• broken image

    LCRA Contested Case

    This section will be updated for current developments --- BUT check the HOME page often, where we will update for new entries in this section.

    Photo: LCRA Landowner Protestant Team and Environmental Stewardship Team

  • LCRA Contested Case ~~Public Hearing Started on January 28, 2021; Hearing ended in October, 2021 with a vote by Lost Pines' Board of Directors ~~ a unanimous 7-0 vote ~~to give LCRA only 8,000 AFY under a 5-year permit.


    The Board gave LCRA the severe "haircut" in pumping authority that we were hoping for! Not to keep you in suspense, but the update on that decision is attached to this email -- it's an article about the Board's decision and what comes next, which will appear in a local newspaper this week.

    We thank the Lost Pines Board of Directors on behalf of landowners in our two counties, especially those who currently have wells that are vulnerable to heavy pumping in our underground aquifers, but also all those who lose a valuable asset --- water! ---- when groundwater is "sucked out" from under them as a result of heavy pumping, whether or not they have a well.. (The wells of many Lee County well owners continue to suffer serious impacts from Vista Ridge pumping, as an example of what can happen when massive pumping of aquifers occurs.) And of course, we thank the board for pursuing a course of action that is more protective of our aquifers and our local water supply.


    In November, we expect to get clarifications of the Board's action when we see a draft permit, and indications of LCRA's future intentions.


    In the meantime, this is a great result for the many landowners for whom LCRA's permit application for 25,000 AFY raised serious concerns for unreasonable impacts to domestic/livestock wells, private property rights, and property values.




    Contested case ruling by Administrative Law Judges returned to Lost Pines Board of Directors for final decision;

    judges recommend that District issue LCRA's full permit with a few important additions.

                                              LCRA HEARING STATUS

    Updated as of June 20, 2021


    UPDATE:  The LCRA Permit Hearing will resume at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, July 14, at the Bastrop Convention Center --- we understand, as of June 27, that the hearing will be in-person and open to the public. We do not expect the District to allow additional public comment; that portion of the hearing was closed on January 28. The hearing itself was continued because the District's Board of Directors wanted more time to evaluate the record and evidence.


    Go here to download the video of the first part of the hearing on January 28. 


    To cut to the chase, the Lost Pines District listened to the Protestants on January 28, when they disputed LCRA's claim that Lost Pines had no choice but to issue the full permit for 25,000 acre-feet/year!


    The District's Board of Directors --- consisting of your neighbors who were appointed by the County Judges of Lee and Bastrop counties --- heard from a handful of public speakers in the public comment segment before the hearing convened earlier this year, including SAWDF.


    SAWDF had hoped prior to the hearing that the District would see the obvious wisdom in reducing the permit to a reasonable amount, if not denying the permit altogether --- the District has to have a very good reason to deny the permit; however, there is evidence in the record the permit should at least be reduced if not denied.


    We were impressed by the obvious preparation by counsel for the Protestants and their collaboration to present a united front in their formal presentations in opposition to the permit.


    In a sign they are interested in exploring alternatives to LCRA's "it's a slam dunk, give us the permit", the Board emerged from executive session and voted to continue the hearing to further consider the Protestants' arguments.


    The Board's legal counsel questioned the Protestants

    at the end of the hearing, and before the Board retired to Executive Session, to explore whether a permit for 8,000 acre-feet,  drafted along the lines argued by many Protestants and without any ability by LCRA to exceed that amount without a new application (and new exposure to protests), would satisfy the Protestants. 


    The Board's counsel later indicated he would not recommend a solution to the Lost Pines Board that, in his judgment, could not survive an appeal.

    Here is more of the background of the LCRA Permit Protest -- be sure and check out the photo gallery:

    Public Hearing required before Board acts on whether and on what terms to issue permit:


    The decision from the Administrative Law Judges at the State Office of Administrative Hearings was rendered in 2020, but the Lost Pines board postponed the holding of a hearing several times since then, although they could have scheduled it to occur by ZOOM or some other service.


