It is illegal to discharge treated effluent into the Highland Lakes. But that could change – and that notion that does not sit well with many Lake Travis area community leaders.

Leander and Granite Shoals have petitioned the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to lift the ban, which would allow those entities to discharge wastewater from a proposed new facility into Lake Travis [Rulemaking to repeal the Highland Lakes discharge ban — Docket No. 2009-1586-RUL].
There has been no shortage of opponents to the petition. That was obvious Nov. 13 at a press conference held at the Lower Colorado River Authority’s Jack Miller Building on Lake Austin Blvd. There, District 47 Rep. Valinda Bolton, D-Austin, District 51 Rep. Eddie Rodriguez, D-Austin, Lakeway Mayor Dave DeOme, Austin Mayor Lee Leffingwell, Lake Travis Chamber of Commerce President Laura Mitchell and Past Lake Travis Chamber of Commerce Chair Beth Byer, stood in unison against the proposed discharge permit.
“The very stark reality is that our drinking water is in jeopardy,” Bolton said. “Despite recent rains, we are still in a drought that rivals — if it does not exceed – the record drought of the 1950s. Our water supply is declining faster than Mother Nature is replenishing it. While we may not be in control ‘if,’ or ‘when’ water might fall from the heavens — we can control the quality of our water.”
For more than two decades, there has been a ban on discharging effluent into the Highland Lakes. In addition to Lake Travis, the chain of lakes along the Colorado River include Lake Buchanan, Inks Lake, Lake LBJ, Lake Marble Falls, and Lake Austin. And while not a part of the official chain of lakes, Lady Bird Lake is the next lake down from Lake Austin in the City of Austin.
There are other lakes and rivers that allow treated effluent. Both San Marcos and New Braunfels allow effluent treated to a standard near that of drinking water to be discharged into the San Marcos and Comal rivers respectively. However — despite the high commitment to quality at those wastewater treatment plants — both rivers have experienced issues that some enviromentalists associate with the introduction of treated effluent — regardless of the quality — into pristine waterways. The most obvious problem is algae growing in areas where it hadnever been seen prior to allowing the discharge. While the effluent would be treated for bacteria, the process would not remove nitrogen and phosphorus. Both are nutrients used by plants to grow.
Lake Travis, which was commonly listed as a reservior by the LCRA during the 1990s in dozens of docments obtained by the Lake Travis View, is recognized as one of the four clearest lakes in Texas. But there are fears that an increase in nutrient levels as a result of effluent being discharged into the lake would essentially be fertilizer for existing algae. Overgrowth of algae or algae blooms causes degradation of water quality and clarity.
More than 1 million residents rely on Lake Travis for their drinking water.
Bolton argued that small businesses in the Lake Travis area depend on the lake for business as a result of recreational usage. Local large businesses like Samsung and Spansion need water with low organic carbon profiles.
The repesentative pointed out that both Samsung and Spansion have written comment letters to TCEQ requesting that the above referenced petition be denied stating it would detrimental and costly to their current operations.
The TCEQ was scheduled to discuss and possibly act on the measure during its Nov. 18 meeting — after the Lake Travis View’s deadline.
We will cover the meeting a post any decisions on our web site, www.laketravisview.com, as well as include a follow-up story in our Nov. 26 edition.
“This is not a request [by Leander and Granite Shoals] to temporarily lift the ban — nor will it apply to Leander and Granite Shoals,” Bolton said. “Currently, there are 34 permitted wastewater facilities in the Lake Travis watershed. All would have the right to discharge into the lake, if the ban is lifted. Imagine if all of them could discharge into the lake? Currently, only one grandfathered plant can discharge into the lake, and the remaining 33 use their effluent to treat golf courses, parklakes, common lands and cedar breaks,
“So there are alternatives for Leander and Granite Shoals to reuse wastewater, instead of dumping it into Lake Travis,” Bolton continued. “These cities do not need the ban to be lifted in order to supply water to their citizens or discharge effluent. They are motivated by a desire to keep costs down by just $4 million. That does not justify endangering the health of the lake, as well as putting the health of our citizens and our businesses at risk.”
For Lakeway Mayor Dave DeOme, the choice facing the TCEQ is clear.
“In this particular case, I think once you start down the wrong road, you’re never going to get back,” DeOme said. “It’s like once you crack the egg you are never going to be able to put it back in the shell. It’s the same thing here. Once you start putting fertilizer back in the lake — you are never going to get the quality of the lake back.”
DeOme said the municipalities requesting the rule change have easy alternative options at their disposal.
“The fact that there is a very easy way for these cities to handle their problem — namely to buy land and spray the water on the land — which is something that people have to keep in mind,” DeOme said. “Approximately 35 to 36 wastewater treatment plants have already done that, so this is not new technology. This is done all the time.
“These municipalities need to step up to the plate and they need to buy the land to spray the water on or find some kind of customer,” DeOme continued. “What the Lakeway Muncipal Utilities District has found is there are a lot of customers for this water. In our case, we have a lot of golf courses in our town that buy this water. There are a couple of shopping centers that are customers.”
DeOme suggested the two cities should see the situation from what he believes is the larger persepctive.
“If these two cities thought about this, they would find customers who would gladly buy this water from them,” DeOme said. “
In October, the Travis County Commissioners Court passed a resolution submitted by Pct. 3 Commissioner Karen Huber which strongly opposed the petition to TCEQ to repeal a 23-year rule prohibiting municipal wastewater treatment facilities from discharging treated effluent into the Highland Lakes.
Huber’s opposition to the rescission of the TCEQ rule is based upon clear evidence presented by the LCRA which demonstrates that lifting the ban would result in an increase in algae levels that would cause a degradation of water quality in Lake Travis.
Huber shared the same points of opposition as other opponents, noting a decline in the water quality of Lake Travis is a health and safety issue that also impacts the potential for sustainable economic growth.
According to Huber, the purity of the water is a significant driver in the recreational use of the lake and the businesses that support it.
“When individual communities petition to make changes that can have potential adverse impacts beyond their jurisdictions, it is important to consider those impacts to the region as a whole,” Huber said. “Likewise, when population growth stretches the resources of small communities and their capacity to deal with issues like wastewater, it is time to ask ourselves if we shouldn’t begin to look at how to solve these problems as a region, rather that locally?