|
Austin Sierra ClubOne Earth, One ChancePhone Number: (512) 891-5392Leave your message in the appropriate voice mail box |
| Austin Home Page | Join the Sierra Club! | Officers & Committees | Volunteer Ops | Outings | Singles | ICO | Articles | Lone Star Chapter |
Chuck Byrd
It has been very gratifying to see the results of the response of the environmental community to the recent threat of the Navy’s use of the Sarita tract in South Texas as a military operations base. I don’t intend to spend much time in this column going over the basics of that conflict since it has been discussed in much more length in the newspapers and on environmental newsgroups all over this part of the country in the last several weeks. To my mind, the Navy’s proposal is so blatantly stupid and ill conceived that it should not take long to dismiss it entirely. Even Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson - not someone normally sensitive to environmental issues - has declared support for the citizens of Kenedy County who have voiced strong opposition to the proposal.
Apparently, the Navy, reading the political reaction in the media, is also hedging since they are now saying it was only one of many options that they were considering and that they had not gone very far at all in their assessment, etc. Their reaction reminds me of the joke about the man that was wandering around in a livery stable while a farrier worked on a horseshoe. Looking over the smithy’s work, the man picked up a horseshoe that had just been finished. When he heard the man’s yelp and the ring of a dropped horseshoe, the farrier grinned at him and asked "That shoe a little hot for you, bud?" "No," the man replied, attempting to salvage as much dignity as he could under the circumstances, "it just don’t take me long to look at a horseshoe." I don’t think it will take the Navy that long to look at the Sarita bombing range option, either.
The issue points up the ability of the environmental community to mobilize and direct public opinion and the efforts of concerned activists all over the state. The state Chapter moved quickly and effectively to organize letter-writing campaigns and to plan an on-site protest on the beach in August (a move that may not even be necessary if the Navy determines that this particular horseshoe is no longer of interest to them). Carl Pope, the current head of the National Sierra Club sent Ken Kramer, director of the Lone Star Chapter, a note of congratulations on the success of mobilizing public opinion against this clear and present threat to the ecology of the Padre Island beaches and the surrounding area. Ken praised the efforts of Erin Rogers and Fred Richardson in particular for their speedy and effective organizational efforts.
Despite the outcome of this issue - and it is likely that the outcome will be the selection of a different site for military training - the point is that the process of protesting threats to the environment worked and worked smoothly and well. Using the enormous power of the internet and email, Sierra Club volunteers were able to alert supporters to the issue, engage them in educational debates, provide credible arguments and factual evidence to use in communications with their political representatives and generally direct their efforts toward a true, grassroots-based exercise of democratic rights. That’s the way it should be done.
Unfortunately, when the threat is not as clear, when the issue is not as simple and when the voice of the people is not as unambiguous, environmentalists have a tendency to lose this sense of common goals and a common struggle and fall into the trap of internal bickering. This is a characteristic of democratic, and especially grassroots, organizations and we should be grateful at one level that it occurs, since it is a sign that the members of the organization are still passionate about their ideals and committed to their goals. But it pains me to see the amount of energy that is expended needlessly on quarrels within the environmental community over methodology, ideological purity and intolerance of compromise.
It is altogether too easy for members of the environmental community to criticize the motives and efforts of fellow environmental activists as biased self-aggrandizement or compromised by special interests. No organization is immune to this tendency. You can see it at work within the SOS Alliance, the City Council and the Sierra Club as well. To some extent, this is healthy self-examination and everyone needs to know that they will be held accountable for their actions and for any betrayal of the overall, common goals of the environmental community. But it can also be divisive, mean-spirited and destructive and those of us in positions of responsibility must make a concerted effort to rise above the petty differences of method and take a larger view that considers the good of the community as a whole. We must make a more concerted effort to understand and forgive the internal differences among our fellow environmentalists. This is not a general, sappy plea for greater human understanding. It is a fundamental rule for survival and as practical as any advice to be found in Sun Tzu’s Art of War.
