A gathering legal battle between the San Antonio Water System and the Lower Colorado River Authority could affect lake levels at lakes Buchanan and Travis, according to a SAWS attorney.

Jim George of Austin, who represents SAWS, sent a letter to LCRA General Manager Thomas Mason claiming that the LCRA is in breach of its water-sharing study agreement with SAWS.

The LCRA announced in April that, based on preliminary findings of new long-term water demand predictions, not enough water would be available to supply to San Antonio as originally envisioned.

George contends that the LCRA’s own water studies conclude that demand will outstrip the Highland Lakes’ ability to supply water in the coming decades, and that the project would lessen the burden on the lakes.

“If we don’t do the project, the Highland Lakes are toast,” he said. “They’ll run dry in 50 or 60 years.”

The LCRA board voted in December 2008 to include new, more conservative predictions in their planning process, to take a 50,000 acre-foot reserve out of the feasibility plan, and to continue to guarantee 100 percent delivery of irrigation water to rice farmers in South Texas, even in drought conditions.

The study agreement was signed in 2002 and called for SAWS to pay for the studies and improvements if the project was approved.

The problem, George said, is LCRA does not have the authority to pull out of the multimillion dollar agreement—only SAWS does.

“I would like to go into mediation,” George said. “I haven’t heard a word from them (since the letter was delivered May 5). If they don’t say something soon, we’ll have to sue them.”

The project was intended to recapture 370,000 acre-feet of water that is used to irrigate rice farms down stream, giving San Antonio the opportunity to buy 90,000 acre-feet of that water from LCRA, George said. LCRA would have dibs on the first 180,000 acre-feet of that recaptured water.

According to legislation passed in 2001, the water-sharing project must raise average levels of Lake Travis and Lake Buchanan, maintain current river flow protections, and require stringent water conservation by SAWS.

So far, SAWS has paid $40 million for the various studies, and expects the improvement projects to cost San Antonio taxpayers $2 billion.

If the plan is not approved, LCRA will be responsible for half of the money invested in the feasibility study.

LCRA spokesman Robert Cullick said that the LCRA is not “pulling out” of the agreement, but SAWS may not like the findings when they are delivered this summer. He said that SAWS would be forced to abandon the project unless it can convince San Antonio voters to pay for a project that the LCRA study says won’t work.

“At this point, on a preliminary basis, we have a study that says once the needs of the Colorado River Basin (including the Highland Lakes, the Austin metro area, and the downstream agriculture) are taken into consideration, there isn’t enough for San Antonio,” Cullick said. “(SAWS) is not in agreement with our using up-to-date data.”

That data were not paid for by SAWS, but by the LCRA for its own separate 100-year water plan. George’s letter to Mason said that if the LCRA board does not rescind the December 2008 resolutions, SAWS will demand the entire cost of the studies be repaid.

George is also mystified as to why LCRA would pass up an opportunity to have SAWS pay for the improvements to recapture the water, which include leveling out rice fields, catching storm runoff in new reservoirs, and drilling wells to capture the irrigation water that soaks into the water table.

Cullick agreed that capturing the water would be beneficial, but the measures would not be enough to fulfill the legislative requirements of the project.

“It’s not legal to do that with SAWS money unless the area’s needs can be met,” he said.