|
How Austin Cut Water Use by 31% and Why We Can’t Stop Now by Paul Robbins
In This Story… • In 2007, a bold new plan was created to boost water conservation. Between 2007 and 2019, Austin’s per capita per day water consumption fell 31%. • Austin created mandatory irrigation schedules which dramatically lowered water consumption. These were reinforced by consumers concern of the region’s drought and water shortages. • Rebates were awarded for efficient toilets and clothes washers. These were superseded by national standards that were pervasive and even more effective. • Mandatory local inspections were required for large commercial landscapes, car washes, and cooling towers. • More accurate water meters were installed. • New and novel requirements for onsite water reuse in commercial buildings for non-potable uses like irrigation are now being implemented, as well as measures to greatly reduce irrigation consumption in single-family homes. • Ironically, increased water rates drove down consumption even more.  In May 2007, Austin City Council’s Water Conservation Task Force approved an aggressive set of water conservation proposals created by the Austin Water’s staff and volunteers. It recommended 20 new programs that would save almost 33 million gallons a day of peak demand, the equivalent of 17% of the utility’s peak day in 2010. Shortly after this, water use began plummeting. Measured in “Gallons Per Capita Per Day,” there was a profound 31% drop in consumption between 2007 and 2019. (This is based on a 5-year average to compensate for weather variations.) We have lost momentum on conservation. This prompts several questions. 1. What circumstances and programs lead to this dramatic decrease? 2. Is there more conservation potential given this already noticeable decline, or has Austin saturated its possibilities? 3. Has Austin’s substantial supply-side construction program created a financial conflict of interest against future conservation progress? Austin Water seems to have rested on its previous achievements rather than answering these questions. Austin Water has made progress in water-pipe leak repair and water-pipe maintenance schedules, but there is not even a hint of a plan for system-wide replacement, nor ways to eliminate the use of toxic-to-manufacture PVC pipe in future expansions. Moreover, (as will be discussed in a later story) the overall effort to prevent leaks have not been successful. So, here’s what we know has worked for successful conservation results: 1. Watering Schedules In 2007, Austin Water implemented a mandatory two-day-per-week landscape watering schedule with fines for repeat violators. Around 2013, this shifted to a once-per-week watering schedule for all automatic irrigation systems across all customer types. Residential hose watering was still allowed twice per week. This once-per-week schedule – originally created to deal with drought conditions – was made permanent in 2016. The effectiveness of these watering schedules was likely boosted by the public awareness of extreme climate conditions, as regional temperatures rose steadily since 2007 due to global warming.  Average annual historical temperature for Travis County From National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate at a Glance Statewide Mapping: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/ At the same time, due to the excessive heat, lack of rainfall and lax management of the water consumption, the Highland Lake levels plummeted. In 2014, they were at record lows since the Lakes were first full in the 1942 after construction (when population of Travis County was about 10% of its current size).  Annual average historical storage of the Highland Lakes Data from Texas Water Development Board. 2. Toilet Standards and Rebates Nationally, toilet efficiency has greatly improved, with the 2014 standard of 1.28 gallons/flush saving 74 to 82% compared to pre-1985 models. Some toilets use as little as 0.8 gallon/flush. However, there is no accounting for how many of these old units are still installed in Austin Water’s service territory. These are durable appliances that can last the life of a building. Austin Water offered aggressive rebates to encourage replacements, with about 148,000 discounted or free toilets distributed from 2007 and 2011, saving roughly 620 million gallons a year (about 1.4% of Austin’s 2023 water use) and 1.7 million gallons per day reduction in water use. Despite this success, most toilet incentive programs ended in 2011.  National water consumption requirements for toilets sold in the U.S. 3. Washing Machine and Dishwasher Standards Austin Water provided rebates for about 38,000 efficient front-loading clothes washers between 1998 and 2011. The utility stopped its incentive program in 2012, with the vast majority of homes not receiving rebates for them. However, federal standards for efficient clothes washers for the Residential sector lowered consumption by 57% for standard-sized Residential and Commercial clothes washers. The best products on the market can lower consumption by 65-71% for Residential and Commercial machines respectively.  Federal clothes washer standards have lowered water consumption by 57% since 2007, and new standards effective in 2028 will lower use even more. Federal standards for clothes washers and dishwashers saved Austin Water customers between 700 million and 1.7 billion gallons of water annually by 2023, about 2.7% of total consumption in this benchmark year. And they will continue to save even more water as older machines are replaced with new and even more efficient code-compliant equipment. 