LOCHTE LAW OFFICE
305 EARL GARRETT STREET
KERRVILLE. TEXAS 78028
DARRELL G. LOCHTE
LYNN B. LEMEILLEUR
512-896-1882
512-257-6525
May 25, 1990
Honorable Commissioners' Court
Kerr County Courthouse
700 Main Street
Kerrville, TX. 78025
BRUCE F RIECK
OF COUNSEL
RE: Report on Critical Area Underground Water Study.
Gentlemen:
Attached hereto is my Report concerning the underground
critical area investigation by the Texas Water Commission. A
copy of this Report is being delivered to the County Attorney's
office.
I have in my possession several charts and drawings which
are not attached to my Report. If it is the wish of the Court
I will be glad to meet with you and exhibit and discuss these
items. You may then wish to select some of those for copying.
Upper Guadalupe River Authority is being separately supplied
with this same Report, and I am also giving a copy to Mr. George
Kerr of the City of Kerrville Public Works Department. It is my
hope that all of our local governmental entities will join in a
united front concerning this very important matter.
Respectfully,

Darrell G. Lochte
DGL : j m
Attachment
~sas~
cc: UGRA
County Attorney's Office

REPORT
T0: KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COURT
FROM: DARRELL G. LOCHTE
DATE: May 24, 1990
RE: CRITICAL AREA UNDERGROUND WATER STUDY
In my capacity as a member of the Advisory Committee represent-
ing Kerr County and the Upper Guadalupe River Authority, I have at-
tended three (3) meetings conducted by representatives of the Texas
Water Commission and the Texas Water Development Board. These meet-
ings concerned the designation of all or parts of the Counties of
Bandera, Blanco, Comal, Gillespie, Hayes, Kendall, Kerr and Travis
as a Trinity underground critical area. The last meeting was held
on Wednesday, May 16th in Fredericksburg, and all of these meetings
were statutory proceedings which will culminate in a PUBLIC HEARING
before the Texas Water Commission to be held on WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6,
1990, in AUSTIN.
You are advised that as a result of the hearings held at various
places in the eight (8) county region, the staff of said agencies has
recommended to the Texas Water Commission, and will urge that the en-
tirety of the region and every county named therein, be declared a
"critical area". The entirety of Kerr County will be included in
that recommendation.
"Critical Area" is defined by the Texas Water Commission as fol-
lows:
"An area of the State that is experiencing, or is expected to
experience within the next 20 year period, critical underground
water problems such as when any of the following adverse con-
ditions apply:
1. The aquifer (s} will be unable to produce sufficient water
to meet expected demands under reasonable development plans.
2. Withdrawals of underground water are causing subsidence of
the land surface, resulting in increased flooding or damages
to pipelines, highways, buildings, or other works due to
differential land-surface movement.
3. Man's activities are resulting in deterioration of the qual-
ity of ground water in the area so that its usefulness for
its beneficial purposes is diminished."
Texas Water Code, X52.051.

