$351 million in San Antonio taxpayer money wasted if proposed wastewater treatment plant approved, neighbor says – KSAT

Report on Proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant and its Conflict with Sustainable Development Goals in Bexar County

Executive Summary

A proposed wastewater treatment facility in northwest Bexar County, intended to serve a new 2,500-home development by Lennar Construction, has generated significant public concern. The facility’s planned location within the Helotes Creek watershed poses a direct threat to the Edwards Aquifer, the primary source of drinking water for 1.7 million San Antonio residents. This development conflicts with substantial local investment in water protection and raises critical questions regarding the alignment of urban growth with key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those concerning clean water, sustainable communities, and ecosystem preservation.

Conflict Analysis and Background

The core of the conflict lies in the potential discharge of treated wastewater into a watershed that directly recharges the Edwards Aquifer. This issue is magnified by the community’s long-term financial commitment to protecting this vital resource.

• Proposed Project: Lennar Construction requires a new wastewater treatment plant to support a large-scale housing development. The permit for this plant is pending approval from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ).
• Environmental Risk: Researchers and residents argue that effluent from the plant, even if treated to regulatory standards, could introduce contaminants into the aquifer, potentially rendering the water supply undrinkable and jeopardizing public health.
• Financial Contradiction: San Antonio taxpayers have invested $351 million in the Edwards Aquifer Protection Program (EAPP). This program preserves land to prevent development that could harm the aquifer. The proposed plant is seen as directly undermining the purpose and financial investment of the EAPP.

Implications for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The proposed project presents a direct challenge to the achievement of several interconnected SDGs.

1. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation
   • Target 6.1: The project threatens the “safe and affordable drinking water for all” by risking the contamination of the Edwards Aquifer, which serves 1.7 million people.
   • Target 6.3: While the project involves wastewater treatment, its location could degrade water quality by discharging effluent into a sensitive recharge zone, conflicting with the goal of “improving water quality by reducing pollution.”
2. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • Target 11.6: The development highlights a failure to “reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities,” specifically concerning water quality and management. It prioritizes housing expansion over the protection of essential environmental infrastructure.
3. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • Target 15.1: The EAPP is a model for achieving the “conservation and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems.” The proposed plant would directly counteract these conservation efforts by degrading the Helotes Creek watershed and the Edwards Aquifer ecosystem it supports.
4. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • Target 3.9: Potential contamination of the primary drinking water source directly increases the risk of public illness from water pollution, opposing the goal to “substantially reduce… deaths and illnesses from… water… contamination.”

Stakeholder Positions

Local Residents and Advocates

• Residents, such as Lisa Muyres-Pack, a participant in the EAPP, express that the project insults and nullifies the community’s conservation efforts and financial contributions.
• The primary concern is that the economic benefit to the developer comes at the expense of long-term environmental security and public health for the entire region.
• The argument is made that allowing the development negates the purpose of the EAPP, which uses taxpayer funds to purchase development rights to protect the aquifer.

City of San Antonio

• The City has acknowledged awareness of the permit request and the public concerns.
• It confirmed that no EAPP funds have been invested in the Guajolote Ranch project itself.
• The City’s official statement emphasizes the need for a scientific study to properly assess the potential water quality impacts.
• It reiterated its commitment to the EAPP, which has successfully preserved over 187,000 acres of sensitive land to safeguard the community’s water source.

Lennar Construction

• The developer has not responded to media inquiries regarding the environmental impacts or the concerns raised by residents and researchers.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article discusses issues that are directly connected to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The primary focus on drinking water quality, wastewater management, and ecosystem protection links the article to the following SDGs:

• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

  This is the most prominent SDG in the article. The core conflict revolves around protecting the primary source of drinking water (the Edwards Aquifer) for 1.7 million people from potential contamination by a proposed wastewater treatment plant. This directly addresses the goal of ensuring the availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  The issue originates from a proposed urban development project by Lennar Construction to build 2,500 homes. This plan and its required infrastructure, the wastewater treatment plant, raise questions about sustainable urbanization, land-use planning, and the environmental impact of city expansion on vital natural resources.

• SDG 15: Life on Land

  The article highlights the protection of the Edwards Aquifer and the Helotes Creek watershed, which are critical inland freshwater ecosystems. The Edwards Aquifer Protection Program (EAPP), which has protected over 187,000 acres, is a direct effort to conserve these ecosystems, which are now threatened by the proposed development.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The article features a resident voicing outrage and questioning the decision-making process of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). This points to the importance of responsive, inclusive, and participatory governance in environmental matters, a key aspect of SDG 16.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Several specific targets can be identified based on the information provided:

1. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

   • Target 6.1: “By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all.” The article’s central theme is the threat to the safety of the drinking water for “1.7 million people in San Antonio” whose source is the Edwards Aquifer. The concern that the water could become “undrinkable” directly relates to this target.
   • Target 6.3: “By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution…and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials…” The debate over the “proposed wastewater treatment plant” and the potential for its “treated wastewater” to compromise the aquifer is a direct challenge to this target of reducing water pollution.
   • Target 6.6: “By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including…aquifers…” The article explicitly mentions the city’s “Edwards Aquifer Protection Program (EAPP),” which aims to protect the aquifer, a vital water-related ecosystem. The proposed plant is seen as a direct threat to these protection efforts.

2. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

   • Target 11.3: “By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning…” The plan to build “2,500 homes” next to a protected area raises questions about the sustainability of this urban expansion and whether the planning was integrated and participatory, as evidenced by the resident’s opposition.
   • Target 11.6: “By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to…waste management.” The proposed wastewater treatment facility is a critical piece of waste management infrastructure for the new development. Its potential negative impact on the local environment is the primary concern of the article.

3. SDG 15: Life on Land

   • Target 15.1: “By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services…” The article discusses the Helotes Creek watershed and the Edwards Aquifer, which are inland freshwater ecosystems. The EAPP is a conservation measure for these ecosystems, and the conflict described is about ensuring their continued protection and sustainable use.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article contains both explicitly mentioned and implied indicators:

1. Indicators for SDG 6

   • Population with access to safe drinking water (Implied): The article states the Edwards Aquifer is the “source of drinking water for 1.7 million people in San Antonio.” The safety of this supply is the key metric at risk.
   • Water quality (Implied): The concern that the water could become “undrinkable” and the city’s statement about needing a “scientific study or modeling effort to assess water quality outcomes” point to water quality as a key indicator.
   • Proportion of wastewater safely treated (Implied): The entire conflict is about whether the wastewater from the proposed plant will be treated to a level that is safe for the receiving ecosystem and the aquifer.

2. Indicators for SDG 15

   • Proportion of important sites for freshwater biodiversity that are protected (Mentioned): The article provides a direct quantitative indicator for this, stating that the EAPP has protected “more than 187,000 acres across six counties.”

3. Indicators for SDG 11

   • Land consumption rate (Implied): The plan to build “2,500 homes” is an indicator of land use change and the rate of urban expansion into sensitive environmental areas.

4. Indicators for SDG 16

   • Public participation in decision-making (Implied): The actions of the resident, Lisa Muyres-Pack, and the public debate surrounding the TCEQ permit serve as a qualitative indicator of citizen engagement in environmental governance.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: ksat.com