Councilmember Urges SAWS to take a position on wastewater facility – City of San Antonio (.gov)

Report on Proposed Guajolote Ranch Wastewater Facility and Sustainable Development Goal Implications

1.0 Introduction

On September 26, 2025, a formal request was issued by District 7 Councilmember Marina Alderete Gavito to the San Antonio Water System (SAWS) and the Edwards Aquifer Authority (EAA). The request calls for the agencies to establish and publicly declare their official positions on a proposed wastewater treatment facility at Guajolote Ranch. This action highlights a critical intersection of urban development, environmental stewardship, and public health, directly engaging with several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

2.0 Alignment with SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

The primary concern motivating the inquiry is the potential impact on the region’s primary drinking water source, which places the issue squarely within the framework of SDG 6. The memo seeks to ensure the sustainable management of water resources and safeguard water quality for San Antonio residents.

2.1 Key Areas of Assessment for SDG 6

The agencies have been asked to provide a formal stance on the following critical points related to water security:

• Potential risks to the quality and safety of San Antonio residents’ drinking water.
• The impact of the proposed facility on the integrity of the Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone.
• The impact of the proposed facility on the environmentally sensitive Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone.
• An evaluation of benefits and/or sustainable alternatives to the proposed facility.

3.0 Implications for SDG 11 and SDG 15

The decision-making process for the wastewater facility has significant implications for the long-term sustainability of the community and its surrounding environment, aligning with SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and SDG 15 (Life on Land).

3.1 Sustainable Communities and Ecosystem Protection

1. SDG 11: Ensuring a safe, reliable water supply is fundamental to creating a resilient and sustainable city. The request for expert analysis from SAWS and the EAA is a proactive measure to protect critical infrastructure and public health.
2. SDG 15: The Edwards Aquifer is a vital freshwater ecosystem. Protecting its Contributing and Recharge Zones from potential pollution is essential for conserving biodiversity and maintaining the ecological services it provides to the region.

4.0 Call for Institutional Accountability and Partnership (SDG 16 & SDG 17)

The Councilmember’s memo underscores the principles of SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions) by demanding transparency and accountability from key public utility and environmental authorities. The statement, “Their positions are vital in assuring that residents, plus City and County elected officials, have adequate information before this comes to a vote,” emphasizes the need for effective and transparent institutions.

Furthermore, this action promotes SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) by urging collaboration between municipal government and specialized agencies to achieve a common sustainable development objective: the protection of a shared natural resource.

5.0 Requested Actions and Timeline

To facilitate an informed and sustainable decision-making process, the memo outlines a clear directive:

• Action: SAWS and the Edwards Aquifer Authority are to provide written notice of their official positions on the proposed wastewater treatment facility.
• Recipient: The notice is to be delivered to City officials.
• Deadline: The deadline for submission is Wednesday, October 10, 2025.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

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

The article highlights issues that are directly and indirectly connected to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The primary focus on water quality, public health, and institutional responsibility links the article to the following SDGs:

• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation: This is the most prominent SDG in the article. The core issue revolves around the potential contamination of a primary drinking water source, the Edwards Aquifer, by a proposed wastewater treatment facility. The entire memo from the councilmember is centered on ensuring the safety and quality of the water supply.
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: The concern for “potential risks to San Antonio residents’ drinking water” directly connects to public health. Safe drinking water is a fundamental determinant of health, and preventing its contamination is crucial for avoiding waterborne diseases and ensuring community well-being.
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: The article discusses the management of essential services (water and sanitation) within a city, San Antonio. Protecting natural resources like the Edwards Aquifer, which is vital for the city’s water supply, is a key aspect of making cities sustainable and resilient.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article showcases a governance process in action. A councilmember is calling for transparency and accountability from public institutions (SAWS and the Edwards Aquifer Authority). The request for an “official stance” and “adequate information before this comes to a vote” emphasizes the need for effective, accountable, and transparent institutions to make informed decisions that serve the public interest.

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

Based on the specific concerns and actions described in the article, the following SDG targets can be identified:

1. Under 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 protection of “San Antonio residents’ drinking water supply,” which is a direct effort to ensure its continued safety.
   • Target 6.3: “By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution… halving the proportion of untreated wastewater…” The debate over a “wastewater treatment facility” and its potential “impact to the Edwards Aquifer” is directly related to managing wastewater to prevent pollution and improve ambient water quality.
   • Target 6.5: “By 2030, implement integrated water resources management at all levels…” The interaction between the City Council, the San Antonio Water System (SAWS), and the Edwards Aquifer Authority to manage a shared water resource demonstrates the application of integrated water resources management.
   • Target 6.b: “Support and strengthen the participation of local communities in improving water and sanitation management.” The councilmember’s action, prompted by concerns from “Residents and local experts,” is an example of local participation influencing water management decisions.
2. Under SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being):
   • Target 3.9: “By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.” The effort to prevent potential contamination of the drinking water supply is a proactive measure to protect residents from illnesses caused by water pollution.
3. Under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):
   • Target 16.6: “Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.” The councilmember’s memo is a direct call for SAWS and the Edwards Aquifer Authority to be accountable and transparent by providing a “public stance on this issue.”
   • Target 16.7: “Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.” The request for information is explicitly to ensure that “City and County elected officials, have adequate information before this comes to a vote,” which is fundamental to responsive and representative decision-making.

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

The article does not mention official SDG indicators with statistical data. However, it implies several qualitative and process-based indicators that could be used to measure progress on the issues discussed:

• Quality of drinking water sources: The memo’s request to identify “Potential risks to San Antonio residents’ drinking water” and “Impacts on the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone” implies that the quality of the aquifer is a key performance indicator for ensuring safe drinking water (relevant to Targets 6.1 and 6.3).
• Proportion of wastewater safely treated: The entire discussion about a new “wastewater treatment facility” implies that the effectiveness and safety of wastewater treatment are critical metrics. The outcome of the vote and the potential construction of a safe facility would be an indicator for Target 6.3.
• Degree of integrated water resources management: The formal response and subsequent collaboration (or lack thereof) between the City Council, SAWS, and the Edwards Aquifer Authority would serve as an indicator of how well integrated water management is being implemented (relevant to Target 6.5).
• Public access to information and institutional transparency: The core request of the memo is for SAWS and the Edwards Aquifer Authority to “provide written notice of their positions.” Whether these institutions provide a clear, public, and expert-based stance is a direct, measurable indicator of their transparency and accountability (relevant to Targets 16.6 and 16.7).

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: sa.gov