Dear Citizen:
Yesterday's city council meeting fell on an historic anniversary. Eleven years ago exactly was the famous all night hearing on the Barton Creek PUD. That meeting changed Austin government and politics.
I write to you today to report on progress and setbacks since then on those fronts and to discuss what I think needs to happen now and in the future. I welcome any feedback and suggestions from citizens. I had hoped to get this to you on the actual anniversary, but the time consumed preparing for and participating in the council meeting prevented that from happening. Since so many people have moved to town since 1990 I'll begin 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). The hearing on the matter was scheduled for June 7, 1990.
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 nine hundred people signed up to speak at the public hearing, almost all of them opposed to the PUD. The meeting lasted from four o'clock in the afternoon until almost six o'clock the next morning. Shortly before six the council unanimously turned down the PUD.
This all night meeting led to a much strengthened environmental movement in Austin, then a stronger water quality ordinance to protect the springs and eventually to a turnover on the city council. It may have even changed the course of Austin history and saved Barton Springs, but that remains to be seen.
I am proud to have played a part in those events 11 years ago. My cover story in the Austin Chronicle that warned Austin of the PUD has been widely credited as being a key in sparking the hearing. I say this not to brag, but to establish my standing on this issue, especially for those new in town who have expressed intense interest in this issue.

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 or SOS 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. In December 1994 a jury overturned SOS. The council passed a much weaker replacement ordinance.
Then the issue became whether Austin would appeal. The opponents of SOS - those who would benefit financially by its death -- said appealing would be a waste of money. The SOS opponents put tremendous pressure on that council, but four members voted to appeal. They were Jackie Goodman, Brigid Shea, Max Nofziger and Gus Garcia. SOS would have died right then if not for their courage in making that vote.

Austin bashing reaches a crescendo
Developers, led by Freeport McMoRan and Circle C developer Gary Bradley (Circle C is a subdivision over one of the most sensitive parts of the recharge zone), also 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 or her own district and be exempt from all local water quality ordinances. Seventeen of these so- called Water Quality Protection Zones, more accurately called Big Developer Protection Zones, soon formed almost a wall in western Travis County and there was a huge one in southeastern Travis County as well. Thousands of acres were exempted forever (if the law stood) from Austin water quality ordinances.
Another bill 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 or how much science has learned or public opinion has changed in the meantime.
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.

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. Those included filing suit against the constitutionality of Big Developer Protection Zones and the Circle C district because they were aimed specifically at Austin. Such "local and special" legislation is forbidden in the Texas Constitution. After lengthy maneuvering and battling in court the city was victorious in both cases.
HB 1704 remains in place, but the council has negotiated stronger protections than would be required under grandfathering. For example on the long disputed Bradley Properties, aka Circle C and some additional tracts to the south, an agreement was reached where development will be at SOS impervious cover levels, with SOS water quality controls, a city property right to development rights above SOS impervious cover limits, a trail through the property and more.

Land Purchases
The council proposed and voters approved purchase of 15,000 acres over the aquifer for water quality protection. The council, and subsequently voters, approved my proposal to fund the purchases from 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.
These purchases added to other land purchases by previous councils -- including the Barton Creek Greenbelt, the Barton Creek Wilderness Park and the Balcones Canyonland Conservation Plan (BCCP).

The council also purchased other key tracts like:
* the Brodie tract adjacent to the Barton Creek Greenbelt at Loop 360 and Ben White;
* the Friesenhahn tract on 360 next to the Twin Falls and Sculptured Falls swimming holes;
* and a part of the Rutherford Ranch in Hays County. On this tract 15% of the creek recharge in the Barton Springs zone enters the aquifer.

