 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
October-November among five driest in Texas history On December 4, Texas State Climatologist Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon reported the October-November period just ended was among the five driest such periods ever recorded in Texas. "It's dryer in the October and November of this fall than it was in the October and November of 2010, when we started into this drought," he told WOAI news. He also had some good news, saying he thought it unlikely the dry conditions would continue, because this year there is no vigorous La Nina off the Pacific coast of South America, which tend to lead to constant high pressure and little rainfall over Texas. |
||
|
New Braunfels city council passes some EARIP projects, votes down others At two meetings in November, the New Braunfels city council approved five projects to be conducted as part of the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) known as the Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program (EARIP), but voted down five others. At the first meeting on November 12, projects dealing with habitat restoration, flow management, and habitat monitoring were approved with a total cost of $692,292. But at a second meeting on November 26, five additional projects were rejected. The New Braunfels Herald-Zeitung reported that some of the votes against the projects were from coucil persons who said they simply wanted more information, but other "no" votes seemed to reflect wider concerns and suspicions about the EARIP process in general. Mayor Gale Pospisil voted "yes" and said "We've already approved participation in the EARIP, this is the next natural step to carry out what we've already agreed to." Mayor Pro Tem Mark Goodner, who voted "no", said it seemed odd to him the city was having to pay for the projects up front and then seek reimbusement from the EAA, and Councilman Richard Zapata, who also voted "no", expressed concerns about faulty science and a too-low figure for minimum springflows at Comal Springs during droughts. "The HCP doesn't protect the best interests of our city," Zapata said. Edwards research giant Robert W. Maclay passes away On November 16, hydrogeologist Robert W. Maclay passed away at the age of 85. Maclay was a pioneer in the field of Edwards Aquifer research. He came to San Antonio in the 1970s to work at the U.S. Geological Survey, and with other researchers he developed much of our current understanding about how the Aquifer works, how much water it contains, and how it can be managed in a sustainable way. His works can literally fill a library and are widely referenced on these pages. His family announced it would spread his ashes over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone, forever connecting him with something he loved. Leander residents sound alarm on development On November 8, citing concerns over traffic and Edwards Aquifer water quality, residents of Leander spoke out to their Planning and Zoning Commission against a zoning change request for a tract on Brushy Creek at the corner of Ronald Reagan Blvd. and FM 2243. The zoning change was requested by a limited partnership known as Riverside Resources, who wanted to rezone the site for future use. That future use would likely be an HEB grocery store, which has a pending contract to purchase the site. A preliminary plat was shown at the Commission meeting, but an HEB spokesperson said construction would not begin for at least a couple of years. In addition to the traffic impacts, residents are concerned about the danger to Brushy Creek, which supports a diverse assemblage of wildlife and contributes water to the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to approve the rezoning. Mayor Chris Felder, an advocate of development in Leander and its extra-territorial jurisdiction, said “We’re always excited to look at new development or retail coming in.” Resident Lisa Hupman said the Planning Commission “made a mockery out of the whole process, chatting with pro-development speakers, dismissing anti-development speakers.” Hupman and others promised to fight the development every step of the way. A public hearing on the rezoning was scheduled for December 6.
