HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution - 4743 - Purchase - CRMWA - Underground Water Rights - 02_09_1995Resolution No. 4743
February 9, 1995
Item #35
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the City of Lubbock is a Member City of the Canadian River Municipal Water
Authority; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lubbock continues to be concerned with
the increasing chloride content of water obtained from Lake Meredith and;
WHEREAS, the amount of chloride and dissolved solids in the water supplied from
Lake Meredith do not meet the requirements of the Texas Natural Resources Conservation
Commission secondary (aesthetic) constituent levels; and
WHEREAS, it appears that it may be several years before the Lake Meredith
desalinization project reaches completion; and
WHEREAS, the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority has been engaged in
efforts to obtain a source of underground water supply with the support and encouragement
of the City of Lubbock, as indicated by Resolution adopted by the Lubbock City Council on
May 13, 1993; and
WHEREAS, the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority has advised the City of
Lubbock of its intent to enter into a contract for the purchase of certain underground water
rights, contingent upon the successful outcome of a bond validation suit, and has requested
the City of Lubbock to consent to such purchase; and
WHEREAS, the purchase of said under groundwater rights by the Canadian River
Municipal Water Authority not only will improve the quality of Lubbock's water, but also will
increase the quantity of water available to Lubbock citizens; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lubbock recognizes that Lake Meredith is
and will continue to be Lubbock's primary source of water which should be preserved and
enhanced at every possible opportunity; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to express its consent to the proposed purchase
and to state its intent to pay the City of Lubbock's share of the water rights acquisition and
subsequent ground water production and conveyance facilities construction costs;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
THAT the City Council of the City of Lubbock hereby consents to the proposed
purchase of underground water rights as described and authorized in the Resolution No.
0194-11A of the Board of Directors of Canadian River Municipal Water Authority, such
consent being conditioned upon the successful completion of a bond validation suit and legal
assurance of the ability of the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority to export the ground
water from Roberts County, Texas to the City of Lubbock; and
THAT in the event the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority is unable to give
legal assurance to the City of Lubbock of its authority to export the ground water from
Roberts County, Texas to the City of Lubbock, then this Resolution shall be of no further
force or effect; and
THAT the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority shall give the assurances above
referred to City of Lubbock by furnishing the City a written opinion from the Authority's
General Counsel indicating that it has the authority to export ground water to the City of
Lubbock, Texas, prior to the execution of any agreements contemplated by this Resolution;
and
THAT the City Council of the City of Lubbock hereby expresses its intent to contract
with Canadian River Municipal Water Authority for the repayment of Lubbock's share of the
costs of construction, operation, and maintenance of the necessary project facilities to develop
and transport the underground water supply, in return for the provision of a water supply to
the City from such resource, all as generally described in planning reports previously
furnished, upon presentation of a suitable form of such contract; and
THAT the City of Lubbock, being sensitive to the financial impact of said project upon
its rate payers, reserves the right to issue its own debt to cover any and all capital costs of the
project and to make periodic project construction payments to the Canadian River Municipal
Water Authority beginning no earlier than July 1, 1996; and
THAT the City Council of the City of Lubbock hereby urges all the member cities of
the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority to support this very worthwhile and necessary
project.
Page 2
PASSED by the City Council day of February 1995.
AVID R. LANGS ON, MAY
ATTEST:
I J-k- C�2a
Betty q Johnson, d4ty Secretary
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Director of Water
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Wfin C. Ross, Jr., City Attorney
JCR: d a/ccdocs/CRM WA.RES
res. January 17, 1995
Page 3
Resolution No. 4743
February 9, 1995
Item #35
RESOLUTION
OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
CANADIAN RIVER MUNICIPAL WATER AUTHORITY
No. 0194-11A
WHEREAS, ten of the eleven member cities of Canadian River
Municipal Water Authority have heretofore adopted Resolutions
supporting efforts of the Authority to obtain a source of
underground water by negotiating for purchase of such a supply,
and
WHEREAS, those negotiations have proceeded fruitfully, and the
Board of Directors now wishes to culminate proceedings by
entering a contract for purchase of such underground water
rights,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
CANADIAN RIVER MUNICIPAL WATER AUTHORITY:
THAT the member cities are requested to consent to acceptance of
the purchase of underground water rights from Quixx Corporation,
a subsidiary of Southwestern Public Service Company, on the basis
of the attached Outline of Proposed Sale, under Option No. 3
described therein, and
THAT the General Manager is hereby authorized to enter and
execute a definitive contract for the purchase of such water
rights, with the advice and consent of the Operating Committee,
under the following conditions:
A. Receipt of assurances by sufficient member cities
that the cost of acquisition of the water rights will
be repaid by the member cities, and that suitable
contracts binding the participating member cities to
such repayment will be executed in a timely fashion.
B. Completion of drilling and testing to assure
the General Manager that the quantity and quality of
the underground water supply being purchased is
adequate for the purposes described in the planning
report prepared for the Authority.
C. Legal review of the purchase contracts by which Quixx
acquired the water rights, to assure that a suitable
interest can be transferred.
D. The execution of a definitive contract or assumption of
financial obligations thereunder shall be contingent upon
the issuance of bonds or commitments from the member
cities to pay the cost of acquisition of the water rights.
E. No commitment shall be made to the payment of any
interest accruing prior to the date when member cities of
the Authority become legally bound to assume the
obligation of repayment of same.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, THAT the General Manager is instructed
and authorized to have prepared suitable contracts to provide for
payment of the costs of acquisition of the water rights, and
construction, operation and maintenance of the project works, for
submittal to the participating member cities after review of the
Board.
PASSED AND ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY ON THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1994,
IN REGULAR SESSION AT PLAINVIEW, TEXAS ON MOTION OF DIRECTOR
RICHARDSON, WITH SECOND BY DIRECTOR SELL.
ATTEST: I Secretary
OUTLINE OF PROPOSED SALE
OF
QUM CORPORATION WATER RIGHTS
TO
CANADIAN RIVER MUNICIPAL WATER AUTHORITY
Quixx Corporation ("QuLve) has offered to sell to the Canadian River Municipal
Water Authority CCItMWA') all of the water rights lying beneath the surface of apprad-
mately 42,765.15S acres of land located in Roberts and Hutchluson Counties, Texas (the
'Water Rights`). Qubm proposes that the consideration to be paid for the Water Rights be
one of the following options:
Option 11 $10,000,000 in immediatcly availablo finds, doe at closing with an
additional royalty of four cents per thousand gallons of water pumped, which would
be payable in the month in which the water is extracted. This royalty would continue
for the life of the field.
Option 21 $12,000.000 in immediately available funds, due at dosing with an
additional royalty of two cents per thousand gallons of water pumped, which would
be payable in the month in which the water is exuacted. 'Ibis royalty would continue
for the life of the field.
Option 3: $14,500,000 in immediately available funds, due at dosing with no
additional royalty.
In lieu of payment of the cash consideration at closing, 0aba would be w0l4 to
defer payment to no later than noon on December 30, 1994. if the payment is deferred, the
amount due would bear interest at a rate to be agreed upon. Closing must to be completed
on or before March 20. 1994.
The net present value to Quixx of the two royalty streams described in Option i and
Option 2 is attached for reference. The following assumptions were used in the determina-
tion of the net present value of the Water Rights:
(1) a discount rate of 9010 was utilized, which is Quixx% current cost of money;
(2) no royalty would be available until Moo years after the We of the Water
Rights. because of the time it would take to develop the water field; and
(3) an unticipated pumping rate provided by CRMWA was used, which was
CRMW& best cstirnate of how the field will be utilized.
This outline is not intended to be a formal offer or a contract. The We of the Water
Rights is subject to Quixz and CRMWA entering into a definitive contract for the purchase
and sale of the Water Rights. This outline merely indicates Quixx% current intent to sell
the Water Rights. and Quixx' current position regarding acceptable consideration.
IP/W
.1.
D/9 y- // Al
Verbatim Transcript of Item #35 from City Council meeting of February 9. 1995
Mayor: Item #35 to consider a resolution consenting to the proposed purchase of
underground water rights and construction of associated conveyance as
described and authorized in Resolution #0194-11 A of the Board of
Directors of the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority
Ellerbrook: Mayor and Members of the City Council, this is the item that was
continued from our last meeting. I would like to introduce the Mr. Jim
Collins, one of Lubbock's members of the CRMWA Board. Mr. Hal
Minor is one of Amarillo's representatives. We have Ron Freeman,
Director of Utilities in Amarillo as well as John Kelley and Clayton
Yeager from Parkhill, Smith and Cooper. John Williams is here to bring
you an update as you requested last time, and I will turn it over to John.
Williams: Thank you, Terry, members of the Council. At your last meeting, you will
recall that there were a number of questions asked about the proposed
resource development. In the intervening time period, we have tried to
address those. I believe you have been provided with a copy of the
memorandum with some language and other information relating to it. I
have placed in front of each of your positions a handout with quite a bit of
information about this. The first several pages of that were intended to
bring you back up to speed on the need for the project, the problems that
we have encountered, and are trying to deal with, their effect upon the
different member cities, and the manner by which those problems could be
resolved. Turn in the handout to a map which illustrates the resource areas
that we have looked at and attempted to find water to deal with the
problems. This shows the relationship of the proposed area of water rights
to be purchased to our aqueduct system as well as some other water rights
along our aqueduct system which were identified and have been evaluated.