The truth is that the war on the environment is deadly and real and the enemy is at the gates. The Bush/Cheney coalition is ready to hand over our national resources to the special interests that put them in power, and is firing up a steamroller designed to flatten any opposition to the mining, logging and drilling of publically-owned land throughout the US. They have made it clear that simple expressions of public outrage are meaningless to them and that they understand only the language of opposition in the House and Senate.
This is not a struggle that will be won by an environmental community torn by divisive bickering or by leaders burned out by clashes of ego or fights over methodology. It is a long struggle and one that will demand a united front, a linking of arms. We need to be bigger than the forces that oppose us. We don’t have the advantage of money, well-paid lobbyists or armies of lawyers. We can only win by being right, by defending a few simple, powerful common goals such as the right to breathe unpolluted air, drink unpolluted water, enjoy public parks and resources held in common trust for the use of all citizens and to prevent the exploitation of public resources by private corporations for personal profit. And in that struggle we need every hand, back and eye clearly focused on the real issues ahead of us, as they were when we faced the South Texas bombing range issue. We cannot afford the luxury and distraction of fighting among ourselves. We have too much work to get done.
Lloyd Dogget
I often agree with what President Bush says; mostly it’s just what he does that bothers me. As pundits, politicians and the public evaluate the new Administration’s performance, I believe the calendar of his first few months in office speaks for itself:
March 13 Breaking a campaign promise, President Bush tells Congress he will not regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, thus threatening any hope of creating a bipartisan response to global warming.
March 19 Edwin Feulner, president of the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation, calls the Bush Administration one that is "more Reaganite than the Reagan administration." Another right-wing leader, Grover Norquist, declares, "There isn’t an ‘us’ and ‘them’ with this administration. They is us. We is them."
March 21 President Bush orders the EPA to kill standards that reduce the level of arsenic in drinking water, rejecting studies that show these limits are essential to protecting millions of Americans from cancer and other health threats.
March 22 President Bush’s industry-backed nominee for administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, John D. Graham, will reportedly make that office a Reaganesque "black hole" to swallow up proposed health, safety and environmental regulations. Graham told the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation that "environmental regulation should be depicted as an incredible intervention in the operation of society."
March 27 The Bush Administration announces that it will withdraw from the landmark Kyoto Protocol, a treaty signed in 1997 by the world’s industrial nations, including the United States, seeking binding limits on greenhouse gases that cause global warming and could produce a world where everyplace sizzles like Texas in August.
April 12 The Bush Administration asks Congress to set aside a provision of the Endangered Species Act that is used by SOS to protect Barton Springs and which has been the main tool used by citizens’ groups to win protection for endangered plants and animals.
April 20 The president of the Wilderness Society declares that "the Bush White House is becoming the most environmentally hostile administration ever.
April 23 A White House spokesman indicates Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine Todd Whitman was "confused" when she stated the President was backing off support for oil drilling in the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
May 17 Dubbed by Democrats as "the pollution solution," President Bush unveils his national energy policy, which abandons conservation efforts, cuts funds for renewable energy, and sacrifices the environment in order to continue lining the pockets of big oil executives. The plan promises a "healthier environment," while calling for new oil and gas exploration in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, increased production from coal-fired plants and the construction of more than 1,300 new power plants.
June 11 Although the National Academy of Sciences declared that global warming is a real problem that is only getting worse, President Bush urges more study into global warming instead of immediate, meaningful action. Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope likened Bush’s announcement to "commissioning a study on fire while your house burns down.
June 27 The Bush Administration freezes one of the largest environmental investigations in U.S. history, a probe involving dozens of utilities, oil companies and other firms accused or suspected of violating the Clean Air Act. The review freezes cases including those that have already reached settlement agreements totaling billions of dollars. "Its sort of like going to the White House to get your parking tickets fixed," said Lois Schiffer, head of the Justice Department’s environmental section during the Clinton Administration.
Surely, more of the same is to come. Our work to prevent the destruction of our treasured environment has only just begun.