    We appreciate the board holding out as long as possible scheduling the hearing. They apparently agreed with the wishes of a majority of the parties that everyone's rights to due process should be preserved by holding an in-person hearing instead of a virtual hearing (where parties, their counsel and members of the public would have to participate remotely via internet, telephone or in writing). We thank them for that consideration!


    The Lost Pines Board of Directors did in fact cave in to LCRA's intimidation and set the hearing for January 28, 2021, as mostly "virtual", thus excluding the public in a way we hoped they would not --- however, LCRA threatened to sue them and it worked.





    Below this post are other posts or media releases that have taken place in the course of the

    LCRA Contested Case.

    SAWDF Press Release re Contested Case Proposal for Decision


    P.O. Box 931
    Elgin, Texas 78621-0931
    ~~Working for a legacy of aquifers that last forever~~
    April 3, 2020
    For Immediate Release

    Contacts: Michele Gangnes 512-461-3179 mggangnes@aol.com
    Travis Brown 512-560-0341 travisbrown983@gmail.com
    Andy Wier 512-426-5002 awier.tx@gmail.com


    Judges Recommend Approval of LCRA’s
    Groundwater Pumping Plan


    BASTROP – The Lower Colorado River Authority’s plan to pump and sell
    groundwater in Central Texas came one step closer to being realized this week.

    In an 82-page report, two State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) judges recommended that the Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation District issue the LCRA a permit to annually pump and export up to 8 billion gallons of Simsborogroundwater from Bastrop County.

    The judges issued their advisory opinion in favor of issuing a phased production
    permit and instituting a well-monitoring system after a six-day contested case
    hearing last October in which six different parties aired their objections to the
    proposed permit.

    The final decision on whether to issue a permit and on what terms, lies with the
    board of directors of the groundwater district, which must hold a public hearing
    prior to making its decision.

    Aqua Water Supply, the City of Elgin, Recharge Water (formerly, End Op), Elvis
    and Roxanne Hernandez, and Environmental Stewardship, together with 30
    aligned local well owners, who were organized and supported by the Simsboro
    Aquifer Water Defense Fund (SAWDF), all protested issuance of the permit.

    “The landowners who participated in the SOAH hearing essentially represented all
    landowners in Bastrop and Lee counties who object to the threat these megaprojects
    pose to the entire Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer and their communities,” said
    Andrew Wier, who testified for the landowners at the hearing and whose
    Simsboro well’s viability will be adversely affected by massive groundwater

    The judges decided that LCRA’s computer modeling of the project’s impacts on
    water resources and on other permit holders in Bastrop and Lee counties
    sufficiently demonstrated the project will not unreasonably impact the aquifer,
    the Colorado River, or existing permit holders.

    The judges recommended aquifer monitoring wells and phased-in pumping to
    allow the district to protect against any real-world effects the computer modeling
    did not predict.

    However, they found that the District does not have authority under its own rules
    or under state law to unilaterally impose mitigation requirements on the LCRA for
    harm done to other wells in the district.

    Wier, who also is a director of SAWDF, said SAWDF, the landowners it represents
    and their legal team are exploring all options to address issues raised by the
    judges’ ruling.

    SAWDF and Environmental Stewardship did support two of the judges’ findings.
    The judges said the proposed permit should include the right of well owners who
    participated in the hearing to also participate in the LCRA permit renewal process,
    including whether monitoring data requires any permit amendments.

    The judges also found the potential for impacts on the Colorado River and other
    surface waters “caused by the LCRA and District-wide pumping” justified the
    recommended surface water monitoring systems and plan, which were requested
    by Environmental Stewardship, a Bastrop-based conservation group.

    “Adoption of the recommended monitoring plan will bring all pumping in the
    district under a broad umbrella of surface water protection,” said Steve Box,
    executive director of Environmental Stewardship.

    Over the next two months, the groundwater district’s general manager will
    respond to any objections to the judges’ decision raised by the other parties. The
    judges will then reconsider and finalize their recommendations before handing
    them off to the district’s board of directors.

