Posted: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 09:23 AM - 6,890 Readers
By: Marty Toohey
The Austin City Council pushed forward plans for a $508 million water treatment plant late Thursday, but only after a move to slow the project failed and a rift emerged among council members.
The council selected a general contractor, Colorado-based MWH Constructors Inc., and decided to widen a Lake Travis-area road that would lead to the plant, committing an additional $6 million-plus to the project. The decision kept the city on pace to start construction in the spring.
But the final 6-1 vote was preceded by heated discussion that made clear the project's fate is far from certain. The city is planning a debate at a special meeting on Sept. 17 between plant advocates and critics that leads up to what could be a definitive vote in October.
"I think this will be the biggest item I'll be voting on as an elected official," said Council Member Randi Shade, who voted Thursday to move the project forward but emphasized she didn't know how she would vote in the end.
A coalition of environmental activists insist the facility, which would be Austin's third water treatment plant, would be an unnecessary extravagance, at least in the near future. They say Austin should instead be focusing on more aggressive water-conservation efforts.
But the city's water utility is equally insistent that plant construction needs to start in the spring to ensure that Austin doesn't face water shortages as early as 2014, even with aggressive conservation efforts.
The debate is best summed up by two line graphs, both of which project Austin's future water use.
One, created by the city, shows Austin's water demand rising and thus supports the need for the treatment plant. Another, created by environmentalists, shows Austin's water demand declining.
"One of the frustrating things is, we have these dueling graphs," Council Member Laura Morrison said Thursday night.
A plant skeptic, Morrison asked council members to delay selecting a general contractor until they had better understood the differences between the two versions of Austin's future water use. Two other council members, Chris Riley and Bill Spelman, voted with Morrison.
Spelman, citing the financial pinch many families are now facing, said before the vote, "This is the worst possible time for a $508 million capital expenditure."
Mayor Lee Leffingwell responded that "the only reason to delay ... is if you think (the plant) won't be needed." He and Council Members Mike Martinez, Sheryl Cole and Shade nixed the delay and voted to the move the project forward.
Having failed to secure a delay, Riley and Spelman reversed their previous positions and also voted to move it forward but emphasized they were not sold.
"I'm willing to grit my teeth and go along with this to keep my options open," Riley said.
By 10:30 p.m. Thursday, when the council took up the treatment-plant discussion, most of the 73 people signed up to speak had gone home.
But critics still sounded off. Bill Bunch, the director of the Save Our Springs Alliance, accused the city of misrepresenting the plant's cost and put the tab at more than $1 billion when interest payments were factored in.
Others spoke in favor of the plant. Erica Estetter, executive director of the Austin Asian American Chamber of Commerce, said the plant would be a sort of local economic stimulus package, an argument also made by black and Hispanic contractors associations.
Harry Savio, executive vice president of the Home Builders Association of Greater Austin, said the city neglected its sewer infrastructure in the 1980s to its detriment, adding, "The work force needs jobs, and the community needs the economic stimulus that comes with it."
