Pasco County outlines $1.2B+ water, wastewater and reclaimed‑water master plan as growth pressures rise

Pasco County on June 16 received an update to its potable water, wastewater and reclaimed‑water master plans that projects substantial growth in demand and identifies a multi‑hundred‑million‑dollar program of investments to maintain service.

The county’s utilities director, Joseph (Utilities Director), told commissioners the system now delivers about 40 million gallons per day (MGD) on an average day and that daily treated plant flows are roughly 27–28 MGD. “The demand is about 40 million gallons per day and the flows that come out of our plants we treat every day is around 27, 28,” Joseph said, noting the difference largely reflects irrigation and other nonpotable uses.

The presentation, led by Adalfa Gonzalez, director of utilities engineering and contract management, and capital‑planning manager Jim Shannon, explained the planning horizons (5, 10 and 20 years), the county’s use of MPO population forecasts and a service‑polygon approach to distribute projected growth. Shannon said planners expect average potable water delivery to more than double over the next 20 years absent conservation and alternative supplies.

Why it matters: county staff told commissioners the existing supply and transmission infrastructure is inadequate to meet near‑term growth in several high‑growth corridors (including SR‑52 and portions of the Villages and Pasadena Hills areas). The master plan proposes short‑term transmission upgrades and point‑of‑connection expansions to pull more water from Tampa Bay Water sources, medium‑term large‑diameter mains to deliver that supply, and longer‑term planning for an additional Tampa Bay Water connection farther into the county.

Key details and costs noted in the briefing: - Portable water growth projects: planning‑level five‑year estimate ~$259 million; 10‑year incremental estimate ~$197 million. Consultants highlighted transmission upgrades such as expanding the Lake Bridge point of connection and adding long runs of large‑diameter mains to deliver water to northern growth areas. - Wastewater growth projects: five‑year planning estimate ~$659 million; 10‑year ~$537 million. Identified near‑term needs include expansions at the Southeast, Wesley Center and Shady Hills treatment facilities; the presentation estimated roughly $285M for the Wesley Center expansion and roughly $455M for the Shady Hills expansion (planning level, excludes optional advanced‑treatment add‑ons). - Reclaimed‑water supply gap: county modeling shows reclaimed‑water demand could exceed supply as early as 2030 if reclaimed service is supplied to all new customers; by 2045 the model shows a potential ~35 MGD gap absent augmentation. The consultant estimated a planning‑level price of roughly $200M to bring Tampa’s reclaimed supply into Pasco County as one augmentation option.

Commissioners pressed staff on data and mapping accuracy, cost assumptions, and alternatives. Commissioner Starky questioned whether MPO mapping used in early planning accurately reflects recent development approvals; staff replied the draft used MPO projections as a foundation and then overlaid approved development layers and other county GIS inputs. “We started this two years ago,” staff said; they committed to more frequent updates and to continued coordination with growth‑management and the MPO.

Several commissioners and staff also discussed reclaimed‑water options with Tampa and the prospect of capturing Tampa’s treated reuse rather than relying solely on new potable supply. County staff said they have initiated conversations with the city of Tampa but that Tampa is not currently committed to piping reclaimed water northward; planners said the county will continue those discussions and study infrastructure and cost options.

On treatment standards, staff explained that advanced treatment (added processes to lower nutrients such as nitrogen) is required in certain discharge basins to meet reuse or basin‑specific limits. Commissioners asked for clearer cost comparisons of expansions with and without advanced treatment; staff provided planning‑level unit ranges and agreed to follow up with more detailed cost breakdowns.

Next steps and board direction: staff said the master plans will be used to update CIP lists, inform a connection‑fee study and guide near‑term negotiations with Tampa Bay Water. The county intends to refresh the master plans on a 3–5 year cadence and present a formal letter or memorandum to Tampa Bay Water to request planning support for a new point of connection. Commissioners requested follow‑up briefings that include updated development assumptions and clearer ROI comparisons for storage, reuse and advanced treatment options.

The presentation and extended Q&A occupied a large portion of the agenda; no formal policy vote on the master plans occurred at the June 16 meeting. The board recessed for lunch and scheduled follow‑up review and staff deliverables.

Ending: Staff will return with refined cost tables, corrected mapping where needed, an updated CIP schedule and the draft communication to Tampa Bay Water to advance point‑of‑connection planning.