Water is one of the most important resources on earth. We depend on water from the moment we wake up to the moment we go to bed. As a mother of four adult children, I worry about how the diminishing supply of water will affect my children and future grandchildren’s quality of life.
My sons will begin their dental practice in a few short years while my daughter is studying to be a nurse – jobs that would be impossible to do successfully without a reliable water source. Even my third son’s career as a certified public accountant requires reliable water to continue operating a professional, safe and hygienic business. All businesses need water to pass inspections and stay in business. So when I see Texas listed as one of the most water scarce states, or hear “water shortage” and “San Antonio” in the same sentence, it grabs my attention and causes a certain level of concern.
Our city’s unique culture has made it one of the most family oriented places to live. With a growing number of first-rate higher education institutions in San Antonio and our thriving economic development, our future generations will have more professional career opportunities than ever before, but we need a water plan that is progressive and forward thinking. The good news is that our city leaders already have a major piece of that plan ready. It is called Vista Ridge.
Progressive projects like the Vista Ridge Pipeline are exactly the types of projects that will help protect existing sources, diversify our water resources and directly invest in the success of our city and ultimately, our future generation. Vista Ridge is a 142-mile pipeline that will be built underground to deliver 20% of San Antonio’s water needs for the next 30 years and beyond, significantly decreasing our reliance on the Edwards Aquifer and protecting its endangered species habitat.
Not only is it environmentally sound, but it will also provide relief to our community from severe drought cycles. The water will come from the abundant Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer located in sparsely populated Burleson and Milam counties. This aquifer contains more than 12 times the amount of water in all Texas lakes combined and is considered drought resistant because it has never been under drought restriction.
While San Antonio has the lowest water utility rates of any major city in Texas, it is currently estimated that the average residential bill will be $88 in 2020, of which no more than $12 will be needed to pay for the water provided through this project. That is an investment I am willing to make in my children’s future and our city’s prosperity.
And while the San Antonio Water System (SAWS) plans for the future water demands of its ratepayers, it is encouraging to see that they have implemented and enhanced affordability programs to assist low-income families. The new rate structure now also includes a “lifeline” rate that all ratepayers can benefit from – based on volume, not income. Residents who conserve water and use less than 300 cubic feet (3 ccf) or about 75 gallons per day during their monthly billing cycle will be billed at a lower rate. Additionally, any risk related to the delivery of water will not fall on the SAWS ratepayer because San Antonio only pays for the water that is used.
The Vista Ridge Pipeline Project received unanimous support from the San Antonio City Council last year because it is a great example of a well-negotiated and coordinated plan to sustain our growing population and meet increasing water demands.
It is now our responsibility to support this project and support the SAWS rate increase needed to help fund the project. As professor Dennis Culhane once said, “Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.” And these are extraordinary times in which we must allow San Antonio to stay ahead of a water crisis and safeguard this most important resource for our children and future generations.
*Top image: A worker installs a portion of pipeline. Photo courtesy of SAWS Facebook page.
Related Stories:
Open Letter: A Critical Look at the SAWS-Vista Ridge Contract
Sierra Club: San Antonio Doesn’t Need Vista Ridge Pipeline
Ms. Stephens, I’m sure you are well intended, but this article comes off like a marketing statement for a boondoggle. “Boondoggle” is another marketing term used by those who oppose unsustainable projects that involve the manipulation of numbers to get over on the public.
We will be releasing a video in a few days that will stand by these facts related to Vista Ridge:
1. Harm to the aquifer being raided for this project.
2. Substantial rate hikes to San Antonio ratepayers for water that will not be used in the city for many years, if ever.
3. This water is for development between San Antonio and Austin.
4. The project is an abuse of eminent domain for private gain for pipeline easements.
5. Manipulation of the numbers by SAWS to claim widespread support for this project in the so-called “donor” region.
6. Tomfoolery involved in pressuring landowners to lease their water.
There are more, but you’ll have to watch the video.
Fifty years ago California made the decision to move masses of their groundwater to a dry area — from Los Angeles to San Diego. Vista Ridge is based on the “California water model.” It is a proven disaster.
Linda Curtis, League of Independent Voters of Texas
http://www.StopWaterGrab.org
Valid points, but lets proceed with transparency and well supported and defended decisions.
