Lockhart hears water-demand update; staff says blended approach likely for long-term supply
Loading...
Summary
City staff and consultants presented updated water-demand projections through 2045, potential well-field upgrades and cost comparisons of additional wells versus GBRA's Water Secure regional project. Staff recommended further financial analysis and discussed next steps with Plum Creek Conservation District and GBRA.
Lockhart city staff and consultants gave council an update on current and projected water demand, potential well-field improvements and the costs of local groundwater development versus participation in the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority’s (GBRA) Water Secure regional supply project.
Public Works Director Sean Kelly and TRC representatives summarized projections that include seven developments currently in planning. Staff said existing demand is about 6,842 living-unit equivalents (LUEs) and that, with the proposed developments and projected growth, the city’s ultimate water demand could reach roughly 14.73 million gallons per day by 2045.
Staff listed current supplies at about 7.1 million gallons per day when combining the Carrizo groundwater allocation, the Luling–Lockhart contractual supply and the city’s seven wells. TRC consultant Will Watchel said rehabbing two older wells identified in the water master plan (wells 4 and 5) could increase the system’s firm capacity to about 8.17 million gallons per day but would still leave a significant shortfall compared with projected 2045 demand.
Watchel presented order-of-magnitude cost estimates. Rehabilitating additional wells and extending transmission lines, storage and treatment capacity for several new wells was estimated at roughly $120 million (plus about 30% for program/engineering/legal costs), translating to a high per‑million‑gallons capital cost. By contrast, GBRA’s Water Secure regional project — which would construct new raw-water infrastructure, a reservoir and long transmission mains and deliver treated water to the region — produced a much higher total project cost (presented as on the order of $894 million to $1.27 billion), but the per‑unit capital cost and timing for bringing large volumes on-line were different and warrant further financial modeling.
Watchel and staff emphasized uncertainties and constraints: Plum Creek Conservation District rules require contiguous water rights (acreage) for new wells and impose limit calculations that, under current interpretations, would require thousands of additional acres of water rights if the city pursued a large new local-well program. City staff said Plum Creek could consider variances but that such discussions would be needed well before committing to a major groundwater expansion. Council and staff also discussed the city’s existing flexible options and the relative timeframes for implementing either strategy.
No action was taken; staff and consultants recommended additional financial and feasibility work, further consultations with Plum Creek Conservation District about water-rights requirements and additional discussions with GBRA. Councilors were told GBRA may present a non-binding memorandum of understanding (MOU) to allow cities to signal interest as the regional program seeks commitments from customer cities.
