Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Supply topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants pitch Parker County Public Utility Agency to Willow Park to address falling groundwater
Summary
Consultants presented plans for a countywide public utility agency to secure long‑term water supplies as wells become deeper and less productive; they outlined governance options, membership cost tiers (Willow Park shown at a $20,000 initial tier), a multi‑year timeline and potential sources such as Lake Benbrook/Weatherford.
Andrew Franco of Frieza & Nicholls presented a multi‑hour briefing to the council on regional water supply stress and a proposed Parker County Public Utility Agency (PUA) intended to coordinate a countywide response.
Franco opened with hydrology data showing a high density of domestic wells in and around Willow Park (his slides indicated over 200 registered domestic wells inside the city limits and roughly 600 within two miles) and described trends toward deeper drilling and lower yields per well. He noted Willow Park's current average‑day demand is roughly 1 million gallons and projected average‑day demand could grow to 2.5–3 million gallons with maximum‑day summertime demand reaching five to six million gallons under future growth scenarios discussed in the presentation.
Consultants framed the PUA as a locally formed entity (distinct from a state‑created water district) that would allow participating cities and entities to define governance, cost‑sharing and membership rules. Benefits cited included better access to federal and state funding, collective financing capacity and the ability to plan and build regional transmission and treatment infrastructure. The PUA concept is included as a placeholder in the Texas regional water plan materials cited in the presentation.
Franco reviewed a proposed initial cost‑share framework (tiers by population); slides showed Willow Park in a 5–10,000 population band with a $20,000 initial participation contribution, the county at $100,000, and an example annual participation target of about $350,000 to start agency operations. The consultants described an initial operating budget range of roughly $300,000 (without a full‑time general manager) to $500,000 (with a general manager), and noted early‑adopter reimbursement provisions in the draft user agreement.
Council members questioned whether the agency would force residents to stop using private wells (consultants said it would not), asked how equity and weighted voting would be handled (discussion of capped weighted votes for large participants was presented), and pressed for likely water sources. Franco said on the Trinity (east) side Lake Benbrook and coordination with the City of Weatherford were a likely initial approach; the Brazos (west) side discussions are ongoing with the Brazos River Authority.
On timing, consultants said forming the agency and planning could proceed this year, but actual delivery of new treated water would likely take five to six years after the project is kicked off because of the time needed for planning, design and construction. Councilors raised concerns about data‑center demand and whether that sector would be captured as a high‑volume user; consultants said data‑center water use is an emerging issue and will likely be addressed in future planning and legislative work.
Ending: The presentation left several open policy questions (voting structure, exact rate impacts, and project phasing). Councilors asked staff to continue engagement with county planners and consultants; no formal council vote was taken on joining a PUA at this meeting.
