GBRA seems to be more focused on maxing out surface and groundwater services  to I-35 developers than it is in protecting the surface water, groundwater, water supply,  environment, wildlife, recreation, electricity generation, flood control, history, and economic resources for  all of the residents in the 10 counties that GBRA was created to serve, conserve and protect  (Caldwell, Calhoun, Comal, DeWitt, Gonzales, Guadalupe, Hayes, Kendall, Refugio and Victoria). 

1. A. GBRA’s management has a history of forcing residents, counties and municipalities within  its jurisdiction to fight GBRA through lawyers and lawsuits on everything from groundwater  plans and permits, to water treatment issues, to dam maintenance and replacement, to  environmental issues. 

2. GBRA is presently trying to increase the amount of water it can pump from underground  aquifers in Gonzales County so that it can send that water via pipelines to the I-35 corridor  and sell it to those developers and communities.

1. The existing pumping is already causing citizens’ water wells to dry up in Gonzales  County, and there are several contested cases pending that object to increasing  GBRA’s allocation 

2. Mitigation funds that were supposed to be available to residents of Gonzales  County to dig deeper water wells have already been depleted, so there are no funds  available for further mitigation 

3. Local residents and local elected officials have less control over their own water  resources 

3. GBRA recently resolved a dispute with the City of Port Lavaca over the sale of a water  treatment plant in Calhoun County to a third party, where GBRA is alleged to have  breached the City of Port Lavaca’s contractual right to buy the plant. 

4. In 1996, GBRA subordinated the water rights associated with the 6 hydro dams along the  Guadalupe River in exchange for the right to sell an additional 50,000 acre feet of water  from Canyon Reservoir, effectively doubling GBRA’s water sales capacity from Canyon  Reservoir.

1. In 1998, GBRA’s then general manager, Bill West, stated in a news release that GBRA  had “subordinated downstream, non-consumptive water rights”… so that Canyon  Reservoir would be “allowed to store water rather than pass water through” to the  hydro lakes effectively increasing the amount of water available to sell from the  reservoir on an annual basis  

2. The 6 hydro dams received no benefit or funds from such subordination 3. Now there is insufficient water flowing downstream to turn the hydro turbines to  produce enough electricity to pay for the maintenance and replacement of the hydro  dams

5. GBRA’s own estimates in February 2020 show that they could have replaced the gates at all  6 dams for $45million, and could have done additional dam armoring at all 6 dams for an  additional $25million, equating to an approximate $6million in annual financing cost to  GBRA. But they refused to pursue that, and instead have forced local lake communities owning property surrounding 3 of the 6 lakes to create Water Control Improvement  Districts (WCIDs) and tax themselves to finance $40million dam replacement projects at  those 3 lakes. 

1. Forcing residents and local communities to pay for expensive dam replacements and  maintenance costs when those expenses should be borne by GBRA’s Canyon Reservoir  customers 

2.  Establishing a proper rate for water from Canyon Reservoir that reflects the true value  of the subordination of the Lakes’ water should provide sufficient revenue to maintain  and enhance the Lakes in perpetuity 

3.  Only 3 of the 6 lakes have a big enough property tax basis surrounding the lake to even  attempt to support the additional taxes necessary to fund GBRA’s dam replacement projects 

6. GBRA’s management and practices have twice been reviewed and significant failures  identified by the Texas Sunset Commission, including: 

1. GBRA’s planning, purchasing, accounting and other basic business and administrative  functions lack transparency, professionalism and accuracy 

2. Failure to repair or perform routine maintenance on critical infrastructure, such as  dams and water treatment plants 

3. Failure to plan, budget, prioritize repairs to owned infrastructure such as dams and  water treatment facilities, when dozens of repair needs have been looming for years

4.  Such failures affect lives and businesses along the river, tax rates and property values,  county and school district tax revenues, property repair issues for dock and boat  owners, and recreational and other income to community 

5. Lack of coordinated procurement practices and training 

6. No systematic review of long-standing contracts 

7. Lack of award notification

8.  No contract compliance process 

9. No signed conflicts of interest disclosures 

10.  Lack of award notification 

11. Commingled relationships, no legitimate reason to fund, unclear lines of reporting with  respect to numerous non-profit organizations to which GBRA has provided millions of  dollars in donations while neglecting own assets – e.g., Guadalupe Blanco River Trust,  San Antonio Bay Foundation, Gorge Preservation Society, Guadalupe River Foundation

12.  Complete lack of transparency to property owners, residents and taxpayers 

7. At least two of GBRA’s current directors have been accused of possible conflicts of interest in recent litigation involving GBRA: 

1.  Don Meador (GBRA Director for Hays County): GBRA staff worked on a $3,000,000 sale  of a conservation easement to the GBRA controlled Guadalupe-Blanco River Trust  covering a portion of Director Meador’s ranch. It is a non-public easement only Director  Meador, his family and invitees can use while retaining all property ownership rights.  All prior ranch owners in Hays County DONATED conservation easements with no  financial reimbursement. Following Director Meador’s receipt of the cash payment, he spearheaded an effort for the board to approve a substantial pay raise for GBRA’s  General Manager for his assistance and support. 

