Friday, October 9, 2015
1012 C Street  •  Floresville, TX 78114  •  Phone: 830-216-4519  •  Fax: 830-393-3219  • 

WCN Site Search

Lost & Found

VideoLost/stolen: Shih Tzu named Newton, last seen Sept. 29, from outside our house located by Emmy's. If any information call 830-660-8121 or 830-660-9222.
*Includes FREE photo online!
Lost: Border Collie, black and light brown, 9 months old, wearing a green collar, last seen Sept. 22 near CR 427 in Poth. If found call 210-324-1208.
More Lost & Found ads ›

Help Wanted

F&W Electrical is now hiring journeyman, backhoe operators, and laborers. Apply at 6880 U.S. Hwy. 181 N., Floresville, Monday-Friday, 8-5. 830-393-0083. EOE.
Seeking individual to work in a local child-care center, paid holidays, etc., must be high school grad or GED. Apply in person at Cubs Country Childcare, 212 FM 1346 in La Vernia.
More Help Wanted ads ›

Featured Videos

Video Vault ›
You’ve been granted free access to this subscribers only article.

Agriculture Today

Cattle raisers support protecting groundwater

E-Mail this Story to a Friend
Print this Story
March 15, 2011 | 3,634 views | Post a comment

AUSTIN -- Members of the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association gathered at the state capitol March 1 to show their support for Senate Bill (SB) 332.

SB 332, introduced by Sen. Troy Fraser, amends the Texas Water Code by clarifying that landowners own the groundwater beneath their land, and that they have a right to capture it. SB 332 in no way takes away authority from groundwater conservation districts to protect aquifers. SB 332 would, however, require groundwater conservation districts to justify their actions when regulating the right to capture water.

Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association Legislative and Tax Committee Chairman Arthur Uhl, a rancher and attorney from San Antonio, testified before the Senate Natural Resources Committee on behalf of the bill.

“SB 332 has become necessary to legislatively reaffirm well settled Texas law that the landowner owns the groundwater under their land,” Uhl said.

“Unfortunately, a few groundwater conservation districts have taken the legal position that the landowner has no interest in groundwater -- that groundwater is somehow not owned by anyone, or is owned by the state. This is a misguided attempt on the part of a few districts to enhance their ability to regulate. The problem is that this position is legally incorrect, unconstitutional, and unnecessary.”

The cattle raisers association “supports reasonable regulation through local groundwater conservation districts,” Uhl said. “We believe groundwater is most fairly and efficiently managed by local groundwater districts. While SB 332 clarifies that landowners have an ownership interest in groundwater below the land and that they have a right to produce it, it does not take authority away from groundwater districts.”

Groundwater conservation districts are concerned that SB 332 would lead to more lawsuits, or takings claims, from landowners and bankrupt groundwater conservation districts.

According to Uhl and the cattle raisers association, this is false for two reasons. Uhl said that state agencies and local governments deal with and regulate private property every day and do not face countless lawsuits. “For example, the same way a person can own a car and the state can effectively regulate the use of that car, a landowner can own groundwater and the district can effectively regulate the use of that groundwater. Likewise, our cities and counties can tell us what we can and can’t do with and on our property, groundwater districts can tell us if we can drill a well, where we can drill a well, and how much groundwater we can pump,” Uhl said.

Second, Uhl said there are significant legal obstacles and financial disincentives facing a landowner wanting to bring a takings claim. There are substantial and well-settled legal standards that landowners must meet. What’s more, if the landowner loses, under Chapter 36 of the Water Code, the landowner can be required to pay the legal fees of the district. This is not required of the groundwater conservation district if the landowner wins. All of these factors serve as deterrents to landowners to sue a groundwater conservation district. SB 332 does not change that. “Landowners believe that the state can have effective groundwater regulation and management while still respecting landowners’ ownership interest in groundwater below the surface. The fact that groundwater regulation and management may require more justification and may cost more does not justify taking landowners’ private property,” Uhl concluded.

For more details regarding groundwater ownership and SB 332, visit

Your Opinions and Comments

Be the first to comment on this story!

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Not a subscriber?
Subscriber, but no password?
Forgot password?

Agriculture Today Archives

Coupons ag-right
Drama KidsTriple R DC ExpertsAllstate & McBride RealtyVoncille Bielefeld homeHeavenly Touch homeauto chooser

  Copyright © 2007-2015 Wilson County News. All rights reserved. Web development by Drewa Designs.