Ms. Stephens,
Your introductory statements are not in dispute. What is, or should be a matter of reasoned debate and analysis before San Antonio locks into a $3.4 billion investment, is if the Vista Ridge project meets the objectives that you set forth.
Rather than being long winded here, let me just respond to two statements you make that ostensibly support that Vista Ridge is “exactly” what we need.
1) Vista Ridge…[by] decreasing our reliance on the Edwards Aquifer [will protect] endangered species habitat. That is noble, but at what cost? Should we protect our environment by negatively impacting that of our neighbors to the north, east and southeast? There is documented evidence from hydrological studies, including a recent one by George Rice (a reputable groundwater hydrologist, utilizing the Texas Water Development Boards own models), that the level of pumping implied by Vista Ridge alone will impact flows in the Colorado and Brazos Rivers. And, there are already additional permits for almost twice the proposed Vista Ridge volumes which, if executed will greatly add to the cumulative impact on these rivers. What of the habitats from north central Texas, all the way to the Texas coast that will suffer in result? So, blithely assuming that Vista Ridge is “environmentally sound” on these grounds may not be a good assumption.
2) “The water will come from the abundant Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer [which] contains more than 12 times the amount of water in all Texas lakes combined”. Please consider this statement in light of the Edwards Aquifer that you purport to wish to protect. The reason we have restrictions on Edwards pumping is because water extraction from an aquifer needs to be balanced with its recharge rates to be sustainable. The Edwards has much more water in it than we pump. By this argument, we do not need the Vista Ridge water because we could instead mine water from the Edwards in same way we treat non-renewable resources like oil and minerals. As shown above and by the Edwards, example, you do not simply treat an aquifer like a water storage tank and pump it dry to meet medium term needs. If you are really worried about all children and all future generations in San Antonio as well as that of populations from Bryan to the Texas Coast, you should as concerned over pumping impacts on the Carrizo-Wilcox as you are on the Edwards.
For your information, the Texas Water Development Board’s planning group responsible for determining available groundwater in the Carrizo-Wilcox currently estimates that “the Modeled Available Groundwater [thus, recommended] size for the Vista Ridge Project is 19,442 ac ft/yr in 2020, growing to 34,894 ac ft/yr by 2070.” As this is our best estimate based on what we know, you are suggesting that San Antonio help itself to two-and-one-half times the supposedly available groundwater over the next 10 years. And, even that “available” amount would result in the “Desired Future Condition” in Burleson County of dropping the aquifer 300 feet.
I urge you to educate yourself on the issues involved with the Vista Ridge project and then reassess your position.
To the reviewer: please correct “north, east and southwest” to “north, east and southeast”. Thank you.
San Antonio needs multiple sources of water. In the absence of the large groundwater lakes and reservoirs the various aquifers are the only choice. Currently, purchased but unused, water is pumped to the Twin Oaks Aquifer for future use. Conservation reduces the total amount of water used, but we still end up short.
The question remains: where do we get water for growth or should we build a fence around the city and stop future growth? The objectors to solutions don’t usually provide an alternative. Or perhaps we should go to the market and buy bottled water?
The promoters of unbridled growth fail to heed to something learned in Biology 101 class. When an organism runs out of a critical nutrient, the organism dies. Don’t force death on other neighbors because of political decisions made in Austin and San Antonio to continue pushing the growth pedal to the metal. There are ways to allow the market place and Mother Nature to intervene on your bad policy decisions.
Sustainable growth is a good thing — unbridled growth is killing us.
Today’s Rivard piece on gentrification is instructive, if you just read between the lines a tad.
But what are you considering sustainable growth? San Antonio has actually been growing at a steady rate, it adhere’s to pumping restrictions on the Edward’s aquifer, is working with it’s neighbors on conservation in the recharge areas. Your reply basically says San Antonio should make due with what it has and that is it.
The area that is experiencing the unbridled growth is Austin (your home town), yet if one looks at the League of Independent Voters website it says “Oppose the San Antonio hose” (which has been the rallying cry to oppose every attempt by SA to secure additional water rights for years); yet there is no mention of thirsty Austin.
There are no San Antonio events listed (so the above stated concern about rate hikes is not really a concern). There is no one from the San Antonio area on the board.
It basically sounds like a campaign to reserve water rights for the Austin area.
Were alternatives to Vista Ridge not provided? If not, they should have been. Evaluating and reviewing only one option for a project of this magnitude can not be characterized as doing due diligence for the SAWS customers.