By ANDY SEVILLA

A proposed Central Texas local government water development corporation aimed at addressing the future water needs of a growing thirsty region was voted down Tuesday in Hays County.

The proposed water enterprise, Central Texas Water Development Corporation, was seeking a resolution from the Hays County Commissioners Court accepting a petition for the creation of the local government corporation, per Chapter 431 of the Texas Transportation Code. 

The corporation was the culmination of a series of water meetings throughout the summer between Hays, Travis and Williamson counties to develop a water partnership to address the growing population and the diminishing availability of water in Central Texas.

“I think the effort is for counties and municipalities to cooperate and work collaboratively for conservation and reuse and it all comes to water,” Hays County Pct. 4 Commissioner Ray Whisenant said at Tuesday’s meeting. “If we don’t do something as a region, we’re going to find ourselves at a disadvantage.”

Hays County, Travis County and the city of Leander would have made up the Central Texas Water Development Corporation, and each local government would have had the opportunity to appoint a director to the partnership’s board.

The purpose of the local government corporation is to educate and inform citizens, and local, state and federal officials regarding insufficient water sources in the region, according to the interlocal cooperation agreement.

The corporation also would afford the local governments the opportunity to collectively express the need to develop additional water options, and to advocate for the authority to recharge aquifers, and develop and obtain water facilities to serve the region, the agreement states.

“If we don’t compete as a region, we won’t be able to compete,” Whisenant said. “Actually we need to get away from the word ‘compete.’ The water problem is something that the entire state needs to work on.”

Per an agreement with Austin-based Forestar Real Estate Group, Hays County has secured the reservation of 45,000 acre-feet of water annually from Simsboro Formation of the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer under Bastrop and Lee counties. That reservation could presumably cost Hays County $2.7 million for the five-year contract.

The Lone Pines Groundwater Conservation District, the water permitting entity in Bastrop and Lee counties where the water would be tapped, has only permitted Forestar for 12,000 acre-feet of water per year.

Forestar has forged a legal battle against the conservation district in its demand for the additional 33,000 acre-feet of water the real estate group says they’re entitled to.

In May, Hays County amended its contract with Forestar, where the county will pay a $22.22 reservation fee per acre-foot of permitted water, and $4.04 per acre-foot of unpermitted water.

During the tri-county water meetings this summer, county officials discussed piping Hays County’s reserved Forestar water into the Hays, Travis and Williamson counties and the need for a partnership to see the construction of a pipeline and distribution of the water. 

The Central Texas Corporation would allow for the planning, developing, coordinating, building, financing and purchasing of water and water facilities, without risk or financial obligation to the participating local governments, according to the interlocal agreement.

The corporation would have the ability issue bonds, notes or other obligations, and otherwise exercise its borrowing power to accomplish its purpose funded solely by binding contractual commitments made by local governments and legal entities to purchase portions of water and water facilities, the agreement states.

“County governments were never established to provide public utilities,” Hays County resident Will Taft told commissioners Tuesday. “A private company will rise to meet a need if the county doesn’t get in the way. This will effectively create a government monopoly.”

Hays County Judge Bert Cobb, who has led the multi-county water partnership discussions, said the area doesn’t have a water crisis, but a crisis of who is going to pay.

“We have to provide certain things and the most basic things we need to provide is public safety and life,” Cobb said. “The current efforts have done nothing to get water for the future of this county.”

But some residents questioned the county’s authority to accept involvement in any water development corporation.

“There’s a bucket of water that we’re all in line for and a bunch of people with spoons that want to get water out of this bucket,” Hays County resident Matt Oaker told commissioners. “It seems like you are trying to be the masters of all destiny in Hays County. I just don’t think this is the role of county government. Please do not do this.”

Some Hays commissioners felt the matter was rushed and needed more information before joining on board.

“I just don’t have enough of my questions answered at this time to know the authority that this body would have,” Pct. 2 Commissioner Mark Jones said.

Cobb and Whisenant, the ardent vocal proponents of the corporation voted in favor of Hays County’s involvement, while the remaining three commissioners decided the time wasn’t right.

“I don’t feel like I’ve had ample time to be in these discussions,” Pct. 1 Commissioner Debbie Ingalsbe said. “Having more discussion for my benefit would help me make a more informed decision.”

What is not clear at this time is whether or not the issue will come back to the court or if Tuesday’s “no” vote permanently derailed the plan. Cobb and Jones did not respond by press time.