Conroe staff recommend starting process for temporary citywide development moratorium as water capacity data shows regulatory shortfall

City staff told the Conroe City Council on May 7 that Conroe’s water system is operating beyond the planning margin required under state rules and recommended the council authorize staff to begin the formal process to adopt a temporary citywide development moratorium.

Public works director Norman McGuire presented modeling and operations data showing Conroe’s system production and planning counts exceed the state’s planning threshold. Assistant director Jason Miller and engineering manager Brandy Taylor walked the council through the regulatory baseline—what staff described as the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) rule that ties allowable connections to capacity—and how current connection counts and available production compare to that standard. Taylor said third‑party verification of the city’s capacity numbers arrived the night before the workshop and corroborated staff’s findings.

Why it matters: staff said the city is subject to TCEQ capacity rules that require action when a system reaches 85% of its available water capacity under the commission’s criteria. McGuire and Taylor said Conroe’s present connection counts and production put the city over that limit. Staff warned continuing to grow without adding source water would risk regulatory enforcement and potential service impacts at peak demand.

What staff proposed and the next steps: staff recommended the council authorize them to start the moratorium ordinance process, which would trigger public hearings and, if adopted, a temporary moratorium ordinance. McGuire and city attorney Mike Garner described the sequence staff intends to follow: public notice and hearings, an ordinance reading that would put a temporary moratorium into effect, and a second hearing/vote within the statutory window. McGuire emphasized the council would not be voting to adopt a final moratorium at the workshop; the motion planned for the next meeting is to direct staff to begin that formal process.

Conservation and contingency options discussed: staff recommended implementing or strengthening the city’s drought contingency plan (DCP) and water conservation measures as immediate steps that can be applied while the moratorium process proceeds. Taylor and Miller described moving from twice‑weekly watering rules to an even stricter stage 1 DCP (one day per week watering) as a short‑term tool to reduce peak seasonal usage. McGuire also said staff will seek a TCEQ adjustment to the city’s planning factor (an ACR/ACR‑type petition staff called an “ACR” in the workshop) to reflect local conditions; he warned the commission’s review takes roughly 90–120 days and is not guaranteed.

Planned infrastructure and timing: staff summarized ongoing and planned projects intended to add source water: wells 29 and 30 (in construction and expected to come online this year), replacement of existing wells, and Water Plant 32 (substantial completion timeline quoted at about 570 days). Taylor outlined a realistic well and tank schedule—typically 18–26 months from design to production—so even if funds are available, new source water is not immediate. McGuire and staff said some projects are already under way but will take time to produce usable additional supply.

Financing and alternatives: staff and council discussed funding options, including redirecting capital funds, holding an emergency bond election, and seeking developer participation for accelerated well construction. McGuire said the city has identified about $30 million (from earlier council allocations and departmental savings) to put toward wells but that the long‑range plan could require substantially more capital — staff cited planning runs that estimated many new wells and hundreds of millions of dollars for full long‑term buildout. Council members asked staff to prepare financial forecasts and to list contracts and development agreements that would be affected by a moratorium.

Public comment and stakeholder concerns: dozens of residents, business representatives and trade associations spoke during the public comment period and during the workshop on the moratorium topic. Builders, the Greater Houston Builders Association (represented by Cody Miller), industry suppliers (Jeremy Linzer), and individual residents warned a citywide moratorium would have broad economic ripple effects for local suppliers, tradespeople and tax revenue. Other speakers urged the council to act to protect existing customers’ water service and public health. Several commenters asked that the city publish all data and models before deciding to restrict development.

Council reaction: council members expressed reluctance to impose a citywide moratorium but emphasized the council’s legal and operational responsibility to protect existing customers and avoid regulatory enforcement. Multiple council members asked staff to pursue the TCEQ petition, continue well site acquisition (including condemnation if necessary), speed construction where possible, and return with economic impact forecasts. Several councilmembers and the mayor asked staff to press the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) for the additional contracted allocation the city says it already is due.

Immediate procedural outcome: staff asked the council to authorize them to start the moratorium process at the next council meeting. Councilmembers and staff repeatedly said a formal vote would be required at upcoming meetings to begin the public‑hearing sequence; staff said posting and the first hearing would precede any final council action. Mayor and staff said the moratorium ordinance, if pursued, would be temporary and staff would work to come back with additional technical data, third‑party reviews and financial impact modeling.

Ending note: staff characterized the situation as urgent but remediable with new source water, funding and permits. Council members asked for specific follow‑up materials—TCEQ filing timelines and transmittal copies, a list of grandfathered permits and connections that would still move forward, a forecast of fiscal impacts, and a catalog of contracts and exemptions affected—before they would consider a final moratorium vote.