Bradley B. Ware v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
03-14-00416-CV
3781001
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
1/15/2015 12:12:27 PM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
CLERK
Case No. 03-14-00416-CV
IN THE FILED IN
3rd COURT OF APPEALS
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
AT AUSTIN, TEXAS 1/15/2015 12:12:27 PM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
Clerk
BRADLEY B. WARE,
Appel/ant,
v.
TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIROMENTAL QUALITY,
Appellee.
ON APPEAL FROM THE 53RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS
COUNTY, TEXAS
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
Stephen P. Webb
BarNo. 21033800
s.p.webb@webbwebblaw.com
Gwendolyn Hill Webb
Bar No. 21026300
g.hill.webb@webbwebblaw.com
Attorneys for Appellant
Webb & Webb, Attorneys at Law
211 East Seventh Street
Austin, Texas 78701
Phone: 512-472-9990
APPELLANT REQUESTS ORAL ARGUMENT
Case No. 03-14-00416-CV
BRADLEY B. WARE,
Appellant,
v.
TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY,
Appellee.
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
Stephen P. Webb Linda Secord, Asst. Attorney General
BarNo. 21033800 Bar No. 1797400
s.p.webb@webbwebblaw.com Office of the Attorney General
Gwendolyn Hill Webb P.O. Box 12548-MC066
State Bar No. 21026300 Austin, Texas 78711-2548
g. hill.webb@webbwebblaw.com Phone: 512-475-4002
Webb & Webb, Attorneys at Law Fax: 512-320-0911
211 East Seventh Street, Suite 712 Linda.secord@texasattorneygenel'al.gov
Austin, Texas 78701 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE,
Phone: 512-472-9990 TEXAS COMISSION ON
Fax: 512-472-3183 ENVIROMENTAL QUALITY
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT,
BRADLEY B. WARE
Case No. 03-14-00416-CV
BRADLEY B. WARE,
Appellant,
v.
TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY,
Appellee.
REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
Appellant, Bradley B. Ware, requests an oral argument in this case.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Identify of Parties and Counsel .................................................................................. i
Request for Oral Argument ....................................................................................... ii
Index of Authorities ................................................................................................. vi
Appellant's Brief ........................................................................................................ 1
Statement of the Case ................................................................................................. 2
Statement of Oral Argument ..................................................................................... .4
Points of Error Presented for Review ........................................................................ 4
Statelnent of the Facts ................................................................................................ 5
Background Legal and Factual Framework of Application No. 5594A .................... 7
Points of Error and Brief of Argument ................................................................... 13
Point of Error Number One:
The District Court erred in failing to find that the Commission's April 20, 2010
Order unlawfully ignores the evidence of record regarding the water available for
appropriation by Plaintiff; therefore, the Commission's action in adopting the April
20,2010 Order was arbitrary and capricious, and was characterized by an abuse of
discretion ................................................................................................................ 13
Sumlnary of the ArgUlnent ............................................................................ 13
ArgUlnent.. ..................................................................................................... 13
Point of Error Number Two:
The Commission's April 20, 2010 Order violates the directives and requirement of
Texas Water Code, §11.134 (b), regarding Commission action on water rights
applications .............................................................................................................. 18
Sumlnary of the Argument.. .......................................................................... 18
Argument. ...................................................................................................... 19
iii
Point of Error Number Three:
The District Court erred in failing to find that the Commission's April 20, 2010
Order is in violation of the requirements of Texas Water Code, §11.1381,
regarding the consideration and granting of water rights permits for a term of
years ........................................................................................................................ 21
Summary of the Argument ............................................................................ 21
Argument. ................................ :..................................................................... 21
Point of Error Number Four:
The District Court in failing to find that the Commission's April 20, 2010 Order
violates the fundamental doctrine of water rights law of "first in time, first in
right," as set forth in the Texas Water Code, Section 11.027 ................................. 25
Sumtnary of the Argmnent ................................................................................... 26
Argument. ...................................................................................................... 26
Point of Error Number Five:
The District Court erred in failing to find that the Commission acted arbitrarily and
capriciously to deprive Plaintiff of any continued right to diveti and use any water
at any time for Ware Farm under Permit No. 5594, an authorized appropriation, on
the stated basis of no water available for appropriation, while at the same time
granting water rights for new appropriations and issuing statements of water
availability for other Plaintiffs, new permittees, and other water rights holders .... 32
Summary of the Argmnent ............................................................................ 32
Argmnent ....................................................................................................... 33
Point of Error Number Six:
The District Comi erred in failing to find that the Commission's April 20, 2010
Order adopted Findings of Fact pertaining to a pending non-party applicant;
moreover, the details of said Plaintiff's pending application and proposed
iv
appropriation were unlawfully used as a basis to deny Plaintiffs water right
application ............................................................................................................... 38
SUmtllary of the Argument. ........................................................................... 38
Argument ....................................................................................................... 38
SUtlltllary ................................................................................................................. 42
Prayer for Relief...................................................................................................... 42
Cetiificate of Compliance ....................................................................................... 44
Certificate of Service ............................................................................................... 45
Glossary of Technical Terms .................................................................................. 45
Appendix ................................................................................................................. 46
v
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Balla v. Texas State Board of Medical Examiners, 693 S.W.2d 715-717 (Tex.
App. - Dallas 1985, ref.n.v.e) ...................................................................... 41
Berkley v. Railroad Commission of Texas, 282 S.W.3d 240, 242-244 (Tex. App-
Amarillo 2009, no pet.h.) .............................................................................. 35
Chocolate Bayou Water Company and Sand Supply v. Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission, et al., 124 S.W.3d 844, 853 (Tex. App-Austin
2003, pet. denied) .......................................................................................... 29
City of Waco v. Texas Comm'n on Envtl. Quality, 346 S.W.3d 781, 819 - 20
(Tex.App - Austin, pet. denied)] .................................................................. 31
City of El Paso v. Public Utility Com'n. of Texas, 883 S.W.2d 179, 184 (Tex.
1994) ........................................................................................................................ 35
Dodd v. Meno, 857 S.W.2d 575, 576 (Tex. App. - Austin 1993), aff'd on other
grounds, 870 S.W.2d 4 (Tex. 1994) .................................................................. 34, 36
Entex v. Railroad Comm., Texas, 18 S.W.3d 858, 862 (Tex. App. - Austin 2000,
pet. denied) ...................................................................................... 34, 36, 37
Heritage on San Gabriel Homeowners v. TCEQ, 393 S.W.3d 417, 423 (Tex.App.-
Austin 20 12) ................................................................................................. 31
Hernandez v. Meno, 828 S.W.2d 491, 493-495 (Tex. App. - Austin 1992, den.). 40
House of Tobacco, Inc. v. Calvert, 394 S.W.2d 654, 656 - 657 (Tex. 1965) ........ 29
Langford v. Employees Retirement System of Texas, 73 S.W.3d 560, 564-565 (Tex.
App. - Austin 2002, pet. denied) .................................................................. 35
Lower Colorado River Authority, et aI, v. Texas Department of Water Resources,
689 S.W.2d 873 (Tex. 1984) ...................................................................... 24
Railroad Commission of Texas v. Home Transportation Company, 670 S.W.2d
319,325 (Tex. App-Austin 1984, no writ) ................................................... 29
vi
Texas Citizens for a Safe Future and Clean Water v. Railroad Commission of
Texas, 254 S.W.3d 492, 496-497 (Tex. App. - Austin 2007, pet. filed) ...... 40
Texas Department ofPublic Safety v. Chad Michael Henson (14-09-0001 O-CV) ... 2
Texas Department of Public Safety v. Guajardo, 970 S.W.2d 602 (Tex. App.-
Hous. [14 th Dist.] 1998) ................................................................................... 2
Texas Farm Bureau, et al v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Cause
No. D-I-GN-12-003937 .......................................................................................... 31
Texas Water Com 'n v. Dellana, 849 S.W.2d 808, 810 (Tex. 1993) ....................... 29
TGS - NOPEC Geophysical Company v. Combs, 268 S.W.3d 637, 651-652 (Tex.
App. - Austin 2008, pet. filed) ..................................................................... 35
TEXAS WATER CODE
§11.021 .................................................................................................................... 11
§11.022 .................................................................................................................... 11
§11.025 ................................................................................................................... 11
§ 11.026 .................................................................................................................... 11
§11.027 .................................................................................................... 4, 25, 26, 27
§ 11.046 .................................................................................................................... 11
§11.046(c) ......................................................................................................... 18,33
§11.121 .................................................................................................................... 11
§11.134 ................................................................................................................. 8,11
§11.134(b) ..................................................................................................... 4,18,19
§11.1381 .................................................................................................. 4,11,21,23
§11.141 ............................................................................................ 11, 26, 27, 28, 41
§ 11.172 .................................................................................................................... 23
TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE
§2001.005(a) ........................................................................................................... 39
§2001.081 ................................................................................................................ 39
§2001.087 ................................................................................................................ 40
§2001.174(2) ................................................................................................... 39,41
§2001.174(2)(a) ..................................................................................................... 28
§2001.174(2)(c) ..................................................................................................... 39
vii
§2001.174(2)(e) ............................................................................................... 18,39
§2001.174(2)(f) ............................................................................................... 35,39
§2001.175 ............................................................................................................... 29
§2003.047(l)(ln) ...................................................................................................... 15
viii
Case No. 03-14-00416-CV
BRADLEY B. WARE,
Appellant,
v.
TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY,
Appellee.
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
TO THE COURT OF APPEALS:
Appellant, Bradley B. Ware, submits this Brief in appeal of the Order on
administrative appeal affirming the decision of the Texas Quality on
Environmental Quality ("TCEQ", "Commission" or "Agency"). This Appeal is
from the District Court of Travis County, Texas, 53 rd Judicial District, the
Honorable John Dietz presiding in which Appellant was the Plaintiff and Appellee
was the Defendant. For clarity, Bradley B. Ware will be referred to as "Plaintiff'
and the Texas Quality on Environmental Quality will be referred to as
"Defendant."
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Plaintiff, Bradley B. Ware appeals from the 53 rd Judicial District Court of
Travis County, Texas in its failure to overturn the final order of the TCEQ which
denied Plaintiff the right to divert and use water under Permit to Appropriate State
Water No. 5594 ("Permit No. 5594"). Plaintiff asselis that the Commission's April
20, 2010 Final Order of the TCEQ ("Order") violates extant provisions of the
Texas Water Code ("TWC"), and contains obviously reversible legal error. A May
11,2010 decision ofthe Texas Court of Appeals, FOUlieenth District, Houston, in
Texas Department of Public Safety v. Chad Michael Henson (14-09-00010-CV)
sets forth the standards of judicial review of decisions by an administrative agency.
The text of the discussion is set forth in full below:
When reviewing an administrative decision under the
substantial evidence rule, the review court may affirm the
decision in whole or in part. Tex. Gov't, Code Ann. §2001.174
(Vernon 2008). It [the reviewing cOUli] must reverse or remand
the case if the Appellant's substantial rights have been
prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences,
conclusions, or decision are:
(1) in violation of a constitutional or statutory provision;
(2) in excess of the agency's statutory authority;
(3) made through an unlawful procedure;
(4) affected by other error oflaw;
(5) not reasonably suppOlied by substantial evidence when
considering the record as a whole; or
(6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of
discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGE 2
[Citing and paraphrasing Tex. Gov't. Code §2001.l74 (Vernon
2008), and Texas Department ofPublic Safety v. Guajardo, 970
S.W.2d 602 (Tex.App-Hous. [14 th Dist.] 1998)]
Generally, as shown below, the Commission's order is in violation of the
fundamental precepts of the Constitution of the United States (5 th and 14th
Amendments) and the Texas Constitution (Art. 1, Bill of Rights, Sections 3 and
19), the Texas Water Code and the Texas Government Code; is in excess of the
Commission's statutory authority; is made through unlawful procedure; is affected
by numerous other errors of law; is not reasonably supported by substantial
evidence when considering the record as a whole; and is on its face arbitrary,
capricious, and characterized by abuse of discretion, or clearly unwarranted
exercise of discretion. The Commission's final order is not entitled to the deference
that agency decisions are typically afforded in a simple substantial evidence
revIew.
Put simply, the Commission's April 20, 2010 Order is subject to reversal
because it finds and concludes that there is water available for appropriation in the
Brazos River Basin in the form of return flows, but reserves the available water to
a pending Applicant-- not an existing appropriator-- and denies water availability
in the current proceeding, against the substantial evidence of record. Th~ trial court
el'l'ed in failing to recognize these deficiencies in the Commission's April 20, 2010
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGE 3
Order and erred in rendering its June 11, 2014 order which denied Plaintiffs
appeal.
II. STATEMENT OF ORAL ARGUEMENT
Plaintiff requests oral argument due to the size and complexity of the record
and the numerous factual and legal issues. Plaintiff requests oral arguments to
property address the points of error.
III. POINTS OF ERROR PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
Point of Error One:
The District Court erred in failing to find that the Commission's April 20, 2010
Order unlawfully ignores the evidence of record regarding the water available for
appropriation by Plaintiff; therefore, the Commission's action in adopting the April
20,2010 Order was arbitrary and capricious, and was characterized by an abuse of
discretion.
Point of Error Two:
The Commission's April 20, 2010 Order violates the directives and requirements
of Texas Water Code, §11.l34(b), regarding Commission action on water rights
applications.
Point of Error Three:
The District COUlt erred in failing to find that the Commission's April 20, 2010
Order is in violation of the requirements of Texas Water Code, §11.l381,
regarding the consideration and granting of water rights permits for a term of
years.
Point of Error Four:
The District COUlt in failing to find that the Commission's April 20, 2010 Order
violates the fundamental doctrine of water rights law of "first in time, first in
right," as set forth in the Texas Water Code, Section 11.027.
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGE 4
Point of Error Five:
The District Court erred in failing to find that the Commission acted arbitrarily and
capriciously to deprive Plaintiff of any continued right to divelt and use any water
at any time for Ware Farm under Permit No. 5594, an authorized appropriation, on
the stated basis of no water available for appropriation, while at the same time
granting water rights for new appropriations and issuing statements of water
availability for other Plaintiffs, new permittees, and other water rights holders.
Point of Error Six:
The District Court erred in failing to find that the Commission's April 20, 2010
Order adopted Findings of Fact pertaining to a pending non-patty applicant;
Moreover, the details of said Plaintiff's pending application and proposed
appropriation were unlawfully used as a basis to deny Plaintiff's water right
application.
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. On November 15, 2005, Plaintiff filed Application for Amendment to a
Water Right No. 5594A ("Application No. 5594A") with the Agency for
authority to delete or extend the term of his current water rights Permit No.
5594, which authorized the appropriation of 130 acre-feet of water for
agricultural purposes from the Lampasas River, so that Plaintiff could
continue to operate a family farm that has been owned and operated by the
Ware family in excess of 100 years. Mr. Ware's timely applications was to:
(1) either extend his Permit for another 10-year period or convelt his Permit
to a perpetual right, (2) withdraw 20 more acre-feet of water annually and
(3) irrigate 31 more acres of his farm. Therefore, Plaintiff applied for a
perpetual water right, and if that was not possible, the renewal of his term
permit. A true copy of the Plaintiff's application is attached as Exhibit A
and is fully incorporated into this brief by reference; Clerk's Record p. 63-
75.
2. On October 28 and 29, 2009, an adjudicative hearing was held on the
Agency's case number 2008-0181-WR (SOAR Docket No. XXX-XX-XXXX),
before the State Office of Administrative Hearings ("SOAH") on the
Plaintiff's application. The Executive Director ("ED") of the TCEQ
appeared in Application No. 5594A as a patty to the hearing, opposing the
relief sought by the Plaintiff. In connection with the adjudicative hearing, a
record was made consisting of all pleadings and evidence introduced before
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGES
SOAR. Thereafter, the TCEQ considered the Proposal for Decision of
Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Paul Keeper on April 14, 2010.
Subsequently, the Agency prepared a final decision, represented by its Final
Order including its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
3. On April 20, 2010, the Agency rendered its decision in the form of AN
ORDER Concerning the Application of Bradley B. Ware to amend water use
Permit No. 5594: TCEQ Docket No. 2008-0181-WR; SOAH Docket No. 582-
08-1698 and denied Plaintiffs Application No. 5594A to delete or extend
the term of the current permit and also to authorize the appropriation of an
additional 20 acre-feet of water per annum.
4. The Plaintiff timely filed a Motion for Rehearing ("Motion") to the
Agency's April 20, 2010 Order, and the Motion was overruled by operation
of law by the Agency when the TCEQ failed to act on Plaintiffs Motion
(See Exhibit B, Applicant Bradley B Ware's Motion for Rehearing, exhibits
not attached; Clerk's Record p. 76-98). Notice of the Agency's inaction was
provided to the Plaintiff on June 17, 2010.
5. The Plaintifftimely filed his appeal to the Travis County District Court on
July 8, 2010.
6. All conditions precedent having been performed 01' having occurred, the
Plaintiff was entitled to judicial review of the Agency's decision in
accordance with Texas Water Code §11.134 and the Texas Government
Code, §§2001.175 and 2001.176.
7. On June 11,2014, the District Court issued its order which denied Plaintiffs
appeal ofthe Commission Order.
8. On June 30, 2014, Plaintiff filed his Notice of Appeal.
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGE 6
V. BACKGROUND LEGAL AND FACTUAL FRAMEWORK OF
APPLICATION NO. 5594A
1. Application No. 5594A
This application, designated Application No. 5594A by the ED of the TCEQ
and a party to the administrative hearing, is a water rights application by Plaintiff
Bradley B. Ware on behalf of Ware Farms, seeking to renew 01' delete the 10 year
term of his water rights Permit No. 5594. Plaintiff's existing water rights Permit
No. 5594 was granted November 7, 1997 after no person protested the granting the
of application (See, Exhibit A's attachment, Permit No. 5594; Clerk's Record p.
65-66), and authorizes the diversion and use of 130 acre-feet of water for
agricultural purposes for the irrigation of 100 acres of farmland. Permit No. 5594
also contains the following SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
b. The authorization to divert and use 130 acre-feet of water
per year shall expire and become null and void on November 7,
2007 unless prior to such date permittee applies for an
extension hereof and such application is subsequently granted
for an additional term 01' in perpetuity. The priority date of this
permit and all extensions hereof shall be July 1, 1997.
Plaintiff filed Application No. 5594A on November 17, 2005, and the application
was declared administratively complete on March 20, 2006. In Application No.
5594A, Plaintiff sought to add an additional 20 acre-feet of water per annum, and
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGE 7
to extend the term of the permit. Notice of Application No. 5594A advised Brazos
River Basin water rights holders:
"Applicant seeks to amend Water Use Permit No. 5594', to
extend or delete the expiration date of November 7, 2007; add
an additional 31 acres for irrigation in Bell County, and to
divert and use an additional 20 acre-feet of water."
In reviewing the application, the Agency Executive Director's Water Availability
staff informed Plaintiff repeatedly that the results from the Brazos River Basin
Water Availability Model ("Brazos WAM" or "WAM") showed that water was not
available for the proposed application at Plaintiffs diversion point on the
Lampasas River in the Brazos River Basin. Plaintiff elected to go forward with a
contested case hearing.
2. Background ofthe Water Availability Question
Plaintiffs water rights application began as a simple question of water
availability and protection of senior and superior water rights in the Brazos River
Basin under Texas Water Code, §11.1342 . Plaintiff was the owner of a term pennit
and applied for a renewal. The Executive Director used the Brazos WAM and
determined that water was not available in sufficient quantities and with sufficient
, Although the Notice prepared by the Executive Director and issued by the Chief Clerk refers to
Plaintiffs water rights permit as a "Water Use Permit," Permit No. 5594, issued by the
Commission is entitled, "PERMIT TO APPROPRIATE AND USE STATE WATER."
2 All section references in this brief are to the Texas Water Code, unless otherwise noted.
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGES
frequency to justify granting the application for an additional term. Brazos River
Authority ("BRA"), holder of senior water rights in the Brazos River Basin
protested the application at first, stating that it did not object to the issuance of the
permit for an additional term and with an additional 20 acre-feet. BRA later
withdrew its protest of the application, before the contested case hearing, See
correspondence attached as Exhibit C; Clerk's Record p. 100.
3. The Doctrine of Prior Appropriation as the Cornerstone of Texas Water
Code, Chapter 11
Texas water rights are issued pursuant to the principles of Western water
law, including the doctrine of prior appropriation, which is codified in Texas Water
Code, Chapter 11. The legal principles of Western water law, which grew out of
the experience of the development of the American West, where water was a
scarce and valuable resource. The doctrine of prior appropriation suppOlis the
concepts of govermnent oversight of water resources, deemed essential to
promoting the beneficial use of available water in accordance with the public
welfare. Originally, water rights were given not only based on application to the
State in the form of a certified filing, but also based on proximity of land to a
watercourse. Unfortunately, this dual system was deemed to preclude efficient
government regulation, and the existing riparian rights, certified filings and water
rights permits were unified during the water rights adjudication. Claims under
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGE 9
riparian rights, certified filings, and permits were replaced by certificates of
adjudication, and subsequent water rights issued under the permitting system set
forth in Chapter 11. Plaintiff testified at his hearing that, although water was used
on his farm by his great grandfather since 1874 (See Exhibit D, Tr. Vol. 13, p. 19,
line 6 through p. 20, line 4; Clerk's Record p. 102-103 and Tr. Vol. 1, p. 22, line
18 through p. 23, line 3; Clerk's Record p. 105-106.), his parents were involved in
a bitter divorce which diverted their attention from paliicipation in water rights
adjudication (See Exhibit D, Tl'. Vol. 14, p. 21, line 14 through p.22, line 17;
Clerk's Record p. 104-105). After the completion of the Adjudication of Water
Rights in all segments of the Brazos River Basin, Ware Farm was left without any
adjudicated right to appropriate State water. Consequently, after Plaintiff became
owner of Ware Farm, he sought the means to keep the farm operating as a going
concern, including farming crops such as pumpkins and hay for grazing and raising
cattle. In 1997, Plaintiff obtained a water right, Permit No. 5594, which authorized
water use for a term often (10) years (See Exhibit D, Vol. 1, p. 45, line 3 through
p. 47, line 8; Clerk's Record p. 107-109).
Although Texas water rights permitting has evolved from a regulatory
standpoint in the time period following Water Rights Adjudication, the
3In this brief, references to the transcript are designated: Tr. Vol. _, p. _, line _; and followed
by the Clerk's Record page reference.
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGE 10
fundamental doctrine of the prior appropriation system remains embedded in Texas
water rights. Those principles are enunciated specifically in the following sections
of Texas Water Code, Chapter 11:
§ 11.021, State Water - Asserts State sovereignty over the surface
waters ofthe State in watercourses
§ 11.022, Acquisition of Right to Use State Water - Provides for the
use of State water by authorized appropriators;
§ 11.025, Scope of Appropriative Right - Sets forth the limitations of
the appropriative rights;
§ 11.026, Perfection of an Appropriation - Provides for perfection of
an appropriation by beneficial use in accordance with the permit;
§ 11.027, Rights Between Appropriators - Provides for resolution of
conflict between appropriators on the basis of "first in time is first in
right;"
§ 11.046, Return Surplus Water - Provides that water authorized to
be appropriated but not needed for the authorized use be returned to
the watercourse for further appropriation and for other uses;
§ 11.121, Pennit Required - Requires the issuance of water rights
permits to authorize appropriation
§ 11.134, Action on Application - Specifies the conditions under
which the Commission may grant a water rights permit;
§ 11.1381, Term Permits - Establishes a means for issuance of term
permits; and
§ 11.141, Date of Priority - Establishes the priority date for water
rights permits as the date the application was filed.
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGE 11
Taken as whole, the provisions of the Texas Water Code establish the regulatory
framework for the administration of Texas water rights.
4. Permit No. 5594 Implements Prior Appropriation Doctrine
Plaintiff's Permit No. 5594 embodies the principles of prior appropriation
set forth in the Texas Water Code. Permit No. 5594 specifies the purpose of use
(irrigation); the location ofland to be irrigated [100 acres ofland out of261 acres
in the W. Brown Survey, Abstract No. 67, the D.G. Vicheton (Vecheton) Survey
Abstract No. 851, and the C. Edwards Survey, Abstract 291 in Bell County, Texas;
the water course which is the source of water (Lampasas River, tributary of the
Little River, tributary of the Brazos River); the amount of water authorized to be
used (130 acre-feet); and the diversion point and diversion rate (2.67 cubic feet per
second ("cfs") or 1200 gallons per minute ("gpm")) from any point on the left or
east bank of the Lampasas River]. And, the permit was issued in accordance with
the provisions of § 11.1381 to allow Ware Farm to make beneficial use of State
water in the Brazos River Basin which was stated to be present in the stream but
appropriated to others and which would otherwise go unused until senior water
rights are perfected 5• The priority date is specified as the date the application was
5 The Executive Director's August 28, 1997 Water Availability Analysis (Exhibit F; Clerk's
Record p. 164-178), stated that downstream water rights in the vicinity of Ware Farm on the
Lampasas River, the Little River, and the Brazos River had not been perfected, or "fully
developed," and that, "Therefore, the hydrological analysis only suPPOtt issuance of a ten year
term permit for the Plaintiff." (Exhibit F, more specifically Clerk's Record p. 165)
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGE 12
accepted for filing. Finally, under the doctrine of "First in time is first in right,"
the Plaintiff's term permit states unequivocally that the priority date for the permit
"and all extensions hereof shall be July 1,1997."
VI. POINTS OF ERROR AND BRIEF OF ARGUMENT
1. POINT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE.
THE DISTRlCT COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO FIND THAT THE
COMMISSION'S APRlL 20, 2010 ORDER UNLAWFULLY IGNORES THE
EVIDENCE OF RECORD REGARDING THE WATER AVAILABLE FOR
APPROPRlATION BY PLAINTIFF; THEREFORE, THE COMMISSION'S
ACTION IN ADOPTING THE APRlL 20, 2010 ORDER WAS ARBITRARY
AND CAPRlCIOUS, AND WAS CHARACTERlZED BY AN ABUSE OF
DISCRETION.
Summmy ofArgument
The Commission's Order of April 20, 2010 was based upon its staff's refusal
to consider record evidence that completely contradicted the evidence upon which
the staff and the agency relied to make its primary determination. The primary
issue in Plaintiff's application for a perpetual right was whether there was state
water available for appropriation in Plaintiff's section of the Brazos River Basin.
The agency's Executive Director performed a November 14, 2006 analysis that
concluded there was no water available. The record shows that the same Executive
Director performed a 2008 updated analysis on the entire Brazos River basin and
found on an additional 74, 387 acre-feet per year available for appropriation. The
Commission never resolved, on the record, the contradiction between these factual
determinations.
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGE 13
Argument
The adopted Findings of Fact regarding water availability and "The
reliability of the Model" in the Commission's April 20, 2010 Order, attached as
Exhibit E (Clerk's Record p. 146-463) are, on their face, inconsistent with each
other, directly contrary to the evidence of record, and founded upon unlawful
procedure. While the Commission is entitled to draw an appropriate inference
from the substantial evidence of record regarding water availability in the Brazos
River Basin, the Commission is not entitled to abuse its discretion by disregarding
the existing evidence of record concerning water availability in favor of outdated
evidence known to be inaccurate.
On November 14, 2006, the Executive Director performed a water
availability review of Mr. Ware's amendment application using the Commission's
Brazos WAM which was current and accurate at the time it was performed. See,
Exhibit G (Clerk's Record p. 179-181), attached hereto. Two years later, however,
the Executive Director preformed another water availability review of the Brazos
River Basin using updated information which was not available at the time Mr.
Ware's application was reviewed. The Executive Director updated the Brazos
WAM's Current Conditions data set and found that there was an additional 74,387
acre-feet per year available for appropriation in the Brazos River Basin. See,
Exhibit H (Clerk's Record p. 182-196), also attached hereto.
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGE 14
It is undisputed in the record that Mr. Ware's amendment application did not
benefit from the Executive Director's 2008 update of the Brazos WAM, which
occurred well before the contested case hearing on Plaintiff's Application No.
5594A. The Executive Director's staff hydrologist, Jeffrey Charles Thomas,
testified at the hearing that neither he nor anyone else in the Executive Director's
office performed a water availability review of Mr. Ware's application, other than
the one completed on November 14, 2006 and included in Exhibit H (Clerk's
Record p. 182-196). The same witness also testified that no portion of the 74,387
acre-feet found to be available in the Brazos River Basin in 2008 and set fOlih in
Exhibit H (Clerk's Record p. 182-196) was ever applied to Mr. Ware's application
or the Executive Director's analysis of water availability for the Ware application6 .
In considering the Plaintiff's argument regarding water availability based on
return flows and updated information, the Commissioners appeared to believe that
their questioning of Commission staff during the April 14, 2010 Commission
Agenda meeting on the Proposal for Decision on Application No. 5594A regarding
consideration of return flows and water availability was a lawful substitute for the
evidence of record. This procedure is not lawful. The Commission's decision
must be based on the evidence of record, not the earnest responses of Commission
staff at Agenda, which responses are not contained in the administrative record
6(Attached as Exhibit D, Tr. Vol. 1 p. 109 line 6 - 110 line 8; Clerk's Record 112-113; and pp.
134 line 9 -154 line 24; Clerk's Record p. 125-145)
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGE 15
upon which the decision must be based? TCEQ staff hydrologist Kathy Alexander,
(now Ph.D.) responded to Commission inquiries stating that the Executive Director
had included the return flows shown on Exhibit H, attached hereto, in its
consideration of water available for Plaintiff's proposed appropriation. .This
statement is directly contr(lry to the testimony of TCEQ staff during the hearing,
including Dr. Alexander, regarding the consideration of 74,384 acre-feet of water
shown to be available in the updated Current Conditions data set of the Brazos
WAM. The evidence of record, as shown in an excerpt of the official transcript, is
set fOlih below.
CROSS EXAMINATION OF JEFFREY CHARLES THOMAS, TCEQ
HYDROLOGIST ON
THE BRADLEY B. WARE APPLICATION
Transcript, Bradley B. Ware SOAH Contested Case Hearing October 28, 2009,
Page 149, line 24 to Page 150, line 2:
Q. Okay, the point is you didn't use any portion of that additional
water in the basin in your model?
A. That's correct.
Transcript, Bradley B. Ware SOAH Contested Case Hearing October 28, 2009,
Page 150, lines 10 through 19:
Q. Additional unappropriated water would benefit the entire basin,
wouldn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. And so it doesn't matter whether it's above Stillhouse Hollow Lake,
below it? It would benefit everyone, wouldn't it?
7 Texas Gov. Code §2003.047(l)(m)
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGE 16
A. It would benefit everyone downstream of it and potentially that-yes,
I can-say that it would benefit everyone in the basin, yes.
CROSS EXAMINATION OF KATHY ALEXANDER, TCEQ HYDROLOGIST
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REBUTTAL WITNESS ON THE BRADLEY B.
WARE APPLICATION
Transcript, Bradley B. Ware SOAH Contested Case Hearing October 29, 2009,
Page 378, line 15 to Page 379, line 8:
Q. Okay. And so there were return flows available and you gave them a
priority date of October 15, 2004?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. You mentioned that there were 74,387 acre-feet of return flows
resulting from different discharges up and down the Brazos River
Basin determined to be available by TCEQ hydrology?
A. Yes.
Q. And those are the return flows that were given the October 15, 2004,
priority date?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And that-and none of those return flows, not any portion of
them were allocated for use by Mr. Ware under either a 1997 priority
date or any other priority date?
A. The return flows were considered and -
Q. Yes or no, Ms. Alexander.
A. No.
Therefore, to the extent that the Commission's April 20, 2010 Order contains
Findings of Fact which state that water is not available for continued appropriation
in the Brazos River Basin, under the Brazos WAM, such Findings of Fact are not
reasonably supported by substantial evidence when considering the record as a
whole. Exhibit H (Clerk's Record p. 182-196) shows that 74,387 acre-feet of water
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGE 17
per year are available in the Brazos River Basin in the latest version of the Brazos
WAM. 8
Texas law does not confer upon the Commission discretion to disregard the
evidence ofrecord. Tex. Gov't Code, §2001.174(2)(E) requires a reviewing court
to reverse an order of the Commission that is not reasonably supported by
substantial evidence considering the reliable probative evidence in the record as a
whole. The only reliable evidence is that Mr. Ware's application never received a
water availability review which referenced the amount of water now known to be
available for appropriation in the Brazos River Basin. The Commission's reliance
on the outdated water availability information included in Exhibit H (Clerk's
Record p. 182-196), known to be superseded by more reliable and updated
information in Exhibit H (Clerk's Record p. 182-196) deprives the Commission's
April 20, 2010 Order of any legitimacy under the law and constitutes an obvious
abuse of the Commission's discretion.
2. POINT OF ERROR NUMBER TWO.
THE COMMISSION'S APRIL 20, 2010 ORDER VIOLATES THE DIRECTIVES
AND REQUIREMENTS OF TEXAS WATER CODE, § 11.134(B), REGARDING
COMMISSION ACTION ON WATER RIGHTS APPLICATIONS.
8The Commission was only willing to use the evidence of water availability under the Brazos
WAM in favor of an application filed by Brazos River Authority, as shown in its adoption of
Findings of Fact Nos. 42-52.