It appears to me that any area of the State could be made to
fit one or another of the defined criteria; and the announced pur-
pose of the designation is to force any area so designated to create
its own underground water district. Indeed, if an area does not act
to do this, then the Water Commission, on its own motion, may proceed
after hearing to create a district for that area or cause that area
to be added to an existing district. Texas Water Code, §52.055.
The creation of a district, or the addition of an area to an
existing district, must be ratified by the vote of a majority of the
qualified electors within the area or areas affected. If the voters
fail to ratify or approve the creation of the district, then the
area "is not eligible to receive any financial assistance from the
State under Chapters 15, 16 or 17 of this Code." Texas Water Code,
§52.063. *1
There are numerous procedural steps which must be followed (and
which I here assume have been followed) to reach the Commission's de-
termination of a "critical area", and then to designate underground
water districts. It is significant that §52.057, which appears to
apply to both determinations, provides that the Commission's Order
may NOT be appealed. Therefore, you may wish to make some effort to see
that all procedural steps have been performed.
Before moving on from this general overview of pertinent "under-
ground statutory law", I would offer one further general ;observation.
It is not necessary for the Water Commission to
make a formal designation of any area as critical
in order for that area or any part of that area to
apply for and be recognized as an underground water
district.
By example, both Gillespie and Bandera Counties have established
underground water districts without being officially declared "critical".
,•
Keep that in mind.
*1 Chapters 15, 16 and 17 provide for various forms of assistance
which can be granted in the discretion of the appropriate water
agency. An example is the expectation that the State will make
a financial contribution to the proposed regional water survey
and study recently outlined by UGRA. ,
- 2 -
By my 1®tter to Water Commission staff dated March 23, 1988,
(with copy to you), I expressed my philosophical views and concerns
respecting the "critical area" investigation. I have not changed my
mind. Basically, we do not need another level of government; we do
not need another taxing agency; and the "critical area" concept does
not address the means of solving the problems.
A map of the entire regional area is supplied. As you can see,
the southern and eastern boundaries follow the Balcones Fault system.
The north boundary is on county lines and generally along the south
edge of the granite uplift, while the west line arbitrarily follows
the west lines of Bandera, Kerr and Gillespie Counties. The problems
vary from not enough underground water to water that is not fit to
drink.
Commonality among the several counties exists in only two general
conditions. First, every county relies to some extent on water pro-
duced from some stratum of the Trinity Underground series. Second,
the "critical" lp aces in each county are in or adjacent to what~I
will call "population centers" *2, mostly the county seats.
It is noteworthy as well that while Bandera and Gillespie Coun-
ties have formed single-county underground water districts; only Ken-
dall and Kerr Counties have moved positively to supplement underground
water supplies with surface water. *3
When we consider the differences in economy, tax bases, popula-
lation, future growth and demographic mix, Kerr County should not be
part of a regional district, nor should it be "paired" with another
single-county district. Indeed, none of the counties represented
favored anything larger than a single-county district.
*2 No irrigation from wells for commercial purposes has been re-
r ported. Some does exist; and some large scale agricultural
venture may require well water.
*3 Johnson City and the City of Blanco (both in Blanco County) use
surface water to some extent for municipal supplies.
- 3 -
Let's look at Kerr County individually and in the light of the
phrase "critical area".
Webster's defines the word "critical" as BEING IN OR APPROACHING
A STATE OF CRISIS", and I suppose that the Commission used the word
in that sense. The word "area" is stated in the Code to mean any gov-
ernmental subdivision, or other area that is specifically defined.
We must also remember that "critical" refers to the QUALITY as well
as the QUANTITY of water.
A. Texas Water Commission Staff Report.
Kerr County received little mention in the hearings, and the
reports contain only the specific information mentioned above, with
three (3) exceptions:
1. A chart shows the location, history and recent monitoring
data on Kerr County wells. Eight (8) of them produce from the Trinity
series, one from the Upper Edwards, six of the wells appear to be
City of Kerrville wells.
2. Mention is made of the recent and ongoing project to test
the viability of re-charging Kerrville's principal underground stra-
tum of the Trinity. (ASR).
3. The recent adoption by the City of Kerrville of an ordi-
Hance providing for the "licensing" of new or re-worked water wells.
Taken all together the facts reported by the Texas Water Commis-
sion staff do not support a conclusion that Kerr County is in a state
of present or impending crisis, that is a "critical area".
B. Other Kerr County Facts.
There is attached a copy of the last pages of the final Critical
Area Ground Water Study by Commission staff. The report is dated
February, 1990. After making the observation that only in Gilles-
pie and Bandera Counties is there an existing entity to manage and
r protect ground water resources, the report lists ten (10} stategies
which a ground water conservation district would do toward managing
and protecting ground water.
- 4 -
1. Realistic spacing regulations for septic systems.
FACT - for about 16 years Kerr County has had a county-wide entity
that regulates the spacing and installation of septic tank systems.
The regulations are designed to protect underground and surface wa-
ters from sewerage contamination. The City of Kerrville regulates
septic systems within its corporate limits. Also the City has re-
cently upgraded its municipal sewage plant, increasing the capacity
of the same and greatly upgrading the quality of the effluent dis-
charge.
Upper Guadalupe River Authority for a long time monitored, and
presently does monitor, the quality of Guadalupe River water (and
some creeks). The reports are made monthly and in detail; and the
source of pollution, if any, is immediately located so that remedial
measures can be taken.
2. Implement strong enforcement programs. FACT - These pro-
grams are enforced.
3. Public education. Reports on the foregoing management and
protection programs are regularly made at the open public meetings
of the governing bodies, and such reports are available to Kerr Coun-
ty's two newspapers and radio station. Publication of the information
is frequently had.
4. Water well regulations. FACT - The City of Kerrville has re-
cently adopted an ordinance requiring licenses or permits for any water
wells which may be drilled or re-worked within the corporate limits.
With appropriate legislation, Kerr County could be given the same au-
thority. The Texas Water Commission has a well driller's licensing
program which is state-wide.
5. Well spacing regulations. FACT - Data is being developed ~i.ch
will make it possible to design realistic spacing regulations. Kerr
County's well water comes from several water bearing strata in the Edwards,
r Georgetown and Trinity series. UGRA has recently completed a test
well which penetrates the lower Trinity strata known as the Hosston.
- 5 -
All of the municipal water wells serving the City of Kerrville, and
the private water system of Ingram, are thought to be bottomed in and
take water from this same stratum. While the test well was installed
primarily to test the possibility of re-charging this stratum with
treated river water (Aquifer Storage Recovery or ASR), Ingram and
Kerrville water wells are being monitored to determine the movement
of water through the formation between the various wells.
6. Closing or plugging abandoned wells. The number of aban-
doned wells in Kerr County is probably small and is not likely to con-
stitute a real problem. However, such a program can be handled by an
existing governmental entity.
7. Promotion of water conservation. FACT - Price is an effec-
tive conservation measure, and the price of water and the cost of elec-
tricity or fuel to produce it is high in the Kerr County area. Also,
new rules of the State Health Department may permit the disposal of
bath and wash water (grey water) on the surface for yard watering.
8, 9 & 10. Monitoring networks, cooperation with other entities,
and mandatory communication. These three items of strategy are at
least ill defined. However, the State itself can, by appropriate
legislation, mandate monitoring and reporting in much the same manner
that the Railroad Commission requires the monthly reporting of oil and
gas production. The State already requires frequent lab testing and
reporting with respect to water wells, both public and private, that
serve the public generally.	This testing	of course is for	the quality
or fitness of water for human	consumption.	I have already	stated that
hydrogeologic monitoring of wells in the Kerr County area is being had.
With respect to "critical area", Water Code §52.051 contains a
provision which seems to me to be significant and closely related to
r
the water activities in Kerr County.
states:
The last sentence of the section
"It is also the purpose of the legislature to assure that the
local areas will determine the best methods for handling under-
ground water problems either through the creation of underground
water conservation districts or through other means available to
each individual and local governmental entity."
- 6 -
The facts stated in A and B above definitely show that Kerr
County, the City of Kerrville and UGRA have already implemented and
are performing most of the measures that Texas Water Commission staff
cites as means for managing and protecting both ground and surface wa-
ter in Kerr County. Declaring that Kerr County is a critical area
and/or creating an underground water conservation district would
largely duplicate what is already being done, and can be done, by
the existing Kerr County entities.
C. Unresolved problems.
The Texas Water Commission staff report notes that an earlier
study concluded that only 5$ of the water that falls on Kerr County
is retained in Kerr County. This 5~ is our source for the replenish-
ing of our underground reservoirs, as well as the base flow of the
Guadalupe River.
My March, 1988 letter to the Commission staff pointed out this
condition and strongly suggested that the location of possible re-
charge zones, and measures to increase the movement of water into
these zones, should be major objectives of the ground water study.
The staff report contains some geological information which is help-
ful, but does not provide answers to the re-charge question that can
be readily applied to improving Kerr County's water sources.
However, governmental entities in Kerr County are organizing
to fund and carry out a study of available supplies of water and the
possibilities of improving re-charge. The information already recov-
ered and to be recovered from the ASR test well is a valuable contri-
bution to this effort, and it is expected that the State of Texas will
bear 1/2 of the cost of the new investigation.
This is another example of the strategies and effort which exist-
ing local entities are contributing to the "management and protection"
of Kerr County's water resources.
r
- ~] -
CONCLUSION
This report is not intended as criticism. of. the Texas Water Com-
mission and the Texas Water Development Board, nor the staff of those
organizations. Indeed, the geographical scope and the varied condi-
tions involved in the study could not permit a highly detailed in-
vestigation of each and every problem and circumstance encountered.
On the other hand, we must take issue, I think, with the conclu-
sions and recommendations of the Commission staff. The designation
of Kerr County as a "critical area" and the creation of an underground
water conservation district for, or including, Kerr County is not
justified because there would be created another layer of government,
largely duplicating what already exists. This in turn would result
in additional taxation.
Respectfully submitted,
DARRELL G. LOCHTE
DGL:jm
Attachments
r.
- 8 -
r~,,a
~~v,,:
~~~, ~;~
~~~li ~. ~,•C .
I Yi !,
~ .
I
~~.,`~
DARRELLG.LOCHTE
512-257.6525
LYNN 8. LEMEILLEUR
512.896.1882