There is being projected a copy of the next page of the handout which has
some more detailed information about the water rights area. The specific
question, I think, was whether there were water rights more nearly
adjacent to our aqueduct system which could be developed in lieu of the
Roberts County area which we have identified and have proposed to
purchase. The original study identified about 10,000 acres of water rights
which is located in the immediate vicinity north of Lake Meredith. On the
map you will see that there is an area labeled FDS water rights. That is a
9,655-acre tract which we originally evaluated found to contain only about
445,000 acre feet of recoverable water. Since that time, we have learned
that there is another 10,000-acre tract immediately adjacent to that which
might be available for negotiation. We do not know whether either of
these tracts could be purchased. There are some reservations expressed by
the private owners of the 10,000-acre tract whether they would be willing
to sell that, lease those water rights, or make other arrangements by which
Verbatim Transcript
City Council Meeting, February 9, 1995
Item #35
Page 2
we could acquire the water. On the assumption that such arrangement
could be made, we did evaluate the full 20,000-acre tract. Looking at the
20,000-acre tract, it is found to contain about 733,000 acre feet of
available water supply, compared to the Roberts County tract which
contains 1.6 million acre feet of water supply. You will remember that in
order to solve our problems, we need at least 30,000 acre feet of water per
year and perhaps as much as 45,000 acre feet of water per year from the
groundwater resources. The combined 20,000-acre tract with 733,000 acre
feet would only last about 25 years at 33,000-acre feet per year and only
about 16 years at 45,000-acre feet per year. So, frankly, it is not a large
enough supply to provide a long-range answer or solution to the problems
we are facing. In addition, if you will look at the colored map which
follows the page that I have turned to, which is being projected, you will
see that there are significant other developments in the immediate vicinity
of this. The City of Amarillo has a developed oil field to the east, referred
to as their Carson County field. There are several areas of irrigation in
that vicinity, and the City of Amarillo has recently purchased another
18,000 acres of water rights to the north of the proposed tract. So it is
unlikely that Amarillo, in my opinion, would be interested in participating
in a project which would help to deplete their existing resources, even if
there were adequate water available to meet the needs of the city. The
other factors related to the project are cost. Since the 20,000-acre tract is
immediately adjacent to the aqueduct system, the cost of this development
would be substantially less. We anticipate, and our engineers and
consultants have estimated, that the cost of obtaining water from that tract
would only be about 64 cents per thousand gallons compared to the
Roberts Country tract costing about 92 cents per thousand gallons. Those
costs do not include the salinity control project which were included in the
information you have been given previously. Once the amortization
period is completed, which has been calculated at 20 years, the cost of the
Roberts County tract will diminish to something on the order ... let me back
up. Mixing the water with water from Lake Meredith and delivering the
mixture to the cities, water from the Roberts County area will cost about
56 cents per thousand gallons; water from the Potter -Carson field would
cost about 46 cents, about 10 cents per thousand gallons less. However,
remember that it only lasts for 16 - 25 years. At the end of that time
period, you are going to have to reflush it again, making another
significant investment. At the end of the amortization period, the water
costs from the Roberts County field decreases to about 33 cents per
thousand gallons, and that is all of the cost that you would have to take
from that time forward.
Verbatim Transcript
City Council Meeting, February 9, 1995
Item #35
Page 3
In summary, based on the reevaluation of those resources by our
consultants, discussions that we have held with the owners of the privately
held tracts, and other factors, we still recommend that you consider the
Roberts County field as being the more attractive resource.
The other question asked at your previous meeting was whether or not the
Bureau of Economic Geology has addressed this report and whether they
might have identified other resources which could be reasonably
considered. We made a copy of the report available to them and discussed
the possibility of their review and comment. Their initial reaction was that
they normally do not become involved in resource identification, but they
agreed to read the report and see if they could make any comments.
However, the gentleman working on it experienced a death in the family
last weekend and was unable to complete his reply, so I do not have a final
answer to that portion of your question.
I will be happy to respond to any questions you have or make the complete
presentation if you want it. I know you've been through this several times
before and I did not want to take more of your time than necessary, but I
am available to go into whatever depth you wish.
Sitton: I have a question. Had we not had the current problems that we have with
the mineral rights with Lake Alan Henry, and if that project were smooth
sailing, would we be entertaining this project?
Williams: I think perhaps I had better defer to your staff for that question?
Ellerbrook: Ms. Sitton, in my opinion, even if we had resolved the problems with Lake
Alan Henry at this point in time and had the lake full of water, we are still
looking at $142 million in today's dollars to complete that project. Here
again, a lot of it depends on how many people we have to spread the cost
around. The population is just not there to support that kind of
expenditure without the water rates having to increase at least 100 percent.
So, it really boils down to pretty much an economic decision for the
citizens. We need more water. Do we double their water rates or do we
increase them 15 percent? I would recommend that this is the path we go
on, even if we had water in the lake.
Sitton: It is just hard for our citizens to understand why they are looking at $142
million project with Lake Alan Henry, then all of a sudden we are
Verbatim Transcript
City Council Meeting, February 9, 1995
Item #35
Page 4
interjecting the additional $28 million project. We just need to make sure
we can answer those questions.
Ellerbrook: The best way probably to answer that question is that this project
augments the supply that we have, our primary source of water. Lake
Alan Henry would be our third water supply. But it will never produce as
much as we have available from the Lake Meredith system. So I view this
as an improvement or an enhancement to our primary source of water.
Ince: Terry, if we can break that down for the public into component parts. You
made a comment that Lake Alan Henry will never be able to supply all of
the water; Lake Meredith is going to be our primary water supply. I think
it needs to be clearly understood that this is in lieu of a $142 million
project, which money has not been spent and no bonds sold in order to get
additional water to Lubbock, Texas. So what we're really looking at is a
$28 million project versus $142 million project. Are there any other
comments that you would like to make in regard to that for clarification,
Terry?
Williams: I might add one thing to Terry's comments. Our reasoning, of course, in
beginning the evaluation of alternative water supply project for Lake
Meredith was not only to augment the quantity available but to improve
the quality of water available. By performing this project, the water
quality available from Lake Meredith will meet the state drinking water
standards. I'm not here to address your Lake Alan Henry project at all,
but, if I understand correctly, this is the only opportunity that your citizens
will have to receive water of that quality until something further is done.
Ellerbrook: That was the other think I'd like to add is that we've been focusing a lot
on the quantity of water, which indeed is very important. The other issue
that is equally important is the quality. This would serve to allow us to
meet the state secondary standards, and those are secondary standards. It
isn't unreasonable to assume that at some point in the future they would
become primary standards requiring us to acquire some ground water to
blend with the lake water, and it would probably have to come out of our
Sandhills well field. We've examined the cost of that, and if we did that
by ourselves, piped the water from that system over to the water plant,
we're looking at about $18 million in today's dollars. We don't gain any
additional water supply as we are with this project, and we would be
depleting the Sandhills supply. I can't say that that is going to happen;
Verbatim Transcript
City Council Meeting, February 9, 1995
Item #35
Page 5
that is a possibility. But the water quality is an extremely important -part
of this issue.
Hernandez: Terry, let me make sure I have the timeline straight because I think I'm
getting some mixed singles or we're comparing apples to oranges. I
thought at the last Council work session you made a presentation saying
that at the optimal growth rate of the city of Lubbock, we would need to
get Lake Alan Henry on line in ten years.
Ellerbrook: No, we had two population projections. One of them was a high series
which had 25 percent probability of occurring; then we had a medium
series which had a 50 percent probability of occurring. At ten years, year
2010, we need some additional supply in Lubbock, but we don't need as
much as we would need from Lake Alan Henry. The Lake Alan Henry
project comes into effect if something extraordinary happens and
population does go to that high series, then we would be looking at, I
believe, it is somewhere like the year 2020 that we would need to begin to
bring that source on line, in addition to what we have here to meet our
needs.
Hernandez: So we're still looking at the 30-year time line then?
Ellerbrook: With medium population growth, we're looking at the year 2030 that this
supply would last us; this additional water would take us into the year
2030, given the current rate of population, the rate that we expect to occur.
Hernandez: Assuming we spent these $28 million in order to acquire these water rights
now, we are saying we are doing that in lieu of $140 million to develop
the Lake Alan Henry pipeline and everything that is needed for that. It
looks like, based on what you're telling us today, we won't need to do that
for 30 years.
Ellerbrook: That is the way it looks at this time.
Hernandez: Have you figured out how much that $140 million project today is going
to cost in 30 years?
Ellerbrook: We did a guesstimate based on a 4 percent annual increase in those costs.
Mike Murphy: We did an amortization on what that money would be in the year 2030,
and it is around half billion dollars.
Verbatim Transcript
City Council Meeting, February 9, 1995
Item 435
Page 6
Hernandez: So it would be $500 million. So I guess the question is, well, if you
spread $500 million over that projected growth, that expanded population,
are we still talking about 100 percent water rate increase in the year, 30
years from now?
Ellerbrook: I wouldn't think so, but I can't verify those numbers. It really depends on
what happens with the population and how much the actual project comes
in, and we use 4 percent just straight across to come up with some sort of
estimate. Whether or not that will hold true, I can't say. It would be
significant. When Lake Alan Henry comes on line, it is going to be
significant in the area -of rate increases; there is no getting around it,
regardless of the population. We would hope that we have either more
citizens or larger water -using industries to spread that cost out. But I really
can't say what it would be, but it is going to be significant.
Hernandez: I just want to make sure, because you are making certain arguments and I
want to make sure that I understand them. You're saying, well, the reason
why we don't want to do Lake Alan Henry today is because we're talking
about 100 percent water rate increase, and, based on the figures you gave
me and the projected growth, it seems to me we're going to look at that
anyway.
