote on that deal.
Tuesday’s defeat in Hays County comes two weeks after the
San Antonio City Council approved a $3.4 billion private pipeline to carry water
from Burleson County. Cobb said Monday that Hays County might approach the San Antonio Water System about
attaching to its pipeline, which goes through Hays County, to bring in the
Forestar water. “We don’t have to have a
whole lot of gas; we can ride horses. But we’ve got to have water,” Cobb said
in court Tuesday. “We have to provide certain things.”
CENTRAL TEXAS WATER TUG-OF-WARS
#1 The Hays County/Forestar Agreement
We
have all heard "Whiskey is for drinking, and water is for
fighting."This comes from the history of the Western states when water
was so obviously the lifeblood of ranching and farming, and rules were
few and far between. Water rules and laws are now in place, but water is
still our region's lifeblood, and the water tug-of-wars continue.
CARD
sponsored a "Water Crisis" Community Meeting on September 11th this
year to give the big picture about water issues locally and across
Texas, along with useful information for personal water use. Feedback
from the meeting indicated that people are eager to learn more about
water issues, especially local issues. This is the first of a series of
CARDtalks on topics that are current and relevant to our area.
The Hays County/Forestar Groundwater Reservation and Purchase Agreement
Hydrogeologists
- who study underground water specifically - have known for many years
that the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer that lies east of IH 35 in Burleson,
Lee, Bastrop, Caldwell, and Gonzales counties, has a large amount of
untapped groundwater. Private water marketers, anticipating a future
desire for new sources of water in growing Central Texas, approached
landowners in those counties and secured leases to pump groundwater.
These leases would be subject only to reasonable regulation by the local
groundwater conservation districts that issue permits for pumping.
Explosive
growth is expected in our area, South Central Texas, over the next few
decades. Population projections show this region passing 3 million
inhabitants by 2020, and going over 4.3 million by 2050.* On April 24,
2013, the Hays County Commissioners Court embarked on an ambitious plan
to secure "new water" to meet the future demands of growth. Hays County
initially developed a "Request for Proposals" asking potential water
suppliers to submit proposals for providing 25,000-50,000 acre-feet of
water per year to Hays County. An acre-foot of water is 326,000 gallons.
The only responder to the Hays County request was Forestar Real Estate,
an Austin-based water marketer. Forestar had purchased water rights in
Lee County about 65 miles east of Hays County and proposed to develop a
well field to pump 45,000 acre-feet (14.6 billion gallons) of
groundwater each year and sell that water to Hays County.
Hays County accepted the Forestar proposal and negotiated a Groundwater Reservation and Purchase Agreement
that was approved by the Commissioners Court on Oct. 1, 2013. This
agreement was subject to an opinion from the Texas Attorney General
assuring Hays County that it had legal authority to proceed with the
agreement. The AG declined to issue an opinion. However, the Hays
Commissioners Court proceeded anyway, following the legal opinion of its
staff attorney.
Meanwhile,
the Bastrop/Lee County area Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation
District has permitted only 12,000 acre-feet (about 3.9 billion gallons)
a year to Forestar. Lost Pines believes, based on its hydrologic
studies, that any pumping by Forestar greater than the 12,000 acre-feet
per year will deplete the aquifer over the long run. Forestar is now
suing the District and its individual directors to get the full amount
requested - 45,000 acre-feet per year.
The
Hays-Forestar agreement, as finally amended and approved by the
Commissioners Court on May 13, 2014 by a 4-1 vote, requires Hays County
to pay Forestar $1,000,000 for year 2013 (already paid) and $400,000 in
subsequent years to reserve permitted (12,000 acre-feet) and unpermitted
(33,000 acre-feet) groundwater. The current agreement anticipates that
the $400,000 reservation fee will be paid for five years or until
pumping and purchase of water actually begins. The $400,000 reservation
fee is just an option fee and does not reduce the cost of any water that
Hays County may ultimately purchase.
