Community groups press Austin Water Forward Task Force on equity, outreach and timelines

Community organization representatives pressed the Water Forward Task Force on how the Water Forward Plan and associated programs will be communicated to neighborhoods, how equity measures were scored and what next steps for engagement and implementation will look like.

Those who testified — several representing PODER and allied groups — said they had reviewed individual chapters of the Water Forward Plan and sought more detail on outreach, evaluation and project timelines. Valerie (project director, Colorado River Conservancy, a PODER project) asked how the report will be communicated back to the community, why diversity/equity scored low in the plan’s objective weighting and which neighborhoods were included in the plan’s surveys. She asked whether the task force would respond at the meeting or in writing; staff replied they would provide a written response and follow up at a scheduled June 27 meeting with PODER staff.

Task force staff said the city sent the survey to Austin Water customers across the utility service area, including parts of the service area that extend beyond full-purpose city limits; staff said they would follow up with more detail about jurisdictional coverage. Staff described the Water Forward Task Force and the quarterly implementation report as ongoing forums for communicating plan progress, and said the utility intends to publish quarterly reports and create a public dashboard to track implementation.

Carlos Pinon (resilience program coordinator, PODER) asked about the effectiveness of conservation education and outreach (school programs, mobile exhibits, the MyATX Water portal), how uptake of residential conservation offerings is measured, and whether commercial benchmarking has incentivized water reuse. Staff said Austin Water provided baseline figures in a recently updated city water conservation plan and that some conservation programs had low participation, which the city is tracking; staff said more detailed data would be provided in writing. The transcript records staff noting that the conservation plan is submitted to the state every five years and that the utility’s updated plan and the Water Forward Task Force plan were approved by council in November (year not specified in public comment).

Mariana Sanchez (identified as a community representative) and Susana Almanza (director, PODER) raised questions about Chapter 4 (planning for uncertainty) and Chapter 5 (implementation timelines). Among the items they asked staff to clarify were: what social impacts might occur if Austin surpasses its contracted Lower Colorado River supply; what new lower Colorado River projects are referenced in the plan; how the preferred portfolio’s benefits (including equity scores) were determined; whether land conservation east of I‑35 and areas of high conservation priority would be part of future acquisition strategies; and timelines for requirements cited in the plan, including mandatory benchmarking on site plans, replacement of meters with smart meters, rollout of the MyATX Water customer portal, landscape-transformation ordinances, reuse rules for developments over 250,000 square feet and technical work on Lake Walter E. Long.

Staff answered that: (a) the utility has started work on some timelines and has implemented certain requirements already (site-plan submissions must include water-benchmarking applications; developments over 250,000 square feet must meet with conservation/reuse staff and either connect to centralized reclaimed water if within 500 feet or install on-site reuse); (b) a consultant is evaluating the feasibility of Lake Walter E. Long as a water-supply reservoir and is scheduled to deliver a technical report in fall 2026; and (c) the plan’s portfolio-evaluation matrix used an 8% objective weight for equity benefits (as part of an evaluation matrix that staff said was reviewed with the task force and other community participants). Staff repeatedly offered to provide more detailed written answers and to walk through scoring criteria and evaluation questions in follow-up meetings.

Noe Elias (housing justice director, as identified in public comment) asked how community participation will be sustained during the implementation phase and whether the task force will consider rapid development and its impact on water use. Staff said the task force is intended to be collaborative and hands-on, that staff will collect and publish the community questions submitted at the meeting and will make written responses available, and that staff welcome continued engagement from community groups.

Why this matters: the public questions touch on how Austin balances technical water-supply planning with community priorities, equity considerations and concrete implementation steps such as smart metering, plumbing requirements for reuse, and potential new reservoirs. Task force staff repeatedly offered written follow-up and additional meetings to supply the detailed metrics and timelines requested by speakers.

The task force’s public-comment period closed after staff agreed to collect written questions and deliver fuller responses; several speakers thanked staff for the offer to follow up in writing and at acheduled meetings.