Showing posts with label Texas Water Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Texas Water Law. Show all posts
Sunday, April 19, 2015
California Court Ruling Threatens Price-Driven Conservation Efforts
With the hot summer months quickly approaching, many
in San Antonio are bracing for what has become almost as much of a rite of
summer as a Spurs Playoff run – mandatory water restrictions. While not quite as depressing as seeing
a veteran opponent drain that miracle shot to end our season, watching thirsty landscapes
wither under the Texas sun is pretty grim. But, we are San Antonians not alone.
Scarcity of water has become a global issue that
frequently makes headlines. Crises created by water shortages impact nearly
every aspect of human life in the developed world: the 2016 Olympic games in Rio de Janeiro, daily life in Sao
Paulo, American Heartland crop yields, Taiwanese
factories, development within the San Antonio-Austin corridor, and the very existence
of Medina Lake are all facing serious and immediate threats posed by water
scarcity. There are innumerable
other examples, not to mention water-related poverty and illness in the
“developing world.”
One very effective tool employed by water providers in
combating such shortages is the promotion of conservation. In essence,
conservation – by reducing or eliminating waste - increases water availability
without physically supplementing supply. That is, conservation encourages the
“highest and best use” of water by stimulating responsible consumption and
discouraging excessive, inefficient and/or irresponsible use.
Conservation programs have many components, including
education, management practices, auditing and reporting, etc. But, an
unfortunate reality is that many consumers (of all things and not just water)
take notice only when you “hit ‘em in the pocketbook.” Thus, tiered
“conservation rates” where customers who consume larger quantities of water are
charged higher per-unit costs than those with less consumption are typical
components of water conservation plans across the country, including in Texas.
One California lawsuit threatens to upend this
practice, and the trial court has struck a significant blow to water utilities’
ability to use financial policies to reduce consumption and promote
conservation.
In August 2012, an association of taxpayers and residents filed suit against the City of San Juan Capistrano, California
seeking to prohibit that City from charging water rates that exceeded the City’s
actual costs of providing water to its customers. In particular, the Plaintiffs
sought (among other relief) to set-aside a tiered water rate structure that the
City had employed since 1991 in an effort to promote conservation.
The Orange County Superior Court ruled against theCity, and ordered it to abandon
its rate structure and base all water rates on the cost of providing service. The City has appealed, and the
appellate court’s ruling is due any day now. If the trial court’s opinion is upheld, the ability of
California water utilities to promote conservation through the prices they
charge will be significantly impacted.
Notably, the California case turns on interpretation
of a state-specific proposition. However, the decision in that suit could
create a nationwide ripple effect as water utility customers and their lawyers
evaluate legal vulnerabilities of other conservation plans where pricing is
used to advance conservation.
Thursday, July 24, 2014
From KSAT.com:Defenders Test: River cleaner with treatment plant
Texas Water Lawyer & Texas Water Rights Attorney Trey Wilson wrote:
According to a report by the KSAT Defenders, a water treatment plant recently constructed near the San Antonio zoo have really cleaned up water in the San Antonio River near the zoo. The Riverwalk is a different story though...
According to a report by the KSAT Defenders, a water treatment plant recently constructed near the San Antonio zoo have really cleaned up water in the San Antonio River near the zoo. The Riverwalk is a different story though...
'Water Cops' Deployed in Drought-Stricken California Cities
Texas Water Lawyer & Texas Water Rights Attorney Trey Wilson wrote:
This story, while sad, is not surprising. Earlier this year I had occasion to travel to Sausalito, California, I observed signs in many restaurants stating that they were using paper plates and only serving water upon request because of the water shortage. Population explosion and drought are a dangerous combination. New water alternatives must be planned for now!
Drought-stricken California towns hiring 'water cops'
This story, while sad, is not surprising. Earlier this year I had occasion to travel to Sausalito, California, I observed signs in many restaurants stating that they were using paper plates and only serving water upon request because of the water shortage. Population explosion and drought are a dangerous combination. New water alternatives must be planned for now!
Drought-stricken California towns hiring 'water cops'
Friday, October 26, 2012
Water Utility's Handling of Customer Deposits
Ever wondered what happens to water customer deposits, or whether there are any laws or rules governing what a Texas water utility does with them?
The Texas Legislature has specifically authorized governmental water districts to require deposits as a condition of supplying water to a customer. In addition, the Lege has left to each District's discretion the decision of whether interest will be paid on the deposits. Below is the partial text of Water Code section 49.212.
Sec. 49.212. FEES AND CHARGES. (a) A district may adopt and enforce all necessary charges, mandatory fees, or rentals, in addition to taxes, for providing or making available any district facility or service, including fire-fighting activities provided under Section 49.351.
(b) A district may require a deposit for any services or facilities furnished and the district may or may not provide that the deposit will bear interest.
Records of deposits.
(1) The utility shall keep records to show:
(A) the name and address of each depositor;
(B) the amount and date of the deposit;
(C) each transaction concerning the deposit; and
(D) the amount of interest earned on customer deposit funds.
(2) The utility shall issue a receipt of deposit to each service applicant or customer from whom a deposit is received.
Notably, there is no requirement in the Rule that the funds be kept in a separate account. However, the funds are held in trust/escrow, and need to be accounted for separately from the District’s funds.
With regard to interest on deposits, the Rule provides:
(d) Interest on deposits. Each utility shall pay a minimum interest on all customer deposits at an annual rate at least equal to a rate set each calendar year by the Public Utility Commission of Texas in accordance with the provisions of Texas Civil Statutes, Article 1440a. Payment of the interest to the customer shall be made annually if requested by the customer, or at the time the deposit is returned or credited to the customer's account. Inquiries about the appropriate interest rate to be paid each year a deposit is held may be directed to the Water Utilities Division of the commission.