    Because of the coronavirus pandemic, it’s difficult to predict when the
    groundwater district will hold the required public hearing and then deliberate on
    the permit, Wier said.

    SAWDF was formed in 2016 by veterans of several local groups who have battled
    to protect Texas aquifers for two decades.


    Environmental Stewardship Scores Partial Victory ~~ go HERE to read this important story --- our two organizations are completely aligned on needed protections for aquifers and surface water resources.




    Go here and then click on the Green Box to access the full SOAH Docket, including the Proposal for Decision, Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law.




  • Photos & Videos

    Take a look and enjoy!

    broken image

    Socially distanced January 28 Lost Pines Board Hearing on

    LCRA Permit Application

    The hearing was conducted virtually for the public comment section; only the LPGCD Board, advisors and consultants, plus two representatives of each party to the contested case were present in person at the Bastrop Community Center. The hearing will resume in some form of "in person" hearing but is currently indefinitely postponed for reasons unrelated to the permit, COVID or the hearing.

    broken image

    The Grinch Who Stole Christmas

    LCRA threatened in December 2020 to sue the Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation District if the District failed to set LCRA's permit hearing by the end of January 2021. Lost Pines gave in to their demands and met on January 28, but then continued the hearing because they were not persuaded to conduct a vote on the permit until they had more time to consider the Protestants arguments.

    broken image

    The Administrative Law Judges

    An interesting fact emerged during the presentations at the January 28 hearing: the two administrative law judges who heard the case and decided almost exclusively in LCRA's favor, had no experience in groundwater-related permitting cases.

    broken image

    The Drawdown Map Prepared for the LCRA Permit by Lost Pines' Hydrology Consultant in 2018

    broken image
  • LCRA Permit Pending

    broken image

    SOAH Orders and link to Docket

    SOAH Orders --- rulings by the Administrative Law Judges in the LCRA Contested Case, which went to hearing in October, 2019

    ORDER NO. 5 RULING ON PARTY STATUS is posted below. Go here and then click on the Green Box to access the full SOAH Docket.

    broken image

    Contested case now in hands of SOAH Judges

    The District, the Brown Landowners (that's "us"), Recharge (End Op), Aqua, City of Elgin, Environmental Stewardship and Landowners Elvis and Roxanne Hernandez, along with LCRA, have filed their final briefs after the 6-day hearing, pictured here

    Protestants of the permit include:

    Landowners represented by Grissom & Thompson LP and supported through SAWDF ("Brown Landowners")

    Elvis and Roxanne Hernandez, Landowners

    Environmental Stewardship, Guardian of the Colorado River

    Aqua Water Supply Corporation

    City of Elgin

    Recharge Water LP


    Lower Colorado River Authority is the Permit Applicant and also a Protestant of the permit proposed for them.


    Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation District, acting through its General Manager, is the Permitting Authority. The GM is a party to the contested case in order to defend his proposed permit.



    The Board of the Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation District is the ultimate decision maker on whether and in what form to issue a permit.


    The District's General Manager proposed to give LCRA the permit they want, subject to incremental increases in pumping up to 25,000 AFY. Increased pumping would be allowed over a period of years if unreasonable impacts don't occur as a result of each level of pumping.


    The LCRA protested this form of permit because it doesn't recognize the LCRA's absolute right to pump 25,000 AFY of Bastrop County groundwater as soon as the permit is issued.




    broken image

    Contested case now in hands of SOAH Judges

    The District, the Brown Landowners (that's "us"), Recharge (End Op), Aqua, City of Elgin, Environmental Stewardship and Landowners Elvis and Roxanne Hernandez, along with LCRA, have filed their final briefs after the 6-day hearing, pictured here




    Bold type and Font color changes added by SAWDF editor for emphasis.


    Editor's Note: THIS RULING DISPOSES OF THE DISTRICT'S and RECHARGE'S OBJECTIONS TO LANDOWNERS, WHETHER THEY ARE GRISSOM LANDOWNERS OR UNREPRESENTED LANDOWNERS -- some Grissom Landowners are "in" and some are "out" --- see red font for easy identification.

