Minutes of Public Hearing
Wells Fargo Bank Board Room
703 N. Esplanade
Board Members Present: Errol
John Dietze (Chairman), Bob McCurdy (GM), Bob Davis, Gary Colman and Bubba
Steen.
Call to order: A quorum being
present, and all notices having been properly posted, the meeting was called to
order at
approval of minutes: Minutes of the
July 6th meeting were presented in the board packet. Bubba Steen
noted one correction to the minutes changing the reference to the “General
Services Commission” which is now the “
PUBLIC COMMENT: Jim Allison suggested that we defer public
comment to follow the discussion of the rules changes. The board agreed with this change in the schedule
of agenda items.
ADOPT ANNUAL
BUDGET:
The 2004 Budget was presented in the board packets to provide structure
for the discussion and formulation of the 2005 budget. Bob McCurdy indicated that there would be
approximately a 5% increase in funds in the 2005 budget due to the increase in
property taxes. The tax rate will remain
the same in 2005 as it was in 2004. Jim
Allison suggested that the 2004 Budget be amended to indicate 2005 and make the
change in the total funds collected to $97,765.61, and the contingencies amount
changed to $9,431.65, in order to approve the budget at this meeting. Jim Allison asked if there were any questions
regarding the budget and a question came
from the floor requesting a copy of the budget followed by question regarding travel
and training expenses. Jim Allison
informed her that the Board is required to receive training to qualify to be a
board member or general manager. Second
question referenced the amount spent for
tax collection. Bob McCurdy
explained that we have to pay the county for collecting the taxes. Another question as to what all was included in the office operations expenditures. She was informed that his category covers all
the costs of running the office; utilities such as electricity and phone,
internet provider, printing expenses, postage, post office box fee, etc. At this time it was requested that the board introduce themselves, and they
did. With no further discussion
regarding the budget for 2005, Bubba Steen made the motion to accept the budget
presented in the board packet with noted changes, Bob Davis seconded the
motion; the motion carried unanimously.
SET AND APPROVE
TAX RATE: The tax rate of 0.015 remaining the same in
2005 as it was for 2004, Bubba Steen made the motion to accept the tax roll and
tax rate for 2005, Gary Colman seconded; the motion carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION OF
RULES CHANGES AND ADDITIONS: Jim Allison was given the floor to present
the proposed rules changes as discussed/suggested in the minutes from the July
6th Board meeting. Copies of
the proposed rules changes, as prepared by Jim Allison, were passed out to the
Board members. Jim Allison suggested
that the rules changes be presented and discussed at this public hearing, but
defer approval and voting until the next meeting (to be scheduled), to allow
for any additional input and further discussions. This was unanimously agreed to by the
Board.
The first discussion was regarding setting a copy
charge. It is recommended that we adopt
the fees as set by the Building and Procurement Commission.
Amendments to
District rules:
#1 Rule 5.1 and Rule 5.2 are amended to delete
“150” and substitute “100.” Jim
Allison read the existing rules 5.1 and 5.2 from the District’s Rules Manual
regarding spacing requirements. It is
recommended that the spacing requirement from property line of adjacent
landowners be change from 150 ft. to 100 ft. to allow more flexibility of well
placement on smaller lot locations, especially in sub-divisions. Bob McCurdy indicated that the State’s
spacing requirement is 50 ft. from property line, and 100 ft. from leach fields;
and suggested we take under consideration adoption of the same requirements. Bob McCurdy indicated that these spacing
requirements deal with exempt wells which are agricultural and domestic wells that
pump no more than 25,000 gal. per day.
No operating permit is required on these types of wells; only registration
of new wells with the PVGCD office is required, and the submission of a
drilling log by the driller at the completion of the well. It is a State requirement that a drill log be
submitted at the completion of the well.