This portion of the Rule (relating to Interest on deposits) is in direct conflict with Texas Water Code Section 49.212(b), as it appears above. Further, the TCEQ apparently doesn't enforce this portion of the Rule, since they issued this TCEQ memo, which provides (in relevant part):
Can They Make Me Pay a Deposit?
Yes. The Water Code allows districts to require a deposit
for any services or facilities furnished. Districts do not have
to pay interest on deposits or return deposits after a set
amount of time has passed. Typically, a district will hold a
customer’s deposit until the account has been terminated and
all outstanding balances have been paid.
Most utilities have adopted their own rules or regulations that comply with the Water Code and TCEQ Rules.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
SAWS obtains $50M Loan for Bexar County De-sal Plant
Texas Water Rights Attorney Trey Wilson wrote:
Another TWDB loan for SAWS desalination projectAnnouncing the loan on 18 October 2012, SAWS said that water would begin flowing from the US$ 229 million brackish-water reverse-osmosis plant in 2016. The facility will reach its full production capacity of 28,000 acre-feet (34.5 million m³) per year by 2026. Unlike San Antonio's Edwards Aquifer supply, the salty water in the Wilcox Aquifer is not subject to pumping restrictions during drought. The US$ 50 million loan is the third round of low‑interest financing to be used for this water supply project. Previous TWDB loans totalling US$ 59 million went toward planning and design, and for drilling wells. The project is part of San Antonio's 50‑year water management plan, a roadmap for securing the city's water future via new supplies and responsible water management. The city is the venue for the American Water Works Association/American Membrane Technology Association joint membrane conference in February 2013. From: D & WR |
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Desperate believers turn to saint for rain
SAN ANTONIO — Farmers in South Texas can't raise their crops, so they are bowing their heads.
An extended drought has led to a dire situation that transcends meteorology. They are praying to God for the most basic of necessities: Water.
But — perhaps for good measure — it appears that more and more who farm the dry, sun-baked land in this heavily-Catholic part of Texas are also turning to St. Isidore, considered the patron saint of farming.
At some Catholic supply stores, sales of St. Isidore candles have gone up as much as 40 percent lately.
"We pray to the saints not because they're gods or anything, but they're in heaven, and so they're close to God, and we have them put in a good word for us," Father Sam Heitkant explained.
He noted that St. Isidore's wife, Maria, is also a saint who is known for helping provide relief in a drought. She is more commonly prayed to in Spain, and Father Heitkant said the Spanish tend to get angrier with St. Maria than with St. Isidore.
"If they pray and nothing happens, they take Maria's statue and turn it toward the wall," he said.
But with more people in South Texas turning to St. Isidore, to St. Maria, and, of course, to God — one might ask when God is going to answer all these prayers for rain?
"He hears them all and he answers them all," Father Heitkant said with a laugh, "but sometimes not the way we wanted them answered."
If St. Isidore doesn't intercede soon, some farmers may have to start praying to St. Jude — the patron saint of hopeless causes.
KENS 5
Monday, July 27, 2009
Kendall County Joins Broad Opposition to federal Clean Water Restoration Act
Boerne, Texas -- Kendall County has now joined with other counties around Texas and the nation in opposition to a measure pending in the U.S. Senate, which is designed to restore and expand federal wetlands authority weakened by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Kendall Commissioners, acting with the advice of County Attorney Don Allee and at the urging of the National Association of Counties, unanimously approved a resolution calling for the defeat of Senate Bill 787, also known as the “Clean Water Restoration Act,” at their last regular session on July 13. No one present spoke in favor of the bill.
“The Clean Water Act has served as the basis for some of the most egregious and previously unprecedented assaults I've ever seen on the property rights of U.S. citizens,” said Bob Imler, a key member of both the Greater Boerne Chamber of Commerce's Governmental Affairs Council and the Kendall County Economic Development Corporation.
“It illustrates the unintended consequences of turning government bureaucrats loose on private citizens and private property owners armed with broad regulatory authority and virtually unrestrained by any system of checks and balances.”
SB 787 would give the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corp of Engineers potential regulatory authority over all “waters of the United States,” including but not limited to stock tanks, seasonal creeks, gutters and drainage ditches.
While the original act applied only to “navigable” waters, federal agencies had taken an increasingly expansive view of what constituted a “navigable” waterway or holding area. That changed in 2001, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that non-navigable, intrastate waters cannot be regulated under the Clean Water Act solely because they serve as a habitat for migratory birds.
Critics of the decision claim it forced federal regulators to ignore acts of pollution that would have been prevented prior to the ruling. SB 787 is designed to address those concerns and has the backing of a large environmental coalition, ranging from the left-leaning Earthjustice to more traditional organizations like Ducks Unlimited.
"This is a huge step toward restoring the Clean Water Act's safety net for prairie potholes and well over 20 million acres of wetlands throughout the United States that provide critical habitat for waterfowl and other fish and wildlife," Ducks Unlimited Executive Vice president Don Young said in a statement urging passage.
But the bill has also stirred up a hornets' nest of opposition from private property rights advocates, municipal, county and state governments, ranchers and private developers. In addition to the National Association of Counties, opponents include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Farm Bureau, the National Cattlemen's Association and the National Association of Home Builders.
The conservative Heritage Foundation calls the bill “an open invitation for federal regulators or environmental organizations filing lawsuits to shut down any use of land that they don't like as long as there is a little water somewhere in the vicinity.”
Imler says the bill would give federal regulators unprecedented authority to limit private land use, to curtail legal activities like hunting and fishing and to delay or halt public and private construction projects, while making all of those activities targets for new lawsuits.
“The business community here is trying along with city and county government to advance things like the Herff Road extension, transportation infrastructure and a new sewage treatment plant,” Imler said. “These are all public works projects that an expansion of the Clean Water Act could, at the very least, stall and quite possibly require to be moved.”
