[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6687592,"mediaKeyId","3444653-edddbe9e617732325078a7734d0a4b70","parentId",3444653,"title","TCEQ refers Williamson County challenge to municipal utility district petition to SOAH and ADR","audioSeconds",1947,"startMs",3890000,"endMs",5837000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3444653-edddbe9e617732325078a7734d0a4b70&start=3890&end=5837","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3444653-edddbe9e617732325078a7734d0a4b70/thumbnail_3890000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6687592/Texas/TCEQ-refers-Williamson-County-challenge-to-municipal-utility-district-petition-to-SOAH-and-ADR","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6687592-68ef2ec28ec3cc3de9d272e14d132226/orig.mp4?Expires=1770972215&Signature=Ypt4rZHtZX-exlxFe1mT-kNiuCCknb2y7uyOPkhl-BrHrXL-IrCYBUXJqJIFFXBxENZhLpFzui7o-sJMfqXFFfFxIgvxa78XhNL7CX6BIez6LzvYaoh9OOVyeyV4ZCVXLHVLoxscpJ10vWdyk86ZO~fgdIdk9bXzcdrZ1MRpfaBLK5NuGGJ32qco-iqurdTN2C-P1TW0f47m96g-zUToK2VyXmzN0JyLsBVtCnxhnzJxjRyhLfJR0e0Z3WrSlOkq9NZo0QZPAjBCw0ptp~ZEgIaztfvQZamBXv0PK8lGqAPU1AUxO2yQFIH-HhMS8yYN9HCHEtR~QUME2VXu6iirDg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Commission on Environmental Quality(TCEQ)","date","2025-05-22T00:00:00Z","article","The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality voted May 22 to grant Williamson County party status in a petition to create Williamson County Municipal Utility District No. 60 and to refer the matter to the State Office of Administrative Hearings for a contested-case hearing. The commission also directed that the case be placed into the agency’s alternative dispute resolution (ADR) program to run concurrently with SOAH’s scheduling process.

The action came after Williamson County’s attorney, Stephanie Albright of Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta, told the commission the county was seeking “party status as an affected party” and said the county’s concerns include how road powers and maintenance obligations could shift long-term costs to the county. “There’s nothing that requires [a MUD] to maintain the roads,” Albright said, adding that counties sometimes end up responsible for internal subdivision roads when a district or developer is unable or unwilling to maintain them.

Petitioner counsel John Scott, representing OP3 ATX Georgetown 2220 LP, said the petitioner expects to comply with county standards and argued that many of Williamson County’s requested conditions fall outside what the MUD creation process resolves. “Most of the relevant ones, the drainage issues, the roads, those were all things that they control through their internal process. We have to comply with that. We do not dispute that,” Scott said, adding that the county’s development-agreement requests had expanded beyond the scope of the MUD petition.

TCEQ staff and the executive director also participated in questioning. Kayla Murray, representing the executive director, said the agency’s practice has been to find counties have standing in similar cases and noted agency bond rules allow the commission to consider whether a district has necessary county approvals when evaluating financial assurances. Justin Tack of the agency’s Water Supply Division summarized the staff’s technical review of district-creation filings, saying the engineering reports typically address feasibility, tax base, costs, drainage and water/wastewater plans and that, historically, contested-case proceedings rarely change the figures originally submitted but have on occasion led the commission to deny petitions.

Commissioners debated whether to set a maximum hearing duration. Commissioner Katarina Gonzales proposed imposing a 180-day limit for this SOAH proceeding; other commissioners expressed concern about compressing SOAH’s schedule and the potential for rushed decisions. Ultimately the commission did not impose a fixed maximum hearing duration but did refer the county’s hearing request to SOAH and the agency’s ADR program.

A motion to grant Williamson County’s hearing request, refer the matter to SOAH for a contested-case hearing, and refer it to the commission’s ADR program passed on a voice vote. The motion was seconded and the panel recorded the motion as passed.

The commission moved on to new business after the vote; no further action on the MUD petition was taken at the meeting.

