On November 16 the Senate Committee on Water, Agriculture, and Rural Affairs held a public hearing to hear invited public testimony on the following interim charges:

  • Groundwater Management and Protection: Evaluate the status and effectiveness of the State’s groundwater management process, including data used to support regional water planning and conservation goals. Report on the effectiveness of the State’s groundwater protection efforts and whether statutory changes are needed to protect groundwater quality.
  • Monitoring: Monitor the implementation of legislation addressed by the Senate Committee on Water, Agriculture, and Rural Affairs passed by the 87th Legislature, as well as relevant agencies and programs under the committee’s jurisdiction. Specifically, make recommendations for any legislation needed to improve, enhance, or complete implementation of the following:
    • Senate Bill 8 (86th Legislature), Relating to state and regional flood planning
    • Senate Bill 601 (87th Legislature), Relating to the creation and activities of the Texas Produced Water Consortium
    •  Senate Bill 905 (87th Legislature), Relating to guidance on the regulations applicable to the potable reuse of wastewater; and House Bill 3516 (87th Legislature), Relating to the regulation of the recycling of fluid oil and gas waste.

 

An archive of the hearing can be found here.

 

This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight the discussions on the various topics taken up. It is not a verbatim transcript of the discussions but is based upon what was audible or understandable to the observer and the desire to get details out as quickly as possible with few errors or omissions.

 

Opening Comments

  • Thanks members and public for attendance
  • Texas has lack of urgency with water, important to discuss

 

Item 1: Drought Update

Dr. Mark Wentzel, Texas Water Development Board (TWDB)

  • Giving update on drought status across state
  • Brief review of maps and figures showing severity of drought and reservoir conservation shortage
  • 65% of state remains in drought
  • August 2022 brought substantial rainfall
  • Currently at 68% of capacity of reservoirs, still lower than typical norm for this point in year
  • Anticipated Texas will continue to be in drought into Jan 2023, except for far west Texas; forecast driven
  • Kolkhorst – Safe to say we’re doing better than 2011?
    • Yes definitely, Mainly thanks to August 22
  • Kolkhorst – Noteworthy that there was a slight uptick in late April 2011. Is that a La Nina impact as well?
    • Partially, impact on Texas climate is most connected in Winter
  • Kolkhorst – Likely won’t see those late northers?
    • We’ve had a little precipitation, but general pattern in warmer and dryer
    • Feb-Apr La Nina is predicted to dissipate which would allow for some drought relief
  • Kolkhorst – Still at a point where we need slow, long rain?
    • Correct
  • Eckhardt- Does TWDB see probable increase in frequency of drought cycles?
    • Defer to state climatologist for any comments on climate; not in my area of expertise
  • Eckhardt- With regard to data on reservoir storage what is the source of water?
    • Predominately runoff, but depending on area may be contribution from groundwater; about 95% of water supply storage shown in our charts
  • Perry- Had a weather pattern that drew down more water but would like to know how much of lower water levels is due to influx of people using the water supply; something to look at during session

 

