Buda's water supply options[/caption]

Avoiding a water shortage remains a topic of conversation for Buda leaders even after signing a contract in January with a Houston-based company that could shore up the city’s supply until 2023.

One option has resurfaced, and other water source alternatives have entered the fold in light of Buda’s controversial decision to contract with Electro Purification, which aims to pump millions of gallons of water a day from an unregulated source of groundwater in Hays County. “We are turning over every rock; we are looking everywhere for this water,” Mayor Todd Ruge said. “It looks like some of the people that we have asked in the past have really softened their stance. … It seems like things are being expedited to really truly look into if [water sources are] viable or not—things that we have been trying to look into for several years.” Buda faces a water shortage of 30,000 gallons of water a day beginning in 2017 if it is unable to secure an additional water source. The city’s deficit could climb to 950,000 gallons of water a day by 2023 if EP’s test wells do not prove adequate supply or quality for its proposed pumpage. Even if EP’s test wells establish there is enough quality groundwater, the city would still have to negotiate a mitigation plan City Council deems suitable for rural well users. Well owners in western Hays County, living in communities such as Driftwood and Wimberley, are skeptical the mitigation plan will protect their wells, but Ruge said he will only approve a plan with teeth. “I’m not going to agree on a mitigation plan unless it is rock-solid and actually has some meaning,” he said. “It’s really going to be a delicate balance.” Meanwhile, public concern over the EP project has revived alternative options to secure the city’s water supply. The Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer Conservation District previously denied the city’s request for a permit transfer, a process that would likely be the most expedient alternative Buda could pursue. And because it would entail transferring water permitted from another entity to Buda’s control, it would cause no further harm to the groundwater BSEACD regulates.

Permit transfer

In February, BSEACD reopened discussions to allow permit transfers between water users in light of public meetings that drew hundreds of concerned western Hays County residents. The district could vote on a proposal for a rules change to allow such transfers at one of its next board meetings, General Manager John Dupnik said. However, even if it were to create a regulatory mechanism for permit transfers, the potential for more stumbling blocks exists, he said. The city of Kyle, which is one of Buda’s partners in the Hays Caldwell Public Utility Agency and has a well-stocked water supply, could come to the aid of Buda. Kyle was in a similar situation as Buda about 12 years ago. Projections indicated the city was set for a rapid population boom, and Kyle was already over-pumping from its Edwards Aquifer well to meet the existing demand, Kyle Assistant City Manager James Earp said. “[The HCPUA partners] are trying to find a way to help Buda,” Earp said. “The EP deal is just a bad deal for everybody. Kyle has been put in a position where we have been asked to step up and help, and we can help given the right circumstances.” In addition to transferring water permitted by BSEACD, Kyle would need to replace the water by drawing more from the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority pipeline, Earp said. That is a much more expensive source of water, and Buda would be expected to compensate the city appropriately, he said. Kyle Mayor Todd Webster said the city is not in the business of giving away water for free. Ruge said Buda does not expect that water to come cheaply. “At minimum, it would be a break-even for Kyle, but I would anticipate it would actually be a revenue stream for them,” he said. “[But a permit transfer] is not what we are expecting. We are expecting to purchase water. And people that sell water generally don’t do it out of the goodness of their heart.”

Growth moratorium

In 2002, Kyle faced a similar predicament. City Council imposed a 120-day moratorium on property development to meet the water and wastewater needs of its growing population. The city’s population was expected to grow by 30,000 in five years, necessitating a tripling of its water and wastewater capacity. Webster, who was a councilman during the moratorium, said that although the four-month event adversely affected the city’s reputation and caused it to miss out on economic development opportunities, “it positioned ourselves to acquire multiple sources of water.” There was also a strong impetus to resolve its capacity issues so the ban could be lifted. “It was the driving force that drove us to move fast and get things done,” he said. “We moved quickly and accomplished a lot in a short period of time.” Webster said he is not privy enough to Buda’s situation to know whether a moratorium would benefit the city. “I just know it was right for Kyle,” he said. The city of Buda would have to meet certain criteria, such as evidence public facilities are operating at capacity, to justify a property development moratorium, according to the state Local Government Code. Councilwoman Angela Kennedy, who voted against contracting with EP, raised doubts that a moratorium would be beneficial. She said a lot of the city’s projected growth is from developments that were approved several years ago. A moratorium would not apply to developments that already have a permit. “Some of the growth we are seeing is something we can’t stop,” Kennedy said. “I am not sure if a moratorium would have any effect.” On March 3, Kennedy requested an updated five-year projection of the city’s water needs, which she said will help guide how Buda tackles its water crisis. “Maybe the 2017 projection isn’t accurate anymore,” she said. “That is a very important piece to the puzzle.”