Currently
Hays County has no customers for this water, and the payment to
Forestar is coming from general tax revenues, not from utility
customers. This means that Hays County taxpayers will be paying two
bills for water: one to Forestar (from taxes paid into the Hays County
general fund) and one to their present water supplier or - if they don't
have a water supplier - what they pay to build and maintain their
private well or rainwater collection system. Therefore, Hays County
taxpayers will see no benefit from the Forestar water reservation
agreement.
What
is essential to understand is that if Hays County, in some future year,
actually gets the water, there would be a far greater additional price
for delivering the water. The County, or some other entity, would have
to build a large pipeline approximately 65 miles long to deliver the
water to Hays County water customers. The cost of this pipeline would
likely exceed $300 million for construction, plus additional and ongoing
operating expenses.
In
a separate but related exercise, Hays County Judge Bert Cobb has held a
series of meetings with officials of other counties seeking partners in
this Hays County water enterprise. He wants to create a "Utility
Development Corporation" (UDC) in partnership with several other
counties and develop a plan and agreement for utilization of this Hays
County reserved water. So far, no other county or entity has agreed to
join with Hays County to form the UDC. (There is yet another development
- A recently-disclosed proposal on the November 18th Hays County
Commissioners Court agenda would have allowed the creation of a "Central
Texas Water Development Corporation." The proposal failed, 3-2.)
All of which makes this plan an expensive "wait and see" proposition for the Hays County Commissioners Court.
Hays
County citizens should be aware that enterprises such as this could
dramatically increase the cost of water and burden the water system's
owners and customers with large long-term debt and operating costs. CARD
believes that the Commissioners Court, in coordination with other area
governments and water purveyors,should develop a Regional Water Plan
that shows the public the real costs of such new water supplies and
also shows whether the impacts it will have on the Hill Country and its
aquifers are sustainable.
CARD
also believes that any groundwater pumping in central Texas must be
done on a sustainable basis. That means the amount of groundwater
withdrawn from the aquifer does not exceed the amount of recharge of the
aquifer based on the best science available.
*State Regional Water Plan for 2016, Region L
CARD Steering Committee
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Conservation News and Info from TLTC
|
|||
|
2015 Texas Land Conservation Conference - Networking Dinner Announced!
 |
Networking Dinner Announced!Join us for our 2015 Networking Dinner at Matt's El Rancho in South Austin on Thursday, March 5th! The Networking Dinner is complimentary for all full-conference attendees, and guest tickets can be purchased for $35.00.
Matt's El Rancho2613 South Lamar BlvdAustin, TX 78704
Schedule At-a-Glance Released
Check out our Schedule At-a-Glance to see session topics and general agenda timing.
 Register Now and Save
Early Bird discounts will be gone before you know it. Early Bird Deadline: December 12th, 2014
Click below to register today:
Interested in being a
|
 Sign up for conference updates: tltc@iemshows.com Become a TLTC Member Today! For More Information, please CLICK HERE For more information call (512) 358-1000 |
| www.texaslandconservationconference.org | |
X-mTrak-cID: 6a339b10-3a22-4f82-87d7-8890e235e568 |
TEXAS WATER SOLUTIONS 11/07/2014
Next
Steps for San
Antonio’s Vista
Ridge Project
By
Tyson Broad
This blog
was written with the
assistance of Amy
Hardberger,
Assistant Professor
of Law at St. Mary’s
University Last week, the
San Antonio City
Council unanimously
voted to move
forward with the Vista
Ridge Project
that plans to bring
50,000 acre-feet of
groundwater from
Burleson County to the
city. Because of our
many concerns
with this project, the
vote was a
disappointment, but
last Thursday’s
Council deliberation
did stir some
positives worth
discussing.
Edwards
Aquifer Protection
Environmental
groups have been
publicly criticized
for opposing the Vista
Ridge project. Project
supporters argue
environmentalists
should support the
project reasoning the
additional water will
reduce pumping on the
Edwards Aquifer.