Item 2: SB 8

Reem Zoun, Director of Flood Planning at TWDB

  • Gives overview of SB 8 and key milestones including designating regional flood plan areas, adopting rules, and publishing guidelines
  • Highlights key milestones since passage of SB 8 for Flood Planning groups
  • 15 regional flood planning groups; draft regional flood plans received August 1st
  • Over 200 mitigation projects at greater than $37 B have been recommended; Over 2,000 flood mitigation studies recommended at over $1.7 B
  • Overview of figures showing buildings at risk of flooding in Texas
  • Regions working on responding to TWDB plan comments by Jan 2023
  • Perry – Good to see we’re on target; Difference between projects and studies?
    • Project has capital construction cost already included; studies to determine flood hazard area and impact
  • Perry- There will most likely be projects after the studies?
    • Yes, they will identify projects that will have costs
  • Perry- How is adherence to watershed concept?
    • Seeing inclusion of upstream water
  • Perry- Do you have everything you need to finish the report by 9/24?
    • I believe so yes
  • Johnson- Need for collaboration among regional flood planning groups and regional water planning groups?
    • Requirement that every project has to look at water development when looking at flood risk reduction; collaboration needed but work still continues to be different
  • Eckhardt- Is TXDOT a non-voting member in these flood efforts?
    • Yes, non-voting member in several regions; transportation key part of flood reduction efforts
  • Eckhardt- Did you say 14 counties have no flood plan?
    • 14 counties have no flood hazard information or flood map
  • Eckhardt – Are we seeing some better practices emerge across the regions?
    • A lot of collaboration between liaisons of different regions
  • Eckhardt- Looking for best practices my region can adopt, particularly for flash flood regions; is lower Colorado and Lavaca region the biggest flash flood regions?
    • Lower Colorado and also San Antonio flood planning regions
  • Kolkhorst- How are we going to fund these mitigation projects?
    • Perry- That $37 B number will be more once the studies finish up; carried out on level of local government; state can’t write whole check but can partner
  • Kolkhorst- Is dredging part of these projects?
    • Variety of projects some dams, retention ponds, and maybe one or two dredging projects

 

Item 3: SB 905

Joel Klumpp, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)

  • New guidance manual available to public and posted on TCEQ webpage; explains process for direct potable reuse; a case-by-case process
  • Perry- How many communities are using direct potable reuse?
    • One DPR plant in use right now; second approval completed for city of Wichita Falls; and reviewing and approving application from El Paso Water Utilities District
  • Renewed interest and increase in calls; generally, 10 or fewer entities reaching out
  • Perry- Any movement in development area that this should maybe be a front-end conversation?
    • Direct potable reuse advantage is that you can use the existing drinking water distribution system; existing communities and entities can use what is in the ground now
  • Eckhardt- Heard anecdotally that some orgs. have not taken advantage of this because of capacity issues; is that a credible concern? Looking at TCEQ roles to make it easier to permit a small municipality or water system
    • Most applicants are larger systems; generally water quality for DPR is an increase in pathogen load when starting with waste water
    • Additional treatment required so surface water treatment plant needs level of sophistication that may be beyond resources of small systems
  • Eckhardt- Any possibility of riding on a DPR system to improve structure overall of system? Higher incidence of boil water notices even in sophisticated systems
    • Any community that commits to DPR project could see improvement in quality of water produced; have to bring in licensed operators so improvement in operations as well

 

Item 4: SB 601

Rusty Smith; Texas Produced Water Consortium (TXPWC)

