• Section 36.113(d)(2) requires that "before granting or denying a permit ...the district shall consider whether the proposed use of water ... unreasonably affects existing groundwater and surface water resources or existing permit holders". This law has been on the books for over 18 years, yet groundwater districts continue to ignore this law in making final permit decisions.          
• Existing groundwater resources includes other aquifers such as the Carrizo, Calvert Bluff, and Hooper aquifers.
• Existing surface water resources includes rivers, streams and springs (which would include springs and seeps that hydrate near surface soils that support terrestrial vegetation.
• Existing permit holders include exempt domestic wells that are registered with the District. 

2.    The permit is inadequate because it does not contain Special Conditions that a) allow future adjustments to the permit based on the impacts listed in 1 above as better information become available, and b) provide mitigation for wells in aquifers other than the Simsboro aquifer.   Furthermore, the draft Operating Permit ignores groundwater availability modeling (GAM) that predicts that:

• End Op pumping in the quantities requested in the Simsboro Aquifer will draw water from other aquifers thereby causing significant drawdown in the Carrizo, Calvert Bluff and Hooper aquifers.
• These drawdowns will extend into other adjacent counties and adjacent groundwater districts as far away as Gonzales, Lavaca, Colorado, Austin, Grimes and Walker counties (see sidebar below).

• End Op pumping in the quantities requested will decrease the amount of groundwater that currently flows from the aquifers and into the Colorado River, streams and springs, thereby reducing their flow - especially during drought conditions - in Bastrop and Lee counties ( see sidebar below).

• Contrary to what groundwater hydrologists claim, the model predicts that the groundwater pumped will come from the sources listed below.  The impact is to cause irreversible damage to surface waters and shallow wells with little or no recourse provided in the Special Conditions. The sources, in order listed, are:
  • First, the reduction in outflows to surface waters and features
  • Second, from leakage into the Simsboro from the other aquifers and from other counties,
  • Third, and last, from storage that is in the deep sections of the aquifers.

• Special Condition (4) that defines the terms used in the calculation to determine whether or not End Op can advance to the next level of pumping does not include a factor that considers future changes in the "rate of change" that are predicted by the groundwater model.  
• ES modeling predicts that this factor could be off by 15% or more. 
• Differences in this calculation would likely result in granting an increase in pumping to the next phase level that would lead to a greater exceedance of the desired future conditions.  

• The model predicts that End Op pumping, especially when combined with other permitted pumping in the region (baseline pumping + End Op pumping + Forestar pumping + LCRA pumping + Vista Ridge pumping), will cause the desired future conditions of the Simsboro Aquifer to be exceeded by 200-300 ft of drawdown.
  • This level of exceedance will trigger "pro-rata" curtailment of all permitted pumping.  However, once contracts, pipelines and communities dependent on the water are in place, we believe it is very unlikely that such curtailment will be possible. 

b.    The impact of permitted pumping on hydrologically connected aquifers

c.     The impact of the permitted pumping on domestic wells in hydrologically           connected aquifer,

d.    The impact of the permitted pumping on currently adopted DFCs.

e.    Changes that may be made to the terms and conditions of the Operating          Permit to accommodate the above findings.