March 2007

March 4, 2007 14:57 - Rockin'J Withdraws Request for Plat Approval

Water News for Blanco County And Beyond Issue #16

In This Edition:

a.. Current Drought Conditions
b.. Rockin' J Unit #4 Request Withdrawn
c.. Condos Planned for Rockin' J
d.. What is a MUD and Why You Should Care
e.. Report on Feb 19 Public Hearing
f.. "Texas: The State of Springs" DVD to be Available
g.. Did You Know - Groundwater Facts

Current Drought Conditions

US Drought Monitor, Feb. 27th - Blanco County, TX - D3: Extreme (Highest level is D4: Exceptional)

Rockin' J Unit #4 Request Withdrawn

County Judge Bill Guthrie's office has reported that the Rockin' J has withdrawn, at least for now, its request for final plat approval of 400 additional lots in what is called "Unit #4". The developers have one year from Preliminary Approval to renew the request to move to Final Approval. That period will expire at the end of September, 2007.

This is potentially good news for those concerned about high density population growth in our county.

Now, unfortunately, here is some not so good news...

Condos Planned for Rockin' J

As a result of ongoing monitoring of filings with the Blanco County Clerk's office, Preserve Our Water has learned that on January 22, 2007 Rockin' J developers filed a "Declaration of Condominium".

This declaration describes the first of three planned multi-family units to be located within the Rockin' J. The document describes the planned structure as being 3 stories tall. The building will accommodate a total of 12 units. The document also specifies that these condos may be used as "timeshare" apartments.

The Rockin' J was initially presented to citizens and officials of Blanco County as a rural development with relatively large lot sizes. Over time, we have watched those lots shrink to the point where many are now well less than one acre. In addition to lot sizes that more resemble a suburban development, we now have the prospect of multi family dwellings.

Although this most recent filing specifies only a single building, with the potential for two more, those lots are adjacent to 600 acres not yet platted for development.

Preserve Our Water will continue to monitor this and other growth developments as closely as possible.

What is a MUD and Why You Should Care

MUD, in Texas statues, stands for Municipal Utility District. A MUD requires the consent of at least half the land owners in the area that will constitute the District. One can come into being by legislation or the regulatory action of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. They are established for any of a wide variety of purposes, primarily (but not exclusively) having to do with water. In general, a MUD has the power to levy taxes, incur debt, make rules regarding its operations, and seize property for a variety of purposes through "imminent domain".

An advertisement recently appeared in the two Blanco County papers. Most of us probably glanced at it, saw it was a full page of legal descriptions and passed it by.

However, some took note of the full page ad and realized it was a public notice of intent to create a MUD. The legal description refers to an area of 5,850 acres, 90% of which lies in northern Blanco County along Hwy 71 in the Spicewood area.

Others may have noticed the article in the Austin American-Statesman on February 25th regarding a contract between the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) and a development named Rancho San Miguel. This contract is for 2,500 acre feet of water per year to be drawn from the north end of Lake Travis.

It is the Rancho San Miguel partnership that seeks to create the MUD. In this case, the primary purpose of the
MUD is to serve the water and sewage needs of this residential development. The article went on to note the irony of this contract in the face of comments by LCRA executive, Joe Beal, a week or so earlier in which he warned rice farmers and others of pending water restrictions due to low water levels in the Highland Lakes resulting from the ongoing drought.

Rancho San Miguel plans for approximately 6,000 homes. Those homes will sit on lots less than one acre in size. The development will have a 650 acre golf course and "greenbelt" with another 100 acres reserved for commercial development. The US census reports that the average household size in Texas is slightly less than 3 persons per home.

That suggests housing for 18,000 new residents. If lots sizes shrink, as we have seen so often elsewhere in the county, even more homes may be constructed. The MUD to serve this giant development will be much larger than is
typical; most such Districts serve much smaller areas and populations.

The fact that in this case the development partners own all of the property in the area to be served means the normal process of soliciting land owner support for the MUD is unnecessary.

Legislation has been prepared, but has not yet been filed, to create this MUD.

Preserve Our Water, in collaboration with the Hill Country Alliance and private land owners in Blanco and Burnet Counties, is monitoring this legislation closely. Hopefully there will be an opportunity to influence the legislation.

That effort might seek to incorporate such provisions as;

a.. assure proper contamination protections of ground and surface water in the area served,
b.. restrict impervious cover to avoid reducing aquifer recharge,
c.. require sound conservation practices by builders and residents,
d.. prevent the drilling of private wells and,
e.. provide incentives for rainwater harvesting.