Environmental groups give notice of suit over development planned for Recharge Zone On November 7, a consortium of environmental groups mailed a Notice Of Intent to developer Gordon Hartman advising they will sue him, his development company, the city, SAWS, and the Judson ISD for violating the Endangered Species Act and failing to protect the Recharge Zone of the Edwards Aquifer. The Notice focuses on a 527 acre tract off Evans Road in far northeast San Antonio, where Mr. Hartman plans to build a high-density residential development of 1,484 homes. The property has at least five caves that advocates believe may contain endangered karst invertebrates and wooded areas that may contain Golden-cheeked warblers. They contend that complete surveys for these species were not performed. The Express-News reported that Mr. Hartman said he did a survey for warblers and endangered invertebrates, but a check with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service showed surveys had not been submitted. Gene Dawson of Pape-Dawson Engineers, which did much of the environmental work for Hartman, said his firm’s study found no warbler habitat so a study was not needed. By federal law, the groups can sue in 60 days after a notice of intent is given. Annalisa Peace of the Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance said the Notice Of Intent is an effort to bring the parties to the table and “we’d like to see a good end to this.” Members of the Cibolo Creek Conservation Society, which also signed the Notice, said they’ve been trying to get the attention of the letter’s recipients but so far have not had any luck. They are concerned about the density of the planned development, the removal of trees, and endangered species that may be present. Expansion of Government Canyon in the works In November the Express-News reported that a 461 acre tract that includes one of the highest points in the county may soon be added to Government Canyon State Natural Area, increasing the preserve’s size to 9,082 acres. The deal with property owner Steve Lowder has been in the works for two years and its feasibility was greatly enhanced when Mr. Lowder agreed to sell his property for 25% below its appraised value. This summer the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service awarded a $1.6 million grant for acquisition of the site, and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department committed $300,000. The remaining $7 million would come from the Edwards Aquifer Protection Program, which is funded by a voter-approved sales tax of 1/8 cent. Mr. Lowder originally owned 957 acres and had plans to build hundreds of luxury homes. He sold 75 acres when the Shops at La Cantera were to be built and land was needed to mitigate the destruction of habitat at that location. He then sold another 421 acres in a deal funded by the Fish and Wildlife Service, the city, and SAWS. Noting that the land would now be preserved in perpetuity for his grandkids, Mr. Lowder said the deal is “a win-win for everybody.”. |
||
|
Critical habitat expanded for endangered cave-dwelling invertebrates On October 18, in response to a lawsuit from public interest groups, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to expand the designated critical habitat for the Comal Springs dryopid beetle, Comal Springs riffle beetle, and the Peck's Cave amphipod. These species are known to exist only in and around four Edwards Aquifer springs. They were listed as endangered in 1997, and in 2007 about 50 acres around the four springs was designated as critical habitat. This was deemed insufficient by scientists because it included only surface water and not the underground orifices critical to the species’ survival. The new proposal expands the critical habitat to 169 acres which partly overlap and include new subsurface areas for the dryopid beetle and the Peck’s Cave amphipod. For more see the Endangered Species page, especially the section on Conservation and Recovery of the Aquatic Intervebrate Species. |
||
|
SAWS updates Water Plan with new supplies, renewed commitment to conservation In September the San Antonio Water System held a series of public meetings to garner feedback on an updated Water Plan. The Plan was last revised in 2009, only 3 years ago, but SAWS felt that a number of factors warranted an update sooner than the normal 5 year interval:
Highlights of the revised Plan include:
After collecting input from stakeholders, SAWS plans to ask City Council to consider the plan sometime in December. |
||
|
SAWS seeks to join LULAC suit against EAA On August 27, the Board of the San Antonio Water System voted to seek intervention in the lawsuit by LULAC against the EAA. Bexar county's population is 84% of the people within the EAA jurisdiction, but only 47% of the EAA board represents Bexar county. LULAC asserts this violates constitutional guarantees of equal representation and the rights of minority voters in the EAA district. SAWS President/CEO Robert Puente said "Bexar county voters, including minority voters in particular, are grossly underrepresented on the EAA board. If the court grants the relief requested by LULAC, minority voters and residents of Bexar County — the great majority of whom are SAWS customers — stand to gain greater representation on the EAA board and a more representative voice in the EAA's affairs." EAA declares Stage 3, SA holds off On August 16, the EAA declared Stage 3 pumping limits for the San Antonio pool of the Edwards, while the city of San Antonio maintained its Stage 2 status. It always causes confusion when this happens – here’s the deal: the EAA drought stage declaration means that pumpers have to cut back, not necessarily water utility customers. If your water provider has some other supply it can bring on line, it may be able to meet the pumping cutbacks required by EAA without asking customers to do anything. In San Antonio’s case, it has several other water supplies it can use, and it has a vast amount of Edwards water stored in the Twin Oaks ASR facility that it can tap into. With the EAA declaration coming so late in August and because September is usually one of the rainiest months in south Texas, SAWS felt it could hold off for a bit and use its other resources until the rains came. Several days later the rains did indeed come – the one-day rainfall record for August 19 was broken when 2.36” of rain soaked the city. Even so, SAWS was criticized for “gambling” on rainfall and relying on luck in managing its water resources. In an op-ed piece, SAWS CEO Robert Puente said it wasn’t luck but years of careful planning and investment that enabled the city to delay invoking water restrictions. He said “we take seriously the ramifications of imposing every-other-week watering restrictions on the community. We will always ensure that Stage 3 is imposed only when other alternatives do not exist.” |