Lindy Eichenbaum, Communications Director
U.S. Representative Lloyd Doggett
(ph) 512/916-5921, (fax) 512/916-5108
The next two articles on Barton Springs have been included to encourage further debate on the issue of protecting the springs. They do not represent the views of the Sierra Club. Both are available in full on www.texas.sierraclub.org/austin/greenpage.html
Darryl Slusher
Below is a summary of an open letter from Council member Daryl Slusher to the citizens of Austin to commemorate the eleventh anniversary of the famous all night hearing on the Barton Creek PUD. He is writing to report on progress and setbacks since then and to discuss what he thinks needs to happen now and in the future. He begins with a short review:
A multinational corporation named Freeport-McMoRan had filed plans for a massive development along Barton Creek in the environmentally sensitive Barton Springs Watershed. It was called the Barton Creek PUD (Planned Unit Development). Barton Creek runs directly through Barton Springs. The springs are also fed by five other creeks where water seeps (and sometimes pours) underground through fissures in a limestone aquifer. Much of the water then emerges at Barton Springs.
Fearing for the future of beloved Barton Creek and Barton Springs, more than 900 people signed up to speak at the public hearing, almost all of them opposed to the PUD. The meeting lasted from 4 pm until almost six o’clock the next morning. Shortly before six the council unanimously rejected the PUD.
After the PUD hearing
Responding to the public in the months after the June 1990 hearing the council passed a strong "interim" water quality ordinance for the Barton Springs Zone. The next council, however, gutted the new ordinance. That led to a citizen petition drive for the Save Our Springs ordinance. SOS, which puts strict regulations on development over the Barton Springs Zone, passed by a two-to-one margin on August 8, 1992.
Unwilling to accept the will of the people, some aquifer developers sued. The suit was filed in Hays County where SOS applied in a small portion of the county and where aquifer developers thought they had a better chance than in Travis County courts. The jury overturned SOS, and the council passed a much weaker replacement ordinance. Then, despite tremendous pressure on the council, four members (Jackie Goodman, Brigid Shea, Max Nofziger and Gus Garcia) voted to appeal.
In addition, the developers, led by Freeport McMoRan and Circle C developer Gary Bradley took their cause to the 1995 Texas Legislature. The legislature responded with a series of bills aimed at exempting developers from Austin water quality ordinances. These included a bill that allowed any developer with 1,000 acres or more in a city’s Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) to form his own district and be exempt from all local water quality ordinances and another that allowed the Circle C Municipal Utility District (MUD) to form its own sovereign district free from all city regulations, even though the MUD had a contract with the city to follow those regulations. Still another bill, House Bill 1704, grandfathered all development proposals under the water quality ordinances in place at the time of their original filing, no matter how old the filing.
That was the rather grim situation when I took office in June 1996. Here are a few examples of the progress we have made since then.
Subsequent Success
Court victories: In the late summer of 1996, the courage of the previous council majority paid off when the city’s SOS appeal was granted and the Hays County verdict was voided. SOS was immediately reinstated. The city then won a string of court victories reestablishing regulatory power and bringing thousands of acres back into city jurisdiction. HB 1704 remains in place, but the council has negotiated stronger protections than would be required under grandfathering.
Land Purchases: The council proposed and voters approved purchase of 15,000 acres over the aquifer for water quality protection, funded by the Water/Wastewater Utility. Funding the purchases from the utility preserves general fund monies for other basic needs and social equity needs while helping the utility protect water quality.
Directing growth away from the aquifer: Another critical component of protecting Barton Springs, in addition to regulation and land purchases, is steering growth away from the aquifer. In 1997 the council approved my concept of the Desired Development Zone (DDZ) and the Drinking Water Protection Zone (DWPZ). These designations were based on the 1970s Austin Tomorrow Plan, which calls for sparse growth over the aquifer and near the lakes, and sought to prevent urban sprawl by steering growth into north, south and east growth corridors. The plan had been widely ignored and abused since its 1979 adoption.