    SOAH DOCKET NO. 952-19-0705








    On February 19, 2019, the General Manager of the Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation District (General Manager) and Recharge Water, LP (Recharge) filed objections to certain claims of party status. On February 19, 2019, the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) filed a response to party status; however, it stated that it does not object to the party status of any entity or individual who filed an affidavit. Aqua Water Supply Corporation (Aqua), City of Elgin (Elgin), Elvis and Roxanne Hernandez, and the Grissom Landowners filed replies to the General Manager’s and Recharge’s objections to party status.


    The General Manager objected to the party status of the following: Mark and Penny Whiting, Tommy Claiborne, Sue Pardue, Felix and Beverly Villareal, Douglas and Dorothy Marousek, Carol and Ernest Pease, Tiger Davis, Donna Nelson, Maria and Paul Tuttrup, Sandi Schneiderman, Sue Ellen Christiansen, Esther Martinez, Stephen Shaw, Becky Jean Nichols, Paul E. Cox, Keith and Judy Everett, Anne and Donald Ross, Jason Sims and Paula Hanks, David and Elizabeth Babin, and Kimberly and James Walker. The General Manager argues that these individuals show nothing more than mere ownership of real property with attendant groundwater rights and generalized complaints about impact that might occur from the drawdown of water if LCRA’s permits are granted. LCRA contends that the generalized claims do not establish a personal justiciahle interest required by Chapter 36 of the Water Code,1. ‘


    Recharge challenges the party status of certain landowners that it believes failed to demonstrate that the granting of the LCRA permits may cause actual and imminent injury to their legally protected rights, Like the General Manager, Recharge contends that certain landowners have not established that they have a registered or permitted well near the proposed LCRA wellfield that is completed or authorized to be completed in the Simsboro formation. In addition to the landowners that the General Manager objects to, Recharge also objects to the party status of Michael MacLeod, Marshall and Peggy Hilbum, and JC Jensen.2 Recharge also objects to the party status of Kermit Heaton, John Watson, Suzanne Ragan, and Roger P. Fuller.3 Recharge also objects to the party status of Michael and Tammie Hagerud, Philip and Deborah Alley, Steve and Suzannah Amable, Arthur Norman Aronsen, III, Hollie Denton, Claire and Michael Wunderlin, Kathnln Rogers, Larry and Irene Campbell, Newton and Fran Ellis, Roger Fleming, John Ricke, Jr., Lewis Sharpe, III, Catherine and Charles White, IV, Dave Teuscher, Dr. Christian and Bette Abee, and Richard Martinez.4 Recharge also objects to the party status of Elvis and Roxanne Hernandez.5 Additionally, Recharge objects to the party status of Philip Cook.6 Recharge further objects to the party status of the Pines and Prairies Land Trust c/o Melanie Pavlas (the Trust) and Circle D Civic Association c/o Jeannie Jessup (the HOA).7 Finally, Recharge objects to the party status of Aqua and Elgin.8 2 Recharge asserts that these individuals do not have wells or, if they plan to drill a well, they have not indicated which aquifer their potential well Will produce from.


    Footnote 1 Application of End 012., LP. for Well Registration, Operating Permits, and Transfer Permits, SOAH Docket No 9527135210 (Sept. 25, 2013) (OrderNo. 3), SOAH DOCKET NO. 95271970705 ORDER NO. 5