For more information or to get involved in the efforts to influence this "mega development", contact Preserve Our Water at pow "at" moment.net .

Report on Feb 19 Public Hearing

As reported in the last Preserve Our Water newsletter, a public hearing was held on Feb 19th in Johnson City.
Faculty and students from UT conducted this hearing as part of a program to assist the Groundwater Conservation Districts (GCD) in "Groundwater Management Area #9", of which our GCD is a member. The specific project
is to develop a description, based on sound science and the range of public interests, of the "desired future state" of groundwater.

Texas statutes require that all Groundwater Conservation Districts complete this definition by the end of this year.
Milton Hawkins, a land owner and resident of Blanco County, prepared the following report on one aspect of that hearing. His report appeared in the March 1st edition of the Johnson City paper and may appear in the March 7th edition of the Blanco paper. Here is Mr. Hawkin's letter, as published:

Whenever we're dealing with a complex issue, like the effect of growth on the availability of water (including the sustainability of water levels) here in the Hill Country, we often long for the perfect illustration, one that will present the situation with clarity and a minimum of comment. Those of us who attended the recent public meeting conducted by a research team from UT-Austin witnessed just such an illustration.

The team has been studying groundwater issues in the Hill Country to help the local groundwater conservation districts develop and consider options for "desired future conditions" for Hill Country aquifer use. At the meeting, held on February 19th in the PEC Auditorium, the team members gave a summary of their activities and then
invited public advice and comment.

After several presentations highlighting the fact that, given a static or declining supply of surface and underground water, increased development comes at the expense of water availability, the moderator of the final program segment posed two options for the audience.

In simple terms, the choice was this: Which would you rather see, (1) less growth, with the water you have now (i.e., current or close-to-current water table levels and spring flows), or (2) increased growth, with significantly less water (i.e., reduced aquifer water levels and reduced spring flows)?

When asked for a show of hands, eight of the landowners present raised their hands to indicate their support for the first option. Only one landowner supported the second option.

No, as illustrative as it certainly is, this 8 - 1 ratio favoring conservation of water resources is not the perfect illustration I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the fact that the lone supporter of growth at the expense of water availability was none other than the general manager of our own Blanco-Pedernales Groundwater Conservation District, the very person the directors of that district have appointed to make major permitting decisions, such as granting the owners of the Rockin' J development the right to pump 185 million gallons a year from the aquifer many of us in this county depend on daily for water for our homes and livestock.

Before it's too late, please ask yourself a few questions. How much growth, and what kinds of growth, can this land stand? How big a load can it carry? Who benefits from more growth, and who suffers? And who's looking out for your interests, and those of your children and grandchildren?

How would you have voted?

"Texas: The State of Springs" DVD to be Available

This extraordinary documentary on water resources in Texas, produced by Lee Smith of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, aired on Feb 15. The program featured an interview with Blanco County's J. David Bamberger about his award winning efforts in range and water resource restoration and conservation. Also included was a segment on historic White Springs located very close to the Rockin' J development.

Preserve Our Water has copies of the DVD of this program on order. Once we receive them, copies will be placed in all county Middle and High Schools and in both libraries in the county.

Anyone interested in showing the program to a community group should contact Preserve Our Water at pow "at" moment.net for arrangements.

Did You Know - Groundwater Facts

In the article, above, regarding Rancho San Miguel the term "impermeable cover" is used in connection with aquifer recharge.

This term is not one that we hear every day and its meaning and implications are not necessarily obvious. However, the health of uncontained aquifers - like the Trinity or Ellenberger - is heavily dependent on the absence of impermeable cover.

Readers of this newsletter feature will recall that our aquifers receive, on average, only about 4% of rainfall as recharge.

A critical factor that reduces that recharge is covering the ground with material that prevents penetration of rainwater into the soil and beyond to the aquifer, many feet below. Roads, driveways, parking lots, roofs, patios, and other hard surfaces that cover the ground are called "impermeable surfaces" as they prevent or limit such rainfall penetration.

In largely rural areas the total percent of impermeable cover is quite low. However, as residential and commercial development continues and accelerates, that impermeable cover percentage can grow, rapidly.

Two types of development that most contribute to impermeable cover are high density residential developments, like the Rockin' J, Rancho San Miguel or Ranches at Brushy Top, and massive, sprawling commercial developments like shopping malls or large office complexes.

A study commissioned by the Hays/Trinity Groundwater Conservation District found that when a development exceeds as little as 25% impermeable cover, the aquifer recharge rate begins to suffer. In Hays County it was discovered that some developments were 90% covered by impermeable material.

