LCRA outlines multi-billion-dollar water-supply options, from aquifer storage to East Texas transfers

At the Sept. 24 Water Operations Committee meeting, LCRA staff presented a multi-part briefing on potential and in‑flight water-supply projects intended to meet long-term demand in the upper reach of the Colorado River basin. Monica Masters, LCRA staff, said the authority’s Water Supply Resource Report (WSRR) recommends “a target of new firm water supply of 60,000 acre feet for the upper reach by 2040.”

Why it matters: committee members were shown planning options that range from lower-cost conservation measures and groundwater development to very large, multi‑billion‑dollar projects that would require broad partnerships and likely state or federal participation. Phil (LCRA staff) prefaced the presentation by emphasizing the intent to show “what if” scenarios and said explicitly, “some of these projects are just what ifs. Some are real.”

Staff described four broad categories of supply strategies. First, capture-and-store strategies that keep Colorado River water in the basin for later use, including aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) and conceptual off‑channel reservoirs (OCRs). ASR was estimated to yield roughly 22,000 acre‑feet of firm yield with capital costs near $900 million to $1 billion. Conceptual OCRs (locations considered included Bastrop, Fayette and Colorado counties) were modeled at a wide range of firm yields (roughly 29,000–73,000 acre‑feet depending on size and configuration) and capital costs that staff estimated in the range of about $1.9 billion to $4.1 billion per OCR.

Second, optimizing the Arbuckle off‑channel reservoir and operating it with other OCRs could increase combined yield (staff estimated scenarios from about 49,000 up to roughly 72,000 acre‑feet of firm supply) but also raised combined capital cost scenarios in the multi‑billion‑dollar range ($4.1–$4.5 billion in example scenarios). Third, staff presented new non‑Colorado River supplies such as purchasing groundwater from willing sellers (example yield ~25,000 acre‑feet; cost ~ $600 million) and an East Texas transfer option using a large existing reservoir such as Toledo Bend. The East Texas transfer analyses showed a potential LCRA share of roughly 66,000–200,000 acre‑feet depending on scale, with a notional LCRA capital share of about $3 billion–$7 billion; staff noted such a project would likely require multi‑entity collaboration and significant state or federal support. Fourth, seawater desalination off the Gulf was presented as a technically feasible but capital‑intensive option (plan example ~30,000 acre‑feet at an estimated cost of about $3.6 billion), with brine discharge, intake and treatment and local siting considerations discussed.

Staff stressed that many of these illustrations were conceptual and that final siting, permitting, transmission routing and customer demand would determine feasibility and cost. Monica Masters noted the WSRR “includes a list of potential projects. It doesn't necessarily tell us which project is gonna be next, or if we're even gonna do it.” Committee members repeatedly asked about gravity and pumping tradeoffs, energy costs, and how capital costs would be financed. LCRA staff and board members said financing large interbasin transfers or major OCR networks would likely require state or federal participation, long-term rate structures, and partnerships with other entities.

In‑flight and nearer-term projects were also summarized. Staff reported Arbuckle construction is complete, the reservoir filled and tested, and mechanical equipment is under inspection after sitting idle; the Lake Bastrop water-supply project was described as initial design with an estimated current project cost of about $85 million to provide up to 10,200 acre‑feet per year (this estimate excludes customer conveyance pipelines). The Griffith League Ranch groundwater project (purchased groundwater rights) holds permits to about 8,000 acre‑feet per year; staff said they plan to drill two wells, likely in 2026, expected to deliver the initial new supply. Conservation efforts were cited as delivering about 22,000 acre‑feet per year as of 2024 and staff described increases to the conservation cost‑share grant program (the maximum incentive credit was raised to 400 acre‑feet of water saved from a prior lower cap), which staff said has increased interest from firm customers.

Staff also reported a notable industrial inquiry in Matagorda County: HIF Resources submitted a 12,000 acre‑foot contract for hydrogen fuel production; most other large industrial inquiries remain at exploratory stages. Committee members discussed financing mechanisms including Texas Water Development Board low‑interest loans and a recently passed state constitutional amendment (to be voted in November) that staff said could provide additional funding on a competitive basis.

No committee motion was taken to select or commit to any of the conceptual projects; the presentation was framed as planning and evaluation. Multiple speakers urged continued technical work and interagency discussions, and staff signaled they will proceed with permitting and targeted pilot work (for example, a demonstration project to test targeted bay and estuary inflows using canal gates and university partners).