In the Blog Erebus Idea, my fellow student wrote “ Over Our Heads During A Drought ”, about the “Water Plant #4” controversy and advocated against the project.
I will be presenting an alternate viewpoint.
As an environmentalist, it interested me that the S.O.S. coalition and Sierra Club both came out against this project when such a large portion of the costs was due to addressing the environmental concerns of running the pipelines and there should be little or no effect on groundwater recharge. The lakes all around us do not exist naturally but were specifically made to address the water needs of the area way into the future. The amount of groundwater recharge as the result of the creation of the lakes pales in comparison to what seeped down when there was only a river there and we shouldn’t gripe when someone tries to use them for their intended purpose.
That aside, the point made in the blog being reviewed was that the building of the plant was poor management. I take the opposite viewpoint and feel that the plant is an example of the Water Utility doing what it should be doing, ensuring they have the capacity to address the areas water needs. The article raised the question ”The one glaring issue that is being overlooked is how is this plant going to save us water?”. Well, it won’t save us a drop. A treatment plant “Provides water”, Conservation is done on the consumption end. Conservation reduces demand but does not completely eliminate the need for the resource; the remaining demand must still be met. What the plant will conserve is energy. As a consumer of electricity, the plant will be approximately 7% more efficient, thus, reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The energy saved will be enough to supply 2000 homes. About WTP4
Although this is being called “Water Plant #4”, currently the city of Austin only has 2 other plants, The Davis (Built in 1954) and Ulrich (Built in 1969) plants. The Green Plant was decommissioned in 2008. Now, I do think that was not bright, but it was in the name of “Development” and we have all seen how “Development” gets priority. What is done is done, and we must address what we have to work with now.
Now, to explain why this plant is needed, I am actually getting my facts from a site opposing the plant as it is more simply laid out and readable than official sources. FACTS About Austin's Water Supply and Usage Also used the City site that explained the rationale for the plant.
Now, reading through here, “Austin currently has 285 MG per day (MGD) water treatment capacity and 167 MG of storage capacity. Treatment and storage must combine to meet “peak” demands on a reliable basis.” Check! (Note: Storage makes up the difference between demand and treatment in extreme circumstances, too much demand over treatment several days in a row will deplete storage.
“In 2007 Austin completed a 67 MGD capacity expansion to its Ullrich water treatment plant, for a total of 167 MGD at the Ullrich plant. Austin’s “Davis” plant can treat 118 MGD.” Check!
“In the drought summer of 2009 Austin water use peaked at 228 million gallons (MG), the day before the one-day per weak drought water restrictions were to begin. In 2010, a relatively wet year, Austin water use peaked at 193 MG on a single day” Check!... er... wait! Lets look at this. Even in a “WET” year, peak usage exceeded the treatment capacity of any one plant, and now we have only 2 of them. In the dry year of 2009, Austin was using 80% of it’s full capacity.
Now, the Austin area grew 37% from 2000 to 2010. Austin area population increases by nearly half million, 2010 census data show What happens if we have a repeat performance in the next decade, or even grow only 20%. Get the math? What would happen if we lost just one of those plants? Subtract the daily usage from the remaining capacity and divide the deficit into the 167 MGD storage. It does not last very long.
Even with water conservation increasing, the population growth will offset the gains and water usage will eventually continue to rise. The water plant they are building is intended to tap into a water reservoir that was specifically made to supply the area with water. Additionally, the two existing plants both draw water from Lake Austin and WTP4 will draw from Lake Travis. Should some form of contamination occur to the Lake Austin water, this provides a secondary source that does not currently exist. If a theoretical contamination did occur, current “storage” would last one, maybe 2 days.
The high cost is due to the fact that the water must be piped to the City’s water distribution head, and, going through an environmentally sensitive area, they must bore the pipeline under it instead of digging ditches through it. To do it any other way would require re-running a zillion major water mains and would make the 500 million look like pocket change. Water Treatment Plant 4 plans move forward
I actually view this as the city doing it’s supposed to do. Provide a reliable source of drinking water with failsafe capacity and capacity to accommodate growth. It can take a decade to plan and built a plant and these people are water professionals, not politicians. They are looking decades ahead. The two existing plants will eventually be beyond obsolete and the utility must look to the future. Although the initial capacity will be 50 MGD, the facility will be able to eventually draw 300 MGD. ENR features AECOM’s Austin's Water Treatment Plant No. 4 project
Yes, it will be expensive, but at 500 Million dollars divided between the 800,000 residents, that averages out to $625 per person. The cost to drill a private well is around $7500. I think you’re getting a darn good deal. If you want clean, reliable water now and in the future, it’s time to pay for it. The cost will be spread out over time and by tying it to utility rates, those that use the water will pay for the water.
No comments:
Post a Comment