Survey Results -
Question #4: "Why Don't LCRA and the City of Austin Use Groundwater?" |
|
|
In August, a survey was distributed to all Water Matters newsletter subscribers asking for their response to four questions concerning current lake issues. The responses to the fourth and last question are described in this article.
Question #4 was, "The Simsboro aquifer, to the east of Austin, contains a huge volume of water. Why is it not used as a water supply by either LCRA or the City of Austin?" Respondents were asked for their opinion about how well each of eight statements helped to answer the question on a scale of "not at all" to "very much." A total of 185 persons from 28 different localities completed the questionnaire. To read the balance of this article, click here. |
|
Discharge Wastewater Into the Lakes? |
|
In 1984, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) passed a rule that included the Highland Lakes in the small group of Texas lakes and rivers which are protected from the discharge of treated effluent by wastewater utilities. Since then, wastewater plants around the lakes have been required to dispose of their treated wastewater by irrigating golf courses or tracts of cedar trees.
The Cities of Leander and Granite Shoals have submitted a petition asking TCEQ to lift this no-discharge rule and permit utilities to dispose of their wastewater in the Highland Lakes. This petition will first be analyzed by the TCEQ staff, then there will be a public hearing. The three commissioners will then make their decision about whether or not to lift the ban on discharging wastewater into the lakes.
The arguments for lifting the no-discharge ban are that (1) the technology exists to treat the wastewater to drinking water standards; (2) the treated effluent would add to the water supply instead of being wasted spraying cedars; and, (3) the land now being used for cedar irrigation could be put to better use.
Those opposed to lifting the no-discharge ban say that while the Leander utility may be a large, modern, well-equipped and well-managed plant, there are dozens of other wastewater plants around the lakes, to which the discharge ban now applies, that have a wide range of ages, condition, equipment, technology, operator, and management skills.
There is a question about whether the TCEQ has the budget and the staff to monitor all these plants. One utility manager, whose plant now discharges effluent into one of the Highland Lakes by virtue of a grandfathered permit, recently told Water Matters that his last visit by a TCEQ employee was eight years ago.
Should the Highland Lakes become polluted, a multi-hundred million dollar water recreation industry would be placed in jeopardy. Hotels, restaurants and businesses near the lakes would be adversely affected. Who would want to own a residence in a community located next to a polluted lake? Do you want to drink water taken from a lake downstream from scores of unsupervised wastewater plants which may or may not be doing a good job of treating the wastewater they are putting in the lakes?
The Highland Lakes Group and the Protect Lake Travis Association have already passed resolutions opposing any change in the no-discharge ban. Other organizations and cities around the lakes are considering similar actions. If you have an opinion on this issue, you should let your feelings be known to your city and county elected officials. While the legislature is not directly involved in this petition, it would also be appropriate to make sure that your representatives in the legislature know how you feel about this matter.
When the time comes for a public hearing on this issue at TCEQ, this newsletter will keep you informed about the time and place. |
