×

Warning message

The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.

Wimberley One Water Study

File name:

-

File size:

-

Title:

-

Author:

-

Subject:

-

Keywords:

-

Creation Date:

-

Modification Date:

-

Creator:

-

PDF Producer:

-

PDF Version:

-

Page Count:

-

Page Size:

-

Fast Web View:

-

Choose an option Alt text (alternative text) helps when people can’t see the image or when it doesn’t load.
Aim for 1-2 sentences that describe the subject, setting, or actions.
This is used for ornamental images, like borders or watermarks.
Preparing document for printing…
0%

Click anywhere in the document to add a comment. Select a bubble to view comments.

Document is loading Loading Glossary…

Summary

All Hide

One Water Study Review

Expand

1.0 One Water Executive Summary

The Wimberley Valley faces converging water challenges – rapid population growth, recurrent droughts, and a finite groundwater supply from the Middle Trinity Aquifer. This One Water Plan provides a comprehensive strategy to ensure a resilient and sustainable water future for Wimberley.

2.0 Background and Purpose

Wimberley is a small city with an outsized reliance on natural water resources.  The groundwater and surface water are one interconnected system in Wimberley – what happens underground directly impacts the flows in our creeks and the health of our ecosystems.

3.0 One Water Principles & Integrated Management

“One Water” is a transformative framework for water management that treats all water as a unified resource. Instead of segregating responsibilities for drinking water, wastewater, storm runoff, etc., the One Water approach seeks to manage the urban water cycle holistically for greater efficiency and sustainability. The

4.0 Current Water Supply and System Overview

Water service in and around the City of Wimberley is provided primarily by two entities — Aqua Texas, Inc. and the Wimberley Water Supply Corporation (WWSC) — each operating under Certificates of Convenience and Necessity (CCNs) granted by the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC).

5.0 Aquifer Protection & Spring Flow Preservation

There is strong science to support the discontinuing of wells in discrete zones of the JMZ, to protect and regain flow to Jacobs Well Spring. The  importance of springs of this nature to the community, in terms of tourism and cultural value, cannot be understated.

Land Conservation Strategy_Jacob's Well

Drawing from proven regional models, Wimberley and Hays County can significantly expand aquifer protection efforts through a multi-faceted approach combining public land acquisition, voter-approved bonds, and private conservation partnerships.

6.0 Water Supply Diversification

Diversification is the cornerstone of resilience. Wimberley currently depends almost entirely on groundwater from the Middle Trinity Aquifer — a single, drought-prone source. The One Water Plan charts a 30-year transition toward a multi-source portfolio.

7.0 Infrastructure & System Efficiency

Diversifying supply must go hand-in-hand with optimizing infrastructure. Wimberley’s water infrastructure – much of which is operated by Wimberley Water Supply Corporation, and to a lesser extent, Aqua Texas, includes wells, pump stations, storage tanks, and distribution pipelines serving homes and businesses.

8.0 Policy and Planning Tools for Sustainability

Technical solutions alone will not guarantee success without a supportive policy framework and proactive planning. Wimberley must strengthen its water-related policies, ordinances, and planning processes to reinforce the One Water approach and ensure long-term conservation of resources.

9.0 Community Engagement

Water resilience is not just an engineering or regulatory matter – it is fundamentally about people’s behaviors, values, and cooperation. Wimberley’s residents, businesses, and neighbors must be partners in this One Water journey.

10.0 Regional Collaboration

Wimberley is part of a larger hydro-geographic system – water doesn’t stop at city limits. Wimberley is part of a shared watershed and aquifer system that crosses multiple jurisdictions.

11.0 Implementation, Monitoring, and Conclusion

Implementing the One Water Plan will require disciplined project management, phased investment, and continued stakeholder engagement.

Education, Training and Outreach Events

One Water Study and related BCWPP ILA partners 2024- 25

State of the Water Survey Summary

This survey reflects strong engagement and deep concern among Hill Country residents about the future of Wimberley’s water supply.

Implementation Priorities

List of priorities, recommendations, timeframe, and estimated cost of implementation.

AI Tools

Hide

Welcome to your personal document assistant, powered by AI.

You can ask me questions and I will review the document to provide answers with page references for you. Please be patient, it might take a second and note that I might not always get it right - if you have questions it's easy to check the page sources or contact staff to clarify.

Start with a general question and then follow up with additional questions to narrow the focus of the response if needed.

What would you like to know?

