1 2 3 4 UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS 5 and 6 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 7 Joint Meeting 8 Wednesday, October 28, 2015 9 3:30 p.m. 10 Guadalupe Basin Natural Resources Center 11 125 Lehmann Drive 12 Kerrville, Texas 13 14 15 16 17 18 PRESENT: UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS: Mike Allen, Vice President 19 Bob Waller, Secretary-Treasurer Claudell Kercheville 20 Harold Danford Diane McMahon 21 James "Wayne" Musgrove 22 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT: TOM POLLARD, Kerr County Judge 23 H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 TOM MOSER, Commissioner Pct. 2 24 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 BOB REEVES, Commissioner Pct. 4 25 2 1 I N D E X October 28, 2015 2 PAGE 3 1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to review analysis of Memorandum of Understanding 4 with Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority 3 5 1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action regarding East Kerr County Regional Water Project -- 6 --- Adjourned 46 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 On Wednesday, October 28, 2015, at 3:30 p.m., a joint 2 meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court and Upper 3 Guadalupe River Authority Board of Directors was held at the 4 Guadalupe Basin Natural Resources Center in Kerrville, Texas, 5 and the following proceedings were had: 6 P R O C E E D I N G S 7 MR. ALLEN: I'll call this meeting room to order, 8 and call the meeting of the Upper Guadalupe River Authority 9 Board of Directors to order, and this is an official meeting 10 of the U.G.R.A. Board. 11 JUDGE POLLARD: All right. The Kerr County 12 Commissioners Court is here; everybody is present, and it's 13 called to order. 14 MR. ALLEN: We've got a couple of board members 15 that may -- I believe they're trying to catch a plane, one of 16 them. Harold, do you -- 17 MR. DANFORD: I think I'm the only one. I think 18 the other one left already. 19 MR. ALLEN: So, we've got enough for a quorum. 20 Claudell is on our board, and Mr. Musgrove, Diane McMahon, 21 Bob Waller, and myself, so we'll be -- I was worried we were 22 going to lose our quorum, but we will continue the official 23 meeting throughout the meeting. Okay. With that, my 24 understanding is -- and Mr. Letz knows a lot more about this 25 subject than anybody else in the room, so we were going to 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 4 1 defer to Jonathan Letz, let him bring us up to speed on what 2 we're about here today. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My comments will be very short, 4 but I'm going to turn it over to Fred Blumberg and 5 Mr. Hoffpauir when he gets here; I know he's on the way. We 6 talked a while back in Commissioners Court about the -- 7 moving forward with the M.O.U. that we have with G.B.R.A. and 8 trying to figure out how to use it, what it actually means. 9 And the first step in that is really to do a model -- a WAM, 10 water availability model, in their basin to see what water 11 would be available. A lot of assumptions were made. And all 12 of this is kind of in relation to an east Kerr water project. 13 They're providing water for eastern Kerr County, and possibly 14 city of Kerrville, that's never been limited to 6,000 15 acre feet. U.G.R.A. has a permit -- I always give the wrong 16 number -- 5394, and that water is available with a permit 17 with the City of Kerrville, and that water is currently 18 unutilized. 19 So, U.G.R.A. authorized, paid for, whatever you 20 want to call it -- and I appreciate that greatly -- in doing 21 a model of our M.O.U. and their permit to see, you know, if 22 you started moving, looking at different sites in eastern 23 Kerr County along the Guadalupe River, how much water -- is 24 there water there, according to the model, to be available? 25 And it's great that we have a 6,000 acre foot M.O.U., but if 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 5 1 the model says there's no water available, it doesn't -- it's 2 virtually of no value. So that was the reason for this, and 3 saying -- moving to diversion points for their permit, 4 U.G.R.A.'s permit. That was the purpose of this. Through 5 that process, Arcadis was hired as the engineering firm, Fred 6 Blumberg, and Mr. Hoffpauir just walked in. They're experts 7 in this area, and they did a model, and this -- the purpose 8 of this meeting is to present to both bodies the results of 9 that meeting, then discussion afterwards about moving 10 forward, what the next steps might be. Fred? I'm not 11 sure if -- 12 MR. BLUMBERG: I'll start off, and we'll tag-team 13 as best we can. Thank you, Commissioner. Appreciate the 14 opportunity to come up and -- and present to you what we 15 worked on on behalf of the two entities under Ray's -- under 16 Ray's direction. And please interrupt either one of us as we 17 go through this. My -- my portion of the project is really 18 to bring forth the water rights aspect, and Richard really 19 does the heavy lifting in terms of the modeling. But this is 20 essentially what we're going to talk about today. I'll give 21 you some background on the project, talk about our kickoff 22 meeting here internally with the County and with U.G.R.A., 23 our meeting with the T.C.E.Q. to get some insight into how 24 they would do their modeling and their permitting of both an 25 amendment to the U.G.R.A. permit and to a new permit on 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 6 1 behalf of the County. The assumptions that we used in the 2 modeling, the model results, and then our conclusions from 3 that. 4 So, a little bit of background. The -- the 5 objective here is to model the surface water diversions 6 downstream of Kerrville. Essentially, to serve eastern Kerr 7 County, but to look at this in the way of maximizing the 8 annual volume of water that could be diverted from the river, 9 and I'll explain that a little bit more in detail in a 10 second. The water right, as Commissioner Letz said, that 11 we're looking at is the existing U.G.R.A. water right, which 12 essentially provides for diversion at the -- let's see, the 13 red -- for diversion at the City's dam and water treatment 14 plant currently. The -- and then the M.O.U. that the County 15 has is for 6,000 acre feet. And during our kickoff meeting, 16 it was determined to break that down into two permits, one 17 for 1,000 acre feet, and another for 5,000 acre feet. And 18 the 5,000 acre foot would be diverted under what's called a 19 scalping operation, where you would literally capture as much 20 water as you could when it was available in the river here in 21 Kerr County. 22 In the kickoff meeting, one of the key things that 23 we were after -- excuse me, I'm sorry -- in terms of the 24 outcome of that was to -- to lock in with the County and 25 U.G.R.A. what diversion points they wanted us to model. And 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 7 1 three -- three pin marks on here are downstream of Kerrville, 2 between Kerrville and Center Point, and those were decided 3 upon, and they're numbered -- 3 is the most upstream, and 1 4 is the most downstream, the upstream diversion being 5 essentially equivalent to the Martin Marietta location on the 6 river. Now, to -- thank you -- to avoid some confusion, the 7 U.G.R.A. permit is for 2,000 acre feet of water per year. 8 And it was decided in the kickoff meeting that we would model 9 that as the diversion rate, an instantaneous use diversion 10 rate of 3 cubic feet per second. That's about 6 acre feet of 11 water per day equivalent. And then the two county permits -- 12 this one's not working either. The two county permits, the 13 1,000 acre foot permit would be used on a municipal basis. 14 That, again, is at the 3 cubic feet per second. Different 15 permit, different diversion amounts, but the same number, 16 3 cfs. The 5,000 acre foot permit, we decided to model that 17 only at diversion point number 3, which is the upstream 18 diversion, and in -- in lieu of -- of different diversion 19 points, we would look at three different diversion rates. 