Mr. Brad L. Cross
TEXAS WATER COMfdISSION
P. 0. Box 13087
Austin, TX. 78711-3087
LOCHTE LAW OFFICE
305 EARL GARRETT STREET
KERRVILLE. TEXAS 78028
BRUCE f RIECK
March 23 , 1988 or counsn
Mr. Robert L. Bluntzer
TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD
P. 0. Box 13231
Austin, TX. 78711-3231
RE: Hill Country Critical Area Ground Water Study.
Gentlemen:
Tardily, I submit my answered questionnaire. It is largely
the work of Lane Wolters, U.G.R.A.'s Enviornmental Chief, without
whose help my answers would have consisted mostly of "don't know".
I hope this will reach you in time for the factual content to be
of value. My comments concerning a regional underground water
control district follow.
Philosophically, I am opposed to the creation of .another layer
of government, however benign it may appear. Unregulated does not
always equal to bad or harmful, and we all know of cases where reg-
ulation has subserved the interests of a few at the expense of many.
Moreover, the data base for the object of regulation sometimes con-
sists of assumption drawn from inadequate factual data; and that may
be the case here.
Secondly, I do not perceive any object or purpose in an UWCD
that is not already available to the several counties that would
be represented. Because all wells in all counties are not Trinity
Series wells, the better course of action would be to enact legis-
lation granting to counties (statewide) substantially the same au-
thority that now exists for sewerage disposal. Appropriate and
reasonable standards for drilling, completion and construction might
well be included.
Neither a county nor a localized aggregation of counties can
do more than that. The basic structure of all of our government,
judiciary included, is designed to finally resolve all problems at
the lowest, capable level possible. This brings us to the problem
r
1
..,~
ti.
,;,,
t~'"
.T -.;r~`
R'~'' ! l

