CRWA's Comments to the GCUWCD Draft Groundwater Management Plan

Attorney Trey Wilson filed comments to the Gonzales County UWCD's Draft Groundwater Management Plan on behalf of R L Wilson PC client, Canyon Regional Water Authority. CRWA's comments were as follows:


Dear Mr. Sengelmann:

Please accept this correspondence together with all enclosures as the comments of Canyon Regional Water Authority (CRWA) to the above-referenced revision of the Draft Management Plan presently being considered for adoption by the Board of Directors of the GCUWCD.

As you know, CRWA is the successor in interest to four drilling permits originally issued by the GCUWCD to the Bexar Metropolitan Water District (“BMWD”) between 1999 and 2004. CRWA assumed the Wells Ranch project from the BMWD – a CRWA member-entity – and acquired all of BMWD’s right, title and interest in the project. On September 26, 2007, GCUWCD’s then-General Manager issued correspondence to CRWA finding “that the permits are in full compliance with rules of the district as they exist currently,” and authorizing the transfer of the permits to CRWA.

In reliance upon the above-referenced permits (and the pending applications for production permits, which were submitted to GCUWCD contemporaneously with the applications for drilling permits), CRWA has issued bonds and made significant progress in constructing those facilities required to produce, treat, store and transport water produced from the Wells Ranch located in Guadalupe and Gonzales Counties. This water will, in turn, be used by CRWA’s member entities – all of which provide retail water service to their respective residential and commercial customers.

As you also know, the Wells Ranch project is described in detail in Section 4C.16 of the 2006 South Central Texas Regional Water Plan (SCTRWP), and as part of CRWA’s conjunctive use strategy in Section 4C.24 of such Plan. An earlier version of the project also appeared in the 2001 SCTRWP as a “water management strategy” identified therein as “Carrizo Aquifer – Bexar and Guadalupe (BMWD).” The SCTRWP expressly provides that the Wells Ranch project “does not cause the GCUWCD management plan to be in conflict with the South Central Texas Regional Water Plan,” and the minutes of the October 6, 2005 meeting of the South Central Texas Regional Water Planning Group (SCTRWPG) reflect a presentation by Mr. Barry Miller – your predecessor as GM of the GCUWCD – wherein he stated that, by virtue of the Wells Ranch project, “BexarMet has three permitted wells for 3,000 acre-feet in Gonzales County, and fits the district’s management plan.”

We have previously provided the GCUWCD with a binder setting-forth the details of CRWA’s Wells Ranch project, together with pictures and related information. To-date, CRWA has expended sums in excess of $43 million on the project, with the total build-out cost anticipated to be approximately $47 million. CRWA has previously issued bonds to finance a substantial portion of these project costs.

Accordingly, these comments are made not only in CRWA’s general interest that the GCUWCD adopts a management plan which reflects the requirements of Senate Bill 1, but also in consideration of protecting CRWA’s substantial investment made in reliance upon the permits issued by and anticipated from GCUWCD.

CRWA’s specific comments are as follows:

1. The draft plan contains no Table 1, and correspondingly no statement or quantification of water which is presently and “actually available” within the District. CRWA recommends that the District define the amount of water actually available from those resources subject to the GCUWCD’s jurisdiction, and insert a Table 1 reflecting such information. Based upon the absence of such table, there exists no recognition of the actual water supply available within the District.

2. The draft plan seems to be purposely non-committal, and to reflect a non-disclosed decision not to reach desired future conditions (DFCs). Under the scheme established by HB 1763, the TWDB is required to determine how much groundwater is available (termed "managed available groundwater") for withdrawal based upon the DFCs chosen by the groundwater conservation districts within each GMA. However, it is widely perceived that the members of GMA-13 don’t appear to be moving in a coordinated effort to establish DFCs. Thus, there remains a significant possibility that the plan will remain its tentative character indefinitely. This possibility seems to be acceptable to the GCUWCD based upon the draft plan’s several references to its lack of finality pending resolution of cooperative efforts to determine desired future conditions. While CRWA recognizes both the importance and cumbersome nature of the coordinating process prescribed by HB 1763, the numerous disclaimers render the draft plan inherently unreliable and of little value to those producers charged with planning, constructing and implementing groundwater supply projects.

