More than three dozen residents filled a Bandera County courtroom as a district judge heard arguments in an ongoing legal fight over water well permits on a 317acre property in western Bandera County, a case driven by concerns over potential impacts to the Trinity Aquifer and one that now awaits a ruling expected after the first of the year.
The hearing centered on the permitting of two water wells for Vanderpool Management LLP and followed an 18-month conflict between the company and the Bandera County River Authority and Groundwater District over how much water may be pumped from the Trinity Aquifer. Nearby landowners have raised concerns that additional pumping could affect existing private wells in the area.
Most of those in attendance were supporters of the Bandera Canyonlands Alliance and neighboring property owners.
Also present were BCRAGD General Manager Dave Mauk, board Vice President Bruce Hayes and directors Rebecca Gibson and John Benedict.
At issue was BCRAGD’s decision to amend a recommendation from the State Office of Administrative Hearings that would have granted Vanderpool Management permits for wells capable of producing up to 200 acre-feet of water.
Instead, the district approved permits for two wells producing a combined total of 56 acre-feet to supply a house and barn on the property.
Attorneys for both sides were allotted 45 minutes to present their arguments, followed by five-minute rebuttals.
Two administrative law judges with SOAH previously reviewed the permitting process, statutory requirements and more than 1,000 pages of documentation. They upheld Vanderpool Management’s request for 200 acre-feet of water.
The BCRAGD board later amended that recommendation, limiting the permit to 56 acre-feet total.
Much of the legal argument presented by Curran Walker, attorney for Vanderpool Management, and Deborah Trejo, attorney for BCRAGD, focused on Texas Water Code Section 36.4165.
The statute governs how groundwater conservation districts must act on contested cases heard by SOAH, requiring a written final decision within 180 days or allowing the SOAH proposal to become final by default.
Under the statute, landowners may request a SOAH hearing when permit disputes arise, after which the groundwater district must either adopt or modify the judges’ proposal.
The law is intended to ensure a timely, appealable decision.
Walker argued that the permitting process was properly conducted and said the use of two administrative law judges underscored the fairness of the SOAH decision.
He said BCRAGD failed to identify additional reasons the judges misinterpreted the law and maintained that the final SOAH order did not violate the water code.
Walker also argued that the district’s changes were unsupported by claims that the judges misapplied legal standards.
Trejo countered that Vanderpool Management did not rely on the best available science when requesting the permit and failed to justify the need for such a large volume of water.
She described the property as rocky and unsuitable for agricultural production and said the application lacked a connection to regional water planning efforts.
Trejo also warned that the proposed wells could pose a threat to the aquifer and argued that the district had a duty to challenge the SOAH ruling if it believed key facts were overlooked or legal errors were made.
She said approving the larger permit would “pose an unacceptable impact on neighboring land owners.”
The courtroom audience reacted favorably to Trejo’s presentation, applauding as she concluded her remarks.
Trejo further stated that “all the plaintiff’s claims lacked merit” and suggested that water drawn from the property could ultimately be used for recreational purposes.
Judge McGuire closed the hearing by addressing the timeline for his ruling, saying a final decision would be issued after the first of the year.
As attendees filtered out of the courtroom, small groups lingered to discuss the proceedings. The hearing might have been over, but the controversy continued.
.png)
