City Says No Thanks to Niagara Water Bottling Deal

Print Share on LinkedIn Comments More
Brooks City-Base signature gateway. Courtesy photo.

Brooks City-Base signature gateway.

Ten days ago, a rezoning application by California-based Niagara Bottling to build a water bottling plant at Brooks City Base was fast-tracked for City Council approval by the Zoning Commission, but the deal is now dead.

The company’s rezoning application has been withdrawn and Mayor Ivy Taylor and City Council have signaled their rejection of the deal. Brooks City Base no longer is pursuing the tenant, two sources close to Brooks told the Rivard Report.

District 2 Councilwoman Ivy Taylor, right before the meeting that confirmed her as mayor of San Antonio. Photo by Scott Ball.

Mayor Ivy Taylor. Photo by Scott Ball.

Council had pulled the item from its June 4 agenda, and apparently reached a decision to pass on the deal in its Thursday executive session last week. Several Council members expressed satisfaction with the outcome when contacted Sunday.

“The applicant withdrew or postponed its request, so as of now, it couldn’t come back until August, but the Council understands the community concerns and shares those concerns,” Mayor Taylor said Sunday. “We don’t think this is anything we want to pursue. For all intents and purposes, the deal is off the books.”

The proposal was first surfaced by the City’s Economic Development Foundation, which brought the deal to Brooks, sources said. Councilmember Rebecca Viagran (D3) who requested the fast track consideration because Brooks City Base is in her district, was not available for comment.

The first phase of the Niagara Bottling plant would have brought 75-100 jobs in 2016, and 200 jobs by 2019, but most would have been low wage, hourly positions. Niagara would have required 2,500 acre-feet of water annually for its bottling and manufacturing operations, or about 830 million gallons of water. Other sources said the plant could have used just under 1% of SAWS’ annual pumping volume.

“These jobs did not meet the living wage threshold, for one thing,” said Councilmember Rey Saldaña(D4), “and it was also a question of optics, how something like that looked so soon after we approved the Vista Ridge water project. This was a zoning issue, not a water issue, but City Council heard the community and its taking the opportunity to make a statement in support of water conservation.”

District Four City Councilman Rey Salaña

Councilmember Rey Salaña (D4)

The request by Niagara, based in water-parched Southern California, to establish a bottling facility in South Texas, where cyclical droughts, growing urban populations and high agricultural pumping all stress the current water supply, was strongly opposed by area environmental organizations. 

Dr. Meredith McGuire, a Trinity University professor emeritus and co-chair of the Alamo Sierra Club Conservation Committee, addressed the Zoning Commission earlier this month.

“San Antonio is in a semi-arid region and must prepare for the highly probable occurrence of a 35-year-long mega-drought within this century,” McGuire said at the meeting. “The City cannot afford to allow such a huge drain of its water resources. Vista Ridge cannot solve the problem – and that water is not certain until San Antonio has vetted the project for financial closure. SAWS should not approve use of San Antonio water by any business that would make major demands for water, even during severe drought.”

McGuire also wrote an op-ed published on the Rivard Report: Commentary: Our Water Future is Not for Sale.

Councilmember Ron Nirenberg (D8) at the panel discussion “Conversations on Water,” at UTSA. Photo by Scott Ball.

Councilmember Ron Nirenberg (D8) served as a panelist for “Conversations on Water,” at UTSA on April 1, 2015. Photo by Scott Ball.

“The water bottling plant opportunity was not thoroughly vetted by Council, so I am thankful we put the brakes on it,” Councilmember Ron Nirenberg (D8) said Sunday. “On the surface, it’s inconsistent with the conversation we are having with citizens about conservation and doing everything we can to ensure long-term water security for the city.”

Several sources said Niagara has decided to pursue alternative locations either in the city of Schertz or Seguin, both of which draw their water supplies from the Carrizo Aquifer and are not customers of the San Antonio Water System.

SAWS did forge a significant agreement with those cities in 2011 to establish a pumping station in Schertz that moves water from Gonzales County into the SAWS system. The Regional Carrizo Water Supply Program now pumps 16,000 acre-feet of Carrizo Aquifer water to San Antonio from Gonzales County annually, the city’s largest supply of non-Edwards Aquifer water.

SAWS CEO and President Robert Puente acknowledged the Niagara Bottling project was controversial, but said the water utility is obligated by state law to serve all customers inside its service area.

“We serve whatever customers the City of San Antonio attracts, we don’t discriminate,” Puente said. “But, I guess it’s a relief.”

SAWS is currently seeking regional partners to share in the purchase of water in the 30-year, $3.4 billion Vista Ridge water project that will bring 50,000 acre-feet a year from Burleson County to San Antonio via a 142-mile pipeline. The new supply will increase the city’s water supply by 20%, but it will come at much steeper cost than ratepayers now pay for water. The project won City Council approval last October, and both City and SAWS officials said then that water conservation remains the foundation of water management in San Antonio.