Ellerbrook: It could be at that point in time. I would hope not. It is going to be very
hard, especially 30 or 50 years down the road to justify bringing Lake
Alan Henry on at those kinds of costs if we don't have the base to support
the rate increases, it is going to be very difficult.
Hernandez: And the other argument that you're making is water quality and that
secondary requirement by the state of Texas. You're saying one of the
reasons we're doing the mixing now, especially with this water source is
to...let me take a step back, Councilman Cooke is giving me a hard time.
The water supply quality is going to be increased as a result of the mixing
that you propose to do with this water source, and my understanding is
that once you start mixing water in from Lake Alan Henry, you are going
to be in the same boat we're in now or possibly even a worse position.
Ellerbrook: The $142 million figure includes a system whereby we would blend, at
this point in time, Sandhills water with Lake Alan Henry water to roughly
achieve the same equivalent that we would be getting from Lake Meredith.
Verbatim Transcript
City Council Meeting, February 9, 1995
Item #35
Page 7
We will have to blend it, yes, if we are going to have the same quality of
from the two sources, it will have to be blended.
Sitton: Well, I don't think the citizens of Lubbock now are prepared to pay 100
percent increase in their water rates based on $191,000. 1 just don't think
any of us can afford that.
Langston: Mr. Ellerbrook, with respect to the $142 million figure, aren't we also
going to be looking at increases in operation and maintenance costs?
Ellerbrook: Yes, sir.
Langston: That accounts for the capital expenditures, but it doesn't account for the
pumping costs, getting that water from Lake Alan Henry to the water
treatment plant.
Ellerbrook: The annual operating estimate now is $4 million a year. It is mainly
involved in pumping costs, getting the water up from Lake Alan Henry. It
is about 1,000 feet difference in elevation. There is going to be a
tremendous amount of pumping costs involved. We're looking at about
$4 million annually to operate that system.
Ince: Of course, the echo cost of this new project, there is no different in annual
costs.
Ellerbrook: There is an increase in our operating costs, yes.
Ince: That is CRMWA operating costs that we're sharing, isn't it?
Williams: Yes, that is correct. The cost number per thousand gallons that you've
been given do include the operating expenses.
Neugebauer: Terry, a question was asked yesterday: Does this mean we think that the
Alan Henry project shouldn't have been built. My answer to that was --and
I guess I need some clarification --my answer to that was that when lake
projects were developed back in the early 60s and planning for those in the
50s, we were looking at depleting at a rather rapid rate, and there was
concern about the groundwater availability over the long haul. So
communities began to look at tertiary sources of water supply, which is
entrapment of runoff and surface water as opposed to groundwater. But
groundwater is still the most cost effective water for us to produce and
Verbatim Transcript
City Council Meeting, February 9, 1995
Item #35
Page 8
develop, and it has also got the highest quality, I would assume. So, what
my response to the citizens of Lubbock is that Lake Alan Henry is our
insurance policy in the event that the groundwater depletion becomes more
rapid in the future and that those levels fall to levels where we can't
produce them at the rates that we are producing them now because we
share that water for agricultural purposes. So the purpose is always to
keep our bank account pushed back as far as we can, so it isn't wasted
money to have Alan Henry as a tertiary source, but it is also an insurance
policy for us to be able to fall back on that should we find it necessary. If
we didn't develop Lake Alan Henry for 50 years, but when you need it,
you need it.
Ellerbrook: There aren't a lot of places to go around here to get water.
Neugebauer: How long have we been working on the Lake Alan Henry project?
Ellerbrook: I guess that was originated...
Cass: 1968. The original feasibility study was 1968.
Neugebauer: Obviously these kinds of projects just don't just happen overnight, so you
don't wake up one day and say, gosh, our groundwater sources are
marginal and we need to go do a lake project.
Ellerbrook: That's correct. Our first water source in Lubbock was groundwater, wells
in the city. I believe in the 50s they developed the Sandhills well fields,
and as the population began to increase, we started drawing heavier and
heavier every year on that supply, which does not essentially renew itself.
So then the city elected to become involved in the Canadian River
Municipal Water Authority, which gave us a lack supply, and put that
money back in the bank. We're basically doing the same kind of thing
with this project, bringing on some more water and saving that water in
our well field for the bank. You're right, one day when you need it, if we
had not done it, we would have run the risk of someone else coming into
the area needing that water and having that site or whatever, we just don't
have that many rivers around here. At least we're well on our way to
getting that project where we can put water it in. When we get ready to
bring it to Lubbock, we're going to be glad we did.
Neugebauer: I think that's another point in the conversation that I had yesterday is that
we are competing, we're competing with other communities for these
Verbatim Transcript
City Council Meeting, February 9, 1995
Item #35
Page 9
water rights, that if we don't take these water rights, obviously
Southwestern Public Service is interested in selling them, in that we might
be competing with other folks for these same rights, so at some point in
time that option may not be available to us.
Cooke: There is another aspect to the insurance you mentioned. There are
economic development opportunities that hopefully we will have along the
line that will never be retarded because of lack of water. In years to come
it is going to become more critical, not just in this region but in others.
Look at San Antonio; they would give their eye teeth to have our lake,
even with all the problems involved with it.
Neugebauer: There are several cities around the country that are in water crises. I can
remember in the late 60s in Lubbock people were saying Lubbock could
never grow; there were articles running in state and national publications
that we didn't have enough water.
Ellerbrook: Probably part of the question Councilman Hernandez asked earlier, I
probably didn't explain well. It has to do with the future needs of that
water. Hopefully one day we will be able to bring a big industry in here
that would make that a more cost -wise attractive to bring that supply on
line to supply that industry and the citizens.
Langston: People will ask, Terry, does this mean that you're not going to go ahead
and finish Lake Alan Henry. Does that mean you're just shelving that
project?
Ellerbrook: No, I don't see how we could shelve that project in our best future
interests. I think we need to continue with that and develop it as an idling
reserve type supply, because when we need it we're going to be glad
we've got the site and we built the dam. Now we're faced with building
the pipeline and treatment plant. Maybe technology will change between
now and then and reduce the cost of the pipe and constructing such
facilities. Who knows, it may go up much more, but at least we will have
a supply of water.
Langston: What is the situation currently with regard to the acquisition of the mineral
rights. Are negotiations continuing with regard to trying to push that
through the legal system.
Ellerbrook: Yes.
Verbatim Transcript
City Council Meeting, February 9, 1995
Item #35
Page 10
Langston: Do we have a specific date that we think that that would be concluded.
Ellerbrook: I don't think that we really have a specific date. Negotiations are
negotiations. Both parties have to be willing to settle, and I think that is
where we are. When that will happen, I don't know.
Langston: You either settle it out of court or you go to the courthouse. So trying to
predict when that litigation might be completed is very difficult at this
stage. But we continue to work on trying to resolve it.
Neugebauer: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve Item #35.
Cooke: Second.
Langston: I have a motion my Councilman Neugebauer and a second by Councilman
Cooke that we approve the resolution consenting to the proposed purchase
of underground water rights and cooperate with the CRMWA. Is there
any other comments or questions.
Cooke: You might point out that our representatives from the CRMWA--Jim
Collins and Leroy Montoya --have highly recommended this to us.
Hernandez: The only other comment I would make is that I think one of the reasons
this was tabled last time around was in order to get some additional
information. It seems that that additional information, due to some
personal reasons, wasn't available to us today. I'm not too sure it's not
prudent to wait for that before deciding on this issue.
Neugebauer: I was the one that raised that issue, Councilman Hernandez. From what
I'm told and, this information is correct, is that the alternate fields that I
had been made aware of do not meet the capacity needs of what we're
trying to accomplish here, and so I'm satisfied that they have researched
the potential avenues and other sites that are available in the marketplace
and that this is the best site.
Patterson: I think you'll find that we'll hopefully pass this item that, if you'll look
back at what has transpired, that this is a good deal today, no question
about that. You cannot say specifically when we will reach that negotiated
poster because it took years to get the land, years and years. So I think
this is a good proposition and I support it.
• Verbatim Transcript
City Council Meeting, February 9, 1995
Item #35
Page 11
Neugebauer: I want to add one caveat, though. All of these legal issues that are pending
about whether we have long-term use of these water rights and right of
ways and everything that you do, I don't think this community is in the
mood for another water project that gets bungled or costs more than it was
represented. So to CRMWA and to staff, let's proceed with caution and
make sure that we have this thing nailed down and that what we have
represented to the citizens is the way it is going to happen and let's do our
very best to make sure it happens that way.
Cooke: No surprises.
Langston: Any other comments or questions?
Hernandez: The only comment I would like to make is that I actually agree with what
Councilman Neugebauer just say, that folks aren't in any mood to get into
any sort of surprises, and it would just make me feel better to have gotten
that last piece of information on the table because it seems like sometimes
those last pieces of information are the ones that will get you in trouble.
Solely based on that reason, I will voting against this today.
Langston: Any other comments or questions? [Silence] All right then, all in favor,
respond by saying aye [Langston, Patterson, Sitton, Ince, Neugebauer,
Cooke]. Any opposed by nay [Hernandez]. Passes six -one.
gA 189181counci1\cnnwa.doc
Verbatim Transcript of Item #4 from City Council work session. January 26. 1995:
Discuss Canadian River Municipal Water Authority (CRM WA) ground water project.
Members Present: Mayor David Langston, Mayor Pro Tern Randy Neugebauer,
Councilmember Victor Hernandez, Councilmember T. J. Patterson, Councilmember
Windy Sitton, Councilmember Max L. Ince.
