WATER NEWS FOR BLANCO COUNTY AND BEYOND # 21In This Edition:
a.. Current Drought Conditions
b.. Blanco County District Judge Rules Against B-PGCD
c.. Round Mountain Ranch Development
d.. Did You Know - Groundwater Facts
Current Drought Conditions
The Drought Conditions feature of the Preserve Our Water Newsletter is being, thankfully, suspended. Let's hope it stays that way for a good, long time!
Blanco County District Judge Rules Against B-PGCD
Blanco County's District Judge has issued his ruling on a motion filed by the Blanco-Pedernales Groundwater Conservation District (defendant) requesting the court to dismiss the lawsuit pending against it. The judge's opinion, issued and filed on June 27th, denies that request.
Judge Mills wrote in concluding his ruling,
"The court after considering the argument of the parties and reviewing the motions filed by the parties is of the opinion the Defendant's Plea to the Jurisdiction should be in all things DENIED [emphasis in the order]."
The defendant argued the court lacked jurisdiction due to the Rockin' J Ranch pumping permit application - the matter in dispute in the lawsuit - not being "Contested". The defendants offered an interpretation of the law and District Rules in support of their argument.
The plaintiffs, several Blanco County individuals and the organization Preserve Our Water, argued to the contrary that the plain meaning of the law and the Rules, in light of facts surrounding the issuance of the pumping permit, clearly pointed to a "Contested Case". The plaintiffs also argued that all required administrative steps required by law to resolve the matter prior to resorting to a lawsuit had been completed in a proper and timely manner.
The judge, citing relevant sections of the law, rejected the defendant's argument that the Rockin' J permit application was not "Contested".
The judge quoted from arguments filed by the defendants: "although there was 'a lot of opposition, expressions of concern and many questions this did not, pursuant to a "judgment call" by the General Manager, rise to the level of a 'Notice of Protest' requesting a contested hearing." [emphasis in the order].
The judge detailed how the written submissions and verbal statements did, in his view, meet the criteria established by the law and District Rules for such a "Notice of Protest". The court ruled that the permit application was, in fact, contested and that the plaintiffs did, therefore, have the legal right to bring suit.
Judge Mills also took note of the failure of the B-PGCD to make a recording of the hearing, as required by state law.
As a result of this shortcoming, the judge wrote that he had to rely on the documents submitted by the plaintiffs in support of their argument that the permit application was contested. The judge found those documents, as well as those submitted to demonstrate the plaintiffs had taken all necessary steps to resolve the matter administratively, provided sufficient evidence to support the plaintiffs' arguments.
Preserve Our Water and the individual plaintiffs are, of course, pleased with this ruling by Judge Mills. We hope the case can now go to a hearing before the judge on its merits. Of course, the District is fully within its rights to have sought to have the case dismissed.
However, their claims and arguments were clearly far too much a stretch for the judge's judicial appetite.
Read Judge Mill's seven page ruling.
The judge took several opportunities to critique the District's conduct. During the hearing on the matter he made it clear to the defendant's attorney that he was quite uncomfortable with the attempt to limit citizen access and participation; that sentiment is well reflected in his written opinion.
While the plaintiffs are hopeful that the case can now go to a hearing on the merits, or that negotiations for a settlement can be opened, the District does have other options available to delay and seek to avoid that direct examination of the manner in which the permit was issued.
During the August 15th, 2006 meeting, at which time the District denied the administrative Request for Rehearing (as Judge Mills notes, on the very last day for them to do so) Director Tom Murrah sought to convince his fellow Board members to grant the request. He said at the time that while he really believed the District had "done nothing wrong", he felt that would be the best way to dispose of the matter.
Those citizens present were certainly hoping he would succeed, but unfortunately, he did not. Now, many thousands of taxpayer and citizen dollars later, that opportunity is once again available to our elected officials.
Perhaps they will get it right this time.
Round Mountain Ranch Development
Those who live in the northern half of Blanco County or frequently travel Hwy 281 through Round Mountain, may have notice billboards announcing a new residential development, Round Mountain Ranch. The development's web site indicates that the lots are 3-5 acres in size and that a public water supply system will be provided.
In response to an Open Records Request filed by Preserve Our Water, it has been learned that the B-PGCD received an application for an Operating Permit for three wells within the development.
The application requested total annual production of 20 million gallons. The total acreage reported in the application is 471 acres.
While this development does not present the massive population increase of the nearby Rancho San Miguel, there are aspects of this permit application that raise concerns.
The lot map on the web site indicates just over 40 lots. With annual water requirements per household of about 165,000 gallons (based on widely accepted average consumption figures), the total household water needs will be about 6.5 million gallons.
What is the useful purpose for the remaining 14 million gallons?
Because 40 lots at 3-5 acres each only account for, at most, 200 of the 471 acres, it may be that the developers plan to expand the number of lots. Some of that excess water they seek to have permitted to them may be in reserve for that purpose. If so, that intent is not present in the application for the water production permit.
We will continue to monitor this new development and report any new aspects that may be of interest.
Did You Know? - Groundwater Facts
What are monitor wells?
In the case of Groundwater Conservation Districts, they are wells used to keep track of the level of the aquifers within a district.
The data provided by these wells are critically important in groundwater management for a number of reasons. The data are a vital component of estimating the capacity of the aquifers.
The data, complied over time, allow geoscientists to better understand aspects of aquifer performance such as how quickly and to what level an aquifer rises after rainfall. When wells are monitored at various points in the aquifer, the interactions underground can be better understood (what the scientists call "transmissibility" - how readily the
water flows among the many fairly small pockets of water that make up aquifers in our area).
The monitor wells also help understand how new wells in an area affect existing wells.
Among the counties in this area, most groundwater districts have 20 or more monitor wells in operation. The GCD in Hays County, though it has jurisdiction over only part of the county, operates over 20 wells.
However, Blanco County has only 9 monitor wells. One is located in the front yard of the B-PGCD office. One is located near the Pedernales River. The remaining 7 are scattered about in the southern part of the county.
When asked why new monitor wells have not been established in the northern part of the county, the Board responded that they could not find abandoned wells to use for this purpose.
This reply was less than satisfactory given that private wells, in use by their owners, are being used to monitor aquifer levels in Landon's Crossing subdivision and the nearby area.
The lack of monitor wells in the vicinity may be a concern for area residents as Round Mountain Ranch begins to develop. Perhaps they should ask the question again of their B-PGCD Director, Bobby Wilson: why are there no monitor wells in our area?
