Changing the Barton Springs Message

The development of Austin has and will continue to be of great concern to all of our citizens. The use of land and water are at the forefront of a political battle that has been playing out in our city hall, statehouse, and even the Texas Supreme Court (Grubb). It is important to understand the interconnectivity of policy, land use, taxes and natural resources and their direct affect on us (Wright). A focal point, and one of the most divisive issues, is the utilization and care for Austin's water supply. To begin to understand water issues in Austin we have to understand what is at stake. As Thomas Fuller stated in 1732, "We never know the worth of water till the well is dry" (Fuller). The largest waterway and the source of Austin's city water is the Colorado River, known as Lake Austin between Mansfield and Miller Dams. Lake Austin came about in 1940, after the Tom Miller Dam was completed. The LCRA points out that, "the dam, built to provide hydroelectricity and store water, creates Lake Austin" (Lower Colorado River Authority).

There are a few basic terms that come into play while discussing water resources: watershed, aquifer, and recharge zone. The American Heritage dictionary explains that a watershed is the region draining into a river, river system, or other body of water. The dictionary also explains that an aquifer is an underground bed or layer of earth, gravel, or porous stone that yields water (American Heritage). Finally, the term recharge zone or area is described by Wright as, "the surface area where new water enters into and replenishes the aquifer" (Wright 186). It is also important to understand the nature behind these definitions. The poet, Walt Whitman explains, "After you have exhausted what there is in business, politics, conviviality, and so on - have found that none of these finally satisfy, or permanently wear - what remains? Nature remains" (Whitman). This is a good insight into the nature of our environment.

The Edwards Aquifer is the primary water supply from over 1.7 million people and growing. Edwards has provided drinkable water for at least 12,000 years bearing responsibility for a large part of the history of the lone star state. In fact, as Haag points out, "the Caddo (Native American tribe) established economic and cultural patterns-involving farming, trading and trotline fishing-on which subsequent inhabitants of Texas expanded" (6). The Caddo inhabited the central and east Texas regions because of access to the aquifer. Barton Springs, named for land owner William Barton, is a conglomerate of four springs that discharge water from the Edwards Aquifer in central Austin. Barton Springs has long been a feature of Austin's unique character and sense of community (Edwards). As the political group, Women for Clean Water explain, "Barton Springs is the soul of our City and water is the core of our economic engine. (Women)For decades Edwards Aquifer and Barton Springs have been a center of conflict between developers and environmental advocates. In 1992 environmentalists rang a striking victory with the passing of the Save Our Springs Ordinance (SOS Alliance). Early in the year a group of concerned citizens, Save Our Springs Alliance, petitioned the city council to bring the ordinance up for a vote. With 30, 000 signatures on their petition, they were summarily denied a public hearing on the initiative (Battle for the Springs). The Alliance pressed the issue by suing the City of Austin. They got their public hearing and in August of 1992 the Save Our Springs Ordinance was approved by the voters of Austin. For a decade prior to this battle a corporation called Freeport-McMoRan and their subsidiary, FM Properties had been purchasing large amounts of land in the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. Headed by former UT footballer, Jim Bob Moffett, FM Properties was relentless in its acquisition of land and their opposition of governmental oversight. According to SEC filings, FM Properties owned 4600 acres in and around southwest Austin during the span of 1992 through 1995 (SEC). Former Austin City Councilman, Daryl Slusher explains that Moffett warned, "that if he didn't get his way no Fortune 500 company would ever again come to Austin" (Slusher). Moffett believed that the Ordinance was not relevant to his holdings because they were in the development process before the Ordinance was passed. Years of legal wrangling between the City, environmental groups, and the developers have given FM Properties (now Stratus Properties) sufficient latitude to move forward with the development goals. Stratus Properties believed that the, "unreasonable and arbitrary land development rules and interpretations of the City" were a thing of the past due to new State legislation (SEC). However, they have had to come to the negotiating table with Austin environmentalist on numerous occasions (Battle for the Springs). In 2006, the SOS Alliance brought to a vote an Austin City Charter Amendment called Proposition 2. Proposition 2 was designed to, among other things, limit grandfathering of development projects (City of Austin). It was perceived, however, as a way to insure openness in the City's dealings with private entities, namely Advanced Micro Devices, Stratus Properties, and the like. According to a Livable City study conducted by Cathy Echols, this is accomplished by removing the decision authority from the hands of City staff and requiring a City Council vote on grandfathering claims Echols states, "But shifting the decision to the council would certainly produce a change in the amount of information available to the public about these decisions" (Echols). I believe that this perception was also due to the double billing of an Open Government proposition. It is my opinion that the SOS Alliance driven amendment was defeated on a number of levels. Firstly, the language was apparently not well crafted. This would insure expensive legal troubles for the City. Second, the damage the amendment would do to the economic viability of the community was greatly publicized. Advanced Micro Devices is a major employer in the region. AMD indicated that they "selected a 60-acre parcel within the Lantana development at the corner of Southwest Parkway and William Cannon Drive" (AMD). It was insinuated that if the City were to heap more regulation onto AMD, AMD might find another home with less restrictions (Echols). The weight of economic interests will topple environmental concerns unless the focus of the fight is removed from Barton Springs and redirected at the quality of life of the citizens of Austin. Maslow's Hierarchy of needs explains that there are 5 levels of need: physical survival, safety and security, social belonging, self esteem, and self actualization (Maslow). The current debate focuses, in my opinion, on social belonging. The concept that Barton Springs is "The Soul of our City" (Battle for the Springs) lends to the need to belong to something greater than ourselves. Although this may be a valid characterization it is ultimately outweighed by another need, safety and security. Economic security is a stronger influence on an individual or society than our need to belong. The debate must be sharpened to address a more basic need, the need for physical survival. If the debate were shifted to address the need for good clean water, citizens would be able to see a more pressing need and act accordingly.

Without refocusing the message, no amount of glamorizing or endearing Barton Springs will have the desired effect. It comes to an issue of what is the more basic need. According to the demographer Steve Murdock, in 2040 the population of Texas could be roughly 51,707,489 (Murdock). Compared to the current population of just over 20,000,000 this is astounding figure. The social dynamics of Austin will be altered dramatically in the coming years and the priorities of community cohesion will increasingly fall to the wayside in favor of more concrete necessities such as jobs and health. The message will have to more accurately address the audience. The population will become increasingly more diverse with a complete reversal of ethnicity occurring around 2020. This will necessitate an adaptation of the conservationist message to address new and different social norms. Understanding and addressing these changes will be essential in protecting Barton Springs, Barton Creek, Edwards Aquifer, and ultimately a substantial amount of Austin's potable water supply. If this message is not turned into a priority, the result will be the status quo. The issue of a healthy economy will remain the primary concern of the target audience. The development over and around the Edwards Aquifer will continue and increase without significant regard to the less tangible issue of poor water quality. Health care costs will likely increase along with rising health issues stemming from poor standards (USAID). The workforce will degenerate and the environment will become less capable of sustaining the industry that is trending upward at this time (Wright). If the victory in this battle goes to the developers I believe that there will be a steady upward momentum in industry. However, this will most assuredly end badly, not only for the salamander or the warbler but for this city and the citizens of this region. Once the water quality drops and the aquifer is tainted there is no unringing the bell. The workforce will move and Austin will have lost two of her most precious resources, her beauty and her people.

The environment has limits, if we do not accept those limits and work towards stewardship and sustainability we will be the worse for it.