Powered by Konveio

Comments

View all Cancel

Add comment


Suggestion
What does "One Water Ready" mean? You either follow those practices or you stick with conventional practice. Where is there any middle ground? How would a development move from conventional to "One Water" practice AFTER it was installed? What is the actual plan here?
Suggestion
Also very light on actual "One Water" practices and strategy, save the LID item. On water and wastewater, TOTALLY focused on keeping the prevailing, essentially 19th century strategies limping along, NO indications of how practice would transition to "One Water".
Suggestion
Hardly ANYTHING in this table would implement any actual "One Water" practice. So how did these become the "Priorities for One Water for a Resilient Wimberley"? On what basis?
Suggestion
What does "rainwater readiness" mean? You do it or you don't, there is no middle ground.
Suggestion
Impervious Cover limit varies by zoning district. City Center allows 90% impervious and 100% impervious cover on the square.
Suggestion
Instead of such a "dim" rule as this, look at the Zero Net Water concept. Require every new project to evaluate using building-scale RWH as THE water supply strategy on an apples-to-apples basis with the "normal" supply sources, and to use RWH whenever that is indicated.
Suggestion
Okay, you're saying a lot of the right words here, so it would seem a small step to organize all this into a strategy that maximizes the benefits being pursued and touted here. That is, to make the decentralized concept strategy, with reuse designed into the very fabric of development, the mainstream mode of implementing wastewater management. Again, of course, you've got to lay out that strategy and show how and why to do things that way. But that is exactly what has been avoided throughout this whole section.
Suggestion
What do you mean by "unlikely to be sewered"? Serving developments with "small-scale cluster treatment systems" IS a form of "sewering". What you are suggesting here is to employ the decentralized concept strategy. So now "all" you have to do is get your head around this being a mainstream strategy, preferred for ALL development. Can you make that leap?
Suggestion
Absolutely require that on-site systems be reuse systems to the maximum extent practical. OSSFs that provide stable, readily manageable high quality pretreatment and subsurface drip irrigation dispersal have been permitted in Central Texas for 30 years. It is readily doable, and should be made a required standard practice.
Suggestion
You address this by doing distributed irrigation reuse in subsurface drip irrigation fields. This not only sequesters the water underground, making any hazard of human contact vanishingly small, but also maximizing irrigation efficiency.
Suggestion
What the heck does this mean? For what reason would not reuse just be designed into the very fabric of development from the git-go? Again, by moving practice to the decentralized concept strategy.
Suggestion
Why "greywater reuse"? If you're going to get into distributed reuse systems, there is little merit in separating the flows, rather it would be most efficient to treat and reuse the entire flow at/near the point of wastewater generation. Again, the decentralized concept strategy.
Suggestion
You see, that's the rub here, you'd have to spend the money to install the redistribution system to pursue this "purple pipe" reuse system. Again, to the extent that the flow already running to the central treatment plant can be effectively reused, figure out how and where to do that most cost efficiently. But going forward, STOP putting all your eggs in that basket and start serving new development, and retrofits too, with the decentralized concept strategy. Including the integration of on-site reuse systems into the overall wastewater management system.
Suggestion
On what basis is this a "big leap forward"? Yes, means need to be derived to make the best use of the water that is unfortunately already being gathered from hither and yon to one centralized point source, a system in which a large majority of resources are dedicated to just moving water around. Which would be exacerbated by adding on the pipes and pumps to redistribute the water from the central plant. But going forward the water should be treated and reused as close to where it is generated as practical, as for example it is in the Blue Hole Elementary school system. That is, to stop centralizing new flows and start serving development with the decentralized concept strategy. Of course, this document needs to impart an understanding of that concept, of how and why to address this societal function in that manner. Which it doesn't, so maybe that's the first thing to fix?
Suggestion
Indeed, there is no such thing as wastewater. And what is needed is a strategy for developing wastewater service that addresses this water as a resource right from its very point of generation. Rather than spending a large majority of the resources dedicated to this societal function on making what is perceived solely as a nuisance to "go away", and only when the water gets to "away" is there any thought given to how to realize the resource value of the water. What is needed to move to the decentralized concept strategy, to transform the water infrastructure model, rather than just see what can be done to keep the current model limping along.
Suggestion
Third, it must be understood that continued reliance on on-site wastewater systems need not be a "vulnerability", as these can be designed to be effective reuse systems while providing superior environmental protection. The integration into and management of on-site systems as part and parcel of the whole integrated wastewater system could be readily accommodated under the decentralized concept strategy.

Raising the obvious matter that the decentralized concept has to be presented and folks brought to understand how and why to do things that way. A chapter has been written about that, which does not appear to have made it into this "One Water" document.
Suggestion
Second, if RWH is to be the strategy for supplying interior usage, the project shall be organized and designed to maximize wastewater reuse for irrigation water supply. This will rather favor the decentralized concept strategy, focused on irrigation reuse in subsurface drip irrigation fields, unless the project just happens to be well positioned relative to whatever “purple pipe” lines are to be built. Of course the plan must contain a review of what the decentralized concept is and how to do it.

If RWH is not chosen for interior use supply, it MUST be implemented to provide irrigation water supply. The only situation in which the development would be “excused” from this requirement to consider RWH would be if the project site has piped water service to it and there would be NO grounds irrigation as part of the project plan.