The Senate and Environmental Works Committee recently approved an amended version of SB 787 by a straight-party vote, with all 12 Democrats voting yes and all seven Republicans voting no. Supporters accepted an amendment offered by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Montana, that would exempt waters on “converted cropland” and wastewater treatment systems from the act. Exactly what constitutes converted cropland, however, would still be subject to final approval by federal regulators and, ultimately, the courts.
“The problem is that it ends up being very expensive, you end up in court and you may or may not win,” Imler said.
While Democrats hold a 60-40 senate majority, the bill still faces rough sledding. Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, has placed a hold on the bill and plans to filibuster, or talk it to death, if it reaches the senate floor. Democrats from more rural and conservative states could also jump ship, making it impossible to end any filibuster.
Senator Jim Inholfe, R-Oklahoma, calls S. 787 “part of a hostile agenda aimed squarely at rural America,” and predicts it “faces certain demise” if it reaches the senate floor.
If it does pass the senate, it would almost certainly become law, given the Democrats' large majority in the House and support from President Obama.
Many opponents of the bill, including the TSCRA, have characterized it as a federal "land grab."Mike Reeder, Hill Country View
Kendall Commissioners, acting with the advice of County Attorney Don Allee and at the urging of the National Association of Counties, unanimously approved a resolution calling for the defeat of Senate Bill 787, also known as the “Clean Water Restoration Act,” at their last regular session on July 13. No one present spoke in favor of the bill.
“The Clean Water Act has served as the basis for some of the most egregious and previously unprecedented assaults I've ever seen on the property rights of U.S. citizens,” said Bob Imler, a key member of both the Greater Boerne Chamber of Commerce's Governmental Affairs Council and the Kendall County Economic Development Corporation.
“It illustrates the unintended consequences of turning government bureaucrats loose on private citizens and private property owners armed with broad regulatory authority and virtually unrestrained by any system of checks and balances.”
SB 787 would give the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corp of Engineers potential regulatory authority over all “waters of the United States,” including but not limited to stock tanks, seasonal creeks, gutters and drainage ditches.
While the original act applied only to “navigable” waters, federal agencies had taken an increasingly expansive view of what constituted a “navigable” waterway or holding area. That changed in 2001, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that non-navigable, intrastate waters cannot be regulated under the Clean Water Act solely because they serve as a habitat for migratory birds.
Critics of the decision claim it forced federal regulators to ignore acts of pollution that would have been prevented prior to the ruling. SB 787 is designed to address those concerns and has the backing of a large environmental coalition, ranging from the left-leaning Earthjustice to more traditional organizations like Ducks Unlimited.
"This is a huge step toward restoring the Clean Water Act's safety net for prairie potholes and well over 20 million acres of wetlands throughout the United States that provide critical habitat for waterfowl and other fish and wildlife," Ducks Unlimited Executive Vice president Don Young said in a statement urging passage.
But the bill has also stirred up a hornets' nest of opposition from private property rights advocates, municipal, county and state governments, ranchers and private developers. In addition to the National Association of Counties, opponents include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Farm Bureau, the National Cattlemen's Association and the National Association of Home Builders.
The conservative Heritage Foundation calls the bill “an open invitation for federal regulators or environmental organizations filing lawsuits to shut down any use of land that they don't like as long as there is a little water somewhere in the vicinity.”
Imler says the bill would give federal regulators unprecedented authority to limit private land use, to curtail legal activities like hunting and fishing and to delay or halt public and private construction projects, while making all of those activities targets for new lawsuits.
“The business community here is trying along with city and county government to advance things like the Herff Road extension, transportation infrastructure and a new sewage treatment plant,” Imler said. “These are all public works projects that an expansion of the Clean Water Act could, at the very least, stall and quite possibly require to be moved.”
The Senate and Environmental Works Committee recently approved an amended version of SB 787 by a straight-party vote, with all 12 Democrats voting yes and all seven Republicans voting no. Supporters accepted an amendment offered by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Montana, that would exempt waters on “converted cropland” and wastewater treatment systems from the act. Exactly what constitutes converted cropland, however, would still be subject to final approval by federal regulators and, ultimately, the courts.
“The problem is that it ends up being very expensive, you end up in court and you may or may not win,” Imler said.
While Democrats hold a 60-40 senate majority, the bill still faces rough sledding. Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, has placed a hold on the bill and plans to filibuster, or talk it to death, if it reaches the senate floor. Democrats from more rural and conservative states could also jump ship, making it impossible to end any filibuster.
Senator Jim Inholfe, R-Oklahoma, calls S. 787 “part of a hostile agenda aimed squarely at rural America,” and predicts it “faces certain demise” if it reaches the senate floor.
If it does pass the senate, it would almost certainly become law, given the Democrats' large majority in the House and support from President Obama.
Many opponents of the bill, including the TSCRA, have characterized it as a federal "land grab."Mike Reeder, Hill Country View
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Red River SHOOTOUT Alive and Well in Federal Court...but this time its about water
In 2005, the powers-that-be in college football changed, and forever dampened the name of what has been for Longhorn and Sooner football fans "the game of the year, every year...for over a century." It has been said that the annual October "Shootout" between The University of Texas and The University of Oklahoma "is judgment day for all Texas and OU fans." Only now it's supposedly just a "rivalry." Apparently, the ages-old reference to a rivalry connoted violence, and that was just unaccpetable to the NCAA. Damn lawyers! Irrespective, the second Saturday in October will always be the Red River Shootout for me and my kids!
Fortunately for we traditionalists, a lawsuit filed in January 2007 has now been dubbed the "Red River Shootout." Only now, the prize at stake is not the golden hat trophy, but billions of gallons of water.
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Oklahoma City by the Tarrant Regional Water District first referenced on this site in my June 8, 2009 blog entry. In the suit, the TRWD claims that the Oklahoma Water Resources Board's moratorium on out-of-state water sales is unconstitutional.
