Comments on: State planning could close river for rec use

By: Dianne Wassenich

Dianne Wassenich — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 02:45:33 +0000

The San Marcos is a navigable river, meaning the public has the right to boat on it. I don’t believe the EARIP will be closing down the river, and I’ve attended all their meetings and served on their steering committee for two years. However there is interest in protecting certain spots of wild rice from people who like to tear it up and kill it, especially during low flow periods when the river gets very shallow. This protection could be done with park rangers overseeing the areas that have the most wild rice.

There are many plants in the river, and not all of them are wild rice. I’m not sure yet what all the protective measures will be that the EARIP finally comes up with, but those of us who serve on that very time-consuming group are fighting for the survival of our river with everything we’ve got. We are suggesting that other cities get alternative water supplies, the way San Marcos was far-sighted enough to do, years ago. We have gathered a committee of scientists together and many computer models have been done to update the predictions of what a drought like the 1950’s 7-year drought would do to the springs, now that so many people live here. So many more people live here now than lived here in the 50’s. It would be bad. The Comal would dry up for a long, long time, in a drought like the 50’s, and our river might dry up too.

It is important for all of us who love the river to educate people about the importance of the endangered species. The Edwards Aquifer pumping is limited now, unlike groundwater in the rest of Texas, because of the water needs of our local endangered plants and fish. If we lost the endangered species from the river, then there would no longer be limits on pumping from the aquifer, and everyone could pump all they want. They would do that because water is valuable and no one wants to spend a lot of money piping it long distances, they would rather drill a well and pump close to their city. The aquifer is deeper near San Antonio, so they could pump until our springs here are completely dry, if no limits were set. And there are many pumping in our county as well. Their wells would be dry too, soon after our springs were. Then our river would only flow when it rained a lot, like an intermittent creek, as so many creeks in the Hill Country are described. This shallow part of the aquifer near San Marcos has been publicized for about 30 years, and a lawsuit in the late 80’s and early 90’s caused the state to create the agency that regulates aquifer pumping, the Edwards Aquifer Authority. There is a movie you can see at Aquarena or check out from the public library, called The River of Innocence, which goes into detail about this history.

By: COS

COS — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 01:37:16 +0000

If the rice is declining, then so be it. Survival of the fittest. Evolution at it’s finest!

By: caroline

caroline — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:40:06 +0000

Mr. Sergi- Yes, I rememember Zeal, and I also remember Smoky Joe chaining himself to the fence when the University dug the huge crater on the banks of the Ice House to lay down a pipeline…Is the University’s pumping metered yet???
Anyways, I thought the law y’all found protected a person’s right to access a private bank, and that the river (navigable)had always been public???
Thanks for clarification.

By: wp

wp — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 11:34:14 +0000

we should market the wild rice to whole foods.

By: Ted Marchut

Ted Marchut — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 04:58:28 +0000

Patriot, it is the state that is talking about closing part of the river, whether Mr. Sergi is correct about their authority or not. Nobody here is lobbying for the river to be closed, so I am not sure who you are arguing with.

By: David Sergi

David Sergi — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 04:16:49 +0000

First of all, the law applicable to the San Marcos River will not let the State nor the Feds close of the river to recreation along the river. As some old timers may recall, I represented my old friend Zeal Stefanoff and litigated a case in which Judge Rodriquez dismissed a trespass charge against Zeal for “Camping, fishing and drying his fishing nets” along the banks of the San Marcos River back when the University closed the river while repairing the dam. The reason was the old Mexican land grant law that controls the San Marcos river.

By: Patriot

Patriot — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 04:03:22 +0000

You all realize we’re talking about $50 worth of wild rice here, right? We could take this rice, and transplant it to a million other places. Closing parts of the river? Really?