It was indicated that most of the domestic and agriculture wells use a
one horse, or less, motors which allows production to stay within the requirements
and does not allow over-production. Mrs. Walker raised the question regarding
aerobic water systems and why it is not addressed in the rules. Jim Allison said it was covered in the next
rule change and she was informed that the State and County regulate OSSF (on
site septic systems) and the TCEQ is the governing entity. There
was a concern from the floor why there couldn’t be one source for a landowner
to obtain requirements regarding water wells and septic systems. The most the PVGCD can impose on a landowner
is registration of new wells, and monitor that it meets all the PVGCD Rules. We cannot create rules in areas we do not
govern. Henry Rangnow, owner and operator or Rangnow Water Well Service, said
he would like to see PVGCD have the same spacing requirements as the State. Bubba Steen asked Mr. Rangnow how often the
spacing requirement of 100 ft. would present a problem in drilling a well. He explained the situations that occur within sub-divisions where the lots are smaller
and water wells following the spacing requirements could end up in the front
yard of a home. Bob McCurdy
indicated that in these cases a variance would be used. Bubba Steen asked Bob McCurdy how many
variances he has issued thus far, and he indicated only about three. Mr. McCurdy said that when a situation
arises, we try to work with the landowner, and variances are available and
considered. Mrs. Walker raised the question regarding what procedures are provided for requesting
a variance? Bob McCurdy indicated that
there is a form in place and available at the PVGCD office that allows a
landowner to submit the need for an exception to a specific rule. It is the burden of the landowner to submit a
variance. When the application is
received in the PVGCD office, Bob McCurdy can indicate that a variance is
required because the information presented in the application does not meet the
rules requirements. Gary Colman
suggested we leave the spacing requirement as suggested in the proposed change
of 100 ft., and use the variances to accommodate special circumstances. Bubba Steen expressed his support of this
decision and stated that we leave the spacing at 100 ft. as proposed in the
rules changes. The Board agreed with
this decision.
#2 Rule 5.1 is amended by adding the following
language at the end of the section:
“Minimum distance from any existing or proposed septic system, whether
on owner’s property or adjacent property, must meet County and State
standards.”
#3 Rule 5.1 is amended by adding the following
language at the end of the section:
“Spacing requirements for permitted wells is 2 feet for every gallon per
minute (gpm) of the permitted flow from nearest existing well or authorized
well site.” Mrs. Walker asked how production is monitored. The explanation is that production is
determined by the size of the well and the size of the pump.
#4 Rule 5.2, Section 1 is amended by striking
the word “will” and substituting the word “may.” This wording allows more flexibility
changing from mandatory to permissive.
Rule 5.2, Section 3, change Board to
District
#5 Rule 6.1 is amended by adding
a new section to read as follows: “5.
Operators of permitted wells shall provide monthly production reports to
the District. Production reports must be
based upon accurate meters provided by the operator.” This rule applies to non-exempt, large
producing wells. The Board can determine
what conditions and requirements they request from large wells in the operating
permit. Mrs. Walker expressed her concern that the wording of the rules were vague
and difficult for a landowner to understand.
It seems that there are different requirements from different entities;
and a landowner could possible put in a well according to one requirement and
end up having to move it because it doesn’t meet the PVGCD requirements. Bob McCurdy said that that could indeed
happen if a well is dug without a permit.
The purpose of a well permit application is to make sure a new well
meets all requirements, and to register the well with PVGCD. Mrs. Walker,
said that she is trying to figure out and understand what the purpose of the
Groundwater District is. Errol John
Dietze told her that the sole purpose of the water district is to protect the
landowner and their water rights, pure and simple. He indicated that he, Bubba Steen, Bob
McCurdy and Bill Braden initiated the need for a groundwater district with the
proposed Lower Guadalupe Water Supply Project in adjacent districts. The water district was formed to prevent
large exporting of ground water from
#6 Rule 6.1, Section 4 is amended to add the
words “in the district” after the word “area” and add the words “for water
supplied in the district” at the end of the sentence.
#7 Reference was
made to rule 8.1 regarding a Production Permit.
It was suggested that we do not have one, but Jim Allison said there is
such a form. Rule 8.2 delete this rule.
Clarification of this rule by Jim Allison stated that a landowner who
own property that is divided by a district boundary line, does not have to have
a transport permit. If a well is
permitted in DeWitt and is used in an adjacent district, a transport permit
will not be required. A Transport Permit
is applicable to the larger wells, and when the need arises Jim Allison will
get with the District in formulating this form.
Do not adopt this suggested rule change.
#8 Rule 9.1 is amended to delete “eight (8)’
and substitute “four (4).” This will
put the rules book in agreement with the 120 day time-line indicated on the
well permit application.
#9 Rule 10.1 (a) is amended by adding the
following language at the end of the sentence “and a registration number
assigned by the District.” Bob
McCurdy indicated that a registration number is affixed to all applications as
well as a TWDB (Texas Water Development Board) grid number. Bob McCurdy indicated that we have had
several instances where GVEC has requested the registration number. Mrs.
Walker asked why this information is being requested. Mrs.Walker suggested that the reason the
electric company might need to know this information is that most electrical
poles are in place prior to drilling since the driller needs the
electricity. Bob McCurdy indicated that
that is not necessarily so, and that many and most wells are drilled before the
electrical pole is set.