Since adoption of the DDZ and DWPZ, however, the city has steered millions of square feet of development off the aquifer into the DDZ, in particular downtown. Moving major employers off the aquifer not only means they won’t develop there, but it also cuts back on ancillary growth such as homes, retail and support services for the major employers.
The changes that don’t show up in the statistics: Some of the positive changes are harder to quantify. One fundamental change is that we have successfully institutionalized environmental consciousness into city government. In addition, the disingenuous argument that the environment and the economy are somehow in opposition to each other has been wide-ly discredited. It is now widely accepted that a strong environment is part of a healthy economy. Also widely discredited is the divisive tactic of charging that protecting the environment somehow hurts the cause of social equity and equal opportunity.
The Losses
There has been much progress, but there have also been some heartbreaking setbacks. I still think we can save the springs, but the same fundamental struggle remains. The biggest challenges come from the growth of the city and from HB 1704, including the sprawling development of restaurants and office buildings directly behind Zilker Park. A significant portion of the property that was the subject of the 1990 PUD hearing is now home to two golf courses, a massive apartment complex and several housing subdivisions. Much was built while the Big Developer Protection Zone law was still in place and the rest was grandfathered.
Another discouraging occurrence is that traces of herbicides have been found at Barton Springs and there is too much algae in the creeks.
The Future
These facts are discouraging, and they are what I hear the most about from environmental activists. I’m far from ready to quit, however. In closing I will talk about what I think we need to do now to preserve the springs.
So, much progress has been made, but much work remains and eternal vigilance is necessary. I look forward to continued labor on behalf of the springs, the creeks and the city. I will also continue to work hard on basic services and for social equity. I look forward to joining all of you in those efforts. I also welcome your feedback and especially your ideas and suggestions.
Bill Bunch
Bill Bunch sent this reply to Daryl in response to the letter summarized on page 6. He thanks Daryl for taking the time to write down his thoughts on the past, present and future of Austin’s efforts to save Barton Springs, and accepts his invitation for feedback, ideas and suggestions. He continues:
I am especially encouraged by your newly strengthened resolve to preserve Barton Springs. I hope this translates, in part, to improved cooperative efforts with the SOS Alliance, SBCA, the Hays County Water Planning Partnership, the Austin Sierra Club, neighborhood groups and others who are working hard to save Barton Springs and its Hill Country watersheds.
Before addressing points of disagreement, I would first like to note a few important points of agreement concerning City Council actions during your tenure:
I also support your effort to encourage current residents to eliminate the use of fertilizers and pesticides as well as your encouraging citizens to vote with their pocket books with respect to where and how they spend their money. Even though you did not mention it, I also very much appreciate that you took action to remove the “Bradley toll road” that would link South Mopac to Interstate 35 from out of the City’s long range transportation plan. This road would, if built, create enormous pressure for development in the Barton Springs watershed and would further increase pressure to expand Mopac both over the aquifer and through central west Austin neighborhoods.
What I don’t find in your summary is (a) any assessment of the state of the springs, (b) a plan for saving the springs, or (c) any real recognition that, as owner and steward of Barton Springs, it is your and the City’s duty to save them.
An assessment of the “State of the Springs” would recognize that much greater effort by the City is needed immediately if the springs are to be saved. Recent scientific testing shows petroleum hydrocarbons and other pollutants exceeding levels that are toxic to aquatic life. Nutrients are high enough to cause a near-perpetual algae bloom. Dissolved oxygen levels are often at levels too low to support high quality aquatic habitat. Increased sediment loading from developed areas will continue and increase for roughly sixty years before stabilizing, causing damage to stream corridors as well as the aquifer and springs.
