Wimberley Infrastructure Segment

May I suggest a warming center or three given the increased likelihood of freezing winter weather and electrical outages in this area?

In 2009, I was asked to write a piece for the Hays County Roundup about the then currently on-going wastewater planning process in Wimberley. You can read the whole document at link, but here I will note this passage: "There is increasing recognition that the way we’ve always
done it may not be the way it should be done in the future. Today we face 21st century problems and issues. A system architecture developed to address the problems perceived in 19th century cities may not be the best response to these current realities in a small town, and it is by no means the only possible response, much as those running the planning process in Wimberley may like to assert that it is." As it appears from the current version of the Infrastructure chapter, those running the planning process in Wimberley STILL appear to assert that the 19th century model is the thing to do. But we STILL need to be moving to that 21st century model as the way forward in the Wimberley Valley. The task really needed here is to transition the water infrastructure model, not try to figure out how to keep the current model limping along.

And fifth, Along with this, a requirement that an LID-based stormwater management strategy would assure that at least as much rainfall would infiltrate on the developed project as infiltrated under the “native” condition of the site.

Also address the nature of landscaping, likely limiting irrigated turf in favor of native plantings. Also stress using subsurface drip irrigation to optimize irrigation efficiency.

All this would go a long ways toward putting “One Water” into the “One Water” plan.

Fourth, it must be understood that continued reliance on on-site wastewater systems need not be a "vulnerability", as these can also be designed to be effective reuse systems while providing superior environmental protection. On-site systems should be integrated into the overall wastewater management plan, which the readily can be under the decentralized concept strategy.

Third, 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.

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 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.

First, require 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.

None of what is in this infrastructure chapter meaningfully pursue any of the actual “One Water” strategies, and so none of it actually speaks to moving the community towards resilence. A set of actual "One Water" strategies the city could implement without any real cost to it, but which may carry significant benefits to the community is on offer, but it appears that this comments function won't accept a comment that is "too long". So I will try to piecemeal it in whatever number of comments are needed to convey these strategies.

Not sure what to do with the map, but this version doesn't work!

Should read : A 1.7 acre natural area adjacent to the Wimberley Community Center with designed wetland and wildlife viewing areas, designated for habitat conservation and passive recreation.

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