||
|
Draft Habitat Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement now available On July 13, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a Notice of Availability for drafts of the EARIP Habitat Conservation Plan and a draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the Service. The Notice initiated a 90-day public comment period, through October 18, and seven public meetings will be held to receive comments. For more information and meeting dates, see the Fish and Wildlife Service page. |
||
|
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service says it does not support Implementing Agreement of Regional Habitat Conservation Plan In 2011, after years of wrangling and compromise, regional officials reached a consensus on the elements and financing of a Regional Habitat Conservation Plan designed to manage pumping for protection of endangered species that depend on springflows. Development of such a plan was a fundamental duty assigned to the Edwards Aquifer Authority when it was created in 1994. In 2007, the Texas legislature directed the EAA to participate in a collaborative, consensus-based stakeholder process to finally develop the plan. If approved, the plan would result in issuance of an "Incidental Take" permit under Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act, which authorizes permittees to "take" endangered species while conducting otherwise lawful activities. In this way, permit holders can proceed with activities such as construction or other economic development that may result in the "incidental" taking of a listed species. Preparation of a Habitat Conservation Plan is part of the permitting process, and the permittees would be the cities of New Braunels and San Marcos, the San Antonio Water System, Texas State University, and the Edwards Aquifer Authority. On January 5, 2012, the plan was submitted for Fish and Wildlife Service review and approval, and it included an "Implementing Agreement" that limits the ability of the Service to impose sanctions on all EARIP members if a permit violation occurs. Instead, only the single partner that caused the violation would be fined or sanctioned. In June of 2012, the Fish and Wildlife service indicated it would not support the Implementing Agreement and that directors would not sign the document if the Agreement was included. This setback will result in a delay. An alternative will have to be developed and representatives on the EARIP from the various member cities and agenies will have to go back to their respective Boards for approval. Uvalde pool monitoring well drops to lowest level since 1950s Most of the time, the region’s main focus is on the J-17 index well in Bexar county, which monitors pressure in the San Antonio pool of the Edwards. Many do not even realize there is a second monitoring well, the J-27, that monitors pressure in the Uvalde pool west of the Knippa Gap. Because of the constriction in flow caused by the Gap, levels in the J-27 are generally higher and more stable than in the J-17, which responds very quickly to pumpage and rain events with daily fluctuations in excess of one foot. Users over the Uvalde Pool are subject to different drought restriction trigger levels that are based on the J-27 reading, not J-17. In June, the J-27 well finally got some attention as the level dropped to 842’, a reading that hasn’t been seen since the drought of record in the 1950s. At that time, 842’ was reached in April of 1952 and remained below that level for almost six years. Users in the Uvalde Pool entered Stage 3 drought restrictions on May 14, and without significant rain, officials expected the area to enter Stage 4 by early July. Part of this has to do with measurement. In February of 2012, the casing in the J-27 was replaced and it was immediately noticed that daily measurements varied not by the usual 1/10 of a foot, but by as much as several feet. It is believed that replacing the casing sealed off the well column from minor aquifers, so that water can no longer infiltrate into J-27 and affect its level. In other words, the J-27 level has been wrong for many years and the true level has generally been lower than the readings indicated. LULAC sues EAA over electoral layout On June 21, WOAI-NBC reported the League of United Latin American Citizens has filed suit against the Edwards Aquifer Authority, contending the agency’s framework for electing Board representatives violates the civil rights of minority voters. Currently, the Board’s 15 members are elected on a county-by-county basis, even though there are huge population differences between the counties. LULAC contends that large minority populations in counties such as Bexar are therefore underrepresented. WOAI reported that in response to the lawsuit, EAA interim general manager Roland Ruiz noted the election method was established by the Texas Legislature and was designed to accommodate the Aquifer’s interests in a balanced manner. He also noted the election method has been pre-cleared by the Justice Department in every election since the agency’s creation. Threats to Aquifer said to be increasing On June 5 and 8, articles by Colin McDonald of the Express-News and Robert Rivard, former Express-News editor and Executive Vice President, outlined how threats to Edwards Aquifer water quality appear to be increasing. McDonald’s article focused mainly on the region’s response: the tax-supported initiative for purchase of sensitive