  • Report to Lege using an economic model for using fluid oil and gas water in a way that is economical and efficient and that protects public health and the environment; feasible pilot project can access report on here
  • Focus on Permian basin because of larger excess water volumes; TXPWC projected 38-year average PW volume is roughly 14MM bbl/day
  • Volume projected less industry reuse is roughly 11MM bbl/day or 500,000-515,000 acre-feet/year
  • Current technically recoverable estimate at 50% recovery is roughly 250,000-260,000 acre-feet/year; recovery can adjust based on dissolved solids level
  • Membrane processes are cost-effective and efficient options; may not be able to handle high initial salinity such as that of the Permian basin produced water
  • Thermal processes yield high quality water but are energy intensive and less economical
  • Combination of these technologies is best pathway
  • Current estimated average treatment cost is roughly $2.55/bbl; targeted competitive marginal treatment rate is $1.00/bbl; cost coming down with new technology and efficiencies
  • Mainly dealing with Region F; average cost of water supply projects after debt service for region is $0.05-0.07/bbl
  • Pilot project phase 1 is to provide evidence to state that water can be treated effectively and economically; first approach is to have a minimum of one project for Delaware and Midland basins; looking at what can be achieved with technology in Permian Basin
  • Phase 2 is more innovative, looking at newer technologies
  • Policy recommendations:
    • Establish funding for pilot projects and ongoing needs
    • Require that TPWC submit a report to Lege on status of pilot projects by Dec. 31, 2023
    • Encourage TWDB and regional planning groups in oil producing regions to consider produced water in project
    • RRC and TCEQ should consider processes necessary for permitting produced water for beneficial uses
  • Perry- There are technologies that will take produced water to a potable standard today?
    • Yes, question is if there is facility in Permian Basin treating to beneficial use, not aware of currently
  • Perry- Never priced water; been too cheap for too long; project will establish true cost of water; need accreditation of new processes
  • Kolkhorst- How do you move this water?
    • If treated to truly potable standard can put in river basin and move across state; pipelines already exist for this; hoping to bring in manufacturing and power generation plants but will require some new pipelines
  • Kolkhorst- So water at that point is owned by the oil and gas company?
    • Owned by whoever has control over water
  • Perry- That was not purpose of the report today and need to have a broader conversation later
  • Kolkhorst- How do costs line up against desalination?
    • Out of area of expertise; technologies that were reviewed are based on technologies of seawater desal; some tech approaching a dollar per barrel; just treatment itself is getting close to that amount
  • Johnson- Are we ready for pilot? Concern that methods might discharge water and cause problems
    • Tapping into existing loop then part will go off to be treated and then tested and will go back to close loop
  • Johnson- How much water is flowback?
    • Pretty minimal
  • Johnson- Is this infield recycling?
    • Oil and gas increased reuse of water in their operations; any avenue to reuse to lessen burden on freshwater we are amenable with
  • Johnson- Is SWIFT a proper place to look for funding?
    • Geared toward infrastructure needs for funding; have talked with SWIFT and we want to provide proof of concept
  • Johnson- Difference in our water chemical composition to where we can’t use what California is using?
    • Constituents vary basin to basin and formation to formation; more comfortable putting to use specifically on Permian Basin
  • Johnson- Still a way off from serious conversations with RRC and TCEQ?
    • Already figuring out permit applications route; permit application process in place and looking at providing proper guidance of recommendations to drive that permitting
  • Perry- No one involved will ever stick dirty water in a fresh water supply; keep testing in closed loop until the process is right; heard people worrying about this occurring; will be drafting bill to ask for a totally different water concept in state supply and this will be in that conversation

 

Item 5: HB 3516

Paul Dubois, Railroad Commission (RRC)

  • Preliminary draft rules being discussed with trade association stakeholders; rulemaking project is larger than just this bill; working to implement HB 2201 and SB 1541
  • Making substantial changes to Rule 8; goal to have draft rule for proposal at end of May due to large effort
  • Perry- Rule 8 conversation had in multiple meetings and there was resistance; y’all don’t do rule making during legislative session?
    • That is true
  • Perry- Encourage RRC to do rulemaking during session on this issue; if you need a bill or help from Lege let me know and we will find a path; extremely frustrated because of proposal being pushed to end of May when Lege will be gone

 

Item 6: Public Testimony

Monitoring

Sarah Stonger, Oil and Gas Attorney

  • Living in Permian Basin and drinking contaminated water with Radium 226 and 228 in ground water; direct result of produced water inundation, Chevron told RRC this and not mandated any response; Chevron refusing to plug up wells
  • Unearthed 50 individual well bores; 47 actively flowing at surface; failures coordinate with increased saltwater disposals nearby; won’t have any potable water to manage on current trajectory
  • Need rule on what is a produced water reportable spill
  • Perry- Not a mediation service; but need to be diligent about getting this figured out
    • Central basin platform is dumping area for that water; not a Chevron specific issue

 

Ashley Watt, Rancher

  • Have to truck in water to ranch; delta that is important is that injection is artificially cheap but when it comes back up out of well barrels will have to be re-plugged; not in Chevron economic interest to do this until there is legislation
  • Should get people who were hurt by this to testify
  • Eckhardt- Are you aware of any entity that is studying externalized cost of current injection process?
    • No, because there are no teeth to have externalized cost; RRC not enforcing; have to go to EPA because no enforcing function in state of Texas
  • Eckhardt- Will be discussing suite groundwater later on and reparation for harm to other users
    • 2-million-acre feet no longer usable on land; in legal battle with California oil company

