Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Parks Floodplain topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Manor to move wastewater plant off Wilburger Creek Greenway floodplain
Summary
Several residents told the Manor City Council during public comment that a proposed 98-acre wastewater treatment plant site sits in the Wilburger Creek floodplain and poses public-safety and environmental risks; speakers asked county and city leaders to protect the land as parkland instead.
Residents pressed Manor elected officials to reconsider a planned wastewater treatment-plant site that they said sits in the Wilburger Creek Greenway and in the floodplain.
The concerns came during the meeting’s public-comment period as speakers handed maps to council members and described repeated flooding at the site and on adjoining property. “It is a dangerous raging river that destroys everything in its path,” said Anne, a resident who gave council members maps of the area and asked county leaders to help buy the 98-acre site from the City of Manor and find a different location for the plant.
Why it matters: speakers said the tract — described in the materials handed to the council as a 98-acre City of Manor parcel — lies where three creeks converge and is part of a larger area they want preserved as parkland and conserved land. Several speakers described repeated, deep flooding on nearby property, damage to fences and livestock, and a near‑fatal vehicle washout to underline safety concerns.
What residents told the council: Pamela Fowler Dickerson invited council members to tour the Wilburger Creek Greenway and said volunteers would host visits and provide refreshments. Lisa Powell Gould described 29 years of ownership near the site and told the council that she has seen 11 floods and three “epic” floods where water ran 25–30 feet deep across her property and washed cattle downstream. Bernard Christensen and Gail Anderson also objected to a venue proposal on nearby FM 1100 and raised traffic and noise concerns.
City response and scope: the city did not take formal action on the plant location at this meeting. Speakers asked the council and Travis County officials to pursue acquisition of the parcel for parkland rather than leave it available for critical infrastructure. The comments repeatedly framed the issue as both a public‑safety risk and a conservation opportunity; speakers suggested there are alternative sites outside the floodplain that could serve the plant’s service area.
Next steps and context: residents requested that local elected officials and Travis County leaders intervene to preserve the contiguous conserved lands and avoid siting a wastewater facility on the floodplain. The council did not vote related to the treatment plant during this meeting; the remarks were part of the public‑comment record and were passed to city staff and county contacts for follow up.