Members Absent: Councilmember Alex Cooke.
Mayor: The next item is work session item #4, which is to discuss the Canadian
River Municipal Water Authority ground water project. Terry, are you
going to start off?
Ellerbrook: Mayor and Members of the City Council, good morning. Before we
begin, I would like to introduce two gentlemen associated with the
Canadian River Municipal Water Authority. First, Mr. LeRoy Montoya is
one of our board members from Lubbock, and John Williams is the
general manager of the Canadian Municipal Water Authority. The City of
Lubbock has two major water sources at this time: Lake Meredith and our
Sandhills well field. Here today to discuss a project that would enhance
the quality and quantity of water available from Lake Meredith on the
Canadian River. The water available from Lake Meredith is indeed our
primary source. The quality on this issue is important because we do not
currently meet the TNRCC standards for chlorides and dissolved solids.
These are the constituents that give us that tart but not too heavy taste in
the water. This is very important in that at some point in time we may be
required to meet the secondary aesthetic standards. In the event this
happens and we do not do this project, we could be faced with having to
come up with a solution to take care of it anyway. The quantity issue is
important because we are currently withdrawing approximately four times
the recharge rate in our Sandhills well field. If we continue at this rate, we
estimate that the well fields life will range somewhere between 40 and 100
years. If we can reduce that withdrawal rate we are looking at somewhere
in the neighborhood of 160 to 480 years. With that, I would like to
introduce Mike Murphy, who is going to very briefly show you some
figures and slides on where this fits into our total water scheme.
Murphy: Thank you, Terry. We'll get the slides set up right quick. Mayor, City
Council, what I would like to give you right quick is a very brief look at
population projections versus water demand and supply projections. I've
just got three slides. What this will do is feed into John Williams'
presentation for the Canadian Municipal Water Authority. We can start
with slide 1. What slide 1 represents is the city of Lubbock population
based on Planning Dept. projections in thousands. The blue graph is a
medium growth rate projection that has a 50 percent probability of being
Verbatim Transcript
City Council Work Session. January 26, 1995
Item #,14 �{
Page 2
the most accurate projected growth rate for the city of Lubbock. Using this
medium growth projection, the city would peak in population in the year
2030 with a population of 223,500. The red graph behind shows a high
growth rate population projection which goes through the year 2050, and it
has a 25 percent probability of being accurate. The population would peak
at the year 2050 with a population of 291,600. These numbers are based
on Planning Department projections. If you have any questions, David
Buckberry is in the office and he can answer any of that stuff. Slide 2 is
water. demand projections based on both the high and medium population
projects. What we did here is we took the consumption of 185 gallons per
person per day and that was used as a multiplier to come up with the
yearly demand tied into our population projects. You can see in the year
1990 we have a demand of 12.57 billion and then it just increases. In the
year 2030, on the medium growth rate it will peak out at 15.09 billion
gallons per year. The third slide --what we did is since the medium
population growth has the most probability of being accurate, that is what
we used to prepare this study. The medium series demand is in red and it
is versed against the supply in various colors, and I will go through each
supply. The green area represents the current supply that we are getting
from local wells. That amount comes to be about 1.28 billion gallons per
year. The yellow is the Sandhills supply, and currently we are getting 1.1
billion gallons per year from that. You can look at the year 1990, we are
over pumping the Sandhills supply system about 2.5 times the
recommended pumping due to depletion projections of that resource. The
pink ... let's just go with the blue. That is the main body that we are
currently getting from the Canadian Municipal Water Authority or Lake
Meredith. That comes out to be about 9.95 billion gallons per year. You
stack all of those on top of one another and you come up in 1990, that is
our currently supply versus our current demand. You can see right now,
we can supply more water than there is a demand for, but as you start
moving further into the next century, around the year 2005, if we don't
add any other water sources to the city of Lubbock, you can see that the
population growth, the demand will actually exceed the supply that is
available.
Patterson: What is the projected population by 2005?
Murphy: 2005 is going to be probably around 205,000 in the city of Lubbock. All
of these numbers are based on the city of Lubbock itself. You can see
around the year 2005 the population and the demand associated with that
population is going to outgrow the supply available. That is what ties in
Verbatim Transcript
City Council Work Session, January 26. 1995
Item # 14
Page 3
the presentation Mr. Williams is going to make today with the Canadian
Municipal Water Authority. Unless you have any questions, I will just
turn it over to Mr. Williams.
Neugebauer: Mike, what these charts that you have in place there do not include any
potential water supply from Lake Alan Henry, is that correct? [Murphy:
That is correct.] So, how in your mind would acquiring these water rights
and the Lake Alan Henry project tie together as far as meeting long-term
water needs in the community.
Murphy: I have another slide if you want to take a look at that.
Ellerbrook: This one is based on the high population series. We did it on the medium
population series because that is a 50 percent probability of occurring. In
the event that something extraordinary happens --we get a large industrial
facility that comes in and brings a large number of employees, uses a lot of
water --that could adjust the high population series to what you see here.
We look at population and population equivalents. Five million gallons a
day of water can roughly service a population of 27,000 people or an
equivalent -size industry that may use that same amount of water. So, as
you can see, as we go on out in the future, if we go to the high demand,
then that is where Lake Alan Henry would come into play at some point
down the road. Right now it would be kind of considered an idling reserve
that we are not using until the need arises.
Langston: Well, why is that, Mr. Ellerbrook? Why would you decide now to spend
$27 million when you have a project that you already have approximately
$55 million in, why don't you just go ahead and finish Lake Alan Henry?
Cass: I think the issue here is what is the cost of getting the Lake Alan Henry
water. We will one day need that water; there is absolutely no question in
my mind that we will one day need that water. The question is how
quickly do you get it here. The cost per unit to bring the north Plains
water will be cheaper than will the cost per unit to get Lake Alan Henry.
Now eventually, Lake Alan Henry will be all we've got and we will
absolutely need it. The question is a matter of balancing when you bring it
in.
Ince: If I remember, I think the projected cost to pump, build a pipe line, get the
necessary right of ways, also a pumping station, I think the original
estimate in pre-1986 was about $90 million. Taking that as a low
Verbatim Transcript
City Council Work Session, January 26, 1995
Item # 14
Page 4
estimate, and I say probably a low estimate, could be as much as $140
million, that has not been spent on the project. So now what we're
looking at in lieu of utilizing that water source, we can utilize this alternate
water source first at a cost of $27 million, which we're talking about a
quarter of the cost would be to bring Lake Alan Henry water up here.
Cass: Plus, the issue again of quality. Now, I'm not going to tell you that this
north Plains water will taste any better. Your palate may distinguish it,
mine may not. But if you look at the aesthetic requirements that the
federal government is laying down and may lay down in the future, this
will be about our only chance, for a reasonable amount of money, to meet
those new guidelines.
Patterson: How would the desalinization program tie into that?
Ellerbrook: Mr. Williams can probably answer that more adequately, but this project
gives us more immediate benefit on the water quality side. The
desalinization project --John, what is the time before that is implemented?
It would be 10 years before we recognize any water quality improvements
out of that project. That is still a viable project. This would just
immediately give us some benefit on the quality and the quantity, which is
very important. On the quality issue, right now the chlorides and total
dissolved solids are secondary standards. In other words, the TNRCC is
not going to fine us; they make us put up a different water approved sign
at the city limits, but they aren't going to fine us at this point in time. But,
given their past track record, we can't rule out the possibility that they
might it primary standards in the future. They have done that with
fluoride for example. That used to be an aesthetic deal, caused ---- of the
teeth. Now they've made it a primary standard. If they do that, then we
will be forced, if we let this project go, we will be forced to do something
about the chlorides and total dissolved solids anyway to be in compliance,
which means we would roughly spend the same amount of money, yet we
would have to bring the water from our Bailey County well fields into
Lubbock and thereby spending the same amount of money but also
depleting our ground water reserves in the Sandhills.
Patterson: You mentioned a point, Terry, we are 10 years off from utilization of the
desalinization program. Why is that? Why is it taking so long? I think
that is important because people are hearing about this program; number
one they don't know what it is, what is the significant of the program
itself.
Verbatim Transcript
City Council Work Session, January 26, 1995
Item 414
Page 5
Williams: This project was borne from two problems which Terry has pointed out
very clearly. One is water quantity; the other is water quality. Water in
Lake Meredith has always been more salty than we would like for it to be.
It has been as high as 500 milligrams per liter of chloride concentration,
which chloride is primarily sodium chloride, the stuff you put on your
food to make it taste good, but it doesn't taste too good when there is too
much of it in the water. We have worked for years to try and find the
solution and reason for that and we believe that most of the chlorides
which come from Lake Meredith originate in New Mexico in about a six -
mile stretch of the river just downstream from Use --- near Logan. We
have developed a project to control the inflow of those chlorides using
help from the US Bureau of Reclamation and with the endorsement of
your predecessor councils. This project will intercept the brine before it
gets into the river and dispose of it so that it can't get back to the river nor
can it contaminate any other fresh water sources in the area. The problem
is that even though we stop that brine from coming in, we still have a lake
full of salty water. We still have a river channel of about 125-130 miles
that is contaminated with salt that has flowed into it over geologic time as
far as we know, at least the last 100 or so years. So all of that will have to
be flushed out and gotten rid of before we can see the end result and
benefit of having stopped that salt. Just like if you have a bank account
full of contaminated money, you have to spend all of that before you start
getting good fresh money to spend. So, depending on how much it rains,
if we stopped the salt from coming in, then got a big rain that would flush
everything out and let us discharge some salty water out of the lake, then
we would see immediate benefits. But I can't stand here and tell you in all
good faith that that is going to happen. The best I can tell you that is
going to happen is that mother nature will take her own sweet time, flush
that water out, and, eventually, whenever we get enough good inflow, then
we will have fresh water, fresher water in Lake Meredith. The fact is,
however, that that project is necessary even if you go into the ground
water project that we are discussing more immediately today. If we don't
stop that salt from coming in, Lake Meredith may eventually get so salty
that we couldn't even mix it with fresh ground water to make it usable
enough to meet the state and federal standards. That is the background on
the salinity control project.
