Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Evangeline Resolution topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Patricio County adopts resolution backing Sinton, opposes large groundwater export from Evangeline project
Summary
The commissioners court approved a resolution supporting the City of Sinton’s water rights and opposing export of roughly 25.4–25.5 million gallons per day from the Evangeline project, passing the measure 4–1 after commissioners and public witnesses clashed over the science and timing.
San Patricio County’s commissioners court voted 4–1 to approve a resolution formally expressing support for the City of Sinton and opposition to large groundwater exports tied to the Evangeline project. County Judge read the resolution on the record, saying the county “expresses concerns that the 25,500,000 gallon project proposes significant risk to local farmers and residents of Sinton” and urging a unified search for long-term water solutions including desalination and interbasin transfers.
The vote followed more than an hour of public comment and commissioner debate about whether the court had sufficient factual basis to adopt an adversarial posture. Charles Fox, a landowner near Odom, told the court that “pull out 25 to 30,000,000 gallons a day…that’s going to eventually hurt us,” and asked commissioners to stop permitting or transporting water that large from local aquifers. Mayor John Hopkins of Sinton told the court he had been approached by the Evangeline group and expressed concern about the impact of extracting ‘‘25,000,000 gallons a day’’ on local wells.
Consultants and technical witnesses urged caution before adopting a resolution. James Dodson, a consultant working with the Evangeline Water Project, described 12 years of hydrogeologic study and testing of wells and said the project team had coordinated with the Groundwater Conservation District. Stephen Thomas, a geophysicist and former groundwater district board member, asked the court to study the district and Texas Water Development Board data before passing a resolution, saying the groundwater district’s modeling had included Evangeline pumpage and that the data did not indicate harm to Sinton.
Commissioner Zegorski and others objected that the resolution, as written, contradicted the county’s prior advocacy asking Corpus Christi to pursue more water sources and that the Groundwater Conservation District and technical models were the proper venues for resolving impacts. Zegorski said he did not believe the resolution, as drafted, would protect Sinton and urged more factual support. Supporters, including Commissioner Sikorsky and Commissioner Gillespie, argued the resolution was important to show solidarity with Sinton.
The court’s motion to approve the resolution was made by Commissioner Sikorsky and seconded by Commissioner Gillespie. After the public exchanges and further comments from elected officials and technical witnesses, the resolution passed 4–1. Commissioners noted on the record that if new factual information emerged they could rescind or amend the resolution later.
Next steps: the resolution expresses the county’s opposition but does not impose regulatory action; technical review and monitoring by the local Groundwater Conservation District and the Texas Water Development Board were repeatedly identified by witnesses and some commissioners as the next steps for evaluating hydrologic impact.