20 One of the first things we needed to do was have a 21 generic meeting with T.C.E.Q. to get some feel for how they 22 would approach the permitting for the county, and the 23 amendment of the U.G.R.A. permit if it were being moved 24 downstream to a new diversion point. You can't move a permit 25 around without their authorization, and obviously, you can't 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 8 1 divert any water under the M.O.U. agreement without a permit 2 from the T.C.E.Q. When we met with T.C.E.Q., we essentially 3 had a generic meeting. We just talked about an amendment and 4 a new permit or pair of permits. And Richard -- I'm going to 5 ask Richard to just generally explain for you right now the 6 most important aspect of that meeting with T.C.E.Q., and the 7 most important aspect of the modeling in terms of when you 8 can take water and when you can't, is the -- is the approach 9 that T.C.E.Q. will use to put stream flow restrictions in the 10 amendment and in the permit related to environmental flows. 11 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Let me ask you a question. 12 You said those three diversion points. You divert it to 13 where? 14 MR. BLUMBERG: We're just taking it -- at this 15 point in the study, we're just taking it out of -- 16 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Into outer space somewhere? 17 MR. BLUMBERG: To a storage vessel. 18 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. All right, got you. 19 MR. BLUMBERG: At this point, undefined storage 20 vessel. 21 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. 22 MR. BLUMBERG: And you've hit on the most important 23 thing that I was talking about earlier. We're trying to 24 maximize the amount of water that you can get out of the 25 river, not worrying at this point about where the water's 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 9 1 being used. 2 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. 3 MR. BLUMBERG: Or how big the storage vessel is. 4 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. 5 MR. HOFFPAUIR: My name is Richard Hoffpauir, and 6 I've been doing water availability modeling for probably 7 about 10, 11 years now, I guess. One thing that the State's 8 gone through recently -- I don't know how familiar everyone 9 is with that -- is the assessment of environmental flow needs 10 across the state, and they've done that for every river basin 11 within the state, and -- and established multiple points 12 within each river basin where the water -- new water rights 13 would have to honor stream flow amounts at those locations. 14 And the environmental flows are defined sort of in those two 15 ways. They're defined as base flow needs, so just kind of 16 constant flow in different amounts and different seasons. 17 And then also a newer kind of environmental flow called a 18 pulse flow, and that's episodic flow events, like when it 19 just rains in a big event, swells up in the river, and then 20 it comes back down. So, there will be two different types of 21 environmental flow requirements for all river basins across 22 the state, and all the new water rights have to honor those 23 -- those environmental flow requirements for a new permit. 24 And for reference here, there are environmental 25 requirements upstream of -- well, at Comfort, and then at 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 10 1 Spring Branch. And then downstream, there's one at Gonzales, 2 Cuero, and then Victoria. So, the -- the T.C.E.Q. would 3 require all those locations to be modeled for the 4 environmental flow compliance in terms of volume, and then 5 the pulse flows that have been passed through those 6 locations. So, we modeled all -- all five of those locations 7 in the exercise we went through, and those are the same types 8 of environmental flow requirements T.C.E.Q. would look at 9 when they assess a new permit. 10 MR. BLUMBERG: When we use the term "honor," what 11 we're essentially saying is that in the amendment, or in the 12 permit, T.C.E.Q. is going to put a number in there. They're 13 going to say that unless the river flow is "X" amount, you're 14 not authorized to divert on that day. And so, honoring these 15 environmental flows means that that water level flow rate 16 needs to be that -- that high or higher. Coming out of that 17 meeting, one of the pulse flow requirements is right at 18 28 cubic feet per second, so we can actually get more water 19 by limiting our instantaneous diversion rate, the highest one 20 that we're looking at for scalping purposes, at 28 cubic feet 21 per second, and then we just stair-step down to 9 cfs in 22 terms of the three that we used to model the 5,000 acre foot 23 county M.O.U. permit. 24 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So, put that in perspective. 25 Like, 28 cubic feet per second is about what the river's 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 11 1 flowing right now, right? 2 MR. BLUMBERG: I didn't look at the gauge when I 3 crossed the river, but you're probably about right. It might 4 be a little bit more, little bit less. 5 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. 6 MR. BLUMBERG: For all intents and purposes, at 28 7 -- at 28 cfs, the County could take out that 5,000 acre feet, 8 and if you could -- had water there and could divert 9 continuously day after day at 28 cfs, you could take that 10 5,000 acre feet out in about three months. And then at each 11 of those flow rates, it would be a little longer. So, for 12 example, 18 cfs I think was about four and a half or five 13 months; 9 cfs, it would take you about nine months to get the 14 water out. So, 28 cfs is going to get you your 5,000 pretty 15 quickly. So, these were the modeling assumptions that 16 Richard used. We used the -- the full authorization WAM, the 17 T.C.E.Q. WAM. That means that all the water rights up and 18 down the river are utilized at their full authorized amount. 19 COMMISSIONER MOSER: What's a WAM? 20 MR. BLUMBERG: The WAM is the water availability 21 model -- 22 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. 23 MR. BLUMBERG: -- that T.C.E.Q. uses. 24 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. 25 MR. BLUMBERG: To look at any permit application or 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 12 1 an application for an amendment. The period of record that 2 we looked at was 1934 to 1989, which is the period that 3 T.C.E.Q. typically uses for these assessments. And what 4 we're looking at here is 55 continuous years that include the 5 10-year drought of the 1950's, so we have the longest period 6 of sustained drought in the modeling period. And we're 7 assuming that at some point in the future, 55 years would be 8 roughly equivalent to the 55 years that we're modeling here. 9 MS. McMAHON: Excuse me. What's the "W.W.T.P."? 10 Is that wastewater treatment permit? 11 MR. BLUMBERG: Yes, ma'am. We assumed in the 12 modeling that there were no wastewater treatment plant 13 discharges, so these are taken out of the -- of the modeling. 