Patterson: What was a $4 million project, am I correct on that?
Verbatim Transcript
City Council Work Session, January 26, 1995
Item # 14
Page 6
Williams: It can be up to $4 million; the current estimate, however, is on the order of
$7.5 million, of which the Authority's share --by the Authority, I mean the
member cities, you and the other ten cities --will have to pick up about $3
million of the cost.
Neugebauer: The Lake Alan Henry project --I want to make sure I understand it --that
project was always designed to be a tertiary source of water in the out
years if our current sources were not adequate, so it gave us a growth gap
should that occur. Is that a true statement? [Ellerbrook: That is correct.]
And that this project is designed to beef up our primary and secondary,
which is Canadian River Authority, which is where we get 80 percent. So,
to increase the quality of that and the quantity, which then takes some
pressure off of our secondary which is our field over in the Muleshoe area.
Is that the way this issue is boiling down.
Ellerbrook: Yes, sir, that is exactly it. The primary way that we operate our water
supply is we use all the water we can from Lake Meredith. It is a lake
supply and it is renewable. We only use the Sandhills supply to peak with
and meet demand that Lake Meredith cannot meet. Last year, for
example, we pumped about 14 billion gallons of water. We only got 10
billion from Lake Meredith, roughly, rounded, and the other 4 had to come
from the Sandhills well field. Recommended withdrawal rate is 1 billion
gallons. So, if we continue to do that, we are mining that water; it isn't a
readily replenishable. So Lake Alan Henry was designed as another
surface water supply to project the Sandhills system also. But if we can
get more water from Lake Meredith, we protect the Sandhills, we push
back the need to bring Lake Alan Henry on line at the higher cost.
Sitton: Is this going to result, did I understand, in a 15 percent hike in water rates?
Ellerbrook: That is the current estimate. It would be two years of rate increases
actually. That does include the increased operation and maintenance of
operating this system once it is in place, in addition to the capital costs.
Sitton: So it is your professional opinion that we need both Lake Alan Henry and
this?
Ellerbrook: Yes. We don't want to bring the water from Lake Alan Henry until we
really need it, because it is a higher cost of water. This project protects
our primary source. Lake Alan Henry is only designed to produce 23
million gallons a day. Currently our allocation from Lake Meredith is 42
Verbatim Transcript
City Council Work Session, January 26. 1995
Item # 14
Page 7
million gallons a day, so Lake Alan Henry will never replace Lake
Meredith as a primary source of water.
Neugebauer: One of the things that, when we first got briefed about this, was did we
really need this now. The primary driving city in the Authority right now
is Amarillo because this really is their primary source; they don't have the
secondary sources that we do, is that right?
Ellerbrook: Amarillo has well fields as Lubbock. Amarillo blends their water with
ground water now, so they have come to the situation where that the North
Panhandle Water District is leaning on them to reduce their production or
to maintain their production at a lower rate in their well field. So, what
they're looking it is that if we don't do this project, they will secure
another well field to make up the difference in ground water they need to
blend. In other words, they are going to blend anyway. If they do that,
then this project, without Amarillo's participation, Lubbock can't afford it,
neither can any of the other members. I don't know what Amarillo would
be looking at in time, but before you would see this project come back
would be probably in the magnitude of 20 to 30 years at the very least I
would guesstimate.
Neugebauer: So, it's a good deal for Lubbock and it is a good deal for Amarillo?
Ellerbrook: Yes, it does protect our primary source. It helps the water quality. And
that is something we may have to do anyway. I can't guarantee that, but it
looks like we use our water to do it, it is going to cost us about the same
amount as this project to bring that water from the Bailey County
transmission line over to the water plant to blend it. Once we do that, now
we are withdrawing and relying very heavily on the Sandhills well field to
bring that water into blend with. So, we are depleting our reserves that we
are trying to hold in the bank for the future instead of the ones in the North
Panhandle to blend and benefit all of the member cities.
Neugebauer: The thing that, sometimes city government gets bad review on is we say it
is going to cost one thing and then it ends up costing something else. I
guess that's certainly a valid criticism. Do we feel very comfortable with
these numbers? I don't want to sit here and if we do this and we say it's a
$26 then it comes back and it's a $35 or a $40.
Ellerbrook: John has addressed the estimates on the project itself as far as our rate
increase that we are looking at. We feel very comfortable with the number
Verbatim Transcript
City Council Work Session, January 26, 1995
Item # 14
Page 8
we've given you. It should not exceed that number. We feel very good
based on what John has given us in estimates of Lubbock's share and our
analysis of the rates. We have information on that that we feel very
comfortable with it now. John, would you like to address the estimates on
the project itself?
Williams: I know you have probably already received most of this information, but
just to be certain, I have distributed some handouts so at least you will
have a picture of the project on the front page and some backup
information behind in the event that you need to refer to it. As earlier
mentioned, this project was borne from two basic problems that the
authority has experienced in trying to meet the needs of our member cities.
Those are, of course, quantity and quality. Lake Meredith was originally
designed to supply about 103,000-acre feet per year to the I 1 member
cities, which are the Authority. That amounts to about 33.5 billion
gallons, of which Lubbock's share was intended to be about 12.4 billion
gallons per year. Because of rainfall shortages, runoff deficiencies, and
other factors, we only have been able to supply about 3/4 of that quantity.
Your share of that, as Terry mentioned, is about 10 billion gallons per
year. That is the most that we think we will ever be able to furnish from
Lake Meredith. It is just that simple. Mother Nature is not as kind as we
thought she would be when the project was built. So, in 1992, using a
grant from the Texas Water Development Board, plus matching funds
from the Authority, a study was done to attempt to identify ways of
addressing that problem as well as addressing the water quality problem
which we have been talking about heretofore. This study was done for us
by the firm of Parkhill, Smith and Cooper, a local Lubbock firm whose
representatives are here today, Clayton Yeager and John Kelley, with
assistance from Lee Wilson Associates from Santa Fe. This study
identified an area in the northern Panhandle and in eastern Hutchinson
County and western Roberts County outlined on this map in front of you
for about 43,000 acres of water rights are available containing good
quality water, a fairly large depth of saturated sand, which is available for
purchase from the present owner. The cost of bringing that water over to
the aqueduct system from Lake Meredith so that it could be mixed with
water from the lake. It would be about $62 million. Based on expressions
of interest of your predecessor Councils, the Authority entered into
negotiations with the owner of those water rights, Quix Corporation, a
subsidiary of Southwestern Public Service Company, and arrived at an
agreed price for those water rights in the amount of $14.5 million so that
the total cost of the project we are looking at --water rights, ---field
Verbatim Transcript
City Council Work Session, January 26, 1995
Item #14
Page 9
development, and aqueduct system --is about $76.5 million. The way the
project breaks out, Lubbock's share of that cost would be about $28.8
million. Originally, we anticipated financing this through this issuance of
bonds, but I understand from discussions with your staff that there may be
other avenues that you will wish to finance your share of the project if it
goes forward. The Authority's Board of Directors accepted an offer of
sale from Quix Corporation for the water rights, conditioned upon the
consent of our member cities and the commitment of the member cities to
participate in the project and to support the ultimate cost of it.
Now, it has been mentioned that the City of Amarillo is one of the driving
forces behind this as well as the City of Lubbock. Amarillo's situation is
that they are faced with the need to expand their existing ground water
supply. As Terry said, they mix ground water and lake water for the
purpose of providing a uniform quality of water to their citizens. They are
going to have to expand that field at a cost of something like $20 million,
and they would just as soon spend that $20 million on this project. Their
share would be the same as yours and they would have a longer range of
high quality water without depleting their present ground water reserves
more rapidly than necessary.
So, basically that is the way the project breaks out. If you want to proceed
with this, it is strictly your decision. I'm not here to sell you anything; I'm
here to respond to your needs and try to meet those needs as best as the
Authority can. You are being asked today to consider the passage of a
resolution which would endorse the purchase of the water rights, allow us
to continue with the investigations and contracting procedures necessary to
make that purchase and commit to the eventual participation in the project
of the sort that we described. One of your representatives on our board is
here today, and I think would like to say a word to you. Mr. Montoya is
here; Mr. Collins, your other representative, could not be here today.
Langston: Mr. Williams, what happens if we don't participate? What happens if we
don't pass this resolution today to this project?
Williams: My crystal ball is not always clear, but, as I mentioned, the City of
Amarillo is in a position that they are going to have to either participate in
this project or upgrade their present ground water resources in another
direction. If they commit $20 million to that, I would not expect that they
would be willing to come back and commit another $28 million to this
project five years from now, ten years from now, or any time very soon. I
Verbatim Transcript
City Council Work Session. January 26. 1995
Item # 14
Page 10
do not know that they wouldn't be willing to do that, but that is my
anticipation, that if this doesn't go forward now it likely will be placed on
the back burner for a long time.
