Source: NTMWD.
The Richardson City Council met June 22, 2026, and heard a presentation by the North Texas Municipal Water District (NTMWD), which supplies all of Richardson's water. One particular exchange highlighted a question NTMWD did not answer.
Council Member Jennifer Justice: "My last question, I think you probably anticipate it because I ask it to you every time you're here. But what about new water sources? What about 2036? Can you tell us a little bit about that?"
2036 is the projected date when another major supply source may be needed. If there's a doomsday clock for North Texas, that's it. According to NTMWD, "In the expected scenario, NTMWD will need to develop another new source of supply in the 2030s." Yet, in 2026, with about ten years remaining until 2036, NTMWD did not publicly identify during this presentation what that new supply would be or which future supply sources appeared most promising. Here's all that Jenna Covington, the Executive Director and General Manager of North Texas Municipal Water District, had to say in answer to Justice's question.
Covington: "Yeah. So new water sources is something that we continue to work very hard to identify. We actually just contracted for an update, a five-year update to our long-range water supply plan. And so we'll be kicking that off here in the coming months."
The update could take as long as two years, leaving only about eight years before the projected need for an additional water supply.
After other council members had their turn to ask questions, Justice returned to press the issue. "Back to 2036, I think it was last year or the year before I said that we kind of thought it was still 2036. Where are we on that? Do we think that's being pushed out further based on the work that the district is doing, or do we think we might be hitting that threshold sooner?"
Covington wasn't willing to give any more precise answer than before. "Yeah. So with the upcoming long-range water supply plan, the very first phase of that is to take a good look at our projections, and we'll be working with each of the communities that we serve to understand how many residents they're serving now, how many businesses they're serving now, and what they estimate year by year into the future. I will say that growth has been faster than expected since we did that five years ago. We've accommodated for some of that as we've gotten annual data sets from both the census bureau and the COG [North Texas Council of Governments]. We actually just got COG data here in the last week or so summarized. And so we've been making adjustments along the way. I don't have a year for you at this point, but that's one of the first things that we'll be looking at."
Justice: "When is the planning supposed to be done?"
Covington: "I think it's about a year and a half cycle. So it starts off with looking at the demands and then taking a good, hard look at our existing supplies. For example, when we went through this last time, we updated the hydrology associated with some of our reservoirs. And so we found that we had a new drought of record that we had to plan for. So after we take a hard look at supplies, we'll then be looking at the potential strategies to be able to meet those long term demands. And then putting the plan together."
Notice that she never answers Justice's question about whether the projected 2036 threshold has moved earlier or later. Instead, she explains the planning process that will revisit that question. She also could not narrow the planning schedule beyond "about a year and a half cycle."
Justice: "Okay. So sorry. I want to make sure I'm understanding you. Has the plan started or is it something you're about to kick off? I just want to make sure I'm understanding where you are in that process."
Covington: "So we contracted for it within the last few months. I don't recall having participated yet in a kick-off meeting."
Justice: "Okay. So once it kicks off, you anticipate about 18 to 24 months."
Covington: "Yeah."
In my opinion, the response reflects either a lack of transparency, an unwillingness to discuss preliminary conclusions publicly, or a planning process that has not kept pace with the importance of the question. Justice deserves credit for continuing to press for answers. When Justice asked whether the critical 2036 date is still valid, Covington said, "I don't have a year for you at this point, but that's one of the first things that we'll be looking at."
NTMWD did not tell Richardson whether the 2036 date is still valid, whether it has moved earlier or later, what supply options are most likely to alter the calendar, or how confident NTMWD is that future needs will be met. NTMWD presumably has current working assumptions, even if they're preliminary and subject to revision. Member cities should not have to wait two years to learn whether those assumptions still point to 2036 or suggest a materially different timeline.
The doomsday clock is ticking, and NTMWD is still roughly 18 to 24 months away from completing the update to its five-year plan. Before the next update, the City of Richardson should direct its two appointed members to NTMWD's board of directors to press for answers to Justice's questions. At the next update, Justice shouldn't have to ask the same questions again. She asked a straightforward question: Is 2036 still the expected date? When a member city asks whether the need for a new water source is still expected around 2036, the Executive Director of NTMWD should be able to provide something more informative than "I don't have a year for you at this point."
Quotes have been lightly edited for clarity and brevity.
"The clock keeps ticking.
Do the hands shift left or right?
No one marks the change."
—h/t ChatGPT
No comments:
Post a Comment