Water panelists examine how to supply Austin as growth continues

“Water is nonpartisan. But, oh, my God, it is totally political.”

Those words, from Central Texas Water Coalition President Jo Karr Tedder, summarized much of the fraught and frank discussion about the future of water resources in Central Texas during a luncheon panel last week in front of local development and real estate leaders.

The talk was organized by Urban Land Institute Austin and accompanied the institute’s national Water Wise report that looks at the issues and solutions tied to water management across the country.

With Austin and its surrounding communities expected to see continued strong population growth for decades to come, panelists spent much of the time discussing how state laws and policies are poorly structured to handle the growing demand for water. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality was identified repeatedly as a “reluctant enforcer” of laws concerning water quality and management, and it was noted as an office directed to give easy approvals to most requests made for water access.

The problem with groundwater management today lies with the rule of capture, said Carlos Rubinstein, a former TCEQ commissioner who is now a consultant on water management.

“I may own land that’s been my family’s for five generations, and if you came by and you just bought a parcel of land right next to us, and now we’re neighbors, you decide to put in a bigger pump, bigger well, and just dig a bigger hole,” he said. “You start to divert water, and you impact mine. The rule of capture means I don’t have recourse against you.”

Tedder said water problems for Austin could grow quickly, since the Highland Lakes system of late has only received 8 percent of the normal inflows from rain. Without a diverse portfolio of other water sources – unlike San Antonio, which began expanding its water sources decades ago – she said options like capturing and diverting excess stormwater into underground storage are being discussed, even though they aren’t very effective.

Desalinization of brackish underground water not normally fit for municipal use is one option that Tedder said all communities will need to consider.

“(Desalinization) is something else that’s going to have to happen, because it’s the only answer that I have been able to find that seems like is going to work for everybody,” she said, noting the technique has been used successfully in El Paso for more than a decade. “When people say, ‘Well, you can’t do this because it costs too much money,’ you’re not going to have a choice. The problem is somebody has to put up the money to do it, and it changes the way money is made on water.”

Russ Boles, a member of the Williamson County Commissioners Court, said a growing issue for management of water and other utilities is the ability for developers to create quasi-official utility districts just outside the boundaries of cities that have been very deliberate in planning for growth and supplying water. With less oversight and regulation, and utility management costs that show up as large county property tax bills, Boles said there tends to be too much consideration given to the property rights of developers.

“All these rules are being driven by large developments and typically residential development,” he said. “We see these developments going, and I often get asked, ‘Who’s in charge of all this development?’ And the answer is Adam Smith … and the nation’s invisible hand. How we set those laws up is going to decide who’s the winner and losers.”

The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.