3. The last sentence in Paragraph 5.0 contains a disclaimer that provides uncertainty. Obviously both residents of the district and purveyors of water require certainty so as to formulate plans, budgets and associated planning inherent in a water production project.

4. The draft management plan contains no projection of growth for local pumpers (Smiley, Nixon, GCWSC, Aqua WSC, Waelder or the City of Gonzales). In the absence of some projection of growth for these local producers, any estimate of water available for non local producers maintains an inherent unreliability and inaccuracy. We do not believe that such uncertainty should be incorporated into the plan.

5. CRWA proposes insertion of a Table 8 A which reflects the projected growth in the demand of local purveyors as submitted by such purveyors to the GCWCD. The presently included Table 8 (adopted and copied from the TWDB) is neither accurate nor realistic in that the growth demand figures projected are either constant or declining. Based upon local demographic trends, CRWA maintains that these demand figures are not indicative of real-world conditions within the District.

6. The drawdown levels set-forth on Page 7 of the draft plan are not appropriate, considering the various water production projects currently underway within the District, and even less so when SAWS’ proposed project is included in the analysis. Scientifically, a 100 foot drawdown limitation is of no significance, and is arbitrary. This artificial barrier renders “unavailable” significant quantities of water that could otherwise be produced without any deleterious effect on the aquifer or on other groundwater producers (residential and/or municipal).

CRWA contends that GCUWCD should incorporate into its plan (and resulting drawdown limitation) all projects presently presented to the District for consideration and permit issuance. More particularly, CRWA maintains that the District should allow drawdown (and set the corresponding limitation) to accommodate the following production levels:

Gonzales Western side

Local Water: 6,000 acre/feet
SSLGC: 19,500 acre/feet
CRWA: 7,400 acre feet
SAWS: 11,900 SAWS acre/feet

Guadalupe County

Local Water: 2,000 acre/feet
SSLGC: 6,500 acre/feet
CRWA: 2,200 acre/feet

This position is asserted based upon the hydrological certainty that there are exponentially greater quantities of water available within the District than the quantities sought by all producers presently holding or seeking permits from the District.

As stated above, CRWA has $43 million investment “in-the-ground,” with that investment soon to skyrocket to $47 million. In addition, CRWA maintains contractual obligations to provide water to be produced from the Wells Ranch project to its member entities, and an obligation to fulfill its bond covenants.

7. Table 10 should include all municipal pumpers who have requested permits to produce from within the District (to include SSLGC, CRWA and SAWS) -- not just those municipal pumpers operating within Gonzales County. Nothing in the plan references the “non-local” municipal pumpers, which whether intentional or as an oversight, renders the plan unreliable and virtually useless.

8. CRWA recommends that the District mandate a standard/universal plan for mitigation, which would be applicable to all municipal producers, as a condition of permit issuance. As successor-in-interest to BMWD on the Wells Ranch Project, CRWA is contractually obligated to honor the Mitigation Agreement entered by and between BMWD and the GCUWCD (provided that GCUWCD honors its contractual agreements by issuing the production permits in accordance with Mr. Miller’s October 6, 2005 proclamation). This plan was negotiated by and between BMWD’s then-attorneys, and the GCUWCD’s then-President and then-General Manager. CRWA maintains that the BMWD Mitigation Agreement represents a solid mechanism for responsible amelioration of any deleterious and unintended consequences of municipal production within the District.

CRWA appreciates the opportunity to review and comment upon the GCUWCD Draft Management Plan (Revision 2.0). We respectfully request that the District’s Board of Directors carefully considers CRWA’s concerns prior to adopting a final groundwater management plan.
 
Please feel free to contact me, David Davenport, Craig Hines or James Bene should the District require further detail on any of CRWA’s comments expressed herein.

Sincerely,

R L WILSON, P.C.


Trey Wilson