Sorry, you need to enable JavaScript to visit this website.
Article Image Alt Text

County OKs outside counsel for EP

Pumping Permit
Sunday, July 29, 2018

In anticipation of a hearing on the controversial Electro Purification (EP) production permit, the Hays County Commissioners Court authorized the county’s general counsel to engage outside counsel related to the matter.

At their meeting last Tuesday, the commissioners went into executive session to consult with counsel on “pending and/or contemplated litigation involving Hays County.” The decision to allow General Counsel Mark Kennedy to engage outside counsel regarding the contested case hearing was made afterwards in open session.

The decision comes after the commissioners approved a resolution ratifying a letter that Precinct 3 Commissioner Lon Shell sent to the Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer Conservation District (BSEACD) requesting a contested case hearing on the EP production permit. The decision also comes after the BSEACD board’s July 12 meeting, during which board members discussed procedures related to the permit and the process of arranging contested case hearings with the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH). The BSEACD board’s agenda states that adequate notice of future hearings will be provided.

EP has applied for a production permit that would authorize it to withdraw 912.5 million gallons per year, or 2.5 million gallons per day, of groundwater from the Trinity Aquifer for wholesale purposes. BSEACD staff recommended that EP’s pumping volumes be phased in over time and that the permit include special provisions to avoid or mitigate effects on nearby wells and the aquifer.

The BSEACD had received numerous requests for a contested case hearing regarding the EP permit, including a request from the Trinity Edwards Springs Protection Association and from numerous landowners in the area that would be affected by EP’s production. Several landowners used a form letter which reads, in part: “If my well ceases to yield water, I will be without a source of water supply and my property values will plummet. … I own the groundwater beneath my land and have not transferred or leased those rights to anyone else. These rights and interests are not common to members of the public and may be adversely affected by the proposed production from EP’s wellfield, which the District has the authority to regulate.”

Shell’s letter requesting a contested case hearing on the permit mentions the potential effects on individual landowners and on Jacob’s Well and Blue Hole, parks that attract thousands of visitors per week.

“Tourism is a big part of the economy in the Wimberley Valley. What will happen to our economy when our springs don’t flow?” the letter reads in part.

The letter also states, “They (EP) are pursuing a business plan to remove and export groundwater from the Wimberley Valley. They may have a legal right to produce groundwater, but not to the detriment of the residents around them who use their wells for everyday life.”

Contested case hearings, also referred to as general hearings, are cases in which a person or business requests an administrative hearing to challenge an action by a state agency. When a hearing is requested, the agency sends the case to the SOAH.

San Marcos Record

(512) 392-2458
P.O. Box 1109, San Marcos, TX 78666