The Future Rolls Toward Dripping Springs — Riding Bulldozers and Money

by Amy Smith and Rob Curran
(Original story at: Austin Chronicle on September 21, 2001)

[….] Admittedly, the Goldenwood and Radiance neighbors seldom followed the municipal affairs of sleepy Dripping Springs, largely because they felt removed from local politics, living 12 miles outside of the city but still within the city’s extraterritorial jurisdiction. “We were asleep,” a Goldenwood resident acknowledged. “We found everything out after the fact, and then we had to work backward to figure out what had happened.” After the initial shock wore off, the residents of the three communities hunkered down and got organized. They began meeting with Stephen Clark, the Cypress developer, and the two sides say the meetings have been cordial and somewhat productive. Clark, for example, says he’s about 90% sold on the idea of requiring native-plant landscaping for the development and about 50% convinced that a rebate-incentives program would encourage prospective residents to install rainwater-harvesting systems on their property. “They’re so nice,” Clark says of his new neighbors. “When they ask me to do something it’s hard to say no.”

Not everything is going as smoothly as Clark suggests, however. The residents, for example, feel strongly that the project should have third-party oversight, while the developer feels just as strongly against. At any rate, until he secures environmental clearance from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Clark says he’s uncertain whether he’ll develop according to his existing plans — plans that call for a subdivision of single-family homes, townhomes, some commercial property, a school, and the project’s prized jewel: a 27-hole golf course.

The Cypress project has also caught the attention of area environmentalists: Not only is it the largest of some 19 platted developments planned for northern Hays County, it sits directly atop the heart of the Edwards Aquifer — the porous recharge area where water seeps below ground to Barton Springs, the main drinking water source for 45,000 residents in northern Hays and southern Travis counties.

While neighborhood leaders say Clark has been willing to meet with them and consider their concerns, Dripping Springs officials have been less responsive. Rob Baxter, president of the Goldenwood Property Owners Association, said he and a group of residents had rather boldly asked the council to rescind and revise the agreement so it would be more palatable to all sides. The council declined. “Nobody likes to be told that they’re doing something wrong,” Baxter says.” But that’s what we’re doing, and that’s what makes us unpopular.” Radiance resident Roger Kew makes no excuse for the group’s unpopularity: “We feel as residents that the council members had a duty to safeguard our interests. They did not.” [….]

Go to the full story:
http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2001-09-21/pols_feature.html

Belterra Applies For Sewage Discharge Permit

Hays-Belterra WCID, the Water Control and Improvement District for the Belterra subdivision, has applied for a TCEQ Permit to discharge treated sewage effluent directly into Bear Creek. This is unprecedented in our area because the creeks and streams directly recharge our two major aquifers, the Trinity and Edwards, the sole water source for tens of thousands in this area. For those of us on wells in the area, this is a direct threat to our health and our home values. For those living along Bear Creek, it is also a real threat to their quality of life, since many of them swim and recreate in the creek and will no longer be able to do so safely. If this permit is approved, the precedent will be established and untold numbers of developers will undoubtedly try to Permit their wastewater plant discharge into creeks throughout the Hill Country.

There are other effluent handling methods available, such as re-use and irrigation, which is what Belterra originally espoused in their initial plans. They are apparently seeking this Permit in order to increase treatment capacity as well as increase the build-out of their 290W holdings. Please understand that once the Belterra WCID has this Permit and moves forward, the California-based real estate company pushing for this, Capital-Pacific Holdings, Inc., will someday be gone and likely no longer involved with the comings and goings of this WCID.

The link below is a PDF version of the Belterra flier that is formatted to print in large scale.

A door-to-door effort was made on Saturday April 1 to inform Belterra residents of the concerns of downstream residents.

https://friendshipalliance.org/pdfs/belterradischarge.pdf

Rainwater Harvesting book author to speak 15 October

Stephen Colley, AIA, USGBC, Co-Author of the newly updated third edition of “The Texas Manual on Rainwater Harvesting” will offer an overview of rainwater harvesting, with Q&A to follow. This talk is open to residents and property owners in Radiance, Goldenwood, Goldenwood West and membership of Friendship Alliance.