Indeed, it does seem
that initially the
water from Vista Ridge
could help reduce
pumping on the
Edwards. But the San
Antonio Water System
(SAWS) has made no
written commitment to
reducing pumping from
the Edwards once Vista
Ridge comes on-line.
And what
happens down the road?
Pumping 50,000
acre-feet from
aquifers in Burleson
County is not
sustainable.
Groundwater models
have shown that this
amount of pumping will
result in over
300 feet of drawdown
in water levels. San
Antonio is not worried
about this because the
Vista Ridge partners
are assuming the risk
of groundwater
cutbacks and San
Antonio only has to
pay for the volume of
water actually
delivered.
But San Antonio
should be worried.
SAWS assumes ownership
of the pipeline to
Burleson County in 30
years, as well as a
right to renew the
groundwater leases.
Only, what happens if
there is not enough
water? San Antonio is
relying on the water
for growth. If that
volume of water is not
available after in the
future– which it won’t
be – San Antonio is
going to return to
fully pumping from the
Edwards and seek yet
another water supply
costing billions of
dollars.
Conservation
and Land Use
Another aspect
of this project that
created concerns for
environmentalists is
that the influx of
water could deter SAWS
from continuing to
maximize conservation
efforts. Several
council members asked
SAWS President and CEO
Robert Puente to
pledge a continued
commitment to a strong
water conservation
program. Mr. Puente
assured them that as
long as he was
President, he would
continue such a
commitment. Mr. Puente
also noted that the 2012
SAWS Water
Management Plan
(WMP) calls for 16,000
acre-feet of water
supply to come from
water conservation by
2020.
That sounds
great, but as council
members Ron
Nirenberg and Shirley
Gonzales noted,
that is just a promise
and we should rely on
the city to make good
on it. Indeed,
vigilance over the
SAWS Water
Conservation Plan is
critical. Why? Because
1) SAWS’s 2012 WMP
makes no commitment to
water conservation
past 2020; and 2) the
public perception of
some is that SAWS has
already exhausted its
opportunity for water
savings from
conservation. Councilman
Saldana
colorfully noted this
when he stated that
SAWS has ‘cut to the
bone on using that
tool’.
Even though
SAWS’ has made great
strides on
conservation, there is
much more left to do.
New water conservation
programs have shifted
from reducing indoor
savings to reducing
outdoor water use
by offering landscape
coupons and irrigation
rebates and
consultations. As
outdoor water use
accounts for up to 50%
SAWS’ water summer
usage, water savings
from these programs
can reap significant
savings.
Demand-reduction
programs need to
continue and SAWS
should commit to
maintaining the amount
it spends per customer
on these programs.
In addition to
SAWS’ President,
Council also
made commitments
towards water
conservation. One fact
the Vista Ridge
discussion highlighted
was that all growth is
not created equal and
while SAWS is
responsible for
conservation programs,
they can’t do
everything. The city
needs to manage growth
to ensure the
sustainability of
existing water
resources.
Specifically, Mayor
Ivy Taylor
expressed an interest
in examining current
land use ordinances to
assist in water
protection. This is
critical for two
reasons. First, much
of the new development
in San Antonio is over
the Edwards Aquifer
Recharge zone. Not
only do these new
developments use more
water, they threaten
the recharge and water
quality of the
Edwards. Second, the
landscaping of these
new homes defines the
size of its water
footprint. Xericaped
lawns without
irrigation systems
have a much different
impact than lawns with
large lots of
irrigated turf grass.
This is where the city
can and should play a
role. Limitations on
the amount of turf,
particularly in the
front lawns, as well
as requiring that
irrigation systems can
only be installed
after-market with
proper inspection
would help control the
water demands of new
homes while still
ensuring their appeal.
Buying water
from Vista Ridge
should mark the
beginning of a public
recommitment to water
conservation and
aquifer protection in
San Antonio. SAWS,
City Council, and the
citizens of San
Antonio should work
together to put
ordinances in place
that redefine this
commitment.
The post Next
Steps for San
Antonio’s Vista
Ridge Project
appeared first on Texas
Living Waters
Project.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)