2 thoughts on “Speaker: ‘Water will be at center of discussion’ at Lege”

1. Yep, settling water issues in a semi-desert (Texas) is a tough nut to crack. Over the (many) years of my life I have come to believe that underground water should be more of a commonly owned/controlled resource and less the property of a given landowner. I believe in property rights and I’ve cringed at some of the actions certain states have taken under “eminent domain”. But when it comes to underground aquifers, I simply do not accept that anyone has the right to unlimited water extraction or to pollute (fracking, anyone?).

2. First, “Policy” needs consistency in how we value fresh water “rights.” Surface water is publicly owned and it’s use is regulated by a strong central authority, the TCEQ. But, ground water and surface water both come from rain water, and ground water is regulated by the TWDB, a weak authority whose creation is statutory. The Tex. Leg. effectively eliminated the common law (Court made civil law)authority over fresh water with these two entities. The Tex. Sup. Ct. failed to cede the authority to the Leg. in Day vs. EAA. Leg. statutes trump the Common Law. So, the S. Ct. went way out of bounds to give an advisory opinion about who would win a condemnation claim for a wrongful taking of ground water rights by the TWDB, even though they ruled that the TWDB had treated Mr. within the law. So, the Leg. can and should address the Court’s ruling specifically stating that their action replaces all court made rules. With both bodies making the law we now run the risk that taxpayers could be forced to pay the land owner for the value of “water in place” under the owner’s “condemned”surface even though the land owner NEVER captured it and may never have intended to capture it. Taxpayers would then have to pay again for the cost of capture, if it is available for use.