The water district has applied to purchase up to 150 billion gallons of water from Red River tributaries in southern and southeastern Oklahoma, and has said that it is willing to pay between $15 million and $60 million a year to transport water from Oklahoma to North Texas, depending upon the volume of water taken. The water would be transported through pipelines and pumping stations, which will cost between $500 million and $4 billion and take five years to build.
The Upper Trinity Regional Water District and the North Texas Municipal Water District also have pending applications before Oklahoma's water board. They, however, have not filed suit.
Last Friday, the Oklahoma Attorney General's office asked the Court to dismiss the lawsuit on grounds that a new law passed in May effectively repealed the moratorium and that the issue should now be decided by the Red River Compact Commission, which was created by Congress in 1980 to apportion water that flows along the Red River. The 1979 Red River Compact was reached among Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas.
Oklahoma's first Motion to Dismiss was denied last September.
No ruling has been made, and no hearing date has been set, but I will provide regular updates on this suit, which has important legal implications on water rights.
A similar lawsuit is pending in U.S. District Court in Muskogee, OK. That suit, filed by the City of Hugo, OK claims the Oklahoma moratorium violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. It was filed one day after the City of Irving, TX and the city of Hugo, Okla., agreed to what is believed to be the first water sales agreement between an Oklahoma water authority and a Texas customer
Sunday, June 7, 2009
What is Going On in Campbellton???? City's Water Interrupted...
On Monday, June 1, representatives of McCoy Water Corporation, Texas Commission of Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and Three Rivers Water Department went to one of the four Corpus Christi-owned water wells and turned it off – leaving some Campellton residents high and dry.
The families left without water supposedly were sent letters in January or February stating water service they had been using – provided by Campbellton Water Works – would be terminated on June 1, 2009.
The residents were notified in the letter about a community meeting with McCoy Water Corp. on February 24.
On Tuesday, resident David Hagedorn drove out to the 74 Ranch and got some water which he hauled back to town in plastic containers on a trailer pulled by his pickup. “I’m not working, so I’m losing money,” he told the Pleasanton Express. Hagedorn quickly took water to fellow resident Mary Gonzales. The water was not for drinking purposes. It was for flushing the toilet and a few other uses. Living nearby, Mary’s son, Raymond Gonzales, a single father of two children, said he was without water also and had been a customer of Campbellton Water Works.
Speaking for Campbellton Water Works, Joan Roane claimed no one had the right to terminate service to her customers, because she had filed a suit in Travis County on September 10, 2007 to halt McCoy Water’s progress in the town. “That case has not been resolved,” she said the day after water was turned off. And, according to Roane, there is an agreement with Corpus Christi that allows Campbellton Water Works to have two million gallons of FREE water per month for its users.
Roane said Campbellton Water had about 65 customers from the 1970s through 2003 when conflict began to heighten between McCoy Water and Campbellton Water. The Campbellton water group began service in 1950 and McCoy Water began coming into the area in the 1960s.
According to a spokeswoman at McCoy Water, all new members must first pay a meter installation fee ($800), capital improvement fee ($2,200), along with membership and other fees totaling $3,125.
McCoy’s new General Manager Ron Strickland said, “We are a member-owned corporation.” He called the Campbellton water a health hazard because it was not chlorinated, hot and not disinfected. Strickland said TCEQ had determined the water did not meet drinking standards and the agency worked with the state’s Attorney General’s office who gave the order to turn off the well’s water supply.
Mrs. Gonzales learned of the water service termination earlier this year. She received a McCoy Water worksheet indicating the cost to her would be $4,245, which included a charge for boring under the road, additional lines and other items ($1,120). However, after she went through USDA and was given a $5,000 grant, McCoy learned the situation would have to be handled differently – boring under a U.S. highway near a gas line. Strickland said the situation called for a specialized group with special equipment. McCoy and Mrs. Gonzales received an estimate from Jesse’s Trenching & Backhoe Service in San Antonio. The bid price from Jesse Rodriguez was $5,800. Strickland said that amount would have to be added to the original $3,125 for a total cost of $8,925 — but, Mrs. Gonzales’ grant was for $5,000
Strickland said corporation members could not expect to eat the $3,800 difference. That amount would be increased for each special case.
Of course, when talking about water, there is always a concern about safety. What about the fire department? In this case, the “Paisano” Campbellton Volunteer Fire Department is supplied water by McCoy Water.
Years ago, the cost to hook up with McCoy Water in Campbellton was ranging from $100 – $125. The battle may — or may not be over. But the situation for those Campbellton residents who have lost their only water source, things look bleak.
The discussion at the Stetson Cafe in Campbellton on Tuesday centered around drilling personal wells, sharing water and even “going to the ranch to take a bath.”
Gerald Black, Pleasanton Express
The families left without water supposedly were sent letters in January or February stating water service they had been using – provided by Campbellton Water Works – would be terminated on June 1, 2009.
The residents were notified in the letter about a community meeting with McCoy Water Corp. on February 24.
On Tuesday, resident David Hagedorn drove out to the 74 Ranch and got some water which he hauled back to town in plastic containers on a trailer pulled by his pickup. “I’m not working, so I’m losing money,” he told the Pleasanton Express. Hagedorn quickly took water to fellow resident Mary Gonzales. The water was not for drinking purposes. It was for flushing the toilet and a few other uses. Living nearby, Mary’s son, Raymond Gonzales, a single father of two children, said he was without water also and had been a customer of Campbellton Water Works.
Speaking for Campbellton Water Works, Joan Roane claimed no one had the right to terminate service to her customers, because she had filed a suit in Travis County on September 10, 2007 to halt McCoy Water’s progress in the town. “That case has not been resolved,” she said the day after water was turned off. And, according to Roane, there is an agreement with Corpus Christi that allows Campbellton Water Works to have two million gallons of FREE water per month for its users.