Ince: Mr. Williams, other than Amarillo and Lubbock we have nine other
participating cities? [Williams: That is correct.] How is their water
source, do you have any indication of that? Is 85 percent of their water
source Lake Meredith? Are they having similar problems in alternate
sources of water?
Williams: It depends significantly on the locations of those cities. By and large, the
cities on the north plains have adequate supplemental reserves of ground
water of their own. Cities on the south plains do not. Some cities depend
entirely upon the Authority's resources. For example, Larnesa, Levelland,
and Brownfield have very little ground water reserves that they can fall
back on and they need this additional supply of water to help meet their
needs. Tahoka is perhaps in that category, although they think they have
pretty good ground water reserves. Slaton and O'Donnell both depend
entirely upon the Authority for their supply, but they have adequate supply
available under our present allocation; they don't need more water, but
they very badly, all of the cities, very badly want better quality water. Mr.
Montoya.
Leroy Montoya: Mr. Mayor and City Council, I can't add any details that John and
Terry haven't already given you. We just want you to know and
understand that Mr. Collins and I have participated in discussions and
listened to the testimony for over a year now, and although we understand
that the cost is substantial, we believe that the cost is reasonable compared
to all other sources. We believe that the source of water will improve the
quality of water for the citizens and secure quantity for the future
generations. Also, maybe a point that hasn't been brought up, we believe
that improving the quality and quantity of water might also attract other
businesses to Lubbock and perhaps help us meet those higher projections
of growth we see. Unfortunately Jim can't be here. We've discussed this
a number of times, and we want you to know that both of us do support the
project. Thank you.
Patterson: Mr. Montoya, as a board member of the Canadian district, is it key and
crucial that this Council, in your opinion, move forward with this project.
Verbatim Transcript
City Council Work Session, January 26. 1995
Item #! 14
Page 11
Montoya: Yes, sir, I do believe that it is crucial, Mr. Patterson. I believe we're
obligated not to look only at our current needs. For those generations, I
have children and all of you have children coming up in Lubbock. I think
for their benefit, we want to keep them here and want them to have a place
that they are proud of and can grow with, and I think for those reasons,
this is a crucial project. [Patterson: Thank you, sir.]
Cass: Mayor, I want to make sure the Council is aware of another point that I
think is very relevant here. There is some degree of discussion going on in
the Panhandle about whether or not the Authority can export that water
from an existing underground water conservation district. There is a
degree of controversy. A lawsuit has been filed to clarify that matter. The
resolution, should you choose to act on it, contains wording which
basically indicates that if we cannot be provided with the appropriate legal
indications that we can in fact have the benefit of that expenditure, then
basically it would nullify the resolution you are going to act on today.
A second matter, I don't know that it has significant impact, but
nevertheless you read in the paper today .... John, I don't know that that
really has a tremendous impact on the viability of this project, but I would
feel more comfortable if you'd say that out loud.
Williams: You sure are asking me to look deep into my crystal ball today. Yes, we
of course have been involved in that and your City staff has been involved
in it as well. There was a hearing in Amarillo last night before the
representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to receive
information relating to the potential designation of the Arkansas River
Shiner as an endangered species. And of course there has been a great
deal of information put forth to the effect that that designation might have
an impact upon this project as well as other activities of the Authority. I
do not see and the representatives of the Fish and Wildlife Service did not
see the possibility of any significant impact on ground water pumpage.
However, as was mentioned to them, we heard similar things said in other
areas of the state and we know the impact that has occurred and is
occurring on the Edwards Aquifer in south central Texas. So I can't
guarantee you that there will not be any effect on this project if the
Arkansas River Shiner is designated, but we don't think so. This will be
carried out as a private project; it will not have any federal funds involved
in it and therefore will not be subject to the requirements for coordination
that our salinity control project, for example, will be required to undergo.
So we think and hope and believe that the Arkansas River Shiner will not
Verbatim Transcript
City Council Work Session, January 26, 1995
Item #14
Page 12
interfere with this project. With regard to the lawsuit that has been
mentioned, I can assure you that our directors are canny enough that they
are not going to commit to expend $76 million on a project for which we
cannot receive the supply and benefits that we expect to receive. Those
problems will be dealt with before any funds are committed either for the
purchase of the water rights or for the construction of the facilities. There
are avenues available to us to do that which, as your resolution addresses,
will be done before those commitments are made.
Neugebauer: The Arkansas River Shiner, isn't that a minnow.
Williams: The Arkansas River Shiner is a two-inch minnow that lives in sandy
bottom streams of the plains area, yes sir.
Neugebauer: So it wouldn't hurt for the citizens of Lubbock to notify the Parks and
Wildlife Service that they are more concerned about Lubbock having
drinking water than they are minnow.
Williams: Your mayor has already done that. Testimony was received last night from
the Governor. Both the United States Senators, both United States
Congressional delegates from this area, Senator Teal Biggums of the
Amarillo area, all of the state legislative delegation, the Governor, the
Texas Department of Water Resources, the Parks and Wildlife Department
of the State, State Department of Agriculture, I could go on and on. No
one was supportive of the designation; everyone felt that it is not the
appropriate thing to do at this time. I have a thirty -minute presentation on
that if you want to hear it, but I don't think you do.
Langston: I think we'll defer that for now. Mr. Ellerbrook, would you tell us, with
regard to the 15 percent increase in water rates over a two-year period.
How would that compare, make our rates based on other cities' water
rates?
Ellerbrook: I think we have an overhead on it. It looked like. Mayor, that we have
broken that out. The average residential rate throughout the city, there are
various cities, Abilene and Amarillo, for example, which may have to raise
their rates. That may be skewed a little bit here. But the average across
the state of the cities surveyed is $18.31 for a customer with a 3/4" meter
that uses 8,000 gallons per month. The increases would total us up to
$19.91, which puts us over a dollar above the average. Of course, this is
projected. After two years, we don't know what other increases these
Verbatim Transcript
City Council Work Session, January 26. 1995
Item # 14
Page 13
cities may see between now and then, and it may not be so far off of the
average at that point in time, but it is above the average.
Neugebauer: So for SI M per month on a residential rate, if I'm marketing this, am I
going to be getting a better quality water, Terry?
Ellerbrook: The quality will be better and as Bob mentioned, as to whether you can
taste the difference or not, we can't say. Smokers may not taste any
difference at all, while non-smokers may. It really depends on personal -
type things. With the salt content reduced, there would be less scale
accumulation. Those things are very hard to measure as far as economic
benefit. We are talking about a small amount. But it would allow us to
meet the TNRCC secondary standards which are at 300 milligrams per
liter on the chlorides. We are currently nearly 400, I believe, John?
[Williams: Over 400.1 So we're quite a bit above that. Also on the total
dissolved solids, their limit is 1,000 and we're 1,200 milligrams per liter
there. We're clearly over the standard. The standards are aesthetic
standards, which means that that is their threshold. How they base that, I
don't know; I don't know who they poll and say, can you taste it, can you
not. But, yes, it will be better quality.
Hernandez: Terry, let me make sure I understand your chart right. Is that chart saying
that by the year 2000 our demand will be greater than our current supply
of water?[Ellerbrook: Yes, sir, that's correct.] And so really if we
approve this you've got five years to get it on line to meet that demand?
Ellerbrook: That is correct. And, in the meantime, we can continue to pump the
Bailey County well field a little bit excessively to make sure that we don't
get in a water rationing situation, but it will give us time to construct this
project.
Hernandez: According to that chart, even if we do this, by the year 2010 our demand
will be higher than our current supply at that time.
Ellerbrook: That's on the high population. There is a 25 percent probability that this
high population will occur. The population projection we used was the
medium series. if we use the medium series, it has a 50 percent
probability of occurring and that will get us through the year 2030.
Hernandez: So using this graph, though, if that should occur then our need or our
demand will be much greater than our current supply at that time.
Verbatim Transcript
City Council Work Session, January 26, 1995
Item # 14
Page 14
[Ellerbrook: That's correct.] And that's the reason to get Lake Alan
Henry on at that time.
Ellerbrook: As we see that population trend start to occur, we will have to look for
alternate water supplies in addition to the Canadian River project if this
does occur, that is correct.
Hernandez: How long will it take to get Lake Alan Henry actually on line to actually
start delivering water at the end?
Ellerbrook: I think we had discussed something in the neighborhood of five years from
start of design to the end of construction would probably be a good
estimate. It could occur quicker if we fast -track it, but that would
probably be a reasonable time frame.
Hernandez: And the current cost associated with that project is $140 million?
Ellerbrook: That is our staffs estimate, yes.
Hernandez: Which translates into what percentage increase as far as water rates?
Mark Hindman: If we were to do that project right now at the current consumption
we have, that is an 80 or 90 percent increase. The only reason we would
have to do it is if we have [inaudible].
Hernandez: That would be 20 to 25 percent over and above the 15 percent that is
already projected for this particular project.
Hindman: That is right. It all depends on how much water.
Hernandez: We're doing this for two reasons is the way I'm understanding. Water
quantity, you want to increase that. Now Lake Alan Henry will take care
of that just as this will. The second reason is water quality. Is the Lake
Alan Henry project going to take care of that as well.
Ellerbrook: No, sir.
Patterson: You also don't want to deplete the Sandhills supply.
Hernandez: Now, as far as the water quality, the North Panhandle waters that we get
from there is going to help us out as far as water quality, but once we start
Verbatim Transcript
City Council Work Session. January 26, 1995
Item 914
Page 15
mixing it with the Lake Alan Henry water, we are going to be in the same
boat as we are now, aren't we?