Votes at a glance

• Motion to grant Williamson County party status, refer petition to SOAH for contested-case hearing, and refer matter to TCEQ ADR program — Passed (voice vote; motion seconded).","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Commissioners' Agenda Meeting - May 22, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality voted May 22 to grant Williamson County party status in a petition to create Williamson County Municipal Utility District No. 60 and to refer the matter to the State Office of Administrative Hearings for a contested-case hearing.","taxTitle","Commission on Environmental Quality(TCEQ), Departments and Agencies, Executive, Texas","taxId",36470,"location","Texas","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6687587,"TCEQ declines to pursue substantive inquiry into Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation District rules",1412,5861000,7273000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3444653-edddbe9e617732325078a7734d0a4b70&start=5861&end=7273","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3444653-edddbe9e617732325078a7734d0a4b70/thumbnail_5861000.jpg","/articles/6687587/Texas/TCEQ-declines-to-pursue-substantive-inquiry-into-Middle-Pecos-Groundwater-Conservation-District-rules","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6687587-fc149e212edbd66ad89f2873fc4600b7/orig.mp4?Expires=1770972215&Signature=HAhxTHRNlLGPkpr4ygC-ERXlGtRI-OGItJFJJzQPeKmvp~MguJ-pAv-EnMjukDuRiY8Kte4KuYAqgQypQZY0sDnO25wZRLhfIZF8qooVIADR0dyigAwh0cVmaqVboG3xZcHbAQGXZov~gL0xowk5ptmZgs6GHiKaLXGxT~26EEfJY-vqJytB~J5~2PLLL~BgJpIbgIOek0oi-J0voR5luhgAaT9CubfMCc8cJE-Abk0uDiPCzOnBBw0fvMvzHPM1Uc7qqBzLY2IHGY0z1o5cXLWutuZ5-LM3w11oQZpvai-edGIYqAt55RS6Rttof9-bnf3TGyhP3FgTMt0AmrZL5Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality heard oral argument May 22 on a petition filed by Cockrell Investment Partners seeking a substantive inquiry into the Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation District’s rules and whether they adequately protect desired future conditions for the Edwards-Trinity aquifer. After presentations from the petitioner, the district, intervening parties and agency staff, the executive director and the Office of Public Interest Counsel recommended dismissal of the petition, and commissioners indicated they would dismiss the matter.

Petitioner counsel Ryan Reed told the commission Cockrell owns a 70,000-tree pecan orchard in Fort Stockton and said the petition sought a substantive, evidentiary review under Texas Water Code §36.3011. “Do the Middle Pecos’ rules adequately achieve the desired future conditions and protect the aquifer? … The answer is no,” Reed said, urging the commission to appoint a review panel to evaluate the district’s rules and special permit conditions.

Zachary Swick, the farm manager for Cockrell, asked the commission for “meaningful thresholds and cutbacks” and said his community relies on the aquifer for drinking water, agriculture and local businesses.

Representing Middle Pecos GCD, attorney Mike Gershon described a lengthy administrative record and argued the district’s rules have evolved over two decades and are supported by monitoring, studies, board action and staff oversight. Gershon said the inquiry statute is intended to address districts that have not implemented rules designed to protect local groundwater; the district, he said, has such a regulatory program on the record.

The executive director’s staff reviewed the petition and responses and concluded the district “demonstrated that it adopted rules, that those rules are designed to achieve its DFCs, and that they adequately protect groundwater.” The Office of Public Interest Counsel reached the same conclusion after reviewing the district’s management plan, rules and exhibits. OPIC noted the district’s rules include aquifer-level based production limits and monitoring designed to prevent prolonged declines in groundwater levels.

Petitioner rebuttal emphasized perceived gaps in Rule 10 (production-based limits) and argued that the district’s thresholds lack explicit curtailment standards for large export projects. Reed said the proposed West Texas water export project “will produce 20 to 30,000 acre-feet more of water” than has historically been pumped from the region and that the size of such projects merits a substantive inquiry.

District representatives highlighted extensive monitoring — including transducers and frequent level checks — and said rules are designed to allow an iterative, adaptive management approach to meet desired future conditions.

Chairwoman Papp summarized the agency’s options under §36.3011 and said the commission has historically appointed review panels only where a district has not acted at all. She said the record demonstrated the district had adopted rules intended to achieve the DFCs and that the petitioner had not met its burden to show statutory criteria requiring inquiry. Several commissioners expressed agreement with that assessment. Chairwoman Papp stated she would dismiss the restated petition.

No panel appointment or evidentiary review was ordered at the meeting; the record contains staff and OPIC recommendations to dismiss and commissioners indicated concurrence.

Votes at a glance

• Chairwoman recommended dismissal of the restated petition under Tex. Water Code §36.3011; executive director and OPIC recommended dismissal; commissioners indicated agreement (no contested-case referral ordered at the meeting).","After oral arguments, TCEQ staff, the Office of Public Interest Counsel and several responding districts recommended dismissing a petition that sought a substantive review of the Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation District’s rules; commissioners signaled agreement with dismissal","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

TCEQ refers Williamson County challenge to municipal utility district petition to SOAH and ADR

TCEQ declines to pursue substantive inquiry into Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation District rules