14 We know that there's some up here, for example, but they're 15 not included, again, to be as conservative as we can in the 16 numbers that we present to you. And these are the same kind 17 of assumptions that are typically used in these kind of water 18 availability assessments across the whole state. Richard 19 picked three control points in the modeling corresponding to 20 the three diversion points, and then the priority dates that 21 were assumed is that the U.G.R.A. permit has a 1998 priority 22 date. It has special conditions in the model. The river has 23 to be at different flow rates, for example, 40 or 50 cfs, 24 before U.G.R.A. can divert under that permit. The M.O.U. 25 permits, Richard modeled with a 19 -- or a 2015 priority 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 13 1 date. And then the Senate Bill 3 environmental flows were 2 given a 2011 priority date, so these are the assumptions that 3 were built into the computer model that was used. And these 4 assumptions are very much in line with any modeling that 5 would be done anywhere in Texas, especially in -- in the San 6 Antonio and Guadalupe River basins. Environmental flows were 7 modeled as Richard indicated earlier, and we'll talk about 8 that just a little bit more. 9 So, for the -- the 1,000 acre foot M.O.U. permit, 10 we modeled it two ways. We initially were asked by U.G.R.A. 11 and the County to only model it with a municipal demand 12 pattern. That is, you're only taking water out in the same 13 way that you would pump it into a water treatment plant to 14 meet demand. So, early in the spring of the year, you 15 wouldn't take very much water out. The summer, you'd take 16 out a lot more, and in the fall of the year, you'd take out 17 less. You got a bell-shaped curve. That's one way that we 18 were asked to model it. But to show the benefit of taking 19 out 3 cfs whenever it's available, starting in January and 20 running as long as that water's available, that gives you in 21 comparison a feel for what the storage benefit is between 22 taking it out only as a city would use it, or a subdivision 23 or -- or any residential municipal-type demand, versus taking 24 it out and putting it in a bucket. The 5,000, we -- we 25 modeled that only at diversion 3, as we said, and then at the 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 14 1 three rates that we talked about. 2 So, in your -- and your packet is going to be a lot 3 easier for to you see. This is the results of the various 4 scenarios that we -- we ran for the M.O.U. permits, and the 5 two tables. The one for U.G.R.A.'s permits and the one for 6 the County's are basically the same, so I'm going to just 7 kind of walk you through this one, and the other one will be 8 very much the same. And -- and you'll be able to see it 9 easier on your -- on your paper copy, I'm sure. There's a 10 lot of numbers here, but we're going to hone in on a few of 11 them here in just a little bit. So, we modeled different 12 scenarios. In this case, 14 different scenarios, looking 13 both at taking the water out at municipal demand pattern and 14 at the maximum you could get. In terms of the 1,000 acre 15 foot permit, we looked at diverting that at all three. The 16 1,000 acre foot was diverted at all three diversion points, 17 1, 2, and 3. The scalping, or 5,000 acre foot permit, as you 18 -- as we said, is only diverted at diversion point number 3. 19 Up here in the early part, we looked at modeling 20 the environmental flows in two different ways. One was 21 looking only at the Comfort environmental requirement. The 22 other was at looking at all of the environmental 23 requirements. And then you'll see across here, we're showing 24 you how much water's available at the end of the year. Over 25 a 12-month modeling period, we're looking at the maximum 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 15 1 amount that could be obtained in any of these scenarios. 2 We're looking at the average annual amount through the whole 3 55 years. We're looking at the average amount only during 4 the drought of record from '47 to '57, and then we're looking 5 at the median in all the years and the median during the 6 drought. So, you're going to see that same set of columns 7 through both the table for the County as well as the table 8 for U.G.R.A. And what you can see right off the bat is that 9 in -- in some years, you're able to get the full 1,000 or the 10 full 5,000. 11 You're also going to see, if you look at the median 12 only, during the drought of record, you're going to see that 13 these numbers are pretty small, just a few hundred acre feet 14 all the way down to zero acre feet. And that's something 15 you -- there's years during the drought of record that you're 16 not going to be able to divert very much water at all, if 17 any. And, again, that's the benefit of -- of the storage. 18 These two rows up here, in scenarios 1 and 2, if you look at 19 these numbers over here, the relationship between looking 20 only at the Comfort gauge for environmental flows versus 21 looking at all the downstream environmental locations, you 22 can see how much difference there is in the annual amount of 23 water that you're able to obtain. And that's a function of 24 having to honor those downstream environmental flow 25 requirements, which in T.C.E.Q. modeling, they're going to 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 16 1 require the amendment -- or the M.O.U. permit to honor those 2 downstream environmental flows. So, this is more likely the 3 number of acre feet you would get under each of these 4 scenarios. 5 So, you can see that with the 1,000 acre foot 6 scenario -- quantity, there's a distinct benefit to capturing 7 that water as quickly as you can, versus capturing that water 8 on a municipal demand pattern. That's the benefit of the 9 storage. You can also see down here at the 5,000 acre foot 10 diversion, that same -- same situation, where you get the 11 maximum amount of water by scalping or taking it when it's 12 available. The other thing I want to point out on this page, 13 and we'll talk about it a little bit -- 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fred, let me just -- 15 MR. BLUMBERG: Yes, sir? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I -- the Court may not 17 understand this or realize this. What he's saying is -- from 18 our standpoint, is if you are taking it through municipal 19 demand, you don't need storage. You're just going to -- 20 you'll need a water treatment plant to treat it and disperse 21 it. If you take it not on municipal demand, you got to have 22 a storage mechanism. That's kind of why he did the 23 difference there, because, you know, there's -- there's a 24 treatment plant scenario, and there may be a treatment plant 25 in both of them. There's a different -- 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 17 1 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I didn't understand it that 2 way. I understood what he was saying was that municipal 3 demand was just the varying amounts that you took in the 4 spring and the summer and the fall. I didn't know it had to 5 do with water treatment. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it's not really water 7 treatment, but it has to go somewhere. 8 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Right. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the numbers are a lot less 10 because the assumption is that you're going to be 11 distributing it right away; you're not storing it. 12 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Well, it's just -- it's just 13 seasonal. Isn't that what your point was? You're just 14 taking that seasonally, as opposed to storing it? 15 MR. BLUMBERG: Yes, you're taking the water out 16 under the municipal pattern. 17 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Which is seasonal. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 19 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Extraction rate. 20 MR. BLUMBERG: Exactly. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you're taking -- 22 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Doesn't have anything do with 23 water. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you're trying to take it 25 out when there's no water there. The highest demand on 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 18 1 municipal is during the summer when there's no water, so it 2 shows you need storage. 3 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Right. 4 MS. McMAHON: It might be a premature question, but 5 storing it, would it be surface or would it be A.S.R.'s? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's probably 7 premature. 8 MS. McMAHON: Pardon? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably premature to get 10 there. But the current -- we'll get to it later. I think 11 the current is probably surface, because of the reservoir 12 quality as you go east. 13 JUDGE POLLARD: But the reason you're concerned 14 with the storage deal is because of the extra expense 15 involved in storage? