Environmentalist, water marketer file petitions, get hearing

At the beginning of each Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation District meeting, board president Alice Darnell recites the district’s charter, which states that the water district was created by an act of the legislature to protect the water supply for the residents of Bastrop and Lee counties.

That might be a big challenge for Darnell and the board, given the fact that the cities and towns along I-35 from Austin to San Antonio are expected to double in population in the next 50 years and they are looking squarely at the underground aquifers in Bastrop and Lee counties to supply much of their future water needs. Do the aquifers have enough water to handle future growth in Bastrop and Lee counties and also keep up with demand from other thirsty cities? What happens to the aquifers if there is a sustained drought?

The answer depends on who you ask. Water marketers and landowners looking to sell water to urban municipalities say there’s plenty of water for everyone. For environmentalists, businesses and many landowners and residents, the water should be saved for future local use and they warn that the aquifers can’t sustain pumping to satiate the towns and cities along the I-35 corridor.

Both sides have data, models and projections to support their claims, along with hydrogeologists and lawyers to help persuade others to see it their way.

Projecting Future Conditions

There is a process in place, mandated by the state legislature, to determine the amount of groundwater that’s available for use now and in the future. Regional water planning groups, which are made up of groundwater conservation districts like Lost Pines, develop what’s called “Desired Future Conditions,” which is a snapshot of how they want water levels, water quality, overall volumes and spring flows to look for the area’s aquifers 50 years from now.

Earlier this year, Lost Pines and the other four districts that make up Groundwater Management Area 12, or GMA 12, submitted their DFC’s to the Texas Water Development Board as part of their regional water plan. The TWDB uses the DFC’s to calculate the “Managed Available Groundwater” or MAG, that’s used by the conservation districts to build a water management plan and more importantly, to set permits for pumping.

To water marketers and landowners looking to sell water, conservative DFC’s that restrict how much water is available could prevent them from getting the permits they need to establish water contracts, negotiate deals and get financing to build pipelines. Environmental stakeholders and local residents believe that liberal DFC’s that allow for broad pumping from the aquifers could lead to a shortage of water for future generations, declining rivers and streams and even the draining of the aquifers.

Not long after GMA 12 and Lost Pines presented their DFCs to the TWDB, they were challenged by End Op, a water marketing corporation headed by former Williamson County commissioner and water marketer Frankie Limmer and Environmental Stewardship, a non-profit conservation organization headed by Steve Box. Both petitions have a couple of things in common – that the desired future conditions for the area aquifers are not right and that the scientific modeling doesn’t tell the true story. Beyond that, their intentions and plans for the water in the aquifers are in opposition.

End Op: It’s about the science

Limmer and his partners lease groundwater rights covering 17,000 acres of land in Bastrop and Lee counties, all within the purview of the LPGCD. He has filed for permits for 14 wells, which if granted, would pump up to 56,000 acre-feet of groundwater from the Simsboro Aquifer. In December 2009, Limmer signed a letter of intent with the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority to sell them groundwater – up to 45 million gallons a day, according to published reports. Bill West, general manager of the GBRA, secured a loan with the TWDB for $2.5 million for research and development for a proposed state pipeline to carry that water to urban areas along the I-35 corridor. The 100-mile pipeline system has been estimated to cost $400 million.

In addition, Limmer and his partners invested in test wells in Lee County.

“We have done $3.5 million in test wells and we’ve devoted a lot of time on research in pumping. In fact, the backbone of the Lost Pines monitoring system is in three of our wells,” Limmer said. “These test wells produced a ton of data that was presented to the district (LPGCD). I’m not sure they understood what it showed about those wells but we can’t get permits to produce them. When the district heard we were talking to the GBRA, they put up the moratorium.”

Limmer has a bone to pick with Lost Pines and he feels like they haven’t been forthcoming in looking at his data or negotiating fairly. LPGCD, according to Limmer, has denied End-Op its permit requests and established a moratorium against new well permits for water marketers.

In December 2009, the LPGCD imposed a moratorium on issuing new well permits for non-exempt wells in the district in response to a flood of permit requests from water marketers, including End Op. The district continues to issue permits for exempt wells, which include those used for domestic, ranching and irrigation uses.

In his petition to challenge the DFC, which has been elevated to the TWDB, Limmer states that the DFC is unreasonable because the data on drawdowns is vague and ambiguous, it negatively impacts property rights, it does not allow for prudent development of the state’s groundwater resources, it conflicts with the state’s policy of encouraging economic development and it would cause adverse socio-economic impact to regions that need water. He also has a problem with the science that was used, and he claims the test pumping data he presented to LPGCD was not used when figuring the DFC for the Simsboro Aquifer.

“I think the district has been dealing with us in a non-scientific, biased way,” Limmer said. “We would like to see them look at proper science.”

For Limmer, it’s not rocket science, either.

“It makes no sense for me to damage these aquifers – I have kin out here, I’ve got friends, we would be cutting our own throats,” Limmer said. “We have 50 landowners who want to sell their water and do it in a sound, responsible way.”

Limmer says he stands behind the data they have, and if it doesn’t work, he will stop the pumping.

“They should monitor the wells and see how they drawdown,” Limmer explained. “If it falls back then shut them off.”

He also has a warning for the district and the residents in Bastrop and Lee counties.

“I think you should make it clear to people that if we can’t work together to develop this resource, the cities that need the water will come and take it through buying it, through legislation or through condemnation – and if they do that, they’ll take everything.”