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. This is something environmentalists have urged for many years.
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. The Tomorrow Plan is a citizen developed plan that 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 desired development zone, in particular downtown. Major employers who located downtown or in other parts of the DDZ include Dell, Motorola, CSC, Tivoli and, well, all right Intel hasn't worked out that well.
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 success in steering growth into the Desired Development Zone is one that in particular gets more criticism than recognition. Preservation of the aquifer and the drinking water supply is not what comes to the mind of most folks, however, when they see the blocked streets and construction downtown. Few think, "I sure am glad they didn't build that over the aquifer." Nonetheless, there has been an historic shift away from sprawl and toward growth in the DDZ.
We have also been able to steer numerous smaller developments out of the Drinking Water Protection Zone and into the Desired Development Zone with the Smart Growth Matrix.
We also lowered fees in the DDZ while keeping them the same in the DWPZ. And, the city stopped reimbursing for wastewater lines in the DWPZ. A measure of the city's success is that the ratio of building permits in the DWPZ as opposed to the DDZ has shifted dramatically to the DDZ.

The changes that don't show up in the statistics
Some of the positive changes are much harder to quantify. One fundamental change is that we have successfully institutionalized environmental consciousness into city government. Austin city government was already a leader on many environmental fronts, but the battle for water quality protection ebbed back and forth between development and pro-environment forces. That is no longer a question. Hundreds of city employees work daily on protecting our natural resources. In some cases this involved changing attitudes. In others it involved freeing people to do what they believed in, and in others it just meant giving employees more power and resources to help do what they were already doing.
Much of the debate has also shifted. The disingenuous argument that the environment and the economy are somehow in opposition to each other has been widely 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. One way this has been accomplished is through aggressive investment in social equity by the council, focusing just as hard on that as on protecting the springs.
Neither of the assertions discussed above is any longer taken very seriously in Austin politics. Nor do they any longer frame the debate in our elections.

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 the previously mentioned HB 1704, the state legislature's grandfathering bill.
One of the most distressing losses is the sprawling development of restaurants and office buildings directly behind Zilker Park. A huge portion of this development was approved in a 1995 lawsuit settlement and the rest was grandfathered after approvals by previous councils - none of it approved by this council or the previous one.
Also gone is a significant portion of the property that was the subject of the 1990 PUD hearing. Since that time there have been two golf courses built, 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.
The resistance has been far from futile, however. A huge portion of the land remains undeveloped. None of the proposed commercial parts of the development have been built. A recent subdivision is being built in compliance with SOS. And, Freeport-McMoRan is no longer in the picture nor its infamous CEO. I am hopeful that this situation can ultimately be resolved in a way that protects the springs and the creek, but it remains a serious challenge.
Another discouraging occurrence is that traces of herbicides have been found at Barton Springs and there is too much algae in the creeks.

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. My resolve was further strengthened recently when I spent part of an afternoon at Twin Falls where the water was roaring over the rocks. Sitting there in the rushing water reminded me of the success in preserving the beauty and water quality of Barton Creek. It also reminded me why we have to continue the struggle.
In closing I will talk about what I think we need to do now to preserve the springs. We of course must continue to be vigilant in enforcing SOS. That should go without saying. And, there is not a member of the council or city management who feels otherwise, although I often hear that commitment questioned.
The city also must continue purchasing land for preservation although the city can not carry that weight alone. We live in a state with very little public land. The state is not keeping up with its parks' needs and is doing virtually nothing to preserve environmentally sensitive lands. The federal government has contributed some for endangered species protections, but not much compared to the city or the need. The county has done almost nothing. As a matter of fact the county commissioners are in the process of putting together a bond package for a November bond election and I strongly advise you to contact commissioners and urge them to put on an item to purchase land over the aquifer.
On the council I am often reminded of a joke I heard as a kid where a gentleman is on his hands and knees looking for something under a streetlight. When asked what he is doing he replies, "I'm looking for a quarter that I dropped over there." The obvious question comes as to why he isn't looking where he dropped it. "The light is better over here," he replies.
I think the light must be better at City Hall because the commissioners almost never hear from environmentalists. I really suggest giving that a try. It could possibly result in a lasting legacy for the aquifer. A bright spot in land acquisition is the Hill Country Conservancy. Led by long time community leader George Cofer this is a group of private citizens, including many development industry people, who are raising private funds to purchase land over the aquifer. The city has established a partnership with the Conservancy to provide up to $10 million in matching funds from the November 2000 election.

