By Laura Kestner, Editor

The Board of Directors of the Middle Trinity Groundwater Conservation District agreed to hire a hydrology firm to asses the groundwater situation in Erath and Comanche counties during their regularly scheduled meeting, Thursday, October 5, at Dublin.

MTGCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS. The Middle Trinity Groundwater Conservation District Board of Directors met Thursday, October 5, at the Dublin City Council Chambers with a large number of visitors in attendance. Shown, left to right, are George Bingham, Boyd Waggoner, Jerry Hinshaw, Chairman Rodney Stephens, MTGCD administrative assistant Sharon Mainord, MTGCD General Manager Joe Cooper, Jerry Fronterhouse and Fred Parker.

All directors were present for the meeting, which included Jerry Fronterhouse, George Bingham, Jerry Hinshaw, Boyd Waggoner, Fred Parker and Board Chairman Rodney Stephens. Also present were Joe Cooper, MTGCD general manager; and Sharon Mainord, MTGCD administrative assistant.

Many visitors were also in attendance and Stephens welcomed them and said they’d be able to comment, if they wished to, during a later portion of the meeting.

There were actually two separate meetings back-to-back -- a permit hearing, where five operating permits for Erath County wells were approved -- and a regularly scheduled Board meeting.

The permit hearing itself generated a bit of board discord when, after Joe Cooper said he’d reviewed them and recommended they be approved, Boyd Waggoner requested a discussion on one of the permits.

“I wanted to ask about this one where we’re granting a permit for 9,000 acre feet of water, it’s the one to Rough Creek Lodge,” Waggoner said, “which is about 45 percent of the amount of the water available in Erath County in a normal year. It seems like an awful lot...to be giving to one person.”

Joe Cooper attempted to address Waggoner’s concerns, explaining that the well in question was an oil and gas production well “that the oil and gas company is through with” and that the company had promised Rough Creek they’d turn over the well to them for their private use.

“The well is to be used as a back-up for the well that is being used by Rough Creek today,” Cooper said. “They didn’t really need a well...they hope they don’t have to use it, but if something happens they’ll have it. Rough Creek is approximately 3,000 acres and under District rules, under the maximum amount of water someone can pump, our production limit is three acre feet per contiguous acre. So if you take 3,000 acres and multiply it by three acre feet, they could actually ask for that piece of land to be permitted for 9,000 acre feet of water per year. They have not asked for that, they’ve asked for a well that pumps 150 gallons a minute, which if it could pump at full capacity 7/24, which is doubtful, it could pump a maximum of 241.9 acre feet per year. That is what the permit is for, permitted by gallons per minute. I think some of the problem in the past has been that the operating permit itself will state that there is a maximum allowable production limit that equates to three acre feet per contiguous acre, but in that same form...it says that the operating permit is contingent upon the application form being completed properly, sworn to, with the details of the well, and it will show the rate at which the water will be pumped, it’s part of the permit. At 150 gallons per minute, we’re permitting 241.95 acre feet, at the maximum, if they can pump 7/24. The statement on the front of the permit saying three acre feet per contiguous acre is a restatement of District rules...it’s a production limit set by the district to try to use everything that exists under Chapter 36 of the Water Code to dissuade a water miner coming in and taking our water. It’s one of the things the District can do...to try and protect the water and keep it here. That’s why that’s there, it’s a restatement of the rule. In some cases, you could have a small household well on three acres pumping 16 gallons per minute, if they let it run 7/24 they could pump more than three acre feet per contiguous acre -- three acres, times three acre feet, would be nine acre feet. A 16 gallon per minute well, pumping 7/24, can pump 25.8 acre feet per year. Now we know that most household domestic type wells pump about two hours a day. That’s the reason that re-statement is there...sometimes you’ve got a lot of land, and it will show that you’re entitled to more than you’re asking for. If you’ve got a little bitty piece of land you can actually over pump it, and that’s telling you the most you can pump.”

“I just want to say that I’m opposed to this,” Waggoner stated again after Cooper’s explanation. “Because under authorized withdrawal it says 9,000 acre feet per year, and I think it’s too much. I think it’s about 45 percent of the water in the Erath County aquifer. The statute says that we have to consider the possible adverse effect on the aquifer when we decide these things, and we haven’t had a hydrology study, so we don’t know about the possible adverse effects. We haven’t even counted up the permits we’ve given so I’m opposed to it.”

