BCRUA Project Concerns

In the 2007 legislative session Williamson County's Senator Steve Ogden, as Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, appropriated $365M to the Texas Water Development Board. Three months later as BCRUA, Cedar Park, Leander and Round Rock, all Williamson County Cities, filed a funding application for $358M. The Project applied under D-Fund because it does not require joint liability or bond insurance. Most D-Fund applications are under $5M.

The major project concerns are:
1. Leander and Cedar Park have only one source of water, Lake Travis, and considered no other alternative water source. Leander and Cedar Park only cost-estimated this BCRUA project going deeper into Lake Travis. Reliable water has to be available 100% of the time. At the new intake depth, 50-75% of their water supply could be curtailed. At 575msl, Lake Travis is the Colorado River Channel with no Devil's Cove, Sandy Creek or Cypress Creek. Their current intake can be moved to pull water at 595msl.
2. During the drought of 2006, LCRA General Manager Joe Beal said, "That lake is going to go empty the night before it rains. I mean empty. If the lake going empty, it will have an impact on you and you better plan for it. It could be happening this year." The lake was at 643'. The existing Cedar Park and Leander intakes can pull water at 595msl.
3. Round Rock and Leander should understand. They have relied on one source of water and run out. Is Round Rock in a position to share its Edwards Formation and Lakes Georgetown and Stillhouse Hollow water with Leander and Cedar Park?
4. The Simsboro Aquifer, in their own basin, is drought-proof and prolific. This aquifer would provide the cities conjunctive use in a drought and a long-range water supply. Aquifer water is available just east of Round Rock. This is the time for all the Williamson County cities to estimate the cost of a regional aquifer plan.
5. Leander's ability to afford this project is questionable. Leander has 47% of the project cost and 12% of the population. Approximately 70% of the revenue needed to pay for the proposed debt would be dependent on growth in new connections. Leander’s annual growth was 4% last year instead of the projected 13%.
6. Leander's LCRA payment for 10/07-9/08 is $4,653,000. Is the BCRUA a subordinate lien to these LCRA water revenues?
7. The BCRUA master agreement does not have joint and/or several liability, or bond insurance. If one city defaults, the others are not liable or responsible. Has default been explained to the residents of Leander?
8. The water rates to support the project have to be acceptable to the citizenry. Leander's rates will increase 21% over the next three years with projected growth and 43% with lower growth. The rate increase study was done before the project costs were revised.
9. Leander just doubled its existing treatment plant capacity for $15M. The city plans to join the Brushy Creek Water Wastewater System and pay Cedar Park $7M for the interceptor. Are the cities buying their LCRA facilities? How about the $36M city bond and the Leander ISD $545M bond? How much can 24,000 people pay for?
10.Why is it project policy not to discuss Leander's situation in public? BCRUA Board member Cobby Caputo resigned because of a conflict of interest representing both Cedar Park and the BCRUA. What if a city cannot pay its portion of Phase 2 or 3?
11.The 2006 Regional State Water Plan has Cedar Park requesting 25,000af of water. Cedar Park wrote a letter stating this was not correct. It needed only 600af for total build-out. The Regional Plan had no water shortage for Leander until 2060. How did this project become a water management strategy in the 2007 State Water Plan?
12.Leander's LCRA increased inter-basin permit is being contested at TCEQ. Will the BCRUA start construction without it? What happens if the permit is denied, a treatment plant with no Leander water to treat?
13.No economic or environmental studies have been done on the effects of the project to Lake Travis and the Colorado Basin. What are the adverse effects on other water supply holders? In a 2007 Texas A&M study, an inter-basin transfer of 20,000af was worth $470M to the receiving basin. What are the mitigation plans for the Colorado Basin?
14.D-Fund may not be used for projects that result in the inter-basin transfer of surface water necessary to supply the reasonably foreseeable 50-year water requirements of the river basin of origin, except on a temporary, interim basis. Does Region K, the Lower Colorado Basin, have a 50-year water supply now that the LCRA is stating that it needs an additional 15-20% more water as early as 2010?
15.BCRUA President Scott Rhode stated that the current project costs are over $400M and with individual city costs $500M. The Project has delayed more than $20M from Phase 1 to Phase 2. Round Rock's initial total project cost was $67M. It was reduced in July 2006 to $47M because of the partnerships with Cedar Park and Leander. Now Round Rock's cost is $162M and growing. Round Rock does not need water till 2016 at the earliest and maybe not until 2017.
16.BCRUA was formed as a transportation district and does not have the power of eminent domain in the Village of Volente without its consent. The Project's recommended intake site is in an existing Volente residential neighborhood. The Village of Volente passed a resolution that opposes the construction and operation of the industrial facility within its municipal boundaries. The BCRUA needs 11 permits from the Village. How many permanent and temporary easements are required? Without the power of eminent domain and with Volente's ordinances and zoning restrictions, is Phase 1 of the project building a pipeline to nowhere?
17.Engineering firms should not be allowed to cost estimate alternative projects when their firms will profit. Why did HDR engineering use almost double the pipeline costs in their estimate of sharing the City of Austin's Oasis Intake? Just a quick $100M added to the cost. Has HDR answered how in their 2005 Lake Travis Water Supply Study this project was the lowest cost option?
Some of the most important questions on this project have not been answered. Our public officials have a responsibility to ensure a reliable cost-effective water supply and to plan for all our water needs. The entire regions safety and economic health depends on their due diligence.
Over 1,500 letters in opposition to this water supply project have been sent to the elected officials of Round Rock, Leander and Cedar Park through www.drainingLakeTravis.org. Add you name today. Go to the TAKE ACTION button