 

Sheila Hemphill, Self

  • Requesting financial assistance for Richland utility district; don’t have supply lines, seeking USDA grant of 75% and still need 25% funding; ranchers in area rely on groundwater tanks which are going dry
  • Communities being held on safety standards of radium that are fabricated accorded to consultants; want EPA to put out how they are regulating radium levels

 

Groundwater Management and Protection

Michael Orosco, Self

  • Landowner in Lee County; access to groundwater directly impacted by Vista Ridge pumping project; will need to drill a new domestic well soon; unjust for property owners to bear the costs of large export projects; need compensation for landowners
  • Districts should have rule making power to protect private groundwater; need sustainable water development that isn’t at expense of private landowners and small communities

 

Nancy McKee, Self

  • Brought to attention water well failures and decrease of levels of wells due to exports during May meeting; concerns of dry wells; effectiveness of state’s groundwater management process questioned; report of 16 B gallons of water lost in 2021 due to leaking infrastructure
  • Prevention more cost effective than desalination and building reservoirs; entities not giving water loss reports and no urgency to dealing with losses; urges new language to resolve issues and give districts authority

 

Andy Weir, Self, SAWDF

  • Provides written testimony of a fourth-generation ranchers whose water is being pumped out but never leased out water rights; current groundwater management process needs improvement
  • Rural landowners depend on domestic and livestock wells, no rural water system; science behind permitting can be wrong and these domestic and livestock wells are not considered or the impacts to them; want to revisit legislation this year to make language that addresses concerns
  • Recommend applying economic impact to well failures and the need for language that GMA representative will consider socioeconomic impacts reasonably expected to occur due to groundwater production
  • Perry- Need remedy for these impacts whether the wells are exempt or not; bill that will have money attached to deal with water loss; need to establish that beneficiary of water transport will pay for an unexpected water loss
  • Kolkhorst- Are most groundwater issues coming out of pumping of Vista Ridge?
    • McKee- Yes
  • Kolkhorst- In recommendations, you are saying that cost of reestablishing water supplying should be on the exporters?
    • Orosco- Yes, should take into account cost of project on rural landowners
  • Kolkhorst- Saying, groundwater conversation districts should be working together?
    • Orosco- Yes, mitigation efforts should be undergone by multiple districts
  • Kolkhorst- Nonexempt wells should be considered in a water plan; interesting recommendation for a formal adjustment mechanism for property tax appraisals to account for taking of water resources
    • Orosco- No adjustment mechanism right now; appraisal districts don’t address this
  • Kolkhorst- Excellent idea; might get attention that way; How many wells in Lexington have had to have their wells dropped?
    • Mckee- Addressing Country Road 411, can name about 20 ranchers who have had to lower their wells; infrastructure leakage is insulting to us
  • McKee- More authority should be given to groundwater districts
  • Kolkhorst- Agree, concerned about water supply corporations in cities becoming middlemen in selling water; bad public policy
    • McKee- Appraisal officers not making adjustments after comparable; not catching on
  • Perry- People lost value and that needs to be done
  • Eckhardt- Lets work on tax appraisal because it is a lagging indicator; support property rights and the preservation of property in rural Texas
  • Eckhardt- Will refile bill for registered exempt wells and permitting decisions by GCDs, doesn’t have mitigation if permit messes up well; hearing value of license to Post Oak Savannah is less that impact of mitigation?
    • Wier- Net benefit is less than you would make on the water; landowner only getting 10% of first sale
  • Eckhardt- So, perhaps a bond by the water exporter to the benefit of the GCD if mitigation is to be paid? Something to explore?
    • Wier- Sounds like it will address our concerns; water coming from our properties and leaking into the ground
  • Eckhardt- Seems like because of the water marker the exporter could afford the mitigation; additional standards of efficiency and conversation via correlative rights on end user of export would ensure reasonable and help with issue of infrastructure not getting improved
    • McKee- Sen. Perry already mentioned that governing bodies should already have deferred maintenance funds
  • Eckhardt- Will have to work with municipalities because they are struggling with infrastructure and funds
  • Eckhardt- What is the biggest gap in data for avoiding permitting based on a false presumption?
    • Have real time figures that should be used along with data; have been told that water transfer is sustainable according to data, but that data is poor
  • Wier- Some good work being done; could use funding to the TWDB GAM fund
  • Perry- Have work to do because this is not acceptable; have responsibility to force remedy when science is wrong; will look at impact of deals being closed quickly before we make a decision on remedies