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGE 18
Summmy ofArgument
The Commission's April 20, 2012 Order fails to comply with Texas Water
Code § 11.134(b). Under the agency's erroneous construction of Texas Water Code
§ 11.046(c), the Commission specifically and erroneously "reserves" state water
that was available for appropriation for a subsequent pending applicant, rather than
a senior water right holder.
Argument
Pertinent requirements of Texas Water Code, § 11.134(b) is:
(b) The Commission shall grant the application only if:
(1) the application conforms to the requirements
prescribed by this chapter and is accompanied by the
prescribed fee;
(2) unappropriated water is available in the source of
supply;
(3) the proposed appropriation:
(A) is intended for a beneficial use;
(B) does not impair existing water rights or vested
riparian rights;
(C) is not detrimental to the public welfare;
(D) considers any applicable environmental flow
standards established under Section 11.1471 and, if
applicable, the assessments performed under
Sections 11.147(d) and (e) and Sections 11.150,
11.151, and 11.152; and
(E) addresses a water supply need in a manner that
is consistent with the state water plan and the
relevant approved regional water plan for any area
in which the proposed appropriation is located,
unless the commission determines that conditions
warrant waiver of this requirement; and
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGE 19
(4) The Applicant has provided evidence that reasonable
diligence will be used to avoid waste and achieve water
conservation as defined by Section 11.002(8) (B).
The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the Commission's April 20, 2010
Order do not address the requirements of Texas Water Code, §11.134(b). To the
extent that the Conclusions of Law ultimately denying Application No. 5594A
flow from the Findings of Fact regarding water available for appropriation in the
Brazos River Basin, they are not reasonably supported by substantial evidence
when considering the record as a whole; are arbitrary or capricious or characterized
by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. Moreover, the
Commission's Apri120, 2010 Order also violates Texas Water Code, §11.134(b) as
well. The Commission's Order states:
44. The addition of "new water," [return flows] if it were proved to
exist, would be subject to all prior appropriation rights of senior
water rights holder and could not be treated as available for new
allocation.
Finding of Fact No. 44 clearly fails to incorporate the most recent amendments to
§11.046(c) as discussed herein below. Finding of Fact No. 44 presents an unlawful
interpretation of Commission requirements under Texas Water Code, §11.134(b),
which is only highlighted by the subsequent contradictory finding that: .
45. The full amount [described in Finding of Fact No. 49 as
421,449 acre-feet of water pel' year] of the Brazos River
Authority's requested return flows become available only at the
furthest downstream point m the basin; diversions at other
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGE 20
points are possible due to specific facts and circumstances of
that application.
The Commission is charged with granting water rights applications when it finds
that water is available for appropriation. Instead of discharging its statutory
responsibilities in accordance with Texas Water Code, § 11. 134(b), and granting
Plaintiff a continued right to appropriate 150 Acre-feet of water dating from his
July 1, 1997 priority date, the Commission's April 20, 2010 Order "allocated" the
water available for appropriation in the Brazos River Basin to a subsequent
applicant, BRA, in an application yet to be completed at SOAR, even as of the date
of this appeal to the Court of Appeals.
3. POINT OF ERROR NUMBER THREE.
THE DISTRlCT COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO FIND THAT THE
COMMISSION'S APRIL 20, 2010 ORDER IS IN VIOLATION OF THE
REQUIREMENTS OF TEXAS WATER CODE, §11.138l, REGARDING THE
CONSIDERATION AND GRANTING OF WATER RIGHTS PERMITS FOR A
TERM OF YEARS.
SUlnmmy ofArgument
The Commission's April 20, 2010 Order fails to comply with Texas Water
Code § 11.1381, regarding an appropriation of state water for a term of years. The
Commission inappropriately evaluated Plaintiff's application, that included a
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGE2!
request to renew his term permit, in consideration of its impact on a pending
applicant, rather than a senior water right holder.
Argument
Texas Water Code §11.1381 states:
Sec. 11.1381. TERM PERMITS. (a) Until a water right is
perfected to the full extent provided by Section 11.026 of this
code, the commission may issue permits for a term of years for
use of state water to which a senior water right has not been
perfected.
(b) The commission shall refuse to grant an application
for a permit under this section ifthe commission finds that there
is a substantial likelihood that the issuance of the permit will
jeopardize financial commitments made for water projects that
have been built or that are being built to optimally develop the
water resources of the area.
(c) The commission shall refuse to grant an application
for a term permit if the holder of the senior appropriative water
right can demonstrate that the issuance of the term permit
would prohibit the senior appropriative water right holder from
beneficially using the senior rights during the term of the term
permit. Such demonstration will be made using reasonable
projections based on accepted methods.
(d) A permit issued under this section is subordinate to
any senior appropriative water rights.
Accordingly, even the Commission's unlawful recognition of the availability
of return flows in the Brazos River Basin, albeit solely for use under BRA's
pending water rights application, is unspoken Commission recognition that the
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGE 22
evidence of record shows there is water available for appropriation for Plaintiffs
diversion and use, at least for a term of years. BRA still has only a pending
application for a proposed appropriation. The water that the Commission's April
20, 2010 Order finds available for that proposed appropriation by BRA is, by
definition, available to Plaintiff under his 1997 priority date before any new
appropriation by BRA with a 2004 priority date is authorized by the Commission.
Additionally, the evidence of record is that BRA is using only 20% of its existing
Stillhouse Hollow Lake water right, the closest and most pertinent water right to
Plaintiff. Tex. Water Code §11.1381 requires the holder of a senior
appropriative water right to "demonstrate that the issuance of a term permit
would prohibit the senior appropriative water right holder from beneficially using
the senior right during the term of the term permit." In this case, there was no
senior apptopriator party-- BRA withdrew; And, there could have been no
demonstration of harm to BRA because it only has a pending application, not any
right to appropriate the 421,449 acre-feet per year of return flows found to be
available for appropriation in the Brazos River Basin under the Commission's
April 20, 2010 Order. There was no demonstration ofhann to any other existing
water rights holder in the Brazos River Basin, on the facts of record in this
contested case hearing.
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGE 23
In this case, the TCEQ is essentially implementing a cancellation program
for term permits. The problem with the TCEQ's program is that through the Texas
Water Code, the Texas Legislature has authorized the Commission to cancel
permits for failure to put all or a part of the water to beneficial use for ten (10)
years or more. (See, Texas Water Code, § 11.1729) This is the same directive
given by the Texas Supreme Court in reviewing actions of the predecessor agency
to the TCEQ in the "Stacy Dam case," Lower Colorado River Authority, et aI, v.
Texas Department of Water Resources, 689 S.W.2d 873 (Tex. 1984), the most
recent comprehensive review on water law in this State. In that case, just as in the
case at bar, we are all called to consider the issue of how to make the best use of
the state's resources during times of water shortage, when questions of water
availability become most pronounced.
The problem with the Commission's actions in this case, is that TCEQ
attempts to effect a cancellation of a water right by a party who the evidence of
record shows has put the water to beneficial use in the last ten years. In the "Stacy
Dam case," the Texas Supreme Court told the TCEQ that it had to honor
appropriations in accordance with the prior appropriation system of the Texas
Water Code. Specifically, the Texas Supreme Court stated:
9 Sec. 11.172.' GENERAL PRINCIPLE. A permit, certified filing, or certificate of adjudication
is subject to cancellation in whole or part for 10 years nonuse as provided by this subchapter.
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGE 24
Section 11.146(e), by providing that water granted under any
permit is not again subject to a new permit to appropriate until
the permit has been cancelled in whole or in part, is consistent
with the overall legislative purpose [of providing security for
investors that water needed for a project will be there when the
proj ect is built].
Id, at p. 877.
In other words, under extant provisions of the Texas Water Code, the TCEQ has
two avenues to provide for water for additional appropriation:
(1) It can make use of surplus water returned to the stream in the form of
return flows after use by authorized appropriators under Texas; or
(2) It can undertake a cancellation program as specified in Texas Water
Code, Chapter 11, Subchapter E. Cancellation of Permits, Certified
Filings, and Certificates of Adjudication for Nonuse.
In order to grant new water rights and provide for a growing Texas economy, the
TCEQ must cancel water rights-that is, de-appropriate the water-ii'om people
who are not using the water. The problem, with the current TCEQ practice of
changing priority dates and cancelling term permits is that the Agency seeks to
cancel water rights of people who are using their water, in favor of those who have
yet to be authorized to use the return flows made available under Texas Water
Code, § 11.046. In other words, instead of following the Stacy Dam case directive
to consider only water not subject to a duly issued Permit to Appropriate State
Water, the TCEQ seeks to impose an unofficial "back door" cancellation program
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGE2S
of water rights which were issued for a term of years, even where the permittees
are seeking to continue to use the water as originally authorized, and even though
additional water in the form of return flows has become available legally to satisfy
that continued use.
4. POINT OF ERROR NUMBER FOUR.
THE DISTRICT COURT IN FAILING TO FIND THAT THE COMMISSION'S
APRIL 20, 2010 ORDER VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINE OF
WATER RIGHTS LAW OF "FIRST IN TIME, FIRST IN RIGHT," AS SET
FORTH IN THE TEXAS WATER CODE, SECTION 11.027.
Summmy ofArgument
The Commission's April 20, 2012 Order violates the doctrine of prior
appropriation and is based upon an unlawful procedure that was prejudicial to the
Plaintiff. Under Texas Water Code § 11.141, the Commission is obligated to use
the priority date of the applicant to determine the availability of state water for
appropriation. Plaintiff filed an application that should have been given a July 1,
1997, based on a previous order of the Commission. The agency order which set
Plaintiff's priority date was final order over which the Commission had lost
jurisdiction. Without notice to the Plaintiff or opportunity for him to protest, the
Commission's staff changed the priority date of Plaintiff's application to Janumy
5, 2006. Then, the agency compared this "new" priority date unfavorably to the
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGE 26
2004 priority rate of a pending applicant. The Commission's order is unlawful and
is based on unlawful procedure.
Argument
Texas water law established long ago the prior appropriation doctrine of
"first in time, first in right" to resolve disputes between appropriators and potential
appropriators of State water. The Texas Legislature codified the doctrine in the
Texas Water Code, § 11.027 and fUliher defined the priority of an appropriation at
Texas Water Code, §I1.I41. When the Commission issued Mr. Ware's original
Permit No. 5594 to "Appropriate and Use State Water" in 1997, the Commission's
inclusion of Special Condition 3(b) merely memorializes the "first in time first in
right" doctrine in Texas Water Code, §I1.027 and § 11.141. Special Condition 3(b)
states, unequivocally:
"The priority date of this permit and all extensions hereof shall be July 1,
1997."
Sections 11.027 and 11.141 protect the appropriation of State water, not an
application for an appropriation, or for a proposed appropriation of State water.
The intent of the Texas Water Code is obvious, on this point. The priority date of
July 1, 1997 included in Permit No. 5594 establishes the priority of Plaintiff's
appropriation; Tex. Water Code, §I1.14I states:
Sec. 11.141. DATE OF PRIORITY. When the commIssIon
issues a permit, the priority of the appropriation of water and
the claimant's right to use the water date from the date of filing
of the application.
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGE 27
The priority date applies to the original appropriation, regardless of whether the
appropriation is authorized for a term of years or in perpetuity.lO Where the
appropriation is perpetual, the date of the original application, and the priority date
would not change. When the appropriation is for a term of years, necessitating re-
application if the appropriator wished to retain the water right, there could be
confusion about which "application" date controlled. Logically, on a renewal of an
existing appropriation it would remain the date of the original application.
However, the Commission in 1997 eliminated all confusion and ambiguity by
expressly and correctly interpreting Texas Water Law and including Special
Condition 3(b) ofpermit No. 5594.
When the Executive Director and, ultimately, the Commission, changed Mr.
Ware's priority date to January 5, 2006 (Finding of Fact 48) the action violated
§11.141 of the Water Code and §2001.174(2)(A) of the Government Code. The
exact process of "changing" a final order of a state agency where the agency had
lost jurisdiction over the contested case years before, was never explained during
the hearing. The record shows that the Commission's Executive Director's Staff
never notified Plaintiff that is had changed his 1997 priority date when it did so
"administratively." When the Executive Director's representative was pressed
to In water rights, this is known as the "doctrine of relation back," meaning the right to
appropriate relates to the first point in time (as ofthe date of the completed application) that the
state could have authorized the appropriation.
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGE2S
about the procedure, or the exact nature of the "policy" that was used to change
Plaintiff s priority date, the witness could not answer the questioning". In fact, the
presiding SOAH ALJ prevented fUliher questioning about this important factor in
the Agency's pre-hearing consideration of Plaintiffs application l2 • Because the
record could not be completed, whether it was because of the limitations of the
Executive Director's representative, or the failure of the witness to know the policy
used to change Mr. Ware's permit, the Court is allowed to examine the TCEQ
procedural irregularities that occurred within the Executive Director's Office. [Tex.
Gov't Code §2001.175; See Tex. Water Com 'n v. Del/ana, 849 S.W.2d 808,810
(Tex. 1993)]
The record is clear that the Commission's Executive Director's staff did not
model 13 or determine water availability to meet the requests in Mr. Ware's
amendment application with a 1997 priority date. Therefore, the Commission's
administrative record lacks competent evidentiary support for a determination of
available water in the Brazos River Basin if the staff had modeled Plaintiffs
application correctly.
11 (Attached as Exhibit D, Tr. Vol. 1, p. 116 line 8 - 124 line 25; Clerk's Record p. 114-122)
12 (Attached as Exhibit D, Tr. Vol. 1, p. 125 line 1 -126 line 7; Clerk's Record p. 123-124)
13 By "model" we mean use the agency's Brazos River Basin Water Availability Model
computer based simulation of available water within the basin that takes into account inflows,
evaporation and channel losses, and the rights granted to senior water rights holders within the
basin.
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGE 29
Of course, Texas law prohibits the collateral attack of an order derived from
a closed contested case. Chocolate Bayou Water Company and Sand Supply v.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, et al., 124 S.W.3d 844, 853
(Tex. App - Austin 2003, pet. denied) This prohibition extends to the agency itself.
In Railroad Commission of Texas v. Home Transportation Company, 670 S.W.2d
319,325 (Tex. App - Austin 1984, no writ) the Court held; "Agencies are entitled
to interpret their own orders, for administrative purposes, so long as the agency
does not use the occasion to interpret as a means to amend the prior order."
Even if the Executive Director sought to "change" or otherwise "interpret" the
plain, unambiguous priority date listed in Plaintiffs permit during the hearing, the
cited case law would prevent such a collateral attack of a determination and grant
of a water right that has been made by a previous Agency decision. What is more
egregious to Mr. Ware's due process rights is that Mr. Ware's permit was amended
by a unilateral staff action, without notice and oppOliunity for Mr. Ware to
adjudicate the change or even comment on the change.
The effect of the action was that Mr. Ware was deprived of a right (a water
right with a 1997 priority date) conferred by the original Commission order issuing
Permit No. 5594 without any notice and opportunity to respond to the removal of
the right. A new, far less senior priority date was used, improperly, in the
Executive Director's November 14, 2006 Water Availability Review of Mr.
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGE 30
Ware's application and formed the basis for the denial of Mr. Ware's application.
Therefore, the Commission's order denying Mr. Ware's application on the basis of
the change in priority date, also violated Tex. Gov't. Code §2001.174(2)(C).
Moreover, in House of Tobacco, Inc. v. Calvert, 394 S.W.2d 654, 656 - 657
(Tex. 1965), the Texas Supreme Court held that even a person who is granted a
privilege under the state's police power such as a licensee, is entitled to procedural
due process when that license is taken away. Mr. Ware was granted an important
and valuable priority date of July 1, 1997. He was entitled to procedural due
process when it was taken away by the Executive Director's staff without notice
and the opportunity for a hearing on the removal of the priority date. The agency
compounded the error when it ratified the Executive Director staffs action by
issuing a final order.
The TCEQ's Final Order itself indicates that the priority date ofMr. Ware's
application is relevant. The Final Order includes findings 49, 50, and 51, peliaining
to BRA's application for a system water right. Assuming that all findings of fact
are necessary and relevant to the TCEQ's Conclusion of Law and ultimate decision
[See Heritage on San Gabriel Homeowners v. TCEQ, 393 S.W.3d 417, 423
(Tex.App. - Austin 2012); citing City of Waco v. Texas C0111111 'n on Envtl. Quality,
346 S.W.3d 781, 819 - 20 (Tex.App - Austin, pet. denied)], we can only assume
that BRA's October 15,2004 priority date (Finding 50) as a competing applicant is
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGE 31
part of the reason why Mr. Ware's application, using a January 5, 2006 priority
date (Finding 48) was denied. (Finding 51).
The Texas State District Court in Travis County has already considered the
importance of recognizing the priority of water rights for agricultural use in Texas
Farm Bureau, et al v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Cause No. D-
I-GN-12-003937, and found the TCEQ Drought Curtailment Rules, 30 Texas
Administrative Code §§ 36.1-36.8, are invalid because:
1. The rules exceed TCEQ's statutory authority because
they allow exemption of preferred uses from a curtailment or
suspension order, and such exemptions are not in accordance
with the priority of water rights established by Texas Water
Code § 11.027; and
2. Exemption of junior water rights from a priority call and
curtailment or suspension order [meaning administering water
rights during a time of shortage by putting later water users in
front of earlier priority water users] is not authorized by
TCEQ's police power or any general authority to protect the
public health; safety, or welfare.
[Parenthetical explanatory comments supplied. June 6, 2013,
Order on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment, the Honorable
Scott H. Jenkins]
5. POINT OF ERROR NUMBER FIVE.
THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO FIND THAT THE
COMMISSION ACTED ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY TO DEPRIVE
PLAINTIFF OF ANY CONTINUED RIGHT TO DIVERT AND USE ANY
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGE 32
WATER AT ANY TIME FOR WARE FARM UNDER PERMIT NO. 5594, AN
AUTHORIZED APPROPRIATION, ON THE STATED BASIS OF NO WATER
AVAILABLE FOR APPROPRIATION, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME
GRANTING WATER RIGHTS FOR NEW APPROPRIATIONS AND ISSUING
STATEMENTS OF WATER AVAILABILITY FOR OTHER PLAINTIFFS,
NEW PERMITTEES, AND OTHER WATER RIGHTS HOLDERS.
SUn1n1my ofArgument
The Commission's April 20, 2010 Order IS based on an erroneous
construction of Texas Water Code § 11.046(c) peliaining to the availability of
return flows for re-appropriation; and is based on an unlawful procedure. The
Commission's construction of Texas Water Code §11.046(c) is erroneously in that
it included a limitation on the availability of return flows for reappropriation that
was not imposed on return flows by the Texas Legislature. This erroneous agency
construction ofthe applicable law is not entitled to deference by this court. Further,
the Commission's Order then unlawfully reserves these return flows that should
have been available to the Plaintiff, for the benefit of a subsequent, pending
applicant.
Argument
The Commission's April 20, 2010 Order denying Plaintiffs amendment
application is made through the unfair and unlawful procedure of denying some
Plaintiffs Brazos River Basin access to water available for appropriation in the
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGE 33
form of return flows or updated information on water availability. Texas Water
Code § 11.046(c) states:
§ 11.046(c). Except as specifically provided otherwise in the water
right, water appropriated under a permit, certified filing, or certificate
of adjudication may, prior to its release into a watercourse or stream,
be beneficially used and reused by the holder of a permit, certified
filing, or certificate of adjudication for the purposes and locations of
use provided in the permit, certified filing, or certificate of
adjudication. Once water has been diverted under a permit,
certified filing, or certificate of adjudication and then returned to
a watercourse or stream, however, it is considered surplus water
and therefore subject to reservation for instream uses or
beneficial inflows or to appropriation by others unless expressly
provided otherwise in the permit, certified filing, or certificate of
adjudication.
(Emphasis supplied)
The Commission's order, which recogmzes the presence of "the full amount
[421,449 acre-feet of water per year] of BRA's requested return flows," but also
denies that 150 acre-feet of water is available for Plaintiff's continued
appropriation, is founded upon unlawful procedure. Plaintiff asserts that the
Executive Director's and TCEQ's erroneous interpretation of §11.046(c) is not
subject to the usual substantial evidence review by this court because it is clearly a
question of law and the TCEQ's interpretation is not entitled to a presumption of
validity [Entex v. Railroad COl11m., Texas, 18 S.W.3d 858, 862 (Tex. App. - Austin
2000, pet.denied); Dodd v. Meno, 857 S.W.2d 575, 576 (Tex.App. - Austin 1993),
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGE 34
affd on other grounds, 870 S.W.2d 4 (Tex. 1994)] The Texas Water Code and
Commission rules do not provide for reservation of state water available for
appropriation to ji/ture Plaintifft. There is no law or rule, and consequently no
legal justification for the Commission's actions denying a requested appropriation
for Ware Farm while granting or providing documentation to support granting,
perpetual or long term permits for other later applicants and future appropriators.
Moreover, the arbitrary limitations that the Executive Director placed on the
availability of retulU flows for re-appropriation is not supported by the law or even
the potentially changing position of the TCEQ on the proper appropriation of
retulU flows. The Executive Director's witnesses testified that Plaintiffs
application was not reviewed assuming that retulU flows upstream of Mr. Ware's
diversion point were available for re-appropriation 14 • Dr. Alexander testified that
the Executive Director asselis that retulU flows are available for re-appropriation
only to the entity that discharged such retulU flOWS 15 • Plainly, this qualification on
the availability of retulU flow for re-appropriation is not contained in §11.046(c),
cited herein. The consideration of a pending application of a non-patiy applicant
and use of such legally irrelevant factors is evidence that the TCEQ's Denial of
Plaintiffs application was arbitrary and capricious. [See City of El Paso v. Public
14 (See Exhibit D, Tr. Vol. 1 p. 109 line 6 - 110 line 8; Clerk's Record p. 112-133 and pp. 134
line 9 -154 line 24; Clerk's Record p. 125-145)
15 (See Exhibit J, Tr. Vol. 2 p. 377 line 10 - 379 line 8; Clerk's Record p. 224-226)
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGE 35
Utility Com'n. of Texas, 883 S.W.2d 179, 184 (Tex. 1994)] Further, it is evidence
that the agency's final order is characterized by an abuse of discretion or a clearly
unwarranted exercise of discretion [Tex. Gov't Code §2001.174(2)(F); Berkley v.
Railroad Commission of Texas, 282 S.W.3d 240, 242-244 (Tex.App - Amarillo
2009, no pet.h.); Langford v. Employees Retirement System of Texas, 73 S.W.3d
560, 564-565 (Tex. App. - Austin 2002, pet. denied); TGS - NOPEC Geophysical
Company v. Combs, 268 S.W.3d 637, 651-652 (Tex. App. - Austin 2008, pet.
filed)] In addition the Executive Director's erroneous interpretation of §11.046(c)
is at odds with BRA's position in the pending application that the TCEQ references
in its Final Order. BRA seeks all available return flows in its pending application.
Since the issuance of the TCEQ's Final Order in Mr. Ware's case, BRA's
application has been heard, considered by the Commission, and remanded to the
ALJ's for further hearing. The Administrative Law Judges who heard BRA's
application in Brazos River Authority's System Operation Permit Application No.
5851 ("BRA Application No. 5851") issued a proposal for decision with a
construction of §11.046(c) consistent with BRA's and Plaintiff's interpretation of
§ 11.046(c). The ALJs concluded that the Executive Director's interpretation was
erroneous and in conflict with the plain language of the statute. See excerpts of the
Proposal for Decision, BRA Application No. 5851, attached as Exhibit I; Clerk's
Record p. 197-222.
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGE 36
The real reason the TCEQ determined that there is no water available for
Mr. Ware is because the TCEQ Staff has construed the law to exclude return flows
as a basis for a new appropriation under certain unspecified and uncodified
conditions. The TCEQ may wish to invoke the protections of "substantial evidence
review" and point to the "more than substantial evidence" to support its order; but
the lynch-pin of the TCEQ's argument is its construction of the controlling
statutOlY authority: § 11.134(b) and, consequently § 11.046 of the Texas Water
Code. Therefore, the TCEQ's Final Order in Mr. Ware's application is not entitled
to the deference ofthis Court. [Entex v. Railroad Comm., Texas, 183 S.W.3d 858,
862 (Tex. App. - Austin 2000, pet. denied); Dodd v. Meno,857 S.W.2d 575, 576
(Tex. App. - Austin 1993, affd on other grounds, 870 S.W.2d 4 (Tex. 1994)] The
case-law is clear: a court reviewing a state agency's construction of controlling
statutory authority is entitled to substitute its interpretation of the law for that used
by the state agency. (Entex, supra) Moreover, it is important that this court provide
its construction is a matter of first impression. As noted in the proposal for decision
in BRA's actual pending application [SOAR Docket No. XXX-XX-XXXX; TCEQ
Docket No. 2005-1490-WR; On Re: Concerning the Application by the Brazos
River Authority for Water Use Permit No. 5851 and Related Filings] (A relevant
excerpt was attached as Exhibit I to Plaintiffs Initial Brief), the issue of the
appropriate use of return flows is a matter "in play" still under consideration and
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGE 37
subject to interpretation at the TCEQ. The legal construction of Texas Water Code,
§ 11.046(c) is crucial to Mr. Ware in his application and this appeal.
The importance of fair and accurate water availability analysis by the
Commission, has its basis, not only in the Texas Water Code, but also in principles
of fundamental fairness, and prohibition against property deprivation without
compensation or due process, under the Constitution of the United States of
America and the Texas Constitution. Water rights are propeliy rights, and the
termination or denial of those rights without just cause or fair compensation
amounts to an unauthorized use of the State's police powers. The Commission, in
every water rights case, must act in a just and reasonable way. Reliance on
erroneous or outdated data, refusal to apply facts as dictated by statute, operating in
accordance with non-existent rules and procedures unlawfully compromise the
Commission's water rights regulation. Above everything, Plaintiff should not be
denied under Commission procedures which determine water availability based on
unspecified procedures and non-public rules which favor some Plaintiffs over
others without regard to the statutory mandate, "As between appropriators, the
first in time in the first in right.
6. POINT OF ERROR NUMBER SIX.
THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO FIND THAT THE
COMMISSION'S APRIL 20, 2010 ORDER ADOPTED FINDINGS OF FACT
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGE 38
PERTAINING TO A PENDING NON-PARTY APPLICANT; MOREOVER,
THE DETAILS OF SAID PLAINTIFF'S PENDING APPLICATION AND
PROPOSED APPROPRIATION WERE UNLAWFULLY USED AS A BASIS
TO DENY PLAINTIFF'S WATER RIGHT APPLICATION.
Summmy ofArgument
The Commission's April 20, 2010 Order is unlawful and voidable on its face
because is it based upon consideration given to a non-patty, pending applicant, to
the detriment of the Plaintiff.
Argument
The Commission's April 23, 2010 Order contains Findings of Fact 45, 49,
50 and 51; which refer to the unidentified application of Brazos River Authority, a
non-patty. These findings of fact regarding the ongoing contested application of a
non-patty were used as a basis to deny Mr. Ware's application. Therefore, the
Commission order violated Tex. Gov't. Code §2001.174(2) because the decision
was made through unlawful procedure [§2001.174(2)(C)]; it was not reasonably
supported by substantial evidence considering the reliable and probative evidence
in the record as a whole [§2001.174(2)(E)]; and was arbitrary and capricious and
was characterized by an abuse of discretion [§2001.174(2)(F)]. The referenced
Findings of Fact Nos. 45, 49, 50 and 51 appear to refer to pending water rights
BRA Application No. 585l. However, as of its April 14, 2010 consideration of the
Proposal for Decision in Plaintiff's case, the Commission had yet to even consider
that pending application in an open meeting lawfully convened pursuant to the
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGE 39
Texas Open Meeting Act, Tex. Gov't. Code Chapter 551 et. seq. and, of course,
had not rendered any final order granting all or any portion of BRA's proposed
appropriation. [See Tex. Gov't. Code §2001.005(a)]
On April 28, 2010, the Commission referred BRA's Application No. 5851 to
SOAR granting the requests for a contested case hearing of several protestants.
The hearing before SOAR is subject to the Texas Rules of Evidence in a non-jury
civil trial. (See Tex. Gov't. Code §2001.081) BRA was not a party to Mr. Ware's
application, and no witness on behalf of BRA was sponsored to verify any pOliion
of Application 5851 or any other application filed by BRA. Even more
impOliantly, Plaintiff was provided no oppOliunity to cross examine or otherwise
determine the validity of any evidence associated with BRA's application or the
supposed evidence which mayor may not support the Findings of Fact Nos. 45, 49,
50 or 51 in the Commission's April 20, 2010 Order. (See Tex. Gov't. Code
§2001.087) Therefore, in denying Mr. Ware's application based on unsupported
evidence from a pending application of a non-party, the Commission's April 20,
2010 Order amounts to a taking of Mr. Ware's property without the benefit of any
procedural due process, in direct contravention of the Article XIV of the U.S.
Constitution. In that regard, the Commission's order also violated the Texas
Constitution, Art. 1, Sections 3 and 19, and Tex. Gov't. Code §2001.174(A). [See
also Texas Citizens for a Safe Future and Clean Water v. Railroad Commission of
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGE 40
Texas, 254 S.W.3d 492, 496-497 (Tex. App. - Austin 2007, pet. filed); Hernandez
v. Meno, 828 S.W.2d 491,493-495 (Tex. App. - Austin 1992, writ den.)]
There is little doubt about the damaging impact of the referenced findings on
Mr. Ware's application. The most significant Findings of Fact Nos. 49, 50 and 51
were included in a section of the Commission's order labeled "Priority dates." In
Findings of Facts 40 and 41 (which directly contradict the Commission Finding of
Fact 47) the Commission established the importance of an Plaintiffs priority date
in the Commission's determination of water availability. Then, the Commission
directly compares BRA's alleged priority date to a less senior priority assigned to
Mr. Ware's application (Finding of Fact 48) rather than the date included in his
permit (Finding of Fact 46). In so doing, the effect of the Commission's order was
to deny Mr. Ware's application in favor of another pending and undecided
application. Moreover, the Commission's Finding of Fact 51 violates Tex. Water
Code § 11.141 by implying that the pending BRA application had already resulted
in a valid appropriation of water. That section ofthe Water Code provides:
"DATE OF PRIORITY. When the Commission issues a permit,
the priority of the appropriation of water and the claimant's
right to use the water date from the date of filing of the
application."
(Emphasis supplied)
Texas Water Code, §11.141
The agency's actions in adopting Findings of Fact 40,41,45,47,49,50 and
51 substantially prejudiced Plaintiff s substantial rights discussed herein, including
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGE 41
his right to due process, and therefore Plaintiff is entitled to the reversal and
remand of the TCEQ's decision [Tex. Gov't. Code §2001.174(2); Balla v. Texas
State Board ofMedical Examiners, 693 S.W.2d 715-717 (Tex. App. - Dallas 1985,
ref.n.v.e)]
Plaintiff did not agree to use information about BRA's pending application
or waive his objection to receipt of information about BRA's application into his
hearing record. Plaintiff offered the Executive Director's 2008 Water Availability
Review to the ALI for the limited purpose of establishing that it was the most
current water available analysis performed by the Executive Director regarding the
Brazos River Basin. In that review (Exhibit H; Clerk's Record p. 183-196) the
Executive Director updated the Brazos WAM that had been used two years before
in its review of Mr. Ware's application. The fact that the Executive Director found
that 74,387 additional acre-feet of water per year was available in the Brazos River
Basin using the same period of record as was used in Mr. Ware's Water
Availability Review was relevant and probative information for the Commission's
consideration of Mr. Ware's application. The fact that another applicant (or any
other applicant) may have also applied for the water available for appropriation is
irrelevant to any issue in this case. Plaintiff strenuously objected to the admission
of any evidence about BRA's application during Mr. Ware's hearing for the
reasons discussed herein. The Commission's inclusion of any information about
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGE 42
BRA or its pending application is objectionable and unlawful and has no bearing
on the question of water availability for Mr. Ware.
VII. SUMMARY
The Commission's April 20, 2010 Order denying Mr. Ware's application to
appropriate 150 acre-feet of water per year from the Lampasas River, Brazos River
Basin, violates the Texas Water Code, the Texas Constitution, and the Constitution
of the United States and is voidable and reversible. Apart from being unlawful, the
Commission's role in administering water rights is called into question when it
denies a family farmer access to water available for appropriation in the Brazos
River Basin for any term at all on the one hand, and supports contractual water
rights, and issues perpetual permits for use of State water associated with return
flows and updated streamflow conditions and data sets on the other hand.
VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FOREGOING, Plaintiff asks the
court to vacate the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality's unlawful April
20,2010 Order denying the Application of Bradley B. Ware to Amend his Permit
to Appropriate State Water No. 5594, and remand the case to the TCEQ for further
consideration of Plaintiff's application based on the evidence of record and the
Texas Water Code and all applicable law; and for such other and further relief that
Plaintiff may show himself to be entitled.
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGE 43
Respectfully Submitted,
WEBB & WEBB
Attorneys at Law
712 Southwest Towers
211 East i h Street
Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 472-9990 Telephone
(512) 472-3183 Facsimile
, bbwebblaw.com
0.21033800
GWENDOLYN HILL WEBB
g.hill.webb@webbwebblaw.com
State Bar No. 21026300
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT,
BRADLEY B. WARE
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(3), I hereby certify that
this brief contains 10,260 words (excluding the caption, table of contents, table of
authorities, signature, proof of service, certification, and certificate of compliance).
