A passing mention of reuse is the sum total of "resilience" on offer here, it seems. One gets the impression that Wimberley does not actually want to move toward resilience, rather only to pose that it does. EVERY project must be required to evaluate the full range of options for wastewater management, instead of just presuming that the only option is to connect to the conventional "organized" wastewater system. Again, many situations -- Blue Hole elementary again being a high profile case in point -- could be well and cost efficiently addressed with distributed management schemes -- I can show you how. Most of those could no doubt readily have reuse designed into the very fabric of the development. And again, every on-site system could be a reuse system, treating the water to high quality and dispersing it in a subsurface drip irrigation field. I can show you exactly how to do that too.

Okay, here we have a reference to rainwater harvesting, not posed as a water supply strategy but "merely" as preserving natural resources. Why is this strategy not front and center, why is it not set forth that every development MUST incorporate RWH to the maximum extent "feasible" (recognizing of course the fungible nature of that word)? Now THAT would be an actual step towards resilience.

Can you help me out here? Just what the heck do you find "resilient" about just extending and perpetuating the existing 19th century water infrastructure model, just doing more of the same? Where is consideration of rainwater harvesting -- whole new developments could be on that, significantly relieving the already strained groundwater supply? Where is consideration of distributed wastewater management, focusing on husbanding the RESOURCE rather than only on making a perceived nuisance to "go away"? Where is consideration of LID stormwater management?

The stormwater section also is devoid any semblance of pursuing resiliency. Maybe that name was meant to just be "ironic"? Nothing about LID, about holding on the land in the developed condition as much rainfall as infiltrated under "native" conditions, so that the land is not desertified as it is developed.

The wastewater section is a very "boilerplate" review of the conventional wastewater system. Appearing to come from a headspace that this system is the sum total of wastewater management in/around Wimberley. And rooted in the tacit presumption that the whole aim of wastewater management is to make a perceived nuisance to "go away". When what we really need it to be about is husbanding that water RESOURCE. So there should be discussion of such things as the Blue Hole elementary "One Water" school, offering such as a pattern for creating distributed wastewater management systems, in lieu of just routing ever more flow to the centralized treatment plant, to make the water "go away". It needs to become a principle that wastewater reuse is to be maximized, serving the local water economy by "creating" that water supply, as well doing a better job of protecting the water environment. Indeed, every on-site system could be a reuse system, and a whole lot of new, and existing, development could be so addressed, to indeed create a resilient wastewater system in/around Wimberly. Not just review the sclerotic conventional system as it that is the sum total of wastewater management in Wimberley.

The entirety of the water system review is just a rundown on the existing well-supplied water system. One wonders where is the analysis and review of how to shunt off some water supply to building-scale rainwater harvesting, whether that be with whole-house supply systems or only to defray irrigation demands. Without that, it is quite the stretch to tout this plan as addressing resilience in the Wimberley valley.

2024

the responsibility

Should this be the Blanco River?

Should this be Cypress Creek?

?

gallon

groundwater is one word