Voting with shopping
So more land purchases and continued strong enforcement of environmental regulations are necessary. I think we also need to move on another front that hasn't gotten the attention that it deserves. That is trying to affect the market and how people live and work over the aquifer.
Part of this is not patronizing polluting businesses. Even after all these years, I don't shop at Barton Creek Mall and I never will. It is a tragedy that it was built where it is and at the size that it is. I also don't patronize any of the commercial establishments along South MoPac like the department stores with their sprawling parking lots. None of these were built under SOS. An exception worth noting is the HEB store at William Cannon and Brodie. It was built under SOS and is a fine store. (Also the Temple Inland office building was built under SOS.)
I realize that avoiding businesses that didn't build under SOS doesn't do a lot to stop or clean up pollution, but I personally don't like to spend my money at establishments that I believe are polluters.

Reducing existing pollution
There is a new effort underway that has the possibility of actually decreasing existing pollution -- making our creeks and river cleaner -- through the use of native plants and more environmentally sound landscaping and lawn maintenance methods. That is what I am calling the Texas Landscapes program, which I recently sponsored on the council agenda.
One serious cause of pollution is pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers that people put on their lawns - such as is now showing up in Barton Springs. This problem is made worse by people trying to create non-native lawns and grow non-native plants. These increase the demand for watering, fertilizer and chemicals. The program is intended for the entire city, but is particularly critical in the Barton Springs Zone.
The city cannot, by the way, seriously regulate the use of such chemicals due to state laws prohibiting municipalities having stricter regulations than those of the state.
This program then revolves around the city creating new programs to raise awareness and to offer better opportunities for citizens to practice environmentally sound landscaping practices.
An example of where this could make a difference is Travis Country as well as Circle C and other developments over the aquifer. The reason I mention Travis Country is that during the recent controversies over negotiations with Stratus properties I received at least 100 e-mails from residents of Travis Country. They opposed further development of Stratus' properties -- demanding that the council not approve a development agreement with the company.
It is always heartening to see new converts to the cause of aquifer protection. But, Travis Country is over the heart of the aquifer and it was certainly not built under the terms of the Save Our Springs ordinance or any serious aquifer protection ordinance.
I can't escape the image of someone hitting the send key on a message demanding that the council protect the aquifer, then going out to sprinkle chemicals on his or her lawn -- chemicals that will drain into Barton Creek with the next rain or irrigation.
It is amazing to me that environmental groups organize these new recruits to oppose further development, but apparently do not attempt to raise awareness of how folks can personally prevent and decrease pollution. I think it is past time to make that connection.
The program is currently in the development stages and response has been very encouraging. More than 40 people have attended a summit meeting and follow up meetings to develop programs. Those attending include representatives of: nurseries; landscapers; arborists; pesticide companies; builders; a variety of governmental entities; the Lady Bird Johnson National Wildflower Center; American Youth Works; Natural Gardener; Home Depot; and the Circle C Homeowners Association.
I have hopes that this program will decrease pollution and it has the potential to be very sweeping and help preserve the springs and the natural beauty of this region.
In closing I want to quickly note some other progress. The city's relations with our neighbors in Hays County have dramatically improved. Sentiment in favor of aquifer protection has also increased dramatically in Hays County. For example Buda recently passed a SOS-like ordinance. This is critically important because a large portion of the Barton Springs Zone is in Hays County, most of that outside the city's regulatory jurisdiction.
Also, the city escaped serious damage to our environmentally regulatory power in this year's legislative session. This is the result of a lot of hard work.
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.

Thank you,

Daryl Slusher
Austin City Council Member