WTP4 Still Running?

Had we spoke too soon Thursday in proclaiming Water Treatment Plant No. 4 dead as the salamanders it will surely murder (Just joking … or am I?). Lee Leffingwell sent out this mass emailing following his successful substitute resolution Thursday delaying construction of WTP4 at the headwaters of Bull Creek for a year. Despite all the feel-goodism about the delay and reexamination, Leffingwell still subtly sounds like a weary, yet undeniable proponent of the plant ("…we must assume that Bull Creek remains the likely home of a new water treatment plant…," "Sometimes good policy is bad politics…"). He also takes a shot at Brewster McCracken's proposal to move WTP4 from Bull Creek via building a smaller plant on a smaller tract ("building a smaller facility would end up costing the ratepayers more over time").

While we're all for the delay – especially in light of Leffingwell's water conservation measures, there's no rush for a new plant – it clear the calculations pertaining to WTP4 are increasingly political. Brewster initially exploited the difference between him and his future mayoral opponent, while Lee turned around and changed the terms of the debate with his delay.

So how does Jackie Goodman feel about WTP4?

Leffingwell's full press release below the fold …

From City Council member Lee Leffingwell:

WHY I ASKED THE COUNCIL TO STOP CONSTRUCTION OF WATER TREATMENT PLANT 4 AT BULL CREEK

Dear Friends:

Yesterday at the Austin City Council meeting I offered a motion to stop construction of Water Treatment Plant 4 at Bull Creek. Mayor Pro Tem Betty Dunkerley seconded my motion, and rest of the Council, including Mayor Wynn, voted unanimously to approve it. I’m writing this brief note to tell you why I made the motion, what it does, and what it means.

Like so many others in and around City Hall, I’ve paid close attention to the ongoing developments surrounding Water Treatment Plant 4 over the last several years. My position has always been, and still remains, that Austin needs this facility. Even if our most aggressive water conservation initiatives are successful, our dramatic ongoing growth means that we must soon increase our water treatment capacity – and that we must expand beyond the constraints of adding new capacity to our existing facilities.

I also believe that our new water treatment plant must be built near, and draw its water from, Lake Travis. In addition to having rights to a deep water intake at Lake Travis that we would be just plain dumb not to take advantage of, building on the higher elevations surrounding the lake will save Austin taxpayers millions of dollars every year by allowing gravity, rather than electricity, to pump water from the treatment plant into our city’s water grid.

Based on those two absolutes – we need a new treatment plant, and we need it on Lake Travis – city staff spent most of 2005 and 2006 reviewing possible sites within a 5-mile radius of the lake, based on certain search criteria. Ultimately, staff recommended just two possible sites. The first, called the Cortaña tract, is located inside the Balcones Canyonland Conservation Preserve (BCCP); the other is at the headwaters of Bull Creek.

Both sites presented environmental challenges, but it was clear to nearly everyone that Cortaña was the preferred alternative. However, since Cortaña, as part of the BCCP, was and still is managed jointly by the City of Austin and Travis County, the Commissioners Court had to vote to approve construction of the facility there. Instead, they voted against it, leaving the Council with little choice last summer but to move forward at Bull Creek.

Since that time, the city has been working to design the facility and ensure the protection of the ecosystems at Bull Creek – but serious complications have continued to arise. Not only has a species of salamander living downstream from the site recently become a candidate to be listed as an Endangered Species, test bores into the karst (cave) features on the site have revealed how difficult it will be to preserve underground water flow.

New complications have, of course, led to new costs. Since the Council initially approved the project last August with a preliminary budget of $314 million, the cost of building at Bull Creek has swelled beyond $340 million, most of which involves new expenditures for environmental mitigation measures. The Council has also recently been asked to set aside additional money for legal expenses at the Bull Creek site.

Although I have been an advocate for building this facility at Bull Creek since voting in favor of it last year, given the new facts, the new questions, and the new costs that have come to light in recent months, I feel strongly the time has come for the city to re-examine its plan. That’s why I asked the Council yesterday to stop work at the site for not more than 12 months, and asked city staff to take another look at all of our alternatives.

Given that we’ve been down the road of “exhausting all alternatives” before, what the Council asked staff to do yesterday is re-examine the search criteria that were previously used to narrow the list of possible sites. For example, we could consider sites that would accommodate a smaller or different kind of facility (although building a smaller facility would end up costing the ratepayers more over time) or consider other site selection criteria.

In the meantime, because we must assume that Bull Creek remains the likely home of a new water treatment plant, the Council also asked city staff to conduct an even broader environmental assessment at the site to determine, as best we can, what the real impact of building the facility there would be. This step was proposed last week by our citizen Environmental Board, and makes even more sense as we re-examine criteria and sites.

Finally, my motion also asked city staff to examine ways to expand and accelerate our water conservation strategies. I was proud to chair the Water Conservation Task Force that recently presented a new set of conservation initiatives to the Council, with the goal of reducing our water use by 1% per year for the next 10 years. These measures have already helped extend the deadline for when we’ll need more water, but it’s possible that we can do even better. Saving water doesn’t just save all of us money – it also buys us a little more time to find the best site for a new treatment facility, and to bring the facility online.

Of course, there has been controversy swirling around Water Treatment Plant 4 from the beginning, and I would by lying if I said it didn’t matter. I spend every day at City Hall, so my skin is pretty thick. But in this case, the sustained outcry from all across the community over this plan, taken together with new facts and new questions, made a difference to me. Sometimes good policy is bad politics, but here, I think we’ve got more work to do to determine if our policy is really good.

Now our challenge is to work together as a community to agree on a path forward. Especially as we begin the process of re-defining our search criteria, re-examining previous sites, and examining new possible sites, I hope you will engage in the dialogue in a meaningful way, and help this Council and the County make the best possible decision. Doing nothing to provide for our future water needs is not an option; instead, let’s take the time to get all of the facts, weigh all of the possibilities, and then set a course together.

Thanks for what you do for Austin.

Best Regards,

Lee Leffingwell