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 17 JUDGE POLLARD: Yeah. 18 MS. McMAHON: Of course, you lose some of that 19 water if it's surface. Of course, it seeps out if it's in 20 the A.S.R. too. 21 COMMISSIONER MOSER: And if you put -- even though 22 we're not going to talk about storage facilities, A.S.R. -- 23 correct me if I'm wrong. It doesn't have to be treated to 24 drinking quality to put it in an A.S.R. -- 25 MS. McMAHON: Mm-hmm. 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 19 1 COMMISSIONER MOSER: -- right now, so you have to 2 treat it when you put it in or treat it when you take it out. 3 MS. McMAHON: Right. 4 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay, got it. 5 MR. BLUMBERG: The other thing I would point out on 6 this table for the county permits is when you look at the 7 volume of -- annual volume of water under scenarios 9 and 10, 8 that is at the 9 cubic foot per second diversion rate. The 9 last two scenarios are at the 28 cubic foot per second 10 diversion rate, and the middle two here are at the 18. And 11 what you can see is that -- and at this point, we're not 12 worrying whether you're pumping this water to get it out of 13 the river or whether you've got some way of gravity-flowing 14 it out of the river. Either way, the State is only going to 15 allow you to divert at a certain rate, whether you pump it or 16 whether it's by gravity. And what you see here is, you get 17 a -- you get a significantly higher volume of water at 18 18 cfs; in fact, almost twice as much water at 18 cfs. 19 You're able to capture it, because when it's there, you get 20 it. About a 90 percent increase from these two rows to these 21 two -- or to -- yeah, these two rows to these two rows. 22 Going up to 28 cfs doesn't get you much more water. So, in 23 terms of if -- if it ever was to be developed as a pumping 24 project -- and, of course, you'd want to reevaluate a lot of 25 this in detail at that point, but -- but you probably would 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 20 1 not -- would not consider investing in a larger pump station 2 to get incrementally a -- a lot less water. But, again, 3 that's an economic decision at that point in time, and you 4 may say, "Well, it's worth it." So, that's the key. Can you 5 clean it up? 6 And we're staying with the county permits. Under 7 the county, the county permits at the back, what we did to 8 illustrate graphically, there's a series of -- the county 9 permits are shown with a series of blue bar graphs like this 10 for each of the 14 scenarios, and then the -- the U.G.R.A. 11 permits are done -- I think they're in green. But I picked 12 out -- Richard and I picked out four of these just to show 13 you, again. And when you see the blue here, this is the 14 maximum amount of water that could be captured under the 15 authorization. The blue area shows you years when you can 16 get all the water. The white areas are years when you're not 17 getting much, if any at all. And what this shows you is the 18 difference if -- if we only look at the Comfort gauge for 19 environmental flows versus what happens to the permit when 20 you look at all the downstream gauges for environmental 21 purposes. And then the bottom two illustrate the difference 22 between capturing the water at the maximum amount that's 23 available; in other words, scalping that water, versus taking 24 that water under a municipal demand pattern. You can see how 25 much more water you get under the scalping versus the 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 21 1 municipal pattern. 2 JUDGE POLLARD: Jonathan, how does this fit into 3 the overall East Kerr County project? Is this going to be 4 the total water source available for that project, or is it 5 some other source? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The current -- I mean, we're a 7 long ways away, but the current, I guess, kind of thought is 8 that the County's M.O.U. would be used to fill it, if there's 9 a reservoir or A.S.R. to fill it up, and then U.G.R.A.'s 10 permit would be used to keep it full, because theirs is more 11 -- much more reliable than ours -- not much more; more 12 reliable than ours. So, you know, they work very well 13 together. 14 JUDGE POLLARD: So, there's another source. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, U.G.R.A. And there's -- 16 you know, there's the possibly of buying other water rights, 17 things of that nature, but we're trying to -- I guess it's 18 already complicated enough, so we're just using our M.O.U. 19 and their one 5394 permit. 20 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So, what is the message in 21 your top two charts up there? I understand that -- you know, 22 how much water you can capture. But the second one from the 23 top shows the effect of the downstream restrictions, if 24 you'll let me just use those terms. 25 MR. BLUMBERG: Right. And in looking at -- in 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 22 1 looking at these two bar graphs, everything in the two bar 2 graphs is identical, with the exception that in the top one, 3 Richard only -- only restricted the new permit to the 4 environmental flow requirements at the Comfort gauge. 5 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Got you. 6 MR. BLUMBERG: And then the bottom one, he used all 7 five of the environmental flow locations. 8 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Why -- let me ask Jonathan 9 this. Jonathan, what's the -- what -- on the environmental 10 flow rate restrictions downstream, what's the status of that? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Say it again? 12 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Looking at the second bar 13 graph there, that's a model based on you can't take it out; 14 you're restricted based on -- help me. 15 MR. BLUMBERG: Environmental. 16 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yeah, on the environmental 17 from downstream. Is that -- is that in effect now? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, that's fact. 19 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay, that's fact. 20 JUDGE POLLARD: That's so the permits downstream -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's environmental. There's 22 not other permits. It's basically saying that the 23 environmental flows to the basin are going to be met before 24 there are any other permits. There will be a condition. 25 COMMISSIONER MOSER: And that's cast in concrete? 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 23 1 MS. McMAHON: How did they pick that particular 2 location? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have no idea how they picked 4 those five locations. 5 JUDGE POLLARD: That's a good question. That 6 occurred to me earlier. What dictated picking those points? 7 MR. HOFFPAUIR: We went through sort of a 8 three-step process. So, they had a science team to assess 9 the river basin and the location that would meet a sound 10 ecological environment, and they produced a report that went 11 to a stakeholder group, and then the stakeholder group did 12 some assessments to consider human needs for water, and they 13 produced a second report which went to T.C.E.Q., and then 14 T.C.E.Q. took that report and developed a set of standards 15 for the basin. So, it was a multi-year process to get 16 through each one of those steps. 17 JUDGE POLLARD: The three points -- diversion 18 points. 19 MR. BLUMBERG: Essentially, the five points were 20 probably picked at those specific -- the process is as 21 Richard described it. The five points in the Guadalupe basin 22 were likely picked because there's a long period of historic 23 record and flow there. There's been U.S.G.S. gauging 24 stations at those locations for many years, so they had a lot 25 of data. There had also been environmental flow studies done 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 24 1 at different locations like that. And -- and, realistically, 2 when you look at Comfort, Spring Branch, Gonzales, Cuero, 3 you're looking at different types of river systems there. Up 4 here, the Hill Country, Spring Branch kind of transitions 5 into a reservoir. Gonzales, you're getting down in the 6 flatland prairie where everything flattens out. Cuero, 7 continuing that. So, it's different -- different types of 8 terrain, topography, flow conditions, and -- and a lot of 9 data. 10 JUDGE POLLARD: Very good. