|
Directors of the Middle Trinity
Groundwater Conservation District met Thursday, January 4, in Dublin,
for a regularly scheduled meeting.
Shortly after roll call and the
invocation, Chairman Rodney Stephens noted that number 18 on the
agenda, listed as “new business,” would be “moved up” and addressed
next, at which time Director Jerry Henshaw spoke.
“I’d like to remove this particular item
from our agenda,” Henshaw said, “because it does not specify any
specific thing for us to talk about.”
A vote then passed to remove the item,
with Director Boyd Waggoner making this comment just prior to the
vote.
“I think I was the one that asked for
this to be put on there,” Waggoner said, “and my real reason was to
give the directors a chance to say they wanted new things put on the
agenda for the next meeting...but if we do talk about things that
aren’t on there, we’d be violating the rules...I agree with what he (Henshaw)
said about taking it off.”
During the “public comments” portion of
the meeting, Bluff Dale resident Tom Shelhimer, addressed the board,
and asked for a brief summary of the activities leading up to the
selection of the consultant, and the work that was done in connection
with Mountain Lakes (a subdivision on the northern end of Erath County
in Bluff Dale), and information about current and future plans,
specifically regarding Beacon Lake.
Joe Cooper, MTGCD manager, provided
Shelhimer with a bit of background information.
Cooper noted that he didn’t have the
exact dates with him, but that he thought it was about nine or 10
months ago that Mountain Lakes made application for additional wells
to try and maintain water levels in Beacon Lake. Cooper added that at
that point in time, they did not meet district requirements, “because
they did not have enough land to support the amount of water they were
asking for.” Cooper also said that at the time the applications were
made, “they said they owned it...but it appeared to us that they were
in the process of, or had already completed, deeding that over to the
home-owner’s association.”
Cooper then stated that near the time of
the application, a board member also knew of leakage from that lake.
“We called in Bluegreen Corporation
(Mountain Lake developers) and explained to them why we would not be
able to grant their permits,” Cooper said, “and they chose to retract
the requests for the new wells, until they had time to go back and do
several things. We understood they were going to work with the
homeowner’s association to get the ownership of the lake bed and
property back...and work with hydrology and engineering firms to
determine what it was going to take to stop the leaking out of that
lake and keep it full. We felt like it was a good investment of the
tax payers money to have a hydrologist to look at that situation and
tell us how much water it might take to keep that lake full -- or at
least what the situation was with the lake.”
Cooper said that through that study, the
MTGCD learned that it would take groundwater to support the lake.
“At this point in time,” Cooper said,
“that’s really what we’ve done. According to the hydrologist... who
did this study, it’s really not conclusive until we have better
numbers, that we feel like should be shared with us from Bluegreen by
the firms that they’re paying to do detailed studies of the lake. My
understanding is that one of those firms is Freese and Nichols out of
Fort Worth.”
Cooper went on to say that he’d recently
been in touch with Bluegreen and that they told him the hydrology work
was still in progress.
“They’ve evidenced to me, through their
verbal communication, that they have a commitment to make it right to
the lot owners they sold property to,” Cooper said. He then discussed
possible litigation regarding the subdivision -- acknowledging that he
didn’t know specifics (it does not involve MTGCD) and adding, “The way
I perceive this right now, both parties involved are a little bit
paralyzed” and went on to mention issues such as ownership of the lake
bed, mineral rights and so on. “Until that can be worked out in courts
of law, or whatever it takes,” Cooper said, “we’re kind of in a
holding pattern. We don’t know how long it will take for that to
happen -- it could take a year, it could take three years.” Shelhimer
thanked Cooper for the information.
Director Boyd Waggoner told Shelhimer
that agenda items 15 and 16 -- discussion of a further hydrological
study at Beacon Lake and discussion of a specific section of the Texas
Water Code -- were somewhat related to his questions When those agenda
items were discussed, Waggoner noted that he’d asked for them to be
put on the agenda.
“We hired Al Blair, from Austin, a
hydrologist, to tell us what he thought,” Waggoner said. “And we got
his report, and at one place he says additional work and data
collection would be necessary.”