Basically, it should be assured to the maximum extend deemed practical that irrigation water supply be provided by some combination of RWH and wastewater reuse. Perhaps going so far as to ban use of potable water supply for landscape irrigation.
Suggestion
It appears that meaningful diversification is merely an aspiration, as no actual means of moving practice to "One Water" concepts is presented. It is found that a comment that could set forth a set of strategies that would meaningfully move practice toward "One Water" appears to be "too long", so this set of strategies will be piecemealed over several comments.

First, require ACTUAL consideration of building-scale RWH in place of wells or extending a piped water system to the project as the “main” water supply strategy, for interior usage. This would circumvent the apparent presumption that building-scale RWH is “not feasible” or any such, no matter the circumstances of the project, and require that this decision be based on actual apples-to-apples evaluation against the “normal” strategies. The manner of evaluating the system requirements should be “standardized”, perhaps specifying the sort of monthly model that I created about 20 years ago. Maybe include a “right-sized” table. Would have to entail consideration of how any backup supply needed would be assured.
Suggestion
This appears to be just a catch as catch can "idea" that green infrastructure should be, uh, considered. What is needed are rules that make that simply the way stormwater management is practiced. Need to create a rule that requires provisions to assure that at least as much rainfall as infiltrates on the "native" site would continue to infiltrate on the developed site, rather than the increased runoff caused by development being allowed to flow "away".
Question
What is cooling tower make-up?
Question
Converting 500 homes to rainwater only reduces 5% of local demand? I would think that is way higher.
Question
The golf course in Woodcreek is already doing this right?
Suggestion
The parks are setup with rainwater harvesting. I am not sure that we are irrigating at these parks. I am skeptical of this 15-20% figure. The one golf course is already using effluent. I guess the high school field is using water but I also think it may be turf? Wouldn't converting to turf and requiring native landscapes be a more efficient and less expensive plan? I think some more citations and support for this recommendation is needed.
Question
They utilize an on-site septic system right? And the soccer field is the drainfield? Not purple pipe from a treatment plant.
Suggestion
This gets pretty technical. Maybe a short geology section that explains these things?
Suggestion
Look at the formatting for this section. I wouldn't suggest putting it entirely in italics.
Suggestion
Entire section needs the links fixed.
Suggestion
Review this sentence.
Suggestion
I am guessing these are meant to be links.
Suggestion
Need to look at.
Suggestion
Need to fix.
Suggestion
This has already been stated a few times.
Suggestion
Is this important information? The AI use is very evident in this entire section.
Suggestion
Link is behind a paywall.
Suggestion
Definitely need to highlight this! I was not aware of this and I am positive that everyone believes the golf course is using treated effluent.
Suggestion
This paragraph seems very AI generated. I apologize if that is not the case but it is difficult for me to understand what this means.
Suggestion
Websites change. Probably not a useful statement in this kind of document.
Suggestion
I would provide hard numbers here. Doubled is too vague.
Question
I don't understand the purpose of this quote.
Question
I remember hearing that continued study was inconclusive as to whether it was the E. coli levels were caused by OSSFs? That it was more likely attributed to the bat colony. Did E. coli levels drop after the installation of the centralized sewer?
Suggestion
May want to make a distinction here. The City of Wimberley has not grown significantly in the past decade and we are projecting a very slow growth rate for the next decade.
Question
Where are we at right now?
Suggestion
Sentence fragment.
Suggestion
This is not necessarily true. It varies heavily by zoning district. From 20% to 70%.
Question
What supports this finding? I ask because the City of Wimberley does very little to no irrigation at any of its parks. I am wondering where that irrigation use is taking place and how we came to determine that it would offset 15-20% of our water usage.
Suggestion
May want to include a legend and what each colored circle represents. May possibly add city limits to give readers an idea of how this relates to city of Wimberley geographically.
in reply to Chris's comment
Your comments have been noted and will be incorporated into the final draft Comprehensive Plan.
Suggestion
1. This is the strongest section of the Comprehensive Plan. Congratulations to the authors.
2. Harvested rainwater is not found water, because were it not captured, it would returns to the aquifer and therefore stay in the system. Ditto for repaired Aqua Texas lines and captured stormwater, because otherwise that water would also return to the aquifer. The issue then becomes what are the costs of the various solutions that One Water suggests. Although costs of four of the solutions are shown at the end of the report , a comparative cost-benefit analysis of all the solutions, including imported water, on, say, a thousand gallons per year over the lifetime of the asset, might make the point that re-pumping "wasted" water is more expensive. It might also help the City focus on the most cost-effective solutions first.
Suggestion
another reference to the importance of cooperation across jurisdictions would be warranted here.
Suggestion
City entrance signage can also by used for this purpose.