Ellerbrook: If we don't do something with the Lake Alan Henry, in other words, if we
don't blend Lake Alan Henry, we'll be in the same situation with it, but
the estimate does include facilities to be able to blend that water with
Sandhills well water. So, yes, we will have to blend Lake Alan Henry to
meet the secondary standards, and that is our plan and that is included in
the estimate. Of the $140, it is about $10 million to do that.
Ince: You're talking about a treatment blending plant? [Ellerbrook: Yes.] I
think what Victor is getting at is that it doesn't make, the cost of doing this
project is about 25 percent or less, from a quantity standpoint, a volume
standpoint, as doing Lake Alan Henry, completing the pipeline and
bringing that up. To me, that is the most important issue. You have the
quantity and you've got the quality issue, which we can address the quality
issue. But the cost issue for the citizens of Lubbock.
Ellerbrook: To put it in perspective, what Mark said, if we decide not to do this project
and decide that we're going to bring Lake Alan Henry to meet the year
2000-2005 population estimates, when we finance that, we're going to
have to raise the rates, we're going to have to at least begin raising the
rates, which means that we may not have the population base that we can
spread that rate increase out over, thereby increasing the per capita cost.
So, if we put that off until the population, if we wait until the last minute,
until we have the population to pay for it, then we can spread that out
more evenly. If we replace the North Panhandle project with this project,
we need to start absorbing that cost now, which would greatly increase the
rates over what we're doing in the North Panhandle.
Langston: The reason for the tremendous increase in costs associated with Lake Alan
Henry, assuming that Lake Alan Henry was full to the brim today, you still
have to build pumping stations, you have to buy right of way, you have to
buy pipelines, you've got to build a treatment plant. and you're pumping
that water up hill.
Ellerbrook: That is correct. We're looking at a large diameter pipeline to be built, four
pumping stations, a water treatment plant roughly equivalent to the one we
have in place now, some terminal storage facilities to be able to use that
water. It looks like the annual O&M estimate was somewhere in the
Verbatim Transcript
City Council Work Session. January 26, 1995
Item #14
Page 16
neighborhood of $4 million per year, just to pump it up hill. Then we
have to treat it and pump it into the system.
Langston: And this will all be gravity flow. Primarily you are just getting it to the
main pipeline, that is most of the cost.
Williams: There is pumping involved with this, as there is some pumping to get it
from Roberts County to our present aqueduct system, then it has to be
pumped to Amarillo. From Amarillo it is down hill all the way to here in
Lubbock. There is a tabulation attached to the back of that that has a lot of
numbers involved, but it shows the estimated pumping costs that would be
involved.
Neugebauer: You are already pumping to Amarillo.
Williams: We are already pumping to Amarillo, yes.
Langston: All right, Mr. Massengale, I want you to explain to me why we just had an
election on Saturday and the school bonds were like $29 million, and I
want you to explain why we are looking at a $27 million project and we're
not calling an election.
Massengale: State law give the City authority to issue bonds without an election in two
cases. One is the certificates of obligation and the other is water revenue
bonds, which you would also have an option to use in this case. The water
revenue bonds typically would cost more and I would not recommend that
simply because the cost would be more. The policy traditionally held by
the City Council is that in self-supporting funds or mandated situations,
they typically have not had an election to authorize bonds. The reason the
law allows that is there have been instances around the state where you
can become obligated and then the citizens do not allow you to finish a
project, and that's the reason to law allows that. A good example was the
City of Midland, who contracted for a take -or -pay contract to take water
from the Colorado River Municipal Water District. Then they had an
election to treat the water, and the election failed. So they had to take the
water, but they couldn't treat it. That's a situation where the Council
needs the authority in some cases because they are in a situation where
they have to have the project.
Langston: Any other questions from Council?
Verbatim Transcript
City Council Work Session, January 26. 1995
Item #14
Page 17
Patterson: In your professional opinion, as Councilwoman Sitton would say, Terry, is
this a vital project that we need right now.
Ellerbrook: Mr. Patterson, I have no problems whatsoever in telling you that I am
totally for this project; I recommend it. I don't think we'll have an
opportunity like this again for the City of Lubbock. The main thing is that
it allows us to conserve our future water supplies in Sandhills well field
and it helps our quality, and we may have to do that anyway. So I do
recommend that we do this versus putting it off and waiting until we have
to.
Patterson: That was my concern, the Sandhills, preserving the Sandhills in this area.
I have been watching this project for several years, and we must act now;
we can't put it off, I believe. We can't afford to play with this; it is too
vital, too serious.
Langston: Thank you, Mr. Ellerbrook and Mr. Williams, LeRoy, and all of you that
are here, a very informative and very good presentation. [Langston then
discusses the schedule for the rest of the day.]
[No consensus was required because the action item was on the regular City Council
agenda.]
gA 189181councillcrmwa-ws.doc
Verbatim Transcript of Item #28 from City Council meeting of January 26. 1995
Members Present: Mayor David Langston, Mayor Pro Tem Randy Neugebauer,
Councilmember Victor Hernandez, Councilmember T. J. Patterson, Councilmember
Windy Sitton, Councilmember Max L. Ince.
Members Absent: Councilmember Alex Cooke.
[Mayor Pro Tern Neugebauer presided over the meeting in Mayor Langston's absence
from the Council Chambers during items l -26. Mayor Langston returned to the Council
Chambers and presided over items 27-29.]
Mayor: The next item is Item #28, to consider a resolution consenting to the
proposed purchase of underground water rights and constructed associated
conveyance facilities as described and authorized in Resolution #0194-
11A of the Board of Directors of the Canadian River Municipal Water
Authority. Mr. Ellerbrook.
Ellerbrook: Mayor and Members of the City Council, this is the item we discussed this
morning in work session. We would like to remind the Council that
approval of this resolution would commit the City of Lubbock to the
ground water blending project. Our share would be approximately $28.8
million. Also, the resolution contains language that would assure the City
of Lubbock that the water could be transported out of Roberts County by
the Canadian River Water Authority or the resolution would become void.
I will be happy to entertain any questions.
Langston: Any questions?
Neugebauer: When we had recessed, a citizen brought to my attention that in the past
there was some negotiations that were ongoing by the Canadian River
Authority for some water rights for maybe the City of Lubbock for some
additional water rights adjacent to or in the vicinity of the aqueduct and
that at some time we broke off those negotiations and turned our attention
to the Lake Alan Henry project and that a lot of hydrology and several test
wells were drilled and these water rights could have been less money, but
the thing was is that it was closer to the aqueduct and the transportation
costs were going to be substantially less. Are you aware of ...?
Ellerbrook: Mr. Neugebauer, I'm aware that there were some investigations in the
early `80s, late `70s in, I believe it was Hartley County, but I'm not aware
that they were possible any closer. John might want to address that.
Verbatim Transcript
City Council Meeting, January 26, 1995
Item #28
Page 2
Williams: I'm not really familiar with anything that has been conducted by the City
of Lubbock, although I am aware that there were some. With regard to the
investigations by the Authority in connection with the study in this project,
we did evaluate a number of alternative areas, including some that were
located adjacent to or along the aqueduct system. The problem with those
was that the quantity of water available there was not sufficient to meet the
long-range needs of the Authority's member cities. The area which has
been designated and is proposed to be purchased does contain an adequate
water supply for at least a 50-year supply and probably longer. It is the
only such area that we were able to locate.
Neugebauer: So, was the criteria the 50 years? I think it was represented to me that one
of these fields was like a 20- or 30-year supply of water, but it was going
to be acquired for less money. I don't know what this means; we can get
some more information, but it just said the Bureau of Economic Geology,
is that right?
Williams: The Bureau of Economic Geology has done a good bit of work in the area.
We did not use any of their studies, that I recall, incorporated in this study.
We have, in connection with our salinity control project. I'm not sure of
the area that you are referring to. Southwestern Public Service Company
does hold some water rights in northern Potter County adjacent to our
aqueduct system. We did evaluate the possible use of that area, but it
would only meet our needs for about 10 years, and we did not feel that it
was worth spending the money on for that short period of time.
Neugebauer: Well, I guess what I would ask is that, as you indicated earlier, that your
Board wants to act prudently. I just would want to be assured that, if the
Bureau of Economic Geology has some information, some adjacent fields
up there that could be of some viability to the Canadian River Authority
and then to the citizens of Lubbock, that at least some inquiry be made to
ascertain what information they have and to make sure that this is the best
viable alternative for us, because, as I think you are aware, this Council
has taken some criticism for some past Council actions where maybe they
didn't feel like all of the due diligence may have been done that needed to
be done. So certainly, as a Council member, I want to make sure that in
respect to this project that we, I here the staff saying that they think it's a
good, viable project; I hear you saying that. But certainly sometimes
information surfaces that needs to be investigated, and I don't want to look
back in two or three years and say, gosh, I wish we would have followed
Verbatim Transcript
City Council Meeting, January 26, 1995
Item #28
Page 3
up on that. So, I am going to ask that you do that and respond back to the
City Manager and that he can forward that information to the Council.
Williams: We can certainly do that. The study report which has been made available
to the City outlines and discusses in some considerable detail the areas that
were evaluated as alternative sources. I am fully satisfied that that
evaluation was adequate and that we have located the most feasible and
most desirable resource for inclusion in the project. That does not say that
this is the only area that could be used, but it is the best area from a
standpoint of water quantity and water quality that there is available.
Neugebauer: Make sure you understand what I'm saying. I'm not disputing your
investigation. Even sometimes in my own business, when I think I have
uncovered every rock, somebody brings a new rock to the table. So I
guess what I would say to you is that a little further, just some contact with
the Bureau of Economic Geology, just to make sure that they don't have
something that we have overlooked.