 

Natalie Ballew, TWDB

  • 98 GCDs in Texas that are defined largely on political boundaries; third round of joint planning nearly complete for groundwater district areas
  • TWDB collects and disseminates data on aquifers; many of states aquifers contain brackish water; estimated 3.8 B acre-feet of available brackish groundwater; groundwater availability monitoring by TWDB
  • Perry- Where are we deficient in the data process and how can we approve?
    • Process is set up to be a locally driven process that GMAs can take in any direction they like
  • Perry- What would be your response to a plan in a technical review?
    • Primarily administrative reviews but also run model files to make sure we can replicate results and if we can’t, then we ask for clarification

 

Leah Martinsson, Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts

  • Committee focused on large scale water transfers; impacts are driven by a number of things; water wells that are located in vicinity of a project can be affect but difficult to determine how much they are affected; look to development board for best available science
  • Groundwater development models not designed to address small regional impacts, don’t have sensitivity; development and improvement of GAMs and predictive tools will be useful
  • Districts can’t adopt rules that would prohibit export of water but can collect export fees in number of ways; fees haven’t been looked at or revised since put in place
  • Chapter 36 provides that more restrictive permit condition can be imposed if they are imposed on all exporters
  • Discussion of Chapter 36 rules and language; varying perspectives on addressing export impacts
  • Perry- Do you think 36 is adequate or that something needs to be done?
    • Some districts would like additional clarity on mechanisms for mitigation
  • Perry- If someone is impacted, would your members agree that the impact should be mitigated?
    • Way to approach is to anticipate on the front end and if a mitigation fund should be established; also issue of large-scale production impacts

 

Alan Day, Brazos Valley Groundwater Conversation District

  • Management needs to start at GMA level with desired future conditions; have more permitted water than water that is being pumped; robust monitoring well network with strategic desired future condition wells
  • Provides overview of duties and the conservation district; exporter has set aside mitigation funds of $7.5 M before they even begin to pump export out
  • Constantly monitoring wells
  • Perry- Do think there will be mitigation in your district as a requirement?
    • Not allowed look at it as a requirement; will be crediting back 50% as they begin to export and send us in export fees
  • Kolkhorst- How did you decide on 50%?
    • Already had permits in place for a mediated settlement that stipulated 50% of cost of mitigation would be paid
  • Kolkhorst- Who is this permit?
    • Upwell water in Vista Ridge; haven’t turned in an export plan yet
  • Kolkhorst- How many permits do you hold right now that could be water marketers?
    • Bryan College Station and Texas A&M, don’t believe they will take out of district
  • Kolkhorst- So you are using export fees for mitigation?
    • Yes
  • Kolkhorst- If an adjacent county determines that your exporter has caused a well to dry will you provide funds to those wells?
    • Logic applies that there could be an interlocal agreement to pay those funds
  • Kolkhorst- How many acre-feet are you permitted for?
    • 49,999 acre-feet of water production on 16 wells; have voluntarily reduced amount of water they will use from agricultural wells to 10,000 acre-feet
  • Kolkhorst- How do you think this will impact Vista Ridge?
    • With robust monitoring have seen about a 20ft impact of artesian pressure from the Simsboro aquifer on the western edge; have a curtailment rule that when 90% of desired future condition is reached, there is a halt on any further production
  • Kolkhorst- You’re uplift water isn’t as valuable as Vista Ridge who doesn’t have a curtailment?
    • They have curtailment, we have increased numbers of monitoring wells to know exactly what happens when the pumps are turned on