This is a computer generated document created in Microsoft Word, using 14-point
typeface for all text, except for footnotes which are 12-point typeface. In making
this certificate of compliance, I am relying on the word count provided by the
software used to prepare the document.
APPELLANT'S BRIEF PAGE 44
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby celiify that I have this I--~
r? day of
( ~ , 2015, ","«I .~~I,j
J'I~'<"';o~""\..~ ~
n':;:.,z ~, .~
-- t:~ ~.,!ifl _
L!....r'~~::;~ :~
r,)'u.. ~ ~.~ ~
III <.?.~ ~ ~
l->'F~~
~ ~~6.~
'" ::>d~
WOtn~e
~O .... ~M
TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL'QUAiXllijl
. P,O, BOX 13088, MC-160 .
Austin, Texas 78711-3088· '"
Telephoue No, (512) 239-4691 FAX (512) 239:4770
APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO AWATER RIGHT
REQUIRING MAILED AND PUBLISHED NOTICE; or
NOT REQUlRlNG MAILED lIND PUBLISHED NOTICE
ReferenC§ AIDl.JJllJID(lftO'&''JI'll®m tOlHIllll,'Il'. N®.
§'lrllKlf!lA:mI ~A\§A\@ l!!'.ILiYJ1lllllt
'lHtmll!Jlffi\V®lIJllt (lP'lffilE§Jl!lMlr WDlI'Jl'l[®:ru~,JI]j'' ' ' ,'®mlI!llEl1.(]@'lr§):
,1D®llJml'JY: -..-lJJ)lElljllJ (fJ1l!fl~
$. ll"llll.®lP'®§ID]lJl 1lJ)[ll.&1ll6illl!J§ 'Il'® \W.&Jl.'lEllll, 'lHtlI!litlHl'll' .A\1lJ'Jl'lHl®lffimA\.'Jl.')[®m§:
Form TCEQ-10201(revis~d 8/02)
,.
I ..
. .'
If lIJ'ffiID1IillI.It§'.l1.'A\lml 'll'~'ll' WIlDE .A\.G.lElNfIDW NlIA\.W JmIEl(U\IDmm .A\JIDlIlJ11'll'11fIDNI.&JL
lIJ'IDF®Jm.NIIA\.'H'JH!IlNi lINI JmIElGA\.1Il!,ID) 'll'® '1l.'IDlllll lmIEl@l ,'§'ll'IEllIlJ
..8\.Nll.JlllN.IIJ)Jilll:IENI'll' lBlJlJlJF®JlJl,llJ] ID®M§11lIDRiIlmlINltG l'IlDr .A\JP'JP'lLlIcDA'lr11®M.
!D. 11 llllA\WIDJ §1lJlHlNlIlI'll''ll.'llJ]JIJJ 'lrJBJJE) ffil,IElI!llllJIDlll,JEJIJJ lIJ'Jlilllll§ JflIIElJlR.iIlI'WlI'll'lBI.
(§:mJ'lrJI®NI§ ~®!D. Jl. 3l JHlllIDlD. Jl. 3l1ID)
~§§ (Yl y JIIlA\.:&IDJ .A\.'ll'
• (JIDY I ®lUJffi)
'll'EH§ _is_lIlJAW ®1F J(
(.iIDUBII!'lLE, -=-J!--lfAc..\-\GD pJ'.>.6,5 Foe TInS CMRT--=t'
I. Type of crop: Growing season (months): Acres irrigated/year:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Total number of acres: \'52.
Include hybrid crop names: for example, which type of coastal Bermuda?
II On average, how much water in acre-feet will be diverted montllly for irrigation?
January G May '21 September 20
TOTAL
February 4 June Irl October 'I for all _
months
March "3 July 25 November 5
April F") August 30 December 5
MONTHL
y
TOTALS ~o q3 31 150
m. Do YOIl seasonally or annually rotale crops? NO (circle one)
If yes, please describe: WI-IE/.\\i Fo\,\JJFDRD CI..A'/- wELl DRAll0eD PRESEJV'
e.oIVTOUR ThRRACE.D .AlJ:',D REfER Ttl 'TG'#S eooPE:RAI1\JE EXTE.I0SIO/J
PU,6uCATlO/J B- \0'70 p.B.
V. Describe the existing/proposed irrigation system including plans, designs and/or sketches
of the system layout, pump location, slope of the land to be irrigated, and specifics about
the delivery method. (For example: Single pivot with big gun sprinkler)
SloPE; D tc:> 3 PERCE.Wr /OCUIJE1?Y UWDSR6RCU~D PVC PUMP
c.APW1V 500 6.PM./pDJJ[.R UkllT 25 H. Po ELEcTRlC C6J'TER PI\JDr-
L.ePA DSSISIJ (lOUJ El0E:.R6Y PREUSS ADPUCAllDIJ) w11!i A /xS161J
E.FFE.C.IE.IS:.'f t>-'ilO\lE CJ5% DRA\\J/\J6 (;)(1-\1611-5 A)6,C,'l-D. TExf'S
CODPERI\\l\lE EXTEI0S ID/V PuBUc'ATloJJ B -\loll / L-22 1,)7, l-5D~,
B-loc;A"'1 tHo llo2.
VI. Describe the methods and/or device which wllI be used to measure and account for the
amount of water diverted for irrigation.
CEhlTE.Q PIVDT J.JD2.ZlE C'.HART AfJD PLlMP ~ \C~~y CUR\Je
G\IB rr B At-JI) Co 1
,
Lo6 DF DPE.MlI0f.) HOu'Rs ~Hl3lT -1-1,
VIr. If there's is an existing irrigation systcm~ any system evaluations been performed
regarding the efficiency of the system? ~ NO (circle one)
If YES. please indicate: . \
When: sEE AlTN:I:1ED TEXAS .A·t-M PLt5UCAllD\.) B-lfolO "I B(;'OI'j
Who performed the evaluation: DR. !DIll LYLE -n;XM A'l- M E.iClill3li5 F'IG,/C.rtD05l~ AC81J1E:R PIVOT By
GUY flPRS
VIII. Describe any water conserving equipment used In the irrigation system. (I.e. closed pipes,
leak detection, pressure loss cut-off valve, etc.)
\11611-\ EF=FECIEf0CY, E.J£c:..-IRIC celJrRlFlcAl PU/JI.P,SEAlED AIJD
- r (FRIC:nOJ-) ')
PR-ESSuRE lEST€:D lOW ffiU<,(\,lloJJ, P\lc.. UND6RQi/;,) CE:I0TER PI\laf: USIIJ::3 LOID DRIFT NOZZLES AND DRA<:i
I-\OS£S I WA1E..R P-El.EkSE: WILL BE. AT t\lD (\./.-oRE lltAk'l ! g 1/
AB0Jt: SDIL SURFA.CE: ,Tf.'lilc>Z, B-bI50, B-focRb
IX, Describe any methods which will be used for water loss control and leal, detection and
repair.
REbULA'R PRfSSLtRE TE..ST,, 'R£'PAI f2S MAC£. (,\SI/J(,;, AWROOCD
X. Describe any water saving scheduling or measurement practices to be utilized in the
application of water, for example: irrigation only early in the morning, late evening or
night hours, when the wind is cairn and temperatures lower, and also the utilization of soil
moisture monitoring·,
Page 4
72
t·· , '
So N> MOIS1VR€ L8JELs ARE: MAI}JT.AII>'::£D FeR goP OCIJE.lCPM6'JI
BUT NDT TD 111E PC>JlJf of Rv,wofFAUSt>
, REFE.R 1P TEXAS
CCOPEI<.A.TIUE. EX:TEhl510W P(1Bl1~llol0 L-5o(>'j,J B-lbIO. :;>
e.-I 0701 B-0oIQ.
'TE.Y:As cooFERA'TI \.lEO E><-/EOf.-lSID/j .VJA'{C\< 'R ~"'bLI Kes LDe86 111:.:
li'ifPi / W[.tllV:teyc\s e.-\ ,-tat)'\..l,eaCl .
XL Describe any water saving land improvements whlch the applicant plans to incorporate
into the irrigation practices, such as conservation tillage ~nd other organic methods).
knifing. furrow diking, weed control, etc.
t:'18J)S ARE: CDI01DUl< IERRACE:D ,SOME: 6e.Er:ED 1b ~ll'JC
GR.A.SS SFEOES. IllLA6f' vJILL BE: MAlJMf£> 10 MAI/..)TAIN
f!...T LEAST '30% G,ROfllJD COIlE.R 00 SOIL SUR.FACE:.1
XII. Describe any recovery and reuse of taUwater runoff.
lRRI6ATlD0 vJlLl B( MDf\jffDREb 'SOTMf'\! SoiL WILL
COfSlp..\10 SUFFtiTf::i..)T MDlS1DRE: FOR PRoPER CROP
DE\lQoPMEi0f BUT 1'001 _IRRlt:iA.TC£) TO lliE. POIDT DF
RU'i..iOFF, REFER -10 TEXI'S CroPE:RA1l1JE ~1D0 PLIBUcAl700
1.-:- 5D3Q.
XIII. Describe, where appiicable, any xeriscape practices utilized (usually associated with
landscaping) .
Page 5
73
, ,
XIV. Indicate (in gallons-per-minute or cubic-feet-per-second) tl!e rate that water is diverted
from the source: SOD G.'PM DR \.2. c.-Fs
C:\FORM.S\10211l\1jXf (rcvisffl W5) Page 6
74
.~.
75
Exhibit B
Applicant Bradley B. Ware's Motion for
Rehearing
SOAlI DOCKET NO. 582·08·1698
TCEQ DOCKET NO. 2008·0181·WR \ n>j II' \ 6
. '''~\I'"\l
i _ IJ \ 1< 1 n .
Al'PLICATION OF BRADLEY B. WARE § BEFORil!j'i!1iE~§6g[~SION
§
TO AMEND WATER USE § ON
§
PERMTI' NO. 5594 § ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
.APPLICANT BRADLEY n. WARE'S MOTION FOR REHEARING
TO 11m HONORABLE TEXAS COMt\1ISSION ON ENVlRONMENTAL QUALITY:
NOW COMES, Bradley 13. Ware ("Mr. Ware," or "Applicant"), Applicant in the above
styled and docketed water rights permit amendment application, by and tlrrough his attorneys of
record, Stephen P. Webb and Gwendolyn Hill Webb, of Webb & Webb, Altomeys at Law, 211
Seventh Street, Suite 712, Austin, Texas, 78701, and mes this, Applicant's Motion for Rehearing
regarding the Aplil 20, 2010 Order of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
("TCEQ" or "Commission") "Concerning the Application of Bradley B. Ware to amend water
use Permit No. 5594; TCEQ Docket No. 200S·0181-WR; SOAH Docket No. XXX-XX-XXXX,"
("the Conunlssion's April 20, 2010 Order") and respectfully states as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
Apart from the grievous it1justice perpetrated by the Commission Oll Applicant, Bradley
B. Ware, in denying him allY continuing right to divert and use water under Water Use Permit
No. 5594 for Ware Farm after over 100 years of waler use, Applicant asserts that the
Commission's April 20, 2010 Order violates extant provisions of tbe Texas Water Code, and
COlltains obviously reversible legal error. A May 11, 2010 decision of the Texas Court of
Appeals, Fomteenth District, Houston, in Texas Department of Public Safety v. Chad Michael
Henson (14-09-0010-CV) sets forth the standards of judicial review of decisions by an
administrative agency. TIle text of tile discussion is set forth in full below:
When reviewing ffil administTative decision under the substantial evidence rule,
the review court may affIrm the decision in whole or in part. Tex. Gov'!. Code
Ann. §2001.174 (Vernon 2008). It [the reviewing cawt] must reverse or remand
the case if the Appellant's substantial rights have been prejudiced because the
administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decision are:
(1) in violation of a constitutional Or ,iatutory provisioll;
(2) in excess of the agency's slatutory authority;
(3) made through ffil unlawful procedure;
(4) affected by other error of law;
(5) not reasonably supported by subslffiltial evidence when considering
the record as a whole; or
(6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly
\lUwarrauted exercise of discretion.
[Citing ffild paraphrasing Tex. Gov't. Code §2001.174 (Vernon 2008), ffild Tex.
Dept. o/Publlc Safoty v. Guajardo, 970 S.W.2d 602.J
Generally, as shown below, the Commission's order is in violation of the fundamental precepts
of the Constitution of the United States (5th and 14th Amendments) ffild the Texas Constitution
(ArLl, Bill of Rights, Sections 3 and 19), Texas Water Code and the Texas Govermnent Code;
is in excess of the Com.mission's statutory authority; is made through unlawful procedure; is
affected by nllmerOllS other errors of law; is not reasonably supported by snbstantial evidence
when considering the record as a whole; and is on its face arbitrary, capriciolls, and characterized
by abuse of discretion, or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.
Put simply, the Commission's Apri120, 20 I0 Order is subject to reversal because it finds
and concludes that there is water available for appropriation in the Brazos River Basin in the
form of return flows, but reserves the available water to a pending applicant.- not appropriator--
and yet denies water availability .in the current proceeding, against the substantial evidence of
record.
Al'PLICI>Nf'S MonON FOR REHEARING
MAy 14, 20)0 PAGE 2
77
n. STATEl\fENT OF POINTS OF ERROR
POINT OF ERROR NUMB:ER ONE
The Commission's April 20, 2010 Order unlawfully ignores the evidence of record
regarding the water available fol' appropriation by Applicant; therefore, the Commission's action
in adopting the April 20, 2010 Order was arbitrary and capricious, and was characterized by an
abuse of discretion.
Po~rOFERRORNUMBERTWO
The Commission's April 20, 2010 Order violates the directives and requirements of
Texas Water Code, §11.1 34 (b), regarding Commission action on water rights applications.
POINT OF ERROR NUMBER THREE
The Commission's April 20, 2010 Order is in violation of the requirements of Texas
Water Code, §11.l381, regarding the consideration and granting of water rights permits for a
tenn of years.
POINT OF ERROR NUMBER FOUR
The Commission's April 20, 2010 Order violates the fundamental doctrine of water right~
law of "first in time, first in right," as set forth in the Texas Water Code, Chapter 11.
POINT OF ERROR NUMBER FIVE
The Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously to deprive Applicant of any continued
right to divert and use any water at any time for Ware Farm under Pennit No. 5594, an
authorized appropriator, on the stated basis of no water available for appropriation, while at the
Al'PLlCAN1"S MOTION FORJ1EBl;ARlNG
MAY 14,2010
78
same tUne granting water rights for new appri>Priations and issuing statements of water
availability fur other applicants, new pennittees, and other water rights holders.
POINT OF ERROR NUMBER SIX
The Commission's April 20, 2010 Order adopted of Findings of Fact pertaining to a
pending .non-party applicant; Moreover, the details of said applicant's pending application and
proposed appropriation were unlawfully used as a basis to dellY Applicant's water right
application.
APrLlCANr'S MOTION FOR REJlEARJNG
MAv14,2010 PAG~4
79
m. POINT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE
The Commission's April 20, 2010 Order unlawfully ignores the evidence of record
regarding the water available for appropriation by Applicant; therefore, the Conunission's action
in adopting the April 20, 2010 Order was arbitrary and capricious, and was characteriwl by an
abuse of discretion.
DISCUSSION
The adopted Findings of Fact regarding water availability and "The reliability of the
Model" in the Corrunission's April 20, 2010 Order are, on their face, inconsistent with each
other, directly contrary to the evidence of record, and founded upon unlawful procedure. While
the Commission is entitled to dmw an appropriate inference from tlle substantial evidence of
record regarding water availability in the Brazos River Basin, the Commission is not entitled to
abuse its discretiou by disregarding the existing evidence of record concerning :water availability
in favor of outdated ovidence known to be inaccurate. There was much hand wringing during
the Commission's consideration of Applicant's amendment application on April 14, 2010, and
the Administrative Law Judge and the Connnissioners all Opilled that it was a sad and difficult
decision that bad to be made to protect the water resources of the state. In fact, the
Connnission's decision to deny Mr. Ware's applicalion to amend. Pennit to Appropriate State
Water No. 5594 and terminate all water use thereunder should not have been made at all.
On November 14, 2006, the Executive Director perfonned a water availability review of
MI'. Ware's amendment application using the COllnllission's Brazos River Basin Water
Avaiiability Model ("the· Brazos WAM') which was current and accurate at the tinle it was
performed. See, Applicant's Exhibit No. 47, attached hereto. Two years later, however, the
Executive Director preformw another water availability review of the Brazos River Basin using
updated information which was not (Nailable at the time Mr. Ware's application was revieww.
TIle Executive Director updatM the Brazos WAM's Current Conditions data set and found tl,at
APPLICANT'S MonON FOR REHEARING
MAy 14,:UllO PAGES
80
there was an additional 74,387 acre-feet per year available for appropriation in the BlazOS Rivet
Basin. See, Applicant's Exhibit 50, also attached hereto.
It is lmdisputed in the record thai Mr. Ware's amendment application did not benefit from
the Executive Director's 2008 update of the Brazos WAM. The Executive Director's staff
hydrologist, Jeffrey Charles Thomas, testified at the hearing that neither he nor anyone else in
the Executive Director's office perfonned a water availability review of Mr. Ware's application,
other than the One completed on November 14, 2006 and included in Applicant's Exhibit No. 47.
TIle same witness also testified that no portion of the 74,387 acre-feet found to be available in
the Brazos River Basin in 2008 and set forth in Applicant's Exhibit No. 50 was ever applied to
Mr. Ware's application or the Executive Director's analysis of water availability for the Ware
application.
In considering the Applicant's arglUllent regarding water availability based on rctnrn
flows and \lpdated infonnaiion, the Commissioners appeared to believe that their questioning of
ColUlllission staff during the April 14, 2010 Connnission Agenda meeting regarding
consideration of retnrn flows and water availability was a lawful substitute for the evidence of
record. TIlis procedure is not lawful. The Commission's decision must be based on the evidence
of record, not the earnest responses of Couunission staff at Agenda, which responses are not
contained in the udministmtive record upon which the decision must be based. TCEQ staff
hydrologist Kathy Alexander responded to Commission inquiries stating that the Executive
Director had included the retnrn flows ShOWll Oll Applicant's Exhibit 50, attached hereto, in its
consideration of water available for Applicant's proposed appropriation. 1bis statement is
directly contl'ary to the testimony of TCEQ staff during the hearing, including Ms. Alexander,
regardu;g the consideration of 74,384 acre..feet of water shown to be available in the updated
Current Conditions data set of the Brazos River Basin Water Availability Model. The evidenoe
of record, as shoWn in an excerpt of the official transcript, is set forth below.
MrLlCANl"S MOTION FORRllHEAlUNG
MAY 14,2010 'fAGE6
81
CROSS EXAMINATION OF JEFFREY CHARLES THOMAS, TCEQ HYDROLOGIST ON
THEBRADLEYB. WAREAPPLlCATION
Transcript, Bradley B. Ware SOAH Colllesied Case Hearing Ootober 28, 2009, Pages 149, 150:
Q. Okay, the point is you didn't use \lllY portion ofthat additional water in
the basin in your model?
A. That's correct.
Trans(:ript, Bradley B. Ware SOAH Contested Case Hearing October 28,2009, Page 149, 150:
Q. Additional unappropriated water would benefit the entire basin, wouldn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. And so it doesn't matter whether it's above Stillhouse Hollow Lake, below it? It
would benefit everyone, wouldn't it?
A. It would benefit everyone downstream ofit and potentially thiit--yes, I can-say
that it would benefit everyone in the basin, yes.
CROSS EXAMINATION OF KATHY ALEXANDER, TCEQHYDROLOGIST
EXECUm'E DIRECTOR'S REBUTTAL WITNESS ON THE BRADLEY B. WARE
APPLICATION
Transoript, Bradley B. Ware SOAH Contested Case Hearing October 29, 2009, Pages 378, 379:
Q. . Okay. And so there were return flows available and you gave them a priority date
of October 15,20047
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. You meniioned that there were 74,387 acre-feet ofreturn flows resulting
from different discharges up and down the Brazos River Basin determined to be
available by TCEQ hydrology?
A. Yes.
Q. And those are the return flows that were given the October 15, 2004, priority
date?
A. Yes.
APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR REIDlAR1NG
MAy14,:20W
82
Q. Okay. And that-and none of those retUln flows, not any portion of them were
allocated for use by Mr. Ware under either a 1997 priority date or any other
priority date?
A. The retum flows were considered and -
Q. Yes or no, Ms. Alexander.
A. No.
Therefore, to the extent that the Commission's April 20, 2010 Order contains Findings of Fact
whlch state that water is not available for continued appropriation in the Brazos River Basin,
under the Brazos WAM, they are not reasonably supPOlied by substantial evidence when
considering the record as a whole. Applicant's Exhibit No. 50 shows that 74,387 acre-feet of
water per year are available in the Brazos River Basin in the latest version of the Brazos River
Basin Water Availability Mode!.'
Texas law does not confer upon the Commission discretion to disregard the evidence of
record. Tex. Gov't Code, §2001.l74(Z)(E) requires a reviewing court to reverse an order of the .
Commission that is not reasonably supported by substantial evidence considering the reliable
probative evidence in the record as a whole. The only reliable evidence is that Mr. WffrC'S
application never received a water availability review which referenced the amount of water now
known to be available for appwpriation in the Brazos River Basin. The Commission's reliance
on the outdated water availability infonnation included in Applicant's Exhibit No. 47, lmown to
be superseded by more reliable ruld updated information in Applicant's Exhibit No. SO deprives
the Commission's April 20, 2010 Order of any legitimacy under the law and constitutes an
obvious abuse of the Commission's discretion.
I The Commission was only willing to lIse the evidence of water availability tlllder the Brazos WAM In favor of an appHcation
filed by Brazos River Au!horlty, as shown in its adoption ofFlndfngs of Fact No-s. 42-52,
MrUCANT's MOnON FOR RElreARJNG
MAY 14, 2010 PAGE 8
83
IV. POINT OF ERROR NUMBER TWO
The Commission's April 20, 2010 Order violates the directives and requirements of
Texas Water Code, §11.134 (b), regarding Commission action on water rights applications.
DISCUSSION
Pertinent requirements of Texas Water Code, §11.134(b) are:
(b) The Commission shall grant the application only if:
(I) the application comonns to the requirements prescribed by this
chapter and is accom!>anied by the prescribed fee;
(2) unappropriated water is available in the source of supply;
(3) O,e proposed appropriation:
(A) is intended for a beneficial use;
(B) does not impair existing water rights or vested riparian
rights;
(C) is not detrimental to the publio welfare;
(0) considers any applicable environmental flow standards
established under Sectio" ILl471 and, if applicabJe, the assessments perfonned uuder
Sections 11.147(d) and (e) and Sections 11.150, 11.151, and 11.152; and
(E) addresses a water supply need in a marmer Ihal is
consislent wilh the state water plan and the relevanl approved regional water pJan for any
area in which the proposed appropriation is located, unless the commission determines
that conditions warrant waiver oftbis requirement; and
(4) the applicant has provided evidence that reasouabie diligence will
be used to avoid WOSle ""d achieve water conservation as defrned by Section
11.002(8)(B).
The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the Commission's April 20, 2010 Order do not
address the requirements of Texas Water Code, §11.134(b). To the extent that the Conclusions
of Law ultimately denying Application No. 5594A flow from the Findings of Fact regarding
water available for appropriation in the Brazos River Basin are not reasonably supported by
substantial evidence when considering the record as a whole; are arbitrary 01' capricious or
APPLICANT'S MonON FOR Rtll£.\llJNG
l\1AY14,2010 PAGEY
84
characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion, the
Commission's April 20, 2010 Order also violates Texas Water Code, §11.134(l;» as well. The
Commission's Order states:
44. The addition of "new water," [return flows] if it were proved to exist,
would be subject to all prior appropriation rights of sealor water rights holder and
could not be treated as available for neW allocation.
Finding of Fact No. 44 presents an unlawful inte.rpretation of Commission requirements under
Texas Water Code, §11.l34(b), which is only highlighted by the subsequent contradictory
finding that:
45. The full amount [described in Finding ofFact No. 49 as 421,449 acre-feet of
water per year] of the Brazos River Authority's requelNT'S MonON FoR REIlEAlUNG
MA1(14,2010 PAGElS
90
20, 2010 Order then, effectively supports the unlawful allocation of water to the parties to this
agreement in violation of Texas Water Code §11.027. Other parties who "settled with BRA,"
include the City of College Station and the City ofBtyan. Consequently, the Commission's April
20, 2010 Order is founded upon the unquestionably unlawful procedme of allowing a water
rights holder to determine the allocation of Slate water available for appropriation.
Consequently, the Commission's April 20, 2010 Order denying Applicant's amendment
application is madc through the unfair and unlawful procedure of denying somo Applicant's
access to water available for appropriation in the fonn of return flows or updated information on
water availability. Texas Water Code §11.046(c) states:
§11.046(c). Except as specifically provided otherwise in the water right, water
appropriated under a permit, certified filing, or certificate of adjudication may,
prior to its release into a watercourse or stream, be beneficially used and reused
by the holder of a permit, certifieINT'S MOTION 1'01< REHMruNG
MAY 14, 2010 PAGE 17
92
YIlL POJNTOFERRORNUMBERSIX
The Commission's April 20, 2010 Order adopted of Findings of Fact pertalning to a
. pending non-party applicant; Moreover, the details of said applicant's pending application and
proposed appropriation were unlawfully used as a basis to deny Applicant's water right
application.
DISCUSSlON
The Commission's April 23, 2010 Order contains Findings of Fact 45,49, 50 and 51;
which refer to the unidentified application of Brazos River Authority, a non-party. 'These
findings of fact regarding the ongoing contested applicatiou of a non-party were used as a basis
to deuy Mr. Ware's application. Therefore, the Commission order violated Tex. Gov'!. Code
§200l.174(2) because the decision was made through \m1awful procedure [§2001.174(2)(C)]; it
was not reasonably supported by substantial evidence considering the reliable and probative
evidence in the record as a whole [§2001.174(E)]J; and was arbitrary and capricious and was
characterized by an abuse of discretion [§2001.174(F)]. The referenced Findings of Fact Nos.
45,49,50 and 51 appeal'\o refer to BRA's pending water rights AppJlcationNo. 5851. However,
as of its April 14, 2010 consideration of the Proposal for Decision in Applicant's case, the
Commission had yet to even consider that pending application in an open meeting lawfully
convened pursuant to the Texas Open Meeting Act, Tex. Gov't. Code Chapter 551 et. seq. and,
of course, had not rendered any final order granting all or any portion of BRA's proposed
appropliation. [See Tex. Gov'!. Code §2001.005(a)]
On April 28, 2010, the Commission referred BRA's Application No. 5851 to the State
Office of Administtative Hearings ("SOAR"), granting the requests for a contested case hearing
of several protestants. The hearing before SOAR is subject to the Texas Rules of Evidence in a
non-jury civil trial. (See Tex. Gov'!. Code §2001.081) BRA was not a party to Mr. Ware's
application, and no witness on behalf of BRA was sponsored to verify any portion of Application
5851 0)' any other application filed by BRA. Even more importantly, Applicant was provided no
opportunity to cross exanline or otherwise detennine the validity of any evidence associated with
Al'~UCAJUNG
lVU.Y 14,2010 PAGE 19
94
purpose of establishing that it was the most current water available analysis performed by the
Executive Director of !lie Brazos River Basin. )ll that review (App. Ex. 50) the Executive
Director updated the Brazos WAM that had been used two years before in its review of Mr.
Ware's application. The fact that the Executive Director found that 74,387 acre-feet afwater was
available in the Brazos River Basin using the same reliod of record as was used in Mr. Ware's
Water Availability Review was relevant and probative infonnation for the Commission's
consideration of Mr. Ware's application. The fact that another applicant (or any other applicant)
may have also applied for the water available for appropriation is il1'eievant to any issue in this
case. Applicant strenuously objected to the admission of any evidence about BRA's application
during Mr. Ware's healing for the reasons discussed herein. The Commission's inclusion of any
information -about BRA or its pending application is objectionabJe and unlawful.
APrLIcANT's MonON Foll. RE[jE~RING
lV/Ay14,2010 PAGE 20
95
IX. SUMMARY
The Commission's April 20, 2010 Order denying Mr, Ware's application to appropriate
150 acre·feet of water per year from ilie Lampasas River, Brazos River Basin. violates the Texas
Water Code, ilie Texas Constitution, and ilie Constitution of ilie United States and is voidable
and reversible. Apart from being unl"v,ful, ilie Commission's role in administering water rights
is called into question when it denies a family fatmer access to water available for appropriation
in ilie Brazos River Basin for any term at all on ilie one hand, and supports contractual water
rights, and issues perpetual penni!s for use of State water associated wiili retum flows and
updated streamflow conditions and data sets on ilie oilier hand. Applicant requests ilie
Commission rehear this caSe and reverse its unfau' and unlawful decision.
Al'~LlCI>NT'S MOTION FOR REIJEAlUNG
M'Av14.2010 PAGE 21
96
WHEREFORE, CONSIDERING TIlE FOREGOJNG, Applicant asks the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality to vacate its unlawful April 20, 2010 Order denying the
Application of Bradley B. Ware to Amend his Permit to Appropriate State Water No. 5594, and
issue lawful order based on the evidence of record and tile Texas Water Code and all applicable
law which grants Applicant a right to divelt and use 150 acre-feet of water per year for
agricultural purposes at Ware Farm, a Texas Century Farro, in accordance with the
Commission's updated detenninations of water availability in the Brazos River Basin.
Respectfully Submitted,
WEBB & WEBB
Attorneys at JAlW
712 Southwest Towers
211 Bast 7fi1 Street
Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 472·9990 Telephone
(512) 472-3183 Facsimile
Stephen P. Webb
State BarNo. 21033800
Gwendolyn I Webb
State BarNo. 21026300
ATI'ORNEYS FOR APPLICANT, BRADLEY B. W ARB
~LICANr'S MonON Fon REltEhlUNG
l\1hv14,2010 PAGE 23
98
Exhibit C
J nne 7, 2006 Letter from BRA regarding
Conditions of Withdrawal of Protest
Bickerstaff, Heath, Pollan &Caroom, L.L.P.
816 Oollgre" Avenu. Sull. 17\10 Austin, Texas 18101 (512) 412-8021 Pax (612) 3UJ.5638 www.blck....t.ff.c<>m
June 7, 2006 ~, -.,}
App. Exh. _ f..( , __ 2 Q;~ 0
2:
Via Hand DelivelY q:j fo" n"-:;
~
~~
Ms. LaDonns Castaiiuela
Office of the Clerk, MCI05
OPA \\
<:/3
I
"-J ~~f~~
• :f'(!J¥?
.. '~8:;)
Texas Commission on Environmental QUality JUN 0 7 20Jt, 0 ""
"" .)
12100 Park 35 Circle, Building F, 1st Floor
Austin, Texas 78753
Re: Application No. 5594A by Bradley B. Ware
ay_~ .r,!
~~r?!
:B
IY; W
vJ
:.; de:
,-1
f':
Dear Ms. Castafiuela:
On behalf of the Brazos Rivet Authority (BRA), I protest the above-referenced application and
request that a contested case hearing be held on Application No. 5594A.
BRA holds the following water lights in the Brazos River Basin, both upstream and downstream
of Water Use Permit No. 5594: Certificate No. 12-5155 (Possum Kingdom Lake); Certificate No.
12-5156 (Lake Granbury); Certificate No. 12-5157 (Lake Whitney); Certificate No. 12-5158
(Lake Aquilla); Certificate No. 12-5159 (Lake Proctor); Certificale No. 12-5160 (Lake Belton);
Certificate No. 12-5161 (Lake Stillhouse Hollow); Certificate No. 12-5162 (Lake Georgetown);
Certificate No. 12-5163 (Lake Granger); Certificate No. 12-5164 (Lake Somerville); Certificate No. 12-
5165 (Lake Limestone); alld, Pelroit No. 2925A (proposed AlIens Creek Reservoir). One or more of
these rights may be impaired if Water Use Permit No. 5594 is changed from a tenn permitto a permanent
water right.
BRA would withdraw its protest and request for a contested case hearing ifand only ifWater Use
Penni! No. 5594, as amended, includes a special condition that it remain a term pennit with all expiration
date no later than November 7, 2017, which would be a IO-year extension of its present term.
Additionally, BRA would not be opposed to the authorization to irrigate on additional 31 acres and to the
use of an additional 20 acre-feet of water per annum, provided Water Use Permit No. 5594, as amended,
remains a term permit with the special conditions as noted herein.
Thank you for you attention to this matter. I request that BRA and I be placed on all notice lists
so that it may receive notice of all fhrther actions with regard to Application No. 5594A.
