With water becoming more and more precious in the Hill Country and Texas as a whole, the Boerne City Council is gearing up to implement new incentives and restrictions to help in long-term conservation efforts.
Boerne Utilities Director Mike Mann presented suggestions to the city council made by a water committee formed by the governmental entity which was charged with identifying conservation efforts and investigating longterm water supply opportunities. Mann said future water supplies will be significantly more expensive than the resources currently utilized, so a push for conservation is warranted.
“New water is not going to be cheap,” Mann said. “Where our Canyon Lake water costs were triple what our prior resources cost, we estimate that the next regional water supply that we participate in would cost triple what Canyon Lake water does.”
Mann said well water, which was the city’s primary source of water before it carved out the lake, costs the city 50 cents per 1,000 gallons, and water from Boerne City Lake costs the city $1.50 per 1,000 gallons of production. In contrast, water from the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority – or the Canyon Lake water frequently referenced during the meeting – costs the city $3 per 1,000 gallons produced, and a new water supply is estimated to triple that number, running the city $9 per 1,000 gallons.
While Mann said the GBRA water supply could support 32,000 residents and the lake could support about 7,500 residents – assuming 100 gallons per capita per day were being consumed – population growth and the impact it will have on the water supply currently is being studied by a company named HDR.
Recently, the water committee has heard presentations from both the Edward’s Aquifer Authority and GBRA about potential long-term water solutions. GBRA has mentioned largescale pipelines of water reaching expanses across major interstate corridors, and the EAA has noted there could be lobbying efforts to allow the sale of Edwards Aquifer water outside of its existing boundaries. Both are expensive and large-scale solutions to solve long-term water supply concerns, but neither has shown to be popular among residents.
So, beyond seeking another water supply, Mann mentioned several measures that could be implemented to reduce residents’ water consumption. A chart presented by Mann showed a range between 160 gallons per resident per day to 144 gallons, varying widely based on rain that year and heat and drought conditions. But by 2020, water consumption was down to 144 gallons per user per day, and decreased to 113 gallons per user per day by 2021. However, Mann chocked the 2021 numbers up to the unusually wet seasons.
To get this per-day usage down, Mann said the water committee has looked to public education and awareness, eliminating weekend landscape irrigation allowances, pursuing a more in-depth fining process for heavy users or misusers and establishing an escalating rate on reclaimed water.
Currently, under its lower drought restrictions, city ordinances allow residents to water lawns on the weekends. However, Mann said the committee has suggested eliminating weekend watering under all drought conditions in the city and implementing a once-aweek watering schedule year-round.
In terms of fining water users, no clear examples were offered to the council, but Mann did note that San Antonio Water Systems has begun skipping the warning step for residents who violate water restrictions, jumping straight to fines. He also said New Braunfels has increased its drought restrictions and only allows residents to water their lawns once every two weeks.
Next, a lot of focus was placed on the city’s regulation of reclaimed water after Mann said it “just doesn’t cost much” and said residents with access to the reclaimed resource are using 90 to 95 percent of the city’s daily production of reclaimed water. Currently, there are not restrictions on when users of reclaimed water may irrigate their lawns, and the city doesn’t place the same restrictions on reclaimed water as it does potable water during drought conditions.
District 2 Councilmember Nina Woolard said the conversation that led to the 8 percent increase in reclaimed water rates just under a year ago were led by complaints from constituents in her district who felt the resource was being wasted.
“When we were first starting the whole reclaimed water, we had this discussion because the areas happen to be in my district that were using the reclaim,” Woolard said. “And I was getting a lot of comments from citizens that they thought the reclaim was being wasted. And we had the discussion to raise the rates on it.
“I personally think we really need to look at putting the same watering restrictions on reclaim that we have on potable because it’s just human nature, if you can water every day, they’re going to use it.”
District 5 Councilmember Joe Macaluso said there should be no difference between reclaimed water and potable water. While Macaluso noted the “cost” of reclaimed water repeatedly had been conflated with the “charge” for reclaimed water, he asked what the actual cost to the city was for the resource. Mann said there wasn’t an exorbitant cost to the city, as it would be pumping the water into the creek if it wasn’t being recycled to customers, but he estimated it costs the city about 50 cents per 1,000 gallons.
The next major issue addressed was how the city can reduce the water used in landscape irrigation with District 3 Councilmember Quinten Scott identifying landscaping as a “low-hanging fruit” solution.
“You know, I think our low-hanging fruit here seems to be landscaping,” Scott said. “Driving through my neighborhood, I found out my grass was the greenest. That’s because I forgot to turn off my auto sprinkler. And that’s just one of those things that you forget sometimes. It’s on autopilot, set, it goes.”
Scott suggested, from a design perspective, low-water use or grass-free lawns, citing what he called an “extreme example” in Phoenix where he said grass has been outlawed.
This sparked some backand-forth discussion among councilmembers and staff about how grass-free or low-water-impact landscaping can lead to runoff issues that conflict with other city ordinances addressing stormwater. However, Woolard noted she has gotten rid of her grass in her backyard, using mulch and decorative rock rather than hardscaping, which she said doesn’t negatively impact runoff.
Mayor Tim Handren noted the water committee, beyond just restrictions to conserve water, had also discussed incentivizing water conservation measures, noting intelligent watering systems as an incentive example. He said these measures needed to be addressed before the city’s budget cycle because they will impact the overall budget.
Handren said he would like to see all the water committee’s recommendations to the council, including incentives and restrictions, so members can go through and implement or nix any recommendations.
A list of such recommendations is expected to be presented to the council during its second July meeting.
Comment
Comments