TCEQ declines to pursue substantive inquiry into Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation District rules

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality heard oral argument May 22 on a petition filed by Cockrell Investment Partners seeking a substantive inquiry into the Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation District’s rules and whether they adequately protect desired future conditions for the Edwards-Trinity aquifer. After presentations from the petitioner, the district, intervening parties and agency staff, the executive director and the Office of Public Interest Counsel recommended dismissal of the petition, and commissioners indicated they would dismiss the matter.

Petitioner counsel Ryan Reed told the commission Cockrell owns a 70,000-tree pecan orchard in Fort Stockton and said the petition sought a substantive, evidentiary review under Texas Water Code §36.3011. “Do the Middle Pecos’ rules adequately achieve the desired future conditions and protect the aquifer? … The answer is no,” Reed said, urging the commission to appoint a review panel to evaluate the district’s rules and special permit conditions.

Zachary Swick, the farm manager for Cockrell, asked the commission for “meaningful thresholds and cutbacks” and said his community relies on the aquifer for drinking water, agriculture and local businesses.

Representing Middle Pecos GCD, attorney Mike Gershon described a lengthy administrative record and argued the district’s rules have evolved over two decades and are supported by monitoring, studies, board action and staff oversight. Gershon said the inquiry statute is intended to address districts that have not implemented rules designed to protect local groundwater; the district, he said, has such a regulatory program on the record.

The executive director’s staff reviewed the petition and responses and concluded the district “demonstrated that it adopted rules, that those rules are designed to achieve its DFCs, and that they adequately protect groundwater.” The Office of Public Interest Counsel reached the same conclusion after reviewing the district’s management plan, rules and exhibits. OPIC noted the district’s rules include aquifer-level based production limits and monitoring designed to prevent prolonged declines in groundwater levels.

Petitioner rebuttal emphasized perceived gaps in Rule 10 (production-based limits) and argued that the district’s thresholds lack explicit curtailment standards for large export projects. Reed said the proposed West Texas water export project “will produce 20 to 30,000 acre-feet more of water” than has historically been pumped from the region and that the size of such projects merits a substantive inquiry.

District representatives highlighted extensive monitoring — including transducers and frequent level checks — and said rules are designed to allow an iterative, adaptive management approach to meet desired future conditions.

Chairwoman Papp summarized the agency’s options under §36.3011 and said the commission has historically appointed review panels only where a district has not acted at all. She said the record demonstrated the district had adopted rules intended to achieve the DFCs and that the petitioner had not met its burden to show statutory criteria requiring inquiry. Several commissioners expressed agreement with that assessment. Chairwoman Papp stated she would dismiss the restated petition.

No panel appointment or evidentiary review was ordered at the meeting; the record contains staff and OPIC recommendations to dismiss and commissioners indicated concurrence.

Votes at a glance

• Chairwoman recommended dismissal of the restated petition under Tex. Water Code §36.3011; executive director and OPIC recommended dismissal; commissioners indicated agreement (no contested-case referral ordered at the meeting).