Sincerely,
~~~
Btuce Wasmger
BWlbc
cc; Lauralee VaUoll
David Wheelock
Brazos River Authority
Exhibit D
Excerpts of Transcript Volume No. 1 of
Hearing conducted October 28, 2009
r;:::.\
\.::../ 1
1 SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX
2 TCEQ DOCKET NO. 2008-0181-WR
3
4 APPLICATION OF BRADLEY B. ) BEFORE THE STATE OFFICE
WARE TO AMEND ) OF
5 WATER USE PERMIT NO. 5594 ) ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
6
7
8 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: HON. PAUL D. KEEPER
9
10
11
,/:
12 ******************************************************
13 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
14 TAKEN ON OCTOBER 28, 2009
15 AT AUSTIN, TEXAS
16 VOLUME 1 PAGES 1 - 249
17 ******************************************************
18
19
20
21 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS, VOLUME I, taken in the
above-styled and numbered cause on the 28th day of
22 October, 2009, from 9:01 a.m. to 5:01 p.m., before
C. Mack Lane, CSR, in and for the State of Texas,
23 reported by machine shorthand, at State Office of
Administrative Hearings, 300 West 15th Street, Austin,
24 Travis County, Texas 78201, pursuant to the rules of
the Texas Administrative Code, the Texas Water Code,
25 and the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
ALArID CITY REPORTING (210)
19
G9:D:54 1 we'll get to the issues involving the Texas Water Code
G9:24:00 2 briefly. Please proceed.
09:24:04 3 MR. WEBB: All right.
09:24:04 Q. (BY MR. WEBB:) What is -- what is this page,
4
09:24:08 5 r~r. Wa re?
09:24:08
6 A. This is my father, Elwood Ware, Sr., on his
09:24:14 Farmall tractor there and he used to row water back in
7
09:24:20 8 the '30s and '40s.
09:24:20 Q. Okay. And what is Exhibit-2A -- or page 2A?
9
09:24:28 10 A. This is the thrashing where they harvested
09:24:32 11 grain where all the neighbors would get together and
09:24:34 12 thrash the grain back in the 1800s.
09:24:40 13 Q. Okay. And we've got one more. By the way,
09:24:46 14 was 2A an actual picture of the Ware Farm?
09:24:50 A. Yes. All these are actual pictures of the
15
09:24:54 16 farm.
09:24:54
17 Q. Has Ware Farm been using water historically?
09:24:58 A. Yes. My grandfather used to pump water
18
09:25:00 19 minimally I would say, you know, during his time and
09:25:02 20 all to water the cows and to do some of the crops like
09:25:06 21 that and then my fathe r du ring the '30s, '40s, '50s,
09:25:08 22 he would what I would call heavily row water very
09:25:14 23 what we would consider wasteful watering nowadays in
09:25:18 24 today's technology, but that was the biggest heaviest
09:25:20 25 time during my dad's farming.
ALAMO CITY REPORTING (210) 710-3890
102
20
09:25:24 1 Q. And is it your understanding that" one of the
09:25:26 2 issues in this case is the historical use of water as
09:25:32 part of your application?
3
09:25:34 4 A. Yes.
09:25:34 5 Q. Okay. Very good. What are we looking at
09:25:36
6 now? What page is that?
09:25:36 7 A. This is the family cemetery.
09:25:40 8 Q. Could you provide the judge a little bit of
09:25:46 9 the actual location of the farm relative to the area
09:25:50 10 that you're applying for?
09:25:52 11 A. Well, it's in Bell County. As I said
09:25:54 12 earlier, it's 261 acres. It's landlocked. There's
09:25:58 13 four neighbors landlocked inside the Parrie Haynes
09:26:02 14 Ranch which is 4500 acres. It's run by Texas Parks &
09:26:04 15 Wildlife.
09:26:06 16 I would have to say the Ware Farm is the
09:26:08 17 best part of Parrie Haynes Ranch. They've only got
09:26:10 18 maybe a quarter mile of river above me and down below
09:26:14 19 us and I have two miles of the very best farmland.
09:26:18 20 The terrain is similar. Ours has been kept up over
09:26:24 21 the years of the cedar control, the fields being
09:26:28 22 cleaned, the grasses and stuff like that and Parrie
09:26:32 23 Haynes Ranch is heavily wooded and in dire need of
09:26:36 24 some improvement, you know, from the fencing to the
09:26:38 25 brush control and stuff.
ALAND CITY REPORTING (210) 710 - 3890
103
21
09:26:45 1 Q. Okay. Now, you mentioned earlier that your
09:26:48 2 family used to row irrigate. What is rolV irrigation?
09:26:52 3 A. Row crop irrigation is where you put beds or
09:26:56 4 burrows or list the field and you run the water down
09:27:00 5 every other row. You pump it -- this picture you see
09:27:02 6 up here is the .. was the pump station way back then
09:27:04 7 where they pump it to high ground and let it free flow
09:27:13 8 down the fields and crops to .. and, as I said
89:2"1:14 9 earlier, technology has increased so much that this
09:27:18 10 was terribly wasteful .back in the days and my dad
n:27:M 11 realized it was wasteful and kind of give up hopes of
09:27:28 12 irrigation back in his days and it got shut down in
n:v:§ 13 the '60s or '70s.
09:27:32 14 Q. Incidentally, the judge wanted to know a
n:V:34 15 little bit about why Ware Farm doesn't have a
":V:36 16 permanent water right that you obtain through the
09:27:40 17 adj udication process. Could you enlighten the judge a
n:v:. 18 little bit about why that is?
09:27:48 19 A. My daddy got up into his 60s or so and
":v:~ 20 physical stress kept him from work. It's a matter of
09:27:56 21 lots of work and rubber boots and stuff Uke that and
09:27:58 22 all. He knew how much .. he used to drive a pump off
":a:~ 23 the tractor a lot of times. He knew the amount of
":a:M 24 fuel that it took to pump that water and of course his
":a:0825 mind set was the way he watered it. He doesn't
AlAI10 CITY REPORTING (210) 710-3890
104
22
09:28,10 1 understand about new technology that's come along.
09:28,14
2 So he had given up hope and during the
09:28:16 3 '70s, my dad and mother went to through a tremendously
09:28:20 4 bitter divorce from cattle being shot, the barns being
09:28:24
5 burnt, and this was over a 10-year period, you know.
09:28:26
6 I mean a violent situation. So my mother's deal was
09:28:30 7 to destroy the farm because that's what he loved and
09:28:32
8 my dad!s ~eal was to save the farm because that's what
09:28,36
9 he loved.
09:28:36
10 So water he had slowed down and might
09:28:38
11 never quit at that time. Water was the least of his
09:28:42
12 worries and the sad part about that is that was during
09:28:44
13 the '70s during the adjudication period whenever I was
09:28:48
14 still young and didn't know any better and we did big
09:28:52
15 lick. We dropped the ball there to be able to get
09:28:56 16 that water, but the water was used before that and
09:29:00
17 I've tried to straighten that up.
09:29:06
18 Q. Has water in fact been used on Ware Farm
09:29:10
19 continuously since 18747
09:29:12 20 A. Yes. We -- even when my dad was shut down in
09:29:16 21 the '70s, I still went and set the sma n _. Vie had a
09:~:W 22 little pump and heat motors and we set the pump and
":~:22 23 pumped water to the windmill tanks and filled them
",~:~ 24 because the wind didn't blow during the summertime so
":~:D 25 we had to depend off of the river water to water the
ALAHO CITY REPORTING (210) 710-3890
105
23
09:29:32 1 cows not to mention the garden and little small
09:29:34 2 patches here and there of ribbon cane or something
09:29:36 3 like that that we might be growing at that time.
09:29:38
4 Q. Do you operate Ware Farm as a business today?
09:29:40 5 A. I try to. That's kind of a tricky thing now
09:29:44 6 days to say what is a farmer. My thought was back
09:29:48 7 whenever my grandfathe~'s farm and that's all he did.
09:29:52 8 Nowadays I pick up welding jobs and stuff like that in
09:29:58 9 town because I have the equipment, I have the ability,
09:30:00
10 and I can put it into my schedule and all, but to say
09:30:04 11 I'm a 100 percent farmer myself, I can't say that.
09:30:10 12 Probably y'all would. But I work 24 hours a day and I
09:30:14 13 work seven days a week. I don't take vacations. I
09:30:18 14 enjoy what I do. When I'm out there working whether
09:30:20 15 it's building a fence or setting irrigation pipe, I
09:30:~ 16 enjoy that.
09:30:26 17 Q. How many acres do you have cultivation
09:H:H 18 presently?
09:30:30 19 A. There's about 180 acres. You know, I'm
H:H:TI 20 improving things. I'm turning some into native
H:H:~ 21 pasture. It's rocky type soil or something like that
H:H:H 22 so it bounces back and forth.
09:30:38 23 Q. What is page 6 of Exhibit-I?
09:30:40 24 A. That's my small valley irrigation system.
09:Y:" 25 I've got four different systems on the place.
ALANO CITY REPORTING (210) 710-3890
106
45
09:57:12
1 A. Yes, I'm still paying for it.
09:57:14
2 Q. Okay. Go on.
09:57:16
3 A. But we had the irrigation system laying in
09:57:18 4 the field bolted together and fixing to stand it up
09:57:20
5 and put it on the tires and Brazos River Authority
09:57:22
6 phoned and says ·We have run into a snag or a problem
09:57:26
7 with your permit," and I said, "Well, what do you
09:57:30
8 mean? I've got a contract. You know, the pivot is in
09:57:34
9 the field. I hired -- I paid the electric company
09:57:38
10 $15,000 to move electric poles out of my field where
09:57:40
11 this pivot could make a circle. I took out fences. I
09:57:44 12 removed trees to clear for this to get the advantage
09:57:48
13 of the full size I could go with." And they said __
09:57:52
14 well, TNRCC at that time said that we can't sell water
09:57:56
15 upriver. It's kind of a layman's term that I got out
09:58:00
16 of it. I never understood the full story I guess I
09:58:04
17 should say.
09:58:06
18 But, anyhow, it turned out there was
09:58:08
19 about ten eight or ten different people that had
09:58:12
20 talked to Brazos River Authority, was lining up
09: 58: 14
21 contracts, looking at the possibility. There was two
09:58:18 22 of us that had actually written contracts buying this
89:58:24
23 water and I didn't know about the other fellow. He's
09:58:26
24 upriver from me about seven or eight miles. And so I
09:58:32 25 said, IIWell, what are we going to do? We've got
ALAr40 CITY REPORTING (210) 710 - 3890
107
46
09:58:36
1 irrigation stuff in the field. We have spent $75,000
09:58:3B
2 already. You know, there's fixing to be a lawsuit
09:58:40
3 here because you're going to buy that irrigation
09:58:44
4 equipment. I can guarantee you that," And they said
09:58:46
5 "Well, let's see what we can do."
09:58:48
6 So they sent their lawyer out of Waco,
09:58:50
7 which I was very impressed at that time, instead of
09:58:54
8 just blowing us off. They went to Austin -- and I
89:58:56
9 remember this was in '96 when all permits was
09:58:58
10 suspended at that time. There was no way you could
09:59:02
11 get water they said. They went down there and
09:59:04 12 negotiated several trips. They kept us informed, me
09:59:06
13 and the other fellow.
09:59:10
14 The lawyer eventually got back with --
09:59:14
15 the Brazos River Authority lawyer got back with us and
09:59:16
16 said we've worked out a deal with the state to where
09:59:18
17 we can get your water and so I got -- and of course
09:59:22
18 when I applied back then, I applied for permanent
09:59:26
19 water because I knew this was a 20-year deal. I knew
09:59:28
20 that there's a possibility in the future that we would
09:59:32
21 always need water and they said 10-year permit is all
09:59:34
22 you could get.
09:59:36
23 So I got that because that's all I could
09:59:38
24 get and they said, well, it' 5 kind of like you r
09:59:40 25 problem. In 10 years we should be able to work out
ALAI10 CITY REPORTING (210) 710-3890
108
47
09:59:44
1 something, you know, and so now we're to that 10-year
09 :59:46
2 deal. I know they stressed that you need to make sure
09:59:48
3 your application gets in a couple of years in advance
09:59:52
4 for getting it through the system and so --
09:59:54
5 Q. \lI}eH, that brings us to I"here we are now.
09:59:56
6 Would you identify what's been marked as Exhibit-2?
10:00:06 7 A. This is the 5594 water permit that -- my
10:00:10 8 short-term -- 10 year.
10:00:12 9 Q. Now, is Exhibit-2 your entire application?
10:00:~ 10 Take a look at it.
10:00:22 11 A. Yes, I believe so. I went through back there
10:00:26 12 and filled out the conservation plan and all the
10:00:28 13 deals.
10:00:30 14 Q. Incidentally, has the Commission told you
lO:N:~ 15 that there's a problem with the conservation plan?
10:00:38 16 A. No. I've met all criteria except the water
10:00:40 17 availability is my understanding.
10:00:46 18 Q. All right. And is your signature on
lO:H:~ 19 Exhibit-2?
10:00:50 20 A. Yes.
10:00:50 21 MR. WEBB: Your Honor, we offer
1O:N: 52 22 Exhibit-2.
10:00:54 23 JUDGE KEEPER: Any objection?
10:00:54 24 MS. HORTON: No objection.
lG:OO:56 25 JUDGE KEEPER: Admitted.
ALAt-!O CITY REPORTING (210) 710-3890
109
71
10:47:20
1 of the water available for a particular permit?
10:47:26 2 A. As far as I know, yes.
10:47:26 3 Q. What do you mean as far as you know?
10:47:32 A. I don't know how it reads.
4
10:47:36 Q. Well, I don't either. That's why I was
5
10:47:38
6 asking. So it's a determination of the Executive
10:47:42 7 Director, isn't it?
10:47:42 8 A. Yes.
10:47:42 9 Q. Of the water available for a particular
19:47:46 10 application?
10:47:48 A. Yes.
11
10:47:50 12 Q. Okay. What is a Water Availability Model?
10:48:80 13 A. The Water Availability Model is -- I can
10:48:02 speak specific to our Water Availability Models that
14
10:48:04 15 we use as opposed to a generic Water Availability
10:48:08 16 Model.
10:48:08 17 Q. I'm sorry. Mr. Thomas, I should have been
10:48:10 18 more specific. I only want to hear about the Water
lO:U:14 19 Availability Model that you use in the agency.
10:48: 16 20 A. Okay. A Water Availability Model -- Water
10:U:H 21 Availability Model -- our Water Availability Models
10:48:H 22 are designed to simulate the water permits in the
10:48:38 23 basin and the water supply in the basin in priority
10:48:G 24 order and to determine if when all of the senior water
10:.:9 25 rights have been satisfied that there's additional
ALN10 CITY REPORTING (210) 710-3890
110
72
lO:g:~ 1 water available.
10:46:56 2 Q. But it's computer simulation, isn't it?
,
10:48:58 3 A. Yes.
10:48:58
4 Q. And the compute r simulation is two pa rts, the
10:49:02
5 actual software program, isn't it?
10:49:04
6 A. Yes. There's a WRAP program, which is the
10:49:88
7 word tran program that actually runs the data set.
10:49:12
8 The data set is the input deck. The WRAP program can
10:49:18
9 be used for different data sets. We use them as
10:49:22
10 different basin models and then the specific data set
10:49:28
11 that was used here is the Brazos data set which is the
10:49:32
12 input deck. The input deck or the data set has the
10:49:38
13 specific water rights in the Brazos Basin, their
10:49:42 14 priority dates, their relation to each other, their
10:49:46
15 drainage areas, naturalized flows. The WRAP program
10:49:48
16 basically orders and runs calculations on that data.
10:49:54
17 Q. Okay. You've been in the Water Availability
10:49:58
18 Department what? 11 years. Has the Executive
10:50:04
19 Director always used the current Brazos Water
10:~:10 20 Availability Model?
10:50:10 21 A. No.
10:50:10 22 Q. What did he use before then?
10:50:14 23 A. To my knowledge it was before I was
10:50:16 24 wo rking at the TCEQ, but to my knowledge there vlere
lO:~:H 25 previous models used, legacy models, and after a
.----.~--.
ALAMO ClTY REPORTING (210) 710-3890
111
109
11:50:04
1 sorry. We offer Exhibit-54.
11: 50: 12
2 JUDGE KEEPER: Any objection to the map?
11:50:14
3 MS. HORTON: No objection. It's fine.
11 :50: 16
4 JUDGE KEEPER: Exhibit-54 is admitted.
11:50:16
5 (Applicant's Exhibit-54 admitted)
11:50:20
6 Q. (BY MR. WEBB:) Would you identify what's
11:50:20
7 been marked as Exhibit-47?
11:50:30 8 A. This is a copy of my Water Availability
11 :50: 32
9 Review memo for Mr. Bradley Ware's application dated
11:50:36 Hl November 14, 2006.
11:50:36 Q.
11 And so this is your actual one - - the one
11:50:38
12 that's at bar in this case, correct?
11:50:40
13 A. Yes.
11: 50:42
14 Q. Now, you were here when Ms. Ho rton stated the
11:50:50 15 reason why the Executive Director is here?
11 :50 :52 16 A. Yes.
11:5G:52
17 Q. And it was a disagreement of whether there
11:50:56
18 was water available?
11: 50:58 19 A. Yes.
11:50:58 20 Q. And would it be fair to say that the reason
11:51:02 21 why everybody is in this room now is because of
11:51:% 22 Exhibit-47?
11:51:12 23 A. I suppose so, yes.
11:51:14 24 Q. Not to put any pressure on you.
11:51:18 25 A. Thank you for that .. It's at the heart of
ALAI·IO CITY REPORTING (210) 710-3890
112
110
11: 51: 22
1 everything, yes, sir.
11:51:24 2 Q. Right. This is where the Executive Director
11:51:24
3 determined through you that there was no water
11:51:30
4 availab le --
11:51:36 5 A. Yes.
11:51:36 6 Q. for Mr. Ware or unappropriated water
11:51:34
7 available?
11:51:34
8 A. Yes.
11:51:42 9 MR. WEBB: Your Honor, off the record,
11:51:46 10 please.
11:51:46
11 JUDGE KEEPER: Let's go off the record
11:51:46 12 for a moment.
11:51:46
13 (Recess from 11:51 a.m. to 11:53 a.m.)
11:53:34 14 JUDGE KEEPER: It's five minutes to 12.
11:53:36 15 Why don't we get back here at 1 and we'll start again.
16 (Noon recess was taken from
17 11:53 a.m. to 1:04 p.m.)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ALAND CITY REPORTING (210) 710·3890
113
116
13:11:20
1 Q. Based on an article of faith?
13:11:22
2 A. And based on working models that are still
13:11:28
3 working, yes.
13:11:28
4 Q. Based on an article of faith?
13: 11: 32
5 A. Okay. Sure.
13:11:32
6 Q. You agree with that?
13:11:34
7 A. Sure.
13:11:34
8 Q. All right. Referring to Exhibit-47 right
13:11:58
9 under Water Availability Review, would you please read
13:12:82 10 the last full sentence of that first paragraph?
13:12:06 11 A. "The applicant's request was modeled with a
13:12:88
12 priority date of the administrative complete date of
13:12:12
l3 the application, January 5th, 2006."
13:12:16
14 Q. An right. Let me stop you there for a
13:12:18
15 moment -- well, not stop you. That's all there is to
13:12:20 16 say. Priority date is important for a model because
13:12:26
17 that determines -- that's one of the variables that
13:12:30
18 determines whether or not the unappropriated water is
13:12:32
19 available, right?
13:12:34 20 A. Yes.
13: 12:34
21 Q. As a matter of fact, it's a pretty
13:12:36
22 substantial one, isn't it?
13:12:38 23 A. Yes.
13:12:38
24 Q. Because after all first in time is first in
13:12:42
25 right. That' 5 the rule, right?
AlAI~O CITY REPORTING (210) 710-3890
114
117
13:12:44 1 A. Yes.
13:12:44 2 Q. And so the earlier priority date gives the
13:12:52
3 subject of the model a greater advantage than a later
13:12:58 4 priority date. Do you understand what I mean by that?
13: 13:~2 5 A. I understand what you mean.
13:13:04
6 Q. I'm real bad about stating these things.
13:13:06 7 A. I would say greater potential, not greater
13:13:10 8 advantage, ~ut --
13: 13: 10
9 Q. A greater potential of having his water
13:13:16 10 pe rmit granted, right?
13:13:16 11 A. Right.
13:13:18
12 Q. All right. So let's look at Exhibit-2. I
13:13:22 13 don't know whether you have it up there. It's the
13:13:~ 14 application. Okay. We're looking at sheet 4 of
13:13:44 15 Exhibit -2 which is the second page of Mr. Wa re' s
13:13:~ 16 permit. All right. And I think you know where I'm
13:13:58 17 going. I'm going to special conditions 3B. Would you
13:14:04 18 read the last sentence of that special condition?
13:14:08 19 A. "The priority date of this permit and all
13:14:U 20 extension hereof shall be July 1st, 1997."
13:14:14 21 Q. All right. And you use a priority date of
13:M:M 22 January 5th, 2006, correct? Am I correct?
13:14:26 23 A. Actually there's -- there's a little deeper
13:M:TI 24 story here.
13:14:32 25 Q. I would love to hear it.
ALAflO CITY REPORTING (210) 710-3890
llS
118
13:14:34 1 A. The administrative complete date of this
13: 14: 36 2 application was March 20. 2006.
13:14:38
3 Q. Okay. And that's not January 5th. 2006.
13:14:42 4 either. right?
13:14:42 5 A. That's correct.
13:14:44
6 Q. So when you said the administrative complete
13: 14: 46
7 date of the application was January 5th, 2006. that's
13:14:50 8 not right, is it?
13:14:50
9 A. That's an error.
13: 14:52 10 Q• All right. Go on.
13:14:52
11 A. When I received the application. I did a
13:14:56
12 preliminary analysis to see if there was water
13:15:00 13 available because we know that that particular water
13:15:02 14 right is in an area of the basin of the state where
13:15:94
15 there's very limited water available. We do this in
13:15:10
16 an effort to provide information to the applicant to
13:15:14 17 allow them to supplement their application with
13:15:16 18 alternative sources or to withdraw the application
13:15:18 19 without spending money on four days notice if they
13:15:24
20 determine they don't want to proceed with the
13: 15: 24
21 application because there's limited water.
13:15:26 22 I did a preliminary analysis from
13:15:30 23 Mr. Ware's application dated January 5th. 2006. When
13:15:32 24 I put this -- when I put this memo together. it was a
13: 15: 34 25 clerical error on my part to carry the wrong date for
Al.A~IO CITY REPORTING (210) 716-3890
116
119
13: 15:38 1 what the actual the actual analysis that is
13:15:42 2 referenced in this memo used a priority date of
13:15:46
3 March 20th, 2006, which is the administrative complete
13:15:50 4 date.
13:15:50 5 Q. All right. Well, that indicates one aspect
13:15:54 6 of Exhibit·47 that isn't accurate, but what's the
13:15:58 7 story on not using July 1st, 1997?
13: 16: 02 8 A. It is our practice in the hydrology group to
13:16:08 9 analyze new permits with the new priority date of the
13:16:14 10 administrative complete date of the application.
13:16:16
11 Q. And did you think this was a new permit?
13:16:18 12 A. This was a new application to either renew or
13:16:24 13 extend the term of this permit, yes.
13:16:26 14 Q. Well, does the Executive Director take the
13:16:28 15 position that he can ignore orders of the TCEQ?
13: 16:38 16 A. I don't know that the Executive Director does
13:16:38 17 or doesn't take that position. I'm directed to
13:16:42 18 process applications with the administrative complete
13:16:46 19 date of the application.
13: 16:48
20 Q. But wait a minute. Were you directed to
13:16:50 21 ignore the fact that the TCEQ granted a permit where
13:16:58 22 any extensions of the permit was to have .. were to
13:17:02 23 have a July 1st, 1997, priority date?
13:17:04 24 A. I was directed to use the administrative
13:17:06 25 complete date of the application.
ALAMO CITY REPORTING (210) 710·3890
117
120
13:17:08 1 Q. Rather than the date that the agency told you
13:17:10 2 to lise?
13: 17: 10 3 A. The agency told me to use the administrative
13:17:14 4 complete date of the application.
13:17:16 5 Q. Let's be clear about this. The Executive
13:17:18 6 Director told you to do that, but the TCEQ -- the
13:17:22 7 actual commissioners directed anybody to use July 1st,
13:17:26 8 1997. That's correct, isn't it?
13:17:30 9 A.That's written in the -- that's written in
13:17:32 10 his prior permit, yes.
13:17:32 11 Q. Well, what does that mean when you say it's
13:17:34 12 written in the prior permit? What do you think that
13:17:38 13 means? I mean, read the entire paragraph and you tell
13:17:42 14 me whether o~ not Mr. Ware qualified.
13:17:48 15 A. This is special condition 3, special
13:17:52 16 condition 8, the authorization to divert and use 130
13,17:54 17 acre-feet of water per year shall expire and become
13:17:58 18 null and void on November 7th, 2007, unless prior to
13:18:02 19 such date permittee applies for an extension hereof
13:18:08 20 and such application .is subsequently granted for an
13:18: 10 21 additional te rm 0 r in pe rpetuity. The p rio rity date
13:18:16 22 of this permit and all extensions hereof shall be
13:U: 16 23 July 1st, 1997.
13:18:18 24 Q. And Mr. Ware filed for an extension of this
13:18:2225 permit long before November 7th, 2007, didn't he?
ALAMO CITY REPORTING (210) 710-3890
liS
121
13: 18:24
1 A. Yes.
13: 18:24
2 Q. SO that meant he was entitled to a priority
13:18:28
3 date on an extension of July 1st, 1997. Isn't that
13:18:32
4 what that means?
13:18:32
5 A. That's how it reads, yes.
13:18:34
6 Q. SO the priority date that the Executive
13:18:40
7 Director used to do a Water Availability Review is
13:18:46 8 erroneous, correct?
13: J.8:52
9 A. The priority date used to analyze Mr. Ware's
13:18:56 18 application is the administrative complete date of the
13:19:00 11 application which is the date that we use on every
13:19:02 12 application that comes in.
13:19:04
13 Q. Well, I'm not talking about every application
13:19:06 14 that comes in, Mr. Thomas. I'm talking about this
13:19:08
15
13:19:14 18 Yes.
13:19:26 22 A. I was directed to use the date and
13:19:30 23 MR. WEBB: Your Honor, move to strike.
13:19:H 24 Object to the witness as being nonresponsive.
13:19:36 25 JUDGE KEEPER: Do you have a response to
ALAMO CITY REPORTING (210) 710-3890
119
122
13:19:40
1 that?
13:19:40 2 MS. HORTON: I think it's been asked and
13:19:42
3 answered. I think what he's saying is that his job --
13:19:44 4 this is what he was told to do. So that's all he can
13:19:48 5 do. He can't make a legal determination whether it's
13:19:52
6 correct or incorrect. That's what his job was.
13:19:56 7 MR. WEBB: Your Honor, he has certainly
13:19:58
8 not answered my question of why the Executive Director
13: 20: 00 9 chose to disregard an express provision in a
13:20:06 10 certificate and to use an erroneous priority date that
13:20: 12
11 definitely adversely affected Mr. Ware's rights. We
13:20: 14
12 need an answer to that in this record.
13:20:16 13 JUDGE KEEPER: Okay. Well, let me tell
13:20:18
14 you what I'm going to give you my perspective on
13:20:22 15 where we are in all of this for better or worse and
13:20:24 16 that is that this gentleman is Mr. Thomas and he is
13:20:30 17 not the Executive Director. So for -- I think what
13:20:34 18 Mr. Thomas can testify to is what is within the scope
13:20:38 19 of his knowledge as a fact witness. I believe he can
13:W:~ 20 also testify what is within the scope of his opinion
13:20:Q 21 as an expert witness, but only to the extent of his
13:20:50 22 expertise. I don t believe he's an expert with
I
13:W:~ 23 respect to what the Executive Director believes or
13:20:56 24 thinks, but I think he has given us what he knows with
13:21:m 25 regard to what he has been instructed to do. Now
ALMIO CITY REPORTING (210) 718-3890
120
123
13:21:04
1 whether that comports with the law or otherwise, that
13:21:12
2 determination will have to be made either through the
13: 21: 14
3 testimony of another witness or through legal
13:21:18
4 argument.
13:21:20
5 MR. WEBB: All right. Can we have this
13:21:22
6 question, Your Honor?
13:21:24
7 Q. (BY MR. WEBB:) So the truth is, Mr. Thomas,
13:21:28
8 you don't know why the Executive Director didn't
13:21:30
9 direct you to use the July 1st, 1997, priority date?
13:21:38
10 You just don't know?
13:21:40
11 A. I'm told that our practice --
13:21:44 12 MR. WEBB: Objection to "hearsay, Your
13:21:46 13 Hono r.
13:21:46 14 JUDGE KEEPER: Well--
13:21:48 15 MR. WEBB: Your Honor, he's not entitled
13:21:~ 16 to answer my question with hearsay.
13:21:52 17 JUDGE KEEPER: One second. Response.
13:21:54 18 MS. HORTON: My response is that if he's
13:21:~ 19 asking what the Executive Director does or doesn't do,
13:n:~ 20 as you know, we're an organization with several levels
13:22:02 21 above Mr. Thomas. So he can't - - either he can answer
13:22:06 22 everything that - - the questions that are just within
13:22:10 23 his personal knowledge or he can answer questions that
13:22:12 24 are outside of that and say this is what I've been
13:22:" 25 told, this is what I know, but he can't do both.
ALAMO CITY REPORTING (210) 710-3890
121
124
13:22:16
1 MR. WEBB: Absolutely not, Your Honor.
13:22:18 2 I'm not asking this witness to tell me what somebody
13:22:2e 3 else told him. I asked a very precise question and
13;22:24
4 that is you don't know the reason why the director --
13:22:26
5 the Executive Director told you to use one priority
13:22:30 6 date as opposed to another.
13:22:32 7 MS. HORTON: He has
13:22:32 8 MR. WEBB: Now
13:22:32
9 JUDGE KEEPER: Hold on.
13:22:34 18 MR. WEBB: Now that's a yes or no
13;22:34
11 question -- answer, Your Honor. If he knows, fine; if
13:22:38 he doesn't know, fine.
12
13:22:40 13 MS. HORTON: May I respond?
13:22:42 14 JUDGE KEEPER: Yes.
13:22:42 15 MS. HORTON: Obviously he can't know
13:22:42 16 what's in someone else's head, but he can know what
13:22:42 17 that person told him was in his head and that's what
13:22:50 18 he's doing.
13:22:50 19 MR. WEBB: That is absolutely worthless
13:22:52 20 information in an administrative record that relies on
13:22:56 21 the rules of evidence, Your Honor. We're not asking
13:23:00 22 him to say what's in his head and what's not in his
13:23:02 23 head. If he knows and he has to know using competent
13:23:06 24 probative evidence that satisfies one of the
13:23:10 25 exceptions to the hearsay rule.
ALAf10 CITY REPORTING (210) 710-3890
122
125
13:23:12 1 JUDGE KEEPER: Here's what my problem
13:23:14 2 is, Mr. Webb, and that is you began your testimony --
13:23:16
3 not your testimony, your line of questions beginning
13:23:22 4 with some assertions about the fact that Mr. Thomas'
13:23:30 5 memo of November 14th, 2006, is the action of the
13:23:38 6 Executive Director, correct?
13:23:42
7 MR. WEBB: As far as we know. We
13:23:44
8 haven't heard it's not the actions of the Executive
13:23:48 9 Director.
13:23:48 10 JUDGE KEEPER: Right. So perhaps --
13:23:50 11 perhaps the manner in which to resolve this sort of
13:23:54 12 legal almost existential question about who is
13:~:~ 13 speaking here, maybe the question that ought to be
13:~:" 14 asked of this witness is why he took particular action
13:~1" 15 that he took and if he was directed to take particular
13:24:12 16 action, who did it? I do not know, but my suspicion
13:24:16 17 is that there maybe be other layers of administration
13:~:H 18 between him the Executive Director.
13:24:22 19 MR. WEBB: Well, Your Honor, we're
13:24:24 20 satisfied that the record indicates that Mr. Thomas
13:7.4:26 21 has said he was directed --
13:24:28 22 JUDGE KEEPER: Right,
13:24:28 23 MR, WEBB: to use the priority date
13:24:32 24 that he did - - well, the priority date that he did,
13:~:~ 25 not the one that he wrote down that he did,
ALAMO CITY REPORTING (210) 710-3890
123
126
13:24:38 1 JUDGE KEEPER: I understand. Why don't
13:24:40 2 we do this: Let's begin again and let's see where we
13:24:44 3 can get and we will examine more carefully the steps
13:24:50 4 that are taken down the road that you're traveling.
13:24:52 So go ahead.
5
13:24:52 6 MR. WEBB: All right. We'll try to move
13:24:54 7 on, Your Honor.
13:25:00 8 JUDGE KEEPER: Mr. Webb, I get it.
13:25:02 9 MR. WEBB: All right. Thank you.
13:25:06 10 Q. (BY MR. WEBB:) Incidentally, you weren't
13:25:S8 11 told by the Executive Director to ignore all special
13:25: 12 12 conditions in the existing permits that are seeking to
13:25:16 13 be renewed, were you?
13:25:18 14 A. Not specifically, no.
13:25:22 15 Q. Sounds like a qualification to me. What do
13:25:24 16 you mean not specifically? You were told generally to
13:25:26 17 do that?
13:25:26 18 A. I was told to use a specific date. I was not
13:25:30 19 told to ignore special conditions.