Roane said Campbellton Water had about 65 customers from the 1970s through 2003 when conflict began to heighten between McCoy Water and Campbellton Water. The Campbellton water group began service in 1950 and McCoy Water began coming into the area in the 1960s.
According to a spokeswoman at McCoy Water, all new members must first pay a meter installation fee ($800), capital improvement fee ($2,200), along with membership and other fees totaling $3,125.
McCoy’s new General Manager Ron Strickland said, “We are a member-owned corporation.” He called the Campbellton water a health hazard because it was not chlorinated, hot and not disinfected. Strickland said TCEQ had determined the water did not meet drinking standards and the agency worked with the state’s Attorney General’s office who gave the order to turn off the well’s water supply.
Mrs. Gonzales learned of the water service termination earlier this year. She received a McCoy Water worksheet indicating the cost to her would be $4,245, which included a charge for boring under the road, additional lines and other items ($1,120). However, after she went through USDA and was given a $5,000 grant, McCoy learned the situation would have to be handled differently – boring under a U.S. highway near a gas line. Strickland said the situation called for a specialized group with special equipment. McCoy and Mrs. Gonzales received an estimate from Jesse’s Trenching & Backhoe Service in San Antonio. The bid price from Jesse Rodriguez was $5,800. Strickland said that amount would have to be added to the original $3,125 for a total cost of $8,925 — but, Mrs. Gonzales’ grant was for $5,000
Strickland said corporation members could not expect to eat the $3,800 difference. That amount would be increased for each special case.
Of course, when talking about water, there is always a concern about safety. What about the fire department? In this case, the “Paisano” Campbellton Volunteer Fire Department is supplied water by McCoy Water.
Years ago, the cost to hook up with McCoy Water in Campbellton was ranging from $100 – $125. The battle may — or may not be over. But the situation for those Campbellton residents who have lost their only water source, things look bleak.
The discussion at the Stetson Cafe in Campbellton on Tuesday centered around drilling personal wells, sharing water and even “going to the ranch to take a bath.”
Gerald Black, Pleasanton Express
Monday, April 27, 2009
A Clear, Clean Water Act
Clean water policy is in a terrible muddle, and the country has the Supreme Court to thank for it.
The 1972 Clean Water Act was written to protect all the waters and wetlands of the United States. Two unfortunate Supreme Court decisions narrowed its scope, weakened its safeguards and thoroughly confused the federal agencies responsible for enforcing it. As a result, thousands of miles of streams and millions of acres of wetlands have been exposed to development.
The remedy lies in a Senate bill called the Clean Water Restoration Act, which would reassert the broad reach of the 1972 law. Similar legislation has been languishing for years, and if this version has any hope, it will need a strong push from the White House.
The good news is that Lisa Jackson, President Obama’s new head of the Environmental Protection Agency, cares about clean water issues and isn’t afraid of a fight. She has already moved to restrict pollution from coal mining operations in Appalachia and is promising to crack down on polluted runoff from animal feedlots.
Without endorsing any particular bill, Ms. Jackson agreed last week that the system that has long protected America’s waterways from unregulated development and pollution is paralyzed — and will remain paralyzed unless Congress fixes it. An internal E.P.A. report furnished to Congress last year revealed that the agency had dropped or delayed more than 400 cases involving suspected violations of the law — nearly half the agency’s entire docket. The reason in every instance was that regulators did not know whether the streams and wetlands in question were covered by the law.
Until the two Supreme Court rulings, the Clean Water Act had been broadly interpreted by courts and by federal regulators to shield all the waters of the United States — seasonal streams and remote wetlands as well as large navigable rivers and lakes — from pollution and unregulated development. The assumption was that even the smallest waters have some hydrological connection to larger watersheds and therefore deserve protection. The Supreme Court, however, exploiting ambiguities in the law, effectively decreed that only navigable, permanent water bodies deserve protection.
As a result, at least 20 million acres of wetlands and as much as 60 percent of the nation’s small streams have been left unprotected, while effectively shutting down enforcement actions against developers who have been disturbing or plan to disturb these waters without a permit.
The Clean Water Restoration Act would establish, once and for all, that federal protections apply to all waters, as Congress intended in 1972. Now a new Congress and a new White House must ensure that it becomes law.
This editorial appeared in the New York Times on April 17, 2009.
The 1972 Clean Water Act was written to protect all the waters and wetlands of the United States. Two unfortunate Supreme Court decisions narrowed its scope, weakened its safeguards and thoroughly confused the federal agencies responsible for enforcing it. As a result, thousands of miles of streams and millions of acres of wetlands have been exposed to development.
The remedy lies in a Senate bill called the Clean Water Restoration Act, which would reassert the broad reach of the 1972 law. Similar legislation has been languishing for years, and if this version has any hope, it will need a strong push from the White House.
The good news is that Lisa Jackson, President Obama’s new head of the Environmental Protection Agency, cares about clean water issues and isn’t afraid of a fight. She has already moved to restrict pollution from coal mining operations in Appalachia and is promising to crack down on polluted runoff from animal feedlots.
Without endorsing any particular bill, Ms. Jackson agreed last week that the system that has long protected America’s waterways from unregulated development and pollution is paralyzed — and will remain paralyzed unless Congress fixes it. An internal E.P.A. report furnished to Congress last year revealed that the agency had dropped or delayed more than 400 cases involving suspected violations of the law — nearly half the agency’s entire docket. The reason in every instance was that regulators did not know whether the streams and wetlands in question were covered by the law.
Until the two Supreme Court rulings, the Clean Water Act had been broadly interpreted by courts and by federal regulators to shield all the waters of the United States — seasonal streams and remote wetlands as well as large navigable rivers and lakes — from pollution and unregulated development. The assumption was that even the smallest waters have some hydrological connection to larger watersheds and therefore deserve protection. The Supreme Court, however, exploiting ambiguities in the law, effectively decreed that only navigable, permanent water bodies deserve protection.
