Lampasas council hears staff briefing on water-conservation options, including rebates and reclaimed irrigation

Councilmembers and staff discussed a range of voluntary water‑conservation options — from education and fixture rebates to reclaimed irrigation — during the Lampasas City Council workshop.

The conversation began after a councilmember said it “just dawned on me that maybe we can start looking at ways to conserve water,” and that the idea is not intended as a mandate on residents or builders. The council heard that neighboring Central Texas cities have formal conservation plans and that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s WaterSense program and other utilities programs offer incentives and educational tools.

City staff said the most common first step is an education campaign that points residents to low‑flow fixtures, irrigation timing recommendations and native‑plant landscaping. “A really strong conservation plan, putting that into effect, is very helpful,” a staff member told the council, noting WaterSense certification and rebate programs for showerheads, faucet aerators and irrigation audits. Staff described systems that let customers view daily usage and receive alerts when they are on pace to exceed a target.

Council members asked about funding for rebates and whether larger cities recoup rebate costs from other sources. Staff replied that federal and agency programs (for example, EPA WaterSense) and regional authorities such as the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) and Brazos River Authority (BRA) sometimes provide support, but that staff would research specific funding and reimbursement models further.

The council also discussed reclaimed irrigation (using treated wastewater for irrigation). Staff explained reclaimed systems require additional treatment at the wastewater plant, separate piping and storage, and a pump station. “You’d have to put in a direct pipe to that particular part,” a staff member said, adding that reclaimed water systems are commonly color coded (purple) and are costly principally because of piping but can provide long‑term returns. Staff noted reclaimed water systems are classified (type 1 vs. type 2) depending on suitability for human contact.

Members raised practical concerns: tankless water heaters were described as increasing construction costs with only limited reduction in the “cold water” wait time inside larger homes; restrictions on particular turf grasses raised allergy and equity concerns; and the council emphasized that any local measures should avoid punitive mandates. Staff repeatedly framed options as voluntary programs, rebates or education rather than bans or strict penalties.

Councilmembers directed staff to continue researching: model ordinances and programs used by Georgetown, Round Rock and Liberty Hill; funding sources for fixture rebate programs; the feasibility and cost estimates for reclaimed irrigation to serve public parks or golf courses; and specific implementation details such as plumbing code requirements and necessary wastewater‑plant upgrades.

The discussion remained at the research-and-options stage; no ordinance, financial commitment or formal council action was adopted at the meeting.