City of Kerrville Wastewater Reuse Pond (105 million gallon retention pond)

This project has been controversial from the beginning. What it entails is building a huge (105 million gallon) pond near the wastewater treatment plant and the landfill - close to Spur 100. This pond would displace a footprint about the size of the Riverhill Mall - including the mall parking area!

The City of Kerrville's reasoning for needing this pond is a) all "available" effluent is being used and they need more for the new Athletic Complex, Riverhill Country Club, Schreiner University and future effluent customers. These customers use the treated effluent water to water their property. And b) for future needs as Direct Potable Reuse water (DPR) - treated wastewater that would be distributed to Kerrville customers in place of the current drinking water.

While the premis is valid, the reasoning and need is questionable.

According to a statement by Todd Parton in the Kerrville Daily Times 9/10/2016 edition, he maintains that the City is “delivering 100 percent of flow that we have available to deliver.” According to the data given to George Baroody (who ran for Council Place 3 in 2016) he says that is a mis-representation of the facts. Mr Baroody cites the facts given him showing that in almost 10 years the city has only used the full amount of effluent they produce in one month in 2011. Except for that month, the City used less than 50% in any given week or month.

In addition, the wastewater being stored in this pond will be distributed to private enterprises such as Comanche Trace, Riverhills and Schrieiner University - and none of those enterprises will be paying for the cost of the distribution lines. Also, they will be paying a price per 1000 gallons well below the cost of repayment of the loan for the pond and distribution lines. While we favor these entities who use large amounts of water to maintain their facilities using wastewater instead of potable water, it is "bad business" to have the folks paying for water and sewer service subsidizing this venture. It makes more sense for the end users to pay the cost.

And finally. Most of the funds appropriated for the construction of this pond were via issuance of Certificates of Obligation (CO) bonds. We see this as a big problem with the way the City appropriates funds. The issuance of these bonds were never taken to the voters for their approval. While the Texas Municipal Code does not require cities to take COs to the voters, it seems only right that any Bonds issues be taken to the voters, other than ones issued for emergency situations (for example, a sewage lift station craters and needs replacement or repair immediately, and the funds are not readily available). Our opinion is any entity issuing COs in non-emergency situations should take these to the voters for their approval of the project, and bond issuance. We hope the new city administration sees this as a problem and takes measures to correct it.