#10 Rule 10.2 is amended by adding the
following to the Caption: “For Non-Exempt Wells.” If
a permitted well changes hands, the District will review the operating permit
#11 Rule 10.4, Subsection (b) is amended by
striking the words “awaiting approval by the Board of Directors.” Question
from the floor regarding whose responsibility is it to secure the permit, the
landowner or the driller? An
Operating Permit is the responsibility of the landowner, but the driller
usually ends up doing most of this.
#12 Rule 12.2 (a) is amended by striking “150”
and substituting “60.” Rule 12.2 (b) is
amended by striking “150” and substituting “100.” Rule 12.2 (c) is amended by striking the work
“steel.”
Mitigation: Jim
Allison presented a proposed new rule to be Rule 10.6 This mitigation clause will pertain to
non-exempt wells that produce more than 300 acre feet of water per year. Jim Allison indicated that we have never had
a big draw on this aquifer. The only
data is from the 1950’s drought. If
draw-down is more than you expect, it could possible create a critical water issue
for DeWitt County landowners. Jim
Allison also felt that there is no need to require an escrow account. The issue of payment of damages should be in
the District Courts and not on the shoulders of the water district. The purpose of the mitigation clause is to
protect the aquifer, users and future users, from damage from other users. Bill
Braden then posed the question of available funds to fight the large users of
groundwater. Jim Allison said we
have insurance to cover any issues that result in law suits against the
District. The Board is keeping a close
eye on adjacent district who are currently dealing with this situation. Currently there is no mining production in our
District. Our best weapon is our
engineers. If we were not covered by insurance,
funds would have to come from tax money or production fees. The effort is to protect historic users. Jim Allison noted that Goliad is asking for
bonds put up by big companies; Refugio sets limits on drawdown and if it is
exceeded, the well is shut-down. Mrs. Walker asked how the District could
stop a big producer and by what means it could be enforced. Jim Allison said that we would file on
them in court, and if they did not comply, the sheriff would then enforce the
mandate. The District can request
different requirements in different areas and different parts of the
aquifer. Mrs. Walker asked for a definition of aquifer. There are many different sands and different
references to aquifers; so what makes up the Gulf Coast Aquifer? It was explained by Jim Allison that
aquifer covers all groundwater in a designated area. Chairman
Dietze asked that further discussions be tabled at this time until the next
public meeting considering the late hour.
Bob Davis made a motion that additional questions be tabled, seconded by
Bubba Steen; the motion carried unanimously.
Errol John Dietze then referenced a letter given to Bob McCurdy at the
beginning of the public meeting from Mrs. Walker. He asked if we had addressed her
concerns. Mrs. Walker said she had a lot more questions that needed to be
answered. Mrs. Walker also indicated
that she felt that the District did not want public input and that the board
intimidated citizens if they have questions. Several members of the board indicated that
we beg for participation. Bubba Steen
said that the attendance at this meeting was the largest turn out that we have
had thus far… there were five citizens present and one driller. We have published meetings and encouraged
citizen input, with little to no response.
Errol John Dietze recognized Henry Rangnow as having attended every
public meeting that the District has had.
Kay Wild indicated that the door to the PVGCD office is always open to
the public for concerns, comments or questions.
Bubba Steen thanked Mrs. Walker for her interest and attendance.
Mrs. Walker suggested that the Board form a committee could to assess
public needs; concerns could then be presented to the Board in a unified
format. Bubba Steen said that if she
wanted to form a committee, he thought she would make a good chairman and we
would welcome any input, and address any concerns. Mrs.
Walker said she would talk to her neighbors and beat the bushes for
participants. Errol John Dietze said
that we beg tax payers to pay attention to what is coming. Jim Allison said that most districts’ mission
is to protect the aquifer and leave people alone to operate their own
wells. Jim Allison indicated that the
District was formed to protect from big transporters and that most of the wells
permitted are exempt. Jim Allison also stated
that the PVGCD operates on a minimal budget and is doing a thorough job. He also pointed out that the every-day user
is not the threat …. it is the big producers.
The Chairman asked that Mrs. Walker’s letter be put on
the next meeting’s agenda in order to address all of her questions, and that we
adjourn. Bubba Steen made the motion to
adjourn, Bob Davis seconded; the motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 P.M.
Sec/Gary Colman
Recorded: Kay Wild/Office Asst/PVGCD