Town of Bartlett, Texas Without Water After Pumps Fail

Texas Water Lawyer & Texas Water Rights Attorney Trey Wilson wrote:    From KSAT 12:

Failed pumps leave small Texas town without water

BARTLETT, Texas - The mayor of a small Central Texas town says the city will be without water for up to three days after two water pumps failed.

The Temple Daily Telegram reports that Bartlett Mayor Norris Ivy made the announcement Wednesday. Meanwhile, Bell County Commissioners Court Judge Jon Burrows declared the town of 2,000 people located about 50 miles northeast of Austin to be in a local state of emergency.

Both the main pump for the ground storage tank and the city's backup water well failed.

The city was making available bottled water and non-potable water available.

Read the story HERE

Federal Control of Water Rights May be Closer Than You Think

Texas Water Lawyer & Texas Water Rights Attorney Trey Wilson wrote:   From TheBlaze:

Obama’s Forthcoming Executive Action Could Impact Your Property

The Obama administration is expected to announce final details of “Waters of the United States” rule this week that could impact any property owner with water or a ditch that occasionally fills with water on their land. Moreover, the regulation could even conflict with two Supreme Court rulings.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers have sought to provide more clarity to what bodies of water are protected under the 1972 Clean Water Act, which has previously affected rivers, lakes and the streams that flow directly to them.

Private property advocates, such as ranchers and farmers, fear the new rule could encompass nearly any type of water on a property.

“Property owners will not be able to engage in activities they should be able to engage in,” Daren Bakst, a research fellow in agriculture policy at the conservative Heritage Foundation, told TheBlaze. “This will be devastating to private property rights. It’s an attack on private property rights. Most people don’t have the money to pay for all these permits.”

he EPA referred TheBlaze to a blog written by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Jo-Ellen Darcy.

“Protection for about 60 percent of the nation’s streams and millions of acres of wetlands has been confusing and complex as the result of Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006,” they wrote.

The post continued, “We’re limiting protection to ditches that function like tributaries and can carry pollution downstream—like those constructed out of streams. Our proposal talked about upland ditches, and we got feedback that the word “upland” was confusing, so we’ll approach ditches from another angle.”

Twice in less than a decade the Supreme Court, first in the 2001 case of Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and again in the 2006 case of Rapanos v. United States, struck down efforts by the two agencies to expand jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.

The two agencies say the rule will accommodate the high court rulings, while critics say it clearly expands beyond the court’s limits on the government.

“It’s not uncommon for an agency to broadly interpret language, but based on court precedent, it is going way too far in exceeding what it is allowed to do,” Bakst said.

The proposed rule would regulate “tributaries,” or depressions in land that can fill up with water. Currently such water cannot be regulated, but the EPA contends that such bodies of water – even if temporary – can run off and send pollution into larger bodies of water.

The American Farm Bureau Foundation established a special website called “Ditch the Rule,” using the term “ditch” for claiming the EPA wants to regulate a ditch under the Clean Water Act.

The EPA conducted an aggressive social media and public relations campaign, which critics have said skewed public support.

California Court Ruling Threatens Price-Driven Conservation Efforts

Texas Water Lawyer & Texas Water Rights Attorney Trey Wilson wrote:

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.

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...

Texas to proceed with water lawsuit against NM

From the Las Cruces Sun News
By: Susan Montoya Bryan

ALBUQUERQUE >> The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that Texas can proceed with its lawsuit against New Mexico over management of the Rio Grande.

Texas contends that groundwater pumping near the Texas-New Mexico border has resulted in Texas farmers and residents being deprived of Rio Grande water.

The dispute's complex history focuses especially upon farmers in the Elephant Butte Irrigation District, which delivers river water in Doña Ana County and southern Sierra County. Many growers have been anxiously wondering whether the high court would give a green light to the case.

There's a lot of uncertainty about the direction the case could go and about the ultimate result, said Gary Esslinger, manager of the 8,500-member irrigation district.

"I really don't know what the outcome will be," he said. "It's really unfortunate we're in this predicament. We'll just have to see."

Thorny debate

New Mexico argues that downstream users are getting what's required under a compact between the states and that the Supreme Court should have let lower courts consider the dispute.

New Mexico Attorney General Gary King said Monday he was not surprised by the court's ruling.

"I am confident that the court takes such state-to-state disputes very seriously, and we look forward to being able to tell New Mexico's side of the story and to have our day in court," King said.