13:25:36 20 Q. All right. And I started to ask you this,
13:25:42 21 but isn't July 1st, '97, the proper priority date to
13:25:46 22 use?
13:25:48 23 A. July 1st, 1997, was the priority date of his
13:25:~ 24 previous application. It is the date that is stated
13:25:56 25 in that permit.
ALAI~O CITY REPORTING (210) 710-3890
124
134
13:36:44
1 Q. Well, if he had made that determination,
13:36:46
2 wouldn't that radically change his opinion in this
13:36:50
3 case?
13:36:52
4 A. I don't believe -- I don't know. I don't
13:36:54
5 believe so.
13:36:56
6 Q. Okay. Let me ask you -- let ask you to
13:37:00
7 identify -- let me ask you what's been marked to
13:37:36
8 identify what's been marked as Exhibit-50.
13:37:40 9 A. This is a memorandum submitted by Kathy
13:37:% 10 Alexander, hydrologist, on November 25th, 2008. It's
13:TI:~ 11 a Water Availability Analysis of the Brazos River
13:37:56
12 Authority application 5851.
13:37:58 13 Q. Okay. And is this a Water Availability
13:~:H 14 Analysis like the one you did for Mr. Ware?
13:38:04 15 A. It's a Water Availability Analysis, yes. I
13:38:08 16 don't know --
13:38:08 17 Q. What do you mean by the difference?
13:38: 10 18 A. I don't know that it's like the one that I
13:38:
12
19 did for Mr. Ware because Mr. Ware's -- Mr. Ware's was
13:38:M 20 an application to renew a term permit.
13:38:16 21 Q. Do you think this is an application for new
13:~:W 22 authority?
13:38:22 23 A. I don't know.
13:38:22 24 MS. HORTON: Your Honor, I object to
13:~:~ 25 this exhibit entirely. It's completely irrelevant to
ALAt10 CITY REPORTING (210) 710· 3890
125
135
13:38:26
1 this case.
13:38:28 2 MR. WEBB: Your Honor, we most certainly
13:38:28
3 believe that this exhibit is not irrelevant
13:38:32
4 whatsoever. At this point we were just asking the
13:38:36
5 witness to identify the exhibit. Our next step is to
13:38:40
6 offer the exhibit -- or actually, Your Honor, pages 1
13:38:44
7 through 7 of the exhibit.
13:38:44 8 We only have supplied the party with a
13:38:48
9 copy of the entire document because we wanted to
13:38:54
10 maintain the integrity of it as a certified copy. We
13:38:58
11 actually only one want to offer into the record
13:39:e4
12 Exhibit-50 up to page 7 of 14 where the Executive
13:39:12
13 Director makes a determination of the status of
13:39:18 14 existing return flows in the Brazos River Basin at the
13:39:24
15 time the Brazos River Authority came in and in support
13:39:28
16 of the -- in support of our offer, Your Honor, we also
13: 39: 34 17 submit our trial brief on the admissibility of
13:39:38
18 Exhibit-50. It is our contention, Your Honor, that
13:39:44 19 what we have here is a simple admission by a party
13:39:48 opponent.
20
13:39:50 21 MS. HORTON: Your Honor, we haven't had
13:39:~ 22 an opportunity to brief this issue. I don't think
13:§: 52 23 it's fair that the Applicant gets to do that.
13:39:56 24 JUDGE KEEPER: Well, now, hold on a
13:39:% 25 second. I mean, what happened here is where we are in
ALAI'1O CITY REPORTING (210) 710-3890
126
136
13:40:00 1 the process is that Mr. Webb has - - is heading down
13:40:04 2 the road toward making an offer if he has not already
13:40:68 3 made an offer. You have objected and his response
13:40:12 4 is --
13:40:14
5 MR. WEBB: In part that written
13:40:16
6 document, Your Honor.
13:40:16
7 JUDGE KEEPER: Well, I mean, his
13:40:18 8 response is in writing or at least a portion of it. I
13:40:22 9 mean, there's nothing improper about it, but I'll
13:40:26
10 certainly give you the opportunity to respond in a
13:46:28 11 reasonable fashion within a reasonable period of time.
13:40:32
12 MR. WEBB: And to give them an
13:40:32 13 opportunity to respond, we don't mind if we go off the
13:46:36 14 record so that everybody has a chance to read my
13:40:38
15 brief, Your Honor.
13:40:40 16 JUDGE KEEPER: What's your preference?
13:40:42 17 MS. HORTON: I would prefer to have the
13:40:44
18 opportunity to present a written response tomorrow
13:40:46
19 morning.
13:40:48 20 MR. WEBB: Well, Your Honor, we need to
13:~:~ 21 be able to go on with the presentation of our case.
13:40:52 22 If you wish to take the issue under advisement while
13:40:54 23 vie continue Ivith our case, we have no objection to
13:41:00 24 that.
13:41:00 25 JUDGE KEEPER: And that's acceptable to
ALAI40 CITY REPORTING (210) 710-3890
127
137
13:41:02
1 you?
13: 41: 02 2 MS. HORTON: That's acceptable, yes.
13:41:04 3 JUDGE KEEPER: Okay. So if you would
13:41:04
4 like to proceed, Mr. Webb.
13:41:06
5 MR. WEBB: All right. Incidentally, for
13:41:08
6 all assembled, we have attached the copies of the
13:41:10
7 cases to the brief.
13:41:18
8 JUDGE KEEPER: Mr. Webb, before you go
13:41:20
9 any further, let me just make sure I'm with you. My
13:41:22 10 questions are to your advantage, not to your
13:41:24 11 disadvantage and that is: What you've presented here
13:41:28
12 in Exhibit-50 is an interoffice memorandum which
13:41:32
13 according to you provides some evidence of the
13:41:38 14 existence of some additional -- I want to make sure I
13:41:44 15 understand -- appropriated but unused water in the
13:41:48 16 Brazos River Basin?
13:41:48
17 MR. WEBB: Absolutely not, Your Honor.
13:41:50 18 That's why our brief lays it all out because it is
13:41:54 19 kind of complicated.
13:41:54 20 JUDGE KEEPER: Okay.
13:41:54 21 MR. WEBB: Or not complicated. What
13:41:58 22 Exhibit-50 is it's the same as Exhibit-47. It's the
13:42:00 23 same as Exhibit-49. It is a determination by the
13:~:14 24 Executive Director of the available water in the
13:42:08 25 Brazos River Basin the same Brazos River Basin
ALAl10 CITY REPORTING (210) 710 - 3890
128
138
13:42:12 1 using the same Brazos WAM using the same period of
13,42:16
2 record and while it is true that the applicant in that
13:42:22 3 case wants to be able to use that unappropriated
8:42:28
4 water --
13:42:28 5 And that is what we're talking about,
13:42:30
6 Your Honor. We're not talking about appropriated
13:42:34
7 unused water. We're actually talking about
8:42:38 8 unappropriated water. Once you read my brief, you'll
13:42:42
9 see the Executive Director actually makes a
8:42:44 10 determination that 74,387
8:42:48 11 MS. HORTON: Your Honor, I have to
13:42:48 12 object to this. This is testimony as to what the
8'42'~ 13 exhibit contains and this is in the nature of a
13:42:52 14 clos ing argument.
8:42:54 15 MR. WEBB: Well, Your Honor --
13:42:56 16 JUDGE KEEPER: Hold on. I'm going to
13:42:56 17 ove r rule you r obj ection. Mr. Webb, you can continue.
8:43:00 18 MR. WEBB: Right. The Executive
13:43:" 19 Director makes that determination that 74,387
13:43:04 20 additional acre-feet is actually already in the Brazos
13:43:10 21 River Basin and is available - - unappropriated water
13:43:14 22 available for appropriation in this case by Brazos
13,43:M 23 River Authority.
13:43: 16 24 Now, we don't care what happens in the
13:~:20 25 BRA application. We really don't. We do care about
ALAMO CITY REPORTING (210) 710-3890
129
139
13:43:22
1 that determination made by the same party, the same
13:43:26 2 party in '97 to use a basin, the same party in 2006 to
13:43:32
3 use a basin and after 2006 found out some additional
13:43:36
4 information. Well, maybe he found out from additional
13:43:40 5 expert witnesses elsewhere. It doesn't really matter
13:43:42
6 to us. What matters is that that's the fact that
13:43:46 7 we're talking about.
13:43:46 8 JUDGE KEEPER: Okay. Ms. Horton, let me
13:43:50 9 clarify my ruling and I apologize. I did not mean to
13:43:52 10 be stern with you or unreasonably stern. What I'm
13:43:58 11 doing is I'm allowing Mr. Webb to make legal argument
13:44:02 12 based upon evidence that has been offered but has not
13:44:86 13 yet been admitted. So I'm willing to listen to
13:44:10 14 whatever ii'is that he may have within the bounds of
13:44:12 15 reason in terms of legal argument about all of this,
13:44: 16 16 but you're certainly not forestalled from making your
13:44:18 17 own legal argument nor am I accepting what he has to
13:44:24 18 say as testimony.
13:44:24 19 Okay. So I think that the best way to
13:44:28 20 proceed just in terms of administrative/judicial
13:~:34 21 economy here is to allow Mr. Webb to ask ~uestions of
13:44:48 22 this VIi tness about this document and then I'll rule --
13:44:46 23 and I'll rule on his objection and - - I mean I'll rule
13:44:50 24 on his offer- and your objection and if you wish to
13:44:54 25 submit something in writing in response to his trial
ALA~IO CITY REPORTING (210) 710-3890
130
140
13:44:58 1 brief on admissibility of Exhibit-58, you're certainly
13:45:04 2 welcome to do that. And when do you propose to do
13:45:06 3 that by?
13:45:08 4 MS. HORTON: First thing tomorrow
13:45:08 5 morning.
13:45: 10
6 JUDGE KEEPER: That's certainly
13:45:12 7 acceptable.
(Ll'.l
13:45:12 8 MS. HORTON: May I ask you a question?
13:45:12 9 JUDGE KEEPER: Certainly.
13:45:14 18 MS. HORTON: So you're going to go ahead
13:45:16 11 and actually admit it before getting our response
13:45:18 12 brief?
13:45:20 13 JUDGE KEEPER: No.
13:45:20 14 MS. HORTON: Okay. Thank you.
13:45:20
15 JUDGE KEEPER: What I'll do is I'll
13:45:22 16 allow him to ask questions about it, but my choices
13:e:~ 17 seem to be to admit it and change my mind; if I decide
13:e:~ 18 to change my mind, conditionally admit it; but it's
13:e:~ 19 all variations on the same thing. So let's just
13:45:36 28 proceed with the questions and i f what I conclude is
13:e:w 21 that it is inadmissible, then the line of questioning
13:e:n 22 and the responses about it will be stricken.
13:45:% 23 Mr. Webb, please continue.
13:45:48 24 MR. WEBB: Thank you, Your Honor.
13:45:50 25 Q. (BY MR. WEBB:) Mr. Thomas, turning to page 3
ALA~10 CITY REPORTING (210) 710-3890
131
141
13:45:50 1 of 14 -- first let me ask you this: Is there more
13:45:56 2 than one Brazos River Basin?
13:45:56 3 A. No.
13: 45: 58
4 Q. Is there more than one Brazos WAM?
13:46:00 5 A. No.
13:46:06 6 Q. Okay. But the Brazos WAM can be updated with
13:46:10
7 additional,current conditions information, correct?
13:46:14 8 A. Yes.
13:46:14
9 Q. And that's what you were talking about
13:46:14
10 earlier, correct?
13:46:16 11 A. Yes.
13:46:16 12 Q. And that's what the Executive Director
13:46:16 13 apparently ~id in Exhibit-50, correct?
13:46:22
14 A. Apparently, yes. I'm not familiar with this
13:46:24 15 document o~this analysis.
13:46:26 16 Q. All right. The last think I wanted -- well,
13:46:30 17 page 3 under Water Availability Analysis, what is the
13:46:36 18 apparent period of record used by the Executive
13:46:46 19 Director?
13:46:46 20 A. 1940 through 1997.
13:46:48 21 Q. Same one, right?
13:46:48
22 A. Yes, sir.
13:46:48
23 Q. As you used -- as he used in Mr. Ware's case,
13:46:52 24 correct?
13:46:52 25 A. Yes, sir.
ALAMO CITY REPORTING (210) 710-3890
132
142
13:47:04
1 Q. Next page 4 of 14, under return flows, the
13:47:08 2 application requests appropriate of current and future
13:47:14
3 return flow in the Brazos Basin discharged from 136
13:47:16 4 locations of various entities, right?
13:47:20
5 A. Yes.
13:47:20
6 Q. So return flows was used to update the
13:47:26 7 current conditions
, . !:'x '1-
by the Executive Director, correct?
13:47:32 8 A, My understanding of reading that sentence is
'\ I I
13:47:34
9 that return flows were used in the analysis in this
13:47:42
10 Water Availability Analysis.
13:47:42 11 Q. All right. And that is what you said are
13:47:44
12 updates of the current conditions, correct?
13:47:46 13 A. Those are some of the updates, yes.
13:47:50 14 Q. Okay. So if the Executive Director got some
13:47:54 15 informatioh from whatever source to update the current
13:47:58 16 conditions, that's no more than what you've been
13: 48: 02 17 saying that the Executive Director does, correct?
13:48:06 18 A. That's correct.
13: 48: 06 19 Q. All right. Next page, the current conditions
13:48:10 20 data, read. that out loud into the record.
13:48:14 21 A. "The current conditions data set was updated
13:48:18 22 with the amount of current return flows as indicated
13: 48: 22 23 in the application (74,387 acre-feet which is the sum
13:48:26 24 of the maximum reported annual discharge amounts for
13:48:30 25 each plant)."
ALAMO CITY REPORTING (218) 71G-3890
133
143
13:48:34
1 Q. So, in other words, the Executive Director
13:48:36 2 was given information that he deemed reliable,
13:48:40 3 correct?
13:48:42
4 A. Yes.
13:48:42
.5 Q. That updated the current conditions?
13:48:46
6 A. Yes.
13:4S:46 7 Q. So it's true, isn't it, then that since you
I,' •
13:48:48 8 wrote your water availability -- I keep getting it
13:48:54 9 mixed up -- since the Executive Director wrote his
13:49:00 10 Water Availability Review in 2006 for Mr. Ware, he
13:49:02
11 learned new information?
13:49:04 12 A. Yes.
13:49:O4 13 Q. And that information is now being sought to
13:49:08 14 be used by somebody else?
13:49: 16 15 A. Yes.
13:49:16 16 Q. Any reason why it couldn't be used for
13: 49: 20 17 Mr. Ware since this hea ring is taking place after he
13:49:22 18 learned the new information?
13: 49: 26 19 A. I did not have this information.
13:49:28 20 Q. I~m not asking you that. I know you didn't,
13:49:32 21 but is there any reason you can think of that Mr. Ware
13: 49: 36 22 shouldn't be able to use this new information that the
13:49:4O 23 Executive Director has learned since he did the review
13:49:44 24 in Exhibit-47? Any reason you can think of as an
13:49:50 25 engineer?
ALANO CITY REPORTING (210) 710-3890
134
144
13:49:56 1 A. Yes. One possible answer is the return flows
13:50:00
2 from specific plans and the way that the Executive
13:50:02 3 Director has directed us as the hydrologists to
13:50:08
4 consider that information and to write permits based
13:50:10 on retu rn flows.
5
13:50:12 6 Q. Why would that make any difference?
13:50:18 7 A. Because we are directed by the Executive
13:50:20
8 Director and I'm directed by my supervisors that we
13:50:24
9 only write permits to authorize return flow to either
13: 50: 28
10 the original source diverter of that water or to the
13:50:34
11 discharger of that water
13:50:34
12 Q. Well, now --
13:50:36 13 A. -- if either of those -- either of those
13:50:38 14 entities are the ones who should be applying for
13:50:42 15 retu rn flows.
13:50:44 16 Q. Well, did I read Exhibit-50 wrong or was the
13; 50; 52
17 Executive Director saying that other return flows
13:50:54 18 other than from BRA were subject to BRA's use as
13:51:02 19 potential sources of appropriated water?
13:51:06 20 A. I don't know. I'm not familiar with this
13:51:08
21 document. I didn't prepare this document.
13:51:16 22 Q. AII right. Next sentence, page 5 of 14,
13:51:18 23 after the one that we read, read that into the record,
13:51:24 the request to reuse.
24
13:51:28 25 A. "The request to reuse return flows was
ALAMO CITY REPORTING (210) 710-3890
135
145
13:51:30 1 modeled at the most downstream pOint in the basin to
13:51:32
2 determine the volume of return flows available to BRA
13:51:36 3 on a basin-wide basis."
13:51:40
4 Q. So the question -- the issue in Exhibit-50 is
13:51:46 5 how can BRA use the additional return flows on a
13:51:52
6 basin-wide basis. Did I misstate that?
13:52:00
7 A. I'm not sure that I understand the question.
1 h:
13:52:02
8 I'm sorry. , .
13:52:02
9 Q. Well, have I misstated that the issue in
13:52:08 Ul as represented in that sentence that you just read is
13:52:12
11 the question of whether BRA should be able to use
13:52:16 12 those return flows on a basin-wide basis? That's the
13:52:22 13 issue, isn't it?
13:52:22
14 · MS. HORTON: Your Honor, I would like to
13:52:24 15 object. H~'~ already stated that he is not familiar
13:~:~ 16 with this document.
13:52:26 17 MR. WEBB: Well, then, Your Honor, we
13:52:28 18 should allow the p rofessiona l enginee r rep resentative
13:~:32 19 of the Executive Director to become at least familiar
13:~:36 20 enough to be able to understand what the sentence
13:52:38 21 says.
13:52:40 22 JUDGE KEEPER: So are you proposing that
13:~:42 23 we take a break to allow him to read the document?
13:52:44 24 MR. WEBB: Absolutely, Your Honor, at
13:52:46 25 least pages 1 through 7.
----------------------------------~
ALAMO CITY REPORTING (Z10) 710-3890
136
146
13:52:48 1 JUDGE KEEPER: Before we do that,
13:52:50 2 Mr. Thomas, let me ask you a quick question. If we
13:52:54 3 were to take a short break for you to be able to read
13:52:58 4 this information, do you anticipate that you would be
13:53:00 5 able to respond to Mr. Webb's question or shall we
13:53:04 6 just take a break and see what happens?
13:53:06 7 THE WITNESS: I'm still not sure that I
13:53:08S"undersi:and Mr. Webb's question, but I'm also not sure
13:53:12 9 that just reading this document gives me all the
13:~:14 10 background information that was used to prepare this
13:~:16 11 document to know how the decision was made and how to
13:53:22 12 answer his question.
13:53:24 13 MR. WEBB: Well, Your Honor, I'm
13:53:24 14 certainly not asking this witness to give us any
13:53:30 15 information of all the background information.
13:53:34 16 Honestly, Your Honor, we don't care where the
13:53:36 17 background information came from. All we know is that
13:53:38 IS this party in this case has, since he told our client
13:53:44 19 that there's no water available, made a determination
13:53:48 20 that there's another 74,000 acre-feet available. He
13 :53: 52 21 made that determination. This is an official release
13:53:~ 22 determination.
13:53: 56 23 Mr. Thomas, discussed earlier in his
13:~:Y 24 testimony how the Executive Director works. He makes
13:54:60 25 determinations, et cetera, et cetera of the water
ALAMO CITY REPORTING (210) 710-3890
137
147
13:54:04 1 availability. It's not -- we're not trying to retry
13:54:06 2 BRA's application. We're not trying to try it. I
13:54:12 3 understand it hasn't been tried. We don't want to.
13:54:14 4 We don't care what BRA wants to do. We don't care how
13:54:16 5 they want to use it. We don't care where they want to
13:54:20 6 use it. We don't care what they use to give the
13:54:24 7 information to the Executive Director if that's how it
. j.'.! .
13:54:24 8 happened.
13:54:26 9 All we know is that the Executive
13:54:30 10 Director bought it; that they agreed; they said yes,
13:54:34 11 the water is there; the water is there for
13:54:36 12 reappropriation and let's see what we do with your
l3:54:40 13 appl~cation. Well, the let's see what we do with
13:54:42 14 applicatio~ part is of no consequence to us. It's the
13:54:46 15 determination that the water is there in the basin.
13:54:48 16 That's the specific factual determination that is to
13:54:52 17 say the least a little relevant and material in this
13:54:56 18 case and that's all we care about.
13: 54: 58 19 So we don't need Mr. Thomas or want
13:55:02 20 Mr. Thomas to tell us how the Executive Director came
13:55:04 21 to make that determination, only to confirm that he
13:55:10 22 did.
13:55:10 23 JUDGE KEEPER: Okay. Ms. Horton, do you
13:55:14 24 wish to make a response?
13:55:18 25 MS. HORTON: No. That was the question
ALAt40 CITY REPORTING (210) 7le-3890
138
148
13:55:20
1 he asked and I think Mr. Thomas can read the document
13: 55: 22 2 and answer that question of what his determination
13:55:24
3 was.
13:55:24 4 JUDGE KEEPER: Okay. Let's take a short
13:55:26
5 break. Mr. Thomas, if you'll read those seven pages
13:55:30 6 and when you're -- we'll go off the record while you
13: 55: 32 7 are. When you're ready, just signal and we'll come
13:55:34
8 back or. the record.
13:55:34 9 (Recess from 1:55 p.m. to 2:02 p.m.)
14:02:08 10 JUDGE KEEPER: So if we're ready, let's
U:~:W 11 go back on the record. And, Mr. Thomas, have you had
14:02:12 12 an opportunity to complete reading the seven pages of
U:02:16 13 Exhibit-50?
14:02: 18 14 THE WITNESS: Yes, I have.
14:02:18 15 JUDGE KEEPER: Thank you very much. And
U:~:~ 16 so, Mr. Webb, have you a question?
14:02:22 17 Q. (BY MR. WEBB:) So the question is: Did the
14:92:24 18 Executive Di recto r make the dete rmination that anothe r
U:B2:~ 19 74,387 acre-feet of additional water was available to
14:02:34 20 BRA for use in its application?
14:02:38 21 A. Yes.
14:02:46 22 Q. All right. Isn't there a law regarding the
U:02:g 23 use of return flows?
14:02:52 24 A. I'm not sure that I understand that question.
14:02:56 25 Q. Well, I don't want to be cryptic. Doesn't
ALA~IO CITY REPORTING (210) 710-3890
139
149
14:03:04 1 Section .046 of the Texas Water Code, doesn't it
14:03:12 2 capture return surplus water?
14:03:36 3 MR. WEBB: Your Honor, would you like to
14:03:36 4 read along with us? We have another
14:03:38 5 JUDGE KEEPER: What section are we
14:03:40 6 looking at?
14:03:40 7 MR. WEBB: 11.046.
.-: : '
14:03:46 8 JUDGE KEEPER: Thank you.
14:03:52 9 Q. (BY MR. WEBB:) Would you read the
14:03:52 10 highlighted section?
14:03:54 11 A. Yes. This is Section 11.046 (c) : "Once water
14:04:02 12 has been diverted under a permit, certified filing, or
14:04:06 13 certificate of adjudication and then returned to a
14:04:08 14 watercours~or stream, however, it is considered
14:04:12 15 surplus water and therefore subject to reservation for
14:04:14 16 instream uses or beneficial inflows or to
M:M:M 17 appropriation by others unless expressly provided
14:04:20 18 otherwise in the permit, certified filing, or
14:04:22 19 certificate of adj udication."
14:04:24 20 Q. 50 that means that some of that 74,387
M:M:~ 21 acre-feet of water is available to Mr. Ware for
M:B4: 38 22 reappropriation, correct?
14:04:40 23 A. I can't say that I know that.
14:04:42 24 Q. Okay. The point is you didn't use any
M:M:44 25 portion of that additional water in the basin in your
ALAI40 CITY REPORTING (210) 710- 3890
140
150
14:04:48 1 model?
14:64:50
2 A. That's correct.
14:04:50
3 Q. Okay. And because of how the model works,
14:04:56
4 the Brazos WAM works, additional water anywhere in the
14:05:00
5 basin is used to assess whether or not a particular
14:05:08
6 water right would have a negative impact on all of the
14:05:12
7 water rights, isn't it?
14:05:15
8 A. I.'m sorry. I'm not sure exactly what yo8're
14:05:26
9 asking.
14:05:26 10 Q. Additional unappropriated water would benefit
14:05:30 11 the entire basin, WOUldn't it7
14:05:30 A. Yes.
12
14:05:32
13 Q. And so it doesn't matter whether it's above
14:05:34
14 Mr. Ware, below Mr. Ware, above Stillhouse Hollow
14:05:38 15 Lake, below it? It would benefit everyone, wouldn't
14:05:40
16 it?
14:05:42
17 A. It would benefit everyone downstream of it
14:05:44 18 and potentially that -- yes, I can -- I can say that
14:05:50
19 it would benefit everyone in the basin, yes.
14:05:54
20 Q. Because after all, even if you're upstream
14:05:58
21 where all of that beneficial water -- additional
~:%:ao 22 beneficial water is coming in, you don't have to count
~:%:M 23 the -- the person upstream of where it's all coming in
~:%:a8 24 can use it all and the people downstream wouldn't have
~:%:10 25 to worry, correct? And I'm being simplistic.
ALAr10 CITY REPORTING (210) 710 -3890
141
151
14:06:14 1 A. There are situations where it would change
14:06:16
2 priority calls and benefit everyone in the basin.
14:06:20
3 Q. Incidentally, what was the priority date that
14:06:26
4 the Executive Director used - - and I know it's not
14:06:32 5 really relevant, but it's in the first seven pages.
14:06:34 6 At the top of page 5 through 14, what was the priority
14:06:38
7 date used?
~ 'i () !
14:06:42
8 A. Priority date of October 15th, 2005 -- 2004.
14:06:46
9 Q. So BRA even has a later priority date than
14:06:58
10 Mr. Ware's July 1st, 1997, priority date?
14:07:04
11 A. Octobe r 15th, '04, is late r than July of '97,
14:07:08 12 yes.
14:07:08 13 Q. Not later than January 5th, 2006, is it?
14:07:14 14 A. Nt;'.
14:07:14 15 Q. Or March something 2006 either?
14:07:18 16 A. That' 5 correct.
14:07:20 17 Q. All right. 50 that wrong priority date
M:M:n 18 really does hurt Mr. Ware, doesn't it?
14:07:24 19 MS. HORTON: I'm sorry. I think that's
M:07:m 20 another mischaracterization.
14:07:30 21 MR. WEBB: I'll withdraw that question,
M:M:H 22 Your Honor.
14:07:36 23 Q. (BY MR. WEBB:) And just so the record is
14:07:38 24 clea r, YOLl ce rtainly didn't include - - you al ready
14:07:40 25 answered that. I don't have to ask that. I'm almost
ALM10 CITY REPOI\TING (210) 710-3890
142
152
14:07:46 1 done, Mr. Thomas.
14:08:12 2 I don't know whether I've asked you this
14:08:14
3 or not. You can't think of any reason why Mr. Ware
14:08:18
4 wouldn't be entitled to any of this additional water
14:88:22 5 that the Executive Director has discovered, do you?
14:08:24
6 A. No.
14:88:30
7 Q. Now, in light of Exhibit-50, isn't it --
"! !-"H;:'-
14:08:38 8 wouldn't you agree with me, Mr. Thomas, that the
14:08:42 9 analysis done by the Executive Director before he had
14:08:H 10 this additional information really doesn't help the
~:U:52 11 administrative law judge very much in making a
~;08;~ 12 determination of water availability for Mr. Ware, does
14:08:56 13 it?
14:09:02 14 A. Are'you asking if my analysis is useful?
14:09;88 15 Q. Yes. In light of all this new water that's
~:B9:12 16 not put intd the model.
14:89:14 17 A. I believe my analysis is still useful and
~:";18 18 still correct.
14:09;20 19 Q. Correct from the terms of when it was done?
14:09;24 20 A. I believe it's still correct today.
14;09:26 21 Q. So are you stating that an additional 74,387
14:09:34 22 ac re -feet wouldn't make any di ffe renee to a fa rme r' s
14:09:38 23 application for 150 acre-feet on a term permit basis?
14:09:48 24 A. If that additional 74,000 acre-feet were
":":52 25 available to Mr. Ware and anyone else in the basin, it
ALANO CITY REPORTING (2l0) 710-3890
143
153
14:09:56 1 would be. My understanding of this from reading this
14: 10:00 2 application is that that 74,000 acre-feet is from
14:10:88 3 water rights owned by or discharged in connection with
14: 10: 12 4 BRA and that it's not new water introduced to the
14:10:16 5 basin. It's BRA's water that they are using.
14:10:52 6 Q. If you look at the last paragraph of
14:10:58 7 Exhibit-50, page 4 of 14 going up to 5 of 14, doesn't
:',\.- '
14:11:06 8 that indicate that only certain portions of the 74,387
. \ -,.,
14:11:\2 9 acre-feet were explicitly granted based on return
14:11:18 10 flows now being claimed as part of the application?
14:11:36 11 Withdraw that question. I have a better
14:l!:40 12 question.
14: 1l:40 13 Looking at Exhibit -50 page 5 of 14, the
14:11:52 14 sentence th~t begins because of this and part of the
14:11:58 15 sentence before that starts at the 4 of 14, doesn't
U:12:~ 16 the Executive Director acknowledge that other parties
u:u:~ 17 other than BRA are entitled to some of these return
U:12:U 18 flows?
14:12:12 19 A. The Executive Director recognizes that other
14:12:14 20 pa rties have been granted wate r right s based in pa rt
14:12:1121 on the presence of those return flows.
14:12:28 22 MR. WEBB: No further questions. We
U:U: 30 23 pass the witness.
14:12:42 24 MS. HORTON: I want to give the Public
14:12:44 25 Interest counsel an opportunity to ask his questions.
ALAMO CITY REPORTING (210) 710-3890
144
154
14,12,44
1 CROSS EXAMINATION
14,12:54 2 OUESTIONS BY MR. ARTHUR:
14:12:54 3 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Thomas. So am I correct
14:12:58 4 that the Brazos River WAM is updated periodically or
14,13:04
5 the inputs or the data set?
14:13:06 6 A. The inputs and the data set are updated. As
14: 13: 10 7 we grant new water rights, those new water rights are
14:13,14 8 included in the data set.
-:. [
14:13:18 9 Q. Okay. So at the timing of the updating, it
14,13:22 10 is based on a new water right?
14,13:24 11 A. Well, there's also -- there's also an effort
14,13:32 12 to make sure that the return flows are accounted for
14:13:36 13 appropriately. That's not done on a regular basis.
14:13:40 14 The water rights are added basically because
14:13:44 15 they're -- they're added to perform an analysis and if
14:13:50 16 that analy~is indicates that a water right should be
14:13:56·17 granted, then they're included in the latest version
14:13:58 18 as those water rights become granted. An effort to go
M,14,16 19 through and check and update the naturalized flows or
14:14:11 20 to go throughout the whole basin and update all of the
14:14:14 21 return flows is not done on a specific regular basis.
14:14:14 22 Q. Okay.
14:14,21 23 A. It's done as resources are available within
14,M:~ 24 the water right scheme.
14: 14:28 25 Q. So recognizing that current conditions is
AlAflO CITY REPORTING (210) 710·3890
145
Exhibit E
April 20, 2010 Final Order of TCEQ
Bryan W. Shaw, Ph,D., Chainnarz
Buddy Garcia, Commissioner
carlos Rubinstein, Conunissioner
Mark R. Vickery, P.G.,. Executive Director
TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONI\1ENTAL QUALITY
Protectil1g Texas by Reaucing and Preumtil1g Pallll/ion
April 23, 2010
TO: Persons on the attached mailing list.
RE: Bradley B. Ware
TCBQ Docket No. 2008-0181-WR; SOAB Docket No. XXX-XX-XXXX
Water Use PennitNo. 5594
Decision of tile Commission on Application.
The Texas Commission on Bnvironmental Quality ("TCEQ" Or "Commission") has made a
decision to deny the above-referenced application. Enclosed with 'this letter is a copy of the
Commission's order. Unless a Motion for Reheating ("MFR" Or "motion") is timely filed with
the chief clerk, as described below, this action of the Coromission will become final. A MFR is
a reqnest for the Commission to review its decision on the matter. Nay motion must explain why
the Commission should review the decision.
Deadline for Filing Motion fOI'Rehearing_
A MFR TIms! be received by the chief clerk's office no later than 20 days after the date a person
is notified of the Commission's order on this application. A person is preswned to have been
notified on the third day aftor the date that this order is mailed. .
Motions may be filed with the chief clerk electronically at
ht1p:llwwwJO.tc~.state.tx.us/~c/efili!lm or by filing an original and 7 copies with the Chief
Clerk at the followhlg address:
LaDonna Castanuela, Chief Clerk
TCBQ,MC-105
P.O. Box 13087
AUStill, Texas 78711-3087
Fax: 512/239-3311
In aqdition, a copy of the, motion must be sent on the same day to each of the individuals on the
attached mailing list as 'indicated by an asterisk (*). A certificate of service stating that copies of
the rnotion were sent to those on' the mailing Jist must also be sent to the chief clerk. The
procedures for filing and serving motions for rehearing and responses are located in 30 Texas
Administrative Code (TAC) §80.272 and 30 TAC §1.10-1.l1. The hardcopy filing requirement
is waived by the Gener;ll Counsel pursuant to 30 lAC §1.10(h).