However, it is possible to build such residential and commercial developments in a way that minimize such cover and still affords the business interests a fair return on their investments. These are among the practices that our county officials should be, but are not, encouraging much less requiring. Even if developments like Rancho
San Miguel take the water from surface sources, they can still be real threats to our aquifers.

To reference this entry please copy the url in this link: (Permalink)

March 4, 2007 17:50 - Renewal of the Water Production Permit for the Rockin' J Development (Background)

On March 16th, 2006, the Blanco-Pedernales Groundwater Conservation District issued a water production permit to Rancho del Lago, Inc., developers of the Rocking J, for 185,000,000 gallons per year. In reaction to the many concerned citizens that attended a... (Read Article)

To reference this entry please copy the url in this link: (Permalink)

March 20, 2007 19:26 - LCRA to Consider Road Permit for Rancho San Miguel

Preserve Our Water has learned the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) has received application for a road construction permit from the developers of Rancho San Miguel, the 6,000 home subdivision proposed for northern Blanco and a small area in southern Burnet Counties.

The deadline for public comment on this application is end of day this Wednesday, March 21. Any citizen in this area has the right to offer their comments to the LCRA.

Background

A road construction permit is required in this case because the road, the primary access to the development from Hwy 71, lies in Burnet County.

That county agreed to have LCRA enforce their water quality provisions within the county. Among those provisions are rules related to pollution and silt run-off from road surfaces that can contaminate surface water in the area and down stream. Blanco County officials have thus far not agreed to have LCRA play this role.

The personnel from LCRA responsible for administering and enforcing these rules examined the proposed road in the summer of 2006 and were told by the developer the road was for agricultural use, only. As such, it would be exempt from the water quality provisions.

However, those same LCRA staff became aware that the road was, in fact, intended to provide access to the development. They learned this only following the granting of a contract for 2,500 acre feet of water, annually, to
Rancho San Miguel developers by the LCRA. The enforcement division issued a "cease and desist" order upon learning the truth about the road halting construction and triggering the permit process.

Action Needed

If you would like to express your views about this road and its potential to affect water quality adversely in Double Horn Creek, Krause Springs or other water features of the northern part of our county, please submit your comments to Tom Hegemier at tom.hegemier "at" lcra.org .

You may want to consider this bit of information as you think about your comments.

Traffic studies have reported that the average home in a suburban development (which Rancho San Miguel certainly would be) generates 10 vehicle trips per day. The developers suggest a final "build-out" of 6,000 homes. Even if the average in this area is half the national norm, that would be 30,000 trips, per day, on that
roadway.

Comments received after the March 21st deadline will be considered, but to have greatest impact, please try and have your comments in before the deadline.

For further information, please contact Preserve Our Water at pow "at" moment.net .

To reference this entry please copy the url in this link: (Permalink)

March 22, 2007 23:39 - Patrick Rose Proposes Constitutional Ammendment for Greater County Powers

Blanco County officials have long argued that their "hands are tied" when it comes to regulating and managing development activities. Their arguement has merit as the Texas Constitution does place limits on those powers and the courts have frequently been unhelpful... (Read Article)

To reference this entry please copy the url in this link: (Permalink)

March 26, 2007 10:23 - Gov't Officials Beginning to Side with Citizens

WATER NEWS FOR BLANCO COUNTY AND BEYOND #17

In This Edition:

a.. Current Drought Conditions
b.. B-PGCD Directors Election
c.. Groundwater Desired Future Condition Planning Update
d.. Rancho San Miguel Report
e.. Rockin' J Unit #4 Status
f.. Rockin J and its Water and Sewer Permits
g.. Did You Know - Groundwater Facts

Current Drought Conditions

US Drought Monitor, March 20th
Blanco County, TX,East half - D1: Moderate
Blanco County, TX, West half - D2: Extreme

(Highest level is D4: Exceptional)

B-PGCD Directors Election

The Blanco-Pedernales Groundwater Conservation District has announced an election for two of the five director positions; those for Precincts 3 and 4. That election will be held on Saturday, May 12th in conjunction with elections in each of the county school districts, Johnson City and Blanco city elections, and a Texas Constitutional Amendment vote. Early voting will begin on April 30.

More details regarding polling places and times will be provided as the dates draw near.

Preserve Our Water, as a not-for-profit corporation, will not endorse any candidate as our tax exempt status strictly forbids such activity.

We do, however, strongly urge all county voters, regardless of the precinct in which you vote, to become familiar with all four candidates.

For those in precincts 3 and 4, we also urge that you get to the polling place and express your preference.