1:30 – 2:30 pm
15 October 2005
at the Radiance Dome

Storm Ranch deal is sealed

Dear FA Friends, Neighbors and Members,

Someone, somewhere, somehow, should knight George Cofer, Director of the Hill Country Conservancy. And while at it, send them a check. Please read on.

>From the Sunday Statesman.

The road to preservation, less traveled After five years, Storm Ranch deal is sealed between family and Hill Country Conservancy.

By Stephen Scheibal AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF Monday, August 08, 2005 In the waning days of a hot summer and hotter economic boom five years ago, a group of environmentalists, developers and business leaders rallied around a 5,700-acre ranch they all wanted to save.

The Storm Ranch had Hill Country views as dramatic as its name. It was the perfect launching pad for an audacious five-year plan to raise $300 million, enough money to wall off giant swaths of the environmentally sensitive region from development.

Then came the bust. Then came Sept. 11, 2001, and war. Then nine-figure fundraising goals drifted into hallucinatory memory, and the conservation coalition was left to scrap for $10 million ? just enough money to preserve Storm Ranch as it is.

The coalition, known as the Hill Country Conservancy, turned a corner last week when its leaders and the Storm family completed a deal that will protect nearly half of the terrier-shaped ranch in Hays County between Dripping Springs and Wimberley.

The $4 million that the conservancy raised and paid the family does not buy the land. Rather, it seals a contract that locks in very strict restrictions guaranteeing that the land will remain free of any significant development, particularly the strip centers and subdivisions that are spreading across the Hill Country.

In coming months, the conservancy hopes to raise $6 million more, most of it in federal grant money, to buy development rights over the rest of the Storm Ranch.

The ranch is the largest land tract in the Barton Springs watershed, a 371-square-mile zone that funnels water into an aquifer that feeds Austin’s iconic swimming hole and provides habitat to the endangered salamander that lives there.

Both buyer and seller celebrated the closing, calling it a conquering of a dismal economy and so much red tape that Texas’ senior senator had to help hack through it.

“There were a lot of places where people could have easily and quite legitimately given up,” said Robin Rather, an environmental activist and the conservancy’s vice president. “Every time we felt like we were about to get over the hump, some new complication would come up. . . . A lot of people thought it would never happen.”

The milestone also represents a very different beginning from the one five years ago, both for Storm Ranch and for efforts to save land like it. But, all sides emphasize, it is a beginning.

Intact heirloom

On Storm Ranch, $10 million will buy, most precisely, nothing.

The money will not change the hills, lush with grass and dotted with trees, that roll away from the rise at the heart of the ranch.

Nor will it put a new owner in place of Lynn Storm, a petroleum engineer by training who invented an oil drilling device and used the considerable spoils from it to assemble the land in the 1950s and early ’60s.

Storm is 90 now. He still drives guests around his ranch in a massive GMC Suburban, surveying the land’s contours and treasures the way other people look over family photos.

But the economy of urban growth treats farms and ranches as assets, not heirlooms. Already, the Storms must pay big property tax bills. At some point, they will face an even bigger inheritance tax payment.

The family has sold corners of the ranch in the past to cover obligations. In the future, the Storms would probably have little choice but to carve up the land and sell swaths of it to developers.

Unless, of course, they could find someone who could pay them to keep their ranch intact.

“We were going to keep the place,” Storm said, “one way or another.”

As the Storms evaluated their options nearly a decade ago, the Hill Country Conservancy coalesced to build on the $78 million that Austin voters approved for conservation land in 1998 and 2000. The money helped the city preserve about 20,000 acres of open space.

The ranch’s size moved it toward the top of Austin’s priority list, but the city didn’t want to cover the full amount by itself.

The conservancy’s leaders, plucked from factions that had long warred over development in environmentally sensitive areas, looked for a quick acquisition to show potential benefactors that the effort was a serious one. The group and the family soon cemented a partnership that would meet both sides’ needs with a tool seldom used in Central Texas.

Using what is known as a conservation easement, the Storms would keep the land, and the conservancy would pay them a fraction of the land’s value not to develop it.

