Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Water Bank <br />Victoria Meeting Summary <br />August 2, 1993 <br /> <br />Introductory remarks were made by T\M)B Executive Administrator Craig Pedersen to the <br />meeting attendeeS, indicating that the meeting would be informal and asking for audience <br />partidpation. Then, Senator Ken Armbrister, the sponsor of SB 1030, the legislation that created <br />the water bank, made remarks addressing the legislative history of the bill and what was hoped <br />to be accomplished by the legislation, namely, the more efl'ective use of the State's waters. Then, <br />Dr. Tommy KnoMes surrmarized the bill's key points and asked for audience comments and <br />suggestions. <br /> <br />The point was made that the bank should not become a refuge for water rights that aren't in use. <br />The response was that the bill only allo.w protection from cancellation once, unless the right is <br />transferred, and then for only an additional ten years. The right would then no longer be eligible <br />for protection from cancellation, even if redepOJsited. Then, there was discussion of the problem <br />of over-allocation of water rights in various areas in the State. The general consensus was that <br />that might be true, if evaluating rights versus finn yield, but when it's wet. as it's been the past <br />year, the water is certainly available. Wlile the Board cannot guarantee what amount of water <br />is actually associated with a water right to be purdiased, it can make sane statement of the <br />frequency of certain levels of flow, historically. <br /> <br />A discussion of adivilies in the lONer Rio Grande Valley then ensued. It was pointed out that the <br />VtateI "laSter operation of the Texas '/IknI Cormission, is essentially functioning as a water bank. <br />Also, there was a.uiosity as to hoN the bank would interact with the 'Me watennaster. A <br />diSCl'Ssion then ensued about the Valley's desire to establish a regional water bank as a pilot <br />program of the bank. DisaJSSion of hoN the bank would intel act with the various river con Ipads <br />occurred next. with the point being made that the bank could purchase water from other states, <br />if it needed to do so. <br /> <br />The issue of hoN ground water would be handled by the bank was then di!!lt'J "'sed. Cr. KnoMes <br />indicated that the Board is still looking for adIIice on hoN to handJe that situation. A general <br />conoem was expressed that sa ,lllOlle CXJUIcI adversely affect their neighbors by depositing <br />aaeage or ground water rights in the bank, where a buyer could aeate a "cone d deplession" <br />on that p1operty. It was ncted that other legal rel,ledies still exist. as well as the cost of <br />. transnission of water, and that <XlrT'bined, they night make the likelihood d such a drcumstance <br />rare. <br /> <br />There was then di!lO 15'ilion d hoN the new Edwards .Aquifer Authority would interact with the <br />bank. That lead to a diso'$'ilion d Trans Texas and hoN the bank CXlUld be helpful in moving <br />water from where it is to where it's needed. It was ncted that the bank should prtNide buyers or <br />users d water additional certainty that their needs will be met. <br /> <br />There was a question as to 'Itt1ether the bank was being set up to retire water rights, with specific <br />l.:rci'el1Ce to instream and bay and estuary needs. The answer was no, although the bank was <br />directed, in conjunction with the Cormission and Par1<s & Wldlife, to investigate hoN those needs <br />CXlUld be met. <br /> <br />2 <br />