 

Gary Westbrook, Post Oak Savannah Groundwater Conservation District

  • Permit of 55,835 acre-feet per year with understanding that if desired future conditions are being threatened there would be curtailment of pumping; impacts so far has not led to curtailment
  • Finalized compliance report that evaluates the monitoring of our wells and if we have met threshold that would require action; impacts that have been observed near Vista Ridge are result of reduction in pressure in Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer
  • Gives overview of Groundwater Availability Model (GAM) and how an aquifer decreases pressure; difficult to determine what is reasonable in terms of limiting pumping
  • Based on evaluation of wells in shallow area determined that they would allow no more than 25% of artesian drawdown in any particular area
  • Recovery of pressure after years or decades; issue of old well info being inaccurate and wells being listed in the wrong aquifer; well assistance program predicts out what wells will be affected and how
  • Have identified 2,000 wells that would be eligible for assistance but predict that over the next 10 year there will be 22 high priority wells that will need assistance
  • Fund well assistance program with fees from district; collect fees or permitting and transporting fees
  • Encourage other landowners to sign up to not participate in large project and compensate them to keep their water in place; over 50,000 acres of land enrolled
  • Impacts are unavoidable with growing water needs in Texas; need to mitigate these impacts and should be done regionally
  • Need to incentivize conjunctive use of surface and ground water and fix leaking infrastructure
  • Perry- How much of the wholesale impact of the water export does Brazos, Lost Pines, and you handle?
    • Give percentage of impacts in slideshow
  • Perry- Without regionalization you aren’t going to be able to address impacts right?
    • We will continue those discussions to address the impacts
  • Eckhardt- Is it fair to say that the Post Oak Savannah is representing property owners that have very little drawdown if it is just limited to their reasonable use in district use?
    • Can’t differentiate between in district and out of district; impact to the aquifer the same no matter where the water goes
  • Eckhardt- Population in area that GCD represents is more rural in contrast to Lost Pines?
    • Yes
  • Eckhardt- Post Oak and Lost Pines have differing demands but are working through that?
    • Yes, good relationships
  • Eckhardt- The drawdown in pressure is not a reduction in capacity, correct?
    • Yes, pressure has been reduced so water that is pushed up well is falling and have to lower pump
  • Eckhardt- Tax appraisal not likely to change because they still have access to water just deeper; Does transport fee go into mitigation bank for well owners that need to draw down deeper?
    • Take that out of general fund so couldn’t be seen as penalizing individual permit holders
  • Eckhardt- Is that because of case law?
    • Yes, that is one consideration; felt least exposure by using general fund
  • Eckhardt- Could look at allowing disparate fee structure for use in and out of district?
    • Yes, that could be a good tool; our permit holders point at each other when talking about responsibility
  • Eckhardt- Mentioned what sounded like a conservation lease?
    • Yes, don’t assume property rights at any point; just a commitment that they wouldn’t release water rights that would be used for nonexempt uses
  • Eckhardt- So the GCD pays the property owner not to sell their water rights?
    • Yes, not competitive with what they would be paid for a water marketer; just trying to get their attention and have them engage
  • Eckhardt- Does property owner get a beneficial valuation at their CAD? That could be an incentive
    • Not that I’m aware of
  • Permit holders are required to have secondary use of water; if there were ways to incentivize these through the Swift program that would allow us to treat projects differently if they have true conjunctive use
  • Kolkhorst- Does Lost Pines have a major water exporter?
    • Have permits that have been issued but none that have been exported yet
  • Kolkhorst- How many employees do you have to look at the well?
    • Four
  • Kolkhorst- What are you charging for export fees?
    • 10 cents per 1,000 gallons with a maximum of 17 cents
  • Kolkhorst- Do you have a fund balance in the export fee?
    • In general budget have had policy that half of most recently adopted new expense be kept in reserve; now have it at 35%
  • Kolkhorst- Could go up to 17 cents?
    • Think it might be appropriate to revisit in the near future; looking at incentivizing aquifer recharge projects and treating then injecting surface water
    • Day- A lot of water that goes down the Brazos goes into the Gulf of Mexico
  • Kolkhorst- Land value is going down and end users should pay the county a fee on top of that for economic development of the county

