Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
lets not villify everybody involved here, the word I got after talking to members of the ROA and AC was that the plaintiffs wanted the right to dig private wells so they could water their property to their hearts content while their neighbors observed drought restrictions, this would not be fair nor environmentally responsible .... would it?
the rainwater collection idea I think should more than solve that issue.
I must concur with Tom there, we've heard the residents who wanted their own wells in there wanted to water round the clock so they could have year round green grass, something which is neither natural nor evironmentally sensible in this area.
If you want green lawn year round, at least PAY for the water, or move into Cookie Cutter USA, where even they have the sense to impose water restrictions when necessary.
lets not villify everybody involved here, the word I got after talking to members of the ROA and AC was that the plaintiffs wanted the right to dig private wells so they could water their property to their hearts content while their neighbors observed drought restrictions, this would not be fair nor environmentally responsible .... would it?
the rainwater collection idea I think should more than solve that issue.
Well you and Driftwood1 are both wrong and neither of you talked with the residents that requested wells. By the way the lawsuit isn't just about wells, it's also about buried propane tanks. This is really a battle over Board members who want to hold residents captive to vendors that they have self-serving financial arrangements with.
Funny that the ROA Board members and neither Tom nor Driftwood1 seem real concerned about wells anywhere else. If this was really about conservation, then the developer wouldn't have added another 500 acres with the intent to plant more houses over the same aquifer. When most of the Plaintiffs moved into La Ventana, it was supposed to be a 233 home subdivision period.
When this water system was failing with 70 homes, the former developer sued the owner of the water company. Once the partners of the former developer acquired the water company, they proclaimed everything was fine. Without adding any additional production or storage capacity to the system, the developer added another 500 acres to the subdivision. The developer and local realtors had no qualms selling lots that had no electricity, no roads, no telephone, no gas, no cable, and NO WATER to people.
To this day, the developer has done nothing to add production or storage capacity despite the fact that the system is nowhere in compliance with the plans originally approved by TCEQ. The approved plans for the original La Ventana included 3 wells and adequate storage capacity. This was also the plan originally approved by the county. This was never built to specification. One well for the entire subdivision was put in place. The system was incapable of handling about 70 homes - 1/3 the buildout of the original La Ventana. The developer then added another 500 acres without improving the water system at all.
Instead of adding new production or storage, the latest developer simply inappropriately tapped into the existing water system in order to get water to the lots it was now trying to sell. You can see where this is going.
How dare either of you judge the residents who want to be independent of the despotic vendor systems that the ROA Board members (and AC) support. Should all county residents who have wells be declared wasteful for the mere fact that they want wells or want independence from these private utilities? Would you feel the same way about unknown future owners of the lots that have well options, or are your views limited to the current owners? Does having a well inherently imply that one intends to waste water, or do you both believe the fact that one lives in La Ventana inherently implies that the owner will waste water? Your viewpoints are absurd.
The ROA Board members are worried about losing customers for their private utility scheme - you certainly did not hear them complaining of water consumption prior to individuals seeking independence from these private utilities. You are probably also both aware that the water company was engaging in unlawful water rationing and has refused to comply with TCEQ requirements to report when it initiates its rationing scheme.
Just so both of you are aware, only people that the Board members personally "approve of" are permitted to run in any election. In short, unless you are a "yes man" for the Board members agenda, you will not be permitted to participate in committees or run in any election. So Tom, you were not exactly talking to any "independent" individuals. Driftwood1 likely heard the rumor from Board affiliated individuals as well.
Did either of you have wells? Have you judged anyone else in Hays County regarding their wells? Are you similarly opposed to all other well owners in Hays County - or just a few people in La Ventana because of false rumors being spread by the defendant? Driftwood1, if you have a well, should you be accused of wasting water because of where you live or do you believe that your viewpoint is geographically limited to La Ventana residents only?
Board members of the ROA OWN the water company and its the ROA that is wasteful of the water. The developer controlled ROA is FORCING far more water usage as a typical household would use. This forced waste issue would go away if the developer could no longer profit from this scheme. How ironic that you two would believe Board members that the Plaintiffs are responsible for wasting water in La Ventana. Did your rumor sources complain of any water usage issues the entire time that Plaintiffs were customers of the water company? Of course not.
The ROA Board members want to force people to use as much water as possible because Board members own the water company. Their appointed AC members have been threatening to fine people who did not add landscaping (no such CCR requirement), sod yards (no such requirement), etc. Most of the Plaintiffs have the natural coastal grass in their yards. You'll find that the accusers have implemented St. Augustine, water even during the drought, and have tried to create "regulations" in order to force residents to engage in water wasting activities.
