06 a., b., & c. Record of Standing Committee

Home Browse Search

specific statutory exceptions to cancellation and one important exception that applies to Paris water rights and Lake Pat Mayse is the result of the construction of a reservoir funded in whole or in part by the holder of the permit as part of the holder's long-term water supply plan. The reservoir was built back in the mid-60s and was a Corps of Engineer project. The City of Paris contracted with the Corps for a long term water supply. Mr. Mathews said he thought the City was secure under this specific exception to the cancellation provision. Another exception is if a permit was obtained to meet a demonstrated long-term public water supply need and if it is consistent with the projection of future water needs contained in the state water plan. With regard to most cancellations by the State, they have to do with irrigation water rights that fall into disuse over time. Mr. Mathews stated to perfect your water right means to first get the water right and then put that water to beneficial use. Mr. Mathew addressed why impoundment falls under congressional control. He said that the U.S. government exercises control over things in this state that relate to interstate commerce, and a lot of water relates to interstate commerce, because it flows between states. The federal government operates a permitting program for the discharge of pollutants, and in Texas that program is run by the TCEQ. With regard to the water right, the State is the party that owns the water right except where there may be some need for federal oversight, such as interstate water, and that is the Red River. Mr. Mathews said another question was raised as to whether or not the Red River Compact was relevant to this Committee's charge. He answered in the affirmative. He said all of the water from the Pat Mayse Reservoir upstream is within the sole control of the State of Texas, and they are the entity that issues the permit. Next, Mr. Mathews discussed the issue of either raising the elevation of the reservoir to increase storage, or to reallocate some of the storage. He said the Corps is the one who owns the reservoir and is the one that sets the allocations pursuant to their Congressional mandate for both flood control purposes and beneficial use purposes. In order to have reallocation, the City would have to amend its water right permit. Another question addressed was the possibility of increasing the dam for purposes of increasing storage. Mr. Mathews said this request would have to also go through the Corps, because they actually own the dam. Mr. Mathews discussed the 1997 Compromise dealing with inter-basin transfers. He said an inter-basin transfer is when you move water from one river basin in the state to another river basin for beneficial use. He stated that the Compromise gave inter-basin transfers a new priority date, which was the date of the transfer. Prior to the City of Irving being able to get an inter-basin transfer, the State would take a look at the effects of water quality and water chemistry. If the decision was made to sell water, it would not require that everyone in the Red River Compact approve the transfer. Notices would have to be given to county judges and mayors, because the statute gives the right for comments to be filed with the State. Another question asked was if Irving purchases water from Hugo or other Oklahoma sources and brings it into Texas pipeline, would TCEQ have jurisdiction over the water? Mr. Mathews said this was a complicated issue and was not sure what type of permit might be required. He said they Page 2 of 3 . 000030