As a result, at least 20 million acres of wetlands and as much as 60 percent of the nation’s small streams have been left unprotected, while effectively shutting down enforcement actions against developers who have been disturbing or plan to disturb these waters without a permit.
The Clean Water Restoration Act would establish, once and for all, that federal protections apply to all waters, as Congress intended in 1972. Now a new Congress and a new White House must ensure that it becomes law.
This editorial appeared in the New York Times on April 17, 2009.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Setting Value on Water Rights
Undoubtedly, the value of water is realtive to many factors including the location of the water, the quality of the water, and the difficulty and expense of producing and transporting it. While it is true that all water has the same molecular structure -- H2O -- not all water is "equal." For this reason, there is no consensus on the best method for placing a price or value on water rights, generally. In fact, the price paid for water rarely is a reflection of its full value -- bottled water is more expensive that unleaded fuel, and naturally-flowing streams may provide "free" water.
In order to fully evaluate the potential return on your water rights -- related either to groundwater produced from an aquifer, or surface water produced pursuant to a State-issued certificate of Adjudication -- you should gather as much information as possible concerning factors discussed above.
For example, it would be important to evaluate the following:
1. What sort of treatment will be required of the water which can be produced pursuant to my water rights? Taste, color and odor are obvious indicators, but quality testing would be necessary before any entity buys your water.
2. Is the quantity of the water I can produce regulated by permit requirements (from a Groundwater Conservation District or otherwise)?
3. How close is the nearest DEMAND for the water? Will it be consumed nearby, or a significant distance from my source? Is there planned development in an area near the place your water rights can be exercised?
4. Are there water delivery facilities close-by? Has the local water purveyor installed transmission mains near your property, or is the closest pipeline miles and miles away?
5. Is it politically viable for me to sell my water rights? Many times, this question is overlooked, and the consquences can be dire. Ask yourself: Will my neighbors be upset over my efforts to sell my water?
If you have available water rights that you are interested in marketing, selling or leasing, you should do so with the help of a lawyer experienced in water rights and real estate transactions. You can bet that the purchasers of water rights know their legal rights and the factors dictating the value of water in your area. You should have the very same advantage.
San Antonio Attorney Trey Wilson is experienced in negotiating and drafting water rights purchase and sale agreements, water supply contracts, water leases, water permit transfer documents and deeds and other instruments necessary to convey water rights in Texas. He may be contacted at www.texaswaterlaw.com or 210-223-4100.
In order to fully evaluate the potential return on your water rights -- related either to groundwater produced from an aquifer, or surface water produced pursuant to a State-issued certificate of Adjudication -- you should gather as much information as possible concerning factors discussed above.
For example, it would be important to evaluate the following:
1. What sort of treatment will be required of the water which can be produced pursuant to my water rights? Taste, color and odor are obvious indicators, but quality testing would be necessary before any entity buys your water.
2. Is the quantity of the water I can produce regulated by permit requirements (from a Groundwater Conservation District or otherwise)?
3. How close is the nearest DEMAND for the water? Will it be consumed nearby, or a significant distance from my source? Is there planned development in an area near the place your water rights can be exercised?
4. Are there water delivery facilities close-by? Has the local water purveyor installed transmission mains near your property, or is the closest pipeline miles and miles away?
5. Is it politically viable for me to sell my water rights? Many times, this question is overlooked, and the consquences can be dire. Ask yourself: Will my neighbors be upset over my efforts to sell my water?
If you have available water rights that you are interested in marketing, selling or leasing, you should do so with the help of a lawyer experienced in water rights and real estate transactions. You can bet that the purchasers of water rights know their legal rights and the factors dictating the value of water in your area. You should have the very same advantage.
San Antonio Attorney Trey Wilson is experienced in negotiating and drafting water rights purchase and sale agreements, water supply contracts, water leases, water permit transfer documents and deeds and other instruments necessary to convey water rights in Texas. He may be contacted at www.texaswaterlaw.com or 210-223-4100.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Region L Meeting Today
The South Central Texas Regional Water Planning Group will meet today at the San Antonio Water System headquarters, instead of its usual meeting place at the San Antonio River Authority headquarters.
The meeting's Agenda includes a presentation by SAWS of its revised 50 year water management plan, and an item that would allow a late amendment to the 2006 Regional Water Plan.
SAWS appears to be pushing for amendment of the 2006 Regional Water Plan so that it may demonstrate that its "Regional Carrizo Plan" is included in and a part of the RWP. Consistency with the RWP is often a criteria for a permit requested of any grounwater district. SAWS has run head-on to the argument that its Gonzales County permit applications are not consistent with the current RWP, and that this inconsistency provides grounds for the GCUWCD to deny its applications for 11,000 acre-feet of Carrizo Aquifer water.
Among the questions concerning a late plan amendment is which of the Lower Guadalupe Water Supply for GBRA Needs projects would be used for the amendment.
Another interesting topic on today's Agenda is the appointment of a representative on the Region L Board to fill the vacancy left by Bexar Metropolitan Water District's former CEO. The Mayor of Natalia, acting in her capacity as the Secretary of the South Texas Regional Water Alliance, has requested that BexarMet's interim General Manager be appointed until BexarMet find a permanent replacement.
The meeting's Agenda includes a presentation by SAWS of its revised 50 year water management plan, and an item that would allow a late amendment to the 2006 Regional Water Plan.
SAWS appears to be pushing for amendment of the 2006 Regional Water Plan so that it may demonstrate that its "Regional Carrizo Plan" is included in and a part of the RWP. Consistency with the RWP is often a criteria for a permit requested of any grounwater district. SAWS has run head-on to the argument that its Gonzales County permit applications are not consistent with the current RWP, and that this inconsistency provides grounds for the GCUWCD to deny its applications for 11,000 acre-feet of Carrizo Aquifer water.