Waggoner then noted, “Before granting or
denying, we have to consider whether it’s going to adversely affect
the aquifer or the other permits around there. So when the guy we
hired, says he needs to do some more work, I think we’ve got to take
him seriously. A related question is, if they don’t have anything on
the table right now, and they’re not requesting anything, and they’re
trying to fix the problem, well, you can go ahead and fix it now, or
wait awhile. But, in my opinion, maybe not today, maybe not now, but
before we approve anything out there, if the hydrologist we hired said
he needs to do more testing -- we need to do it.”
“Did we put a limit on him, or what he
was supposed to do,” Director George Bingham asked. “Why didn’t he
complete this the first time?”
After a brief general discussion
regarding the study, Chairman Stephens said, “He (Blair) pretty well
said until the litigation part got through, there wasn’t anything else
he could do. That’s what I understood.”
After a bit more discussion, a vote was
taken, and approved, to table any further hydrological study on Beacon
Lake for the time being.
Agenda item number 16 -- Section
36.113(d)(2) of the Texas Water Code was also discussed, with Cooper
reading from that section, after noting that it had to do with permits
for wells, “The district shall consider whether the proposed use of
water unreasonably affects existing ground water resources or existing
permit holders.”
“I asked that this be put on here,”
Waggoner said, “and it’s related to what we’ve just been talking
about. It says we’ve got to consider that. I don’t know, George
mentioned awhile ago that the spacing requirements take care of that.
To me, we’ve just been giving everybody a permit that asks for one,
and nobody has ever said is that going to adversely affect the
existing groundwater, surface water. I don’t know what we’re doing to
make that decision.”
There was a general discussion of spacing
requirements, and whether they’re effective, and even legislation,
with Cooper finally offering an overview of sorts.
“The Legislature, two sessions ago,
changed the law and said that a district couldn’t require a permit for
a well that had previously been considered an exempt well,” Cooper
said. “That’s a well than runs less than 17 gpm and that is typically
for domestic or livestock use. The reason they passed that, was
because of the experience they had with the Trinity Aquifer down in
Fredericksburg, where the groundwater district kept getting calls from
people saying ‘my neighbors drilled a well and now I’m going dry.’
Well, they looked into it, and there were all these little one-acre
ranchettes, and everybody was watering their yard and washing their
car, filling their pool and all that, and they had too many (wells),
too close together.
“In order to give the ground water
districts some power to do something about it and try to rectify the
situation, they passed a law that said we could require a permit of
these previously exempt wells if they were on less than 10 acres,”
Cooper said.
Cooper said he expected to see that sort
of problem because of increased development -- especially in Erath
County. “And I think it’s important that we have this ability to
require this permit,” he said. “The way it’s set up is that if
somebody invested in a piece of property prior to the adoption of our
rules on May 11, 2004, then it’s hands-off. But, if the property was
subdivided after our rules went into effect, into pieces of property
less than 10 acres, those wells now will be permitted and become
subject to spacing requirements.”
After a bit more discussion, Director
Waggoner said, “I just wanted this brought up for discussion, not
necessarily to take any action. I wanted to know what we were doing to
satisfy that statute, and, apparently, the answer is we’re going by
spacing requirements.”
Chairman Stephens added, “The spacing
requirement goes by the size of the well -- the bigger the well, the
larger the spacing. That serves a purpose.”
Jim Stanfield, also of Bluff Dale,
addressed the board during the public comments portion, asking if a
copy of the hydrological study done by Al Blair was available.
“It will take a public records request to
get that information,” Cooper said. “Basically, the gentleman who
performed the work for us indicated that it was a non-conclusive study
and there was some concern about someone trying to use it as evidence
in some type of litigation. He needs further data, and it’s also in a
draft form for release to the board. The parts we covered here in the
public meetings are available, the rest is not, except with a public
records request.”
Georgia Scott, of Bluff Dale, also spoke
during the public comments portion of the meeting.
“I want to thank all of you who came to the Bluff Dale Town Hall
meeting,” Scott said. “It was very informative and helped a lot of us
get a little better grasp on what’s going on with some of these
injection wells. In our MTGCD mission (statement) it says we want to
preserve and protect the quality and quantity of groundwater we have
in our two counties. So, what I’m saying is that I need your help. We
had over 100 people at that Bluff Dale meeting, and every one of them
was very seriously concerned about these injection wells. What I’d
like to get from you guys is for you to maybe write a letter to the
RRC individually -- I don’t know if you can, if it’s in your policy,
or if it’s appropriate for you to do -- but to take a stand with us
citizens. We’ve got to protect that Trinity Aquifer -- we’ve got to
save our water.”