4. Required Commercial Equipment Inspections The Water Conservation Task Force proposed three requirements for inspection of large-volume Commercial equipment. These have been somewhat successful but have had a checkered history of implementation and enforcement. Austin requires efficiency inspections every 2 years for large landscape irrigation (over one acre), and annually for car washes and cooling towers. Though recommended in 2007, landscape and car wash inspections began in 2013, and cooling tower inspections in 2017. The majority of Commercial customers currently comply, and since the utility management requirements of these programs is minimal, the savings is extremely cost effective for the utility to administer, as well as cost-effective for the customer. In fiscal year 2024, they were saving about 263 million gallons a year; 0.6% of total consumption in the benchmark year of 2023. 5. More Accurate Water Meters Between 2021 and 2025, Austin Water replaced 250,000 dated analog meters with advanced digital “smart meters.” These allow remote reading and provide customers hourly feedback on their use within a day. The new meters save water utilities money by reducing labor, increasing meter accuracy, and reducing costly bill disputes (which water utilities sometimes lose). Another major benefit is that the new meters can also remotely detect customer-side leaks, with resulting savings for both the customer and utility. Despite the many benefits, Austin Water deferred the phased installation over a decade. There were discussions of this project’s implementation since at least 2010. In 2024 alone, these digital meters sent out 98,035 customer leak alerts with an estimate savings of 580.5 million gallons – about 1.3% – of 2023’s total consumption. (However, some of these alerts were sent to the same customer more than once, so not all of this estimated savings was achievable.) 6. New Conservation Requirements and Code Changes Austin has recently adopted forward-looking conservation measures in the City Code. Though newly implemented and not yet saving water, these policies are expected to reduce future water demand for new commercial and residential customers and are considered successes. • Commercial Onsite Water Reuse Ordinance – Since December 1, 2024, new commercial and multifamily buildings over 250,000 sq. ft. must use reclaimed water or onsite reuse (e.g., rainwater, AC condensate) for non-potable uses like irrigation and toilet flushing. Buildings under 250,000 sq. ft. must connect to reclaimed water if within 250 feet of supply lines. This code can meet 31-100% of non-potable needs and is projected to save about 6 million gallons daily by 2040 (~5% of 2023 usage). To date, Austin and San Francisco are the only U.S. cities with such a mandate. • Residential Codes – In April of 2025, Austin changed its Residential plumbing code applying to new single-family dwellings in three significant ways. The first two, a requirement to limit underground irrigation systems to 50% of the landscaped area, and requirements for Pressure Relief Valves, will save the equivalent of 22% of what the average Austin home consumed in 2023. A third code change, “laundry-to-landscape” connections allowing gray water from clothes washing to be diverted for irrigation, will save about 7% of what the average Austin home consumed in 2023. It has an estimated cost of only $109 (though an outside distribution system would also have to be installed). 7. High Cost of Water Rising water rates, driven by higher costs for treatment and supply infrastructure, ironically, encourages conservation. There is even an official term for this: “price elasticity.” In the past, Austin Water estimated that for every 10% rate increase above inflation, water demand would drop by about 1.7%. Using this formula, with utility costs up 60% (adjusted for inflation), demand could have fallen about 10% due to high costs by 2023.  This chart contrasts rising costs to lower consumption. Excessive water costs were not the only driver of Austin’s falling water use. But they were a noticeable contributor. Below are two examples of excessive water costs that have raised Austin rates.  In conclusion, some of Austin’s water conservation efforts really have worked. But other fundamental strategies have been complacently ignored or postponed. The third story in this series will discuss these failed or challenged conservation efforts. DO YOUR PART! Sign Up for ATX Water Austin Water’s new electronic meters allow you to monitor your consumption on an annual, monthly, daily, and even hourly basis. It also allows you to benchmark consumption between your home’s previous and current usage, and average homes around the city. This tool allows you to adjust your consumption based on feedback. And it allows you to screen for leaks of any notable size. (If there is water consumption at 3 in the morning when water is generally unused, you probably have a problem.) Sign up at: https://www.austintexas.gov/department/my-atx-water * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Paul Robbins, is an environmental activist, consumer advocate, and editor of the Austin Environmental Directory. The Directory is a sourcebook of green issues, organizations, products, and services in Central Texas. 
