Last week’s news about the Edwards Aquifer made such a splash, why not take a rhetorical dive back into those choppy, political waters?

The concern, of course, is the growing desire to redirect conservation funds to other causes that aren’t so conservation oriented. You know, to things such as a stadium, transportation or even Alamo Plaza. For 15 years, thanks to repeated voter approval, the Edwards Aquifer Protection Program has been buying conservation easements to protect San Antonio’s most important water source from development. And once again, those funds are up for renewal.

The argument to make a change is that at what point does it all end? Fifteen years, to some, is a long time.

“What is the goal here?” asked City Councilman Joe Krier. “Are we going to buy up every last square acre of development rights in the state of Texas? In other words, when do we know that enough is enough?”

This is the same line of questioning Pat DiGiovanni, president and CEO of Centro San Antonio, raised to justify his interest in seeing aquifer protection funds flow his way downtown. Such seeds of doubt might be remotely salient if it weren’t for the Vista Ridge pipeline.

You remember Vista Ridge, right? Really, how could we forget?

The $3.4 billion pipeline will shuttle water 142 miles from Central Texas to San Antonio. City Council approved it unanimously. Centro San Antonio cheered for it.

And for understandable reasons: Vista Ridge has been promoted as a crucial project that will assure water diversity and security for the Alamo City, which is overly reliant on the Edwards.

That raises a rather obvious question, then, about Edwards Aquifer conservation: If we are going to spend billions to pipe in water from another part of the state, a seeming reflection of how important water is here, why would we abandon protecting our primary source of water that is incredibly inexpensive and right here?

“It is dirt cheap compared with the cost of bringing the water from other distant places to San Antonio,” former Mayor Phil Hardberger said. “It is by far the most economical way to go, so that problem is not solved because we have made a contract with Vista Ridge. In fact, it’s a danger of that contract that people say, 'Oh, we don’t want to protect our water. It’s not very important anymore.’ Actually, it is far more important than that contract.”

And that contract, by the way, is no assured thing. Plenty of resistance to Vista Ridge remains.

As for the question of when the conservation program should end, Hardberger’s answer was refreshingly blunt: “Never, probably,” he said.

Another answer to that question might be 2030. A recent study by consulting shop, LMI, predicted continuing the program through 2030 would provide complete protection of the Edwards Aquifer withdrawals in 2060.

Supported by a 1/8th cent sales tax, the Edwards Aquifer Protection Program is an elegant conservation solution. It is rare to see public policy work so well.

Through the purchase of conservation easements, the aquifer is protected, and private property rights are respected. A deal doesn’t happen without a willing seller.

The aquifer program and its associated linear parks program were first approved by voters in 2000. They have proved incredibly popular, with voters supporting their renewal in 2005 and 2010.

“They wanted to preserve this wonderful source for their children and grandchildren,” former City Councilwoman Bonnie Conner, who led the initial conservation effort, said of voters.

That’s the sentiment. Of course, the sales tax also generates a lot of cash: $335 million over the last 15 years. So, no one is surprised about the sudden interest in applying these funds to other purposes. There are many needs, and never enough funds.

But what makes this dash for cash so unsurprising also makes it so disconcerting: It dismisses the past and the future in one fell swoop. We don’t know if the conservation funds will be on the May or November ballot, or, more importantly, if the aim will still be conservation by the time the sales tax gets to voters. Given past success, that’s troubling.

“It’s concerning to me,” Conner said. “Because I feel like the public understands that this is a good, good program, and it’s something for the whole city.”

jbrodesky@express-news.net