Precinct 3 Candidates

Bobby Wilson (incumbent) - Phone: 868-4881 - Email: not available

Bill Davis (challenger) - Phone: 868-0859 - Email: bdavis "at" moment.net

Precinct 4 Candidates

Ron Zunker (incumbent) - Phone: 833-5045 - Email: not available

Neill Binford (challenger) - Phone: 833-4604 - Email: neill "at" moment.net

It is our water and our future - become informed and exercise your right to vote!

Groundwater Desired Future Condition Planning Update

As reported in the last Preserve Our Water Newsletter, the University of Texas is assisting the Groundwater Conservation Districts (GCD) located in Groundwater Management Area #9 (GMA) in the work of planning for the future of our groundwater resources. The B-PGCD is part of GMA #9.

This local planning process, scheduled to conclude at the end of 2007, is a very critical activity, having a profound impact on the future of our groundwater resources.

What GMA #9 determines to be the current capacity and characteristics of the aquifers that serve its member GCD (supply) and the Desired Future Condition for those aquifers (demand management) will guide all future water permit decisions.

The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) will consolidate all of the plans submitted from the various GMA across the state and those data will serve as the basis for state wide water planning, as well. The year
2010 (only 2 ¾ years away!) is the effective date for these planning efforts.

The draft report prepared by the graduate students and faculty is now available on the B-PGCD web site for public review and comment. www.blancocountygroundwater.org

The report is rather technical in parts, but the Executive Summary is very straight forward, as is the summary of public opinion prepared by the students.

For the technically inclined, there is a very detailed critique of the computer model to be used by the TWDB to estimate currently available groundwater. Unfortunately, the students and their faculty advisors are less than enthusiastic about the strength of that model.

As a result, a full understanding of public wishes regarding their local groundwater resources is all the more important.

Please contact Preserve Our Water at pow "at" moment.net for additional information.

Rancho San Miguel Report

It has been a very busy three weeks for the citizens of Burnet and Blanco Counties in the wake of learning the true intentions of the owners of the development company, Blanco San Miguel and their mega-development, Rancho San Miguel.

This very dense residential development of a planned 6,000 homes was originally represented as being 50 to 100 acre plots over the almost 5900 acres. Those in the immediate area felt comfortable that this low density development would represent an acceptable and sustainable level of growth.

However, along the way, plans have changed rather drastically.

Following the LCRA decision to grant a contract for 2,500 acre feet of water per year, the developers turned their attention to establishing a legislatively created Municipal Utility District. Representatives Rose and Aycock and Senator Fraser were approached.

Each of these officials initially expressed either support for the bill the developer's attorney had drafted, or indicated a willingness to support it if the County Commissioners in their districts endorsed it. Concerned citizens in the
area, Preserve Our Water and Hill Country Alliance launched an education effort directed at those state and county officials.

That one-on-one effort in Blanco County included a Workshop held by the Commissioners Court on March 13th.
Approximately 60 citizens attended and over a dozen rose to speak - in every case voicing deep concerns and asking the Commissioners to either withhold their support of the measure or to at least go slow and give very detailed consideration to the matter.

The developer's representatives arrived 20 minutes late - to the very great displeasure of County Judge Guthrie and the Court.

Attorney Joe Allen (one of the most prominent proponents of MUD in the state) and development company partner Larry Meyers represented Blanco San Miguel. Mr. Allen spoke for about 15 minutes, extolling the virtues of MUD creation in and around Houston. Many of the benefits he described related to the financial interests of developers.

Commissioner Sultemeier and Judge Guthrie each challenged some of Mr. Allen's assertions, particularly a
report prepared by another large developer that argued the economic benefits to counties.

The developer, Mr. Meyers, then spoke for a few minutes. He talked only of the money he had spent promoting his large lot plan, all the places he advertised and how he had not had a single interested buyer.

Judge Guthrie allowed citizens to question Mr. Allen. It was clear from the questions that his and Mr. Meyer's presentations had been neither reassuring nor persuasive.

Interestingly, neither spokesperson for Rancho San Miguel noted the power of eminent domain that comes with a MUD - the power to take privately owned land both inside and outside of the MUD boundaries.

At this time, it is unclear whether the Commissioners will consider a resolution of support for the legislation.

Meanwhile, Rep. Rose is reported by his staff to have withdrawn his support, independent of what the Commissioners might do. Both Rep. Aycock and Sen. Fraser staff reported the officials plan no support unless both
counties endorse the measure. A meeting with Burnet County officials later in the week resulted in an understanding that Burnet County would not endorse the MUD.