    2 Recharge asserts that these indivrduals do not have wells or, if they plan to drill a well, they have not indicated
    which aquifer their potential well Will produce from.
    3 Recharge asserts that these individuals have wells on their property but their wells draw from the Queen City aquifer;
    therefore, LCRA’s wells Will not likely cause a drawdovm at their wells.
    " Recharge contends that these individuals have not shown that their wells are in the Simsboro formation Recharge
    maintains that an assertion that aquifers are connected is too tenuous to show that any drawdown in other aquifers will
    cause harm
    5 Recharge claims that the mere assertion by Elvis and Roxanne Hemandez that the Calvert Bluff aquifer and the
    Simsboro aquifer are interconnected is too speculative to show standing
    6 Recharge argues that Mr. Cook’s wells are fifteen miles away from the LCRA well field and will likely experience
    zero drawdown
    7 Recharge contends that the Trust has not established that its wells are in the Simsboro aquifer. Recharge asserts
    that the HOA has not shown that any drawdown will have an impact on the HOA’s lake
    3 Recharge claims that Aqua and Elgin have not shown that their wells are in the Simsboro aquifer and the impact
    of the drawdown on their wells



    The mandatory standing test is set out in section 36.415(b)(2) of the Texas Water Code. This test, which embodies constitutional standing principles, requires that groundwater districts to limit participants in hearings on well permits to those who have standing to participate, requiring the district to:


    "[L]imit participation in a hearing on a contested application to persons who have a personal justiciable interest related to a legal right, duty, privilege, power, or economic interest that is within a district's regulatory authority and affected by a permit or permit amendment application, not including persons who have an interest common to members of the public." 9


    In City of Waco v. Tex. Com ‘n on Environmental Quality, the Court of Appeals in Austin determined “an affected person” must meet the following requirements to have standing to request a contested case hearing before Texas Commission on Environmental Quality:


    (1) an “injury in fact” from the issuance of the permit as proposed—an invasion of a “legally protected interest” that is (a) “concrete and particularized” and (b) “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical”;

    (2) the injury must be “fairly traceable” to the issuance of the permit as proposed, as opposed to the independent actions of third parties or other alternative causes unrelated to the permit; and

    (3) it must be likely, and not merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision on its complaints regarding the proposed permit (i.e., refusing to grant the permit or imposing additional conditions).10


    Therefore, to prevail on a request for party status, the landowners must show a concrete, particularized injury-in—fact that must be more than speculative, and there must be some evidence that would tend to show that the legally protected interests will be affected by the action.11


    The following parties have not demonstrated a particularized injury-in-fact that is not common to the general public because they do not have a well that draws groundwater, and owning land and the groundwater under the land is not sufficient to show a particularized injury. 12


    The parties that have not established a justiciable interest are: Mark and Penny Whiting, Tommy Claiborne, Sue Pardue, Felix and Beverly Villareal, Douglas and Dorothy Marousek, Carol and Ernest Pease, Tiger Davis, Donna Nelson, Maria and Paul Tuttrup, Sandi Schneiderman, Sue Ellen Christiansen, Esther Martinez, Stephen Shaw, Becky Jean Nichols, Paul E. Cox, Keith and Judy Everett, Anne and Donald Ross, Jason Sims and Paula Hanks, David and Elizabeth Babin, and Kimberly and James Walker. Therefore, their requests for party status are denied. James Allen Tate’s request for party status is denied because he failed to file an affidavit. Although these individuals will not be parties, they will be allowed to make public comment at the hearing on the merits.


    9 Tex Water Code § 36 415(b)(2) District Rule 15 1(E)(2)(d)
    10 City ofWaco v. Texas Com ‘n on Environmental Quality, 346 S.W,3d 781, 802 (Tex App-Austin 2011, pet. denied), rev '11 an other grounds, 113 S W 3d 409 (Tex 2013)
    11 City ofWaco, 346 s W.3d at 305.

    12 End OP., L.P. v. Meyer, No. 03.13.00049—cv, 2018WL 4102013 at *3 (Tex,
    App iAustin 2013, no pet )


    All other individuals and entities have demonstrated a particularized interest sufficient for party status. However, for the individuals that currently do not have a well on their property (but have stated they plan to drill a well), their testimony, if filed, will have limited weight unless they have drilled a well by the time of the hearing or have concrete written plans to drill a well. For those individuals/entities that draw groundwater from other aquifers or formations, their testimony, if filed, will be also be given the appropriate weight in light of the distance from LCRA’s wells.

    SIGNED March 5, 2019. ~~~