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I can't remember the exact 12 number, but just to give you some reference -- and, Fred, you 13 may even know this better. How many -- what is the -- how 14 much water will this provide? I mean, 5,000 acre foot, that 15 would provide how many families or how many individuals 16 water? 17 MR. BLUMBERG: You can probably figure about four 18 households per acre foot per year, so 5,000 -- 5,000 acre 19 feet -- 20 JUDGE POLLARD: 20,000. 21 MR. BLUMBERG: -- would be about 20,000 households. 22 Now, that's residential use. If it was an industry or 23 something, obviously, you'd have to figure that out. But -- 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, that's a -- 5,000 25 acre-feet's enough for all of eastern Kerr County, some for 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 25 1 Kerrville and some for others. It's a lot of water. I mean, 2 if you just hear 5,000 acre feet, you don't -- most people 3 don't deal in acre feet, so it's easier to put it in terms of 4 households. 5 MR. MUSGROVE: Would there be any negative impact 6 on hydroelectric demand if you scalped the water when it was 7 available and kept the reservoir full all the time? 8 MR. BLUMBERG: You're talking about the 9 hydroelectric plant -- 10 MR. MUSGROVE: At Canyon Lake. 11 MR. BLUMBERG: Well, that plant has to generate 12 with whatever comes out. It really doesn't have any -- it 13 doesn't have a water right that gives it any priority. It's 14 a run-of-river plant, so it only generates what's being 15 released for other purposes, so it's really not an impact on 16 the power generation. 17 MR. MUSGROVE: Do they have the right to -- to haul 18 water? 19 MR. BLUMBERG: No, sir. 20 MR. MUSGROVE: They do not? 21 MR. BLUMBERG: Not for hydro-generation. Now, to 22 capture it in a reservoir, yes, but not to generate -- 23 MR. MUSGROVE: Yes, sir. 24 MR. HOFFPAUIR: There was a reason behind the 25 modeling it two different ways. The way where you're looking 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 26 1 at all the five environmental flow requirements down to the 2 bay, that's the way T.C.E.Q. will model it when they do an 3 assessment and do, say, a yield. If we're applying for a 4 reservoir, they would look at this type of time series and 5 generate a firm yield off of that. But -- and this is kind 6 of odd. When they issue the permit, it'll look like this. 7 They'll issue the permit with just the Comfort gauge in the 8 permit, so -- 9 COMMISSIONER MOSER: But when it comes time to take 10 it, they'll say huh-uh? 11 MR. HOFFPAUIR: You'll get a little more water when 12 it comes time to take it. That's why there's two graphs up 13 here. 14 MR. BLUMBERG: Okay. 15 JUDGE POLLARD: This is making one water source, 16 Jonathan; is that right? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just the M.O.U. 18 JUDGE POLLARD: Plausibility of the other water 19 source. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is just our M.O.U. only. 21 JUDGE POLLARD: I got you, okay. 22 MR. BLUMBERG: Right. And, Judge, now we're 23 jumping to the U.G.R.A. permit, which is for 2,000 acre feet 24 a year. Now, it has a 1998 priority date. It has 25 restrictions in it. But we modeled -- we modeled eight 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 27 1 different scenarios here. The first two, A and B, were kind 2 of a baseline for comparison purposes. A and B -- using the 3 same headings that we had before, A and B looks at taking the 4 water out of the river at the -- at the existing diversion 5 point at the water plant at the dam there. Just right across 6 the street, essentially, over here. And -- and Richard 7 modeled it two ways, one with access to the reservoir 8 storage. There is about 840 acre feet of water in there, in 9 the reservoir, when it's full. He modeled it whether or not 10 you could have any access to that, and then without that 11 storage. There's a slight difference in those numbers, but 12 this is the -- this is the results. And, again, you can see 13 that during a drought of record, even under the 1998 priority 14 date, you don't get a lot of water on an annual basis, so 15 storage -- some kind of storage has got to be there. 16 And then we modeled this one using -- at all three 17 of the downstream diversion points. And I think the -- the 18 takeaway here is when you compare these -- these two rows to 19 the rows down here, you can see that there's not a lot of 20 loss by moving downstream. In other words, the amount of 21 water that you're able to take up in Kerrville is essentially 22 about the same amount of water that you could take 23 downstream. And you're thinking, "Well, that doesn't make 24 any sense," based on what we just talked about with these 25 environmental flows. But the way the T.C.E.Q. rules are 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 28 1 written, the only portion of that amended water right that 2 has to honor those downstream flows is the amount of water 3 that the -- that U.G.R.A. would get benefit from by going 4 downstream. For example, if there's creeks coming in 5 downstream in Kerrville that add more water to the diversion, 6 getting access to those creek flows, you have to honor it, 7 but not the stuff that came -- not the water that came by -- 8 JUDGE POLLARD: I take from it what you've said, 9 the 1998 permit is more restrictive than any others? The 10 conditions in 1998? You said even in the 1998 -- whatever it 11 was. 12 MR. BLUMBERG: Well, even in the permit that -- 13 that U.G.R.A. has, which has a 1998 priority date, T.C.E.Q. 14 put flow restrictions in that permit on top of the priority 15 date. In other words, during some months of the year, the 16 flow here has to be 40 cfs, and in other months, I think it's 17 30 -- 30 cfs before U.G.R.A. can take it, irrespective of the 18 priority date. So it's -- 19 JUDGE POLLARD: I see. 20 MR. BLUMBERG: -- it's kind of double-dipped or 21 stacked a little bit on that. And -- and part of the reason 22 for that was when -- when U.G.R.A. applied for that permit 23 back years ago before the water plant was built, there was 24 some downstream opposition, and in order to satisfy that 25 opposition, T.C.E.Q. added these -- these flows. 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 29 1 JUDGE POLLARD: Flow rates. 2 MR. BLUMBERG: And they're very common. The 3 T.C.E.Q. adds those restrictions in most of the permits and 4 amendments now, because they are essentially an on or off 5 switch. Rather than trying to juggle priority dates, you can 6 see, well, if the flow rate's 40 cfs, they can take it. If 7 it's not, they can't. It's black or white. There's not a 8 lot of room for error or judgment. So, here are the same 9 kinds of -- of comparisons, and we've just picked a couple of 10 these out, again. These two show the difference between 11 taking the -- diverting the water at Kerrville or downstream 12 at point number 1, which is the furthest down almost to 13 Center Point, and you can see there's not a lot of difference 14 in annual volume that you can get by just looking at these 15 green areas. And this is the same as the top two on the 16 previous slide. It just shows the difference between looking 17 at Comfort and looking at all the downstream environmental 18 locations. 19 So, what are the takeaways out of this exercise? 