Form Letter Response
Council members for the three partnering cities that form the BCRUA have been receiving form letters with questions from concerned people. Below is the response we have been sending to those people.
Thank you for taking the time to visit the Brushy Creek Regional Utility Authority Water Supply Project website/blog. The text of this letter is being sent by the city councils of Round Rock, Cedar Park, and Leander in response to letters we’ve received voicing concern about our project’s impact on Lake Travis.
We understand your concern about protecting Lake Travis. It is indeed a beautiful recreational resource. However, we must keep in mind that the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) created the lake decades ago, with the assistance of then Congressman Lyndon Johnson, to end disastrous flooding and provide a reliable source of water and electricity to residents throughout the lower Colorado River basin.
This project will not drain Lake Travis. Lake Travis is a variable level lake, one that fills during times of excess rains and from which water is released as municipal, agricultural, and other needs require. The amount of water secured for this project is but a fraction of what has been made available by the LCRA. As a holder of municipal and irrigation water rights, LCRA is required to conserve and supply water according to a water management plan developed by water supply experts and approved by the state of Texas. The plan prepares for “worst case scenarios”—long droughts followed by extreme flooding as we’ve seen in recent months.
As elected officials, we have a responsibility to ensure a reliable, cost-effective water supply and to plan for future water needs. It would be irresponsible of us not to do so. The region’s safety and economic health depends on our due diligence. Schools, hospitals, businesses, and families – present and future – depend on these decisions. We have thoroughly researched other sources of water. Lake Travis is the best choice. Securing water from Lake Travis is in line with state regional water plans and is supported by studies going back more than a decade.
We are continuing to evaluate the site of the deep water intake. We realize construction will have unavoidable impacts to those living nearby and along the construction route. With many public improvement projects, some have to put up with temporary inconvenience. We sincerely regret that. We have instructed project designers to do all they can, short of compromising the project’s mission, to avoid, minimize, or ameliorate negative effects.
We welcome and need your input. An open, honest discussion is one of the best ways to ensure sound decisions. We hope you will continue to be involved and encourage you to seek accurate information.
For project news, please visit www.bcrua.org. For information on LCRA’s water management planning process, please visit www.lcra.org.
August 10th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
The Highland Lakes Sytem has 445,000af of firm water. At your lowest intake depth, 560msl, water can be pulled from 575msl. At this level the Highland Lakes System has 200,000af (50% of firm water). Since these water supply contracts have no daily limit, twice the average daily consumption can be taken during the summer months for peak usage. How is this figured in? How fast will the Lakes be going down? Why is your intake on the bottom of Lake Travis if your not planning on getting every last drop? Why is this necessary for a “reliable” source of water?
Remember LCRA General Manager Joe Beal’s statement, “This lake is going to go empty the night before it rains. I mean empty. If this will have an impact on you, you’d better plan for it.”
The 2007 State Water Plan used a 1999 cost estimate of $202M for this project. It’s now over $400M. The Williamson County Water Supply Facilities Plan by your engineering firm recommended aquifer water as the least costly long-range water supply source for Williamson County.
Spending over $400M to go deeper into an over-stressed, over-promised, drought-prone Lake Travis for a single source of water is not the answer.
August 29th, 2008 at 8:13 am
To respond to the needs of its diverse customers and constituencies, LCRA manages Lake Travis water in strict accordance with a comprehensive water management plan required by the Texas Water Development Board. (For more information, visit: http://www.lcra.org/watersupply
Round Rock, Leander, and Cedar Park hold water contracts to a fraction of the water in Lake Travis – about 13 percent when the BCRUA project is completed. As good stewards of this water, each City has implemented water conservation strategies, and has in place drought management plans that are updated regularly as required by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. The BCRUA is responsible, like all other utilities on Lake Travis, to make good plans to remain in operation during times of drought. Thus, for the design of the intake, the BCRUA is placing inlets at varying depths, including 560 msl, to help ensure that municipal needs are met during periods of declining lake levels.