Fortunately, because the comprehensive plan amendment was previously rejected by the city’s Planning and Zoning Commission, the change required a super-majority approval from the City Council. The Save Our Springs Alliance thanks San Marcos City Council Members Amanda Rodriguez and Saul Gonzales for casting the two votes against, preventing the super-majority required to advance the data center. Efforts to negotiate stricter development regulations using a restrictive covenant from other council members are acknowledged and appreciated, however, the message from the San Marcos community was clear: protecting our limited natural resources must come first.
This proposal appears to be stalled for now, but we anticipate that the landowner and CyrusOne may seek ways to bring it back for council consideration. Additionally, we are aware of three other data centers proposed in the same area of Hays County and San Marcos. Each of these data centers is concerning on its own, but collectively, their impact could be devastating. We remain committed to working with the San Marcos community and our sister environmental organizations to prevent the waste and overuse of our limited water resources, and we will notify you of ways that you can get involved. In the meantime, please call your representatives in the Texas Legislature to demand that they give stronger city and county powers to help Texas communities manage the explosive growth of data centers and ensure there is sufficient water for current and future generations.  Protecting caves is necessary for keeping Barton Springs healthy and flowing. That’s because the water that travels through these caves flows directly into the springs. But how do scientists determine if a cave is in good condition? One way is to look for the crickets! In Austin, two keystone species of cave crickets--Ceuthophilus secretus and Ceuthophilus sp. B. serve as keystone species, which means they act as a “health check” for cave ecosystems. When their numbers drop, it’s often a warning sign that something is going wrong. Researchers monitor how many crickets come out of cave entrances during the first two hours after sunset. These numbers fluctuate depending on moisture, temperature, and other conditions. For instance, on cooler nights, fewer crickets may appear. That’s why scientists look for long-term trends, not just one-night changes. If, after accounting for weather and other natural factors, the number of crickets keeps dropping over time, it’s a warning sign that something might be wrong with the cave environment and for our groundwater. Because cave systems are sensitive to surface conditions, a decline in cave cricket populations often signals environmental stress such as pollution, drought, habitat destruction, or harmful chemicals reaching groundwater. Cave crickets thus provide an early warning that human health could be at risk from polluted groundwater sources. By keeping an eye on these tiny but telling cave dwellers, we can get an early heads-up about the health of our caves and the springs that they help protect. How Highways Put Our Caves at Risk. Much of Austin is located atop porous karst limestone, which features caves and sinkholes necessary for recharging the Edwards Aquifer. Between the 1950s and 1990s, volunteer cavers identified and excavated about 200 caves in the Austin area, but since then, almost 20 percent have been filled in or paved over by developers who believed getting rid of caves made properties more marketable. The Barton Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer is recharged primarily through caves, sinkholes, and fractured creek beds. Dye-trace studies show stormwater entering local recharge features can reach Barton Springs in a matter of days. This karst landscape allows rainwater to quickly seep through faults and openings in the limestone, which replenishes the aquifer. When these caves and sinkholes are properly protected, the aquifer can supply steady flows of clean, fresh water to Barton Springs and Lady Bird Lake. The flip side of quick recharge is quick contamination. Caves are an important gateway to the underground. Because the rainwater moves swiftly through these caves, the limestone aquifer lacks natural filtration of pollutants. In practice, this means “what goes in, must come out.” Any pollutants on the surface—from highways and urban development—rush into these caves and emerge into wells and springs, virtually untreated. Paved surfaces (roads) can reroute drainage, causing either too little water (drying out of the cave) or too much runoff (flooding it with polluted water). If the land around these caves is developed and polluted, the caves act like drains, funneling dirty water directly into the aquifer. When it rains heavily, the first rush of water flowing off the land picks up a lot of pollution—dirt, fertilizers, and bacteria. This polluted water quickly enters nearby caves. So, whatever pollution is on the surface ends up in Barton Springs within hours to days.  