Behind the numbers: GCUWCD’s costly mismanagement in GBRA permit dispute

In May 2022, the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority (GBRA) applied to the Gonzales County Underground Water Conservation District (GCUWCD) to increase its groundwater production and export permit from 15,000 to 24,000 acre-feet per year (AFY).

The proposal drew strong opposition from many local stakeholders, including the Water Protection Association and local landowners concerned about pumping impacts on the aquifers and their land.

A nearly two-year contested case hearing before the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) followed, ending with the GCUWCD board’s denial of GBRA’s permit amendment request on June 10, 2025, at a packed Gonzales County courthouse.

According to SOAH filings and a GCUWCD accounting ledger (May 2025) produced by open records request, the GCUWCD has paid more than $200,000 in administrative and legal costs to administer the GBRA permit application, but GBRA has only paid $46,000 and refuses to reimburse any additional cost, which potentially leaves the financial burden on the local taxpayers. To put this amount in perspective, the GCUWCD property tax revenue according to its 2024 audit report was just $143,904.

These expenses could have been avoided if GCUWCD had rejected GBRA’s ill-conceived application early. Despite numerous deficiencies, GCWUCD board and general manager Laura Martin allowed the GBRA request to proceed to a lengthy and burdensome contested case hearing with SOAH.

One glaring deficiency was having GBRA reimburse (rather than pay in advance) the $26,483.78 cost incurred for a third-party hydrogeologist to computer model GBRA's requested pumping volumes per District Rule 10.E.1 — this cost still remains unreimbursed. This and other examples show that GBRA had favorable treatment along the way. Meanwhile, local citizens requesting GCUWCD information by open records requests are forced to pay hundreds of dollars to the GCUWCD and wait sometimes for months to receive the information.

A SOAH filing on Sept. 17, 2024 by Adam Friedman, Laura Martin’s attorney, detailed $129,023.33 in costs — including $3,372.95 for transcripts, $99,166.60 in attorney’s fees, and $26,483.78 for a third-party hydrogeologist to verify GBRA’s modeling. Friedman projected an additional $10,000 in legal fees through the SOAH proposal for decision.

GBRA’s lawyers filed a SOAH response on Oct. 7, 2024 which argued these costs were not GBRA's responsibility, claiming the $18,000 application fee and $28,000 SOAH payment (total $46,000) covered GBRA's cost obligation. However, a May 2025 accounting ledger produced by GCUWCD by open records request shows payments exceeding $140,000 to Friedman and more than $50,000 to SOAH, highlighting a significant shortfall borne by GCUWCD.

Transparency by the GCUWCD has been deficient, requiring time consuming and costly open records requests by citizens to get information. An open records request filed on Jan. 13, 2025, for GCUWCD’s financial records and legal invoices met resistance by the GCUWCD with assertions of attorney-client privilege. The Texas Attorney General overruled this objection on April 15, 2025, forcing disclosure, then it took an additional two months for GCUWCD to produce the documents.

The 2024 audit report, approved by the GCUWCD board on March 11, 2025, vaguely references a $12,550 adjustment for “Operational Expenses - Legal: GBRA,” but fails to break out legal costs or detail the scope of unreimbursed GBRA costs or if GCUWCD will pursue reimbursement. Additional legal costs continue at the GCUWCD due to GBRA — attorney Greg Ellis, hired by the GCUWCD, is now drafting the GCWUCD's proposal for decision to bring the contested case to conclusion.

GBRA’s refusal to reimburse the costs of its ill-conceived permit amendment application —combined with GCUWCD’s failure to enforce its rules — shifts the financial burden and task of stopping ill-conceived export projects onto innocent citizens. Landowner protestants have been burdened with significant time and effort defending their water rights and have suffered economic and personal hardship due to an unnecessary hearing that could have been stopped years ago.

Lack of explanation in the GCUWCD audit report for 2024 obscures the true financial impact of GBRA on our citizens and raises questions about GCUWCD accounting and expenditures.

Although the GCUWCD board finally denied the GBRA permit amendment request on June 10, 2025 by a 3-1 vote (with 1 member abstaining due to conflict of interest), the folks responsible for the GBRA debacle should be held accountable for the damage done.

Ted Boriack is a member of the Water Protection Association and Gonzales County landowner dedicated to preserving local water resources.