P.O. So, 13087 AmUn, Texas 78711-3087
.",. '. - . .'.'
The written motion must contain (1) the name and representative capacity of the person filing the
motion; (2) the style and official docket lllUnbei' assigned by SOAli: or official docket number
assigned by the Commission; (3) the date of the order; and (4) a concise statement of each
allegation of error.
Unless the time for the Commission to act on the motion is extended, the MFR is overruled by
operation oflaw 45 days after a person is notified of the Commission's order on this application.
If you have any questiollS or need additional jnfOimation about the procedures described in tlris
letter, please call the Office of Public Assistance toll free at 1-800-687-4040,
Sin~~~
~nnacas~~
I.../~Clerk
LDC/ms
Enclosures
147
Bradley B. Wru:e
TCEQ Docket No. 2008-0181-WR
SOAR Docket No. XXX-XX-XXXX
FOR TIffi APPLICANT: Steve Ramos, Technical Staff
Texas C01IUllission on Environmental Quality
Stephen P. Webb ~ Water Supply Division MC·160
Gwendolyn Webb P.O. Box 13087
Webb & Webb Austin, Texas 78711-3087
712 Southwest Tower
211 East 7ti) Street FOR OFFICE OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
Austin, Texa.~ 78701 via electronic mail:
Bradley B. Ware Bridget Bohac, Director
911 Gann Branch Road Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Killeen, Texas 76549 .' Office of Public Assistance MC-I08
P.O. Box 13087
INTERESTED PERSONS: Austin, Texas 78711·3087
Andrew Miller FOR PUBLIC INTEREST COUNSEL
Kemp Smith LLP via electrQllic mail,
816 Congress Avenue, Suite 1150
Austin, Texas 78701 Garrett Arthur, Attorney*
Texas Commission on Envirorunental Qualily
Gene W. Ray, DVM Public Interest Coullsel MC-! 03
Town & Country Veterinary Medical Center P.O. Box 13087
505 Ba.~t Elms Road Austin, Texas 78711-3087
Killeen, Texas 76542
FOR THE CHIEF CL\'>RK
Bruce Wasinger via electronic mail:
Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta LLP
3711 South MoPae Expressway LaDonna Castaiiuela
Builcling 1, Suite 300 Texas COlIUllission on Environmental Quality
Austin, Texas 78746 Office of Chief Clerk MC-l 05
P.O. Box 13087
FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Austin, Texas 78711-3087
via electronic mail:
Shaua Horton, Staff Attorney *
James Aldredge, Staff Attorney .
* The Honorable Paul Keeper
Administrative Law Judge
Texas Commission on Em1romnental Quality State Office of Administrative Hearings
EnviroIUnental Law Division MC-173 P. O. Box 13025
P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3025
Austin, Texas 78711-3087
• Courtesy Copy via inter-agency mail
., ..
148
149
TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRON1Y1ENTAL QUALITY
I'HIHlli\Tt;; OI'TEl(AS
eOUNW 61"'flllAVI!l
II\?IOO( tertijy inal this ~ .1"'6 .00 Mfll!i1\f&1?ll\ ''" '!>"""'J
r~~.'l ('.ornrnl~l;i!Jn on (!_nvifooment~! QualitY
AN ORDER Concerning the Application of nradlcy B. Ware to amend
wlIter llse Permit No. 5594; TCEQ Docket No. 2008-0181-
'WR; SOAli Docket No. XXX-XX-XXXX
On April 14, 2010, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ of
Commission) considered the application (Application) of Bradley B. Wru'e to Amend Water Use
Pennit No. 5594 (Pennit). A Proposal for Decision (PFD) was presented by Pan! D. Keeper, an
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) with the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH), who
condncted a hearing in this case from October 28 through October 29, 2009, in Austin, Texas.
After considering the AU's PFD, the Commission adopts the following Findings of Fact
atld Conclusions of Law:
1. FINDINGS OF FACT
General Findings·
1. The applicant is Bradley B. Wru·e. Mr. Ware owns a 261-acre farm ou the Lampasas
River, about 15 miles southwest of Killeen, Texas.
2. Mr. Ware's street and mailing address is 911 Gann Branch, Killeen, Texas 76549.
3. Mr. Ware's farm is located in Bell County, Texas, fUld is within the Brazos River basin.
Iiistory o/tlte Perlltit
4. On November 7,1997, the Commission issued Mr. Wru'c the Penni! for a ten-year tenn.
.~. .',: ', .. ~"-
150
5. The Pertnit authorized Mr. Ware to diver! and use 130 acre-feet of water annually fi'om
the Lampasas Ri verto irrigate 100 acres,
6. The Permit also established July 1, 1997 as "the priority date of this pennit and all
extensions hereof ...."
7. The Pelmit was to expire on November 7, 2007, unless before that date, Mr. Ware
received the Commission's approval to extend the term or to convert the Permit to a
. perpetual right.
.8. Mr. Ware's rights lIllder the Permit remained in effect pending a final administrative
ruling on the Application.
9. During the 1;\'1elve years in which Mr. Ware has had irrigation rights, he has fmmed hay,
plUUpkinS, wheat, sorghum, oats, and winter peas.
to. Mr. Ware has tried to impound his water by installing six or seven eruthcn tanks, but the
composition of the solllimits the runount of water that the tanks will retain.
11. Mr. Ware has purchased 100 acre-feet of water rights and installed 8,000 to 10,000 feet
of two-inch pipes, pIns an eight-inch pipe to a central pivot system.
12. On November [5,2005, Mr. Ware timely filed his Application to: (1) either extend his
Pennit for another ten-year period or convert his Permit to a perpetual right, (2) withdraw
20 more acre-feet of water annually, and (3) lITigate 31 more acres of his fann.
13. On J31lUary 5, 2006, the ED determined that the Application was administratively
complete.
14. On June 7, 2006, the Brazos River Authority contested the application.
15. On November 4, 2006, the ED's surface water availability and interstate compacts team
completed a water availability review and detennined that there was not S\lfficient water
available at the Applicant's location to support the requested demand.
J6. On November 6, 2006, the ED recommended denial of the Application.
2
151
17. On January 8, 2007, 11'11'. Ware requested a contested case hearing at SOAR.
18. On January 25, 2008, the Commission directly referred the case to SOAR for a hearing
Oil the merits.
19. On April 3, 2008, the SOAR administrative law judge (AU) convened a preliminary
hearing and took jurisdiction.
20. On January 12,2009, the Brazos River Authority was granted the right to withdraw as a
protesting party.
2), On 0c;tober I, 2008, the AU issued an order folloVi1ng a telephonic preheating
conference and notified the parties that the hearing on the merits would be held March 18
through 19, 2009.
22. At the request of Mr. Ware, the hearing on the merits was rescheduled to convene
October 29 through 30, 2009. .........
23. The hearing convened on October 28, 2009, and adjoumed On October 29, 2009. The
administrative record closed on December 21, 2009, after cloSing arguments and replies
were Hled.
ED's recommendatioll to dellY the Application
24. After Mr. Ware filed bis Application in 2005, the ED's Surface Water aIld Interstate
Compacts Team determined that "little to no water" was available at Mr. Ware's
diversion point on the Lampasas River, without regard to whether the amended Penni!
would have a petpetual 01' limited telm.
25. The ED's Surface Water Availability and Interstate Compacts Team confirmed the
hydrologist's conclusion in a water availability review memo that calculated that
insufficient water was availabJe at Mr. Ware's diversion point to support even the
original 130.acre-feet of term-limited appropriation rights.
3
,/.,'
.. ~', ," . ..
~ ~
152
26. In recommending denial of the Application, the ED rI'lied Oll the Commission's Wate),
Availability Model for the Bra7J)s River besin (Model). The calculation used a historical
period of record of 1940 to 1997.
27. Although previous water availability models were developed and used by the
Commission, the CUlTent Model has been in use since 2001. The Commission has relied
on the Model in evaluating all applications fo), appropriative rights since then.
28. In evaluating the Applioation with the Model, the ED used a priority date of January 5,
2006, the date on which the Application was administratively complete.
29. The Model predicts that Mr. Ware's current request could be satisfied at a 100% level in
none of the years and at least 75% in 5.2% of the years.
Stand/fig
30. The evidence presented by the ED at the hearing on the merits was generated by the
Commission or was offered to support the integrity of the Commission's underlying
infonnation.
The reliability of the Model
31. The Model is designed to be the most accurate method available to the ED without regard
to the size of the request for water.
32. The design relies in part on the Model's use of a period of record.
33. The period of record gives the Commission a set ofhistoricnl boundaries ranging from
the most severe basin-wide drought to the most severe flood periods ever recorded.
34. The historical period was developed by the Commission in conjunction with other state
agencies and outside consultants.
35. The Model relies on afl applicant's particular location within a river basin to determine
availability.
4
153 .
36. If an applicant's diversion point is located within a large drainage area, then the applicant
would be able to rely on large stream flows and potentially greater water availability.
37. The Commission gathers information abott! streamflows by relying OJ) gauge information
and data from otber sources.
38. v,'here gauge iuformatioll is unavailable, then the Commission may extrapolate
information based on the readings a~ nearby gauging stations. This type of adjustment
occurs during the creation of the naturalized flow data set.
39. Naturalized flow data has value to the Commission because it reflects the flows that
would have occurred without the impacts created by hurnau diversions and storage of
water.
40. The Model takes into account an application's priority date in evaluating a request.
41. The role of the priority date is to determine the seniority status of a particular
appropriative right previously given by the Commission.
42. By examining an application in terms of period of record, location, and priority date, the
ED is able to evaluate an application of any size in terms of tbe current conditions
presented.
43. At this time, the inclusion of more recent gauge flow data would have no effect on the
range of data reflected in the historical period of record used ill the Model.
44. The addition of "new water," if it were pi'oved to exist, would be" subject to all prior
appropriation rights of senior water tights holder a~d could not be treated as available for
new allocation.
45. The full amount ofthe Brazos River Authority's requested return flows become available
only at the furthest downstream point in the basin; diversions at other points axe possible
due to spedfic facts and circumstances of that application.
5
- ....
154
Priority dates
46, The priority date of Mr, Ware's CUITent Permit is July 1, 1997, and applies to "all
extensions, , .. "
47, The priority date in the Pennit has no relation to applications for new permits or to any
matter other than establishing when the permit holder began the approprIation of water or
when the permit holder acquired the rIght to use the water,
48, The priority date of Mr. Ware's application was established on the date on which it
became administratively complete, January 5, 2006,
49, The Brazos River Authority is seeking a permit from the Commission to appropriate an
additional 421,449 acre-feet per year of unappropriated water, or several thousand times
the amount that)\Jr, Ware is seeking authority to appropriate from the sanle river basin,
50, The priority date of the application of the Brazos River Authority is October 15, 2004,
51. . The priority date of the Brazos River Authority's application is earlier than that of
Mr, Ware's application,
52, The ED engaged in no manipulation of the priority dates in recommending the denial of
Mr, Ware's application,'
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1, The Commission has jurisdiction oVer the determination of water rights in Texas rivers
and streams, TEx, WATER CODE ANN, ch. 11.
2, Notice was provided in accordance with TEx, WATBR CODE ANN, § 11.132, 30 TEX,
AOMIN. CODB (TAC) ch, 295, Bubch, C; and TEx, Gov, CODE ANN, §§ 2003,051 and
2003,052,
3, SOAH ha~ jurisdiction to conduct a hearing and to prepare a Proposal for Decision in
contested cases referred by TCEQ, TEX, GOV, CODE ANN, § 2003.47,
6
155
4. The Application became administratively complete on January 5, 2006. TEx. WATER
CODBANN. § 11.141 and 30 TAC § 297.44(c)
5.. The Application was processed and the proceedings described in this Order were
conducted in accordance with applicable statutes and the rules of the Commission and
SOAl!. TEX. WATERCODEANN,ch, 11; 30 TACeh. 80,1 TACeh. 155.
6. Mr. Ware held the burden of proof. 30 TAC § 80. 17(a). Mr. Ware did not meet his
burden.
7. Any person may appear at a hearing at which the issuance of a permit is to be considered.
TEx. WATBRCODEANN. § 11.133.
8. The ED is required to participate as a party in contested hearings relating to applications
about water rights, 30 TAC § 80.108(b)(l).
9. The ED is required to represent the Commission in hearings that raise matters that affect
the public's interest in the state's environment and natural resources, including matters
that have been determined to be Jlollcies of the slate. TEx. WATER CODE ANN. § S.228(a).
10. In contested case permit hearings, the ED's presentation is limited to "the sole purpose of
providing information to complete the administrative record." TEx. WATER CODE ANN.
§ 5.228(c).
11. In a contested hearing, the ED's presentation is limited to "information developed by the
Commission .... " TEx. WATBR CODE ANN. § 5.228(a).
J2. In a contested hearing, the ED may provide infonnatlon that opposes rul application, as
long as the information is within the litnits of the law. TEX. WATER CODE ANN. § ILl33.
13. All parties to a contested case have the right to present a direct case and to cross-exrunine
the opposing party's evidence. 30 TAe § 80.1 15(a).
7
'..
"
,~ ~.. 156
14. The ED has standing to appear as a party in this proceeding and was authorized to pmsen!
the Commission's evidence and arguments ill opposition to Mr. Ware's case.
15. An applicant may request that au application be remanded to the ED for action as an
uncontested matter if: (l) all timely hea1'ing reqnests have been withdrawn or denied or
(2) all parties to a contested case reach a settlement so that no facts or issnes remain
cOlltrovelted. 30 TAC § 80.101.
16, A heming was required in this case because the ED remained a party to a contested case
after the Brazos River Authority withdrew its opposition and because there was not a
settlement between the remaining parties.
17. Scientific testimony presented by a party must be offered through the testimony of an
expert, and that testimony must be based on a reliable foundation. TEx. R. EvrD. 702.
18. A finder of fact is to determine the reliability of the evidence, and "[u)nreJiable expert
testimony is not evidence." Gross v. Burt, 149 S.W.3d 213, 237 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth
2004, pet. denied).
19. To establish the reliability of an expelt's testimony, an offering patty must first establish
the reliability of the analysis that the expert used in reaching his conclusions. Six
nonexclusive factors are used in determining whether scientific testimony is reliable:
(1) the extent to which the theory has been Or can be tested; (2) the extent
to which the technique relies upon the subjective interpretation of the
expert; (3) whether the theory has been subjected to peel' review and
publication; (4) the technique's potential tate of error; (5) whether the
underlying theory or technique has been generally accepted as valid by the
relevant scientific community; and (6) the non-judicial uses that have. been
made orthe theory or technique.
8
157
Gross v. Burt, 149 S.W.3d at 237, citing Merrell Dow Phm'ms.. Inc. v. Havner, 953
S.W.2d 706, 714 (Tex. 1997), cel'l. denied, 523 U.S. 1119 (1998) and E.l. du Pont de
Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549,557 (Tex. 1995).
20. Mr. Ware did not establish that the method used by Mr. Jones, Mr. Ware's expert
witness, was reliable.
21. The water of every flowing river in the State of Texas is the property ofthe state, and the
Commission is the state's agent for the regulation oHts water. TEx. WATBR CoPE ANN.
§ 11.021(a).
22. The COlmnission has the authority to allow persons to appropriate state water for specific
uses. TEX. WATBR COPE ANN. § 11.022.
23. The Commission may grant permits to applicants who seek to appropriate unappropl'iated
state water. TEX. WATBR CODE ANN. § 11.124.
24. The amount of water for which the Commission may grant permits may not be more than
is available. TEX. WATER CODE ANN. § 1l.023(e).
25. In 1967, the Texas legislature abandoned the state's former system of recognizing both
riparian and appropriative rights. In re Adjudication of Water Rights of Brazos III
Segment ofBrazos River Basin, 746 S.W.2d 207, 209 (Tex. 1988).
16. .In place of the fanner system, the legislature adopted "an orderly forum and procedure
for the [Commission's] adjudication and administration of water rights." Brazos Ill, 746
S.W.2d at 209.
27. The Commission is required to "provide certainty in water management" by evaluating
the state's major river basins. TEx. WATER CODE ANN. § 11.0235(d-2).
28. For all permits, the holder has the right to appropriate water only to the extent and for the
purposes stated in the permit and subject to the protection of the holders of senior water
rights. TEx. WATER CODBANN. §§ 1l.135(a) and 1351.
9
~ '. :- " .'
158
29, An "appropriative dght" is the right to impound, divelt, store, take, or use a specific
quantity of state water acquired by Jaw. 30 TAC § 297.1(4-),
30. The holder's rights to appropriate water may be affected by the amounts that the holder
actually uses or can beneficially use, and "all water not so used is considered not
appropriated," TEX. WATER CODE ANN. § 11.025,
31. If the holder of a permit does not beneficially use his water, then the right of
approptiation is considered to be not perfected, TEX. WA1ER CODE ANN, § 11.026.
32, The Commission has discretionary authority to temporarily reallocate unperfected
appropriative water rights to persons other than the regular permit holder. An applicant
may seek a term permit, a permit that is issued for a term of years rather than in
perpetuity, TEx. WATER CODE ANN. §§ 1l.1381(a) and 11.026.
33. A term pennit allows all applicant to use water rights that have not been perfected by the
holders. A term permit creates derivative rights, not original rights, so that the maximum
use of water maybe achieved. TEx, WATER CODE ANN. § 11.123.
34, The Commission may deny an application for a term pennit if the permit will jeopardize
financial conunitments for water projects or if the pennit will prevent the holder of the
senior appropriative right from beneficially using his rights during the period of the tcnn
pennit, TEx. WATER CODE ANN. § 11.1381(b) and (c).
35. If the Commission approves a permit, then the rights that it confers are subordinate to any
senior appropriative rights. TEX, WATER CODE ANN. § 11.l381(d).
36. The Commission may issue a term pennit "when there is insufficient unappropriated
water in the source ofsnpply to satisfy the application." 30 TAe § 297.19(a).
37. A holder of a senior appropriative right may challenge an application for a term permit by
showing that the Commission's issuance of a term permit wonld adversely affect the
holder's benefioial use of its senior rights. In proving this adverse effect, the holder may
use as its proof: water use projections in the state or regional water plans, economic
10
159
indicators, population growth projections, electrical generation needs, or "other
reasonable projections based on accepted methods." 30 TAC § 297.19(b)(2).
38. The Commission may deny an application if the proposed pennit would be detrimental to
the public welfare. 30 TAC § 297.l9(b)(4).
39. In 1997, the Texas legislature mandated the Commission to adopt an updated water
availability model (Model) for six river basins in Texas. TEx. WA'fER CODE ANN. §
16.012(g).
40. For direct diversions from a stream without suffwient water storage facilities, an
applicant must prove that approximately 75% of the water requested is available
approximately 75% of the time when distributed on a monthly basis and based on the
available historic slream flow record. 30 TAC § 297.42.
41. Neither the ED nor an applicant is required to use the Model in determining wheth~r
water is available in each river basin in Texas.
42. The COlmnissiOIl has the anthority to contract for "scientific and technical enviromnental
services," illCludit)g scientific data analysis, to be used in the modeling to be conducted
by the ED. TEX. WATER CODE ANN. § 5.2291 (a).
43. The ED has the authority to rely on scientific data analysis it) enforcing the terms of a
permit and in presenting information abont an application for a pennit. TEx. WATER
CODE ANN. § 5.230.
44. A contesting permit holder may rely Oil "reasonable projections based on accepted
methods," and an applicant and the ED may do the same. 30 TAC § 297.19(b)(2).
45. The Commission may Use approximate numbers in estimating water availability in permit
application proceedings. 30 TAe § 297A2(c).
46. For every permit, a priority date is established for the appropriation of water and for the
claimant's right to use the water. TBX. WATER CODE ANN. § 11.141.
[[
160
47. The me8Bllring date fol' these priority dales is the date of filing of an administratively
compiet~ application, 30 TAC § 297.44(c),
48. The date on which a priodty date comes into being is "[w]hen the Commission issues the
permit .... " 30 TAC § 297.44(c).
49. An applicant's right to tak~ and use water is limited "to the extent and purposes stated in
the permit." TEX. WATER CODE ANN. § 11. 135(a).
50. A permit may include special conditions that limit the total amount of water that may be
divelted. TEx. WATER CODE ANN, § 11.l35(b)(5).
51. With respect to all types of permits, the Commission may include « ••• conditions and
restrictions ... to protect the priority of senior water rights." TEx. WATER CODE ANN. §
11.1351
52. Each term pennit is subject to the unique statutory limitation makin~. term permits
"subordinate to any senior appropriative rights," TEx. WATER CODE § 11.l381(d).
53. Courts generally interpret undefined temlS according to their ordinary meaning. TEX.
Gov'T CODE ANN. § 311.011(a); Geters v. Eagle Ins. Co., 834 S.W.2d 49,50 (Tex.
1992).
54. In affirmative sentences, the ordinary melUling of "any" is "every" or "all." BRYAN A.
GARNER, GARNER'S MODERN AMERICAN USAGE 52 (3d ed. 2009).
55. Term permits are subordinate to all senior water rights, TEX. WATER CODE ANN.
§ 11.138J(d); 30 TAC § 297.19(a).
56. Ml'. Waxe failed to carry his burden of proving that sufficient water exists in the Brazos
River basin or that all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements have been met to
warrant issuing to him the proposed Water Use Permit No. 5594A.
57. Pursuant to tbe authority of, and in accordance with, applicable laws and regulations, the
requested Permit should not be granted.
12
161
58. Pw'Suant to 30 TEX. ADMn~. CODE AJ<.1N. §§ 80.23 (d)(2), the Executive Director and
Office of Public Interest Counsel may not be assessed allY portion of the transcript and
reporting costs.
III. EXPLANATION OR CffANGES
1. The Commission sustained the ED's Exceptions regarding Findings of Fact Nos. 24, 25,
34,37,38,39,43,45 and Conclusion of Law No. 40, as recOlmnended by the ALJ in his
March 17,2010 reply to the parties' post-PFD submissions.
2. The Commission modified Finding of Fact No. 29 to provide consistency with the
TCEQ's water availability review, included in the record as Applicant's Exhibit No. 47.
The change was consistent with the ED's Exceptions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDERED BY THE TEXAS COMlVllSSION ON
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, IN ACCORDANCE 'WITH THESE FINDINGS OF
FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW TffAT:
1. The application of Bradley B. Ware to amend Water Use Permit No. 5594 is denied.
2. The Applicant shall pay the COUlt reporting and transcript costs for this case.
3. The CWef Clerk of the Conunission shall forward a copy of this Order to all parties, and
no amendment to Water Use Pelmit No. 5594 shall be issued.
4. All other motions, requests for specifio Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law, and
other requests for general and specific relief, if not expressly granted, are denied for want
of merit.
13
.• ~. • ',.o .... ~••
162
5. If any provision, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Order is foJ' any reason held to be
invalid, the invalidity of any portion shall not affect the validity of the remaining POltiOllS
of this Order.
6. The effective date of this Order is the date the Order is final, as provided by 30 TAe
§ 80.273 and TEX. Gov. COPE ANN. § 2001.144.
ISSUED: APR 2 0.2010
TEXAS COMMISSION ON
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
14
163
Exhibit F
August 28, 1997 Interoffice Memorandum
regarding Water Availability Analysis
, TI
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
INTEROFFICE MEt40P..1'.NDU1~
To: Kariann 8okulsky, !~anager h.ugust :;!8. 1997
Wacer Righcs permltt~ng "nd Conserv'at lon SeCt-ir.n
Water Quantity Di"/isicn
...
Throuah~:.
.. Surface
Harman Settemeyer, Leader
Water Avai:abilitv '" InterState C"o:nract Team
.Iatar Quantity OivisiSaS River
Bra~os River Basin
aeli County
9lATER AVAILABILIT¥ ANALYSIS
Application Summary
The applicar.c is seeking authori:.atio!1 co di .tert 13(; acre-feet pel:
4
year ~or irrigation purposes from the Lampasas Rive". cributary of
'":.he ~i':tle River, t.:t'ibutary of the 1317«::::05 River, tho B~azos River
Basin. The maximum diversion rate is 1.U "f.s '5GO 9"x).
DO>lll.s.tream water Rights of Record
There are 24 downstream wate);' rights of ,ecord Oil the La:~pasas River,
a",l1;horizing 69,111 acre-feet per year for municipa'. industrl.al.,
irrigation and mining purposes.
Reported consumptive use for these Hater rights durin\' the period. of
),970 through 1989 averaged 10,532 acre-feet per year '15 percent of
the authorized amount) with a maximum in 19~" oE r,,,, 01" ',C1:e- feet (93
percent of the authorized amount) .
'rhere are 61 further dO>lllstream ~1ater rights of recoro ;1 the Little
River and the Brazos River, authorizing 817,744 acre :.ilet·per year
for tm.lnicipal, industrial, irrigation. minir>9, recreation and other
purposes.
Reported consumptive use for these water rights durin£1 the period of
1970 through 1989 averaged 364,394 acre-feet per year /45 percent of
the authorized amount) with a maxinlum in 1970 of 424,600 acre-teet
(52 percent of the authorized amount) .
. Estimated Stl:Elamflow and Streamflow Simulation
Staff used two USGS gages to estimate streamflow at the appl~ .. ,\Ut ~ s
location: 1) USGS gage OS~04000 on the Lampasas River ae Youngaport,
Texfts·, which is located about ~~ miles downstream of chs applicanj:' s
location;. 2) USGS gage 08~03800 on the Lampasas River llear Kempner,
Texas, which is located about 13 miles upstream of the applicant's
location _ For the period of 1940 through 1993, the ~stimated
streamflow at the applicant's location averaged 164,560 acre- teet per
year with a maximum fiow of 661,245 acre-feet in 1992 a~d a minimum
flow of 11,692 acre-feet in 1951.
The Environmental Analysis fo. this application has recommended an
instream flow restriction of 16 CE8 at the applicant's location (or
12 cts at: USGS Gage No. 08:1.03800) during the tr.ontf:t1 July t;hl:ough
:-latch and 51 cfs at the applicant's locat.ion (or :;8 cfs at USGS Gage
!·10. 08103BOO) during the other months.
US'ifl..g estimated str~a.mf 10V}, Gtat f YE.!." f oIT.ied di t ""ct di 'lersi on
simulation for the delnand of 130 acre-feet per :;·:,ar loith ·the
streaflow restriction. Simulation result.s indl.ca':..€: that, for the
period of 1940 through 1.993, 100 percent and at least 75 percent of
the demand of 130 acre-feet per year would be mel: ~n 44 and 78
pel:cent of years, respectively. Honthly demand I. lind *297 AN th"'ll~h *~'1, .5~. These staltnes
n..'"quirc loh!! TNRCC to c()n~id(!r th!,): p\)~:-;ihlu impac:ts urlhe granting 1.)1' tl \\ute,' right on \h¢ instrcam
uses of the affected hody nf wflter. Inslrcmn us. .'$. \nc\u~t~. hut al' ...~ nHl Iim1t\.~d 11 \, water quality. fish
and \\ i1dlife hnbitut. ,md rccrcoliim. In ndditinn.I'M,ihlc ill\Pllcl~ hi h:\y~ "nd "'PlOries nrc addressed.
Ex.anlplcs (If ~igniticai\t impacls mc those that nllcet nUluml rcsnurccs: r\!$.uH in dt!\~rillration of\\'a\~r
qunlil) or tlood protection: result ill \UHllln\\ubll.l rt:duclinn nr itl . 'ntil1i1l1k
. ins~rci.lm uses: cndung¢r
species or plont nnd nnimnllir" ollllthcir hahitat: signiliclll\ll)' rcJuce pl'<\ductivil)' "I' lite hay and
cstuar;. syslems: or contrihttlc 10 R sct'ies or rdated projects Ihat in~l\lve inJividually minor but
collccth'cl)' signit1cnnt (ldvcrsc imracl~,
~:NVIRON~1f.NTAL ,\NAt.YSIS
The applicant seeks nut!torl,ntinll 10 divert and usc not tn c~cccd 130 ncre·!'eet 'Vlller per annum
rrom llie Lampasa, River ttl irrigate 100 acre,; ofland inl!dl County. 'fhe mnxin'. H diversion is 1.11
cr•.' tnQr4er to protecl instr,,",n tlSes. hinlogical habil<\\,. ,lnd walcrq\lulit;. t>ftht l.ampasas River.
staffr¢Commcnd& dfycrsiol1 be limited to \imc~ \\'hel1 st~nmno\\' Itt th¢ USGS g3g~ ,,081 003800 n~ar
KC1I1lX'r. Texas is 'equallo or exceeds 38 ciS during lite monlhs of Aprillhrou!lh June and 12 efs during
. 'july through March. . '
. .,.;,
.. : .:
. ';',. ,;',
",:
,.' , .
... Memo to Kariann Sokulsky
Page 2
Jul)' 28. 1997-
•
Recreational t)sos
According to USGS top(lgrnphk map~. the Lampu;as River is a perennial slre:tm. The TOMS Parks
and WlIdlife (TPWD) publicnlioll. "An .'\o"I;"is \lfTcxas \\'al~,,\nys." chamotorizes this section of
the river_lh~ 42 miles nbovc Ihe Slillhou,,, II"Uo\\' Rescr"l.ir. u., 1111\ ill[\ 1.1\\ \"Iler k,vel, 1\\051 ~lfthe
time. I Jowc\'cr. during rcrlod~ ofhci\\-y nlin)oi, tile rh er h~~tlmcs un exciting n:cn:ntiorml corridor to
a scenic and imoresting area.
Aquatic and Riparian H~hitfllS
·\quatic and riparian habitnt~ of the La11lp""as Rlwr (Ire of high qlli\lh~. Based on photo!lraphs
prn> idcd by Ihe applical1l. the banks appenr to be heavily, c!!ctalcd wilh nmive Irc«. hrush and grosses
which provide for aqualic habitals along the l.amp"'"< Rh·cr. I'still1t1t~d from I'SGS gage data.
monthly median flows for the Lampasas Ri\'C'r prnratcd lfllhC' "ppljCrtnl'~ Itlcnli,'n range from;). high
"r 12:1 cfs in :-'131' to a 10\\ 20 cfs in August tTahle II.
Jan ~Iar Apr
$.' 6:! ..
I" ' 'I
TNRCC uscs a default mcthotlnh\g)' I'llI' delNlllining n,1\\ Nstriclioll" dcvck'pcd liy Lyons (1979).
l.yon" recommcnds minimum !lows uf 411"1, "I' the munthly m"diun Il,\\\'> I;" October thr(lugh
February and 60% or the monthly mcdinn 110l\'s Ill(- March Ihrough Scptcmhcr 1<' Pi'lltcct fisheries
habitat. Applying 1..)'tll1<' rccommcndnli(llls to thc opplicmlt's 10coII"". nnd avcroging the
r"commendations ror inonths Octobcr-Fc:hruary ~1I1d :\ through Ma-
The applicant's proposed diversion point is located ab(\\"c Stiliholise 110110\\ Keservoir On the
l.a.mpasns River ·desigl1nleu as Stream Scgmelll No. 1217 of the Slate of Texas Watci' Quality
Irrventory,f19?6); a'cffiucnl limited segmenl, lJesign~tcd water lISCS of the s~gmcnt incllidc c',>ntri~t
. ·rcCJell.lion and.high aquatic·life \lSC. There nrc II tOlnl of seven pcmlitted outfall, n" n c~mhincd lOla.!
:,d[~"aigc ·~f 4'.00 MOD.· There. lire Il\l knO\\1\,\Val~r «"ulil)' problems in Ihe segment. . . . . .... '. ,
.' "
,;
',:Foide~eimi~i~g \l~illijlitil;)·li()\V~· ;,hid; w~illd ~ustnit; ,;vat~; qu~lity, the seveh ~l\Y.I\\,q'~.c;tdowno\v' " ._'
..,,",
(7Q~Hs.used, '.,The .7Q2 is dcn~ed.d,~ the \(lWCSI .average now for s¢vcn.collsC ", ",." ':. ','
': ";' ,
." .
"': ,
.:. ,
'. Memo 10 Kilrinnn Sokulsky
Page 3
July. 28. 1997
• •
expecled 10 rccur ever), 1\\'0 years. The 7Q2 is 'lali$tically.rleril"ed from hi,torical d~il~ now data. The
.7Q2 from the Texas Surlacc Waler Quality Standards 'Hthe 1'SGS gage ~nSl 0)800 for the period or
record. 1964-1994, is 11..13 cfs. Since the Illwer 11,)\\' restriction "I' 12 til; is higher tlmn the 7Q2. Ihe
recommended n"w restrictions should pW\'lde ~d\."\lUt\l~ pr\\h!Clim~ tbr {1\1..' \\lUer quality o.f the
Lamp"-~s River.
llA YS AND ESn' ARIES
The prnpo,~u diversion site i~ more than :W(} rh ~r mi1c~ l~lfIn lht! Gutf of ~kxicl,). The pwposeu
diversion of I,ll "ere·fect ofwaler rtnm Ihe I .aml""'" Rhor should nOI Mfcct the oa~s and estuaries
oflhe Bouzas Rher Basin. The elll11l1ll1ti\'c effect ,,1"011 waler rights inlhe Bmll)' Rivcr Basin upon
the (cct;lving bars and csluaril!s is Ill)! known.