Among the questions concerning a late plan amendment is which of the Lower Guadalupe Water Supply for GBRA Needs projects would be used for the amendment.
Another interesting topic on today's Agenda is the appointment of a representative on the Region L Board to fill the vacancy left by Bexar Metropolitan Water District's former CEO. The Mayor of Natalia, acting in her capacity as the Secretary of the South Texas Regional Water Alliance, has requested that BexarMet's interim General Manager be appointed until BexarMet find a permanent replacement.
Monday, September 1, 2008
AQUIFER-RELATED TERMS -- A GLOSSARY OF KARST TERMINOLOGY
aquifer
A formation, a group of formations, or part of a formation that contains sufficient saturated permeable material to yield significant quantities of water to wells and springs.
bedrock-collapse sinkhole
Formed by the collapse of a bedrock roof into an underlying cave. Bedrock collapse in karst is rare, but is the principal origin of karst window.
cave
Any natural opening in bedrock large enough for an adult to enter. A diameter of 50 centimeters (20 inches) and a length or depth of 2 meters (6.5 feet) are approximate minimal dimensions. Most cavers, however, would not count anything less than 10 meters (30 feet) long or deep. Orientation of the cave in space is not definitive, and an open-air pit with no overhanging ledges is a cave if it meets the minimum dimensions. The orientation relevant to the outcrop can be significant: an opening 6 feet wide and 2 feet deep in a cliff is an overhang or rock shelter, and not accepted as a cave.
cover collapse
The collapse of unconsolidated cover (soil, regolith, residium, or outwash) into the underlying cavernous bedrock.
cover-collapse sinkhole
Formed by the collapse of the unconsolidated cover (soil, residuum, loess, or till) that formed the roof of a soil void or conduit at the soil-bedrock interface, spanned a grike (cutter), or other karst void in the bedrock.
dissolution sinkhole (synonym: doline)
Sinkhole resulting exclusively from gradual dissolution of the bedrock and removal of the dissolved rock and insoluble residuum via the sinkhole throat and karst aquifer conduits. Variants of dissolution sinkholes may be totally buried and filled, or the bedrock may be totally exposed, but most have the classic bowl-shaped contour, with a variable thickness of soil or other unconsolidated residuum covering the bedrock.
epikarst (synonym: subcutaneous zone)
The interval below the organic soil and above the main mass of largely unweathered soluble bedrock, consisting of highly corroded bedrock, residuum, and float. Thickness varies from absent to a maximum of 30 meters (100 feet). The epikarst is relevant to the storage and transport of water in the karst system, and to foundation stability.
graded-filter technique
A method of filling sinkholes that allows the infiltration of water while preventing erosion of the soil cover into the karst conducts. The sinkhole throat openning in the rock bed is bridged with boulder-size pieces of stone. The large stones are covered with a second layer of stone large enough to bridge the openings in the first layer. The hole is finally filled to the ground level with coarse sand and top soil.
grike
A vertical or subvertical fissure in a limestone pavement developed by solution along a joint.
joint
A break of geological origin in the continuity of a body of rock occurring either singly, or more frequently in a set or system, but not attended by a visible movement parallel to the surface of the discontinuity.
karst
A terrain, generally underlain by limestone or dolomite, in which the topography is formed chiefly by the dissolving of rock, and which may be characterized by sinkholes, sinking streams, closed depressions, subterranean drainage, and caves (Monroe, W.H., 1970, A glossary of karst terminology: U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Supply Paper 1899, 26 p). The term "terrain" implies that only the surface is considered, whereas "terrane" includes the subsurface (caves or aquifer) as a single system. Karst also forms on gypsum and salt bedrock, although not in Kentucky.
karst aquifer
A body of soluble rock that conducts water principally via a connected network of tributary conduits, formed by the dissolution of the rock, which drain a groundwater basin and discharge to at least one perennial spring. The conduits may be partly or completely water filled. The karst aquifer may also have primary (intergranular) and secondary (fracture) porosity openings, which are saturated with water when below the potentiometric surface (water table).
karst cave -- see cave
karst conduit
A tubular opening created by dissolution of the bedrock, which carries, can carry, or has carried water flow. Conduits are defined as having a minimum diameter of 1 centimeter (1/2 inch) up to a maximum diameter of 0.5 meter (20 inches). Flow in a conduit may be year round, seasonal, high-flow only, or the conduit may be permanently dry.
karst valley
A valley-scale, mid-size, closed depression otherwise meeting the definition of a sinkhole but also enclosing more than one smaller sinkhole and sinking stream.
sinkhole
Any closed depression in soil or bedrock formed by the erosion and transport of earth material from below the land surface, which is circumscribed by a closed topographic contour and drains to the subsurface. Morphologies of sinkholes formed in soluble rock include dissolution sinkhole or doline (gently sloping depression that is wider than it is deep), karst window (sinkhole exposing an underground stream), vertical shaft (depressions in bedrock much deeper than it is wide and roughly circular in plan), grike (depression in bedrock much deeper than wide and cruely shaped like a lense (lenticular in plan).
sinking stream
Any stream that disappears underground, typically into a swallow hole.
spring
Any natural discharge of water from rock or soil onto the surface of the land of into a body or surface water.
swallow hole
A place where water disappears or sinks underground. A swallow hole generally imples nearly instantaneous water loss into an opening at the bottom of a sinkhole or karst valley, whereas a swallet may refer to gradual water loss into the gravel along a streambed, with no depression apparent.
topography
The general configuration of the land surface or any part of the earth's surface, including its relief and the position of its natural and man-made features. Maps of the topography commonly represent the shape of the surface with contour lines of constant elevation. Sinkholes are represented by contours that form a closed loop, and are marked with a series of tick marks on the interior or downslope side.