lands and easements, but he also noted the increasing trend of dry-cleaning chemicals, pesticides, and herbicides appearing in water quality samples. For example, in January the level of dry-cleaning solvents in a well near the Loop 1604/281 interchange spiked to within half a part per billion of federal water quality standards, but no source or cause has been found. Mr. Rivard’s online post at The Rivard Report was a little more direct; he declared the Edwards “ is at greater risk than ever before, although no official is putting it that bluntly.” He noted that large sewage spills receive scant attention on the TCEQ’s website, but there is ample coverage of TCEQ’s stubborn resistance of EPA’s efforts “ to make Texas and its reluctant Republican leadership enforce federal environmental protection laws.” Frankly, the TCEQ and its predecessor agencies have never demonstrated much commitment to Edwards Aquifer protection. For much more on the whole water quality issue and the epic environmental battles that got us where we are today, see the Water Quality section on the Laws and Regulations page. |
||
|
Proposed new rules on coaltar sealants and hazardous materials draw mixed reviews On May 30, the EAA announced a series of public hearings on proposals to adopt new rules that would apply to the Recharge and portions of the Contributing Zone and would ban coaltar road sealants, require secondary and tertiary containment for hazardous materials, and loosen current restrictions on Above Ground Storage Tanks (AST's). Aquifer watchdog groups applauded the proposals on coaltar sealants and hazardous material containment measures. They were unenthusiastic, however, about the rules proposal that would allow an unlimited number of AST's to be installed on the Edwards Recharge Zone. The Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance said “If voted into effect, this new rule will certainly increase the amount of fuels and other hazardous material stored on the Recharge Zone, putting our water supply in peril. We believe that the current rule prohibiting the installation of new AST's on the Recharge Zone should be left in place.” Comal River said to be cleaner with ‘can ban’ in effect Over the Memorial Day weekend, a noticeable reduction in the amount of trash in the Comal River was attributed to the city of New Braunfels’ new ban on disposable containers. Not everyone was pleased, however. Commercial river outfitters who rent inner tubes claimed that trash was down simply because crowds were smaller. They noticed that rentals were down, even though weather and tubing conditions were excellent. Apparently some tubers simply went to stretches of the Guadalupe River outside the New Braunfels city limits, where beer cans are not banned. The ‘can ban’ was approved by 58% of voters in the November 2011 election, but it remains to be seen whether the ban will stick. A 1993 state law prohibits cities from banning disposable containers. A lawsuit filed by a group of local business owners and residents in state district court in February of 2012 contends that New Braunfels has no authority to regulate activities on state waterways or municipal solid waste. These responsibilities, the plaintiffs claim, belong to the TCEQ and the Texas Land Commission. Submarine Theater at San Marcos Springs removed For over 40 years, the Submarine Theater at San Marcos Springs entertained visitors with frolicking underwater maids, swimming pigs, and creepy aquatic clowns (all clowns are creepy, according to me). On May 24, one of the largest cranes in the world lifted the 467-ton theater from the lakebed, completing a milestone in the restoration of Spring Lake. Plans were to cut up the theater and scrap it. For more on the theater, see the San Marcos Springs page. |
||
|
San Antonio enters Stage 2 drought restrictions On April 30, with the J-17 index well dropping below 650' feet, San Antonio entered Stage 2 drought restrictions. Without significant rain, it appears likely sometime in May or June, Stage 3 restrictions will be declared for the first time. For details of San Antonio's Stage 2 rules, see the Drought Restrictions page. San Antonio reverts back to Stage 1 drought restrictions On April 12, with the J-17 index well dropping below 660' feet, San Antonio announced a resumption of Stage 1 drought restrictions. Without significant additional rain, it appears likely that restrictions will be in place all summer. SAWS narrows list of new water supply projects In January of 2011, SAWS issued a formal request for proposals for new water supply projects that would provide an alternative water source and help diversify the city’s long-term water supplies. The objective was to identify projects that could provide 20,000 acre-feet per year to San Antonio by 2030, and 60,000 acre-feet by 2060. Nine proposals were received, and in April of 2012 the list of projects under consideration was narrowed to four. SAWS anticipates that by the end of 2012, it will make an announcement regarding whether one or more of the proposals will be accepted. One proposal involves pumping from the Edwards-Trinity in Val Verde county west of San Antonio, and the other three involve pumping from the Carrizo and Queen City aquifers south and east of San Antonio. For more on the various Edwards alternatives, see the page on that topic. |
||
|
Plan announced to cordon off area for Texas Wild Rice in San Marcos River On March 29, the Austin American-Statesman reported that parts of the San Marcos River would become off-limits for recreation during low flow periods to protect the endangered Texas Wild Rice. The new rule is a component of the Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program, a plan to protect endangered species approved by stakeholders in 2011 and now under federal review for final approval. Under the rule, the city of San Marcos would place buoys or markers to block people from the rice when flow in the River is less than 120 cubic feet per second, as it was for much of 2011. The rule also designates the stretch of the River containing the rice as a state scientific area, and it allows for a fine for intentionally ripping out the plants.