The developers may now turn to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to create the MUD.

As all of this was occurring, the engineering and water quality folks from the LCRA got into the matter. In the summer of 2006, Blanco San Miguel notified both the TCEQ and LCRA of its intention to build a road, estimated to be 14 miles long, from Hwy 71 south into the center of the development.

However, both in discussions with LCRA staff and in the TCEQ filing, the developers represented the road to be for
agricultural purposes. This was after telling local residents of the planned "large lot" development (a road for agricultural purposes is exempt from water quality provisions).

When the LCRA staff learned their agency had granted the water contract they understood the road was certainly not for agricultural use. A "cease and desist" order was issued, halting construction on the 2.6 miles that is in Burnet
County, where LCRA water quality provisions apply. The developers then immediately filed for a permit for the road with LCRA, seeking the least stringent provisions allowed.

Unfortunately, those same provisions do not apply to Blanco County, for reasons that remain unclear. Preserve Our Water is investigating to understand why these prudent safeguards for ground and surface water have not been extended to Blanco County.

Operating on only a week's notice, citizens across both counties mobilized.

By the deadline for comments, over 30 letters of opposition had been received by Tom Hegemier of the LCRA. He has indicated that it will take staff about 30 days to work through the letters, many being very detailed, reflecting the contents of the application to LCRA and an earlier engineering report filed with the TCEQ.

For now, Preserve Our Water will keep a close eye on our Commissioners Court agenda and legislative fillings, as well as those at the TCEQ while waiting on the next step in the process with the LCRA.

Rockin' J Unit #4 Status

The Blanco County Judge's office reports that the plat request for Unit #4 of the Rockin' J has been re-filed.

Apparently the request granted preliminary approval last fall was withdrawn in January to be redrawn. It is still unclear what prompted the redrawing of those lot plats. The original and new plat maps will be compared and results reported as soon as possible.

Interestingly, a review of postings at the Court House indicates 20 purchasers have now defaulted on property in the Rockin' J, a near 100% increase in less than a month, when the number was reported to be 11.

Rockin J and Its Water and Sewer Permits

More problems for the Rockin' J.

At a hearing on March 7th, the TCEQ granted a land owner, whose property adjoins the development, standing to protest the wastewater plant to be located near his property.

TCEQ staff and its Office of Public Affairs agreed. So did the TCEQ Board, directing a "Contested Case" process be initiated to examine and resolve the protest. They granted up to 9 months for this process.

Although the protest of the public water supply has been settled through a negotiated settlement, it appears that the permit has yet to be issued. Clearly, it will now be some time before the wastewater permit can be issued.

Yet, it is reported that new homes have been occupied and 10 or more are observed to be under construction.

Since there have been no permit requests for private wells or septic systems, one has to wonder; what will those residents do for household water and sewage disposal?

Did You Know - Groundwater Facts

How much water is there?

Well, while no scientist can answer that question with confidence, one thing does appear to be true; all the water in the world today is just about equal to all the water there has been for a few billion years. However, what makes the question so hard to answer is, in part, a result of the fact that the water moves around, constantly.

Generally, water is found in one of three places.

There is the groundwater that most of us in Blanco County rely on. Then there is surface water. Surface water is found in two general forms, fresh water and salt water. Around the world many people rely on fresh surface water from rivers, natural lakes and man-made lakes and reservoirs.

The people living in the City of Blanco rely heavily on surface water from the Blanco River and from Canyon Lake.
Some places in the world actually rely on salt water from the oceans that has been made suitable for drinking through the still-expensive process of desalinization, that is, removal of the salts and minerals found in the oceans that results from materials collected by rivers flowing into the sea, over millions of years.

Some surface water exists as snow or ice. Clearly, the ice sheet in Antarctica holds a huge amount of fresh water, the Artic ice cap less. Snow melt in many areas is a critical source of fresh water when it flows down streams and rivers during the spring thaw.

Most of the rest of the earth's water is in the air, experienced as either humidity or clouds.

It is the processes of evaporation from surface water sources and "transpiration" by plants that moves the water from the surface of the earth to the sky. When the rain falls, as it eventually does, that water goes into surface water
sources, either directly or by run-off, or it soaks into the ground. What the plants do not absorb can find its way back into the groundwater aquifers.

Well, there is an exception to that rule. That exception is the rainwater harvested by people around the world for as long as humans can remember!

Next time: The best water available, rainwater.

For a useful picture of the "water cycle", see www.blanco-texas.com/water-cycle.html

To reference this entry please copy the url in this link: (Permalink)