20 It's that for either entity, the County or for U.G.R.A., the 21 volume of water at the three diversion points that you're 22 able to get is essentially the same. So, in terms of water 23 availability, it doesn't matter whether you divert it right 24 below Kerrville or right above Center Point. It's all -- or 25 it's all about the same. The max volume is available in many 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 30 1 years, but during a drought of record, the D.O.R., there's 2 almost no water available under either water right. The 3 benefits of storage is by comparison to what we showed you 4 for the municipal versus max. The 5,000 M.O.U. county 5 permit, there's little additional benefit, at least from a 6 modeling standpoint. Again, this is all just computer 7 modeling at this point. Going from 18 to 28, there's not a 8 lot of additional water gained. And for the U.G.R.A. permit, 9 something that's very important to them, I'm sure, is that 10 moving the permit downstream, and -- or adding a diversion 11 point downstream doesn't create a very -- a great deal of 12 detriment to the amount of water that they're able to take. 13 MR. HOFFPAUIR: And did we mention why we went up 14 to 28? 15 MR. BLUMBERG: I mentioned it generally, Richard, 16 about the pulse flow, but you may want to explain that a 17 little more. 18 MR. HOFFPAUIR: The T.C.E.Q. environmental flow 19 requirements have an exemption in them, and that is if your 20 diversion rate is 20 percent or less of the max -- of the 21 smallest pulse requirement, then you do not have to look at 22 pulses in environmental flow requirements. So, the smallest 23 pulse at Comfort was -- was 140 cfs. So, if you take under 24 20 percent of 140 cfs, you don't have to look at those 25 requirements in the model, which saves quite a bit of water 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 31 1 from propping up here. 2 MR. BLUMBERG: You still have to look at the base 3 flow environmental requirements, but you don't have to look 4 at the pulses, so it gets -- if you had gone to 31 or 32 or 5 50 or 100, you'd get a lot of water, but they'd take a lot 6 away because of the pulse flow requirements. So, it really 7 was not -- and plus at 28 cfs, you can get your 5,000 acre 8 feet in three -- the first three months of the year, 9 essentially. 10 MR. HOFFPAUIR: I think that's all -- we talked 11 about it with you before. So, unless there's questions... 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Did we hand out -- there's 13 another handout I think that everybody got, or we have it. 14 And I don't know that we need to go over it in detail, you 15 know, but I can just kind of summarize where we need to go. 16 There are some numbers, you know, that are guesses on some of 17 the costs that we'd be faced with, you know, in moving 18 forward. But kind of going back to Diane's question, one of 19 the assumptions is that -- because A.S.R., the further east 20 you go, sort of has problems in their reservoirs from what we 21 know in the Center Point area. And we'd like to look at, get 22 an idea what it would cost. Is it economically feasible to 23 do a reservoir? And the area that seems the most promising 24 are some of the gravel pits. They're, you know, obviously 25 big holes in the ground, and there may be some opportunity 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 32 1 there. So the next step, really, is to evaluate that, to 2 evaluate some of the gravel pits and see, is there enough 3 capacity there? What's it going to cost? Kind of just a 4 very preliminary type study. That's step one. Step two, if 5 that is a positive, or A.S.R. turns out to be positive, 6 starting the permitting process. And at that point, we're 7 talking a lot of money. The estimate that they put down for 8 the T.C.E.Q. permitting of U.G.R.A. and the county permit -- 9 and I believe this is without a major protest from anybody -- 10 is $120,000 to $150,000 for those permits. 11 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Per permit? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To get the permits. 13 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Mm-hmm. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If it's a contested hearing, 15 which it could be, it depends how contested it is. 16 MR. BLUMBERG: Actually, Commissioner, we assumed 17 that there were some protests that would have to be 18 negotiated out or something, but that there would not be any 19 prolonged litigation. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 21 MR. BLUMBERG: There's hardly any opportunity to 22 get permits any more in Texas without someone taking some 23 issue with them. So -- and the other kind of caveat in there 24 is we just threw two $25,000 numbers in there for each of you 25 having a separate attorney. We didn't know how -- if y'all 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 33 1 went into it collectively, how that would be handled, or 2 whether the attorney would charge you more or less. We just 3 essentially used that as a -- oh, what do they call it when 4 you buy a house and they give you an allowance of so much? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then, you know, after that 6 process is going, or if you get the permit, then you do an 7 actual analysis of where we are kind of in the wastewater 8 project of a design. You figure out exactly what it's going 9 to cost. You pick the location, acquire the property, and 10 figure out what it's going to cost to get the water out of 11 the river, whether at Comfort, whether you use a weir 12 channel, you know, what it costs for the reservoir. That's 13 the -- I would guess that there will be grant funds available 14 for part of this, the analysis part. I mean, the permit -- 15 getting the permit, I don't think there'll be grant money 16 available for that, but the analysis of the -- preliminary 17 analysis, and then the design. 18 JUDGE POLLARD: It comes out of that, out of our 19 budget. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The permitting part would 21 definitely come out of our budget, and that's the combined 22 U.G.R.A.'s and County's, so we're not at the point that we 23 want to get there. But we need to be aware of our plans from 24 the standpoint that there is a cost if we choose to go down 25 that road. The construction, you know, we don't have any 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 34 1 idea really, I don't think, what that will cost. It's going 2 to be a lot. But we're faced with that with the -- our 3 current wastewater project, and through the availability of 4 funding, this would meet -- become very favorable to T.W.D.B. 5 and Water Development Board, because it's a regional type 6 project. It's getting -- it's planning, so I'm sure we can 7 get some. The other thing that we could look at is 8 sustaining the area, because the amount of water we're really 9 talking about is really substantial into Kendall County, into 10 city of Kerrville. The city of Kerrville, up till now, has 11 not had a great interest in working on this project, but, you 12 know, what's going to happen down the road? So, there is 13 other areas that -- if you expand it east a little bit that 14 you can bring in. 15 A couple things could be accomplished there. One, 16 you bring in G.B.R.A., which means that -- and, you know, to 17 help with some of the funding, possibly. And we're currently 18 working with G.B.R.A., tying to get some firmer language, 19 though they're coming to Commissioners Court in the next 20 couple months or sooner, of an agreement that'll be a little 21 more specific, and the new agreement will have more detail. 22 We'll talk about it in Commissioners Court. 23 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Just out of curiosity, for 24 Nimitz Lake, what's the acre feet in there? Does anybody 25 know? 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 35 1 MR. BUCK: 840. 2 COMMISSIONER MOSER: 840 acre feet? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's five times that size. 4 It's pretty big. 5 COMMISSIONER MOSER: It's pretty big. 6 MS. McMAHON: Jonathan, in the permitting process, 7 would we be guaranteed we're going to get a permit in some 8 form or another? So, that money could be spent and get one, 9 and then would it be junior rights? