Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Supply topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews feasibility study on alternate water supplies; treated pipeline from JC SUD/Arlington emerges as leading option
Summary
Public works staff briefed the council on a consultant study exploring treated, raw and groundwater options to supplement Burleson's wholesale Fort Worth supply; staff said a treated-water connection via a proposed JC SUD/Arlington 42-inch transmission line appears most feasible for an initial ~6 MGD emergency supply with estimated city participation of roughly $53M—$70M, while raw water and groundwater options carry far higher costs and technical risks.
Eric Thompson, Burleson's director of public works, presented a midway report from consultants Berkhof, Hendricks & Carter on alternate water-supply options and asked council whether to proceed with further analysis on select tracks.
Thompson reminded the council that Burleson currently receives treated water from the City of Fort Worth under a wholesale agreement that runs through 2031 and that the city's water master plan assumes up to 24 million gallons per day (MGD) of maximum-day capacity across the two pressure planes when built out. "We get our water supply right now from, city of Fort Worth... that's in an agreement that runs through 2031," Thompson said.
The consultant examined three broad approaches: treated-water purchases from nearby utilities (JC SUD, Midlothian, Cleburne, Mansfield, Arlington), raw-water pipelines with a treatment plant, and groundwater wells. Thompson summarized high-level estimates: treated-water participation planning-level costs of roughly $65—$70 million for Burleson to secure an emergency ~6 MGD supply via the proposed JC SUD/Arlington transmission project; raw-water options that would require a full treatment plant were preliminarily estimated at $90—$120 million or more; deep groundwater development appeared technically uncertain and potentially more than $100 million after treatment.
Thompson highlighted the region's active discussions: JC SUD and Arlington are evaluating a 42-inch treated-water transmission alignment (phase 1 roughly 27 miles) that could deliver about 15 MGD at full build; that alignment runs through or near Burleson, giving the city options to connect at locations such as Mountain Valley pump station or the Hidden Creek tank site. Preliminary estimates presented to council put Burleson's three-phase participation in the JC SUD/Arlington project at roughly $53 million (staff used planning guidance that could rise to $65—$70 million when accounting for required onsite tanks, pumps and connection infrastructure).
Thompson and council discussed trade-offs: raw-water solutions require large capital outlays for intake and treatment, groundwater yields are uncertain and likely to require many deep wells, and the cheapest water is the water the city already has. Thompson recommended continuing dialogue with JC SUD and Arlington and asked whether council wanted more detailed groundwater studies and cost-rate impact assessments.
Council members asked to see comparative rate impacts for customers, risk analyses for system outages, and more precise project phasing and cost schedules; staff said the consultant can estimate rate impacts and refine hydrologic and treatment assumptions if directed. The council generally directed staff to keep discussions open with JC SUD and Arlington and to return with more refined cost, risk and rate-impact information.