Neither side thought it would be easy. But no one expected it to be as hard as it was.

The wait is over

Just after the conservancy launched its fundraising effort, private money began drying up in the region’s economic downturn. The group turned to the federal government, which had money for land conservation and was eager to help preserve Storm Ranch.

But then officials realized that intricate legal wrinkles might disqualify the project from receiving any money at all. To the Storms and the conservancy, the delays seemed interminable, occasionally hopeless. Lynn Storm and his three children, any one of whom could have scuttled the deal, vowed to hold out as long as they could.

“It was a year and a half dead in the water, where everybody was beating their heads against a wall trying to solve a seemingly insoluble problem,” said Scott Storm, who also signed off on the easement with his sisters Lynne Storm and Anne Geis. “It’s extremely hard to get anyone to finally make a decision or interpretation of any of those kinds of issues.”

A number of agencies ? Austin and the Lower Colorado River Authority among them ? contributed money for the first $4 million phase of the project. The range of contributors, combined with the project’s nontraditional nature, added to the challenge, said Bob Pine, supervisor of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Austin office.

“The fact that everybody was willing to persevere through all that just goes to show how important this is,” Pine said.

Even U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison wrote to federal regulators trying to clear the blockage.

Still, a few anxious conservancy board members repeatedly considered walking away from the partnership and moving on to something that might prove more productive.

Finally, a federal lawyer signed off on the deal, and it began to move forward.

Last week’s closing does not mark the end of the process, not for the Storms and certainly not for the conservancy. The group has received nearly $2 million more in federal money and has applied for $3 million on top of that. The sum, with additional donations, would extend the conservation easement to all of Storm Ranch.

From there, the conservancy expects to raise more money to preserve more land in the Hill Country, relying heavily on conservation easements while pushing preservation initiatives at City Hall and the Travis County Courthouse.

Over the past five years, the group has accepted a donation of conservation land on Lake Austin and aided the city in some of its land purchases. While conservancy officials have pursued other deals, they have had little time or money for anything outside Storm Ranch.

The Storms will start fixing up the barns, roads, fences and fields that fell into disrepair while the family waited for the deal to close.

Lynn Storm said he is most excited about finally being able to clear cedar trees off his property.

“It’s fun to work on something,” he said, “when you know you’re going to whip it.”

sscheibal@statesman.com; 445-3819

Saving Storm Ranch

The Hill Country Conservancy raised $4 million to limit development over nearly half of a 5,700-acre ranch in Hays County. Here’s how it works:

The agreement: Known as a conservation easement, it strictly limits dense development, or the addition of roads and other forms of pavement, on 2,283 acres of the ranch. It allows some public access by school groups, government agencies, nonprofit organizations and utility companies, provided the activities don’t interfere with ranching operations.

The money: Austin contributed nearly $1.5 million for the conservation easement. State and federal officials added $1 million, as did the Lower Colorado River Authority. Other contributors include the Houston Endowment and several surveyors, lawyers and other real estate professionals who contributed their services.

The future: Both the Hill Country Conservancy and the Storm family say they would like to extend the conservation easement over the entire ranch. That would probably require an additional $6 million, most of which the group is trying to raise from federal grants and matching money.

more on Storm Ranch

August 5, 2005

Dear Friends of Hill Country Conservancy:

HCC is pleased to announce an unprecedented land preservation agreement was finalized this week with the “closing” of Phase I (2280 acres) of the Storm Ranch. Located in northern Hays County this beautiful 5670-acre working cattle ranch with ancient rock fences separating pastures of native grasses, magnificent live oaks and numerous creeks and streams will now be preserved forever.

This project, which has taken nearly four years to complete, is the first land preservation agreement in history to involve U.S. Fish & Wildlife habitat acquisition funding in a federal, state, city and private partnership for the preservation of wildlife habitat and protection of water quality. Austin Mayor Will Wynn said today, “I am grateful to the Storm Family and the Hill Country Conservancy. This is great news for Austin and Central Texas. We are proud to have been part of this deal and proud of the work that HCC has done for the region.”

