Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> YUfr <br /> ERM DRAFT January 16, 1996 <br /> 14:46 pm <br /> WHEREAS, the Parties have also endeavored through this <br /> litigation to protect the quality of the water in the Edwards <br /> Aquifer, which ultimately flows out of Comal and San Marcos springs <br /> by preventing unregulated pumping, which could cause the movement <br /> ,- of the "bad water" line within the Edwards Aquifer that threatens <br /> to impair the availability of potable water from the Aquifer; and <br /> WHEREAS, the Parties' efforts have resulted in the Di~trict <br /> Court¡s issuance of a favorable judgment and supporting findings of <br /> fact and conclusions of law, and subsequent favorable orders; and <br /> WHEREAS, as a result of the Parties¡ efforts, the District:. <br /> Court by Order dated February 24, 1994 (the "Monitor Order") <br /> appointed a Monitor to insure the implementations of the Court¡s <br /> , <br /> orders! and to mediate and develop alternative wat:.er supplies for <br /> the region through the use of Int.erlocal Agreements, and the <br /> conservation plans which would support the filing of an application <br /> to secure the issuance of an ESA §lO(a) Incident:.a1 Take Permit for <br /> the entire Edwards AqUifer region and/or "safe-harbor" permits by <br /> the United states Fish & Wildlife Service¡ and <br /> WHEREAS, the District Court previously ordered that the cost <br /> of the Monit:.or's efforts be paid for by thG Federal Defendants and <br /> Defendant-Intervenors city of San Antonio and the State of Texas in <br /> equal one-third shares; <br /> WHEREAS! the state of Texas filed and has pursued an appeal <br /> with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit! <br /> challenging Monitor Order¡ and <br /> -2- <br /> 9£/£2'd 22:91 301 96-91-H~r <br />