Driskill Cave, located on US 290 near the Burger Center in South Austin (Source: Nico Hauwert, Ph.D. Texas Professional Hydrogeologist) Highways are one of those places where harmful substances collect – oil, gasoline, and heavy metals. These pollutants, along with loose soil from construction sites, can easily find their way into the aquifer and downstream Barton Springs through exposed caves or nearby caves. The Driskill Cave, located on US290, near the Burger Center, in South Austin is a good example of how highways kill caves. Driskill Cave was once home to a variety of creatures, including an abundant population of cave crickets. Following the construction of U.S.290, however, polluted highway runoff proved lethal to the sensitive cave crickets, whose populations plummeted in a short span of time. The collapse of its cave cricket population stands as a clear warning sign for future highway projects—like the proposed MoPac South expansion.  Austin’s Mopac South Corridor runs along the edge of the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone, and the plans to expand it have raised environmental concerns. Other projects in the area, such as the MoPac Intersections Project and SH 45 SW uncovered numerous previously undocumented caves, leading to construction delays and significant environmental risks. For example, circa 2019, as crews worked on an overpass at La Crosse Avenue, at least 72 caves, sinkholes, and voids were discovered in the construction area. This delayed construction significantly, while putting at risk Austin’s underground ecosystems and groundwater. What happens when these caves are found during construction? They get paved over. This causes complete habitat loss. Paving over caves starves them of air and water and permanently changes their temperature and humidity beyond ranges that species can tolerate. Let’s Do Better with MoPac South: Save Our Caves
Protecting Austin’s cave ecosystems isn’t just about saving wildlife—it’s about protecting the natural systems that deliver safe, clean groundwater to everyone who depends on it for drinking water, as well as the flow to Barton Springs and Lady Bird Lake. Highways, including past expansions, have been a major source of cave destruction and contamination in our region. With the proposed MoPac South expansion, these risks are more serious than ever. The caves along its path are direct lines to Barton Springs. If we don’t prioritize the health of our caves, we could see increased pollution in Barton Springs and jeopardize the unique species, like the Barton Springs and Austin Blind Salamanders, that depend on the springs, and our iconic cave crickets, that rely on these delicate underground environments. Take Action: Help Us Protect Austin’s Caves! Donate to Save Our Springs today. Your contribution will help us hire the experts needed to challenge the MoPac South expansion and safeguard Austin’s caves, our crickets, and the clean water we all rely on. Together, we can stand up for Barton Springs, Lady Bird Lake, and the future of our community. Sources/More Information about Caves and the Edwards Aquifer: Karst and Recharge in the Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer: Field Trip to the City of Austin’s Water Quality, Dr. Nico Hauwert and David Johns (2015) Cave Cricket Exit Counts: Environmental Influences and Duration of Surveys, Floyd W. Weckerly (2012) Barton Springs segment of the Edwards (Balcones Fault Zone) Aquifer, central Texas, Brian B. Hunt and Brian A. Smith Wildland Caves, Austin Water Utility Karst Invertebrate Habitat Requirements, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services Holes Delay MoPac Project, Phil Jankowski, Austin-American Statesman by Paul Robbins  In This Article • Austin’s climate is prone to periods of extended drought. Due to population growth and environmental trends, we are as little as 15 years away from a catastrophic (Highland-Lakes-going-dry) water shortage. • Austin established an office of water conservation in the early 1980s to manage water and wastewater shortfalls. • Between 1983 and 2003, about 14% of Austin’s non-industrial water use was reduced by the office’s programs and policies, including rebates for low-water use fixtures and appliances, building code amendments, rebates for businesses, and encouragement of low-water use landscapes. In July of 2024, the Save Our Spring Alliance posted a story entitled “The Coming Austin Water Shortage” on potential, and likely, water shortages that will afflict Austin in the coming decades, and how it will impact the city’s