The Supreme Court gave New Mexico 60 days to file a motion seeking the case's dismissal. Texas would then have an opportunity to respond.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality first asked the Supreme Court to weigh in more than a year ago, alleging that New Mexico was violating the 1938 Rio Grande Compact that governs how water is shared by Texas, New Mexico and Colorado.

EBID officials have said the Supreme Court dispute puts the irrigation district in awkward position. That's because, for groundwater purposes, EBID is squarely under New Mexico authority. But for river water regulation, it's lumped in with Texas under the Rio Grande Compact.

It's that arrangement, Esslinger said, that may prompt EBID to try to intervene in the new Supreme Court case as a third party, independent from New Mexico or Texas.

"We'll not necessarily be taking New Mexico's side or taking Texas' side," he said.

EBID officials have blamed the Texas action in the Supreme Court on a separate federal lawsuit brought by King, who challenged a 2008 water-sharing agreement between EBID and its irrigation district counterpart in El Paso County.

EBID officials have said they don't believe Texas would have filed the action, if King hadn't filed his.

Esslinger said he believes EBID is well-positioned to argue its case to the Supreme Court because the 2008 agreement has guaranteed that farmers in Texas are getting their share of river water.

"We think that it's working," he said. "We're going to continue to stand behind that position."

King argued that the agreement unfavorably changed the allocation of water for his state.

EBID officials have said the agreement was aimed at heading off a legal battle between the two states that could ultimately harm Doña Ana County farmers by cutting off their right to use groundwater.

Drought persists

Nearly all of New Mexico has been mired in drought for the past several years, leaving stretches of the Rio Grande dry at times and reservoirs along the river at record-low levels. Without any promise for moisture this winter, farmers are still making hard choices about whether to grow staple crops such as chile, onions and pecans.

Those farmers who made it through last year had access to wells for irrigating because there was not enough Rio Grande water left for New Mexico. This year, irrigation officials have yet to make predictions about how much water might be allocated.

Sun-News reporter Diana Alba Soular contributed to this report. 

SAWS obtains $50M Loan for Bexar County De-sal Plant

Texas Water Rights Attorney Trey Wilson wrote:

Another TWDB loan for SAWS desalination project The Texas Water Development Board has given a US$ 50 million loan to the San Antonio Water System (SAWS) towards its first-ever groundwater desalination plant in southern Bexar County. Announcing 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

Cow Creek Groundwater Conservation District Grants Permits for New Wells to Operator of Tapatio Springs Golf Resort

On June 28, 2011, the Board of Directors of the CCGCD entered a written order granting the applications of SPE GO HOLDINGS, Inc. to amend the operating permit for existing wells, and to drill 4 new wells on Tapatio Springs Golf Resort property. The Order follows the Board's verbal approval of the permit applications at its Meeting of June 13, 2011. The Resort's owners filed the permit application seeking additional water for the purposes of irrigating the golf course.

Kendall County Utility Company, Inc. filed a protest to the applications based upon concerns that production from new wells would further de-water the already precariously-low middle Trinity Aquifer in Kendall County. Representatives of the KCUC spoke out against the permit applications, and presented evidence that further depletion of the aquifer in the area of KCUC's existing wells could seriously compromise the utility's ability to provide potable water service to its residential customers.

During the same meeting that the CCGCD Board approved the drilling of 4 new wells on Resort property, the Directors also declared the District to be in "Stage 5" drought restrictions. According to the CCGCD website, Stage 5 drought is considered "EXTREME," and mandates a 40% reduction in groundwater use, and prohibits use of sprinklers at any time.

KCUC -- acting through its attorney, Trey Wilson -- has filed a request for contested case hearing, seeking formal review of the CCGCD's action in granting SPE GO HOLDINGS, Inc.'s application to drill new water wells within KCUC's CCN area.

The Cow Creek Groundwater Conservation District was ratified in 2002, with the stated purpose of "conserving, preserving, recharging, protecting and preventing waste of groundwater from the aquifers within Kendall County."

Kendall County's water restrictions unchanged

BOERNE — Despite dramatic drops in the water levels in its monitoring wells, Cow Creek Groundwater Conservation District officials declined Monday to ban all outdoor watering in Kendall County.

Since June 2008 the district has been under Stage 5 restrictions, which limit lawn watering to once a week by hand-held hoses and prohibit using groundwater for construction or to irrigate hay, parks and athletic fields.

“I feel like we're just now getting people on board with Stage 5,” District Manager Micah Voulgaris said Tuesday.

He said eight violators have been cited in July, up from three in June.