This is only half of the picture. The other half is what is being mapped out for additional development on the watershed. Stratus’ proposals, the “Bradley deal” developments, the Terrace and Forum PUDs and many other developments inside the City’s jurisdiction, along with plans by Cypress Realty, John Lloyd, Doyle Wilson, Capital Pacific Holdings, CCNG, Siepiela Interests and others outside the City’s jurisdiction, represent more than 15,000 acres of additional planned development in the watershed. CAMPO’s long-range transportation plan, together with the City Council’s recently adopted transportation plan, envisions public expenditures of more than $400 million to extend and expand roads to serve these planned developments.
When current pollution levels in the aquifer are considered, together with the rapid pace and extent of new development plans in the watershed, then it becomes clear that "critical condition" perhaps best describes the state of the Springs. Recognizing this, it becomes obvious that the current level of efforts to save the Springs are woefully inadequate. It also helps see why actions taken by the City that undermine efforts to protect the Springs must be stopped immediately.
Yet the City has no plan for saving Barton Springs. The City’s lack of a clear picture of the state of the springs or a plan to save the springs, together with City actions and inactions, in my opinion demonstrates a lack of commitment to saving the Springs. The City of Austin OWNS Barton Springs. The Springs emerge in Austin’s Zilker Park. The City holds this natural treasure in trust for the public. There is a duty of stewardship by the City to save and protect Barton Springs for the benefit of current citizens. This obligation of stewardship is not satisfied by efforts which, while helpful, are not near sufficient to save the Springs.
Your letter reflects a perspective that is common at City Hall and which has trickled down to City staff. This perspective can be summed up as "we’ve done our share" now its time for Travis County, Hays County, Dripping Springs, environmentalists, fill-in-the-blank, to do theirs. Your “solutions” section of your letter is replete with suggestions about what other persons and entities should do. This perspective ignores the fact that Barton Springs is an irreplaceable, priceless treasure of the City of Austin. It does not belong to someone else and it is NOT up to someone else to save the Springs. Thousands of years of history, abundant local history, and common sense tell us that "upstream" entities and neighbors will not take care of our City treasure for us. They might help—and we will try hard to see that they do—but the bottom line responsibility for saving Barton Springs rests with you, Daryl Slusher, and the rest of the Austin City Council.
An important first step is to stop making matters worse by approving discretionary "upzonings" in the Barton Springs watershed. We have for several years now made this request of you and your colleagues and have been ignored. At almost every City Council meeting you and your colleagues vote for discretionary zoning changes that increase development in the Barton Springs watershed. These zoning changes increase traffic generation and water and wastewater demands, and thus directly increase demands for further public expenditures to expand roads, utilities and other public services in the watershed. These actions directly undermine other City efforts to steer development into the Desired Development Zone.
A story on the front page of this week’s Austin Business Journal explains just how helpful the City Council is with high-tech companies seeking zoning changes in order to locate new facilities in the Barton Springs watershed. It remains a mystery to me how you and your colleagues on council can rationalize these zoning actions that directly conflict with your purported commitment to "Smart Growth" and your claimed success of directing development out of the Barton Springs watershed.
Extending utilities into the watershed, as was done with the Bradley deal, also makes the task of saving the springs much more difficult. The "Bradley deal" hotel developers told me in person that they would have never considered the location if the City had not granted water and sewer to Bradley. Instead, we have not just a hotel/conference center, but also another golf course planned for the recharge zone.
Equally if not more important, the appointment of a majority of Planning Commission members who lack any real interest in saving Barton Springs also frustrates our community efforts to save the Springs. In my view a "green" council simply would not have appointed a Planning Commission that looks like what we have had the last few years.
If the City embraced its stewardship obligation and recognized the need for immediate, bold action, then funding for saving Barton Springs would—for perhaps a few years—exceed our regular, year-in and year-out spending for roads. We have been throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at roads—some of which directly threaten Barton Springs—while traffic has only gotten worse. If we took a break of a couple of years to purchase preserve lands in the Barton Springs watershed—which would reduce traffic increases substantially along Mopac—we could save Barton Springs once and for all. We could then cheerfully return to spending endlessly on sprawl roads (though I would not advocate for that).
