Hays Trinity GCD warns of insolvency after years of drought, litigation and underfunding
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Hays Trinity GCD officials told the committee that the district has recorded roughly 40 feet of average drawdown since their baseline, is carrying large legal bills and limited revenue authority, and faces insolvency unless the Legislature provides tools or funding to stabilize local groundwater management.
Marcus Gary, a hydrogeologist and board member of the Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District, told legislators the district’s monitoring network shows a district‑wide average drawdown of roughly 40 feet compared with the 2008 baseline — twice the drawdown that associated model outputs predicted for the 50‑year planning period. "We've drawn down the aquifer 40 feet," Gary said, explaining that the observed decline has occurred although permitted pumping remains below the modeled MAG for the district.
Why it matters: The Hays Trinity district — a priority groundwater management area that sits over the Trinity aquifer — has adopted local measures including groundwater management zones, drought triggers and moratoria on new high‑capacity wells. Parish managers said those local steps have not prevented observable, rapid declines and that the district is spending a large share of its limited budget on litigation. Deborah Trejo, an attorney who has represented multiple GCDs, warned that underfunded districts are vulnerable to litigation that can rapidly exhaust operating budgets; in Hays the district estimates that litigation is consuming roughly 30–50% of annual operating funds.
Policy choices: Witnesses asked the Legislature to consider expanded funding and statutory clarifications: allow districts more robust revenue options, clarify export and end‑user disclosure rules, strengthen waste and beneficial‑use definitions, and consider technical support grants so that districts can run local models and defend permits in litigation. The TWDB grant program and federal/state appropriations were cited as short‑term mitigations; several witnesses urged recurring appropriations and clearer mechanisms for recovering fees when districts prevail in court.
Next steps: Committee members asked TWDB and TCEQ to prepare follow‑up materials and signaled interest in drafting legislative options that would bolster local monitoring, clarify permitting factors for large export and data‑center requests, and explore ways to reduce the litigation burden on underfunded districts.