1994

February

February 25, 1994 – The federal court (Judge Lucius Bunton) appoints a monitor to gather and evaluate information for the court. The cost of compensating the monitor will be incurred by the USFWS, the State, and the City of San Antonio. The order also requests the State submit a plan by April 1, 1994 assuring that Comal and San Marcos springs do not drop below jeopardy levels, and strongly urges the City of San Antonio to plan to significantly reduce its withdrawals from the aquifer at the earliest possible date.

March

March 9, 1994 – The State (Attorney General Dan Morales) files action for a declaratory judgment pointing out that it was stymied in its efforts to implement SB 1477 to satisfy the concerns of one powerful authority (federal district court)...due to actions of another powerful federal authority (U.S. Department of Justice). It asks for an expedited response to this request.

March 24, 1994 – The Department of Justice rules on the States request that the Authority and the EUWD be allowed to exist concurrently. It rejects the States claim, responding that there is the potential for substantial conflict or duplication of actions between the elected body and the appointed body. The elected body will be subservient to the appointed body under the states proposal, and thus still legally unenforceable. Further, the Department of Justice threatens legal sanctions if the State tries to establish the Authority.

March 29, 1994 – The EUWDs Board of Directors votes to intervene in the action for declaratory judgment, filed by the State of Texas against the U. S. Department of Justice, on the side of the Justice Department.

April

April 1, 1994 – The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (formerly TWC) responds to the federal court (Judge Lucius Bunton) that they will not comply with the order to submit a plan. (See note on February 25, 1994.)

April 15, 1994 – Based on declining aquifer levels, the Sierra Club asks Judge Bunton to declare an emergency regarding the Edwards Aquifer and to set up court-ordered limits on water pumping to protect the quality of aquifer water. The Sierra Clubs motion includes urging the judge to threaten to cut off federal funding, and orders the U.S. Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency to consult with the USFWS about possible violations.

May

May 4, 1994 – San Antonio Mayors 2050 Water Resources Committee unanimously approves a master water plan. The plan calls for conservation; piping water from Canyon Lake and treating it at a plant to be built; storing nondrinking water in a completed Applewhite reservoir; leasing rights from irrigation water in the western counties served by the Edwards Aquifer, and swapping water rights with downstream users.

May 6, 1994 – The EUWD settles a lawsuit (Williams/Perez v. EUWD) which calls for board members to be elected from 12 single-member districts. The settlement is lauded as a model for resolving the one man/one vote controversy by balancing rural and urban interests with protection of minority voting rights. (See note on November 19, 1993.)

May 19, 1994 – San Antonios City Council calls a referendum on completing the Applewhite reservoir project as a storage facility for nondrinking water only. Voters will cast ballots on the proposition August 13, 1994. (See note on May 4, 1991 and May 4, 1994.)

June

June 3, 1994 – U.S. District Judge Lucius Bunton rules on the Sierra Clubs motion (See note on April 15, 1994). He approves having the court-appointed monitor prepare an Emergency Water Reduction Plan by August 1, 1994, to allow regulation and reduction of pumping from the Edwards Aquifer; denies the motion to declare an immediate emergency for the aquifer; and approves a request that the USFWS and other federal agencies complete mandatory recovery planning for endangered species at Comal and San Marcos springs.

August

August 1, 1994 – The court-appointed monitor files his plan for regulation and reduction of pumping from the Edwards Aquifer with Judge Buntons court (See note on June 3, 1994). In his plan, water reductions for irrigation are tied to flow rates from Comal Springs and aquifer conditions on the first day of the year (Jan. 1); other user reductions are tied to drought response plans. It also calls for San Antonio to use surface water supplies and treated wastewater to supplement aquifer withdrawals. The 90-page plan also addresses conservation, leasing of irrigation rights, recharge dams and augmentation of the springs.

August 13, 1994 – By a margin of 10%, the Citys 2050 Plan and its proposal to resume construction of the Applewhite Reservoir is defeated by San Antonio voters. (See note on May 19, 1994.) August 19, 1994 The State of Texas (Attorney General Dan Morales) files a motion with Judge Buntons court asking that the court order implementation of SB 1477 creating the Authority on an interim basis. The motion cites putting a state-based regulatory policy in place that will have the effect of eliminating the need for further federal judicial intrusion into groundwater management in the Edwards Aquifer.

August 24, 1994 – Attorney General Dan Morales files a motion for summary judgment with federal district court in Washington, D.C. He asks the court to rule that the Voting Rights Act does not apply to the board created by the Legislature to manage the Edwards Aquifer. If the court rules that the act does apply to the Authority, Morales asks the court to declare the board valid and that it does not discriminate against minority voters. (See note on March 24, 1994.)

August 30, 1994 – Judge Bunton responds to the States motion which asked that immediate implementation of S.B. 1477 be allowed on an interim basis (See note on August 19, 1994). The judge denied the motion stating the District Court in Washington, D.C. had jurisdiction over the Voting Rights Act preclearance issue of S.B. 1477. (See note on August 24, 1994.)

September

September 16, 1994 – U.S. District Judge Lucius Bunton rejects the Sierra Clubs request to declare the Edwards Aquifer in a state of emergency. In his order, the federal judge states he is satisfied that the parties presently before the court, are working to eliminate the necessity for further court intervention to enforce provisions of the Endangered Species Act. (See notes on June 3 and April 18, 1994.)

September 30, 1994 – Judge Bunton creates a panel of regional water officials and authorizes court monitor Joe G. Moore and the panel to begin the application process for a take permit. The judge gives the panel 60 days from their first meeting to deliver a solution to him. The panel includes representatives from the EUWD, Medina and Uvalde County Underground Water Districts, the GBRA, San Antonio River Authority (SARA), and Nueces River Authorities (NRA), the San Antonio Water System (SAWS), the City of San Marcos and New Braunfels Utilities. The panel is charged with obtaining an incidental take permit and finding alternative sources of water for San Antonio. The panels first meeting is scheduled for October 13, 1994.

October

October 10, 1994 – The EUWD, Medina County Underground Water Conservation District and Uvalde County Underground Water Conservation District sign an interlocal contract establishing a regional management plan for the Edwards Aquifer. The three agencies have jurisdiction over water management in five counties Bexar, Comal, Hays, Medina and Uvalde. The three districts will form an Edwards Aquifer Liaison Committee to coordinate planning efforts and maintain local control, including a drought response plan which addresses federal springflow requirements. This joins the five counties for the first time since Medina and Uvalde pulled out of the EUWD in 1989.

October 20, 1994 – The State of Texas motion for summary judgment is denied. The U.S. District Court concludes that the replacement of the EUWD is a change that affects voting and is subject to the Voting Rights Act preclearance requirement. The court also concludes that the plan outlined in the Williams/Perez v. EUWD settlement (see note May 6, 1994) is the benchmark against which SB 1477 must be measured. (See note on August 24, 1994.)

December

December 20, 1994 – The Sierra Club files a motion in U.S. District Court requesting enforcement of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act that prohibits federal agencies from doing anything that could directly or indirectly harm endangered species. The motion asks that the USFWS plan with the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the possible cutoff of federal agricultural subsidies, loans and grants. The motion also requests the court-appointed monitor revisit the triggers for irrigation pumping contained in his Emergency Withdrawal Reduction Plan.