2. Agenda item no. 17 - Proposed Amendment #2 revises the scope of the project from "construct north-bound ramps on IH-35 from Blanco River to Yarrington Road" to "reverse northbound and southbound ramp configuration on IH-35 from Blanco River to RM 150" and transfers the Design and Environmental responsibility and associated costs to TxDOT. The revised AFA increases TxDOT's financial responsibility to cover the construction cost of the expanded limits and larger construction project, with the County continuing to provide the original $200,000 contribution toward the construction costs.
2. Doug Cones lawsuit (former general manager)
3. update on letter of intent with City of Dripping Springs on potential DPR project and possible action
4. water reuse in Texas and elsewhere presentation by Clint Walker of AquaStrategies - no action to be taken
5. Proposal by AquaStrategies on vetting future water management strategies and possible action
• Interlocal agreement with Buda for cooperation in eminent domain proceedings
Discussion on GMA9 procedures for public comments.
•Discuss interlock agreement with Buda for cooperation on eminent domain proceeding
• Resolution giving consent to Sunfield Mud No. 1 to issue road bonds
• Presentation by AquaStrategies on Forecast Water Demands of Dripping Springs compared to demands in Regional Water Plans. Proposal by AquaStrategies on vetting future water management strategies for DSWSC.
Presentation from BSEACD for funding to help with a revision to the Hill Country Trinity Groundwater Model (Conley - agenda item no. 5)
Additional items being considered by Hays County Commissioners Court:
no. 22 - approve ballots returned for improvements to Bill Kuykendall Road (Jones/Whisenant/Gonzales)
no. 27 - Consider resolution in support of collaboration of multiple agencies and groups to provide data collection equipment for Blanco River Basin (Conley/Ingalsbe) no. 34 - Professional services agreement with LAN for Right of Way services on an as needed basis (Inglesbe/Conley)
The BSEACD Board unanimously passed the proposed revisions to the rules at their meeting on July 16th to allow the district to administer the newly annexed area of the former "white zone" of the Trinity Aquifer in Hays County.
There was a great turn-out of people and it was standing room only. People from all the neighboring subdivisions of the EP wells were represented, including Rolling Oaks, Sierra West, and River Mountain Ranch. Also present were Linda Kaye Rogers from the HTGCD and many representatives from TESPA. Ed McCarthy and Karen McBee, representing Electro Purification were there, as well as a staff member and an attorney from the City of Buda.
There was a July 9th deadline for the submission of written comments. The only written comments received by the District by the published deadline was from TESPA. Their comments were generally positive, but they requested the GMA-10 adopted DFC for HTGCD of a 0' drawdown, asserting that HTGCD's jurisdiction had extended into the annexed area at the time before annexation.
There was a proposed staff addendum to the proposed revisions to the rules: (1) clarification of the definition of the Upper Trinity Management Zone (2-1). The original definition may have left an upper connecting zone to the Edwards uncovered by the rules. (2) changed the language to the "applicable" DFSc and MAGs rather than any specific metrics (3.1.25). This change was in response to the submitted written comment by TESPA.
8 people made public comments. Louie Bond, Lila Knight, Laurie Luttrell, David Crowell, Malcolm Harris, attorney for TESPA (didn't catch the name), and Les Carnes spoke in favor of the adoption of the revisions to the rules.
Ed McCarthy, attorney for EP, requested that the board not pass the rules to allow staff time to "reflect further on the rules." He said he had been trying to work through the rules himself as it seemed as though they were a melding of two families, the Edwards and the Trinity. The definitions were not clear where they apply to which aquifer. He said there were problems with the definitions of "permit" (and he cited the various types of permits) as they weren't the same terms as used in the legislation or statutes. He said he would be glad to submit his written comments. He also said his were not significant criticisms. But there was a need for specific definitions for "unreasonable impact to neighboring wells" and "impact on DFCs" with respect to permitting criteria. He said that they need to know this since they have the burden of proof and need to be able to meet the standards. He also said the terms "temporary permit" and "regular permit" were not included within HB 3405 and "you might want to look at this" with respect to your definitions. He also questioned the exempt permit by rule of wells of more than 25,000 gallons a year (did he mean less ?) as that did not appear to be possible under the statute of Chapter 36. He had already run out of his 3 minutes and was still talking, so the president of the board had to request him to stop speaking.
Since McCarthy had raised some legal questions, Dupnik (general manager) suggested the Board go into executive session to discuss. The board's attorney, Bill Dugat, requested McCarthy's written comments. Although McCarthy had the comments written down, he refused and said he could submit them to the District in the morning. Dugat assured the board it was okay as he had taken "pretty good notes" on what McCarthy said.
After a half hour executive session, the board returned and passed the revisions to the rules (including the addendum) with no discussion. It was a unanimous vote.
Dupnik gave a brief update on activities related to the newly annexed area:
• Staff is streamlining the forms related to well registration that are online and for temporary permits.
• There will be a formal Town Hall meeting in the future, probably the first or second week in August. But they are still working on the scheduling. IT will probably be held at St. Stephens.
• Staff are working with EP on their future well test and have met with them several times.
• They are also working to continue to expand the monitoring well network.
• Dupnik assured the board they will be very deliberate on how they implement any determination of definitions of "unreasonable impact to existing wells" which is why there is currently no definition in the revised rules. This will be based on science and the staff is continuing to research the best way to determine this impact.
• Staff is meeting next week with TWDB regarding a model for the annexed area. This will be a very expensive, multi-year process, but the TWDB is highly aware of the importance of the area.
The District also hired Jeff Barton of Gap Strategies to help with public relations for the annexed area. A RFQ was issued and only 2 firms responded.
