Res 1991-051 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-2 7. The establishment of local underground water conservation districts, where desired, which could receive delegation of certain authority from the regional district to include conservation, local management, and drought management programs7 8. Universal metering and reporting of water useS7 and 9. Funding of regional and local districts through property taxes and user fees 7 now, therefore BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS, TEXAS: PART 1. That the City Council hereby expresses the following positions on legislation pending in the 72nd Session of the Texas Legislature pertaining to the Edwards Aquifer: (a) SB 1364 and HB 2437 (Barrientos/Linebarger) (establishes the development of a region wide water use efficiency program and emergency conservation plan): Supported with amendments that clarify regional powers and local district power s, funding, and involvement of downstream interests. (b) SB 1321 and HB 26Øl (Barrientos/Linebarger) (prohibits operation of non-recirculating fountains during drought in cities over 25, ØØØ): Supported. (c) SB 14Ø4 and HB 2769 (Barrientos/Linebarger) (enacts an amended version of San Marcos drought management plan into state law): Supported with amendments to delete requirement to include downstream surface water users, and to correct error in Sect. ll.556 (d) (refers to stage 2 when it should say stage 3). (d) HB 232Ø: (Linebarger) (allows for artificial recharge of an aquifer through normal and ordinary flow of a stream): Supported with amendments to remove statements that aquifer water is not subject to state regulation. (e) SB 1242/HB 26Ø2 (Barrientos/Linebarger) (old 1989 aquifer management bill): Supported as a negotiating position with respect to bills filed on behalf of Bexar, Medina, and Uvalde Counties. (f) HB 2698 (Cates) (dissolving the Ed,.,ard s Underground Water District, creating and validating county "Chapter 52" Districts, and creating the Edwards Technical Advisory Commission): Opposed on the basis that this would fragment management of the Edwards Aquifer as a reg ional resource. (g) SB 832 and HB 1926 (Zaffirini/Hilderbran) (validation of Uvalde Underground tvater Conservation District and actions of the district): Opposed unless agreed to in a region-wide settlement of aquifer management. (h) SB lØS8 and HB 237Ø (Sims/Cate) (validation of Medina Underground Water Conservation District and actions of the district): Opposed unless agreed to in a region-wide settlement. (i) HB 2329 (Hilderbran) (definition of subterranean streams and the ownership of groundwater): Opposed this since is merely an effort to undermine the GBRA "underground stream" lawsuit 7 the only appropriate legislative resolution of the issues ~n the suit should be in an aquifer-wide management program.