future. The story showed that the combined effects of drought, global warming, lake sedimentation, population growth, and stagnating water conservation efforts could leave the Central Texas water storage system, the Highland Lakes, dry for periods of time as soon as 2040. To address this potential emergency, SOS is publishing the following five-part series on water conservation. These stories discuss the history, progress, and lack of progress, with Austin’s water stewardship strategies and programs. Looking closely at Austin’s water conservation programs since they began in the 1980s, it would not be fair to avoid acknowledging the substantial progress that has been made. But it would also not be honest to avoid criticizing Austin for complacency. It is irresponsible to postpone action to deal with this imminent threat. With current population growth, Austin is one major drought away from a catastrophic (Highland-Lakes-going-dry) water shortage.  Water Conservation Part 1: An Early History of Austin’s Water Conservation Programs
Austin Water Utility, Austin’s municipally owned water and wastewater utility, provides service for about 1.2 million people. Its generally reliable day-to-day service masks the volatility Austin’s water supply, both climactically and politicly. The region’s rainfall fluctuates, sometimes dramatically. This endangers the long-term supply of one of the fastest growing areas in the country. Austin theoretically has water rights to claim about double the volume it consumed in 2023. This is, however, a mirage. The upstream storage system of the Highland Lakes, seven artificial reservoirs upstream of Austin built between 1938 and 1960, can get critically low during periods of extended drought and overuse. At the same time, short-sighted decisions, bad decisions, and bad luck, have sometimes left the City of Austin with insufficient infrastructure for its water and wastewater needs. Austin used to require voter approval of the bond debt for its water utility. (This provision of the City Charter is still on the books, but is routinely ignored by the City government today.) There was a lack of voter confidence in its elected officials to control growth in the environmentally sensitive area of Southwest Austin in the late 1970s. Voter confidence was also undermined by the unrelated outrageous overruns at the South Texas Nuclear Project, in which Austin was a partner, that were occurring at the same time, dramatically raising electric rates. Due to this lack of confidence, Austinites voted against water improvements in 1980 and again in 1981. This was partially responsible for a summer peak water capacity problem that emerged a few years later. A failure to control unlimited yard irrigation was also at fault. On the wastewater side, the situation was worse. Austin’s high-tech boom was fueling home building at a feverish pace. Much of South Austin was served for sewage treatment by an aging and undersized Williamson Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. Starting in about 1982, the insufficient treatment capacity combined with heavy rains, caused the plant’s holding ponds to overflow, resulting in untreated sewage spilled into the Williamson Creek and the Colorado River on multiple occasions. Austin was thus sued by the state’s environmental office. For a time, new building in South Austin was curtailed. In near desperation to respond to health threats and still continue home building, raw sewage was actually trucked from the insufficient Williamson Creek plant to treatment plants with more capacity. As part of lawsuit settlements, Austin built more emergency treatment capacity at Williamson Creek in 1984 and 1985, amounting to $13 million (about $40 million in 2025 dollars). These operated until 1986, when a new treatment plant at Onion Creek was finally built. There was almost no salvage value from the Williamson Creek retrofits when this troubled plant was retired. Why was this such a mess? There was also no centralized data tracking system in place to project sewage capacity shortfalls until they were actually occurring. To respond to these challenges, the City government established an office in 1983 to promote water and wastewater conservation and manage regulatory response to water and wastewater shortages. Over a period of two decades, the office claimed a number of achievements. Here’s a quick snapshot of those efforts: • Managing Early Water Restrictions – Some of its early work included management of the “Emergency Water Conservation Ordinance” to reduce peak demand during the summer shortages. It limited landscape irrigation to once every 5 days, with violations punishable by fines of up to $500 per violation. Enforcement was active between 1983 and 1986. • Mitigating Wastewater Emergency – In