<BACK

The Interbasin Exchange That Does Not Exchange

Most of Williamson County (Region G) is in the Brazos River Watershed.  Most of Travis County (Region K) is in the Colorado River Watershed.  The water Cedar Park, Leander and Round Rock are taking will never be returned to Lake Travis.  Their idea of exchange is to take and take and never give back.

Austin is almost exclusively within the Colorado Watershed, additionally it returns its treated wastewater by pipeline to the Colorado River system.  To the contrary, the City of Cedar Park, who has the second largest amount of municipal water reserved from the LCRA, is almost exclusively outside the Colorado Watershed; and has no plans to return the water to the Colorado River system.   Project manager Chris Lippe said it would be too expensive for Williamson County to pipe its treated wastewater back to the Colorado system.  But he has no problem with spending millions to take it out?  Guess it’s cheaper just to empty Lake Travis! 

The contracts that Cedar Park and Leander have with LCRA say effluent must be returned.  What percentage?  When?  Where?  Before Cedar Park and Leander start building a huge intake, shouldn’t LCRA have a plan in place for them to return what they take?

Regions follow county lines.  Watersheds do not.

Round Rock is the exception.  The water Round Rock has reserved from LCRA is actually purchased through the Brazos River Authority (BRA) and HB 1437.  The BRA may purchase 25,000 AFY, according to HB 1437.  The Bill requires BRA to pay a 25% surcharge on the reserved water beginning in 1999.   BRA will sell the water to Round Rock at a reduced price.  Why would BRA foot the bill for this water when they have a plentiful source in their own backyard?  Is LCRA water too cheap?  The effects it will have on Lake Travis won’t be.

House Bill 1437 contains a “no net loss” requirement.  BRA may purchase the water as long as there is “no net loss” to the Lower Colorado River.  In 2000, LCRA began using the surcharge to engage conservation measures in the rice fields.  Conservation in the rice fields is supposed to satisfy the “no net loss” requirement.  “No net loss”, instead of being enforced prior to use or at least annually, is to be averaged over 3 years.

Read Article: Interbasin Transfers and the LCRA

Check back soon for writings regarding: Conservation, No Net Loss & Irrigation Demands for Rice Production