There will be an informal meeting next week at St. Stephens on Thursday the 23rd (come and go from 11:00 to 1:00) by the BSEACD staff. It will be the first of many meetings that they are calling "pop-up" meetings that they plan to hold on a weekly basis. The purpose is just to visit with people in the newly annexed area and to answer any questions about anything - how to register their wells; aquifer science; how to measure water quality in their wells; just whatever.
The agenda included discussion and possible adoption of proposed rules to begin the process of implementing HB 3405.<
This Town Hall meeting will focus on the proposed interlocal agreement between Hays County, City of Kyle, and the Mountain City regarding an exchange of Mountain City's ETJ to the City of Kyle for the provision of water to the Anthem Subdivision.
Status Report on Anthem Development
Discuss and take possible action regarding Interlocal Agreement between Hays Co., City of Kyle and Mountain City on ETJ boundaries.
Discussion of EP Well Field; legislative update; and draft MOU with EAA, BSEACD, HTGCD, and Plum Creek for data collection and evaluation of pumping impacts.
There was a meeting at the Wimberley City Hall with a representative of the Texas Forest Service, Paul Johnson, who addressed three questions:
1. What should not be done that would harm the remaining trees along the river?
2. What can be done to save the damaged trees?
3. How can we develop a long term restoration plan for the valley?
Consideration of 2 final plats for the Meadows at Kyle (Phase 5 and 6; a total of 90 lots) utilizing Goforth Water.
Update on legislation, including SB 1440, regarding the extension of the BSEACD boundaries to include the Trinity Aquifer in Hays County; update on activities regarding EP well field.
Presentation on West Travis County Public Utility Agency (WTCPUA)
Authorize negotiations and execution of an interlocal agreement between Kyle, Hays County and Mountain City to establish terms and compensation for County assistance in construction improvement of repairs to public streets within Hays Co and boundaries of Mountain City and release of ETJ within Hays County (relating to Anthem Subdivision).
Executive Session: deliberate with legal counsel for legal advice regarding the provision of public utilities within the City of Buda
Carlos Rubinstein, Chairman of Texas Water Development Board, spoke.
Presentation by Graham Moore of the HCPUA on Phase IA infrastructure.
A public contested case hearing will be conducted on April 15, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Dripping Springs City Hall by the board of the Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District. This hearing is in response to TESPA’s Notice of Violation that was filed with the District under the provisions of Chapter 36 of the Texas Water Code. This is the first public legal proceeding in the fight to regulate the Electro Purification well field.
If you are concerned about EP’s wells and their potential impact on the adjacent community that will be affected by this proposal, then come and join in the public hearing on April 15. Please keep in mind that this is a formal legal proceeding. Please be respectful of the process and those conducting the proceedings as well as those that may be representing positions favorable to Electro Purification.
Presentation by representatives from Electro Purification regarding the results of their hydrologic evaluation.
Sponsored by Precinct 2 County Commissioner Mark Jones
"TESPA’s legal team will discuss litigation plans and some of the science behind the legal theories. Other group leaders will also be included in this discussion."
“Hays County: Water, Rocks, ‘Rule of Capture’ and the Future of our Native Plants”
Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District (HTGC) Board of Directors meeting
(1) update on HTGCD's role regarding EP including presentation from Al Broun on EP test wells and preliminary update
(2) installation of new telemetry well system close to EP well field (potential cost to install is $9,500 with donations appreciated)
(3) Executive Session: update on legislation and possible annexation of the unregulated portion of the Hays Trinity Aquifer
6:30pm at the Buda City Hall
(1) Workshop - LAN engineer Drew Hardin will give a presentation on the water supply projections - again
(2) Executive Session: Discuss legal issues related to water supply contract with EP, legal obligations, impacts and implications related to proposed resolution supporting state legislation regulating groundwater production in areas not within conservation or other districts and legal implications, impact and implications related to proposed state legislation regulating groundwater.
Representive Issac and Senator Campbell revealed 6 new bills
Update on HTGCD's role regarding Electro Purification and Discussion of Feb 5th meeting with Hays County Commissioners Court.Read Agenda
Discussion of Special Called Meeting of Hays County Commissioners Court Meeting Feb. 5th and Representative Isaac's Town Hall Feb. 10th to discuss water issuesView Agenda
Representative Jason Isaac Town Hall Meeting on Electro Purification Water Mining in Hays CountyVIEW PRESS RELEASE
Will give a status report on Anthem MUD (if any is available) and Adopt a Resolution to insure all areas over the aquifers are in a groundwater conservation district
All of the participants in the project will be represented along with our groundwater districts, the cities along the I-35 corridor, and our representatives in the Texas Legislature. Agenda items include concerns about the EP project; the short and mid-term water needs of the I-35 corridor; legislative needs to cover unregulated areas of the aquifer for commercial uses; the scientific studies needed to assess and evaluate the EP well field; and mitigation plans within the well field area.VIEW AGENDA View Video
Update on Electro Purification Wells:
• Support of annexation
• Review area of annexation
The meeting is for discussion and response to the Electro Purification project. If you were planning on attending the Rolling Oaks Clubhouse meeting Sunday Feb. 1, please attend the St. Stephens meeting as the Rolling Oaks Clubhouse is very limited in space.
"Discussion and possible action related to the Electro Purification Trinity well field located just outside of the District's boundaries including options for possible annexation"
"Update and discussion on the status of the city of Buda's efforts to contract with Electro Purification LLC for groundwater from the Trinity Aquifer formation in Hays County"View Full Agenda
"Discussion and possible action to develop an agenda for a special meeting of the Commissioners Court related to the proposed commercial use of groundwater from Precinct 3 by Electro Purification, LLC, Goforth Water Supply and the cities of Buda, Kyle and Mountain City" Conley/Whisenant
View Goforth SUD Board Statement