Two new subdivisions near Camp Bullis get federal scrutiny In March of 2012, federal and local officials said they were looking into possible actions against the developers of two new subdivisions near Camp Bullis that contain habitat for two endangered species, the golden-cheeked warbler and the Madla Cave meshweaver. Concerns about development around Camp Bullis were a main driver in the creation of the Southern Edwards Plateau Habitat Conservation Plan, an approach that is seen as a way to provide endangered species habitat protection while also providing developers with a streamlined approval process for their projects. The plan enables developers to acquire approval for new projects by paying into a fund that will be used to protect habitats elsewhere, thereby mitigating the effect of the new project on endangered species. The army expressed frustration that new developments on lands containing endangered species habitats are proceeding without any mitigation. Jim Cannizzo, environmental lawyer for Camp Bullis and Fort Sam Houston said “…it is time for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. attorney to force the developer to do mitigation like he should be doing.” In one of the subdivisions, Bloomfield Hills, several homes have been completed and more are under construction. In the other subdivision, Bloomfield Heights, construction has not yet started. Although the city cannot enforce the federal Endangered Species Act, in 2009 it began requiring developers to sign an affidavit acknowledging they were likely to encounter endangered species habitats. Bloomfield Hills was approved before the new requirement, so no affidavit was signed, but an affidavit was signed for Bloomfield Heights. The developer said they have every intention of complying with the Endangered Species Act. McGuyer Homebuilders land division president Keith Faseler said “We play by the rules of the game. Bottom line, we understand that when we develop we will have to take that into consideration.” For more on the Habitat Conservation Plan and its status, see the Laws and Regulations page. San Antonio reverts to Year-Round drought restrictions On March 6, after 10 months of once-per-week watering restrictions, San Antonio reverted to Year-Round measures. Watering is allowed on any day before 10 a.m. or after 8 p.m., and other Year-Round measures are now in place. See details of San Antonio's restrictions. |
||
|
Supreme Court rules in Day & McDaniel case; landowners own water On February 24, the Texas Supreme Court delivered its long-awaited opinion in the Day & McDaniel case, ruling that "land ownership includes an interest in groundwater in place that cannot be taken for public use without adequate compensation." The case involved landowners Burrell Day and Joel McDaniel, who purchased land over the Aquifer and filed a permit application for 700 acre-feet, but were awarded a permit for only 14 acre-feet. The legislation that created the EAA required it to issue permits based on historical use, and Day & McDaniel were unable to show historical use for the larger amount. They appealed, and also added constitutional claims they were entitled to 1,834.8 acre-feet, or two-acre feet for each of the 917.4 acres they own. They claimed that under the common-law rule of capture, they have a vested right to water, even though they never produced it or put it to a beneficial use, and the EAA committed a “taking” when it issued them a permit for less than they could pump in absence of regulation. In other states and in England where the common-law rule of capture originated, courts have uniformly concluded that landowners do not own groundwater prior to its production and capture. In court briefings, the EAA outlined several reasons why the court should have affirmed there is no vested interest in groundwater prior to production and use. First of all, in the 1904 case (Houston & T.C. Railway Co. v. East) that established the rule of capture as the law in Texas, the landowner lost. In that case, the landowner Mr. East had no ownership rights, only the railroad had any. So it is sort of a conundrum to argue in favor of vested water rights based on a case in which one party had none. Secondly, the right to exclude others is one of the most fundamental elements of a property right, and under the rule of capture, no one has the right to do so, therefore the rule of capture does not afford any vested rights. The EAA also pointed out that Day & McDaniel’s claim, if successful, would unfairly advantage landowners who had never used water over those who had invested money and sweat to make the water productive, since both would end up with rights of equal value. The court rejected all of the EAA's arguments and remanded the case to district court to decide if a taking occurred in this particular case. For the first time, the court definitively settled the question of ownership by affirming that groundwater is owned by the landowner. This does not mean, however, that regulation of pumping is totally out the window or that we will now return to the rule of capture free-for-all that prevailed in