Sunset Valley residents recently debated reviving the city's defunct groundwater system. The public hearing centered around whether the well was a strategic asset and worth the investment to make it operational again.
Sunset Valley buys all of its water from the City of Austin. Sunset Valley's groundwater treatment system has been out of service since 2008 due to mechanical problems and drought conditions, according to the city. The system had served 107 homes and four city offices.
Scenarios
The city researched two scenarios: having a dual water system and exclusively buying City of Austin water. City staff presented its findings during an April 10 Sunset Valley City Council work session.
Public Works Director Katy Phillips said the city didn't consider the option of expanding the groundwater system, blending well and purchased water or creating a hybrid system that used well water for irrigation.
The city estimates that over 30 years, the dual system would cost $1,383,241 more than buying exclusively from the City of Austin ($29,875,505 compared to $28,492,264).
Most of that difference comes from capital improvements. Dual-system improvements would cost $1,308,000 more than those of a single source system ($2,363,000 to single source's $1,055,000.)
A dual system would require several big-ticket items such as water plant and water line improvements. A single-source system requires operation and maintenance upgrades.
There was only a $26,721 difference in operations costs over 30 years between the two scenarios (dual system's $1,404,988 versus single source's $1,378,267, assuming 3 percent cost inflation and 5 percent interest on debt service).
The city's Community and Economic Development Committee supports reviving the well. Four committees—finance, planning and environment, public safety and long-range planning ad hoc committee—chose not to make recommendations.
Public comment
The question of whether the well is a strategic asset, rather than being solely considered on economics, came up for the first time at a recent Public Works Committee meeting, Councilman Bruce Smith said.
"If it is a value strategic asset to have 18 million gallons of groundwater reserved for the City of Sunset Valley, do we need to consider that before we decide where else we go? That step was skipped over when we started," he said. He added that even under drought conditions, the city would still have access to 40 percent of that reserve, or 7 million gallons.
Smith said preserving the underground water supply is one of five main goals in the city's master plan. The city has been following its plan by researching the issue and holding meetings about options.
"No one has ever said plug, abandon and cap the well in any meetings," he said. "I have not heard that. No one has ever said that to me. What has been said is, 'Don't spend any money on it. It's not in the budget. There's no sense putting money into something we may not use.'"
Several residents called the well an asset.
Margaret Bentley said there should be overwhelming supporting evidence before there is any reduction of the city's water availability.
"I feel very strongly that this is something we should protect even though this costs us money and does not produce money any more than the green space or the traffic calming does," she said.
Sandra Cox said she would have liked to have seen analysis on the modified dual system.
"I have homeowner's insurance. Homeowner's insurance costs me money. I may never use it, but I wouldn't want to do without it," she said. "So if we don't protect an asset that we have, in this case it would probably be putting some money into the well, we may not have that asset. We may not have that protection when we need it. We don't know what City of Austin may cost in the future."
Others disagreed with the dual water system option for financial reasons.
Helen Besse said the city should let its current aquifer permit lapse, thereby saving permit fees, and get a conditional permit.
"My suggestions are that we don't invest dollars in a new well until more information and opportunities can be found from the aquifer district; that we consider retiring the current permit with the district and save the funds for the future if a new well is warranted," she said. "In summary, I don't think we have enough information from the [Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer] district that is available to the city to make an informed decision at this point."
William Gurasich said the well is only an asset if the city is required to tap into it in the future. Aside from that, he said he saw no compelling reason to invest in a well system that cannot be blended with purchased water. He supported maintaining the existing aquifer permit.
Gurasich said the only way the city could offer well water to everyone would be to set up a 10,000-gallon tank with a tap for people to fill up water jugs.
"To spend money to service the residents of only a certain section of this town and not the others is wrong, and it's really not the proper use of city funding," he said.
The City Council took no action following the public hearing.
In related water and utility news, on April 17, the council will consider a recommendation from the Finance Committee to revise city policies to eliminate the requirement that enterprise funds be self-sufficient.
The city had discussed how it subsidizes its utility fund at recent meetings. City staff noted that the practice conflicts with city policy that says all enterprise funds must be self-sufficient.
