Years before the term CodeNext graced the lips of city officials, Austin’s biggest political fight reached an end. Council members approved the construction of Water Treatment Plant 4.

For more than three decades, urban planners and environmentalists battled about the need for another water treatment plant, with its intake on Lake Travis. Advocates said it was crucial for projected population growth. Opponents feared it would spur growth in the western part of the city and dissuade water conservation efforts.

Good thing the plant advocates won, many of them said this week, as flood-driven silt overwhelmed the city's three water treatment plants, greatly reducing their production capacity and resulting in a boil-water notice for Austinites.

Water Treatment Plant 4, which serves northwestern Travis County and opened in 2014, has not fared as well as the Davis plant in recent days, but has done better than the Ullrich Plant, which failed a water quality test and has been powered down at times this week.

Plant 4 typically treats 30 to 40 million gallons a day, but since turbid water compromised the city's three plants, it has been producing 15 to 20 million gallons daily, according to Austin Water Director Greg Meszaros. Davis has been producing 50 to 60 million gallons, and Ullrich's output has been erratic. Together, the plants have treated a third to half of the city's typical daily use, which can run from 120 to 175 million gallons this time of year.

Without Plant 4?

“Oh, my gosh,” Meszaros said. “We wouldn’t have had that solid 15 MGD (million gallons a day) over the last few days. I don’t think we could have kept the north system in water.”

He pointed to a graph of hourly water usage and production to show that, even though Plant 4 has produced the least amount of treated water in recent days, every drop counts in a crisis.

“You can see on (Sunday), we were only producing 50 MGD; Plant 4 was probably 15 MGD of that,” Meszaros said. “It’s part of the puzzle, but I don’t want it to appear like I’m exploiting this to make Plant 4 the hero, because it was very controversial.”

.embed-container { position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.25%; height: 0; overflow: hidden; max-width: 100%; } .embed-container iframe, .embed-container object, .embed-container embed { position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%; }

A bitter political fight

Indeed, the plant's advocates were quick to recall the debate over the plant this week, criticizing some of their opponents at the time, including former City Council Member Laura Morrison, who is running for mayor, and Council Member Kathie Tovo, who is running for re-election.

“As an engineer, building that plant was always about redundancy,” said Danielle Skidmore, a civil engineer running against Tovo in Central Austin’s District 9. “This was about making sure we had enough supply and a backup in case of an emergency, quite frankly, like this.”

Morrison remained firm in her stance that Plant 4 was not needed.

“There is some interesting Monday morning quarterbacking going on,” she said Thursday.

Morrison voted against building the new plant while she was on the council in 2009, calling it a case of “building the treatment plant so we can water our lawns twice a week instead of once a week.” This week, she noted that Austin's per capita water use has continued to decline over the years and said there are more cost-effective ways to address the city's water resiliency than the new plant.

“In times of crisis, it is not the time for pointing fingers and throwing political punches,” she said.

Tovo was elected in 2011 after making the water plant the central pillar of her campaign against former Council Member Randi Shade. Shade was the deciding vote in the 4-3 decision to build the $500 million plant. Shade this week called the vote “political suicide” for herself but said she didn’t regret it.

“It turns out we needed it by 2018,” Shade said. “When you make a hard decision, you don’t often get to know if it is right. This might be one where I get to know.”

After her election, Tovo ultimately voted to continue the plant's construction, after projections found that halting the work would waste upwards of $100 million. She said Thursday that she didn’t want to second-guess the decisions from that time but hopes to learn from what’s happening now.

“One of the messages I hope we take from (this crisis) is the need to really diversify our water sources,” she said. “What we’re seeing with this extraordinary event is that all three water treatment plants are drawing from the same lake.”

Bobby Levinski, an environmental lawyer running for City Council in southwestern Austin’s District 8, was a Morrison staffer during the Plant 4 debate and also opposed its construction. He said he still thinks the plant was a mistake and, like Tovo, pointed to its location on Lake Travis, which is supplied by the same river as the treatment plants on Lake Austin.

Plant 4 replaced the former Green Water Treatment Plant in downtown Austin, which drew water from the Edwards Aquifer via Barton Creek. Aerial photographs taken this week showed the clear, opal green water of Barton Creek flowing into a chocolate-colored Lady Bird Lake.

Then and now

Various people have referred to the political fight over Plant 4 as the CodeNext of its time. It was a tussle that lasted longer than the battle regarding the Save Our Springs ordinance, but it also pitted environmentalists, who lobbied the council not to build the plant but instead encourage conservation, versus the Chamber of Commerce and real estate groups, who argued that the plant was needed because of the city's expanding population.

The issue dates to at least 1975, when a consultant's study recommended constructing a water treatment plant to draw water from Lake Travis. The lake is deeper than other local water sources, making it a preferable option during droughts. Construction bids were issued in 1986, but the project was stymied by an economic downturn.

Opposition first centered around the plant's proposed location along Bull Creek, an environmentally sensitive area near Lake Travis. When the city discovered the presence of the endangered Jollyville Plateau salamander at the site, the future of the proposed project became uncertain. In 2007, city staffers located what became the final site, absent the salamander.

The 2009 vote was the first of many divisive votes as the council rolled out contracts for the plant. Then-Mayor Lee Leffingwell said completing the plant was “the major event” of his elected career because of how bitter the fight was.

As Austin now looks to its water future, ideas are being formed about how to increase the reuse of water and possibly create “aquifer storage” — a system of underground reservoirs that could be tapped when needed. The drafting of a city plan called "Water Forward" has been underway for years.

The City Council was supposed to receive its first briefing about the plan next week. Ironically, the briefing likely will be postponed because of the water crisis, Tovo said.

David Foster, Texas Director of Clean Water Action, pointed to lessons Austin can draw from its current situation. Hotter, drier periods punctuated by heavier rainfall will become more common with climate change, making events like those of the past week more common, he said. Different methods of storing water and finding more sources for it will be critical.

Foster, like many environmentalists, opposed building Plant 4. Asked if he was now second-guessing his stance, he was thoughtful.

“It’s a fair question, but expanding our existing treatment plants instead of building a new one might have solved the problem,” he said. “There were viable options to building an entirely new water treatment plant, so I’m not ready yet to say, ‘They were right, we were wrong.’”