Guest column by Wes Pitts
In a recent op-ed, Patrick Rose applauded the decision by the city of Dripping Springs to expand the South Regional Wastewater Treatment System, a move to keep the city from running out of wastewater capacity by 2017.
No one should fault the city for taking steps to prevent that from happening. After all, it’s clear that something must be done. The question is, is that ‘something’ the best course of action?
As part of the treatment plant expansion, the city is required to file a discharge permit with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. The permit would allow the city to discharge treated effluent into a tributary of Onion Creek. The city insists that is not something they want to do, and that they will enter into agreements with local subdivisions to beneficially reuse wastewater, thus reducing the need to discharge it.
The city should be credited for making such assurances. However, there are serious issues with this plan.
First, as originally proposed in the preliminary planning report prepared by CMA Engineering, the city would obtain a discharge permit for up to 500,000 gallons of treated effluent per day. The permit application the city filed with TCEQ asks for nearly double that amount – 995,000 gallons per day – and with less stringent treatment requirements.
Second, while no one would argue that beneficial reuse of treated wastewater makes perfect sense, and is certainly preferable to disposing of it, the kind of reuse being talking about – outdoor irrigation of parks, sports fields and other open spaces – is not a year round solution. What happens during Winter or an extremely wet Spring when that water is not needed? What happens when new subdivisions decide they don’t want to take part in beneficial reuse? Or when an existing subdivision wants to back out of its agreement?
If the city is serious about beneficial reuse, it should come up with a resolution making it mandatory, with strict guidelines. As currently proposed, it does not guarantee that discharges will not occur.
Finally, while the city insists it does not intend to discharge into Onion Creek, once they get the permit, they are under no obligation not to do so. Even if they are sincere, things change. Growth continues. Council members come and go. Eventually, wastewater influx outpaces our ability to handle it. Who is to say that years from now, with that permit in place, that it wouldn’t be used to its full capacity?
The results would be devastating. At the full volume of 995,000 gallons per day, at least half of the water in Onion Creek would be wastewater effluent approximately 28 percent of the time. Even a small amount of discharge could be harmful. According to U.S. Geological Survey monitoring, Onion Creek has no creek flow or is dry about 10 percent of the time. That means during a drought, the creek could be composed almost entirely of wastewater effluent.
Everyone understands that growth is coming and we must have systems in place to handle it that are both sustainable and environmentally sound. I applaud the city’s desire to take action, but let’s make sure we get it right. The decisions we make today will impact generations to come.
Wes Pitts is a member of www.onioncreekcoalition.com and lives on the creek, about five miles downstream of the proposed discharge point.
