Sunday, when I was wading through my feeds, I found an interesting one from a fellow blogger, Charles Kuffner in Houston, highlighting an NPR story about SAWS water conservation and reclamation efforts. Charles didn’t say much in his piece but ended it with an interesting point about how San Antonio has taken an adverse situation and made the best of it. “The point here is that while San Antonio’s population has been growing, the amount of water available to it is finite. Either you make the best use of what you have, or you suffer for it. San Antonio’s good choices mean that the city can continue to grow and prosper,” said Kuffner. He’s right about how our city, specifically SAWS, seems to be taking some very critical steps to make sure that even in drought conditions our water source will never be compromised. That’s a key thing employers consider when evaluating new business locations. If the water system is ever in question then business operations will most likely be disrupted. So how do these efforts stack up in the overall picture?
I remember when some of the early components of SAWS water reclamation projects were unveiled, outlining an aggressive water recycling program aimed at becoming the largest in the nation. As the NPR news piece states, this effort really started when the Edwards Aquifer region was faced with potential cutbacks due to lawsuits focused to protect the blind salamander. So, instead of trying to continue to fight the issue, which really was a precursor to bigger issues if San Antonio had stayed on the course at the time, SAWS started a series of efforts to change the complexion of its water resources and work towards utilizing water that original had been slated to be released into creeks and rivers downstream from San Antonio.
Through a series of pipes laid throughout the city, SAWS now diverts recycled water to various businesses, golf courses, and other locations including the San Antonio River and Salado Creek to retain the treated water within the system and reduce the impact to the Edwards Aquifer. These projects not only help maintain some of our cities key assets such as the Riverwalk but they also serve as a means to help improve the quality of life within the city without creating unnecessary burdens on natural resources. After all, doesn’t everyone like to see fresh healthy lawns and parks?
SAWS also has a very aggressive water conservation program that helps reduce the amount of water required by the system. Through the replacement of toilets with low-flow toilets, changes to irrigation systems, and development of water saver landscapes SAWS wants to encourage customers to “do the right thing” and help reduce the impact of consumption on the system. This is just a part of an overall plan that seems to have the region’s interests at heart. SAWS is not only working to reduce consumption but also has a very aggressive plan for finding new sources of water for the system. That’s a key thing to consider in light of the possibility it might soon take over the BexarMet Water District.
Now, switch gears to a very controversial issue regarding the continuance of the BexarMet Water District. As you may know, Sen. Carlos Uresti introduced legislation that was enacted last spring to allow BexarMet customers the opportunity to decide if the utility should be dissolved or not. BexarMet has been wrapped in controversy for some time now, as reported by the Express-News last year. Based on the article and some other reports about the utility, it’s very evident it is not serving its ratepayers effectively. With regards to conservation, something every water utility in the region should be charged with as a goal, BexarMet has suspended its toilet rebate program indefinitely.
Mayor Julian Castro, Judge Nelson Wolff, and Sen. Uresti have formed a PAC aimed at providing voter education and support for dissolving the utility. Their reasons for supporting the dissolution are that the utility will never be able to provide the type of service SAWS has come to provide for San Antonio residents. With such critical water resources at stake, I tend to agree with them that we need the most effective utility to manage those resources which also has a track record of providing alternate sources to augment need. Just looking at the things SAWS has done and the national recognition it has achieved through the efforts, it’s a very easy decision to make.
BexarMet seems to be fighting more for itself and its control than for the ratepayers. Recently Texas LULAC expressed support for the beleaguered utility in a move some question regarding motives. Texas LULAC tried to make the issue about race with Joe Cárdenas III, LULAC’s state director, stating “we wanted to send the unmistakable message that Texas LULAC will defend the Hispanic community’s right to elected representation from those who would seek to deny it.” I’m still trying to figure out Cardenas’ statement and reasoning that this is about race. It’s almost like if anything Texas LULAC engages in is about race, including the last incident where they opposed the city’s smoking ban because it was “about race.” Cry wolf too many times and you become ineffective.
On November 8th, the fight will be over, one way or another. Hopefully voters will finally be tired of the fiasco that has become to be known as BexarMet and the ratepayers will be a part of a system that continues to demonstrate leadership in the area of water conservation and management. This is not about a power grab. This is about “doing the right thing” for the region and ratepayers. It’s time for BexarMet to go.