September 8th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Your water contracts are inter-basin transfers. There is a drought-proof
aquifer in your own basin with water available just east of Round Rock.
Leander’s increased water supply permit has not been approved by TCEQ.
The TCEQ has received many letters contesting this permit. The increased contract is from 6,400af to 24,000af. Leander will need another water supply contract around 2025. Another inter-basin transfer?
The Texas Water Development Board recommends a per person water usage of 140 gallons per day. Round Rock uses over 200. Conservation plans without enforcement are only plans. Why is the focus now on conservation when this huge infrastructure project is going out to bid?
How much will your water contracts be curtailed at 560msl? How much more water is left to sell in Lakes Travis and Buchanan?
October 10th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
“Your water contracts are inter-basin transfers. There is a drought-proof aquifer in your own basin with water available just east of Round Rock.”
If you are referring to the Simsboro Aquifer, it is approximately 50 miles from the eastern edge of Round Rock. Conversely, Lake Travis is located approximately 5 ½ miles from the proposed BCRUA water treatment plant. Ground water aquifers are not drought proof, although the water levels typically vary less than surface water reservoirs. As highlighted in a previous response, the aquifer option (assuming that water was available to the municipalities) was projected to cost $78 million to $130 million more than water from Lake Travis.
“Leander’s increased water supply permit has not been approved by TCEQ. The TCEQ has received many letters contesting this permit. The increased contract is from 6,400af to 24,000af. Leander will need another water supply contract around 2025. Another inter-basin transfer?”
Leander has the right to divert and use 6,400 acre-feet in the Colorado River Basin. It is impossible to predict at this time what will be the best, most cost-effective source of water for Leander in 2025, although an inter-basin transfer could be an option at that time.
“The Texas Water Development Board recommends a per person water usage of 140 gallons per day. Round Rock uses over 200. Conservation plans without enforcement are only plans. Why is the focus now on conservation when this huge infrastructure project is going out to bid?”
Round Rock, Leander, and Cedar Park have focused on conservation for some time and have had active conservation programs since the early-to mid-1990’s. It is true, however, that conservation programs have become more stringent and aggressive over time. Among other requirements, for example, Leander is the first city in the state to require 1.3-gallon flush toilets. The city also requires 6” of soil for new lawns while no longer allowing St. Augustine grass.
“How much will your water contracts be curtailed at 560msl? How much more water is left to sell in Lakes Travis and Buchanan?”
Water demands during a drought will vary from city to city. However, long before Lake Travis reaches 560 msl, BCRUA member cities will have implemented very stringent, mandatory water conservation measures. Each city has developed a water conservation and drought management plan consistent with the requirements of LCRA and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
We are unable to answer your question about how much more water is left to sell in Lake Travis and Buchanan. We recommend that you contact LCRA regarding this information.
December 11th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
1) Private aquifer companies can deliver water to your supply points for $3-$3.58 per thousand gallons. What is the cost of the Lake Travis water per thousand gallons to your supply points?
2) Leander’s current contract for 6,400af is for their existing treatment plant which is not part of this project. Leander’s water for this BCRUA project is the increased 17,600af permit pending at TCEQ. Over 65 letters have requested contested case hearings/public meetings. This permit is needed for the funding of this project. Leander will need an additional water supply contract around 2025.
3) Round Rock just approved a 5 month (peak usage) two-tier block water rate, with 18,000 gallons as the high tier. This targest consumption over 215gpcd.
4) The BCRUA has justified the need for a deep-water intake, but has no answers on curtailment and water availabilty at this level? Who came up with the plan to back-feed the existing treatment plants with water from the deep-water intake? Shouldn’t there be modeling to show this water supply with $25M in engineering fees for just Phase 1?
January 14th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Thank you for your post. It is difficult to draw comparisons between the groundwater cost per 1000-gallon rate and the cost for Lake Travis water. A number of variables would have to go into such a cost estimate, and without knowing what variables were factored into the equation, there can be no meaningful comparison.