Williams: We can certainly do that, and I will be happy to relay their response to the
City Manager and your staff. I will comment as well that there are other
areas of water rights that are available on the market, and you may very
well receive contact from some of those others wanting to know why the
Authority is not offering or interested in purchasing their property. We are
looking at those from time to time if our Board of Directors feels that one
of those areas might be suitable for addition to this project. Then we
would come back to you with regard to those.
Neugebauer: Okay, thank you.
Hernandez: Are you suggesting then that we table this?
Neugebauer: No, I think, if I understand this resolution, would make the City a player,
but that ultimately the final acquisition and development rests in the hands
of the Canadian River Authority. I guess I'm just asking the Canadian
River Authority prior to making final closing on this that we ascertain that
this is still the best option that we know is available out there.
Williams: Sir, if I understand the resolution that is before you consents to the
purchase of $42,765 acres of water rights in eastern Hutchinson and
western Roberts County.
Verbatim Transcript
City Council Meeting, January 26, 1995
Item #28
Page 4
Neugebauer: That's correct. It authorizes you to do that on behalf of the Canadian
River Authority. I guess what I'm saying is, prior to the purchase, that
you would make that contact. Certainly, that is one Council member
talking. Other Council members may have something else.
Ince: Mr. Neugebauer, you have kind of opened up an interesting subject in
regard to this, and I concur with everything that you have said. I'm not
sure that I would not like to postpone the final decision on this until our
next meeting so that the documentation that you have asked for can be
obtained and we can have the ability to look at it. Because once we do
this, if we give the consent to do this, I think then the train has left the
track and any information that might follow on that is really a moot point.
Neugebauer: What would be the, we have a Council meeting in two weeks. What is the
loss to the process if we were to delay this two weeks? Get the
information that the citizen has brought forward and evaluate it and see if
it changes our finding, then put this back on. I know that y'all have been
waiting on action from this Council for a number of months, but $27
million is a lot of money.
Williams: I certainly have no way to impose any deadlines on any action that you
might take. I have been told from time to time that the City of Amarillo
badly needs to proceed with their alternative projects if this one is not
going forward. I do not know how long they are willing to wait.
Hernandez: Terry, let me make sure I understand your chart right. Is
that chart saying that by the year 2000 our demand will be greater than our
current supply of water?[Ellerbrook: Yes, sir, that's correct.] And so
really if we approve this you've got five years to get it on line to meet that
demand?
Langston: What about a procedure like this, that we go ahead and pass the resolution,
then once they have brought the information, we would hold up signing
the contract until such time as we have the information and we are
satisfied.
Williams: You will never be committed to this project until you do sign that contract,
regardless of whatever action you take today. I say that you are committed
this, but you will not be committed finally until you have signed the
contract saying so. The next step after you take action is to obtain the
consent of the other two cities who are still waiting to take action, based
on what you do. Then our operating committee will authorize us to
Verbatim Transcript
City Council Meeting, January 26, 1995
Item #28
Page 5
proceed with the investigation of the area to verify the quantity and quality
of water available there. Once that is known, then we will finalize the
sale. So this is not the last step in the process, by any means. There is
time to incorporate assurances that I think I hear you saying you would
like to have that we have looked at the best available alternative sources in
the area.
Neugebauer: We don't have Mr. Ross here. I'm not sure, but when you vote on a
corporate resolution, which is what a Council resolution is, I'm not sure
whether the Mayor has the flexibility to not do that. I don't know that.
Cass: You can always amend this particular resolution and simply build those
assurances in to basically keep the body of the resolution as is.
Langston: Well, if your Mayor doesn't sign it...
Neugebauer: What are you going to do, fire him?
Mayor: Well, that's possible, but I guess the point would be that then you could
come back and amend the resolution or rescind the resolution and nothing
would keep you from doing that prior to the time the contract is signed. I
am very concerned and sensitive to the fact that we are going to be
resolving to obligate the City for about $28.8 million. Not only that, but
we are going to finance it. But, what I have heard from the staff of the
City and from the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority is that we
are essentially spending or committing to spend $28.8 million now so that
we can put off the expenditure of $140 million. This does not mean,
however, that we would simply stop work on trying to resolve the mineral
rights at Lake Alan Henry. What it simply means is that we won't start
building the pipeline or the pumping stations or the water treatment plant
for a longer period of time. Mr. Ellerbrook, did I summarize that
accurately.
Ellerbrook: I think that is entirely accurate. We cannot abandon the Lake Alan Henry
project. We will one day need that water; it will need to be resolved,
regardless of what we do today. Yes, you summed it up very well.
Neugebauer: And I agree. We talk about what made this area grow and what earlier
surveyors said, there is no wood, there is no water, and probably not a
habitable area. What made Lubbock, Texas, grow, certainly Texas Tech
played a vital part of it, but what started this area was water, and we have
Verbatim Transcript
City Council Meeting, January 26, 1995
Item #28
Page 6
to make sure that we have a continuous supply of water for the region.
But I am sensitive that if this was a business deal that I was in and I was
fixing to acquire your property, and right before I was fixing to close,
somebody came in and said something to me that might make me believe I
am not making a prudent purchase, I would have to step back from that
transaction and say, well, before I close I need to make sure that I still
have good data. That is the only thing I'm saying about it.
Ellerbrook: I would like to point out, as Mr. Williams said, before they actually
purchase these water rights, there are some quality testing and quantity
testing that has to be done, and obviously if those do not turn out
advantageous to the project, then I guess we are back to square one of
trying to find another source. So that is not totally out of the question that
that could happen. This resolution commits the City to the project. As Mr.
Williams said, not necessarily the final sale contract with the Quix
Corporation.
Ince: Terry, we use words like City of Lubbock is committed to this project with
this resolution, then we may say, well, we're not really finally committed
until we sign the final contract. Now, which is it? I was taught when you
gave your word on something, that was it, and you proceeded.
Ellerbrook: We are committing to the project.
Ince: We are committed to the project if we pass this resolution?
Ellerbrook: Yes, if the Quix water rights do not work out quality -wise and quantity -
wise, Mr. Williams would be in a position to try to find another source of
water, but we would be committed to the project.
Ince: But what Mr. Neugebauer has brought up is the fact that, are these the best
available water rights at the most effective cost. Is there some other data
out there that may have been done by some other agency that if we had a
possibility to look at, it would be more cost effective. I think that is what
he is saying. There has been a suggestion, we are really kind of chasing
this rabbit; we don't know if this suggestion has any merit to it or not, but
then we're asked to say we're going to commit on this resolution, but until
we sign the final contract we really haven't done anything. That is kind of
a oxymoron to me.
Verbatim Transcript
City Council Meeting, January 26, 1995
Item #28
Page 7
Neugebauer: Jean [Shotts], the discussion we're in right now is if we have some new
data that we want the staff and the Canadian River Authority to review
prior to executing the contract to purchase those water rights. What we
were talking about was if we made a motion today and passed this
resolution, but the Mayor did not sign the contract, which is what this
resolution authorizes him to do, is that an acceptable way to do it? I was
under the understanding that if the corporate body passes a resolution
giving authorization, is it authorization or is in mandation? [Jean Shotts'
response is inaudible.] That is kind of what I was...
Cass: I would feel very comfortable recommending to the Council, why don't
you delay it two weeks. I will call my counterpart in Amarillo. The
Mayor and I may want to call Mayor Selegar. I don't really anticipate that
will be a problem, just bring it back to you for formal action if you would
feel more comfortable with that approach. That would give Mr. Williams
time to check. All we're asking Mr. Williams to do is check with the
Bureau of Economic Geology, evaluate their data, which we would
assume could take place in two weeks. I will call the City Manager of
Amarillo and tell him we anticipate that we can make a decision in two
weeks and leave it at that.
Williams: Sir, Mayor, if I may make one further comment. The Bureau of Economic
Geology has been provided copies of the study report on this project; they
have not made any comments back to us stating that they don't believe this
is a viable area. We did not ask them for advice about where to go, but we
have consulted with them in a number of other areas and about a number
of related subjects. I think I know those people well enough to say that if
they thought there were a better area that we were failing to look at, they
would have pointed it out. However, I will be most happy to ask them for
that specific advice within the next two weeks if that is the will of the
Council.
Neugebauer: The problem I have, quite honestly, I just don't know that much about it.
It isn't that I don't have confidence in the staff recommendation nor yours,
but when you sit in this chair and somebody brings something to the table
that may or may not have any substance to it, I still believe we need to do
it.
Williams: Let me say, my expertise is not in ground water either. I'm a surface
water person, and I know more about surface water. So, I tend to rely on
the advice of people whom I do think know about ground water. This
Verbatim Transcript
City Council Meeting, January 26, 1995
Item #28
Page 8
study was reviewed not only by the E.G. and, as I said, we didn't get
specific comments from them, but the Texas Water Development Board,
who has ground water experts on their staff out their ears, have reviewed it
and I believe endorses the procedures that have been recommended. Your
own City staff knows about as much about ground water as any one in the
world, I suspect, and they have not pointed out any areas that they
investigated here that they felt we should be looking at. Nevertheless, I
will be happy to try to obtain whatever assurances will make you feel
better if you want to delay it.
Langston: Be that the pleasure of the Council? [Yes.] The pleasure of the Council
then would be that we put this on the next regular session agenda and take
it up at that time. Thank you very much, Mr. Williams, for your helpful
information, and same to you Mr. Ellerbrook.
gA 18918\council\cnnwa-x.doc