It was described to three Austin City Council members as a bank account for water.
In the water utility world, it's an underground space that could hold millions of gallons of extra water, and three Texas water industry big wigs said it could save the City of Austin, tens of millions of dollars.
The plan, called the Aquifer Storage and Recovery System, means storing excess water when you don't need it and using it when you do.
The technology's been in place in Texas since the 1950s, so it might seem strange that it would show up on the agenda of the Council Committee for Emerging Technology and Telecommunications, but it did.
Wednesday afternoon, three Austin City Council members listened to a roughly one-hour presentation about the feasibility of such a project here in Austin.
The three giving the presentation include Paul Thornhill, the former deputy manager of the Lower Colorado River Authority, James Dwyer, an engineer with the global company CH2M Hill and Philip Cook, director of Production for the San Antonio Water Systems (SAWS).
Thornhill told the council members that he got an unexpected call from a staff member of Councilwoman Laura Morrison asking him to put together a presentation.
He said it wasn't that hard for him to do. He said he simply had to dust off the original feasibility study done for the city back in 1996.
According to that study, "Aquifer Storage and Recovery has the potential to provide significant cost savings benefits to the City of Austin and to allow a major delay in infrastructure development."
The infrastructure development involves the $508 million Water Treatment Plant #4. In October, the city council is scheduled to either clear the way for construction to begin, or to once again put the project on hold.
City Councilwoman Laura Morrison said she has some serious questions about Austin's need for a new water treatment plant and is willing to look at all of the options.
"This adds another dimension to the conversation. So far it's been all about Water Treatment Plant #4. This gives us an alternative," Morrison said after the presentation.
Morrison also stressed that a storage and recovery system would not eliminate the future need for a new water treatment plant, it would simply delay the decision.
According to the 1996 feasibility study, an ARS would delay Austin's need for a new water treatment plant until 2022.
Two other Texas cities, San Antonio and Kerrville, currently use an Aquifer Storage and Recovery System. Texas City, down on the coast, is in the process of building one as way to avoid building an additional water treatment plant.
Austin's Mayor Lee Leffingwell said at this time he doesn't think a storage and recovery system would be a viable option.
"I don't think it's anything more than an extremely long-range option," Leffingwell said.
James Dwyer, an engineer with the company hired in 1996 to do the study, told the committee that across the nation, aquifer storage and recovery systems are "generally gaining momentum" as a cheaper option to huge infrastructure improvements such as water treatment plants.
"With or without Water Treatment Plant #4, the City of Austin needs to think about it," Morrison said.
They can think about, but there's not much time left before the Council will decide whether to build Water Treatment Plant #4 or weather to look at other options when it comes to the future of Austin's water supply.
For more detailed information as to how the system would work, view Thornhill's presentation by clicking the link.
