Beside the Point

At the June 8 City Council meeting, Brewster McCracken suggested that incoming members Sheryl Cole and Mike Martinez in their inaugural meeting – that's today, June 23 – might want to postpone any decision on the noisily troubled plans to relocate Green Water Treatment Plant. True – the Machiavellian maneuvers, and multiple interests, affecting the plant decision (if any) can befuddle even semidedicated council-watchers like BTP. It just makes us wonder – if rookies Cole and Martinez can escape, why did Brewster forget to excuse the remainder of his colleagues?

Never mind – nobody's leaving this card table. Slated for today's meeting is Item 78 from McCracken, Lee Leffingwell, and neo-Mayor Pro Tem Betty Dunkerley, "directing the City Manager to move forward on the design, engineering, and construction of a new water treatment plant." This new, permissive language – specifying nothing more precise than a "new" plant – could mean that after a brief, troubled preamble, the long knives are finally drawn on Green. Whether it survives, or council instead proceeds with the equally contentious Water Treatment Plant 4 or simply cinches the city's water waistband, the decision is certain to reverberate.

Leffingwell told BTP that today's water items constitute "the most important vote" facing the council. Contrary to the speculated demise of Green, he says the plant vote is simply to "go ahead with one site," ending allegations of duplicitous backroom dealing and even environmental racism that have dogged the project since staff proposed (and council abruptly rejected) a site at Guerrero Park. Curious new ripples bubbled up June 8 – following a marathon staff presentation of water production and conservation options, Leffingwell argued that by city staff's own estimate of future needs, construction to replace Green could be delayed a year or two. Asked the benefit of waiting, he answered, "I think what we gain is money."

"It's something like buying a new car," he told us. "If your old one's adequate, you're better off driving it instead of buying a new one." To that end, Leffingwell thinks we can squeeze even six more years out of the aqua hooptie before pimping our ride. To find that additional time, there's a separate proposal (Item 77) from Leffingwell and Wynn today, telling Toby Futrell to begin "aggressive water conservation measures" aimed at cutting peak day demand 10% in as many years. "If we can delay the construction of a water-treatment plant, we can save a lot of money," he says. No mere drops in the bucket: $30 million in construction, and $25 million in operating costs over that six-year stretch. "And," concludes Leffingwell, "it's the right thing to do."

This ambitious conservation effort is in stark contrast to the dire predictions of Futrell and staff, who want to fast track Green for a 2011 opening. By that time, they say, the millions of gallons a day pumped out by the plant will barely match the peak demands placed on the system. The operative word, to Leffingwell, is "peak"; while the city goes through about 140 MGD on average, peak demand reached on scorching summer days is about 250 MGD – a frightening volume, but according to Leffingwell by no means the norm. Just as you shouldn't measure your average grocery bill during the in-laws' visits, Leffingwell says we shouldn't plot the city's water future under extremity. "There's no question new treatment capacity is going to be needed," he said last week. "The only question I'm trying to get at is when that is absolutely going to be needed." He's optimistic that through conservation, reuse, and leak repair, the city could save up to 25 MGD – roughly the same amount a new Green Water Treatment Plant would produce. Leffingwell & Co. can lead Futrell and staff to the riverside: Will they drink?

If the council-staff underwater wrestling match isn't enough, today also slams the door on McCracken's McMansion ordinance. This tempest-in-a-tract-home is slated for third and final reading – probably pro forma passage pending further summertime tweaking – but then the design standards return for a 6pm hearing. Betwixt all the heat – if not light – powered by these pistons of civic discourse, we wouldn't be surprised if two other items from council get muscled into the shadows: further directions to Futrell to prepare a proposal to the county regarding construction of the perpetually delayed Waller Creek Tunnel, and the setting of a public hearing in August to consider a helmet law for bicyclists. With any luck, council will wrap up a hair shy of their recent 3:30am clock-out. Cole! Martinez! Welcome aboard!