response to the Williamson Creek sewage fiasco, the City committed to reduce water consumption through direct free door-to-door installation of showerheads and toilet dams (a plastic wedge creating an air pocket to displace a gallon of flush water in the tank). It also ordered the replacement of old toilets in multifamily and commercial buildings larger than 3.5 gallons/per tank. • Encouraging Low-Water Use Plants – In 1984, the office began a program to educate the public on native plant xeriscape landscapes to reduce landscape irrigation. In 1994, the City began requiring that new commercial landscapes must use xeriscape plants, and also began offering xeriscape rebates for Residential landscapes. • Mandating or Encouraging Low-Water Use Fixtures – The office encouraged the City to adopt a plumbing code calling for efficient 1.6-gallon/flush in toilets in 1991, which dropped again to 1.28/flush gallons in 2010. AWU also began offering rebates for low-flush toilet retrofits in existing homes in 1993, continuing until 2012. These rebates are still offered to commercial businesses that exceed the plumbing code. • Business Retrofits – About two-thirds of Austin’s water volume is consumed by Commercial, Multifamily, and Industrial customers. Since 1996, Austin has awarded rebates to businesses that have saved water through improved equipment and processes. This includes Austin’s largest customers, such as commercial buildings and wafer fabs. • Irrigation Audits and Retrofits – In 1992, Austin began offering audits of Residential landscapes to teach water customers how to lower consumption through proper use of irrigation system. • Clothes Washer Rebates – Between 1998 and 2013, Austin provided rebates for water-efficient clothes washers. • Meters for Multiunit Dwellings –Apartment buildings that use a single meter for all their tenants are prodigious water wasters since there is no incentive for individual tenants to save water. Since 2000, new 2- to 4-unit dwellings have been required to be individually metered. Since 2001, all new apartments have been required to be sub-metered so that the apartment managers or their designees could charge each unit for actual water consumed. Since 2000, all new commercial buildings have been required to have separate meters for irrigation. • Reclaimed Water – Reclaimed water refers to wastewater treated to a high-quality standard and reused for non-potable purposes such as landscape irrigation and cooling towers rather than discharged into the Colorado River. Austin has used this resource to water golf courses since 1974, in-house use at its wastewater treatment plants, and water to Sandhill Power Plant. It began expanding its system in 2005 to serve more commercial customers. These policies had a collective measured effect: between 1983 and 2003, non-industrial per capita per day use fell about 14%. However, there is much more progress to be made. TIMELINE: GROWTH OF AUSTIN WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS 1980 – Water treatment plant bonds rejected. 1981 – Water treatment plant bonds rejected. ≈ 1982 – Major overflows at Williamson Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant begin. 1984 – Austin pays $100,000 fine to state for sewage leaks; building moratorium in South Austin enacted; trucking sewage used to end moratorium begins. 1984-1986 – Summer irrigation restrictions enforced. 1984 – Native “xeriscape” plant education program begins. 1984-1985 – Emergency treatment capacity at Williamson Creek plant comes online 1985 – Commercial and multifamily buildings required to retrofit (if necessary) to minimum 3.5-gallon/flush toilets. 1986 – New sewage treatment plant at Onion Creek begins operation; Williamson Creek plant retired. 1986-1990 – Door-to-door retrofit program for showerheads and toilet dams conducted. 1992 – Residential irrigation reduction rebates begin. 1991 – City mandates 1.6 gallons/flush toilets in new buildings. 1993-2011 – Rebates offered for low-flush toilet retrofits. 1994 – New Commercial landscapes required to use xeriscape plants. 1996 – Commercial retrofit rebate program begins. 1998-2013 – Rebates provided for water-efficient clothes washers. 2000 – New 2 to 4-unit dwellings required to be individually metered; new commercial buildings required to have separate meters for irrigation. 2001 – New multifamily buildings required to be submetered so each unit can be separately billed. 2010 – City mandates 1.28 gallons/flush toilets in new buildings. The second and third stories in this series will discuss the positive and disappointing parts of Austin’s more modern water conservation policies. |
Archives
February 2026
Categories |
RSS Feed
Save Our Springs Alliance
|
Quick Links |
SOS is a 501 c3 non profit and your donation is tax deductible