Project costs can be put into a “cost per gallon” of system capacity for comparison, but this is different than the cost per gallon of delivered water that is likely represented by the +/- $3 cost to which you refer. Since we have no “per gallon delivered” cost to compare, the best comparison would be on the capital costs of the two options. In a 2005 HDR study, the cost gap between groundwater from the east and a Lake Travis system was about $78 million. With inflation, that gap has gotten even bigger.
In regard to your question about curtailment, each city has a drought management plan that must include increasingly strict conservation measures as any drought continues. The cities will, at the very least, meet the state and LCRA required curtailments as the lake level drops.
The basic objective of the deep-water intake is to have an intake at a depth in Lake Travis that will still have water available at the end of LCRA’s predicted drought of record. Our intake will not be able to access water beyond that level.
January 15th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Let’s keep it simple.
What is the total current project cost, and cost per phase? Annual cost and cost per acre foot? BCRUA President Scott Rhode stated the total project cost at north of $400M with individual cities expenditures around $500M. The 2005 HDR study had the total project cost at $138M.
Engineering firms should not be allowed to estimate projects their firms will profit on. BCRUA as a new utility should be required to use independent engineering peer reviews. This project refused to authorize an independent review of the Lake Travis and Simsboro Aquifer plans with a cost of about $7,000 per city.
What percentage of your Lake Travis water supply contracts will be curtailed at 575msl for the BCRUA project? This is a water supply question. Can the existing treatment plants be back-feed by the deep water intake or not? How are your engineers not able to answer curtailment questions and why did this project proceed without them?
Why has the project spent $25M+ without Leander’s increased water supply permit? Should the project spend anymore without it? The City of Austin, and Matagorda and Wharton Counties are included in the 65 requests for contested case hearings/public meetings. The City of Cedar Park, Leander’s partner in this project also is requesting a contested case hearing!
Spending $500 million to go deeper into an over-stressed and over-promised, drought-prone Lake Travis for a single source of “reliable” water in not the answer.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:05 am
Costs have been estimated for all phases of the BCRUA Regional System. The costs presented here include estimated construction costs, land costs, and engineering costs.
The total estimated cost of Phase 1 of the Regional Water Project is $183 million, and includes a water treatment plant capacity of 42 million gallons per day (mgd). The start-up phase of the project (Phase 1A) is estimated at $171 million and will result in an initial plant capacity of 17 mgd. Within the first four years of operation, incremental improvements (Phases 1B-1D) will add equipment to bring the plant capacity to 42 mgd, as needed and will cost an additional $12 million, bringing the total Phase 1 to $183 million.
Phases 2 and 3 have not been estimated in as much detail as Phase 1, but earlier preliminary engineering estimates of the cost (based on 2008 dollars) to build the water treatment plant to the ultimate 105.8 mgd capacity are approximately $40.25 million for Phase 2, and $29.6 million for the final Phase 3, two decades from now.
The deep-water intake and connecting pipeline have been estimated recently in the site study at $101 million. Thus the total ultimate project cost is estimated at $354 million in 2008 dollars.
Re: Annual cost and cost per acre-foot:
The annual costs of the regional plant will be similar to other existing plants in the area, but are projected to have cost saving advantages. There will be savings from the economies of scale of the operation of one plant rather than three separate plants. The regional approach at this location is expected to be more energy efficient and will certainly require lower staffing levels than multiple plants. The annual costs will depend on the exact number of O&M staff, variable costs such as energy, and other operating costs to be budgeted annually. The cost per gallon will then vary with the amount of water treated annually as required by the customers.
The cost per acre-foot is based on the rate set by the LCRA. The current rate is $126 per acre-foot per year (ac-ft/yr) for the amount actually used. In addition, a reservation fee equal to half of that rate ($63 per ac-ft/yr) is charged for the amount of water that is reserved by contract but not actually used in a given year. Thus the cost per acre-foot will vary from year to year depending on the amount of usage. This usage varies greatly depending on annual weather patterns of rain, drought and temperatures, and on population growth over time.