 

Schuyler Wight, Self

  • Rancher in Pecos County; Question why ground water is a political issue and wells are polluted; grievance with RRC not taking accountability for wells that have become unplugged
  • Perry- Need to clarify whose jurisdiction the cleaning of the wells is and act on that; a lot of conversation of how to get to the bottom of the issue; conflicting information from what was told today
  • Johnson- Need to fix these issue
  • Not a rule in RRC that allows a surface owner to inspect well integrity tests; many wells that are supposed to be inspected every year, but mineral owner is not doing those inspections while wells are polluting surface water
  • Eckhardt- Are you saying the property owner can inspect or be present for the inspection?
    • Yes, on my own property
  • Perry- Better situated in Natural Resources, but I hear you; federal dollars given to plug well and having conversation on how to plug wells faster

 

Carlos Rubenstein, Belding Farms, Cockrell Investment Partners

  • Recommend Lege. provide GCD with technical tools and authority to improve science; Lege. put teeth into DFC process; enable TWDB to do a technical review and verify details of impact of ground water projects
  • Concern that planning process desired future conditions are not being utilized effectively because of flawed science and implementation can be inconsistent
  • Perry- Need to see what resources TWDB needs to employ for technical review; makes sense to do technical review
  • Not just about verifying data; there are 9 elements that have to be considered that have been outlined in Chapter 36 and not properly considered

 

Vanessa Puig-Williams, Environmental Defense Fund

  • Impacts to landowners’ property rights with in district pumping and impacts to springs and rivers; mitigation is necessary but not treating cause; current framework doesn’t consider sustainable pumping
  • Science isn’t necessarily wrong, lacking and not being updated quickly; recommend state invest in groundwater science and provide funding to support planning
  • Perry- Need to fund more consistently; remind us when we are lacking

 

Scott Courtney, PG, Self

  • Hydrogeologist and water well driller; no site-specific evidence of impact, only anecdotal; need rules of engagement and proper evidence presentation before putting bonds on water marketers
  • Perry- Beg to differ; a lot of times only variable that is changing is the water export; pressure related impacted not only anecdotal; room full of people with no water in their wells today
  • Eckhardt- Rationale for moving water but need mitigation; agree that we need fact-based mitigation

 

Paul Fischer, County Judge of Lee County

  • Have seen the effects of what has happened with just one water marketer; six permitters that will start drawing soon and will not have enough money in Lost Pines mitigation fund; have over 28 landowners that have signed and said they have been affected

 

Kayla Schnell, Lee County

  • This is a time sensitive matter; Lee County growing at a fast pace and now have water treatment facility that will drill around 23 new wells to take to Williamson County Samsung project

 

Rita Ward, Self

  • Alcoa owns lots of land in Bastrop County and San Antonio; came in and have been selling the land but keeping the water rights; have already seen wells in the area become dry this year

 

Sheila Hemphill, Self

  • Have been told by consultants that in granite uplift area common to have radium problems that are mitigated to EPA standards; standards established for safety are fabricated according to consultants
  • What can the state or committee do to contact EPA and investigate that number? Must change from water dense activities because we don’t have enough to go around
  • Perry- Agree, need to change cultural conversation around water and how to get development to start doing something different

 

George Windham, SAWDC

  • Water marketers talk about acre-feet and farmers and ranchers talk about gallons; important to keep in mind

Meeting Adjourned