A visit to Barton Springs also provides evidence of the lack of a serious City commitment to stewardship of the springs. The City has for many months now been in violation of its Endangered Species Act Section 10(a) permit by failing to provide signs and educational materials that make Springs visitors aware that they are entering a nature preserve that must be treated with respect. Rather than provide the increased public education at the Springs required by the City’s permit and agreed to by the City, the City actually removed the existing educational materials many months ago. If the City cannot comply with simple, plain language requirements for informing and educating swimmers at Barton Springs, it is hard to expect that the City or private developers are complying with more difficult and costly watershed protection requirements.
Finally, while I agree that the growth of the City and grandfathering are two of the most important threats to the aquifer, I would add to that list a lack of leadership from the Austin City Council. The Council itself can take actions to slow down the hyper-growth of recent years (e.g. by ending large corporate subsidies) and to erase much of the grandfathering threat. However, to do so will require a real commitment to saving Barton Springs. It will also require reconnecting with Barton Springs protection advocates and working together as allies.
To summarize, I hope you will take immediate action (a) to stop upzonings and extensions/expansions of roads and utilities in the watershed, (b) accurately assess the state of the springs, (c) immediately begin a citizen-based planning effort with the explicit purpose of saving Barton Springs while addressing neighborhood and infrastructure needs, and (d) reestablish regular and effective communication and cooperation with the SOS Alliance and other organizations working to protect Barton Springs.
Doug Altshuler
As this school year is about to begin, the Inner City Outings (ICO) division of the Austin Sierra Club is preparing to work with new youth groups throughout the Austin area. Our purpose is twofold: 1) to promote and develop greater understanding of other cultures, foster respect of self and others, and 2) provide leadership skills, and to protect and appreciate all wilderness through outdoor exploration, education, spiritual growth and sharing. This translates to providing wilderness experiences and education to low-income, inner city youth. Our program could not exist without the efforts of the many volunteers who donate their time to organize and lead hikes. Volunteers are Sierra Club members who want to share their love of wilderness with people who may not otherwise experience the outdoors. An Austin schoolteacher recently said of ICO volunteers, "it is in meeting people like you that I experience renewed hope for the future."
To introduce people to the wilderness, ICO volunteers donate time to community agencies that want to provide outings programs for members. Agencies may include schools, church and neighborhood youth groups, rehabilitation centers, and outdoor clubs. We provide the leaders to organize and run the hikes, as well as the equipment necessary to conduct safe wilderness experiences: daypacks, backpacks, water bottles, cooking gear, sleeping bags, water purifiers, and first aid kits. We also cover the expenses for food and transportation so that no child is denied the opportunity to participate in an outing due to lack of funds. Outings may include dayhikes, backpacking, car camping, canoeing, kayaking, and bicycling. So far in 2001 we have conducted 17 hiking trips ranging as far as the Guadalupe Mountains National Park and Mustang Island State Park.
Because more and more outings are conducted each year, it is critical for us to develop greater resources to replace worn outdoor equipment and recruit and train new volunteer leaders. The greatest challenge facing ICO today is to keep up with the rapidly increasing demand for outings from community groups in Austin. To help us meet the increased demand for outings, you can become an ICO volunteer leader. We particularly encourage regular outings leaders to become ICO hike leaders as well. In addition, you or your company can donate items or resources to our ICO group or the national chapter. All donations are tax deductible through the Sierra Club Foundation under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Equipment can be given to Jon Gabriel, our equipment manager (phone: 478-5184; e-mail: jdgbobr@io.com).
The best way to get involved is to attend our meetings and get to know the other volunteer leaders. Upcoming meetings this fall are scheduled for August 14, September 11, October 9 and November 13. All of our meetings take place at the Whole Earth Provision Company at 2410 San Antonio St (behind Tower Records). Meetings start at 7 pm with an introduction for new volunteers followed by a business meeting beginning at 7:30 pm.
