Bertram gets additional water rights despite missing aquifer study

The city of Bertram secured an amendment to its groundwater permit Nov. 20, adding 103 acre-feet of water to its annual allocation and bringing its total water rights to 895 acre-feet. However, the impact of this increase on a nearby aquifer and surrounding wells is unknown.

The Central Texas Groundwater Conservation District, which manages groundwater in Burnet County, initially requested a hydrogeological study to assess the potential impact of allowing Bertram to draw more water from the Ellenburger-San Saba Aquifer. However, the amended permit was ultimately approved without the study due to the city’s non-compliance in the matter and potential legal action against a landowner who had agreed to participate in a well-monitoring program essential to the study but later backtracked.

Without knowing the results of a study, it is unclear how the additional groundwater pumped by the city will impact the aquifer, which many wells in eastern Burnet County draw upon.

Groundwater Conservation District General Manager Mitchel Sodek told DailyTrib.com in an email that the study was initially recommended due to the aquifer having unpredictable behavior because of its fractured karst formations.

“The aquifer doesn’t always behave predictably in terms of pumping pressure and drawdown,” he wrote. “Without a hydrogeological study, we can’t fully understand how increased pumping will affect aquifer conditions or surrounding wells.”

Mitchell recommended to the GCD’s Board of Directors in May that a hydrogeological study be conducted before any more water was approved for Bertram’s use. The board agreed.

Bertram is entirely dependent on groundwater from the Ellenburger-San Saba Aquaifer that is drawn from two wells on a ranch located on County Road 340 just south of Burnet. The recently approved 13 percent increase in water rights follows a 2023 expansion that more than doubled the city’s allocation to the previous 792 acre-feet allocation, of which about 400 acre-feet was used to serve 1,100 customers inside and outside of the city limits.

The GCD board approved the increase to Bertram’s permit during its Nov. 20 meeting at the recommendation of Sodek, who stated a hydrogeological study was not completely required under the district’s rules at the time and that the city was unable to conduct the test anyway due to non-participation by landowners surrounding Bertram’s wells.

An excerpt from Sodek’s recommendation to the board hints that Bertram might have had a hand in pushing at least one landowner to not participate in the study: 

“One landowner volunteered the use of his well but later withdrew permission after the City threatened to sue the landowner for violating the terms of an existing settlement agreement that provided, among other things, that the landowner would not interfere with the City’s groundwater production.”

Sodek later withdrew the use of the term “threatened.”

Richard Matthews, the landowner in question, initially agreed to allow monitoring equipment on his well but later backtracked after receiving a letter from the city of Bertram’s legal counsel reminding him of a 2012 settlement agreement. 

The agreement required that Matthews not interfere with the city’s groundwater operations in exchange for being connected to the municipal water system.

An excerpt from the city’s letter to Matthews reads:

“The City demands that you provide written notice to the District that you are withdrawing your request for the Test and any other related obligation of the City on or before noon on Wednesday, October 16, 2024. … If we have not received confirmation of delivery to the District of your withdrawal of the request (by that date) the City will have no choice but take further action to enforce the Agreement.”

Bertram City Attorney Michael Guevara clarified the city’s actions.

“This wasn’t a threat. It was a reminder of his obligations under the agreement,” Guevara said. “The agreement specifically states that the landowner would not hinder the city’s groundwater operations.”

Matthews subsequently withdrew his offer to participate in the study on Oct. 13.

Bertram City Administrator Georgina Hernandez told DailyTrib.com that the city pursued an amendment to its groundwater permit to accommodate anticipated growth from new developments, including Bertram Oaks and Grand Estates, which will add about 500 homes.

“This isn’t water we need today, but it’s a step toward preparing for tomorrow’s developments,” she said.

Hernandez said another large development is in the early stages of planning and could build anywhere from 1,000 to 2,000 new houses.

“Nothing has been submitted for that yet,” she said. “(The developer is) starting to talk and get serious about numbers, and that’s when we say, ‘Hey, we need to see about getting these permanent water rights.’”
A hydrogeological study by Bertram faced both logistical and financial challenges. Hernandez said the study would have cost around $41,015 plus additional expenses for retrofitting monitoring equipment into wells.
“It’s frustrating because we followed the district’s guidance, purchased adjacent water rights, and complied with their rules, yet we still faced these hurdles,” she said.

The Groundwater Conservation District offered to cover $14,000 of the study’s costs, but General Manager Sodek said the city never provided a final estimate.

“They shared some initial estimates, which were highly variable depending on how many wells would be part of the study,” he said. “I think they were talking about $30,000 or more as a ballpark figure.”

elizabeth@thepicayune.com