2. Steve Ehrig (GBRA Director for Gonzales County): Director Ehrig coincidentally ended up  as an owner or an entity (3E Land LLC) that owns 6 separate parcels of land along the  path of a proposed GBRA pipeline. Director Ehrig does not own any other property in  that area except for the tracts in the path of the proposed pipeline. Director Ehrig  previously served on the Gonzales Chamber of Commerce, Gonzales County Farm  Bureau, Gonzales County Appraisal District Agriculture Advisory Board (which prior  associations may have informed Director Ehrig which tracts of land to buy), and he is  also on the GBRA Board subcommittee that recommended substantial pay raise for  GBRA’s General Manager.  

8. GBRA seems to have lost sight of the purpose for which it was created – to protect and  enhance the surface and groundwater resources within its 10 counties. 

9. The County Commissioners Courts are the closest elected body to the people residing in  each of the counties within GBRA’s jurisdiction. Our proposal is to create direct  accountability from GBRA’s board to each Commissioners Court within GBRA’s jurisdiction  for GBRA’s decision making and management. 

10. Our proposal for creating this accountability is to change how GBRA’s directors are  appointed – currently the governor appoints 1 board member from 9 of the 10 counties.  Our proposal is to have the County Commissioners Courts in each of the 10 counties  appoint the director to serve on GBRA’s board. To do that, we have prepared a draft Local  Bill.

11. “local bill” is a mechanism under the Texas Constitution that can be used to change the  law regarding how GBRA’s Board of Directors is appointed and how the Board of Directors  conducts business

    1.  The drafters of the TX Constitution envisioned situations where state power could be  used to favor some communities over others, so they created a mechanism for local  bills to be passed that deal with regional issues, as opposed to general, state-wide  issues

2.  Local bills can be filed by anyone – you do not have to have a state legislator sponsor it  or introduce it 

3. They have to be published in the local community 

4. The advantage is that it provides an opportunity for citizens and local elected officials  to have a voice in Austin 

5. We are asking the Commissioners Courts within GBRA’s jurisdiction to consider  endorsing this effort by passing a non-binding resolution in support of this effort 6. If we can generate a lot of interest during the legislative session, it will become more  likely that the legislature will consider this bill 

6.  An additional advantage of the local bill is that generally local bills go to a local calendar  and do not necessarily get assigned to the natural resource committee, to which a bill  dealing with water would normally be assigned, or to the state affairs committee.  General bills can die in committees, so bypassing those can help facilitate ultimate  passage

7. Local bills generally get less resistance in the Texas house of Representatives unless  they touch on very sensitive subjects that have a more state-wide impact 

8. This local bill ONLY affects GBRA and not any other River Authority, MUD or other state  or quasi-state agency 

12. This proposed local bill addresses the following:

1. Change how GBRA’s Board members are appointed and removed – instead of the  governor appointing 9 directors from the 10 counties in GBRA’s jurisdiction, authorize each county’s Commissioners Court (all 10 counties) to appoint a director to represent  their county 

2.  Board of Directors to appoint and remove GBRA’s executive leadership 3. Limit CEO maximum salary to Texas Water Development chairman Board, a major state  agency, which is currently $200,000 a year – GBRA’s current CEO earns a base of  $360,000 a year, PLUS bonuses  

3.  Change director terms to three 4-year terms (instead of unlimited 6 year terms) 5. Require the Board of Directors to contract with the Texas Attorney General for legal  and legislative services. Board could hire a general counsel and a full time employee  lobbyist, both of whom report directly to the Board, but GBRA would no longer be able  to hire outside law firms or lobbyists, which is something on which GBRA currently  spends a substantial portion of their funds. This will keep the General Counsel and full  time employee lobbyist accountable to the Board of Directors and not to water  lobbyists in Austin who are controlled by developers and special interests. 

The first step in accomplishing these changes is for the Commissioners Court in the counties  comprising GBRA’s jurisdiction to approve a non-binding resolution in support of the proposed  draft local bill.