Another way to stay in contact with us is through our new web page, recently launched at the site: texas.sierraclub.org/austin/ico/icohome.html. These pages were created by Becky Patterson, who volunteered all of her time to create an elegant medium for us to inform our leaders and volunteers of upcoming hikes, meetings and fund-raising events. Please visit these pages and I encourage you to find a way to become involved with ICO.
To preserve and protect the wilderness for future generations, it is vital that the environmental community engages people of wide-ranging ethnicities, cultures and abilities. The Sierra Club, through the Inner City Outings program, hopes to infuse the en-vironmental community with the power of diversity.
Ken Kramer
Two victories that defined the session for environmental advocates were the defeat of a radioactive waste importation measure and a long sought closure of a loophole that exempted dirty old industrial plants from clean air standards. These victories, together with others listed below, were largely a result of the very concerted effort on the part of the Sierra Club in coalition with several other statewide organizations.
Radioactive Waste Import Bill Stopped
The long, strange trip of SB 1541 ended with the House Calendars Committee voting 5-3 not to send the bill to the House floor. Sen. Duncan’s bill would have authorized a for-profit low-level radioactive waste dump to handle waste produced by Texas, Vermont and Maine. The bill was "hijacked," in the words of one industry lobbyist, by Sen. Teel Bivins who amended the bill on behalf of Waste Control Specialists to establish a second dump to exclusively handle low-level waste produced by the federal government. Bivins said the importation of U.S. Department of Energy waste was necessary to make the dump "economically viable" for WCS, which spent a reputed $3 million on hired gun lobbyists.
TNRCC Reauthorization
As the conference committee on HB 2912 finalized its work on the TNRCC reauthorization bill, it became clear that environmental advocates had won a number of significant reforms at the agency. At the heart of the bill is a new regulatory scheme that allows the agency to reward high performers with regulatory flexibility, while requiring tougher enforcement standards for chronic bad actors in industry. The two biggest victories in the bill are the closing of the Grandfather Loophole and controlling "upset" air emissions. Highlights of the bill include:
Closing the Grandfather Loophole
Freestanding bills addressing the grandfather loop-hole were abandoned when the House adopted an amendment on the grandfather loophole to the TNRCC reauthorization bill. As a result, grand-fathered facilities east of I-35/I-37 will be required to install pollution control equipment by March 1, 2007. Grandfathered plants elsewhere (“west”) will be required to install pollution controls by March 1, 2008. In all cases these plants will be required to install equipment that conforms to a 10 year-old standard of "Best Available Control Technology."
SB 2—Water Resource Planning
This omnibus bill strengthens the authority of groundwater management districts and establishes an export fee on any water transported outside of district boundaries; it creates a water infrastructure fund BUT provides no revenue sources; it requires regional water plans to describe the water quality impacts of their proposed strategies, include water conservation practices and drought management measures, and report to the TWDB on how their projects would be funded; it sets up an interim study on water resources to address a broad range of water issues, including water efficiency, environmental issues, water marketing, water financing, and water conveyance systems. It creates a sales tax exemption for equipment, supplies and services for rainwater harvesting, water reuse and water conservation.
Clean Air Incentives
SB 5 provides an array of incentives for reducing air pollution. It establishes three types of incentives:
Texas Dept of Parks and Wildlife Reauthorization
A key provision in TPWD sunset bill is a requirement for the agency to prepare a "Land and Water Resources Conservation" plan. The agency will inventory all land and water associated with historical, natural, recreational and wildlife resources in the state that are owned by governmental entities and nonprofit entities that provide public access.
Wild Bat Protection
SB 1194 grants protected status to bats by making it unlawful to kill, sell or purchase wild bats.
The Austin Sierra Club is a truly 'grassroots' organization? All officers and chairs are volunteers. We have no paid lobbyists for the local Austin group, no paid administrative positions, no staff lawyers, no huge corporate backers. We are simply the voice of people who give a damn about the environment. If the idea of helping your fellow man and the future generations of Americans who will benefit from your timely action to save our threatened environment appeals to you, join us and do something good for your mother.
YOUR MOTHER NEEDS YOUR HELP!