This is the first in a two-part series about some of the water issues facing the area that were raised recently during a groundwater marketing seminar held in String Prairie.

A recent groundwater marketing seminar sponsored by the Bastrop and Caldwell county extension services brought together water experts, decision makers and general managers –  who all had very different viewpoints on how this natural resource should be managed in the area and for the state of Texas.

The seminar was held in String Prairie, a rural area south of Bastrop along state highway 304 that’s dotted with miles of grazing pastures and stock ponds. It’s also a virtual ground zero for water marketers wishing to sell the vast reserves of clean, accessible groundwater under area ranches to rapidly developing areas along the I-35 corridor.

Dr. Ronald A. Kaiser, professor and chair of the Texas A&M water program, gave a presentation on buying and selling water rights in Texas.

“I’ve been doing this for over 30 years, usually getting in hot water,” Kaiser said. “When we look at the phenomenon called water marketing, it’s bad news depending on your perspective. Georgetown and San Marcos know you are sitting on a very lot of water.”

Most landowners in the String Prairie area are familiar with groundwater issues – they have been approached about leasing their water for years and many in the audience nodded their heads as Kaiser spoke.

“The rush for water is driven by population growth and limited water supplies,” Kaiser said. “Most of the growth in the state in the next 50 years will occur along I-35 from San Antonio to Waco – the question is, where is water going to come from.”

Kaiser said that although a landowner has rights to the water under their feet, called the rule of capture, a water conservation district can abolish the rule.

“Groundwater conservation districts can modify the rule of capture,” Kaiser said. “A user must be given a permit to pump water within the district or transfer it out.”

Sharing the stage with Kaiser was Frank Ruttenberg, a water transactions attorney from San Antonio, who likened groundwater districts to “government fiefdoms.”

Ruttneberg said that the groundwater in the String Prairie area is good quality and is a very reliable source. He added that the biggest impact to profitability would be building the infrastructure to pump the water where it’s needed. Beyond that, another concern for landowners is the groundwater conservation district and the decision of who should have priority for the water.

“There is plenty of water in the aquifers to supply the needs of a growing Texas,” Ruttenberg said. “Whether the water is vested or not by the groundwater districts, that does not keep us from getting deals done. There are many, many ways to sell water.”

Joe Cooper, general manager of the Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation District opted to forgo a PowerPoint presentation and instead spoke directly to the audience.

“I think everyone knows why we’re here. I’ll talk about what’s happening in the Lost Pines District,” Cooper said. “We have been asked to permit 121,000 acre feet a year from three different water marketers. That is a lot of water.”

Cooper explained that according to chapter 36 of the Texas Water Code, the primary chapter dealing with groundwater conservation districts, a major responsibility of the district is to protect its resources.

“Until we (LPGCD) have a managed available groundwater number and set up our management plan, we won’t issue permits,” Cooper said. “We are going to guard our economic potential and protect our landowners.”

The afternoon also included presentations by Greg Sengelmann, general manager of the Gonzales Underground Water District, Johnie Haliburton and Daniel Meyer of the Plum Creek Conservation District, David Welsch from the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority and Mark Jordan from the Lower Colorado River Authority.

The debate about groundwater conservation districts picked up again during a panel discussion.

“Is the role of the groundwater district to regulate economic development? I don’t think so,” Kaiser said. “If they go beyond the protection of the aquifer and go into economic development, then we need the legislature to clarify that.”

Kaiser specifically noted that the social and economic conditions of the state were not meant to be decided by the groundwater conservation districts.

Cooper countered that the Texas Water Code gives them exactly that ability.

“I think the wording in the water code directly references the social and economic conditions in the district,” Cooper said. “That’s part of the purview of the conservation districts.”

Cooper and Kaiser agreed that the Texas Water Development Board and the legislature need to define better modeling tools for groundwater planning as well as develop a more logical system to manage aquifers, most of which run through many conservation districts, each with their own thoughts on how to manage groundwater.

“We need to do regional management and maybe put the monster back (the conservation districts),” Kaiser said. “We have a diverse economy. Agriculture is dependent on selling products to the cities and urban areas – the cities need food and commodities like water. Our economic engines are interconnected.”

“We have a diverse economy,” Kaiser said. “Agriculture is dependent on selling products to the cities and urban areas – the cities need food and commodities like water. Our economic engines are interconnected.”