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, U.G.R.A. has their -- I 11 mean, they're not taking it away. If you amend it, I don't 12 think they'll take it away, so that's guaranteed. I mean, 13 and the County's M.O.U. -- you know how you're going to get 14 it? Certainly not. But we do have in our M.O.U. that 15 G.B.R.A. will assist us or support us. I think "support" is 16 the word we used in the M.O.U. So, you know -- 17 MS. McMAHON: Would those be junior or senior 18 rights? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They'll be junior. They'll be 20 very junior. 21 MR. WALLER: Is this based on the date? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They'll be probably 2017. 23 MS. McMAHON: Oh. 24 MR. BUCK: They modeled them in 2015, so -- 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But they'll probably -- 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 36 1 obviously, the year's over, and we're not spending any money, 2 so it'll be '16 or '17. And I don't think that we're talking 3 very -- you know, I mean, I think you really need to figure 4 out a reservoir, at least have some feeling that -- you know, 5 what we're going to do with the water. 6 MS. McMAHON: Right. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, in my mind, we're looking 8 at -- from a budget standpoint, probably '17 before we get 9 started within the, you know, permitting type thing. And as 10 Fred said, you know, there may be some benefit to U.G.R.A. 11 and the County working together on it. But we get -- at 12 least it's good our tax base is the same; we have the same 13 taxpayers that are paying -- you know, paying y'all's tax 14 rate and ours. So, from a taxing standpoint, it's -- working 15 together makes a lot of sense. So, anyway, this is really 16 just kind of a -- where we are. We're thinking waves of the 17 future, really. We do know we have water demand needs coming 18 up. I kind of, you know, talked to Ray about this. To me, 19 it's kind of like where the City or where U.G.R.A. was when 20 they built Nimitz Lake, back when Darrell Lochte and those 21 people, they had the vision to do it. A lot of people 22 thought they were crazy at the time, and it turned out to be 23 the source of water for the city. I think this is kind of 24 the next step. Groundwater we know is limited. But this is 25 something that, to me, we're not doing our jobs if we don't 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 37 1 analyze it. 2 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Do we know -- maybe Jonathan 3 knows the answer to this. As far as the City is concerned, 4 and water availability and water use, are they at -- what 5 percentage are they? Do you have any idea? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't, but I can tell you 7 from their regional water plan that we're working on or 8 finalizing right now, they are -- their future is coming off 9 reuse. Their future water needs are being met under reuse. 10 Basically, their -- their plan. 11 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. All right. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's because that's their 13 plan. That's why they have not, you know, wanted to jump on 14 board and join us. But that doesn't mean in the future, they 15 may not want this water. 16 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So, that was part of that City 17 Council meeting with the $22 million reservoir. 18 MR. WALLER: Reservoir for effluent. 19 COMMISSIONER MOSER: That's the reuse. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's it. 21 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Got it. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's more palatable if they 23 take it out of the plant, put it in the reservoir, then use 24 it, as opposed to using it straight out of the plant. Which 25 is proper. 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 38 1 MR. WALLER: They were talking about holding water 2 that they were just sending back in the river, and weren't 3 getting any benefit. 4 COMMISSIONER MOSER: They're putting about a 5 million gallons a day in the river now. But the paper says 6 less than that, but I think that's what it actually is. 7 MR. WALLER: Tom, also you asked about other 8 reservoirs. To give you a feel for size, the biggest 9 reservoir at location 3, I think, that we're looking at has 10 about 200 surface acres. And it's hard to tell that from 11 driving by it. 12 COMMISSIONER MOSER: What? You mean existing pits? 13 MR. WALLER: Existing. That's -- 14 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Is that right? 200 acre feet? 15 MR. WALLER: No, 2,000 -- I mean, 200 surface 16 acres. 17 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Oh. Oh, 200 surface acres. 18 MR. WALLER: Not acre feet. 19 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Oh. 20 MR. ALLEN: With an average depth of 30 feet. 21 That's a lot of water, 200 acres. 22 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Where is that, Bob? 23 MR. WALLER: The very first is Wheatcraft or -- 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: In those areas of the pits. We 25 haven't -- we haven't identified any specific ones yet. 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 39 1 COMMISSIONER MOSER: But that's about -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: In that area right there. 3 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Surface area. Got you, okay. 4 MR. WALLER: It's hard to get a feel for it. That 5 would create a pretty good-size reservoir. 6 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yeah. 7 MR. WALLER: But that's 7,000 -- you know, 8,000 8 acre feet is a lot of water. 9 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Right. 10 MR. ALLEN: I'd just like to second what Jonathan 11 said about the long-range planning. These projects take so 12 long to get approved because there's so many regulatory 13 bodies we have to go through. T.C.E.Q. and Water Development 14 Board, no doubt, and a lot of other people get involved. You 15 just really got to think a lot longer term than maybe some of 16 our lifetimes. The -- we've all heard about there's 1,000 17 people a day moving to Texas. And recently I was reading 18 that the Austin-San Antonio corridor is the recipient of 350 19 of those 1,000 people per day, so 350 people a day moving to 20 this area just east of us. And they're going to come to the 21 Hill Country to recreate, and going to need water. It's 22 just -- it's a long-term deal. We need to be looking down 23 the road. 24 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yes. I think Hays County in 25 that corridor you're speaking of, I think that's one of the 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 40 1 fastest growing counties in the nation. 2 COMMISSIONER REEVES: By doing this, do y'all feel 3 that -- and I think I know the answer, but I wanted to hear 4 it -- that by doing this and keeping the water here, you'll 5 be protecting our resources better than letting somebody 6 downstream get it? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Definitely. 8 COMMISSIONER REEVES: As I said, I know the answer, 9 but I wanted to hear it from everybody else. 10 JUDGE POLLARD: What was your answer, Jonathan? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. We want to -- 12 MR. WALLER: We want our share. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- keep it in Kerr County. 14 JUDGE POLLARD: That's primary for me. Primary to 15 make sure we got enough water for ourselves. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that is why we've had the 17 permit for the M.O.U. for 15 years now. And, you know, I 18 appreciate U.G.R.A. helping put this together, because 19 they've got the expertise on how to analyze that. I wouldn't 20 know how to even get here. So, Ray, thank you for 21 spearheading a lot of this, and your board for authorizing 22 funding and working with the County on this. It's 23 a collaborative effort. I think it needs to continue, 24 hopefully will continue, and it will be -- probably the next 25 thing that we look at is some sort of, hopefully, agreement 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 41 1 between the two bodies to kind of get a little bit firmer as 2 to where we're going. No commitments of anything at this 3 point; just saying this is the direction, we're going to work 4 together towards. Because you have new members coming in; we 5 have new members coming in. It's nice to have a document 6 saying, well, we're committed to work together. 