Fredericksburg council presses staff to study large-scale water projects, tighten conservation enforcement

The Fredericksburg City Council on Wednesday opened discussion on an array of water priorities as it begins preparing the next budget: hiring a consultant to lead a long‑term water‑supply study, pursuing at least one new high‑capacity well, and studying options for treated wastewater reuse and possible direct potable reuse.

Council members said they wanted detailed cost, timeline and funding options before committing to major projects. Staff said a wastewater treatment plant capable of producing reuse or tertiary water would be expensive — estimated previously at about $50 million and now “a little bit over a hundred million” — and that the city would also evaluate lower‑cost alternatives such as piping effluent for irrigation and aquifer storage and recovery.

Why the city is studying larger options now

The discussion followed months of public attention to the city’s watering stages and drought messaging and came as staff proposed a formal long‑term water supply study. City staff said the study would evaluate the full range of supply and demand options — replacing aging mains, a new well field, a possible surface reservoir or surface treatment, distributed storage, and reuse systems — and would produce technical and financial scenarios to guide council decisions.

“Any move toward tertiary treatment, direct potable reuse or aquifer storage will change the scope and the price tag,” staff told the council, adding that some projects could be eligible for low‑interest funding from the Texas Water Development Board.

Major cost and technical details discussed

- Staff estimated a recent order‑of‑magnitude cost for a large wastewater treatment and reuse project at slightly over $100 million; earlier planning estimates had been about $50 million. - City staff said a single additional 1,000‑gallons‑per‑minute water well in the currently‑evaluated area would substantially increase long‑term supply and that constructing transmission back to the city (or adding on‑site storage/pumping) are both trade‑off options the study will analyze. - Staff provided a rough back‑of‑envelope cost spread to illustrate fiscal impact: if a large facility were bonded and paid over 20 years the per‑customer share might be on the order of a few hundred dollars per year (staff estimate used for discussion only).

Conservation and enforcement changes proposed

Councilors also pressed staff to make conservation enforcement simpler and harder to evade. Staff outlined a draft approach that would: create clearer stage‑definitions for outdoor watering; change enforcement from a municipal‑court‑citation model to an administrative surcharge on utility bills for many watering violations; and create an appeals pathway (for example, via an administrative board) so customers can challenge charges without clogging municipal court dockets.

Staff said the goal is to stop repeat offenders more efficiently: the city issued hundreds of watering violations in recent weeks and court processing delays meant many cases remained unresolved for weeks.

Public outreach and a new staff role

Councilors asked staff to accelerate water education and local engagement. Staff proposed creating a public works/community outreach position (potentially cost‑shared with outside partners) to coordinate water messaging, irrigation best practices, recycling and other utility communications across departments.

Next steps

Staff said they will bring a scope for a water‑supply consultant and a draft request‑for‑proposals to the council for approval so the study can begin by late summer. The council and staff also agreed to return with draft ordinance language for tightened conservation rules and a proposed administrative enforcement pathway.

What the meeting did not decide

The session did not approve any construction, bond issue or reallocation of funds. Councilors specifically requested more detailed cost estimates, grant and loan options (including possible Texas Water Development Board financing), environmental review of alternatives, and clearer implementation timelines before making any formal commitments.

Outlook

Councilors emphasized they want a measurable plan that links technical feasibility and funding options to near‑term conservation measures. Staff said the requested study will form the basis of budget and capital‑planning decisions in coming months.