Mayor's Corner: Go With Aqua Texas

(Editor's Note: The Mayor's Corner will run in the August 30, 2018 issue of the Wimberley View. Due to the expected vote on the future of the city's wastewater treatment plant Tuesday afternoon, the View elected to publish online the Mayor's case in favor of Aqua Texas (below) and former Mayor Steve Thurber's case for the city-owned system (here). Both opinions will be published in the paper later this week.) 

I want to take this opportunity to provide background and explain the reason for my recommendation regarding the sewer project.  The goal has been to provide a long-term solution that is both environmentally and financially responsible – and in the best interest of the future of Wimberley.  That is why in my opinion the no-discharge City/Aqua Option still is the best choice.  As a reminder, this option has the City owning and operating the collection system and serving a small group of Central Wimberley properties while still maintaining the City’s CCN.  Rather than build a costly new discharge plant at Blue Hole Regional Park, the City will send its wastewater to Aqua Texas who will process it at its non-discharge plant at a much lower annual cost than the City owned plant.  The City would be a wholesale customer of Aqua – which also serves many customers in north Wimberley – WISD Schools, HEB, Brookshires, Wimberley Community Center, and others.  Unfortunately, this option does not qualify for the $1 million EDA grant – and thus irrigation for Blue Hole Park would need to be deferred.  

Here is some background on the EDA grant.  The grant was awarded to the City in 2016 on this basis:  “The project involves the development of a centralized wastewater treatment system to serve the approximately 170 properties that make up the city’s central business district.  The wastewater system will protect the environment, preserve existing businesses and facilitate future economic development in the district.” Note that the City/Aqua option fulfills the purpose of the grant.  The grant was awarded and included both the collection system and treatment plant.  For some reason, and without Council approval, the former mayor requested the EDA to amend the grant to exclude the collection system from the scope of their grant.  This request occurred on January 12, 2018.  On January 18, 2018, the prior City Council was asked to award the collection system contract to Capital Excavation, being advised that “The City received clearance from the TWDB and EDA”.  In July 2018 the City requested the EDA amend the agreement to allow reimbursement of the collection system contract.  Unfortunately, on August 17, 2018 the EDA denied this request, with one of the reasons being that “the collection system construction contract already entered into was not procured according to EDA requirements and cannot be retroactively approved by EDA.”  Thus, regrettably the EDA grant is not available with the City under the City/Aqua option. 

So why is the City/Aqua option still the best option even though the City would forgo providing irrigation water to Blue Hole Park - primarily for its soccer fields?  The reason is when viewed on both a short and more importantly, a long-term horizon, that the cost of doing so with a City owned and operated plant is simply too high.  Consider what the environmental risks and financial costs of doing so would be:  

Environmental Risks

• Discharge of sewer effluent into the Blanco River and the environmental consequences

• Risk of excess effluent into Cypress Creek due to over irrigation

• Aquifer contamination from discharge

• Unsightly sewer plant with a 500,000 gallon storage tank located at Blue Hole Park

• Potential for environmentally catastrophic sewer plant spills in Blue Hole Park or the Blanco River

• Sewer plant odor issues in Blue Hole

• No upgrade of Aqua’s plant to Type 1 that would benefit the entire Wimberley Valley

• No Type 1 effluent available for other users in the Valley - such as the new WISD school as well as Blue Hole Park in the future

• TCEQ required expansion plans must begin when plant reaches 75% of capacity

• Opening the door to even higher levels of discharge with City growth (just look at the City of Blanco’s pending request for a 1.6 million gallon per day discharge permit)

Financial Costs

• Higher annual costs by owning/operating a plant – millions of dollars over time

• Lost opportunity to make sewer customer rates significantly more affordable and/or reduce necessary the City subsidy

• Potential for costly sewer plant spills

• Costs and risks of maintaining a plant in working order and in environmental compliance for decades

• The need to plan for incurring cost to replace the sewer plant at its end of life, which may be as soon as 20 or 25 years – millions of dollars more

In my opinion the above price is just too high.  If Wimberley still wants water for Blue Hole, it can find a way – just not within the scope of this project.  With the City/Aqua option, Type 1 effluent would be made available, not just to the City and Blue Hole, but for the entire Wimberley Valley.  I wish the City could afford everything at once, but this option accomplishes the primary goal of providing wastewater treatment for central Wimberley in a long-term financially and environmentally responsible manner, while still leaving the door open for water for Blue Hole.