Messrs. Cross and Bluntzer
March 23, 1988
Page Two
at hand, the Trinity Series underground, which I believe requires
direct state intervention.
The verbal presentation and printed handouts at the October 6,
1987 meeting indicate that the data base for this geologic forma-
tion is general rather than specific. Accepting as true the rep-
resentation that some "stratagraphic unit" of the Trinity Series
has been identified in a well-bore in each of the counties partici-
pating here, we have no real information as to the relationship be-
tween a "Trinity" water well in Blanco County and one in Bandera
County or in Kerr County. For that matter there does not appear
to be enough information to show a specific relationship between
"Trinity" wells in the same county.
In that connection, there has been some belief 'locally that
the Trinity does not occur as a continuous body. Thus Trinity
Series wells in Kerrville and Ingram - 5 miles apart - may not be
"in the same sand-pile". Additionally, I question that there is
any information relating to porosity and permeability, or to effec-
tive communication between the several stratographic units of the
Series. See handout, Groundwater Critical Area 2, Table 1.
While other, unpalatable alternatives exist, * it makes sense
to conclude that all, or some units of, the Trinity Series enjoy
replenishment (recharge) as the result of precipitation falling on
the surface of an exposed portion (outcrop) of one or more units.
A map, "Land Resources of Texas", U.T. Bureau of Economic Geology,
1977, shows recharge zones from the western to the eastern Llano
Uplift body, and northward from the Balcones Fault System. These
zones are not shown to be equal in exposure area, nor are they shown
to be contiguous. No differentiation between the several aquifers
(Hickory Sand, Elleberger Lime, Trinity Series, Edwards Underground,
and maybe the Upper Edwards) that might be served as shown.
However, the bulk of the recharge zones
in Gillespie County and counties to the west
west as the west boundary of Kimble County.
east of Gillespie County, the recharge zones
tant. The relationship between the recharge
Trinity aquifers in the counties of interest
is depicted as lying
and northwest, as far
To the east and north-
are small and intermit-
zones and the known
should be determined;
* For instance, maybe the known, producing aquifers are closed
reservoirs with minimal (if any) recharge from the immediately
overlying surface.

