The Honorable Daryl Slusher

Member of Council

City of Austin

Austin, Texas

RE: Response to your Barton Springs letter of June 8, 2001

Dear Daryl:

Thank you for taking the time to write down your thoughts on the past, present and future of Austin's efforts to save Barton Springs. Communication and constructive dialogue is always helpful. It has also been in rather short supply the last two years.

I am accepting your invitation for feedback, ideas and suggestions. I hope that this is the beginning of much improved communications and increased action to save Barton Springs before it is too late.

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-which unfortunately are many though some are trivial--I would first like to note a few important points of agreement as well as some key points which were not mentioned in your letter.

I agree that the Austin City Council, during your tenure, has taken very important and necessary actions to help protect Barton Springs. Aggressive legal efforts against water quality protection zones and Gary Bradley's Circle C Fiefdom were especially important. City efforts to steer development away from the Barton Springs watershed have also been important. The Proposition 2 and other smaller land acquisition efforts have been extremely important although not yet near enough.

I very much appreciate that you agree that the "city must also continue purchasing land for preservation." I also agree that the Travis County Commissioners Court should be encouraged to include preserve acquisition in their upcoming bond package: I have already communicated this recommendation to the Bond Advisory Committee. I hope that you will lead this lobbying effort, using your position at the City, and not simply recommend it for action by others.

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 in 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.

When the critical status of the "patient" is clearly recognized, then 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. (This point is addressed below.)

Yet the City has no plan for saving Barton Springs. Repeated requests from the Save Our Springs Alliance, Save Barton Creek Association, the Austin Sierra Club and even the Austin Neighborhoods Council to develop such a plan have been ignored by you and a majority of your colleagues on the City Council.

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.

Since you work for us, we share this responsibility of stewardship with you. But we are clear that current City efforts are not up to the task. Your letter indicates that you have not yet recognized this fact, that you have a duty to save the Springs, and that it is not acceptable to simply make stabs here and there at the effort.

And since your-and our--opportunity to save the Springs is rapidly disappearing, it is time to set aside personal differences and take immediate and bold action to save Barton Springs.

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 complex 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.

As suggested above, we need both a clear and honest assessment of the state of the Springs and a plan to save the Springs. Most of the residents in the Barton Springs watershed share a commitment to minimizing development and preserving the rural character of the watershed. The vast majority of Austin citizens as well as citizens in Hays County put a very high premium on saving aquifer watershed lands. Yet without a focused effort and a plan, other demands take precedence and developer divide-and-conquer efforts continue to dominate.

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).

When hundreds of millions of dollars for road building can be piled onto the hundreds of millions we have already spent in the last few years, but we can only find less than $20 million for Barton Springs-and that amount only by a "fluke" of the arts' patrons returning the funds to the City-then it becomes clear that saving Barton Springs simply has not been that important to you and a majority of your colleagues.

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.

Thank you again for your thoughts. Thank you also for your consideration. I hope you appreciate that I have tried to be honest and clear in my perspectives without being counter-productive. I look forward to further discussions and to charting a common course for immediate action. The current slowdown in the local economy likely presents our last opportunity to do what must be done.

Sincerely,

Bill Bunch

P.S. For the record, and to further explain my views, here are a few more details on which we disagree:

*Ceding aquifer lands to Buda, which cannot even operate a simple package, sewer plant and which has no duty to protect Barton Springs, is a mistake. This action cannot be marked in the "success" column by saying they have adopted an SOS-like ordinance. If Buda cannot operate a sewer plant they surely cannot be relied upon to implement and enforce a watershed protection ordinance for Barton Springs.

*The Bradley deal does not require SOS water quality controls as you state. Much of the Circle C residential development that was included in the deal is going forward without effective non-degradation requirements. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has notified the developers that the water quality protection measures approved by the City are not adequate to prevent pollution of the aquifer and Barton Springs.

*As you know, we disagree that the City has taken aggressive action to deal with the "grandfather" claims. The City can and should follow the lead of the City of Sunset Valley and refuse to grant "grandfather" claims that threaten water quality. The courts could then decide. This is a low risk approach since HB 1704 makes clear that the "only" remedy for a 1704 violation is injunction or mandamus relief.

*The proposal to fund watershed acquisition from the water utility was presented to the mayor and council by the SOS Alliance based on research from around the country.

*I disagree that a commitment to environmental protection has been institutionalized within the City bureaucracy. There are many excellent, dedicated people on the City Staff. However, the loss of Joe Calabrese to the Electric Utility, multiple reorganizations of the planning review process and the persons in charge, pressure from the mayor and manager on City staff, and the continued exclusion of environmental and neighborhood representatives from the front end of the decision making process, has harmed implementation, enforcement and science-based decision making. Also, if such a commitment existed, the City would be in full compliance with its Section 10(a) permit at Barton Springs.

*As noted above, while I agree that City Smart Growth efforts have played important roles in steering development away from the Barton Springs watershed, this effort has been undermined by the Council granting zoning changes and extending utilities in a way that makes urban development in the watershed easier and more profitable.

*I disagree that the City has an effective process for accurately counting impervious cover. This was supposed to come out of the Bradley deal but, to my knowledge, has not happened.