Despite attempts by Chairman Stephens to clarify some of Cooper’s comments, Waggoner still cast the only dissenting vote when the water well permits were approved (5 to 1) but he noted that he was referring only to the Rough Creek permit. The “restatement of District rules” on the permits would be referred to several more times during the regular meeting, with attempts to clarify it several times as well, and Chairman Stephens eventually expressed his opinion that the wording needed to be revised. “Our permit is getting everybody confused,” he said.

After approving the minutes from previous meetings, approving the payment of bills, and reviewing an income/expense comparison, Manager Joe Cooper presented a “Quarterly Drought Assessment.”

“We use two indexes to try and determine the drought conditions within our area,” Cooper said, explaining that they were the Palmer Drought Severity Index, and the Drought Probability Predictions from the Climate Prediction Center of NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.)

Cooper said the PDSI report translated to severe drought conditions. “We don’t need to be told that,” he said. “The prior three quarters have been ‘severe drought’, ‘mild drought’ and ‘severe drought’ respectively, so we’ve been dry for quite a while.” Cooper noted the probability predictions, updated in July of this year, reflected “we had a 59 percent chance for moderate to severe drought conditions through October of this year.”

After a routine quarterly review of investments, Cooper presented the manager’s report, in which he noted, among other items, that a new air-conditioning unit was to be installed in the Comanche office, and that bids for the new pick-up truck “were out” and that the bids had gone to the four major dealerships in the two counties.

Cooper also updated board members on an effort to secure “free or loaned tapes to monitor well dips with” and public education efforts, relating to the District, in which he’d been involved.

An agenda item regarding potential action on groundwater monitoring associated with oil and gas waste injection wells generated a great deal of discussion.

“Oil and gas injection wells are a fairly new concern in our area,” Joe Cooper said. “This District believes that oil and gas injection wells are better placed in other areas...than the recharge zone of this aquifer so this District plans to continue to oppose those. I know we have very capable watchdogs within our county to help us make sure we don’t miss an opportunity to object to those.”

Cooper briefly outlined the steps to objecting, including sending letters to the Railroad Commission of Texas. “The Railroad Commission is a well-funded and very powerful agency,” Cooper noted, “and they do have responsibility under state law to protect us from oil and gas. Groundwater conservation districts also seek to protect our public resources. However, the law does have numerous exemptions to keep us from addressing oil and gas concerns, and we’re working on some of those.”

Cooper then addressed “a proposal by a concerned citizen.”

“That citizen has recommended that we adopt a plan used by one of my friends, Janet Guthrie, general manager of the Hemphill County District,” Cooper said. “Her district took on a project to do some some special monitoring of wells around oil and gas production wells to make sure there wasn’t contamination occurring.”

Cooper went on to say that he and Guthrie had worked together on a committee before and that they both agreed that the best way to “get a more pro-active stance taken by the Railroad Commission of Texas in monitoring the wells they’re supposed to protect us from” was through state legislation.

“My recommendation is that this District continue to allow me to try to protect our citizens from oil and gas waste injection wells and the potential for contamination by writing letters when we get the applications,” Cooper said. “At this point in time we have enough jobs to do without trying to take on a job that I believe the Railroad Commission of Texas should be doing. We did invite Janet Guthrie to come and speak with us, but she could not at this time.”

“I propose that we follow her example,” said Boyd Waggoner. “What she’s doing is every time that an oil and gas company proposes an injection well she files on behalf of her district an objection to it...and they have voluntarily signed a contract with her to let her do an inspection to make sure they don’t leak. They’ve also agreed to...do more inspections than they normally do. She doesn’t have any jurisdiction, but her job, as a groundwater district manager, is to preserve and protect the water, so she’s doing it. We can talk about legislation, but we’re not going to get any legislation through the Railroad Commission. They may be powerful, but they don’t care about water. If we want to do anything about it, we’ve got to do it ourselves. We’ve got $300,000 in a bank account and I think if we need to hire somebody else to do this, to keep those waste injection wells under control then I think we need to do it. We haven’t done an aquifer study yet, and I don’t know of any permits we’ve rejected yet. I think we need to spend some money on preserving and protecting water.”