Reference for Glossary
Field, M.S., 1999, A lexicon of cave and karst terminology with special reference to environmental karst hydrology: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Environmental Assessment, EPA/600/R-99/006, 201 p. Digital version by Karst Waters Institute.
A formation, a group of formations, or part of a formation that contains sufficient saturated permeable material to yield significant quantities of water to wells and springs.
bedrock-collapse sinkhole
Formed by the collapse of a bedrock roof into an underlying cave. Bedrock collapse in karst is rare, but is the principal origin of karst window.
cave
Any natural opening in bedrock large enough for an adult to enter. A diameter of 50 centimeters (20 inches) and a length or depth of 2 meters (6.5 feet) are approximate minimal dimensions. Most cavers, however, would not count anything less than 10 meters (30 feet) long or deep. Orientation of the cave in space is not definitive, and an open-air pit with no overhanging ledges is a cave if it meets the minimum dimensions. The orientation relevant to the outcrop can be significant: an opening 6 feet wide and 2 feet deep in a cliff is an overhang or rock shelter, and not accepted as a cave.
cover collapse
The collapse of unconsolidated cover (soil, regolith, residium, or outwash) into the underlying cavernous bedrock.
cover-collapse sinkhole
Formed by the collapse of the unconsolidated cover (soil, residuum, loess, or till) that formed the roof of a soil void or conduit at the soil-bedrock interface, spanned a grike (cutter), or other karst void in the bedrock.
dissolution sinkhole (synonym: doline)
Sinkhole resulting exclusively from gradual dissolution of the bedrock and removal of the dissolved rock and insoluble residuum via the sinkhole throat and karst aquifer conduits. Variants of dissolution sinkholes may be totally buried and filled, or the bedrock may be totally exposed, but most have the classic bowl-shaped contour, with a variable thickness of soil or other unconsolidated residuum covering the bedrock.
epikarst (synonym: subcutaneous zone)
The interval below the organic soil and above the main mass of largely unweathered soluble bedrock, consisting of highly corroded bedrock, residuum, and float. Thickness varies from absent to a maximum of 30 meters (100 feet). The epikarst is relevant to the storage and transport of water in the karst system, and to foundation stability.
graded-filter technique
A method of filling sinkholes that allows the infiltration of water while preventing erosion of the soil cover into the karst conducts. The sinkhole throat openning in the rock bed is bridged with boulder-size pieces of stone. The large stones are covered with a second layer of stone large enough to bridge the openings in the first layer. The hole is finally filled to the ground level with coarse sand and top soil.
grike
A vertical or subvertical fissure in a limestone pavement developed by solution along a joint.
joint
A break of geological origin in the continuity of a body of rock occurring either singly, or more frequently in a set or system, but not attended by a visible movement parallel to the surface of the discontinuity.
karst
A terrain, generally underlain by limestone or dolomite, in which the topography is formed chiefly by the dissolving of rock, and which may be characterized by sinkholes, sinking streams, closed depressions, subterranean drainage, and caves (Monroe, W.H., 1970, A glossary of karst terminology: U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Supply Paper 1899, 26 p). The term "terrain" implies that only the surface is considered, whereas "terrane" includes the subsurface (caves or aquifer) as a single system. Karst also forms on gypsum and salt bedrock, although not in Kentucky.
karst aquifer
A body of soluble rock that conducts water principally via a connected network of tributary conduits, formed by the dissolution of the rock, which drain a groundwater basin and discharge to at least one perennial spring. The conduits may be partly or completely water filled. The karst aquifer may also have primary (intergranular) and secondary (fracture) porosity openings, which are saturated with water when below the potentiometric surface (water table).
karst cave -- see cave
karst conduit
A tubular opening created by dissolution of the bedrock, which carries, can carry, or has carried water flow. Conduits are defined as having a minimum diameter of 1 centimeter (1/2 inch) up to a maximum diameter of 0.5 meter (20 inches). Flow in a conduit may be year round, seasonal, high-flow only, or the conduit may be permanently dry.
karst valley
A valley-scale, mid-size, closed depression otherwise meeting the definition of a sinkhole but also enclosing more than one smaller sinkhole and sinking stream.
sinkhole
Any closed depression in soil or bedrock formed by the erosion and transport of earth material from below the land surface, which is circumscribed by a closed topographic contour and drains to the subsurface. Morphologies of sinkholes formed in soluble rock include dissolution sinkhole or doline (gently sloping depression that is wider than it is deep), karst window (sinkhole exposing an underground stream), vertical shaft (depressions in bedrock much deeper than it is wide and roughly circular in plan), grike (depression in bedrock much deeper than wide and cruely shaped like a lense (lenticular in plan).
sinking stream
Any stream that disappears underground, typically into a swallow hole.
spring
Any natural discharge of water from rock or soil onto the surface of the land of into a body or surface water.
swallow hole
A place where water disappears or sinks underground. A swallow hole generally imples nearly instantaneous water loss into an opening at the bottom of a sinkhole or karst valley, whereas a swallet may refer to gradual water loss into the gravel along a streambed, with no depression apparent.
topography
The general configuration of the land surface or any part of the earth's surface, including its relief and the position of its natural and man-made features. Maps of the topography commonly represent the shape of the surface with contour lines of constant elevation. Sinkholes are represented by contours that form a closed loop, and are marked with a series of tick marks on the interior or downslope side.
Reference for Glossary
Field, M.S., 1999, A lexicon of cave and karst terminology with special reference to environmental karst hydrology: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Environmental Assessment, EPA/600/R-99/006, 201 p. Digital version by Karst Waters Institute.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Trey Wilson: Texas Water Lawyer -- Texas Groundwater Permit and Water Rights Attorney
Trey Wilson -- Texas Water Lawyer, Groundwater Permit and Water Rights Attorney