The Ridgerunner

In a letter to owners of property in Woodcreek North, Wimberley Springs Partners outlined and explained its objections to the unified deed restrictions proposed by the Woodcreek Property Owners Association.

Citing the fact that the two parties had initially signed an agreement to work together regarding the exclusion of the sections withdrawn from the Association, WSP spokesman Winton Porterfield noted that the new set of restrictions were “poorly conceived” and listed nine area in which the revised restrictions would :

• Stop all road improvements being made by WSP – Sec. 6.04
• Prevent rebuilding of the golf course – Sec. 5.02
• Prevent development of bikeways, pathways and other common
amenities – Sec, 5.02
• Kick out the volunteer fire department – Sec. 5.02
• Ban the flying of the U.S. flag unless it had been inspected by the
WPOA and an inspection fee paid – Sec. 8.06
• Ban Christmas ornaments or seasonal lights until inspected by the
WPOA and an inspection fee paid – Sec. 8.06
• Ban most political signs unless placed by the WPOA – Sec. 5.10
• Weaken requirements for amending deed restrictions by counting
only ballots returned in determining that a majority of property
owners approved a proposed amendment – and
• Allow the WPOA board to appoint one person to have absolute
say on what could or could not be built. This person would then
have absolute and unquestioned power – Sec. 8.03

In a effort to cover both sides of this issue, a response from the WPOA appears below.

Recently you have received a letter from Wimberley Springs Partners, Ltd. We believe clarification of some of the statements contained in the letter is important. All property owners including WSP received a packet in the mail with the proposed restrictions, a ballot, and a return envelope. WSP appears to have decided to confuse the issues. Responses received from property owners thus far have been positive.

The following is a rebuttal to statements made in the WSP letter:

1. In no way would WPOA wish to stop WSP from improving our community that has waited over seven years for the company to begin improvements. There could be no reason to do so.

2. The suggestion that these deed restrictions could allow preventing the volunteer fire department from operating in Woodcreek North is simply untrue.

3. The suggestion that flying the U.S. flag would be banned without and inspection and a fee is also untrue. For verification of this, call Retired Colonel Dwight and Meta Wilson at 847-6461. They are volunteers who keep our entrance flags flying. It is also untrue that Christmas lights and decorations would be banned without an inspection and fee.

4. Although some political signs are overly large and obtrusive, the WPOA would never interfere with property a owners’ right of free speech. Only placement of political signs at our entrances is discouraged.

5. Since most people own only one lot, these proposed deed restrictions would mean that their vote would count as much as that of the owner of a large number of lots in the subdivision.

6. Section 8.03 speaks to the possibility that the board could appoint a highly qualified individual expert in the field of archi-tecture or road building as a consultant to work with the committee. Only property owners can serve as board members.

We sincerely hope this has helped to clarifying the points raised in the letter from WSP. If you have other questions, contact the WPOA office number at 847-9889.

Those of us who broke the line of waiting voters at the Wimberley Community Center on October 23 in order to see what Aqua Texas had up its sleeve quickly found out the arm had been amputated. No public discussion and no general questions were permitted. We’re using this space to present a statement by Jim McMeans that was to be made at this meeting. It contains questions we would still like to have addressed.

Aqua Texas has proved to be an irresponsible water and wastewater provider in the local area it serves. In 2007, ATI pumped 172 million gallons of groundwater from the Trinity Aquifer. Of this amount only 94 million gallons were sold to approximately 1,500 customers. The unsold water is considered water loss. ATI lost or wasted 80 million gallons of groundwater in that year. That is enough to fill 160 Olympic size pools. This amount of lost water could have served an additional 1,250 customers at normal consumption rates. Some water loss, less than 10 percent can be expected. Allowing water loss of 46 percent borders on the criminal.

ATI’s record in sewage collection is harder to document since wastewater flows are not metered. Almost every ATI customer spoken with has stories of leaking sewer lines, overflowing manholes and the infamous FRAC tank that has been in place for months and regularly overflows spilling raw sewage onto the ground and into local creeks.

Although local officials say there is nothing they can do about the problem, it is hard to believe them. A situation this leaky and stinky demands something must be done to get better service for the company’s customers.

ATI operates under a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity, a license from the State of Texas. This certificate gives ATI a monopoly to provide utility service in a given area. Its monopoly carries with it the duty to the State to provide responsible service to its customers. This duty is not being fulfilled. Overflowing sewer lines and the wasting of 46 percent of the ground water pump is not responsible. The State of Texas should direct ATI to reduce its water losses to 10 percent within the next three years or face loss of its Certificate. The State should also direct ATI to stop allowing raw sewage to spill and pollute the service area.

ATI also operates under an annual groundwater-pumping permit from the Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District. The District should direct the company to reduce its water losses or face cancellation of its right to withdraw groundwater. At the very least, the District should not permit ATI to add a single additional water service customer until the water loss ratio is reduced to below 10 percent.

Finally, ATI should become a responsible utility service company. It should accept that it bought a poorly constructed and maintained