SnnlARY
The applicant seeks uuthl,)rir.;:llinJl 10 di\'ert und usc nOI h) t!xct\!d 1;\0 ac~wf\!c:l 1\1' \\oter per annllm
from tile l.ampnsus River tor irrigution purrN;C5, The nKlximunl dhcr~i(ln i.. 1.11 cf:-:. In order to
protect inslrcmn uses. biologica! habilllls. and W"I~r qu,,1it~ ofl!>c I.amp~,~s Ri\cr. slafr recommends
diwr>ion be limited to times \\'hen streamflolV allh~ I.:SUS·gagc "OSJ()(j~Stli' lIcaT Kemper. Tcxn.,
i. equal 10 or exceeds 38 cis during the monlhs of April through .I line und 12 cf, during July through
~1afch. Thi,> illslrcam ao;s¢~!'mcnl \\'H~ t,'ondw.'ted w:ing ~Hrr'l!nl T~R("(, l1pt..'r'l1ing proct::uurcs and
policies am! a\'nit:lh'~ l'xi.::ting. data.
L1TEHA1TRE CITE!)
Bounds. R. L. and ll. W. Lyons. :979. Existing resen'oir ami "'eam management
recommendations statewide minimum Streamflow rCCIIlllmcuunliolls. Fcde'ral .\ir's Licn
rt:Corded in Volume 1524, pnge 1i71 of the Bell County Ikcd RccI' llw len. or. casl. bank or the \cach
ot: the rJveradjacell~ io his property. The upstream point of lhe river at his pT~lpcny line is N 6O.6"W; 2,050
, feet from the soulheast corner ,of the aforesaid Van Vichetoll Survey. The downstream. pomt of-the Hvcr at
at
.... his·property linP'EXh'~
" ~ '"
"""-""'>;<.--...
. -
Texas Commission on Environmental QuaUty
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
To: Kathy Hopkins, Application Manager Date: November 14, 2006
Water-Rights Team
Water Rights Permitting & Availability Section
Through: ~ Bookout, Team Leader .
Surface Water Availability and Interstate Compacts Team
From: Jeff Thomas, Engineer
Surface Water Availability and Interstate Compacts Team
Subject: Bradley B. Ware
WR5594
CN 5594
Lampasas River, Tributary ofthe Little River, Tributary of the Brazos River, Brazos River
Basin
Bell County
WATltR AVAILABILITY REVIEW
Application Summary -
Water Use Penni! No. 5594 Authorizes the permittee (Bradley B. Ware) to divert and use not to
exceed 130 acre-feet otwater per year from the Lampasas River, Brazos River Basin. The pennit
will expire on November 7,2007. The pennitlee has applied to extend the term an additional 10
years.
Water Availability Review
The Commission's water availability model (WAM) for the Brazos River Basin protects existing
water rights based on the prior appropriation doctrine. The period of record for the Brazos WAJ\11s
1940 to 1997. The applicant's request was modeled with a priority date of the administrative
complete date ofthe application, January 5, 2006.
The existing tenn pennit contains an in stream flow restriction of38 cfs for the months April through
June, and a flow restriction of 12 cfs for all other months. This flow restriction is appJied at
U.8'.G.S. gaging station 08103800 lleaT Kempner, TX TCEQ Resource Protection Staff did not
recommend any changes to the existing instream flow restriction.
Using the W AM Cuuent Conditions simulation of the model, simulation results indicate that 100%
and 75% ofthe allilual demand of 130 acre-feet would be met in none of the years, and 5.2% ofthe
years, respectively.
Bradlqv B. Ware Term Renewal Applicalioll. Permit No. 5594
Page 2 0/3
Noyember J4, 2006
Conclusioll
The water avaiJability analysis indicates there is not sufficient water available at the applicant's
location 10 support the requf,sted demand of 130 acre-feet per year. Therefore, hydrological analysis
cannot support the granting of this application to renew the existing term permit.
180
,,'
Bradley B, Ware Terlll RenewClT Application. Permit No, 5594
Page 3 0/3
November 14. 2006
ID:'DROLOGY UNIT ANALYSIS FACT SHEET
Applicant: Bradley B. Ware
Water Right: 5594
Stream: Lampasas River
. Basin: Brazos County: Bell
Requested Amount: 130 af/yr
Remarks: Resource Protection staff did not recommend any changes or additions to the, existing
sh'eamftow restrictions.
WAMcode:
WR559411 130. JRR3J9970701 1 2 0.0000 P559U 1'559415594101 BRADLEY B WARE
181
Exhibit H
November 25, 2008 Interoffice
Memorandum regarding Water
Availability Analysis for BRA's
Application No. 5851
,
App. Exh. "_--,,S~C?e:._
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
To: Ron Ellis, Application Manager November 25, 2008
Water Rights Permitting Team
Through: . ..R~ Lann Bookout, Team Leader
6--: Surface Water Availability & Interstate Compacts Team
From: Kathy Alexander, Hydrolohr1S1
Surface Water Availability '& Interstate Compacts Team
Subject: Brazos River Authority
Application 585 I
CN600506794
Brazos Rivet·, Brazos River Basin
WATER AVAILABILITY ANALYSIS
Application Summary
The Brazos River Authority (BRA Or the Authority) has applied fol' a pelmit, designated its "System
Operation Pe!ffiit". The BRA owns the following water rights, which comprise BRA's system of
reservoirs: Certificate No. 12-5155 (Possum Kingdom Lake), Certificate No. 12-5156 (Lake GranbUly),
Certificate No. 12-5165 (Lake Limestone), Cettificate No. 12-5157 (Lake Whitney), Certificate No. 12-
5160 (Lake Belton), CeJ1ificat~ No. 12-5 I 59 (Lake Proctor), Certificate No. 12-5164 (Lake Somerville),
Celtificate No. 12-5161 (Lake Still house Hollow), Celtificate No. 12·5163 (Lake Granger), Certificate
No. 12-5162 (Lake Georgetown) and Cettificate No. 12-5158 (Lake Aquilla). The BRA, along with the
Texas Water Development Board and the City of HOllston, owns Water Use Permit 2925A (Aliens Creek
Reservoir). The BRA also owns Certificate Nos. 12·5166 and 12-5167, which authorize various uses of
water within the applicant's other certificates and penn its. The applicant is cun'entl), authorized, pursuant
to a TCEQ order, to manage and operate its tributalY reservoirs as elements of a system, coordinating
releases and diversions frolU the tributary reselvoirs with releases and diversions from the applicant's
main~stelll reservoirs to CO\lselve water.
BRA seeks a Water Use Permit to authorize:
• A new appropriation of state water ill the amount of 421,449 acre·feet per year for mulliple use
purposes on a finn basis ill the Brazos River Basin. Out of the 421,449 acre-feet pel' year of
unappropriated water being requested, the maximum amount of unappropriated water that will be
available if such water is divelted upstream at USGS gage No. 08091000 Ileal' Glen Rose. Texas
is 150,538 acre-feet per year of firm water, and if such unappropriated water is divetted upstream
at USGS gage No. 08098290 near Highbank, Texas, the maximum amount of unappropriated
water that will be available 'at that location is 144.306 acre·feel per year of firm water.
• Diversion of the water from: (i) the existing diversion points authorized b) BRA's existing water
rights; (ii) the Brazos River or the USGS gage No. 08091000 neal' Glen Rose, Texas; (iii) the
Brazos Rivel ar USGS gage No. 08098290 neal' Highbank. Texas: (il') the Brazos River al Ihe
8ra;o,~ River Author/I)'
Pel'lu/1 S851 '
Page 2 of 14
Gulf of Mexico; and (v) at such other diversion points that may be identified and included in
BRA's proposed Water Management Plan (WMP), which is subject to TCEQ's approval.
• Use of tip to 90,000 acre-feet of water pel' year of the firm supply to produce, along with other
unappropriated flows, an interruptible water supply of 670,000 acre.feet per yeai' and the
appropriation of that inten-uptible water supply. Out of the 1,001,449 acre-feet of finn lind
interruptible water being requested, the maximum amount of finn and interruptible water that will
be available if such water is diverted upstream at USGS Gage No. 08091000 near Glen Rose,
Texas is 60,538 acre-feet of firm water pel' year and 157,000 acre-feet of intelTuptible water per
year and if such water is diverted upstream at USGS Gage No. 08098290 near Highbank, Texas,
the maximum amount of film water is 54,306 acre-feet of water per year and 303,000 acre-feet of
interl'llptible watel' per year.
• An exempt interbasin transfer authorization to use, on a finn and interruptible baBis, the
appropriated water in the adjoining San Jacinto-Brazos Coastal Basin and the Brazos-Colorado
Coastal Basin.
• An appropriation of eun'ent and future retUl11 flows (treated sewage emuent and brine
bypasslretum) to the extent that such return flows continue to be discharged or returned illta the
bed and banks of the Brazos River, its tributaries, and BRA's reservoirs. BRA indicates that such
appropriation of return flows would be subject to intelTuption by direct use or indirect use within
the discharging entity's city limits, extraterritorial jurisdiction, or contiguous water certificate of
convenience and necessity boundary. Specified discharge points and amounts of water will be
accounted for on a monthly basis as part of BRA's WMP, which is subject to TCEQ's approval. .
• Operational flexibility to (i) use any source of water available to BRA to satisfy the diversion
requirements of senior water rights to the same extent that those water l"ight.s would have been
satisfied by passing il1flows through the BRA's reservoirs on a priority basis; and (ii) release,
pump and transport water from any ofthe BRA's reservoirs for subsequent storage, diversion and
use throughout the BRA's service area.
• Recognition tilat the System Operation Permit will prevail over inco\\sistent provisions in the
BRA's existi11g water rights l'egarding system operation.
• Use of the- bed and banks of the Brazos River, its tributaries and BRA's reservoirs for the
conveyance. storage, and subsequent diversion of (i) water appropriated under this application;
(ii) waters lhat are being conveyed via pipelines and subsequently discharged into the Brazos
River, its tributaries or stored in the BRA's reservoirs; (iii) surface water imported from areaS
located outside the Brazos River Basin for subsequent use; (tv) in-basin surface water and
groundwater subject to BRA " control;(I') waters developed from future prC(iects; and (vi) current
and future reuse of surface and groundwater based emuent requested by this application. This bed
and banks authorization is subject (0 BRA, after identifying specific points of discharge and
diversion and conveyance and other losses, obtaining future authorizations to satisfy the
requirements ofTWC § 11.04:'. Such points of discharge and diversion and conveyance and other
losses may also be identified and included in BRA's proposed WMP, which is subject to TCEQ's
approval.
183
[jra;Ol R/\1t!/' AlilhoJ'l1y
f'cwmit 58JJ
Page 3 of 14
Until the construction of Aliens Creek Reservoir is completed, the BRA requests that the System
Operation Pe,mit include special conditions which authorize:
• Appropriation of state water in the amount of 425,099 acre-feet per year for multiple use purposes
on a firm basis in the Brazos River Basin. Out oflhe 425,099 acre-feet pel' year of unappropriated
water being requested, the maximum amount of unappropriated water that will be available if
such waler is div.,ted upstream at USGS Gage 08091 000 11eal' Olen Rose, Texas is 150,538 acre-
reet per year of fil111 water and if such unappropriated water is diverted upstream at USGS Gage
08098290 near Highbank, Texas the maximum amount of unappropriated water that will be
available is, at that location, 175,306 acre-feet per year finn water.
• Use of up to 90,000 acre-feel of water per year of BRA's finn supply to produce, along with othe,'
unappropriated flows, an interruptible water supply of 869,000 acre-feet per year. Out of the
J ,204,099 aore-feet of firm and interruptible water being requested, the maximum amount of finn
and interruptible water that will be available if suoh water is diverled upstream at USGS Gage
No. 08091000 near Glen Rose, Texas, will be 60,538 acre-feet of firm water per year and 190,000
acre-feet of interruptible water per year and if such water is diverted· upstream at USGS Gage No.
08098290 near Highbank, Texas the maximum amount of finn water will be 85,306 acre-feet of
water per ye." and 284,000 acre-feet of interruptible water per year.
• Exempt interbasin transfer authorization to use, on a firm and intem'ptible basis, the appropriated
water in the adjoining San Jacinto-Brazos Coastal Basin and the Brazos-Colorado Coastal Basin
and to transfer such wate,' to any county, munioipality or the municipality's retail service area that
is partially I'll the Brazos River Basin for use in that part of the county or municipality's retail
service area not within the Brazos River Basin.
Water AvaUability Analysis
The Commission's Water Availability Model (WAM) for the Brazos River Basin protects existing water
rights based on the prior appropriation doctrine. The period of record for the Brazos WAM is \940
through \997. The appllcation was declared administratively complete on October 15, 2004. TCEQ
Resource Protection Staff recommends that the applioation be subject to special conditions to protect
aquatic habitat and the envil'Onment, inclUding the following (For specific numeric values for the flow
requirements below, refer to the Resource Protection Staff menlO dated November 25, 2008):
I. Total storage in Permittee's system reservoirs is the trigger for determining hydrologic
condition, which, in turn, determines instream flow requirements.
2. Interim instream flow requirements apply at six USGS gaging stations, The instream
flow requirements are applicable at all times.
3. The level of flow (i,e., Subsistence, Dry, Average, or Wet) is determined seasonally
based on hydrologic condition.
4, Permittee sllall meet a seasonal schedule of individual high flow pulses. The
magnitude, duration. timing and frequency and measurement location for the pulses
are included as special conditions in Resource Protection Staffs 111emO (Additional
discussion of how these high flow pulses were included in the availability anall's;, i,
included in Section C.2 (UI1(Ij'propl'ialed Waler) orthis memo).
5. 1n addition to the above requirements. Permittee is prohibited from divelting and
184
Bra:os River /lulhoJ'it},
Pel'lII/f 56'S;
Pag.e 4 of J4
storing water authorized by this ·permit unless streamflow meets or exceeds the 7Q2
value at additional gages located below Pennittee's reservoirs as specified in Resource
Protection Staff's memo.
A. Inlerbasin Tran~rel' and Bed and Ballks
Pursuant to TWC §11.085(v)(3) and (v)(4), the requesl for an exempt interbasin transfer does not require
a waler availability analysis. For the request to use the bed and banks of the Brazos River and its
tributaries, the application indicates that although specific locations, quanlities and diversion rates for the
bed and banks request are unknown at this time, potential diversion locations include the perimeter of all
existing and proposed BRA reservoirs. The application also indicates that potential diversion locations
include the fo\1owing stream reaches:
• Brazos River from the confluence of the Salt and Double Mountain Forks to the Gulf of
Mexico,
• Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River below Lake Alan Henry to its confluence
with the Brazos River,
o Leon River from Lake Proctor to the confluence with the Little River,
o Lampasas River from Lake StiHhouse Holtow to the confluence with the Little River,
o Little River from the junction of Leon and Lampasas Rivers to the confluence with the
Brazos River,
• Yegl1a Creek from Lake Somerville to the confluence with the Brazos River,
o Navasota River from Lake Limestone to the confluence with the Brazos River,
o Allens Creek from below Aliens Creek Reservoir to confluence with the Bra7..Ds River.
o Any oth~r tributary of the Brazos River into which water appl"Opriated under ·this
application (groundwater or surface water under the control of BRA) is discharged.
With the exception of Permit 2925 (Aliens Creek Reservoir), BRA's cunent rights authorize use of the
bed and banks of the Brazos River atld its tributal"ies below the Authority's reservoirs to deliver water to
downstream customers. The application indicates that the location of specific amounts, rates, releases and
loss information will be detailed in BRA's Management Plan once the specific amount of unappropriated
water and return flows available 10 BRA is determined. Staff is of the opinion that accounting for the bed
and banks transfer of water through a delivery plan will mitigate any effects on basin water rights. The
accounting/delivery plan should be included in BRA's Water Management Plan (WMP).
B. Re/UI'17 Flows
The application requests appropriation of current and future return flows in the Brazos Basin discharged
from 136 locations by various entities. These discharges includ.e surface and groundwater based retut1l
flows. The surface water based return flow includes discharges from BRA facilities, discharges of water
originating from BRNs water rights, as well as discharges from facilities owned by othel· entities and
originating from non-BRA sources of supply.
A review of water rights in the Brazos River Basin indicates that Permit 4218 (diversion of In acre-feet
of water from South Nolan Creek): Permit 5088 (diversion of 37 acre-feet of water from South Nolan
Creek): and Penhit 5089 (diversion of 60 acre-feet of water from South Nolan Creek) we,·e explicitly
granted based on the presence of retum flows now being ch;imed as patl of this application. Staff
185
!Jra=()). Rh'er Ihf/horl~'
fermif 50'51
Pa!:!.e 5 of14
re;ognizes the possibility that other basin rights wel'e granted based 011 the presence of the requested
return flows. Because of this, a priority date of October 15, 2004 is assigned to the applicant's diversions
of historically dischal'ged return flows. To evaluate the request for reuse of return flows, staff identified
those return flows discharged from BRA facilities, or originating from diversions authorized by BRA's
existing water rights, that have not been previously appropriated by other water rights as indicated in
Table 1. below. BRA also requested reuse of retull1 flows generated by four power plants that receive
contract water from BRA's water rigMs. These return flows result from once through cooling water, 01'
other power plant operations, and are thus highly variable. The application did not provide sufficient
itlfonnation to evaluate this request and these return flows were not included in the analysis.
The Current Conditions data set was updated with the amount of cmrent return flows as indicated in the
application (74,387 acre-feet which is the sum of the maximum reported annual discharge amounts for
each plant). The request to reUse return flows was modeled at the most downstream point in the basin to
determine the volume of retum flows available to BRA on a basin-wide basis. Results indicate that 100%
and 75% of the retulll flows were available in 45% and 81 % of the years in the period of record,
respectively and the monthly amount of discharged return flows was available in 87% oflhe months.
Table 1. Return Flows Available to BRA
Current Current
Percent Surface Ground-
TPUES Permitted
Name Permit Discharge
Current BRA orsw Water water
Source from Returns Returns
Number (mgd)
BRA (ae- (ac-
ftlyr) ft!yr)
Sportsmans World
MUDWTP 02461000 0.01 Possum Kingdom 100% 11.2 0
Double Diamond 02789000 0.06 Possum KinQdom 100% 67 0
Authority SWATS 02889000 2.5 Granbul"\' System 100% 730 a
City of Copperas
Cove 10045003 ~.5 .Lake Belton 100% 923 0
City of Copperas
Cove 10045004 2.5 Lake Beltol1 100% 1.375 0
City of Copperas
Cove 10045005 4.0 Lake Bellon 100% 1.600 0
-
City of DeLeon 10078001 0.3 Lake Pl"Oc\or 100% 192 0
City of Marlin 10110002 ~.O Whitnev SV5tem 16% 159.4 0
City of Harker
Heivhts 10155001 3.0 Lake Bellon 100% 2.780 '0
City of Gatesville 10176002 '1.2 Lake Belton 100% 1.731 0
City of Gatesville 10176004 1.0 Lake Bellon 100% 703 0
Cit\' of Granbury 10178002 2.0 Granbury System 100% 1313 0
186
IJra::m liNer Author/I)'
Parmi/tio'51
r ~ge 6 of 14
Current CUrrent
Percent Surface Ground-
TPDES Permitted
CUrrent BRA ofSW Water water
Name Permit Discbarge
Number Source from Returns Returns
(mgd)
BRA (nc- (ac-
ft!yr) ftlvr)
Lake Still house
City of Lampasas J0205002 1.5 Hollow JOO% 580 0
City of McGregor
(South WWTP) J0219002 ·0.99 Lake Bel(on 95% 651.7 0
City of Moody J022500J 0.2· Lake Belton JOO% 157 0
Authority/LCRA Georgetown/Still
BCRWSS West 10264001 3.0 -house System 100% ZA02 1,657
Authority/LCRA Georgetown/Still
BCRWSS East 10264002 21.5 -house System 100% J6.767 0
City of Taylor 10299001 4.0 Grangel' System 100% 2.220 0
Bell County
WClD#J 1035100J 0.9 Lake Belton 100% 983 0
Bell County
WCID#J 10351002 J 8.0 Lake Belton 100% J4.123 0
Bell County
WCID#J J0351003 6.0 Lake Bel(on JOO% 5,389 0
City of Brenham 10388001 3.55 Lake Somerville 100% 2,485 0
City of Dublin 10405001 0.45 Lake Proctor 100% 325 0
Georgetown/StH!
City of Georgetown 10489002 Z.5 -house System 100% J,815 0
Georgetown/Still
City of Georgetown 10489003 2.5 -house System 100% 1,423 0
Georgetown/Still
Gity of Georl!etown 10489005 1.5 -house System 100% 1.389 0
City of Hamilton 10492002 0.44 Lake Proctor JOO% 392 0
City of Hillsboro 10630001 1.81 Lake Aquilla 100% 1,440 0
Lake Stillhouse
Citv of Rosebud 10731001 0.25 Hollow 100% 194 0
Bell County
WCID#3 J0797001 0.675 Lake Belton 100% 360 0
Lake Stillhouse
Cit" of Holland 10897001 0.2 Hollow JOO% 93 0
Bell County
WCID#2 11090001 0.094 Lake Belton 100% 63 0
Bell CoUllt)'
WCID#2 I J09100J 0.08 Lake Belton 100% 70 0
Authol'ity TBRSS 11318001 10.0 Lake Belton 100% 8.5J3 0
187
flra~o,," Rh'cl' A~,'hD/'II:.l'
/lcrmiJ 56'51
PR!!e 7 0 r 14
Current Cunent
Percent Surface Gl'ound-
TPPES PermItted
Current BRA ofSW Wate), water
Name Permit DIscharge
Source from RetuJ'Ils Returns
Number' (mgd)
BRA (ae- (ae-
W\'r) rtfy!,)
Acton MUD 14211001 0.6 Granbury System 100% 366 0
Acton MUD 1421200J 0.49 Granbury SYstem \00% 268 0
City of Comanche 14445001 0.6 Lake hoctor 100% 324 0
C. Unappropriated WaleI'
The request for unappropriated water was incorporated into the TCEQ WAM as follows:
1) The Dual Simulation1 approach was used. For each existil1gBRA authol'ization:
a) Wale" rights activated only in the initial simulation represent e)listing diversions and storage
authorized by the BRA's senior rights. These water rights calculate the total depletions and
storage. .
b) Water rights activated duting the second simulation calculate the depletion for the senior rights
limited by the streamflow depletion in the preceding step.
c) The final depletions al'e stored at a virtual control point until the priority date of the System
Operation Pennit application (October 15, 2004), and
d) BRA's reservoirs are refilled using a priority date of October 15, 2004, with the stored final
depletions. Any remaining water is returned to the stream at the control points of the BRA's
existing water rights.
2) TCEQ Resource Protection Staff recommendations for instream flow protection were incorporated
into the Brazos WAM at the priority date of the application as follows:
a) Seasonal flow requirements were converted to monthly values in acre-feet.
b) The instream flow requirements were subtracted from the seasonal pulse values to determine the
incremental HFP (high flow pulse).
0) The incremental HFP was multiplied by the seasonal pulse frequency to detennine the-total pulse
volume for each season.
d) The total pulse volume for each season was distributed by l1l0l1th
e) The monthly pulse volume was added to the monthly in stream flow volume for each flow regime
to determine tile WAM instream flow constraint for each month for each flow regime. and
f) 702 flows for the additional control points were converted to an annual value in acre-feet and
added to the model.
g) Based on a distribution of the annual diversion amollnt to a monthly value in WAM and
conversion of that valtte to a daily diversion in cfs, staff determined that the diversion rate for
BRA's diversions would be- below 7,535 cfs at USGS Gage 081]4000, Bl-azos River near
Richmond.
3) Afler applying the instream flow constraints. the new appropriation of water was then included in lhe
I ror acldhinnfll explanation of Dual SimU\Dllon. Sf\: \\\llb~. R~lph A. 2(J(li WaleI' It,ghl., AIl(J~\·.H., I'ackagl' (lI'U..J/'J A/(JddlJJf ~\I'.sr"m {,.1m
!./wllfal TH-:!S&. Te»fl~ Watcr RC~(I\1(ce$ Ins\llIlle. CtlHcg.e Stalion. re:-;as. Pp. Q4-%
188
Bra~()$ Riwl' Alllhol'iI),
Pal'll/II )85/
Page 8 of 14
second simulation (which generated the final results) as follows:
a) All BRA reservoirs are refilled with any unappropriated water at the priority date of this
application.
b) Diversions are made, backed up by system storage in all BRA reselYoirs, and
c) All BRA reservoirs al'e then refilled again to ensure that all water potentially available under the
permit application is impounded.
To determine the amount of water available for appropriation, Staff first evaluated the applicant's request
for firm water, i.e., that amount of water that would be available 100% of the time during the period of
record. The request for finn water was modeled using the rCEQ Full Authorization simulation, which
does not include retulll flows. Staff evaluated the requests for finn yield water at the three points
requested in the application; from upstream to downstream being Glen Rose, Highbank and the Gulf of
Mexico. The most downstream point fol' measurement of in stream flow requirements is the Richmond
gage. Staff calculated the amount of flow available to BRA at the Gulf of Mexico by detennining the
amount of flow available at the Richmond gage and applying a drainage area ratio Idationship between
the Richmond gage and the WAM control point representing the basin outlet at the Gulf of Mexico.
The analysis was conducted for two scenarios. The first simulation included Aliens Creek Resel'voit· at its
fully authorized amounts fo\' storage and diversion, and was used to detelmine the amount of water
available for appropriation after consideritlg all water rights at their fully authorized amounts. The second
simulation was conducted to detemline if the watel' appropriated for Aliens Creek Reservoir could be
used more efficiently by the BRA, in conjunction with other water rights requested by this application,
until sucll time as Allens Creek ReselYoir is constructed. The amount of firm water available to BRA is
indicated in Table 2. below. To the extent that removal of the requirement for wet season pulses at
Richmond resulted in additional unappropriated water, staffrecomme)lded the additional amount.
The application requested an amount of additional water that would be available on a reasonably
dependable basis. The application stales that this water would be available if 90,000 acre· feet of film
water was used, along with other sources available to the applicant, to produce Ihe additional supply,
Pursuant to 30TAC §297.42(d), Staff may recommend granting applications that are nol based upon the
continuous availability qf historic, nOlmal stream flow on a case.by-case basis. A system operation in
conjunction with other water rights is an application that may not be required to be based on the
continuous availability of historic, normal slreamflow. The applicant has requested that the additional
amount of water be evaluated using the criteria in 30TAC §297.42(c), thaI is, 75% of the water is
available 75% oflbe time whe!1 distributed on a mOllthly basis (75175 criteria). Staff modeled this request
using the Full Authorization simulation aud included the applicant's estimated CllITen1 return flows.
Model results (Table 3.) indicate that additional amounL, of water are available to the applicant using the
-15175 criteria.
Table 2. New Annl'o{!riation of Water (includes Aliens Creek)
Volume in acro·feet
Location Firm Non·Flrm
Glen ROse 13L363 157.000
Hh!hbank 144,306 303.000
--
.
Richmond )88.470 670.00(1
Gulf of Mexico 191.516. 670.000
189
Bl"a=o~. RiveI' /lllillor/t;'>'
Parm1l585}
Page 9 of 14
Table 3. New AI'PIoJ>riation of Water (does not Include Aliens Creek)
Volume in acre-feet
- Non-Firm
Location .yirm .
Glen Rose 131,363 190,000
Highbank J 75,306 284,000
Richmond 237,920 869,000
Gulf of Mex.ico 241765 869.000
No Inju!')' Review
The application requests authorization for operational flex.ibility to use any source of water available to
BRA to satisf), the diversion requirements of senior water rights to the same extent that those water rights
would have been satisfied by passing inflows through the BRA's reservoirs on a priority basis. The new
authorization requested in this pemlit has a priority date junior to most basin water rights. Although
changes in operations for BRA's existing water rights resulting from additional operational flexibility
have the potential to affect river flows in the Brazos River and its tributaries, Staff is of the opinion that
implementation of accounting measures should mitigate any impacts to senior and superior wator rights.
These accounting measures should be pat1 of the accounting/delivery plan, which should be included in
the WMP.
The application requests authorization to release, pump and transport water from any of the BRA's
reservoirs for subsequent storage, diversion and use throughout the BRA's service area. The request to
release, pump atld transport stored water should have no effect ,m
othel' basin rights so long as BRA
obtains the appropriate bed and banks authorizations as needed. In addition, speelal conditions requiring
BRA to maintain an accounting of water in storage by priority date should mitigate any impacts to
downstream sellior and superior water rights.
The application requests that the Commission recognize that the System Operation Pennit will prevail
over inconsistent provisions in the BRA's existing water rights regarding system operation. This would
include existing limitations on the percentage of reservoir storage allowed to be used in system operations
and identification of sources of supply. Specifically, the existing system operation order requires the BRA
to exclude tributal), reservoirs from operation of the system during any period of time in which BRA's
permitted storage space is less than 30% full. The application states that the Commission's teview and
approval of the BRA's Management Plan will provide equivalent safeguards and, at the same time, allow
the BRA greater operational flexibility. Staff agrees that there may be inconsistent provisions and
recommends special conditions to clarify inconsistencies while protecting other basin waleI' rights.
Conclusion
Based on the revie\,>, and analysis of this application. staff can supp011 granting the application provided
the permit contains the special conditions proposed by Resource Protection staff and additional special
conditions as indicated below.
A. Jnlel'basin Tran.!(er and Bed and Banks
The water requested for exempt interbasin transfer will be authorized with a prioril) date of October \5.
:;004 and as such will be alllong the most junior rights in the Brazos River Basin. Therefore. there can be
190
B/'(J=OJ; IlIwr AlllhOl'ilJ'
Bra=o~' Rh\11' /Jas/J)
Page lOofl$
110 effects on eKisting water rights and staff can recommend granting this request.
Staff can recommend authorization for the use of the hed and banks of streams alreadv authorized in
BRA's current permits, certificates and amendments, subject to identification of specific losses. Staff
recommends that the permit contain the following special conditions:
1. The use of the bed and banks of Aliens Creek from below Aliens Creek Reservoir to the Brazos
River is not authorized until Pennittee applies for and is granted an amendment to Permit 2925A.
2. Permittee is authorized to use the following reaches, authorized in Permittee's eeltificates and
amendments, for conveyance of water, pre\'iously appropriated to the Permittee and water
authorized hy this penn it, downstream for diversion at Glen Rose, Highbank and the Gulf of
Mexico and any of the Pennittee's currently authorized diversion points within these reaches:
A. Brazos River from below Possum Kingdom Reservoir to the Gulf of Mexico
B. Leon River from Lake Proctor to the confluence with the Little River
C. Lampasas River from Lake Stillhouse Hollow to the confluence with the Little River
D. Little RiVer from the junction of Leon and Lampasas Rivers to the confluence with the
Brazos River
E. Yegua Creek from Lake SomCl'VilJe to the confluence with the Brazos River
F. Navasota River from Lake Limestone to the confluence with the Brazos River
3. Prior to use of tIle bed and banks identified in Special 'Condition A.2. above, Permittee must
submit to and have approved by the Executive Director, as part of its accounting/delivery plan, a
procedure to estimate daily deliveries of water. This procedure should be in electronic format and
detail by source, type and priority date, the amounts to be conveyed and delivered, losses
associated with the conveyance, specific points of diversion, associated travel times, and times of
commencement and tennination of transit for conveyed walers. Documentation of actual
deliveries as wel! as the accoullthlg/delivety plan shall be maintained by the Pennittee in
electronic fonnat and made available to the general public dlll'ing normal business hours and to
the Executive Director upon request. Modifications or changes to the accOImtingidelivelY plan
must be approved by the Executive Director.
4. The use of the bed and banks of additional streams and tributaries in the Brazos River Basin for
conveyance of water appropriated under this permit, or other sources available to the Permittee, is
subject to Permittee, after identifying specific sources and types of water, specific points of
discharge and diversion, and conveyance and other losses, obtaining future autllOrizations to
satisfy the t"'luirements ofTWC ~ 11.042.
5. The use of additional points of diversion within the reaches specified in Special Condition A.2.
above is subject to Permittee, obtaining authorization to use those diversion points. The points of
diversion may also be identified and included in Permittee's proposed \!{MP which is suqiect to
Commission approval.
B. Reuse of Relul'Il Flows
Staff can recommend grantillg BRA authorization to reuse return flows discharged from BRA facilities or
originating from diversions under BRA's water rights, as indicated in Table I. above. subject to the
following speqial conditions to protect water rights granted based on the presence of those return flows as
191
8ra:o~ mwl' AWnoriry
BI'(1;()s TU),{!r Basin
Page II ort~
well as other senior water rights:
1. Prior to the diversion of retum flows authorized by this penn it, Permittee must submit to and
have approved by the Executive Director, a reuse accounting plan. Tbe reuse accounting plan
must be in electronic fonnat and accollnt, by source, for all retunl flows discharged and
subsequently diverted. The reuse accounting plan should include amOtmts discharged by outfall,
am aunts of return flows used by permits granted based on the presence of these retUl" flows, and
estimated travel times and conveyance losses from discbarge point to diversion point(s). If the
return flows will be stored in Permittee's reservoirs, the reuse accounting plan should include any
evaporative losses associated with the storage. Pennittee shall maintain the approved reuse
accounting plan in electronic fOOlla! and make it available to the general public during nonnal
business hours and to the Executive Director upon request. Modifications or changes to the reuse
acconnting plan must be approved by the Executive Directol'. The reuse accounting plan shall be
included as pmt OfPellllittee's accounting/delivery plan,
2. The right to divelt discharged return flows from plants owned by lbe City of Granbury (TPDES
Pennit No. 10178002), Acton MUD (TPDES Permit Nos. 14211001 and 14212001), Bell County
WClD #2 (Tr,DES Permit No. 11090001), City of Georgetown (TPDES Permit Nos. 10489002
and 10489003) and the Cit)' of Holland (TPDES Pennlt No, 10897001) is limited to the amount
of surface water based retum flows discharged from those plants that originates from water rights
owned by the Petmittee. Pennittee is not authorized to divelt groundwater based retuOl flows
discharged from tbese plants, except as may be auihorized by Special Condition BA .. Pennittee
must include in the reuse accounting plan the total amount discharged from the plants and the
percentage of that water that is divertable under this permit.