Could Schertz or Seguin purchase Vista Ridge water from SAWS and then turn around and make it available to Niagara Bottling?

‘They could do that, but we would have the opportunity to say no,” Puente said.

“That’s not something the council has considered, we haven’t gotten that far yet in our conversations,” Taylor said.


*Featured/top image: Brooks City-Base signature gateway. Courtesy photo.


Zoning Change for Water Bottling Plant Paused for a Second Look

Proposed SAWS Rate Structure ti Promote Conservation

Council Approves Two Year SAWS Rate Increase

Asking for Less, SAWS Briefs A Receptive City Council on Rate Increase, Major Water Projects

EPIcenter to Bring Energy Education, Innovation to Southside

Prop. 1: Protecting The Aquifer, San Antonio’s Water Supply

Bottled Water Company Eyes San Antonio

UTSA Water Forum: SAWS CEO Says Vista Ridge Project On Track

24 thoughts on “City Says No Thanks to Niagara Water Bottling Deal

    • 100% agreed, GPF! Bottled water is a fools errand, and inconsistent with best practices regarding conservation. We can’t let a little good rain make us cocky. Surely there are better ways to produce 200 minimum wage jobs. SA doesn’t need this. Good on City Council! Way to earn that pay hike!

  1. Great decision! Companies that package water in a single-use bottle are not concerned with the future. They are only interested in is their bottom line, marketing a “healthy” product to compensate for the fact that people are buying less of their other products that are known to cause obesity and diabetes—and selling it for at prices that are 240 to 10,000 times higher than what you pay for tap water.

  2. Thank you, City Council, for halting the Niagara Bottling plant! Please take advantage of this “close call” to examine carefully how San Antonio’s water supply is being portrayed (and possibly committed) to businesses considering coming here. When a development agency like BCB touts San Antonio’s water costs as “among the lowest in the United States,” it is clearly inviting water-guzzling industries. California’s dire situation, necessitating huge mandatory cut-backs in water usage, should be a warning to us: pipelines cannot guarantee water during prolonged drought.
    Thanks for doing the right thing and taking our water situation seriously.

  3. I’m happy that this was pulled from consideration. We don’t appreciate the resources we do have and then complain when there is a shortage. Aquifers are not recharging as quickly as they once did. If officials insists on selling our resources so that they can pat themselves on the back at election time by saying they created jobs, then they need to do more by providing incentives for water capture, just as they have for solar.

  4. Why? There is plenty of water. Do not fall for the notion that there is not. How unprogressive of a city. Remember the days of the carter administration and them saying there was no more oil. Rubbish, we would have run out a long time ago. Very bad decision to say no to this. San Antonio get with the program and build a desalinasation plant. You can afford it with all the money SAWS collects.

    • Plenty of water? Get a clue Ernest and and while you are at it, get of the internet and read a science book or two.

  5. I also think this was the correct decision. Good to review it, and good to explain why it’s a terrible idea.

    For everyone here who commented that they appreciated the city council’s actions, from what we’ve recently learned about city apathy – it would be good to contact your council person directly and let them know you are paying attention and appreciate their stewardship of the future.

  6. Do yourself a favor, San Antonio, and also say no to the Alcoa plant. Unless you like pollution, in which case you’ll be needing that bottled water. Bottled water is one of the dumbest inventions (it should be reserved only for disasters, emergencies), otherwise it’s one of the dumbest ideas ever.

  7. Good coverage but wish it would include reference to SAWS annual Water Loss Audit Report to the Texas Water Development Board (due every May 1st).

    This annual reporting might help put 830 million gallons (or 1% of SAWS water supply) for bottled drinking water in perspective when there’s currently an estimated 10 billion+ gallons of water ‘lost’ each year by SAWS (some unavoidable), as tracked and reported by SAWS.

    It might also raise additional questions about why the City of San Antonio is pursuing the $3.4 billion Vista Ridge project at this time (which is estimated to eventually increase SAWS water supply by only 20% ) when we would likely spend less by first addressing (and could likely make better deals with private sector partners pursuing jointly) the current double-digit percentage of lost water, as reported by SAWS each year since at least 2010.

    But kudos to Council (and the Rivard Report) for acknowledging living wage concerns with economic development, and I hope it will lead to living wages for City contracted and sub-contracted positions including water ‘guardians’, from Parks and Recreation pool lifeguards (advertised at $10 an hour) to River Walk Amigos Ambassadors (advertised at $8 and $9 an hour), etc.

    ‘SAWS water losses creep up to 17.6 percent’

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *