Is the Edwards Aquifer Habtiat Conservation Plan a misleading name?

Top-Main Comal Spring  April 22, 2014 image by Cheryl Gilpin; bottom- typical flows before HCP approved, image from video on Edwards Aquifer  HCP website . 

Notice that Main Comal Spring was documented not flowing on April 22 when USGS gage level was 141 cfs cubic feet per second and stopped flowing for days the week before., Prior to that it would only flow intermittently during 24 hour periods earlier in April. Strangely on April 24 the spring was flowing slightly and flowing pretty well at the sidewalk corner spring on the same spring run, with a USFWS plankton net and lots of fountain darters around two days before no fountain darters were any where near these spring openings.  On April 29, once again the Main Comal Spring was not flowing at all for 24 hour periods and the area in front of the main spring was mostly dry.  It is apparent that parts of these flows can be adjusted at will, but at whose will? On May 1 the USGS streamflow gage way downstream was at 135 cfs.

 At average flows for previous  extreme drought periods in April  water level would be up above their waste lines. New Braunfels Citizens are serious about keeping our taxes low and making our city minimize risks and expenses to NB citizens. However, our town can't accomplish that if we set a priority on minimizing regulation and monitoring of regional pumping of the Edwards Aquifer and on our springruns.

The Edwards Aquifer Habitat Conservation Plan is actually a misleading name.  It should have been called a Plan to put more money into the pockets of over-allocated pumping permitees and extend periods of critically low aquifer levels  at the expense of citizens of New Braunfels in order to make the regions pumping permits worth more money for longer periods and not have any  conservation limitations on those users who will pay their highest rate.  Why don't we figure out why this is not working and go back to the drawing board instead of going along with plans that are based upon false assumptions that the EAA directors actually reduce pumping  permits during times of critical period when actually they do not and they offer the groundwater profiteers incentive and mechanisms to keep us in critical period levels instead of  actually having effective rules that work by minimizing critical period.  Those EAA critical period rules have been on the book since 2008 they never did reduce pumping as the legislature mandated and with the HCP assuming that they work as legislated,  the HCP strategies and extra legal agreements actually work to give further incentive and profit to the pumpers to keep our aquifer at critical period levels.

 

Why is that the case? It is because the pumping permitees were the first in Texas to be established as private groundwater marketers when the Edwards Aquifer act first started the Edwards Aquifer Authority in 1994.  But the groundwater marketing was intended in that legislation to be a privilege and an incentive for cooperation of large pumpers to go along with and support  the EAA Act. The EAA Act included language to keep that privilege tightly regulated but that has not come to be the case.  The EAA Act has language that states that the Edwards Aquifer pumping permits would not be considered as property rights owing buy down but the EAA directors have been doing there best to make that not the case either.  Some of their permitting and critical period rules actually violate state legislature mandates to avoid regulating the groundwater marketing as much as possible and to maximize their profits and treat their permits in way that will turn them permanently and irreversibly into property rights owing buy down with public money, the HCP strategy to pay back volunteers to reduce pumping is going to help make that the case and Steve Ramsey the New Braunfels representative on the HCP steering committee is now begging to start the Voluntary irrigation suspension because he is misled to think that there are not other options and does not realize it will irreversibly impact all future plans to reduce any of the aquifer permits because buy back will always then be required to honor all the EAA permits as owed pay back once pay back for reduction actually starts for the few volunteers pumpers now in its program once the program is triggered to start the reductions and puts pay back money in their pockets to reduce their pumping permit then it set a legal precedent that will irreversible change on how we treat all the EAA permits from then all pumping permit reduction will legally require pay back with our public dollars no matter how over allocated or poorly regulated or how poorly suited they are regarding wise water use.  That will mean pumpers will have even more incentive to keep our aquifer and springlfows dangerously low and managing to avoid that will become less likely to accomplish.

Is the strategy with a title that includes "voluntary irrigation suspension" also a misleading name ?

Actually the Voluntary irrigation suspension program is not really done as these pumpers were volunteering to give up something because we will be paying them back and forever turning all the overallocated  pumping permits into property rights that will require pay back with our public money whenever reduced whether voluntarily or required and whenever they can not not market their permit amounts or withdraw their permitted amounts  due to draining of their wells under their land.

Really there are things we can do to keep our aquifer levels from being so low that they trigger this voluntary program. However, once it is first triggered, there will be no turning back and that will be less likely because we will give much more profit and incentive to the pumpers to keep our springflows and aquifer very very low without considering the risks and harms that causes, they are only considering how to maximize their profits. They can tweek our springflows to make us beg for whatever they want us to do because of the lack of proper regulation on their pumping and groundwater marketing and because of HCP strategies agreements with our city of New Braunfels leaders  that are now helping them accomplish this. Our city leaders are going along with the HCP without considering how to reduce expense and risk to our Comal Springflows and to citizens and it is not the pumpers best intrest to figure that out because they profit by imposing crisis and extending critical periods.  City leaders only listening to NBU should realize that risks and expenses to our citizens are not their best intrest to consider our leaders need to protect us citizens and do the home work themselves to minimize harms to our Comal Springs and our citizens.

When HCP strategies and modeling ignore how our EAA director made rules are actually working to make the regions pumping permits worth more money for longer periods and not have any  conservation limitations on those users who will pay their highest rate they present great harms and risks for our spring flows and expense for citizens of New Braunfels.  However, the Edwards Aquifer HCP stakeholders are not trying very hard to honestly present the harms and risks to us and actually knowingly avoid modeling and reporting harms to our springruns and citizens here in New Braunfnels. Since it is obvious now that the HCP stakeholders were giving our town information based upon their modeling with false assumtions,  why don't we figure out why this is not working and insist the regions HCP steering committee right now hold emergency meeting to better prepare and minimize up coming critical periods for this summer.  They should go back to the drawing board instead of going along with plans that are based upon false assumptions that the EAA directors actually reduce pumping  permits during times of critical period when actually they do not and they offer the groundwater profiteers incentive and mechanisms to keep us in critical period levels instead of  actually having effective rules that work by minimizing critical period.  Those EAA critical period rules have been on the book since 2008 they never did reduce pumping as the legislature mandated and with the HCP assuming that they work as legislated,  the HCP strategies and extra legal agreements actually work to give further incentive and profit to the pumpers to keep our aquifer at critical period levels.

A false map is put into the HCP 2013 report after the pubic comment period:

 

The HCP 2013 report even included false information about the HCP impacts on the Comal river which were not part of the report seen for public comment but added in just before the steering committee voted to approve that and finalize the report and while refusing to hear public comment about the addition before they voted at the meeting held here in New Braunfels last March 2014. Our own New Braunfels steering committee member did not even request the committee hear the comments about that my husband the assistant director of the Edwards Aquifer Research and Data Center and I former EAA director from New braunfels brought to give before the vote was made. We had observed the mapped section of the comparison in late summer 2013 when the map was dated and also the morning of the meeting and the river there had much mor impact than the map indicated there back in July and still the day of the meeting. but that incorrect mpa showing less than 10% reduction in habitat is still in the HCP report and was never seen for public comment. 

HCP Drought Contigency Planning is it happening through HCP adaptive management to minimize drought impacts this summer?  How is that working?

At the Edwards Aquifer Habitat Conservation Plan HCP implementation steering committee meeting in March 2014 held in New Braunfels the steering committee approved a recommendation to set up the HCP drought contingency planning team with no hydrology or water resource experts only educators and communications experts and to set up the drought contingency scope to be to conduct outreach and public relations to keep the public positive about the HCP.  Andrew Samson from Texas State on the HCP implementation committee suggested and it was approved for the planning team not to be called a drought contingency planning team since in reality that would not be its scope.  However, there has been no planning for drought  as is required of this HCP.   Preparing to minimize impact of drought does not seem to be on their radar.  I agree with Andrew Sansom about not misleading people with a title that is not what they are doing.  

Can we change the direction of the Edwards Aquifer Authority and the HCP now? YES!!! 

But that won't happen unless New BRaufnels quickly backs out of the agreement they made based upon HCP false assumtions and quickly makes the HCP stakeholders develop a strategy that actually is serious about enough water conservation and pumping restriction to minimize  the length and severity of aquifer critical periods.

Perhaps if groundwater marketing were considered only a priveledge and reward for not being at critically low aquifer levels and not allowed during critically low aquifer levels and if those marketing groundwater were not allowed to serve on the EAA board or the EA HCP steering committee, then our public dollars and decisions would be more about properly managing water supply to minimize risks to people and the ecosystems.  The EAA Act was established first and foremost for protection of endangered species and for protection of  the aquifer water quality and quantity it was not set up to establish the Edwards Aquifer Authority as a groundwater marketing agency which is now what most of the EAA directors consider as their primary role.   Citizens need to insist their leaders do our their homework for our town about our water resources and insist our leaders urge and aggressively insist that regional , stakeholder and state and federal laws and rule making and strategies minimize harm to our springflows and our economy and wildlife and human health and insist the EAA directors and the EAA stakeholder process follow legal mandates protective of springflows and springrun water quality and  get back on the right track to make us more resilient for upcoming drought conditions.   

 Preserving the Comal Springflows and minimizing damage to Landa Park as Native American Sacred Site preservation:

These springflows are important for endangered species and for the cultural preservation of the Comal River as a sacred paleo and native American site. I went to a Catholic high school but I take great great pride and do not hesitate to embrace my native American cultural background and wish more of my neighbors would do the same because that is where we can learn from thousands of years of wisdom about how to live and manage our work and homes while conserving and sustaining our water resources and springflows for our future and for our children and children’s children, For the past few generations many of our elderly have started dying young we have lost their wisdom we need to learn the lessons to be found in the artifacts of the Landa Lake area now under going much destruction, where are our artifacts what can we learn from them?  Maybe if we figure that out we will see how unwise current leadership has been and support setting better priorities.

Sincerely, Cheryl Gilpin, former Edwards Aquifer Authority director elected from New Braunfels