the catfish farm days, because the court also affirmed that pumping can be subject to limitations and regulations. The question is what manner and degree of groundwater regulation constitutes a compensable taking. This is always decided on a case by case basis based on the facts of each particular case, and whether or not a "taking" occurred is a matter of degree. For example, if you own a lot that is zoned for residential use, the court would be unlikely to rule that a taking occurred if the city denied your request to build a convenience store. But if the city wanted to take your lot to create a park and denied you of all the value of your property, that would very likely constitute a taking for which the city would have to provide compensation. In the Day & McDaniel case, the court did not rule on the question of whether a compensable taking occurred. But it did make a finding that raises questions regarding the application of EAA regulations to the Edwards. The court stated "a landowner cannot be deprived of all beneficial use of the groundwater below his property merely because he did not use it during an historical period and supply is limited." Historical use was the basis of the EAA’s water rights allocation scheme. Even so, the court ruled that EAA properly followed the law in this case. If it is determined that a taking occurred, the question of appropriate compensation will also have to be decided. In most cases, compensation is based on the value of property before the taking. In the Edwards, groundwater had very little value before pumping limits and regulations were enacted. Regulation and the issuing of permits is what created the market, and Edwards rights are now very valuable. So if there was a taking in this case, the value of what was taken could turn out to be very small. So, does this mean a new wave of additional lawsuits by other landowners who received permits for less than they applied for, or by landowners who did not apply at all? Will the financial burdens of such claims make regulation impossible? Will this disrupt the robust market that has developed in EAA permits in that buyers will be wary of paying for permits that may later be reduced? These are large unanswered question, and only time will tell. Many landowners may be reluctant to brings takings claims because they are always very difficult to prove, and the court also affirmed in the Day & McDaniel ruling that the loser has to pay all legal fees, which can be extremely expensive. Some observers have issued dire warnings regarding the consequences of this decision, while other experts contend that nothing much has really changed, because water has long been assumed to belong to the landowner, it has always been subject to reasonable regulations, and compensation for takings has always been a part of the regulatory scheme. How this ruling applies to the Edwards may turn out to be very different from how it applies to other groundwater conservation districts in Texas. For the Edwards, pumping limits and regulations were enacted by the state itself. The EAA was told exactly what the pumping limits were and what the allocation scheme was to be. Other groundwater districts made their own rules, and some were very aggressive in establishing pumping limits. In those districts, some landowners may indeed be able to show that regulations were unreasonable, and providing compensation for a successful takings claim could be a big problem for the districts. But for the Edwards, if the courts eventually decide that a taking occurred, it will also have to grapple with the notion that the party liable to provide compensation may be the state itself. One thing for certain is that we now have a great deal of uncertainty, which is never a good thing in the water planning business. For a more complete discussion see the Laws and Regulations page, and you can also get the ruling here and read it for yourself. EAA drops San Antonio Pool drought restrictions On February 13, the EAA lifted Stage 1 drought restrictions for the San Antonio Pool of the Edwards. San Antonio did not lift restrictions, so if you live within the SA city limits, Stage 1 rules still apply. If you live outside the city limits, check with your local government to find out what restrictions may apply. |
||
|
San Antonio drops back to Stage 1 drought restrictions On January 3, with the J-17 well having maintained a level above 650' since December 3, San Antonio moved to Stage 1 drought restrictions. The Stage designation in any given city does not coincide always with the Stage as declared by the Edwards Aquifer Authority. The way the system works, the EAA requires certain percentage cutbacks in pumping under certain springflow and J-17 levels conditions, and cities are free to meet them however they choose. If a city had alternate water supplies, for example, it might be able to meet its EAA cutback without imposing any restrictions at all on its customers. If you live in a municipality outside San Antonio, you can check them for any restrictions that may apply to you. See the details of San Antonio's restrictions here.
|
