LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Dear Editor, Way back when, there was a game called “20 Questions.” It didn’t require a console or a joystick. No electricity or batteries. No board, no dice, no tokens, and no fake money. You didn’t even have to wind it up. It just required a few kids to sit around and play.
But there were preliminaries. Somebody had to be “it.” If you were “it,” you got to sit in the driver’s seat – at least for the first round. The point was for the “It” kid to think of a person, place, or thing and for the other kids to guess what it was. The trick? You had to suss out whatever “it” was thinking, and do it in 20 questions or less – questions that could be answered with a simple “yes” or “no”. And whoever guessed the secret would be crowned the new “it” – at least for the next round.
It was a good way to learn deductive reasoning – even if those two words described a concept we wouldn’t learn about in the classroom until long into the future. And it was a good way for the kids who liked to spend time with books to win more than their fair share of rounds. After all, they were picking up new words that the rest of us never heard before.
That was one of the reasons I dove into the Hardy Boys as soon as I could pry the astronomical price of $1 a book from my folks. (For some reason I still don’t understand, the local library didn’t offer the Hardy Boys or, for that matter, Nancy Drew books.) But since I was reading a real book – and without any prodding – my folks were totally down with it. “Oh, mighty bookstore,” I thought, “open wide your door, because I’m on my way!”
I thought about 20 Questions the other night when I was watching the latest meeting of the San Marcos City Council. Not because anybody was trying to be crowned “it,” but because the actual intent of some of the agenda items seemed to be as much of a riddle to them as it was to me when I was trying to win a round of 20 Questions way back when.
I’m speaking about two agenda items in particular, both having to do with making San Marcos water – treated water – available to the City of Kyle. As Mr. Howe, the high school teacher who had the thankless task of trying to teach me Latin would say as he passed out the regular Friday quiz, “Boys, we’re about to find out if the material is clear as glass or as clear as mud.” In my case, it was usually the latter. Or, as they say in Latin, “clarus quam lutum,” So it seemed with these two agenda items. The back and forth, the questions and the responses, and the clarifications of the participants: the Mayor, the Councilmembers, a representative of the San Marcos utility department, and Kyle’s representative was a fascinating process. In fact, simply reading the agenda item raised more questions than answers.
The first of the two would approve an Emergency Water Supply Agreement for the sale of the water to Kyle. The second would have resulted in an agreement providing for the city to sell a portion of the city’s groundwater rights – at least on a temporary basis – to Kyle.
Initially, there seemed to be some skepticism as to Kyle’s motives. “Wait,” our home team wondered, “Kyle wants us to sell them water when we’re at a higher drought restriction level than they are? What’s that all about?”
Understandably, that didn’t play well at all. Further questioning revealed that Kyle is at what it calls “Amended Stage 2” drought restrictions. San Marcos, though, is at a higher Stage 3. Case closed, right?
Nope. It turns out that Kyle’s drought restriction scale differs from ours. And the restrictions, according to Kyle’s representative, despite divergent numerical scales, actually exceed those of San Marcos in some areas. It also turns out that Kyle is working to revise its drought contingency plan. Since that process has not been completed, the second of the two agenda items, regarding groundwater rights, was postponed until the July City Council meeting when members expect the regulatory playing field to be leveled.
And the issue did not appear to signal an imminent, ongoing emergency on the part of Kyle, despite the agenda’s “Emergency Water Supply Agreement” language. Rather, the agreement would provide water to Kyle in an emergency situation. In addition, Kyle reported that it is developing a system of strategically placed wells, expected to come online in 2028, to meet its future water needs.
More questions brought more answers. Who knew that San Marcos has already been supplying water to Kyle? Who knew that a temporary threemonth agreement with Kyle, beginning late last year could – and would – be extended for an additional three months without the need for any action by the San Marcos City Council?
Despite the apparent concerns that Kyle would drop a giant straw into San Marcos’s water supply, take a mighty gulp, and leave San Marcos high and dry, it turns out that we supplied water to Kyle only once during the six-month period following the expiration of the previous sale agreement.
Bottom line? After tabling the issue to provide staff with the opportunity to provide additional information in response to earlier questions, Council voted in favor of a limited period of emergency water sales to Kyle. While the original proposal called for a 10-year agreement with two five-year extensions, an amendment was offered that would have brought that down to a two-year agreement with two additional two-year extensions.
Ultimately, following discussion, Council approved a one-year agreement with a one-year extension – not out of a lack of concern for Kyle’s situation, but to provide the parties with the opportunity to develop longer- range solutions, recognizing that the current drought situation clouds the long-term picture significantly.
Not mentioned was the fact that Kyle’s population has ballooned since 2020, from 46,000 then to almost 76,000 today. Over the same period, San Marcos grew from 68,000 residents to 77,000. We’ve reached a point where both cities are now about the same size. So, with its growth boom, Kyle’s been busy trying to lock down water resources.
This, of course, raises questions about growth. Kyle reported that it is developing a system of strategically placed wells, expected to come online in 2028, to meet its future water needs. But the larger issue is the risk faced as growing communities bump up against very real water limitations. This is not a NIMBY issue; rather, it’s about sustainability. It’s also about the fact that we don’t abandon our neighbors when times get hard.
Both Kyle and San Marcos are fortunate that they could reach an agreement. Credit is due to the Mayor and Councilmembers who brought the necessary focus to these issues. And they did it by asking the right questions – perhaps more than the proverbial 20 – but they were able to bring some clarity to what had been some very muddy water.
Frank and Joe Hardy, along with Nancy Drew, would be proud of their sleuthing.
Sincerely, Jon Leonard San Marcos
