Board approves amended joint project agreement for South Hillsborough pipeline; residents raise concerns about route and impacts

Tampa Bay Water's board approved a restated and amended joint project agreement (JPA) with Hillsborough County for the South Hillsborough Pipeline project, which updates cost estimates and adds county‑requested infrastructure while reaffirming Tampa Bay Water's responsibility to design, permit, construct, own and operate the 26‑mile pipeline.

Maribel Medina, Tampa Bay Water project staff, told the board the pipeline will be sized up to 60 inches in diameter and capable of delivering up to 65 million gallons per day to the South Hillsborough service area. The JPA amendments approved by the county on Feb. 19 add a full‑size T connection along segment A for a potential future point of connection and include design and construction for improvements at the county's Lithia Water Treatment Facility; both added elements will be funded 100% by Hillsborough County. The board voted and the motion "carries unanimously." The amended agreement also updates the escrow deposit schedule and identifies permits for which Tampa Bay Water is responsible.

After the vote, several board members and staff described an outreach program of segment‑specific community meetings. Maribel Medina and the general manager said most takings for the project will be temporary easements and that earlier in design the agency avoided taking occupied houses by purchasing two properties and rerouting pipeline segments. Staff said the pipeline is scheduled to be in service by late 2028.

During public comment later in the meeting, Mary Odom, a Brandon resident and realtor, said residents along the selected route had been poorly informed and described concern about disruption to neighborhoods, schools and houses of worship. Odom said tunneling under a six‑lane highway and river crossings would significantly disrupt Brandon High School and other local travel, and asked why meetings were not held earlier. The board and staff replied that route selection followed an earlier route study, public input, and engineering analysis; they said the recent neighborhood meetings were intended to provide construction‑phase details and mitigation plans and that staff would follow up with concerned residents.

Staff also told the board they are coordinating maintenance‑of‑traffic plans, business access, and community advisory contacts during construction. The board directed staff to continue outreach and to meet privately with residents who requested additional follow‑up.