Schertz-Cibolo water assets: the case for and against a future deal

Schertz-area water customers have a stake in how the cities protect future supply as they discuss asset options next week. The two forecasts measure different needs and cannot be added together.

By Comal.News Government Desk · Source-linked local reporting

Published October 17, 2026 at 4:38 AM CDT3 min read

Workshop scheduled

Illustrated building behind two curved water basins with pipes, trees, and sparse grasses in cream and blue. — Illustration: Water infrastructure symbolizes the choices facing Schertz and Cibolo over future supply; it does not depict the reported workshop.Original editorial illustration; not a photograph and does not depict the reported event or an exact property.Comal.News Visual Desk · Original illustration · Source ↗ · Comal.News original illustration ↗

Schertz projects about 2,500 acre-feet of additional water need around 2070 as the cities prepare to discuss possible CVLGC asset transactions at an Oct. 22 joint workshop.

The Schertz future-water slide puts that need under expected growth; the joint workshop agenda schedules a discussion of the cities' water portfolios and possible asset-transaction framework.

The puzzle is that the cities' numbers answer different questions. Schertz estimates additional supply it may need decades from now. Cibolo's consultant sets out its current supply and use, then projects shortages under one future scenario. Adding those figures would make a single regional deficit that neither document calculates.

What the forecasts measure

The Cibolo consultant summary puts present annual supply at 3,800 acre-feet and approximate current use at 2,550 acre-feet. In its TWDB scenario, the summary projects shortages of 93 acre-feet in 2050, 738 in 2060, 1,476 in 2070 and 2,321 in 2080. It also sketches a separate full-CCN-buildout need of 1,000 additional acre-feet a year. That buildout estimate is a different scenario, not another amount to stack on the TWDB shortage.

Water figures presented for the Oct. 22 workshop; each row retains its own city, year and scenario
City and measure	Year or period	Acre-feet
Schertz: additional need under expected growth	Around 2070	About 2,500
Cibolo: annual supply	Present	3,800
Cibolo: approximate annual use	Present	2,550
Cibolo: TWDB scenario shortage	2050	93
Cibolo: TWDB scenario shortage	2060	738
Cibolo: TWDB scenario shortage	2070	1,476
Cibolo: TWDB scenario shortage	2080	2,321
Cibolo: separate full-CCN-buildout additional need	Buildout scenario	1,000 per year

Sources: Schertz future-water slide and Cibolo consultant summary. The scenarios are not additive.

The case for

The strongest documented argument for flexibility is about preserving useful rights without paying twice to develop them. A Schertz staff summary in the Oct. 22 packet describes three Oct. 13 workshop priorities: guaranteed future access to needed water, timely movement to avoid rights inactivity, and limits on development costs and duplicate overhead. A Cibolo council consensus summary says some members favored partnerships or revenue while preserving access. Those summaries describe priorities and possibilities, not an agreed sale or lease.

The case against

Keeping control has a concrete rationale in those same summaries. Cibolo's council consensus summary says a majority favored retaining rights but differed on quantity and cost. It also records concerns about losing access, a lease expiring, permitting uncertainty and the cost of finding water later. Schertz's projected need around 2070 gives the question a long horizon: a transaction's value would depend on whether it preserves dependable supply when that need arrives.

Considerations recorded in the Oct. 22 packet, not formal positions for or against a specific transaction
Case for flexibility	Case for retaining control
Move in time to avoid rights inactivity.	Keep guaranteed access to future water.
Explore partnerships or revenue while preserving access.	Account for lease expiry and permitting uncertainty.
Limit development costs and duplicate overhead.	Weigh the possible cost of replacement supply later.

The packet summarizes earlier workshop direction and council views; it does not establish individual votes on a transaction.

What it comes down to

Schertz-area water customers have a stake in the city's stated goal of preserving guaranteed future access to needed water. A useful test for any later offer is therefore practical: which rights stay available, for how long, and at what cost to develop or replace? The forecasts explain why those terms matter; they do not price an offer or calculate a household bill.

The joint Schertz-Cibolo workshop is scheduled for Oct. 22 at 6:30 p.m. at the Hal Baldwin Municipal Complex. Its posted agenda lists water portfolios, each city's CVLGC goals, a possible sale-or-lease framework and a timeline for reviewing offers. Readers can inspect the posted agenda for the workshop's business; the next record to watch is the workshop outcome, followed by any released offer or transaction document.

From the source record

Official workshop agendaSchertz-Cibolo water asset discussions

The joint workshop schedules discussion of water portfolios, CVLGC goals, a possible transaction framework and an offer-review timeline.

City of Schertz ↗

The posted Oct. 22 agenda describes subjects for discussion, not a completed asset transaction.

Schertz-Cibolo water assets: the case for and against a future deal

What the forecasts measure

The case for

The case against

What it comes down to

Related coverage

Schertz and Cibolo to discuss future of shared water assets Oct. 22

Comal ISD could grant pipeline easement across district land

Schertz raises drainage fee to $11 a month, approves drone pilot