TESPA Calls Needmore Ranch Water Permit Erroneous, Misleading

TESPA Opposes Barton Springs Groundwater District’s Issuance of Temporary Permit in “Shared Area”.

Last week, The Trinity Edwards Springs Protection Association (TESPA) submitted objections to the Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer Conservation District (District) regarding the District’s decision to issue a Temporary Permit to Needmore Water, LLC on October 19, 2015. TESPA has analyzed the application and supplemental documentation Needmore provided to the District and has concluded that the District lacked authority under HB 3405 and the District’s own rules to grant the Temporary Permit.

HB 3405, which became effective on June 19, 2015, extended the District’s jurisdiction to include unregulated areas of the Trinity Aquifer in Hays County, also called the “shared area”. Prior to passage of the law, Needmore Ranch, a 5,000-acre ranch along the Blanco River in Hays County, was outside the District’s jurisdiction and subject to certain restrictions that were removed by the legislature during the same session.

According to Vanessa Puig-Williams, an attorney for TESPA, “HB 3405 brought this ranch into its jurisdiction along with the lands which were home to the controversial Electro Purification groundwater extraction and sales proposal. During the legislative session, another act removed previous restrictions on groundwater pumping on the ranch, and the door was opened for this temporary permit application to remove hundreds of millions of gallons of groundwater from the Trinity Aquifer.”

On September 19, Needmore applied to the District for a temporary permit to produce 289,000,000 gallons of groundwater a year from the Trinity Aquifer. After Needmore submitted its application, the District conducted field investigations and learned that the well is currently inoperable and has been inoperable for quite some time. The District also learned that the well had never been used for agricultural irrigation as set out in the permit application. However, the district issued the permit after changing the classification of the well to agricultural wildlife, even though the District also had discovered that the well had only been used in the past to fill a pond for recreational use.

“The issue is whether or not Needmore qualified for a so–?called ‘temporary permit’,” said Jim Blackburn, another TESPA attorney and board member. “HB 3405 created this classification in order to grandfather in both operating wells as well as wells for which a sale of water was under contract. The law is clear. You had to be operating a well on June 19, 2015 – the day HB 3405 became effective – to apply for a temporary permit. However, from information contained in the District’s files, it is apparent that Needmore’s well had been in disrepair for some time and was not operating as required by HB3405.” HB 3405 provides that the District shall issue a regular permit to a temporary permit holder for the production amount set forth in the temporary permit. The district may only reduce this permitted amount based on a finding that it will either cause a failure to achieve the desired future condition or cause unreasonable impacts to existing wells.

According to Vanessa Puig-Williams, “This issue is extremely important because the Trinity Aquifer in this area is so vulnerable. We did not fight to create regulatory authority over this “shared area” only to allow a well that does not qualify to be grandfathered. The temporary well can be converted to a regular permit much more easily than in the normal permitting process. At the least, this application should be returned and Needmore should be required to submit an application for a new well subject to all of the District’s rules.”

TESPA’s letter to the District also raised concerns about the use classification for the well. The application stated that the well was used for agricultural irrigation purposes. However, District files indicate that in conversations with a ranch employee, District employees were informed that the well had never been used for irrigation or for wildlife management purposes, but had only been used in the past to fill a pond for recreational use. In issuing the temporary permit, the District changed the permit classification from agricultural irrigation to agricultural wildlife management.

Again, according to Jim Blackburn, “Based on the information we obtained from the District files, this temporary permit did not meet the District’s rules. Not only was the well not operating but the well was clearly not used for the purposes stated in the permit application. Permit applicants should not be rewarded for filing misleading or erroneous applications. The potential for over pumping this aquifer is very real. We must insist that the letter of the law be applied to the facts if we are to have any chance to protect this wonderful water resource and the much smaller wells of local property owners.”

TESPA has requested that the District revoke Needmore’s temporary permit and deny the regular permit. Added Blackburn, “It is amazing what we are encountering. TESPA will do what it takes to protect these groundwater resources. If we think it necessary, we will not hesitate to file suit.”