You two may also be unaware that if you are a customer of the water company, you can be forced to pay for infrastructure improvement. Those who moved into La Ventana when it was 233 homesites might find themselves in a position of being forced to pay for the developer's infrastructure expansion unless they have the ability to get away from that system. So if you don't have an alternative, you can be forced to pay for all the developer's infrastructure improvements through water rates. None of the residents agreed to this and those in the original La Ventana already paid a premium for infrastructure at the time they purchased their lots. They shouldn't be expected to pay for the newest developer's expansion plans.
You two have both overlooked that this isn't about water issues alone. The Board has also tried to prevent residents from having any alternative to the central gas system - yet NO resident ever contracted to use that system. There is no prohibition against buried propane tanks. You have a Board that is forcing residents through threats of lawsuits, fines, foreclosure, etc. to use a propane vendor that NO ONE ever agreed to use. Residents are very unhappy with the propane rates, the monthly "account fees", and the fact that the Board is attempting to compel residents to use these vendors despite the fact that no one ever contracted to do so before, during, or after the purchase of their lots.
By the way, the ROA attorney has adopted the position during litigation that the ROA can revoke an approval whenever it desires. Does it sound like an approval from the ROA has any value if such approval can be revoked at the whim of the next unelected Board? How would you like to invest $500K-$1million+ in an AC-approved home and have the Board subsequently threaten you with fines, liens, lis pendens, and litigation because Board members subsequently decided to withdraw an approval?
Just so that the two of you are aware, the CCRs never prohibited buried propane tanks and arguably did not prohibit private residential wells. Regardless of your viewpoint, the Plaintiffs went to the elected Architectural Committee members with their requests and the Architectural Committee members followed ALL the requirements relating to variances and improvement requests. These variances are the only ones that have ever been granted in accordance with the CCRs. Yet the Board has transparently questioned ONLY the approvals that enable residents to be independent of the vendors with which the Board members have self-serving financial arrangements.
Perhaps Tom and Driftwood1, you should consider the source of your information and that the Board members and Board-member appointed Architectural Committee will attempt to spin the story any way they can to conceal this little private utility scheme. Perhaps you could also check with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality so that you can examine their most recent reports about the La Ventana Water system. I think you will find that TCEQ suggests that the developer-controlled ROA - and not the residents - is the real culprit.
Some residents also want independence from the La Ventana Water System because they are concerned about the quality of the water they are forced to ingest from the LVWC. You have a water system operator that was mandated by the EPA to provide information on several chemical compounds in the water due to the disinfection system that the La Ventana Water System uses. The water system operator has flatly refused to provide this information despite the federal requirement to do so. Given the history of the antics of this water company, some residents - especially the elderly and those with young children - DO NOT WANT TO BE FORCED TO DRINK THE LA VENTANA WATER COMPANY WATER. These disinfection system by-products would NOT BE PRESENT at all in a residential well.
The construction and operation of residential wells is governed by the Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District which limits capacity for residential wells. You would probably both be surprised to discover that the ROA accusers are perhaps the most wasteful water users in the entire subdivision. Most of the plaintiffs in the litigation are at the minimum water consumption level and simply want independence from the developer's "residual income" scheme. Unless residents have options, they are at risk of continued abuse by the developer-controlled ROA and its affiliated vendors.
Shame on both of you for your declaration that a few residents in La Ventana intend to waste water because they want independence from the private propane vendor and the private water company. Your conclusion was based on gossip to boot. Why don't both of you think a little more about your conclusions. As noted in the petition filed in Hays County court by the Plaintiffs, many of them were worried about the habitability of their homes and the safety of the water they were drinking. They asked for nothing more than what most all the other residents of Hays County already have a right to do and which is arguably not prohibited in La Ventana in the first place. By the way, the declarant reserves the right to drill wells for any purpose on any lot in La Ventana that it owns. Even the declarant didn't want to be held captive to the La Ventana Water Company.
Last edited by IC_deLight; 02-18-2008 at 04:21 PM..
Reason: correction
I must concur with Tom there, we've heard the residents who wanted their own wells in there wanted to water round the clock so they could have year round green grass, something which is neither natural nor evironmentally sensible in this area.
If you want green lawn year round, at least PAY for the water, or move into Cookie Cutter USA, where even they have the sense to impose water restrictions when necessary.
Well you didn't talk to the residents involved in the lawsuit and you are misinformed about what is going on in La Ventana. You might be surprised to find out that most of those who want wells are actually at the extreme low end of water usage in La Ventana. On the other hand, those that control the ROA are the largest water wasters in the entire subdivision. Joe Day of the Hays Trinity Groundwater District severely scolded some of those individuals for their wasteful use of water. Those individuals are trying to force the same waste on everyone else in La Ventana for the benefit of their Board member buddies that own the water company.