r~$a~'•~p i.
ti
,r
h'~
1~ F
~':,

Messrs. Cross and Bluntzer
March 23, 1988
Page Three
and there is a reasonable possibility that the major portion of
the recharge water passes only into the Kerr, Kimb elel Edwards,
Bandera, western Kendall and northern Medina Counties Trinity
aquifers.
The two issues presented immediately above are beyond the
reach of individual counties and of any UWCD comprising the area
included in "Critical Area No. 2" economically and, quite likely,
jurisdictionally as well. The State should undertake:
1. To discover the extent (including the boundaries of
limits) of the Trinity aquifers that have been pene-
trated for water production; and
2. Determine the location of the Trinity recharge zone
or zones and the relationship between them and the
several penetrated Trinity aquifers.
The information recovered may indicate a strong, probable
relationship between the recharge zone or zones and the known,
producing Trinity aquifers. If so, then the next step should be
' to seek practical measures for increasing the quantity of recharge,
and implement them.
It is my belief that any effort to regulate location, spacing
or withdrawals from, Trinity Series wells might be'~£ound capricious
without effective base data in hand. Other aspects need attention
too, but I perceive that aquifer and recharge study to be first
priority. ~ i
Respectfully,

Darrell G. Lochte

DGL:jm
cc: The Honorable Danny R. Edwards
Kerr County Judge
Kerr County Commissioners' Court
r
I WNI tAJllt
~~wl Mwlr
1`
1
;; ~ t
r
lr ~
~`,, ~
~~
r
I
Location Map
Hiil Country Critical Area Study
FIGURE I
~~ ~ 'J ~r r
~ -	r
~	~~
r v
r
i
+ ~	_ rr~
n^
r ~_
i ter
	•.
..
it	?
`+ ~	n
.•.
`
I~ I.	~ r•~ rMr~
1
_ wk ~rOFA. I~.. .. .. ~ ~ t
I~ 1
\ ~~(
~. M 11, 1
,~ 1
~~ I ~;~
`. ,~~ __ . i ._
r_
~~ ..
r.`.,,
---- -~

tr rr atwn • .... 1.~~. • ~ /
I i r
w. r i ..rr.. .. _. • , , ~•
*)
F.l i • 1 ..
1, I < ,r~r.Y ilt. new rMr. n 1
„~ 1
r r _ _' ; C ~^T S
~ I ~, ' ~
rluvc tnwtr.._-.. _ ~ ~ / .~~ ^t
awwll wart ~ ,,~'~
• r.
fti., '~T ` r~ r, r 1
r ' l
r e
~l
-'. < < r.
< y.. I
~...,~ >
i ~~ ' r~ l
i.
~ I .~
;' ~
I ,~
1 1.~
? ~"
~;
,• r .,. ~
~~
.t I
rr~t
///\/ ~..... i .,
~. r
~, / + r T~
r... ~!, I i IrH
~ i I ~'
vra tnnr ~ I .I _ new cnMr.
~r _ .... r
~~~, ~-
r~ _r~;..
Q^oM1~.. ~.
a
7
j
4
=`r.\
r='
Presently, tl-,ere are no existing entities, other than in Gillespie and Bandera
Counties, to properly manage and protect the groundwater resources in the
Hill Country area. Those areas where significant water-level declines have
occurred and conjunctive usa is not probable or adequate to meet expected
water needs within the next 20 years should manage and protect the ground-
water resources through an underground water conservation district. All
advisory committee members felt that UWCD's are an appropriate local entity
' for addressing water problems and controlling, managing and protecting
ground-water resources. Acquisition of sufficient water rights for the
establishment of additional surface-water supply facilities will be required,
if meaningful conjunctive use is to be successfully practiced in the Hill
Country area.
Managing and protecting ground water in the Hill Country area through
underground water conservation districts include the following control
strategies: (a) consideration and development of realistic spacing
regulations for septic systems in heavily populated areas to prevent large
scale loading of the aquifers; (b) impleirrent strong enforcement programs to
assure that ground-water management and protection objectives are being met;
(c} development of public education programs; (d} development of stringent
requirements for the drilling, development and construction of water wells;
(e) consideration and development of realistic well spacing regulations; (f)
an enforcement program to ensure that abandoned wells are properly closed in a
. timely manner; (g) promotion of water conservation, (h) establish and maintain
meaningful hydrogeological monitoring networks and periodically report the
results of such monitoring, (i) cooperate with appropriate local and State
entities to help assure responsible ground-water management and protection,
and (j) communication and cooperation between the districts should be
' mandatory.
RECOMMENDATIONS
r
. The Hill Country area (Figure 1) should be designated as a critical area to
' have ground water appropriately managed and protected. Two single county
' districts presently exist within the study area and interest in district
creation has been shown in Kendall and Blanco Counties. Acton by the
Commission on district cr~;ation should be held in abeyance until conclusion of
the next regular session of the Texas Legislature to see if other districts
' rare created within the Hill Country area.