Sugar Land council tables decision on Mr. Car Wash well permit, asks staff for cost and wastewater analysis

The Sugar Land City Council on June 16 voted 6–0 to table action on a city permit request that would regularize an already‑drilled groundwater well at Mr. Car Wash, directing staff to return with a cost comparison and information about wastewater treatment and potential back‑billing.

Margo Williams, the city’s water resources manager, told council that the well in question had not previously been permitted by the city and had only recently received approval from the Fort Bend Subsidence District. Williams said staff’s review found the well — identified in staff materials as existing well number 3828 — is estimated to use about "10 million gallons of water usage from this well per year" and that adding it to the city’s Groundwater Reduction Plan (GRP) would not materially affect the plan: the GRP pumped about 5.7 billion gallons in the 2025–26 permit term, she said.

Williams described the GRP framework, saying entities that join are aggregated into a collective conversion requirement (70% groundwater / 30% alternate water), and explained the city has historically allowed exceptions for already‑drilled wells while evaluating new applications for their GRP impacts.

Councilmembers pressed staff on several points before voting to table. Councilmember Jacobson moved to delay action "until Margo and her team could find out the questions that we've asked" — seeking estimates comparing customer costs of buying city water versus continuing to pump from the well, and figures showing the city’s wastewater treatment burden from the well’s discharge — and Councilmember Single seconded the motion. Williams provided preliminary fee figures, saying the city’s GRP fee is about $3.55 per 1,000 gallons and that adding a commercial water connection would add roughly another $3 per 1,000 gallons in water charges, making city water substantially more expensive per thousand gallons than the GRP fee alone.

Councilmembers also asked whether the city could pursue past unpaid charges. Williams said legal advised the city can pursue back‑billing but that recoverable amounts are limited by available records; staff indicated legal typically supports pursuing roughly three years of back billing when usage records are not detailed.

The council’s decision to table means staff will return with the requested cost comparisons, wastewater treatment impacts and further legal/financial analysis before the council takes a final vote on authorizing the existing well.

Action: motion to table (mover: Councilmember Jacobson; second: Councilmember Single); vote: 6–0.