If you have a well Driftwood1, then by your logic you must inherently be wasteful and want to water 24 hours per day. I don't think you will find such behavior to be exhibited by the Plaintiffs in the present litigation.
Of course, you and Tom also overlooked the fact that the same Board members have also used intimidation, threats of litigation, fines, foreclosure, etc. in order to prevent people from having an alternative to the central propane gas system - another system that the Board members have a self serving financial interest in. By your logic, I guess the Plaintiffs' purpose in being independent of that system is so that they can burn propane gas 24 hours a day for the sheer joy of it.
Well, firstly, please note I said "heard" . That is hearsay, and I sincerely hope you are correct on this issue. Yes we have a well, AND a greywater sys on the washing machine AND rainwater collection. We do NOT waste water. That was just the talk you hear, but in any event, there are many ranchers out this way who beleive lawns really have no place in this area, and that was really what I was trying to get at. Second, please do not interpret the above as my support for their ROA! We dont live there. We looked at it 8 years ago while house hunting and felt the ROA was not for us. IMHO , we were correct!
PS .. calm down IC!! I concur with 90% of what you say. If what we have "heard" is wrong, I am glad to hear it, and you do seem to provide some evidence to that effect.
Cheers
let me get this straight , you think because you dig another well in the same area as an MUD that's private the water is going to be cleaner? please explain? .... from what I have read the water is always changing in an aquifier and just because it's filtered by limestone and sediment doesn't mean it's always going to be potable.. the only way to ensure clean drinking water is to buy it or have it properly filtered PERIOD or to have city water where they also are treating it filtering it and adding chemicals are they not?
let me get this straight , you think because you dig another well in the same area as an MUD that's private the water is going to be cleaner? please explain? .... from what I have read the water is always changing in an aquifier and just because it's filtered by limestone and sediment doesn't mean it's always going to be potable.. the only way to ensure clean drinking water is to buy it or have it properly filtered PERIOD or to have city water where they also are treating it filtering it and adding chemicals are they not?
Well Tom, there is not a MUD in La Ventana. The quality of the groundwater is pretty good. However, the LVWC is a "public water supply system" and as a result is required to treat the water with all sorts of disinfectants. In addition, because the water is transported through miles of pipe, it can pick up other contaminants. In addition, the compounds used to disinfect the water tend to change into other compounds that aren't great for human consumption. This is why the EPA mandated testing for these compounds.
I can only speculate as to why the system operator has flatly refused to comply with the EPA requirements (by the way I initially found out about this requirement because of a newsletter that was published by the system operator). The same operator has also refused to provide the microbiological contaminant report even though they are required to provide them annually. Of course these are the same people that set up the unlawful rationing program and failed to report anything to TCEQ. This whole system was set up for developer after developer to "flip it" to the next greater fool.
Back to the point, a residential well does not require chlorination, etc. The groundwater is pretty clean. A public water system, however, requires a disinfection system and is far more susceptible to contamination. Aside from the failure of the LVWC to comply with health and safety regulations, homeowners can also get contaminated by other sources along the distribution system. For example, when the equestrian lot owners install irrigation systems, did they install the appropriate backflow preventer? If they don't, you know what flows right back into the public water supply system via the irrigation system. The water system operator is also fairly routinely cutting into the system and patching it.
TCEQ rejected the previous developer's plans for a water tank in February 2007 for health and safety reasons. Among other things TCEQ was concerned about the coatings, etc. that would be in the tank. Thank goodness they didn't rubber stamp the plans. Only residents using the LVWC system need worry about such things. Don't expect LVWC to advertise these matters, though.
The water is pretty hard so you will want a water softener. LVWC provides "hard water" to homes, so you don't benefit from LVWC water in this area either. Most owners are forced to put in water softeners for quality and to protect their plumbing and fixtures. There are several wells throughout the property. The commercial lot up front has both LVWC water and well water. At least one homeowner already has both well water and LVWC water.
Driftwood the last bit was not directed at you BTW
Not sure where you get that..
Our system, as I posted elsewhere on this very board, consists of:
2000K holding tank with a drip feed chlorinator, then 9 cu/ft carbon filter, then water softener, then 2 reverse osmosis systems for drinking water.
I think its pretty darn clean
I am not choosing any sides on this whole issue but for the fact that I am against manicured green lawns in N Hays county, I just think it's wasteful.
Oh, and I am against HOA/ROA's for the most part, although in some situations I am sure they do alot of good..
Cheers
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
filtered
