GILMER, Texas -- The Northeast Texas Regional Water Planning Group D tackled two hot-button water topics at their meeting Wednesday [April 21], taking a stand on mitigation requirements and arsenic standards.

Steve Dean, at-large member from Gilmer, proposed both resolutions, as the resolution on mitigation requirements drew the largest amount of discussion, along with occasional applause from the audience. The resolution passed, 10-6.

"Worthy water projects have come under attack because of multiple mitigator requirements," Dean said. "Mitigation requirements are used as a tool of enforcement by the Corps of Engineers, and the mitigation rules have nothing to do with common sense."

Dean's resolution supported removing the mandating and managing power of mitigation from the Corps and giving it back to the state. "It should be okay for this board to oppose a rule that doesn't always make sense," Dean said. "The Corps hides behind the rule called mitigation, and it's not a meaningful rule. It's kept good progress from happening."

Dean gave the example of Lake Gilmer, which is surrounded by mitigated land, which means no development or building can take place on that land. In fact, no action that might alter the environment is allowed to occur, including cutting the grass around the lake. "The basis of my motion is that, if the board is asked to operate the water in this region, it should be okay in using good common sense," he said.

Several board members asked for clarification on the definition of mitigation, including requests for a presentation by the Corps of Engineers to explain the rules and requirements.

Administrator Walt Sears noted that, "It might be more productive for the Corps of Engineers to be here so you can share your concerns over the way mitigation is handled." Secretary-Treasurer Terry Winn, also of Gilmer, noted, "This is bigger than just eliminating federal authority. The problem as a general concept is to consider a quantifiable amount. We need to develop guidelines for a worthy idea of mitigation in balance with the socio-economic system."

Larry Calvin, representing Cooper, noted that the need for mitigation cannot totally be ignored. "They replaced wildlife habitat that was taken in the Sulphur River Basin, and it's managed by Texas Parks and Wildlife," he said. "A lot of it is also public land for hunting. We must consider it."

Board member George Frost of Maud said the board would be "spinning our wheels" in opposing a federal requirement. He noted he agreed with the philosophy of the resolution, but differed slightly. "We as a planning board are totally neglecting our duty when drawing up plans for new lakes," he said. "Even on proposed lakes, we should have to consider accompanying mitigation drawn on the map."

Dean's other resolution, in support of keeping current arsenic standards for drinking water at 50 parts per billion rather than the proposed 10 parts per billion, was passed unanimously. "Since 1942, we've maintained the 50 parts per billion requirement for arsenic," Dean said. "As one of his last acts, President [Bill] Clinton signed the standad approving 10 parts. This was politically motivated and not by good science."

Sears pointed out that when drilling new water wells, companies inject chlorine but don't do any distilling. The new requirements would change that. "This would condemn systems to have to put in removal systems or convert to another source," he said. "There are no federal dollars associated to be provided to systems who will have to make changes to meet the new standards. This is a good example of an unfunded mandate that will create an economic hardship."

In other business, the board heard a presentation from James Beach with LBG-Guyton Associates on groundwater supply and related modeling. The board is currently working on a regional water plan to implement in 1007. Beach said that the groundwater availability models begun in 2000 show areas where water levels shifting from use of groundwater to surface water have increased.

"The model shows that as more municipalities and other entities shift, the water levels will rebound," he said. "There's not much change in the prediction for 2050 because the usage has leveled out." In looking at the surplus or deficit of counties in Region D, Beach said, "In every case, there is a surplus of groundwater. There doesn't appear to be any deficits."

Beach proposed that the planning group incorporate the updated demand numbers into the groundwater availability model, assess the impacts and determine if the impacts are reasonable for their new regional water plan.

GILMER, Texas -- The Region D Northeast Texas Municipal Water Planning Group passed a resolution Wednesday urging support of the current federal administration's desire to bring arsenic in drinking water standards down. Upshur County Industry representative Steve Dean said that since 1942 the standard for arsenic in drinking water has been 50 parts per billion. In 1999, Dean said, stricter arsenic levels were recommended, more like 10 parts per billion. He said then-president Bill Clinton passed that 10 part per billion standard for arsenic during his last months in office. Dean said he believes the decision to change the standard was politically motivated and not scientifically motivated. "We (the board) are obligated to set aside political motivation," he said.

And while arsenic is not a big problem in East Texas, as much as it is in West Texas, Walt Sears Jr., the general manager of the Northeast Texas Municipal Water District, said it is important to support other water groups. "We do it out of the sense of cooperation," he said. Sears also said there are no "mechanisms" to remove contaminants from groundwater, which makes it an economic hardship for many entities to comply with the new standards. "This is a federal mandate with economic consequences," he said.

Dean said it would cause many wells to no longer be suitable if they have to comply with the 10 parts per billion standard.

The group also passed a resolution urging support of turning over control of mitigation from the U.. Army Corps of Engineers to the state. Dean, who brought this item up, said there are many worthy water projects that have come under attack by people who are opposed to the Corps' multiplier effect used in determining mitigation land. He said many times mitigation under the Corps has doubled, tripled and even quadrupled, being forced upon the landowners. "Mitigation rules as we know them and are forced to abide by now have no common sense," he said.

Bowie County representative George Frost agreed with Dean, saying that if the current mitigation rules had been in place when Lake Wright Patman was built, he would have been forced off his land. However, he said it is a federal mandate, and he's not sure they could do any good. "I think think we would just be spinning our wheels," said Frost.

While many board members felt more consistent mitigation rules than the Corps provided were needed, they wanted to hear from the Corps and Parks and Wildlife Department before making their decisions. But Dean wanted the item voted on, and it passed by a 10-6 majority vote.

The board also heard a presentation by James Beach with LBG-Guyton Associates on groundwater supply and the Groundwater Availability Model, or GAM. Beach said they were comparing current groundwater levels to what they would be in 1050. While incorporating water demands into the equation, they have found that there will be no large shortage of groundwater in Region D. However, only the results from major aquifer, the Carrizo-Wilcox, are in.

Beach also said the water levels were beginning to level out now. In some areas, the level i shown to actually increase due to some entities' plans on switching from groundwater to surface water. But Beach was quick to say that he was not guaranteeing there would be plenty of groundwater in the future, just that the GAM was a tool to measure it.

He said the group now needs to look at proposed approaches, which include incorporating significant demands into the GAM's, assess their impacts and determine if those impacts are reasonable. Those demands for this water planning round should be compared to demands from the last planning round to check for significant differences, said Beach.

The group will meet next on May 19.