By: caroline

caroline — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:57:21 +0000

Timely article that coincides w/”economic development plan” article. So, let’s keep attracting more and more people, development and growth to this area, and that means more and more pumping from the aquifer…Of course, I can’t say I’m anti-growth because it will be pointed out that I moved in and had an impact on others etc…Growth to this area also led to building dams to protect homes. These dams now prevent the occasional “natural” cleansing out of the river of its silt. That and the aggressive growth of the university which led to more construction which led to more silt deposited into the river. More buildings and roads means less recharge. Dan-Ranchers compare this drought to the infamous one in the 50s. But even then, the Sewell Park area looked OK. Not like this summer.
Dano- “It has survived every test of time so far..” Roll the film backwards through hundreds of years. Do you really think the population growth in the area over time hasn’t had an impact on the amount of water in the aquifer???
Good for EARIP for shaking us up…

By: Ted Marchut

Ted Marchut — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:52:39 +0000

It isn’t downstream pumping, it is pumping from the aquifer. To greatly over-simplify things, they want to remove the last two columns from this table.

www . saws.org/our_water/aquifer/

The rice prevents that.

By: Ted Marchut

Ted Marchut — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:47:34 +0000

The folks in San Antonio are already making noise that the restrictions should be lifted, regardless of the wild rice.

By: Dano

Dano — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:29:25 +0000

Having a river that people can’t use is like having no river at all….

I’m not making the connection between the presence of endangered species and the survival of the river. The river is one of the oldest known water sources in this area. It has survived every test of time so far. Why would people think that it wouldn’t survive the loss of some wild rice? Again, I point to the fact that this same rice was, until a few years ago, routinely purged from the river to make it more attractive to recreational users.

Is there fear that without the endangered species, all restrictions would be lifted on commercial use of the waters? I’m not sure how valid those fears are. Are we worried that downstream pumping might somehow cause the springs to dry up?

Plus, no one has ever explained to me how downstream activity could affect the amount of water that the springs are able to produce. It seems to me that if someone in Luling pumped water from the river, the only one affected would be those downstream…..

By: government hack

government hack — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:47:20 +0000

Exactly. This river and springs would be gone, and San Marcos would look a lot more like Fort Stockton if it weren’t for the endangered species. I like Taggart’s approach on this so far.

By: Ted Marchut

Ted Marchut — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:20:38 +0000

I’m inclined to think that Kim is right, too. San Marcos would have little muscle to keep the river from running dry, if it weren’t for the endangered species in it. Setting aside the stories I have heard about the university pumping water from the river for irrigation, the folks in San Antonio are already saying that they aren’t concerned about the flow rate up here.

By: Dan McCarthy

Dan McCarthy — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:44:47 +0000

Kim might be right, without the endangered species the river itself would be endangered.

Can anyone say when was the last time the river went down to 60 fps? We are or were in the worst drought in memory and still 33% (and rising) above the low water mark pertaining to the rice. Still it’s good to have a plan. Maybe we should put some in some aquariums and show it to the schools, exhibit it on tx state campus.

By: Dano

Dano — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:52:49 +0000

Time for brutal honesty here. I don’t give a damn about the rice in the river. In fact, I miss the days (15 years or so ago) when they would routinely go in and trim back that stuff so that the river flowed more freely and people could go for a dip without being worried about getting tangled up in the stuff.

Funny how it survived all those years being “controlled” in such a manner, but now the tree huggers are claiming that people simply being in the river is suddenly presenting a serious risk to its continued survival. I know we have turned our kids soft through the years – have we done the same to our rice???

By: Ted Marchut

Ted Marchut — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:21:26 +0000

Am I misunderstanding, or does this say that there is federal money available to match our contribution to what sound like some very good conservation measures, like recharge dams, cedar removal, clearing out the elephant ears and reducing municipal water use?

I know the prospect of the river being closed is alarming and hopefully it never comes to that, but these are steps we ought to be taking anyway. If we can get some assistance, so much the better.

On a related note, the prospect of the state closing off our river creates yet another vulnerability to our local economy, highlighting the need to diversify.