Environmental Stewardship

Environmental Stewardship, established in 2007 and based in Bastrop, is listed as a water resource, wetland conservation and management charitable organization.  Steve Box is the executive director, researcher, spokesperson, publisher and technical expert. Box has a master’s degree in environmental science and ecology and a bachelor’s degree in zoology.

Environmental Stewardship’s charter, as explained on its website, is to act as an advocate for protecting, conserving, restoring and enhancing the ecological functions of the Colorado River and its associated groundwater and watershed.

In its petition challenging the DFC adopted by GMA 12, Environmental Stewardship, like End Op, argues that the most up-to-date science and technology was not used and, therefore, the DFC is incorrect.

Unlike End Op, ES says the DFC is too liberal and allows for too much pumping, which will be detrimental to the Colorado and Brazos rivers and to area springs and streams. Box points to scientific studies by the U.S. Geological Survey and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department that show how the Colorado and Brazos rivers gain water from the aquifers and if they are over pumped, the loss of groundwater discharge into the rivers will be environmentally detrimental.

The petition also states that water earmarked for export from Bastrop and Lee counties does not adequately take into account future local needs. Box contends the proposed pipeline, which will pump water to municipalities from Kyle to San Antonio, needs serious scrutiny because its planning ignores water needs in Bastrop County.

“Unless we get the right planning based on complete scientific studies, our natural environment and economic growth will be affected for generations,” Box said in a press release.

Box also contends that the current drought, increased pumping and demand, along with water marketing, will result in a decline in the Simsboro Aquifer and that available scientific data supports these claims.

“We believe we have legitimate concerns that are backed by science and modeling information and we would like to see a public discussion of the facts so that solutions can be considered,” Box said. “We have asked for over two years that GMA 12 publish a “water budget” from their modeling so we can have a complete picture of how much is going to be pumped, where it will come from, and what impact this will have on the relationship of these aquifers to the Colorado River and its tributaries.”

GMA 12 reacts

In July, the GMA 12 held a public hearing to review the petitions appealing desired future conditions of GMA 12.

At that meeting, nine landowners and residents of Bastrop, Lee, Milam, Burleson and Bell counties spoke in support of the Environmental Stewardship petition. Spokesperson for the Sierra Club, Independent Texans and Neighbors for Neighbors also voiced support for the petition.

Representative of several groundwater conservation districts, including Lost Pines, said they had reviewed the petitions and felt there was not sufficient evidence to warrant any changes to the DFCs. At that point the GMA board voted unanimously to escalate the petitions for review by the TWDB.

“It is unfortunate that the GMA 12 districts have decided that there is no room for discussion on the issues raised by the petitions,” Box said. This demonstrates their intransigent views – a position they have taken all along. Certainly this is why the process has been closed to public discussion and public input from the beginning.”

Shortly after receiving the petitions and before a hearing was set, the TWDB approved a 60-day extension to GMA 12 for the hearing. In a letter from the TWDB regarding the extension, they ask that the interested parties resolve the issues raised in the petition. Box says that’s not their plan.

“GMA-12 has indicated that they will use this time to prepare their responses to the petitions, not to negotiate or discuss solutions,” Box said.

Lost Pines looks for the MAG

LPGCD general manager Joe Cooper knows the petitions challenging the DFCs are part of the public process for managing groundwater, but they may cause problems for the district.

“It could draw things out for us. I’m pretty sure it will take longer to get the managed available groundwater data,” Cooper said. “If the TWDB finds merit to the petitions then we will have to redo our DFCs through GMA process and that could take a very long time.”

Cooper said the GMA has already spent a lot of time getting the DFCs through the process and he was hoping for information on the MAG, data the district needs to create a management plan that might mean lifting the moratorium and issuing well permits for non-exempt wells.

“We voted not to settle (on the petitions) we’ll let the TWDB look at them and they will let us know if they have a problem,” Cooper said. “That seems unlikely because we went through the DFC process and they were approved by the TWDB – so they came from the TWDB.”

A public hearing on the petitions is expected this fall, at which time another step, forward or backward, will be taken regarding the future of the area’s groundwater.

Here is a primer for the organizational alphabet soup that permeates the complicated water story:

LPGCD: Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation District – The LPGCD was created by the legislature to protect the water supply for the residents of Bastrop and Lee counties. www.lostpineswater.org.

TWDB: Texas Water Development Board – State agency chartered to provide leadership, planning, financial assistance, information, and education for the conservation and responsible development of water for Texas. www.twdb.state.tx.us.

GBRA: Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority – The GBRA manages water resources for a ten-county area, starting with the  Guadalupe and Brazos rivers and ending in San Antonio Bay on the Gulf Coast. www.gbra.org.

GMA 12: Groundwater Management Area 12 – One of 16 regional planning groups around the state,  GMA 12 covers Bastrop, Brazos, Burleson, Falls, Fayette, Freestone, Lee, Leon, Limestone, Madison, Milam, Navarro, Robertson, and Williamson counties.

DFC (DFCs): Desired Future Conditions – The desired, quantified conditions of groundwater resources such as water levels, water quality, spring flows or volumes. DFCs are created by regional management areas and approved by the TWDB. They are set for 50 years and are reviewed every five years.

MAG: Managed Available Groundwater – The MAG is used by groundwater conservation districts to create a management plan that sets the amount of water that can be pumped from an aquifer for local use or exported.

We welcome discussion on our stories but we will only publish comments that do not violate our Comment Guidelines.