By Marty Kufus

SAN ANTONIO — In the end — the end of the first cycle of regional water planning — it mostly comes down to the Alamo City’s large and growing population and limitations on use of the Edwards Aquifer.

And money — lots of money.

Bexar County’s bill for new water projects might total nearly $13 billion in the next 50 years, according to the South Central Texas Regional Water Planning Group and its engineering consultants.

“I think we’ve got to answer the question: ‘Is it going to cost [San Antonio] $10 billion?’” planning Chairman Evelyn Bonavita remarked during a Dec. 6 meeting.

“No,” she continued, answering the question. “It’s going to be more, but it’s stretched over 50 years.”

On a map of the 20 1/2-county “Region L,” most of the pipelines in the recommended water projects lead to Bexar County and the region’s “major municipal demand center.”

Construction of those projects — among them, pipeline diversions of the lower Colorado and Guadalupe rivers — could cost Bexar County $4 billion, according to a planning document.

Bexar County’s total cost through the year 2050, for construction, daily operation and power, water purchases, and debt service: an estimated $12.7 billion.

And that is “in 1999 prices,” according to a document discussed last week by the planners.

The regional group, whose jurisdiction includes Wilson and Karnes counties, held its monthly meeting last week at the San Antonio River Authority’s headquarters.

There have been unofficial estimates the overall cost to the region could total around $15 billion over 50 years.

The plan’s goal is to provide an additional 744,000 acre-feet of water annually in the region by the year 2050. About 21 percent of that would come from conservation and reuse.

An acre-foot is 325,860 gallons.

With that additional water comes the prospect of tens of billions of dollars in economic growth in the region, much of that in Bexar County, according to the draft plan.

As to Wilson County, regional planners see its future needs satisfied simply by a few more municipal water wells in the Carrizo Aquifer.

The draft plan recommends about 20 projects or management strategies in the region. It doesn’t recommend any new, large reservoirs such as a controversial 16,000-acre “Cibolo” in central Wilson County.

Wilson County, by year 2010, might be providing up to 11,196 acre-feet of Carrizo Aquifer water annually to Bexar County. That “safe yield” planning limit was set this summer by the four-county Evergreen Underground Water Conservation District.

The draft plan also recommends regional “aquifer storage and recovery.”

The San Antonio Water System already has a test project in extreme southern Bexar County, moving toward possible wet-season storage of Edwards Aquifer water in the Carrizo (March 22 Wilson County News).

The state’s deadline for 16 regional plans is Jan. 5.

The Texas Water Development Board then will assemble a state plan next year for submission to the Legislature. Its passage of Senate Bill 1 in 1997 set regional planning in motion.

Water projects that appear in a state plan will receive priority in consideration for permits and loans, officials have said.

In the coming years, Region L’s plan likely will be amended or revised, according to discussions.

Even as the first planning cycle, which began in 1998, draws to a close, future challenges are starting to come into focus.
Future battles?

Technical critiques circulated this month by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service suggest some of the more ambitious Region L water projects might face administrative challenges later.

The fish and wildlife service “finds taking water from the lower reaches of the Guadalupe River by any means to have potentially significant adverse impacts to the [Gulf Coast’s] Guadalupe-San Antonio Bay Estuary,” acting field Supervisor Allan Strand wrote in a six-page letter.

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department’s critique echoed that point. It also challenged another recommended Region L project: a business proposal by the Lower Colorado River Authority to divert and pipe water to San Antonio in an “interbasin transfer.”

“It is difficult to understand how diversion of significant amounts of [lower] Colorado River water cannot have substantial prolonged impacts on the Matagorda Bay,” according to the department’s lengthy critique.

A cover letter from Larry McKinney, senior director of the parks department’s aquatic resources, to a water-board official praised the regional water groups’ work as “the single most important planning effort yet” in Texas.

He added, though, “The [16 regional] draft plans fall short of fully meeting the stated goal of Senate Bill 1: to plan for future water needs … while protecting natural resources.”

Region L planners last week showed no intention of making major changes in their draft plan.

Watching the calendar, they and their consultants hurriedly continued fine-tuning the three-volume plan.

Their “initially prepared plan” was released in late August for scrutiny by the public and various regulatory agencies.

At last week’s meeting, there were hints of some frustration with the eleventh-hour critiques by the water board, parks and wildlife department, and fish and wildlife service.

The water board’s critique had arrived in recent weeks in four installments.

According to discussion, one water-board suggestion was that small water projects perhaps should be considered significant and listed in the regional plan.

Planners seemed to consider this a micromanagement of local supplies.

A regional planner, Victoria Mayor Gary Middleton, objected: That would be going too far, and could interfere with a municipality’s ability to secure a state loan for a water project if it was not recommended in a regional plan.

Middleton looked across the conference room and asked the water board’s nonvoting representative, Jorge Arroyo, for official clarification using the water board’s “crystal ball.”

“Mayor,” Arroyo replied with dry humor, “we don’t have a crystal ball; we have a bowling ball.”

Minutes later, planners and their consultants wrestled with another water-board suggestion: more text on “emergency transfers” of water between municipalities during drought emergencies.

Regional planner Fred Pfeiffer, former general manager of the San Antonio River Authority, said the group could spend a lot of its time pondering “endless emergencies.”

“What’re you going to do for Elmendorf, what’re you going to do for St. Hedwig, what’re you going to do for Seguin?” Pfeiffer said in mild exasperation.

“Our response is, ‘Let the Watermaster [of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission] do it,’” Bonavita said.

Planners John Kight, a Kendall County commissioner, and Susan Hughes, a Bexar Audubon Society member, agreed: The existence of a regional plan should prevent water emergencies.

Region L planners will hold a special workshop Dec. 21, beginning at 9 a.m., at the San Antonio River Authority.