Texas Supreme Court Rules For Landowners in Water Case
In a case with potentially vast implications for groundwater rules in Texas, the Texas Supreme Court has unanimously ruled in favor of two farmers in the San Antonio area who challenged the local aquifer authority's sharp restrictions on their use of a water well on their land.
The much-anticipated ruling is "going to make life much more complicated for groundwater districts," said Gregory Ellis, an attorney and the former general manager of the Edwards Aquifer Authority (EAA).
Texans wanting to put a well on their land generally must go to their local groundwater conservation district for permission to withdraw ...
Comments (9)
Kathi Thomas via Texas Tribune on Facebook
This just shows the stupidity of this court. You can no more "own" the water under your land than you can the air above it.:( Better install rainwater harvesting now if you're on a well. This bill will met folks mine water like ore. Of course, all reasonable people know that water doe 't stay put under your land. We recognize the mobility of surface water, but pretend that ground water is different. :(
Atech Homenet via Texas Tribune on Facebook
You know , every year we [common public folk] have to endure propaganda campaigns that tell us we are all using too much water, BUTT it's not the folks in domestic residences that WASTE the water. It's the farm. The irrigation systems leak profusely and without much maintenance. It's just easier to get a subsidy from the government and tell the rest of us it's our fault! pooie! non-sense. Farmers Waste water way more than people in the cities. Dare- find a farm that doesn't have a dripping faucet! Kingofallclergy Ed
Neil Moyer via Texas Tribune on Facebook
So, since aquifer underlies many properties, do the TX Supremes want all to suck as hard/long as possible to exhaust the water resource??? They are dumber than doorknobs!
Joe Ranzau via Texas Tribune on Facebook
I'm a Tribune fan but this article has some gaps. The Express News surprisingly has better information. http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/environment/article/State-Supreme-Court-rules-in-groundwater-case-3358891.php
Joe Ranzau via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Specifically, "“Unquestionably, the state is empowered to regulate groundwater production,” the opinion states. “ In many areas of the state, and certainly in the Edwards Aquifer, demand exceeds supply.”
But the state's “taking” clause does apply to groundwater, the court found."
Cynthia Casper Robertson via Texas Tribune on Facebook
@Kathi Bell . . . . there are two schools of thought on this issue. One is that, yes, you own the water under your property even though it ebbs and flows. The other is that the water isn't owned until it comes above ground. It's all a matter of the personal opinion of the individual.
Case in point -- I work for two environmental attorneys and this is an issue upon which they do not agree. She says the land is hers therefore the water is hers. He says that the water isn't the landowners until it comes to the surface. From your perspective, it could be said that any underground oil and gas isn't the property of the landowner. This is a very complicated issue and your response was rather simplistic, to say the least.
Richard S. Moore via Texas Tribune on Facebook
This is another example where those utilizing the natural resources in areas where growth is putting a strain on the resources, will need to pay appropriately for them. This is truly an economic development issue. Unless growth in areas where there is deficit of resources truly incurs the costs associated with the growth, there will be little incentive for economic development in the rural areas of the Texas, where the natural resources are abundant.
So yes SA and Austin as well, the cost of living is on its way up.
Cris Sleightholm
By all means, let's keep those flowers blooming.
Another 99%
Lawns vs. Food.........weak decision, from people who don't want to make a decision for the people, they are suppose to represent.