26 Jun Comments to Austin Water Resources Planning Task Force

June 24, 2014 Via E-mail

Re: Comments to Austin Water Resources Planning Task Force

Dear Chair Leurig, Vice Chair Mason, and Members of the Task Force:

Thank you all for your major commitment of time and expertise in support of building a more sustainable, affordable, and reliable water future for the City of Austin.  Your work has emphasized the expanded future for conservation, reuse, and decentralization in our City’s water future.  You have also embraced the idea that local water sources and building a culture of conservation are preferred over options that would encourage waste and/or the importation of water from distant locations.  

As we have understood from the outset – and at the heart of the City Council’s purpose in creating the task force – is the challenge of directing a city agency that has always seen its future and mission in growing and selling more and more water.   The water utility’s closest partners, the engineering and contractor firms, quite understandably cling to a similar future of building large projects to deliver, treat, and dispose of more and more water.  

While the vast majority of your draft report steers a new course of water efficiency and community engagement in meeting water needs, we are concerned that some significant details run the risk of undermining your intentions.  The shortness of time and the absence of verifiable information add to our concerns.   Statements buried in the report could be plucked out and quoted in ways that would negate the intent and purpose of the Task Force.   Please take action to assure this does not happen.

First, we ask that you amend your report to delete all cost estimates for both new supplies and savings/demand reduction strategies because such numbers have not been verified or reasonably supported by the Water Utility.  Rather, it has been demonstrated that the cost estimate numbers provided by the Utility are unreliable both on their own and in comparison to each other.  The Task Force should, in no way, be viewed as adopting as their own cost estimate figures that cannot be independently verified and have been shown to be questionable.

Attention has been paid to how staff proposed numbers have not provided “apples-to-apples” comparisons between “new supplies” and “new savings.”  Specific estimates have been shown as either doubtful or subject to a broad range of estimated value.  The discrepancies that have been discovered have tended to favor new supplies over water efficiency investments.

However, many other numbers have simply not been subjected to scrutiny.  For example, buried in the details of the report, the Abengoa/Blue Water/Vista Ridge pipeline water is listed at an estimated $56 million capital cost.  No estimate is provided for annual payments and pumping costs for the water, though it is certain these numbers would be many millions of dollars every single year.  No basis has been provided by the utility for this fatally insufficient information or for the $56 million capital cost figure.   Yet, if the number is repeated by the Task Force report, that will become “the number” that sticks even if never intended by the Task Force.  

Second, while the current draft provides many reasons and recommendations for avoiding the expensive, energy intensive and ultimately unsustainable project of piping in water from distant counties, the current draft report does not explicitly state that this project should not be considered for the short- or mid-term.   

We request that it be made explicit that investments in water efficiencies and reuse, protection and stewardship of Highland Lakes water, and utilization of local water supplies, including the recapture of Barton Springs inflows, all be prioritized for prompt action while any water importation plan be deferred until there is a comprehensive Integrated Water Resource Planning process undertaken.  

Further, we ask that the Task Force recommend that, if the end result of such a planning process points to the need for importing water to Austin in the long-term, then the City should undertake a process similar to that undertaken by SAWS in which bids are sought and vetted over a period of years, in a competitive, transparent, and participatory process.  

Third, we ask that you specifically recommend the recapture of Barton Springs and other Lady Bird Lake inflows as a near-term and permanent strategy for meeting Austin’s current and future water needs.  This would be done by restoring a permanent water intake in Lady Bird Lake, connecting to the Ullrich plant, and operating the intake in a way that allows as much water as possible be retained in the Highland Lakes subject only to meeting downstream flow requirements.  While specific modelling is needed by the City’s consultant to calculate how much reliable “new” water can be provided by taking this action, the potential yield is an addition of 20 to 35 percent of total City water use.

Fourth, the draft report contains vague and sweeping language about embracing "regional partnerships."  This language should be removed or heavily qualified to explain what is meant.  The "regional partnerships" that we have in transportation — CAMPO and the CTRMA – are unaccountable to Austin voters and ratepayers and have been dominated by “partners” with values and visions of the future that directly conflict with those of Austin.  The "regional partnerships" for water that are being pushed hard right now in various forms would create one or more "Regional Water Authorities" with similarly conflicting visions and values and with the likely effect of making water decisions unaccountable to Austin voters and ratepayers.  

As with CAMPO, Austin interests would likely be overwhelmed by outlying interests working hard to make Austin pay, facilitate, or heavily subsidize the delivery of water to the I-35 corridor and beyond, into the Hill Country, in direct conflict with our own goals of protecting Hill Country watersheds, saving water, keeping water affordable, and reducing sprawl.

While cooperation among various water providers in the region is desired, for example with interconnects that could help manage water during times of drought, that cooperation should focus on building a water-efficient and climate-resilient region.  It is very clear that many potential “regional partners” have other ideas in mind.  

Finally, as an alternative to trying to edit the entire report on Wednesday, we ask that you make your best efforts at editing, but then publish the report as a draft rather than final report.  In the following two months (or thereabouts) several things could happen:  public comment would be solicited; a Task Force committee could work with staff to seek reliable and agreed upon cost-estimates; and staff could be tasked with the water availability modelling needed to estimate the additional supplies available from the recapturing of Lady Bird Lake inflows.   The Task Force would then reconvene in early September for one or, at most, two meetings to finalize its report.  

Since the Task Force was first appointed, over 80,000 acre-feet of runoff has replenished the Highland Lakes to above 800,000 acre-feet of storage.  While we are still in serious drought, the urgency of taking immediate action has abated to some degree.  Taking some additional time to obtain accurate information and public input would add considerable confidence and value to the Task Force’s work.  

Thank you again for your important service to our community and for your consideration.

Bill Bunch Roy Waley

Save Our Springs Alliance Sierra Club Austin Regional Group

Michelle Gangnes Brian Rodgers

Neighbors For Neighbors ChangeAustin.org

(of Lee and Bastrop Counties)

Steve Box Alyssa Burgin & Jere Locke

Environmental Stewardship Texas Drought Project

Linda Curtis Colin Clark

Texas League of Independent Voters Member, Austin Water & Wastewater Comm.

Dick Kallerman

Robin Rather