7 MR. WALLER: We're just step-by-step right now. 8 JUDGE POLLARD: Long way to go, and a lot of 9 unknowns. But we got to get started somewhere and start 10 getting it done. That's what we're starting. Okay. 11 MR. MUSGROVE: Personally, I view the expense 12 involved as seed money that any new venture needs. And it's 13 an old saying; we all know it. Nothing ventured, nothing 14 gained. And there's always a risk that you won't complete a 15 project, but, you know, from a -- 16 JUDGE POLLARD: You sure won't complete it if you 17 don't try. 18 MR. MUSGROVE: That's right. You really won't. 19 And it leads to another old saying, necessity being the 20 mother of invention. And this will stimulate thought 21 processes. It will cause a lot of thinking out of the box 22 and creative thought. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Agreed. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One thing I did know about 25 this group that's in this room right now, though, is I wanted 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 42 1 to echo Letz. Thank you, U.G.R.A., for all the -- and y'all 2 have shown great leadership in this community, with us for 3 the last 10, 12, 15 years, something like that. But if we 4 make a commitment to do these projects, we need to make a 5 commitment to make these -- do these projects and allow you, 6 the state, or whoever the booger-bear is going to be, let 7 them be the one to back out of it. Let's don't stumble 8 around and make mistakes as we -- I mean, we will make 9 mistakes as we go along, but let's don't let anything fall 10 completely out. If we make a commitment, let's keep the damn 11 commitment. That's how you do these things. Let me ask you 12 a question. Back on the permit thing, you gave some figures 13 from Point A to -- up to, like, 150,000 or something. And 14 then we talked about there -- there will be some adverse 15 something come along. And even though there is going to be 16 some adverse thinking, is that 150 still going to be staying 17 in the ballpark? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Depends how adverse. It 19 depends how adverse it gets. 20 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I think he said he put two 21 $25,000 -- 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, there's -- 23 COMMISSIONER MOSER: -- fees in there. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know how many people 25 protested the Mid-Basin project at G.B.R.A. Do you have any 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 43 1 idea? I mean -- 2 MR. BUCK: Quite a few that protested, but only 3 about four, five, six parties. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're talking about legal 5 fees? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're talking about that 7 protest of G.B.R.A.'s work. The scalping permit that we're 8 looking at is very similar to what G.B.R.A. is doing in the 9 permit that we protested as well. (Laughter.) But what -- 10 but they understand why we protested, and why U.G.R.A. 11 protested. They may not agree, but they understand. But 12 they're -- you know, we're trying to get a commitment from 13 them that they're going to help us. 14 JUDGE POLLARD: I'm surprised that you thought we 15 had a commitment like that. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we -- I think we can 17 get that, potentially. 18 MR. WALLER: It's that bargaining process. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bargaining process. But, you 20 know, not -- we cannot afford to let G.B.R.A. protest this 21 process. They have to be -- they don't have to support us; 22 they just have to be quiet, you know. They can -- so we're 23 working on that. We anticipate -- I mean, there's going to 24 be a lot of protests. We have to work with the City of 25 Kerrville. We don't want the City of Kerrville to protest, 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 44 1 so we have to be working with them at the same time. at this 2 point, I don't know why they would. I mean, it would be 3 available for them if they needed water in the future. The 4 biggest issue will probably be the Sierra Club, folks like 5 that. Trout fishermen or the trout -- 6 MR. WALLER: Down-streamers. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Downstream. Everyone 8 downstream below Canyon pretty much will be the ones that 9 protest it. And, you know, just be prepared for that. So 10 the number there, I'm sure it will be refined a lot more when 11 we get into the actual permitting as to what it's going to 12 cost, but that's a -- from a budget standpoint, we have to -- 13 there will be expenditures of $100,000, $200,000 to get this 14 done from the permit standpoint. And without the permit, 15 there's not a whole lot of point in doing other than a 16 cursory examination of site locations and things like that, 17 to go a whole lot further, so that's pretty early in the 18 process. Once you have the permits, then you can really 19 think about where the big bucks are coming under 20 construction. You do not have to do that right away. Wait. 21 But the longer you wait to get the permit, the worse the 22 permit rules or requirements would be. 23 MR. WALLER: And, Fred, you said at some point 24 we're going to get involved with the federal people on the 25 reservoirs, EPA? 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 45 1 MR. BLUMBERG: Well, you'll have to. At some 2 point, you'll have to go through a 44-related -- Corps of 3 Engineers 44-related permitting. But depending upon what the 4 actual project description is, that that could be a 5 relatively modest effort, or it could be more significant. 6 We won't know that until the project's defined. But -- 7 MS. McMAHON: And what happens pertaining to the 8 stay that's on the Clean Water Act? You know, if the stay 9 goes in a bad direction, so to speak. 10 MR. BLUMBERG: Very true. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway -- 12 MR. WALLER: A lot of variables. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: A lot of variables. But I just 14 wanted mainly the Court to hear the presentation. 15 JUDGE POLLARD: Good presentation. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where we've gone and where we 17 need to go. 18 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good presentation. Thank 20 you guys. 21 MR. BLUMBERG: You bet. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did they pay y'all for this? 23 (Laughter.) 24 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Not enough. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Neither one of them's going 10-28-15 CC/UGRA 46 1 to answer. 2 MR. BLUMBERG: To come back to this group, we would 3 do that for free. 4 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Just say, "Not enough." 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I was going to 6 say. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, we can adjourn. 8 JUDGE POLLARD: Okay. We are adjourned, then. 9 MR. ALLEN: Meeting adjourned. 10 (Joint meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m.) 11 - - - - - - - - - - 12 13 14 STATE OF TEXAS | 15 COUNTY OF KERR | 16 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 17 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 18 official reporter for the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 19 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 20 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 2nd day of November, 21 2015. 22 23 REBECCA BOLIN, Kerr County Clerk 24 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 25 Certified Shorthand Reporter 10-28-15 CC/UGRA