San Angelo officials outline Concho River reclamation plans and warn permit could be contested

Assistant City Manager Shane Kilton told the San Angelo Development Corporation on May 13 that city staff have narrowed 24 long-term water-supply ideas to four finalists and that indirect potable reuse (IPR) into the Concho River is the option that scored highest in the city’s decision matrix.

Kilton said city modeling using the Region F demand forecast shows current supplies will create a growing gap through 2030 and beyond unless new sources are secured. ‘‘Lake Ivie is a diminishing supply over time,’’ Kilton said, and the Concho currently provides only ‘‘teeny tiny amounts’’ of available yield. He said IPR into the Concho produced the greatest modeled yield in earlier technical work and could extend supplies to 2080 under the model’s 1.5% growth assumption.

Why it matters: the IPR approach requires permitting and treatment upgrades before any river withdrawal or reuse, and Kilton said the bed-and-banks permit and related draft discharge permit are already drawing hundreds of public protests at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). ‘‘There is a possibility that this will go to contested-case hearing,’’ he said, adding that a contested case could extend review by ‘‘another 6 months to 12, possibly even 18’’ depending on the hearing schedule.

Kilton told the board that the city has completed pilot and bench testing of candidate treatment technologies and that the wastewater treatment plant needs major rehabilitation in any scenario: ‘‘The last major rehabilitation it saw was in the early to mid‑90s,’’ he said. City staff plan condition assessments at both the wastewater and water treatment plants and will evaluate pipeline routes, easements and the feasibility of a secondary treatment plant to improve resiliency.

Order‑of‑magnitude costs: Kilton stressed that earlier (2017) cost estimates are out of date, but indicated that, accounting for inflation and recent construction‑cost escalation, the Concho reclamation project ‘‘is pushing 250 to 300 million at this point.’’ He noted portions of design and construction could be eligible for FAA AIP or other outside funding, but that the scale means the project would likely require multiple public funding sources and phased implementation.

Public concerns: during public comment, Allison Deo, who said she owns land downstream from proposed pipeline routing, urged the board to consider ecological and human‑health impacts. Deo noted that some contaminants in treated effluent are not covered by current drinking-water standards and asked the city whether downstream landowners would be compensated for use of their property as part of a river‑based pre‑treatment approach. ‘‘Please show some respect and forethought and don't make it worse,’’ she said.

Next steps: Kilton said staff will pursue condition assessments, continue permitting engagement with TCEQ and prepare for deeper design work if the commission moves the draft permit forward. He warned that if the permit becomes contested it will delay any schedule for construction and reuse. The board heard the briefing but did not take a funding vote on the project at the May 13 meeting.