3. Permittee is authorized to divert historically discharged groundwater based retum flows from the
Brazos River Authority/LCRA BCRWSS West (TPDES Pefmit No.1 026400 1).
4. Future discharges of groundwater based return flows may be diverted if those retUI1l flows
originate from groundwater owned by Permittee 01' are discharged from treatment plants owned
by the Permittee. Prior to diversion, Permittee must apply for and be granted an amendment to
this permit authorizing these diversions and shall submit for approval by the Executive Director, a
revised accounting/del ivery plan addl'essing such new groundwater based discharges ...
5, Pennittee is authorized to diveli only that water discharged by the City of Madin (TPDES Permit
No. 10110002) originating from water rights owned by the Permittee. Permittee shall calculate
the diveliable amount oHile City'S discharge and include this information in the reuse accounting
plan.
6, Permittee shall only divert the actual annual amollnt of return flows discharged from the Bell
County WCID #1 (TPDES Permit Nos. 10351001 and 10351002) and the City of Harker Heights
(TPDES Permit No. 10155001) less up to 172 acre-feet as authorized by Permit 4218.37 acre·
feet as authorized by Pemli! 5088 and 60 acre-feet as authorized by Permit 5089 when the
aforementioned permits are being used.
7, Diversions and storaue of retul1l flows shall not occur at rates or in amounts higher than the actual
daily amount of return nows discharged into watercourses in the Brazos River Basin. after
accounting for the calculated losses and traveltime from the discharge point(s) to the diversion
poin\(si in accordance with the accounting/delivery plan.
192
8ra::os· Rn'el' Allfhcwlty
Bra:oJ,' Rnl$1' Ballin
Pagt 12 or 15
8. Prior to diversion of the water authorized herein, if sufficiently accurate measuring devices are
not available, Permittee shall install and maintain measuring, deyice(s) capable of measudng
within plus or minus 5% accuracy, at the discharge point of each wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP) to record the amount of return flows discharged into the Brazos River or its tributaries
on a daily basis.
9. The priority dale for diversion of up \0 116,434 acre-feel (l 03 .899 mgd) of return flows is
October 15,2004.
10. The priority date for diversion of future return flows ill excess of I J 6,434 acre-feet (103.899
mgd) of diSCharged return flows is October 15, 2004 but is not subject to call by senior and
superior pelmit holders in the basin and is not subject to insU'eam flow limitations.
J I. Prior to diversion of any return flows in excess of the individual TPDES Permit limits indicated
in the Yable l. Return Flows Available to BRA, Pelmittee must appJy fOI' and be gl'anted the right
to reuse those return flows. Permittee must amend the reuse accounting plan to include future
return flows prior to divelting said retul'n flows.
12. The diversion of up to 116,434 acre-feet (103.899 mgd) of water is dependant upon potentially
intet11lptible return flows or discharges and is conditioned on the availability of those discharges.
The right to divert the discharged return flows is subject to revocation if discharges become
permanently unavailable for diversion and may be subject to reduction if the return flows are not
available in quantities and qualities sufficient to satisfY the permit. Should any of the discharges
become permanently unavailable for diversion, Permittec shall immediately cease diversion of
those return' flows and reflect such reductions in the reuse accounting plan.
13. Pel1nittee's diversion and use of return flows is subject to interruption by direct use or indirect
use within the discharging entity's corporate limits, extraterritorial jurisdiction, or contiguous
water ce.iilieate of colwenience and necessity boundal)', provided the discharging entity has
applied for and been granted authorization to reuse the retum flows.
C. UnappropriaFed Water
Staff can recommend granting reduced amounts ofunapprop1'iated water as follows:
!.able 4. New Annro dation of Water
Volume ill acre-feet
r14catioll, ]:il'm Water Non-Firm 'Vater
Glen Rose 131363 157,000
.Highbank 144.306. ____ -303.000
Richmond J 88.470 670.000 -.-
Gulf of Mexico 191.516 670.000
193
lJt(J:(),~ RI\'C~r tluthorJly
Bra:Q,' Ril'eJ' BtLsin
p(J~ lS of}$
Table 5. New Appro riation of Water (does not include Aliens Creek)
Volume in acre-feet
Location Fkm Non-Firm
Glen Rose , 131.363 190,000
Highbank 175,306 284,000
Richmond 237,920 869.000
Gulf of Mexico 241,765 869.000
In order to ensure that existing basin rights are protected, the following special conditions should be
included in the pelmit:
1. Prior to diversion or storage of the additional water authorized by this pennit, Pennittee shall
provide to and have approved by the El' The ED "lCOrrectly asserts that· Section 11:042(c) "specifically discuss[esl retlse of retum flows." ED
Initial Brief at 16 (en'phasis in original). .
~.. BRA Il;itial Brief at 7.
'os. TPWD Initial Briefs! 2.
208
. SOAIl DOCKET NO. 582-10.4184 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 143
TCEQ DOCKET NO. 200S·1490-WR
BRA contends that if, as the ED suggests, Subsection 11.042(c) deals with return flows,
then Subsection 11.042(b) would be entirely unnecessary because return· flows, whether based on
groundwater or surface water, would already be covered by Subsection (c). BRA argues that,
becau~e it specifically addresses return flows (and limits its authorization to groundwater-based
return flows), the existence of Subsection (b) suggests that Subsection (c) must be addressing a
category of water other than return Hows. SV6
As to Section 11.046, SB 1 added Subsections (b), (c), and (d). In BRA's view, the
. amendments simply codified existing law regarding return flows. Sigruficantly, Subsection (c)
authorizes direct reuse, but then explicitly states that, once the water is returned to the
watercourse, "it is considered surplus water and therefore subject to reservation for instrcruri uses
or beneficial inflows or to appropriation by olhers. ...,,507 In BRA's vl~w, this means that
retum flows are state water, available for appropriation "by others," S9 long as those flows are
not otherwise required for senior rights or environmental needs. S03 TPWP and OPIC agree. SfJ9
In BRA's view, the two statutes can only be construed so that no conflict exists between
them by defining the word "water" in Section 11.042(c) t.o mean "developed water" (i.e.,
imported surface water or raw groundwater not naturally part of the water in the basin):SIO BRA·
contends that the benefits of its approach include:
• All return flows would be available for appropriation and beneficial use.
,os BRA Initial Briefat 54.
'" (Emphasis added.) BRA contends that the final phrase cifthe subsectlon-"mtless expressly provided
otherwise in the permit, certified filhig, or cmiilicat. of adjudication"- provides a vehicle for the water right holder
to seek reuse !!uthOl:ization by amendment of ~he underlying water dght.
'OB BRA Initial Brlefat 40.
so, TPWo Initial Brier at 3; OPIC Initial Brief at 5·6.
SlO TPWD makes the same argument. TPWD Initial Brief at 2.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 582·10·4184 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 144
TCEQ DOCKET NO. 200s..149()"WR
• All retlnn flows would be available for satisfaction of environmental flow needs, and
the needs of senior water rights, often enhancing the reliability of senior water rights.
By contrast, the ED's approach would generally subject only historically dischargeo
return flows to such requirements, while future discharges wonld not be subject to the
priority system or environmenW flow requirements.
• The BRA approach is consistent with historical permitting decisions.
• The BRA approach does not result in multiple categories of water with independent
accounting requirements, facilitating enforcement under the prior appropriation
system.
• Under the BRA approach, all return flows would be subject to well-established
requirements applicable to all state water. By contrast, because it is not mandated by
statute or deflned by mles, much of the ED's approach Could be modified in the'
future if the Executive Director 01' Commission chose to do 80.511
BRA submits that these public policy considerations clearly support treating return flows as state
water available for appropriation following their discharge into a watercourse.
2, The ED's Arguments
Under the ED's approach, specific accOlmting provisions would be imposed to require
tbat the discharge and diversion ofreturn flows be accounted for separately from other water in
the rivei,Sl2 The ED believes that its approach does a better job of describing how return flows
will be accounted for In order to prolect water rights. Sl3 In the ED's view, there is a conflict
between Sections 11.042 and 11.046,514 that can only be resolved by defining "others" in Sectiqn
I 1.046(c) to mean that only the discharger ofretum flows, the owner of the base water right, or
someone having contractual rights with either of them can be the ones to apply to reuse the
>II BRA Exs. 77 and 78.
m Tr.1975-81.
51l ED Initial Brief at 13.
,,, See, e.g., BRA Ex. 59 (Chenoweth Febmary 25,2005 memo).
~----------------------------------~----------------------~
SOAR DOCKET NO. 582-10·4184 PROPOSAL FOR DEC1SJON PAGE 145
TCEQ DOCKET NO. 2005·1490·WR
return flows. SlS Dow agrees with this interpretation, because, it considers it to be "more
conservative and likely to be mOre protective of existing water rights."SI6
The ED constl11es Subsection 11.042(c) to apply to, among other things, all return flows
~ther than groundwater-based return flows (which are addressed by Subsection 11.042(b».$l7
The ED disagrees with BRA's contention that the word "water" in Subsection 11.042(c) should
be construed to mean "developed water." The ED argues that Subsection 11.042(c) is addressing
a wider category than Subsection (b) which only addresses "return flows." ThllS, the ED
contends that Subsection (c) deals with a broad array of different kinds of water, including return
flows. sl8 BRA counters that when Section 11.042(c) is construed as broadly as the ED proposes,
it not only creates a significant break from pre.existing law, but it also creates the "conflict" with
Section 11.046(c) that results in the ED's strained and otherwise \U\supported limitation of
"appropriation by others" to three specific categories of persons not identified in the statute,S19
The ED bases his approach, at least in part, on Conunissioner statements. made at the
Commission's August 12, 2005 work session. s2o BRA counters that this Commission work
session is a "slender and ambiguous reed" upon which the ED relies. For example, at the
conclusion of the work session; the Conlmission directed 'the staff to prepare a memo
memorializing its decisions. However, the staff was never able to do so because it could not
'reach COnsensus on what had been decided as to how to implement Sections 11.042 and
, 11.046.521
'" BRA Ex. S9 (Chenoweth February 25, 2005 Memo); TPWD Ex. 1 at 35·36 (Chenoweth Deposition); Tr.
2060,2079·80.
'" Dow Initial Brief at 47.
'" ED Reply Brief at 4.
'" ED Reply Bri.fa14·5.
'" BRA Initial Brief at 55.
S20 BRA Ex. 66 (Inte.rrogatoiy Nos. 2 & 3). None ofthe current Commissioners was serving at that time.
,,, TPWD Ex. I at 47-48.
SOAR DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 146
TCEQ DOCKET NO. 200S-1490-WR
Further, the ED's current position on Section J 1.046 appears to be inconsistent with the
Commission's decision regarding con;-tmction of that statute in a prior contested hearing,
ironically a position that was adopted ·by the Commission at the urging of the ED. That case
involved accounting for inflows and storage in Lake Grapevine among three holders of water
rights of different priorities. S22 In response to exceptions filed by the ED and by Dallas County
Park Cities Municipal Utility District (DCPCMUD), the Commission ruled that return flows
discharged by the City of Grapevine (the most junior water Fight holder) and subject to
Grapevine's pending indirect reuse application were properly allocated to the senior water rights
first. TIle senior water right holder, DCPCMUD,asserted a prior right to Grapevine's return
flows, uns\lpported by any contract or other agreement with Grapevine. In making its decision,
the Commission relied upon Section 11.046, holding that upon discharge Grapevine's return
flows became state water subject to the prior appropriatiou system.523 Among other things, the
ED told the Commission that "lIlf a water right holder uses water, then returns it to the
watercourse or stream it is considered unappropriated state water and may be used by others."S24
It is undisputed ·that the COllUnission has never adopted t1l1es or a formal policy
authorizing the approach that is now being advocated by the ED.S2l BRA submits that the ED's
position, reserving return flows solely for the discharger or water right holder, cannot be justified
and shonld not be followed .
.$n An Order granting the Executive Director's Petition to Amend Certificate of Adjudication No. 08 2363
w
of Dallas County Park Cities Municipal Utility District, Certificate of Adjudication No. 08-2458 of City of Dallas,
and·Certificate of Adj(,dicatioll No. 08-2362 of City of Grapovine; TNRCC Docket Nos. 95·l626-WRand 96-1017-
WR; SOAH Docket Nos. XXX-XX-XXXX and XXX-XX-XXXX (Apr. 4, 2000) .
.m Exs. BRA 74, 75, and 76.
m BRA Ex. 75 at 5,
515 Tr. 2002,2061-64.
SOAR DOCKET NO. 582-10·4184 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 147
TCEQ D'OCKET NO. 2005·1490-WR
3. The ALJs' Analysis
The ALJs disagree with both parties' competing lIIlalyses of Sections 11.042(c) and
'11.046(c). As noted by TPWD,- the return flows issues raised by the BRA Application are
"extremely complex," and involve II great deal of ambiguity about confusing legal and regulatory
issues.s26 In its initial brief, TPWD states:
There is no adopted TCEQ'policy that controls the outcome of the application
[regarding return flows]. The ED staff is using its own interpretation of existing
law to review the application, and it simply has a different approach than TPWD
IIIld BRA. Jt is up to the Administrative Law Judges to examine the different
approaches and determine how to apply the iaw. There is no commission policy
that guides the resolution of these contested issues.
The ALJs agree. A considerable amount of evidence was introduced by the parties attempting to
prove that the TCEQ currently has, or has had in the past, an established approach to reuse
issues.S27 On balance, however, this evidence demonstrates that no consistent agency policy
exists with respect to these reuse issues. As such, there is no official TCEQ interpretation to
which the ALJs might def~r. Accordingly, the ALJs make the following conclusions regard
how the bed and banks and return flow provisions of the Water Code should properly be applied
to the SysOp Permit.
50' TPWD Initial Brief at 9.
m See. e,g" Exs. TPWD 1, BRA Exs, 56-58, 61, 67, 70, 72-73,75; ED Exs. AI, CI, DI, EI, FI, and 01;
see also Tr. 2005 (Alexander acknowledging, that return flow issues historically handled on ut:ase-by-casc" basis,
without a fixed policy),
SOAR DOCKET NO. 581-10.4184 PROl'OSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 148
TCEQ DOCKET NO. Z005·1490-WR
a. BRA misconsmles Sl\Ction 11.042(c): The bed and banks
authorization contemplated in Section 11.042(0) applics to a wide
array of types of water, including return flows.
Section 11.042(c) authorizes a person to obtain a bed and banks authorization to "convey
and subsequently divert water in a watercourse."S28 BRA argues that the only way tlus section
can be read so as to avoid a conflict with Section 11.046(c) is to interpret the word "water" in
Section 11.042(c) to mean developed water, but not return flows. TIlis interpretation is not
reasonable and is contrary to the plain wording of the statute. If the Legislature 'had intended for
Scction 11.042(c) beq. and banks authorizations to only be available for raw surface water
imported from another basin or raw groundwater, then it could easily have so stated in the
statute. Ther~ is ample evidence that the Legislature knows how to be specific when it wishes to.
For'example, in Subsection (a-I) the legislature authorized bed and banks permits for a different
type of imported water"':"water imported from another state. Similarly, in Subsection (b), the
Legislature chose allow beds and banks authorizations for abighly specific category of water -
'~el(isting retum flows derived from privately' owned grolllidwater." The use of the broad and
generic word "water" in Subsection (c), indicates a legislative intent that the bed and banks
authorization contemplated in that subsection should apply to a wide array of various types of
water, inc\\I(ling return flows.
b. The ED misconstrucs Section 11.046(c): The right to appropriate
retUrn flows pl'ovided by Sedion 11.046(c) does not extend only to the'
discharger of·those return flows, the owner of the base water right
from which the return flows originated,' 01· someone having
contractual rights with either of them.
Section 11.046(c) provides that once water has becn diverted and' is returned to a
watercourse "it is considered slUplus and thetefore subject to ... appropriation by others.,,529
The ED argues that the only way Sections 11.042(c) and 11.046(c) can be read so as to avoid a
'" pmphasis addC274 S.W.3d 742 (Tox. App. - San Antonio
2009, pet. granted). .
'" For Ole sake of convenience, throughout thts discussion, the ALIs refer to the "discharger" of the retum
flows. However. the AU's broadly define "discharger" as '.'the discharger ()f return flows, the owner of the base
water right from which the retnrn flows originated. or someone having contractu~l rights with either of them."
'" In effect, the bed and banks authorization grante.t in Section 11.042(c) works as an exception to the
general rule in Section 11.0if6(c) tlmt once return flows are discharged into a watercours~ the discharger loses claim
to those waters.
SOAR DOCKET NO. 582·1()·4184 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE lSI
TCEQ DOCKET NO. 2005-1490·WR
Conversel)', the ALJs conclude that when BRA seeks to divert someone else.'s surface
water-based return flows it need only obtain an approp~iative right pursuant to Section 11.046(c),
and need not obtain a bea and banks authorization pursuant to Section 11.042(c). In such a case,
and consistent with the wording of Section 11.046(c), BRA would clearly be an "other" person
seeking to appropriate someone else's relnm flows. Likewise, BRA would not be seeking to
"convey," as required by Section 11.042(c), someone else's relnm flows, but only to divert those
flows.
The ALJs note a caveat to this general rule. In order to address the needs of in-basin
dischargers and many of its own customers, BRA's version of the proposed SysOp Perniit adopts
.a relnrn flow policy that encourages direct reuse and indirect reuse of retnrn f1o~vs by
dischargers, within their boundaries 01' service areas, by allowing BRA's appropriation of.others'
return flows to be interrupted for tliese plUposes. Additionally, as a result of an agreement with
the Cities of Bryan and College Station, a provision addressing groundwater-based return flows,
without any service area limitation, has also been requested and is included in the BRA preferred
draft of the penult. In this respect, BRA's position differs from a pure "state water" approach to
return flows that might prevent futnre indirect reuse by dischargers. S37 Because this deviation
from the general nll~-that retnrn flows become state viatcr upon discharge into a watercourse-
is agreed to by BRA and serves as a limitation upon BRA's permit, the AUs find no reason to
reject it.
d. BRA's .. equest to divert "future" j'eturn flows (i.e., return flows that
arc not nIt-cady being discharged into the Brazos River Basin) is
reasonable and preferable to the approach advocated by the ED.
In the Application, BRA seeks to appropriate both ClU'rent and future retum flows, "to'the
extent that such retnrn flows continue to be discharged or returned to the bed and banks of the
Brazos River, its tribuiarles, and BRA reservoirs."S38 In BRA's ~odeling, futlU'e retnrn flows for
'" BRAEx. I at 30.32; BRA Initial Briefa! 61-62.
'" BRAEx.ISatI6.
SOAI:I DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 152
TCEQ DOCKET NO. 2005-1490-WR
the year 2060 were estimated based on projected population multiplied by current per capita
retum flows based' 011 historical data'. In certain cases, future tctum flows were reduced to
account for existing or proposed reuse projects. S39 BRA then included those estimated future
tetum flows in the WAM and assumed they would be available to all water rights in order of
seniority. Any amounts left over were assUlIled to be available to the SysOp Pennit, subject to
envhonmental flow requirements. 54o
The ED argues that granting BRA an approptiation based upon future retum flows poses
a risk of hann to semor water rights holders because the water availability analysis will likely
find mOore water available than actually exists in the stream.541 Dow agrees: "If the water
availability is inflated because the amount of return flows assunwd to be discharged into the river
exceeds the amount that is actually discharged into the river, the water availability analysis will
overestimate the unappropriated water.,,5~2
BRA responds that over-appropriation is not a risk because the objective of the draft
SysOp Pennit was to ensure that, in actual practice, BRA is able to divert retum flows amy to the
extelit that they are actually being discharged into the basin, and to not interfere with the ability
of return flow dischargers from reusing their own retum flows if they wish to do so.543 A
, munbcr of special pennit conditions are included in the draft permit to achieve those goals,
Special condition S.A.1. in the SysOp Pernlit requires development of a return f1owacc01mting
plan prior to use of the retum flows, in order to assure that the amount of supply actually
available for use based on return flows is accurately detennined. 544 Special condition 5.A.2
provides that BRA's ability to divert surface water-based return flows is subject to intenuptioll
'" BRA Ex. 15 at 46.
'" BRA Ex. 15 at 46.
$41 ED Ex. KA-l at 18,33-34; ED Initial Briefnt 18,
s.u Dow Reply Briefat 39.
$I' 'fl'. 423.
".. BRA Ex. 8B at 8; BRA Ex. 15 at 47.
SOAHDOCKET NO. 582·10-4184 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGEIS3
TCEQ DOCKET NO. 2005-1490-WR
by direct use or indirect use by the discharger of those return flows, provided that the discharger
is using those retum flows within its corporate limits, extraterritorial jurisdiction, or contiguous
water cCltificate of convenience and necessity (CCN) boundaries and the discharger has applied ,
for and been granted authorization to reuse the return flows. This provision is meant to ensure
that dischargers will be able to develop their own reuse programs. S4S Similarly, Special
Condition S.A.3 provides that BRA's ability to divert groundwater-based return flows is subject
to interruption by direct or indirect reuse by the discharger of those reutrn flows, provided that
, ,
the discharger obtains a bed and banks authorization to reuse the return flows. This provision is
also meant to ensure that dischargers will be able to develop their OWn reuse programs. 546
Special condition 5.A.4 requires the installation of meters at the discharge points for each
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) from which retunl flows will be used, and the recording of ,
discharge anlOunts on a daily basis. Discharges from a WWTP generally cannot be used until
such meters are installed.547
OPIC has no objection to BRA's approach regarding appropriation of future "retum flows,
contending that all diversions of return flows by BRA under the SysOp Permit, regardle~s of
whether those diversions are of existing or future return flows, should be treated as new
appropriations and, therefore, subject to all legal requirements for new appropriations including
Instream flow requirements.548 That Issue will be discussed more in the next section.
As stated above, the ED argnes that granting BRA an appropriation based upon future
reUlm flows poses a risk of harm to senior water rights holders because the water availability
analysis will likCly find more water available thatl actually exists ill the' stream. gowevcr, the
ED's treatment of return flows in the ED's modeling effolis and draft SysOp PerI)1it is not
consistent with that approach. Under the ED's approach, BRA would obtain authorization t6
54' BRA Ex. 8B at 8-9;' BRA Ex. 15 at 47.
,,' BRA Ex. liB at 9; BRA Ex. 15 at 41.
147 BRA Ex; SB at 9; BRA Ex. 15 at 41.
m OPIC Initial Briefat 5,
2lP
SOAHDOCKET NO. 582·10·4184 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 154
TCEQ DOCKET NO. 2005·1490·WR
divert return flows up to the amount of return flows that each discharger c,an make pursuant to its
Texas Pollution Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) permit. s49 The ED calculated that thc
total discharge amount for all applicable TPDES permits was 120,625 acre·feet. sso The ED
conceded, however, that actual current discharge totals might be much less than 120,625 acre-
feet. SSI In other words, the ED's Proposed Pennit would also autholize BRA to divert future
retum flows that do ilOt currently exist in the stream, albeit for a smaller quantity of such return .
flows. Moreover, the ED's draft SysOp Permit then e~plicitly allows BRA to appropriate future
retum flows (I.e" retum flows over and above the TrDES total of 120,625 acre-feet).552
The AUs conclude that, asslUning the Commissioners agree with the overall two-step
approach contemplated in this application, BRA's approach as to future retum flows is
sufficiently tailored so as to avoid authorizing diversions of retum flows that are not act\mlly in
the river at the time. The special conditions in BRA's draft SysOp Permit are sufficient to ensure
that, in actual practic\" BRA will. be authorized to divert only return flows that are actually being
discharged, and without interfering with the ability of return flow dischargers to reuse their own
retum flows if they wish to do so.
e. BRA's diversions of return flows, both current and future,
should be treatcd as new appropriations subject to ~atisfying
instream flow ,·equircments.
NWF and bPIC contend ihat all diversions of return flows by BRA under the SysOp
Permit, regardless of whether those diversions are of existing or future retum flows, should be
",. IlD Ilx.lS4 As to what he considerS,"future" return flow'discharges (i.e.,
those over and above 120,625 acre-feet), the ED would give BRA the right to divelt those return
flows at a 2004 priority date, but the diversions would not be subject to instream flow
requirements. S55 The rationale behind this different treatment is that fill\lre return flows "have
not been present in the river" and, thus, have not been relied upon in the past to satisfy instream
needs.5S6
The Conunission need not decide if the ED's position is legally correct. BRA is willing
to make all of its diversions of return flows (both cirrrent and future) subject to instrerun flow
requirements. 557 BRA asserts, convincingly, that its approach is more protective of the
environment because it makes more water subject to instream flov,;s protections.ss8 In light of
BRA's consent to such treatment of filture return flows, the ALJs conclude that all BRA
diversions of return flows under the SysOp Pennit, both current and future, should pe treated as
subject to satisfying instream flow requirements.
'" NWF Reply Briefat 7; opic Initial Briefat 5.
'54 ED Ex. K2 at 13; ED Ex. KA-I at 26, 31; Tr. 2108-09.
'" ED Ex. K2 at 13-14; ED Ex. KA-I at 26,31; 'fr. 437, 2107.
'" ED Ex. KA-I at 31.
'" BRA Ex. SB at 8;
'" Tr. 2722-23.
2.21
SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGEJ56
TCEQ DOCKET NO. 2005-149().WR
f. Both BRA's and the ED's versions of the SysOp Permit comply
with 30 TEx. ADMIN. CODE § 297.42(g) •.
, Pursuant to 30 TEx. ADMIN. CODE § 297.42(g). a water right may be granted based upon
the avaibibility ofretwn flows. However, a water right granted upon return flows might cease ill
the future because of new or increased direct or indirect reuse by the discharger. Thus, Section
297.42(g) states that a w'ater right granted based 'upon the availability of return flows must "be
granted with the express provision that the water available for the water right is dependent upon
potentially interruptible return flows'or discharges."
In reliance upon this rule, the ED crafted the draft SysOp Pennit to make a distinction
betWeen the quantities of water available under the pennit as "finn" water and as "non-firm"
water (with "non-firm" being the water based upon the availability of return flows).559 The ED
contends that this is the required approach in ordeno comply with Section 297.42(g).560 BRA's
version of the SysOp Permit makes no distinction between "l1ml" and "non-firm". watcr. It does,
however, expressly note that diversions of return flows are based upon potentially interruptible
return flows. 56 I Thus, both approaches ,comply with therequil'ements Of 30 TAC § 297.42(g).
Accordingly, having proven that its version is compliant, the ALJs conclude that BRA is entitled
to its choice of approach over the ED's.
XVII. BED AND BANKS AUTHORIZATION
BRA's application for a bed and banks authorization complies with Water
Code § 11.042, which provides, in relevant pal1:
'" ED Ex. KA-l 0123-24.30: ED Ex. K2 at 5·6: Tr. 2009·10.
'60 ED Ex. KA-l aI23-24.
, SOl BRA Ex. 8B at 8-9.
222
Exhibit J
Transcript Volume No.2 of Hearing
conducted October 29, 2009
250
1 SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX
2 TCEQ DOCKET NO. 2008-0181-WR
3
4 APPLICATION OF BRADLEY B. ) BEFORE THE STATE OFFICE
WARE TO AMEND ) OF
5 WATER USE PERMIT NO. 5594 ) ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
6
7
8 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: HON. PAUL D. KEEPER
9
10
11
12 ******************************************************
13 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
14 TAKEN ON OCTOBER 29, 2009
15 AT AUSTIN, TEXAS
16 VOLUME 2 PAGES 250 - 400
17 ******************************************************
18
19
20
21 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS, VOLUME 2, taken in the
above-styled and numbered cause on the 29th day of
22 October 2009, from 9:03 a.m. to 3:39 p.m., before
C. Mack Lane, CSR, in and for the State of Texas,
23 reported by machine shorthand, at the State Office of
Administrative Hearings, 300 West 15th Street, Austin,
24 Travis County, Texas 78201, pursuant to the rules of
the Texas Administrative Code, the Texas Water Code,
25 and the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
ALAMO CITY REPORTING (210) 719.'189.
377
M:~:48 1 Lake, that Mr. Ware's 150 acre-feet still must go to
14:47:52 2 satisfy water rights downstream to the Gulf of Mexico
14:47:56 3 and upstream to Lubbock at the playa lakes?
14:47:56 4 A. Yes.
14:48:00 5 Q. Okay. I ask you to look at page 4 of 14 on
14:48:52 6 water availability.
14:48:52 7 JUDGE KEEPER: Which exhibit?
14:48:58 8 MRS. WEBB: 50, Applicant's 50.
14:49:00 9 THE WITNESS: Okay.
14:49:08 10 Q. (BY MRS. WEBB:) And can you read that
14:49:W 11 paragraph that begins a review of water rights in the
M:O:U 12 Brazos River Basin?
14:49:16 13 A. "A review of water rights in the Brazos River
M:O:W 14 Basin indicates that Permit 4218 (diversion of 172
M:49:M 15 acre-feet of water from South Nolan Creek"
M:49:~ 16 Permit 5088 (diversion of 37 acre-feet of water from
M:0: 32 17 South Nolan Creek), and Permit 5089 (divetsion of 60
M:0:36 18 acre-feet from South Nolan Creek) were explicitly
M:0:38 19 granted based on the presence of return flows now
14:0: 42 20 being claimed as part of this application."
14:49:44 21 Q. Okay. Continue.
14:49:44 22 A. "Staff recognizes the possibility that other
M:0:46 23 basin rights were granted based on the presence of the
M:O:~ 24 requested return flows. Because of this, a priority
M:O:~ 25 date of October 15th, 2004, is assigned to the
ALAt10 CITY REPORTING (210) 710-3890
224
378
14:49:56 1 applicant's diversions of historically discharged
14:50:00 2 retu rn flows."
14:50:00 3 Q. Okay. Now, that October 15th date, that is
14:50:04 4 the that is the date of administrative completeness
14:50:10 5 of this systems operation permit --
14:50:16 6 A. Yes.
14:50:16 7 Q. -- by Brazos River Authority?
14:50:16 8 A. Yes.
14:50:20 9 Q. And that sentence regarding the priority date
14:50:22 10 of October 15th, 2004, describes the Executive
14:50:28 11 Director's position at the time this memo was written
14:50:32 regarding the allocation of return flows available for
12
14:50:36 13 appropriation in the Brazos River Basin?
14:50:40 14 A. Yes.
14:50,49 15 Q. Okay. And so there were return flows
14:50:42 16 available and you gave them a priority date of
~:~:Q 17 October 15th, 2004?
14:50:48 18 A. Yes.
14:51: 10 19 Q. Okay. You mentioned that there were 74,387
M:51:M 20 acre-feet of return flows resulting from different
M:51:n 21 discharges up and down the Brazos River Basin
M:51:28 22 determined to be available by TCEQ hydrology?
14:51:32 23 A. Yes.
14:51:32 24 Q. And those are the return flows that were
14:51: 34 25 given the October 15th, 2004, priority date?
ALAMO CITY REPORTING (210) 710-3890
225
379
14:51:38
1 A. Yes.
14:51:40
2 Q. Okay. And that -- and none of those return
14:51:48
3 flows, not any portion of them were allocated for use
14:51:52
4 by Mr. Ware under either a 1997 priority date or any
14:51:56
5 other priority date?
14:51:58
6 A. The return flows were considered and __
14:52:02
7 Q. Yes or no, Ms. Alexander.
14:52:82
8 A. No.
14:52:04
9 Q. Okay. Thank you. Okay, When you say that
14:52:38
10 the Executive Director has at present determined that
14:52:44
11 water available for diversion by Brazos River
M:~:48 12 Authority under this systems operation permit is
M:52:~ 13 available at a diversion point on the Gulf, you did
M:~:g 14 determine that, didn't you?
14:53:00 15 A. Yes,
14:53:02 16 Q. Under certain circumstances, and under
M:~:M 17 certain terms and conditions, and we don't know how
'M:~:06 18 any of that is going to play out; but if that water
14:53:08 19 is - - if that water - - and let me ask you: That water
M:~:12 20 that's available, it's not 74,387 acre-feet, is it,
14:53:U 21 that you determined .to be available for diversion by
14:~:~ 22 BRA down at the Gulf?
14:53:30 23 A, Are we talking just about return flows7 I'm
M:~:32 24 not sure I understand.
14:53:32 25 Q. I'm talking about the draft permit,
ALAND CITY REPORTING (210) 710.3890
226