“We’re already opposing all the injection wells,” Cooper said, to which someone in the audience responded “just one!”

Waggoner then made a motion to adopt Janet Guthrie’s methods of dealing with injection wells. The vote failed, with a three to three split, with Rodney Stephens, George Bingham and Jerry Fronterhouse against adopting Guthrie’s methods, and Boyd Waggoner, Jerry Hinshaw and Fred Parker voting in favor. Next on the agenda was hiring a hydrologist to assess Erath and Comanche county groundwater, instead of relying solely on state studies. Joe Cooper expressed his opinion that this was an important step, comparing it to “sighting in” his own gun when he goes hunting.

“I’m a lot more confident if I’ve sighted in that gun myself,” Cooper said. “I feel the same way about the groundwater we have within this district. I think if we do our own studies we’ll feel better.”

Cooper recommended that the district hire a firm called URS to do the study. “This would help us accomplish several things,” he said. “They will help us complete the data base we use to generate reports about groundwater availability.” Cooper said the firm would also evaluate groundwater quantity and developing groundwater monitoring strategies.

Five of the MTGCD board members voted for Cooper to meet with URS officials to pursue the matter further, including finding out the costs involved, while Boyd Waggoner voted against, saying he wanted to make sure URS doesn’t have connections with “water marketers.”

Waggoner addressed the next agenda item, “discussion of changes to District rules” by presenting the board, and audience, with a series of over-sized charts showing areas of concern. Waggoner prefaced his remarks by saying, “I’m not a hydrologist,” and adding that the data he had came from the Texas Water Development Board. “Basically, it shows how much water is available in the aquifer,” Waggoner said. “The way I understand it is how much you can take out each year without depleting the aquifer.” He noted that the data shows 20,165 acre feet of groundwater is available in Erath County annually and that in 2000, a little more than 19,000 acre feet was being pumped.

“By 2000 (the latest statistics available), we’re about 95 percent of the way towards using up all the water in the aquifer, that was six years ago,” Waggoner said. He added that those numbers didn’t account for current oil and gas drilling activity or future growth.

“If we change the rules, we could permit it out to the people who are here, who’ve been here a long time,” Waggoner said, telling the board about another district who had done something similar. “That way when the latecomers come in here, we can say ‘sorry, it’s all gone,’” he said.

“Boyd, 600 people live in that district you’re talking about,” Chairman Stephens said. “If we did that in our district economic development for the whole district would just shut down.”

After still more discussion, board members finally voted, five to one, to not make any changes to the district rules until a hydrology study is done. The one dissenting vote was Waggoner’s.

After quickly dispensing with a few routine matters, board members invited those who had signed up, just prior to the meeting, to speak.

Among the eight audience members to speak was Mark Murphy, of Stephenville, who thanked the board for their service. “I fully understand what it’s like to be an elected official (Murphy is a Stephenville City Council member) trying to represent your constituents to the best of your ability...and balancing political pressures from different sides.” Murphy also noted, “I know the purpose of the district, and the reason we voted to have a district in the first place is to protect our groundwater resources.” Murphy concluded his remarks with, “As elected officials you’re under more public scrutiny than the average citizen. I know that the Texas Ethics Commission has strict rules on voting, or abstaining from votes, on issues that the elected officials would profit from financially and personally. I ask you to consider abstaining from voting to permit any wells, that would be considered either construction or placement, that would profit you on a personal basis. I know you’ll watch out for this, and I would have you know we’re going to be watching also. Water is life, without it we’re dead -- both as individuals and communities. Please protect our groundwater resources as best you can.”

Murphy’s remarks drew applause from the audience.

One speaker asked the professions of each of the board members and was informed that Stephens and Bingham are farmers; Fronterhouse is a water-well driller, Waggoner is an attorney, Parker is an architect, and Henshaw is retired.

During his comments, Mark Allison, of Gustine, stated that he believed there was some “scare mongering and knee-jerk reactions going on over something that needs to be studied first.”