After Scott spoke for a bit longer,
Director George Bingham said, “I appreciate your concern. We can write
letters ourselves, but the more people we get involved in it, the
stronger we’re going to be -- you’re doing a good job. People better
be concerned.”
Elaine Smith, of “Worried About Water”
was listed on the agenda and read a prepared statement.
“Last month we offered a suggestion, to
be placed on this month’s agenda, of notifying registered well owners
surrounding a proposed well of 50 gpm or over. I was very disappointed
that not one board member contacted me about this suggestion. Only
after I asked Joe Cooper if it was on the agenda did I get this
response: ‘I do not choose to place it there because the District is
in full compliance with the notification requirements of Chapter 36. I
can’t recommend that the District take on additional liability that we
would have if we mistakenly notified the wrong party or accidentally
missed notifying someone.’ We are aware that you don’t have to, we
thought it would be a good way to help protect citizens with existing
wells. We still feel it is a good idea that should be discussed.
However, it has now come to light why the District doesn’t want to
notify neighbors of a new well. It cannot be done. There are less that
one-third of the registered wells posted in the topographical database
so they simply do not know for sure what other wells are in existence
in relation to any new well. In fact, there are only around 7,500
wells in the main database with an estimated backlog of 10,000. We
have found that some wells registered during the grandfather period
have not yet been processed. And finding the paperwork on a registered
well if you don’t have the registration number will cost you $20 per
hour for someone to look through the piles of applications to find it.
It is not surprising we cannot get a total number of acre feet
permitted. We suggest a serious look be given this on-going bad
situation. Perhaps a committee should be appointed to assess and come
up with a plan. Some of my contacts would be willing to help find a
solution to this rather large problem. Feel free to contact us for any
help or information. We can set aside whatever the excuses or reasons
are for this backlog, the fact is we really need to do something.
Also last month we asked some “teeth” be
put in the injection well protest letter this district has agreed to
file. I have seen the letter and it is very good, stating the fact
that a water district is charged with protecting the quality of
groundwater and citing the five requirements that must be met before
the letter can be withdrawn. We have found in the state statutes under
section 27.073 where “financially responsibility” is defined and can
be required. We suggest you add this to your list of requirements. I
can provide a copy of that section or give you the Internet address to
find it upon your request.
“There seems to be a gap in the rules
regarding spacing requirements,” Smith continued. “There is no
district rule for wells under 17 gpm. State law only requires the well
be five feet from the property line. In theory, Neighbor A could drill
a well five feet from his property line with Neighbor B’s existing
well. If it were a “permitted” well, spacing of 300 feet would be
required. Further, by handling these “exempt” wells differently from
“permitted” wells, Neighbor B has no recourse, no warning, no chance
to protest. One could say you are not adequately protecting citizens
with registered wells under 17 gpm. Granted the state doesn’t address
it, but to be fair, you should. Water being pumped from these smaller
volume wells is no less important than water that is pumped from
larger volume permitted wells.
Smith concluded her remarks by asking two
questions of the board: “Are you content with the current district
rules and state laws? And “Why is the district seemingly unwilling to
review the rules to see if improvements can be made?”
Other than thanking Smith for her
comments, there was no comment from the directors.
In other business, directors:
• Voted to approve, with one minor
correction, the minutes from the previous meeting.
• Voted to approve payment of the bills.
• Heard an income/expense comparison
report where Cooper noted a year-to-date total expenditure of
$226,275.66.
• Voted to approve a resolution to
confirm the annual review and continuation of the current investment
policy.
• Heard a manager’s report from Cooper
during which he introduced the new field tech, Weston Burris, a
graduate of Tarleton State University and a Stephenville resident.
• Heard a report on the quarterly drought
assessment where Cooper noted that current data indicates that as of
December 16, 2006, North Central Texas is in a moderate drought
condition. The three prior quarters have reflected mild drought,
severe drought and severe drought. |
