|
|
|
Alternatives to the Edwards Aquifer Citizens of San Antonio have always been very proud of the fact their entire municipal supply of water is pure, clean groundwater derived from the Edwards aquifer. No other large city can make that claim. Along with residents of other smaller cities that depend on Edwards water, many regard any other water as "not as good". However, modern treatment methods can produce water that many people elsewhere would consider superior. Edwards water is very hard and is famous for producing a thick scale that quickly ruins water heaters and fixtures. More soap is required to clean things, and lots of people prefer the taste of softer water to Edwards water. Regardless of what people may like or dislike about Edwards water, the supply is now limited by law. So if San Antonio and the surrounding region is to continue to grow, then the days are fast approaching when water users of the region will have to start making big decisions and long-term commitments about developing new water resource alternatives. What are they? What do they involve? Who do they affect? What are the pros and cons? How much will it cost? This section lists and discusses many of the various alternatives being studied and proposed by regional water purveyors and entities. There are also a few things that can be done to increase or better manage the Edwards supply, such as using recycled water, conservation, managing brush, and building recharge dams. These will be discussed here as well. A Little Background.... In decades past, San Antonio was a world-leading pioneer in developing and managing water resources. The large scale use of recycled water for cooling electrical generating plants was first accomplished here (see section on Using Recycled Water), and San Antonio's desire to participate in the Canyon Lake project in the 1950's also illustrates that it had vision and leadership and a commitment to broadening and diversifying its water resources. However, back then, the Texas courts told San Antonio it didn't need water from elsewhere because it had not fully exploited the resources in its own river basin, including the Edwards aquifer (see the Canyon Lake story). For decades, water resource development languished and San Antonio got a reputation as a do-nothing city. In December 1996 State legislator Ron Lewis urged the State to take the lead in addressing San Antonio's future water needs, saying the city lacked the political will to do it on it's own (1). Again in 1997, senators on the State's Natural Resources Committee sharply criticized San Antonio for neglecting water issues. They said San Antonio lacked foresight and was not willing to belly up to the bar (2). All this has changed and San Antonio is once again
emerging as world-leading pioneer in developing and managing water
resources. In 1996 Mayor Bill Thornton formed a Citizens Committee on
Water Policy and charged them with recommending a long term strategy for the San
Antonio area. Their report urged that people recognize the complexity of
the problem, and it outlined many possible solutions such as weather
modification, aquifer optimization, and reusing water. From 1996 to
1998, the San Antonio Water System held 61 public meetings, worked closely with
the public and all interested parties, built on the Citizen's Committee
recommendations, and developed a 50-year water plan that was approved by City
Council in November of that year. It contained a wide range of policies
and options including a Canyon Lake pipeline, recycling water, increased water
rates, conservation, aquifer storage and recovery systems, and eventual
construction of new reservoirs. Meanwhile, in 1997 the Texas legislature passed a comprehensive water planning law and created 16 regional planning groups. In April 1999 the South Central Texas Regional Water Planning Group listed 53 options that included 12 new possible reservoirs, purchase of water from existing reservoirs, and aquifer recharge. After public input and review, the regional plans would become the foundation of a coordinated water plan to be adopted by the State. In June 2000, the Group released a draft report that included a list of plan elements containing all the items we will be discussing below. New reservoirs proved to be a highly contentious and unpopular issue (3-7), so there were no new reservoirs proposed in the draft, but officials said they could be added back in at any time (8). One reservoir, the Lockhart Reservoir in Caldwell county, was included in the draft as a potential project because the local government in that county has a strong interest in shifting from low quality groundwater to surface water. On January 5, 2001 the South Central Texas Regional Water Planning Group submitted their final plan to the State that offered 22 options for meeting the region's water needs for the next 50 years. It did not include any new major reservoirs. Approval of the plan was held up in the summer of 2001 by a debate over an element involving diversions from the Guadalupe River. However, approval was granted on July 18, 2001.In December 2005, Region L planners appeared to be on track to complete a required five year review of the region's section of the State Water Plan, but it all fell apart in January '06. Amid squabbling and finger-pointing, the Region L Planning Group missed the January 4 deadline for including their work in the larger State plan. The group asked for an extension, but the State said the law did not provide for that and it assumed control of planning for the region. Most of the blame for the failure of the group to agree on an updated plan was directed at SAWS, which in 2005 dropped its participation in the Guadalupe River component of the plan. Other agencies complained that it was a huge problem for them to adjust and respond to SAWS decision. The flash-point, however, was the controversial Carrizo Aquifer component of the plan. The Planning Group voted 13-7 to remove it from the plan. Fourteen votes were required for removal, however, and the element stayed in. Two weeks after the deadline, the Group eventually approved a plan and also voted to include a letter stating that not everyone agreed to everything in the plan. The State said the Group's work would not be included in the official State plan but that it would consider their recommendations. It also said that failure to have an approved plan from Region L would affect the Region's ability to get loans and grants from the State and that special waivers would be required.
Brush management |
|
Materials used to prepare this section: (1) "State urged to lead
S.A. to new water" San Antonio Express-News, December 13 1996. |