It is anticipated that the final phase of this historic agreement will be completed in 2006, which will ensure the preservation of the entire ranch. Hill Country Conservancy extends grateful thanks to the Storm family and all our partners for their perseverance to complete this project. ###

*** There will be a story in the Austin American-Statesman soon.

George Cofer
Executive Director
www.hillcountryconservancy.org
100 Congress Avenue, Suite 1300
Mailing: Post Office Box 163125
Austin 78716-3125
512.328.2481
512.732.0268 (fax)
866.497.4150

http://www.hillcountryconservancy.org/

Speak up for open space

Your voice matters. Please forward to your lists.

There was an excellent turnout at the bond committee meeting last night. The majority of the people there spoke in favor of the SW Metro Park (Reimers Park) and the $60 Million Proposition for open space. The committee will make its final recommendation to the Commissioners next Tuesday.

It is not to late to voice your support for these natural area projects. Click on the following link to let the committee know you support parks and open space.

(see link below)

Thank you all who participated last night.

Please call me if you have questions or need more information.

Christy Muse Hill Country Alliance cmuse@austin.rr.com 560-3135

http://www.steinhardt.us/emailengine/41/Public/dsp_TargetTemplate_choices.cfm?TTID=10

Texas 130 meeting paves way to more meetings

Officials cite need for bigger discussion of growth questions for

Dear FA Friends, Neighbors and Members, Seems Regional Planning is catching on. Let’s hope it really works here. We know it has elsewhere in the US. The article below outlines the general need for planning around Texas 130, which is akin to the FA asking for planning around and ahead of LCRA pipelines. Envision Central Texas, which the FA still has a board member on, will be taking the lead here, it appears. Please read on for the Statesman article below.

Texas 130 meeting paves way to more meetings

Officials cite need for bigger discussion of growth questions for tollway corridor

By Stephen Scheibal AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF Friday, July 8, 2005

More than two dozen Austin-area planners piled into a boardroom Thursday to begin — or, really, begin to begin — plotting the future of the corridor around the new Texas 130 toll road.

Everyone quickly agreed they will need more people next time.

The meeting was designed to deepen the talks that organizers hope will evolve into a growth plan for the 130 corridor.

The 49-mile road, half of which will be beyond Austin’s regulatory reach, will probably ignite a building boom along the region’s historically neglected eastern flank. But most of the cities, counties and other agencies along the corridor lack the jurisdiction or the resources to plan for the growth, leaving residents and officials in fear of poor development that could sap tax rolls with high maintenance costs and lower property values.

Thursday’s meeting involved a range of parties with an interest in the corridor. Yet organizers conceded that the spectrum will be far too narrow to plan development in the corridor.

So those present agreed to convene a much larger meeting this fall. And most agreed that Envision Central Texas, an Austin-rooted planning group, should coordinate future talks.

Thursday’s discussions helped illuminate some of the pitfalls that planners will face as they try to plot the future of the Texas 130 corridor:

* Austin City Manager Toby Futrell warned that officials must avoid allowing the tollway to become a dividing line between rich and poor.

* Representatives from the Lower Colorado River Authority, the agency that manages most of the region’s surface water, offered to work with rural officials to discuss the new highway and what it will bring.

* West Lake Hills Mayor Dwight Thompson, who is chairman of a group of 21 Central Texas cities, said policies must ensure that smaller jurisdictions will join the planning process and not desert it.

* Bob Tesch, chairman of the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority, warned that some landowners probably will be asked to give up property rights and might fight the planning process.

* John Langmore, an Envision Central Texas committee chairman, noted that no single agency has planning jurisdiction over all of 130’s path.

“We do not want history to repeat itself and have 130 turn into (Interstate) 35,” Langmore said. He added that along the region’s often-clogged spine, “Pretty much whatever anybody wants to put up, that they can financially afford to put up, goes up.”

But the most prescient warning for Central Texas — a region in which distrustful governments sometimes spend as much time fighting as they do cooperating — may have come from Guadalupe County Judge Donald Schraub, whose court in Seguin is closer to San Antonio than Austin.

Schraub attended the meeting to remind officials that Texas 130, originally planned to extend all the way to the San Antonio area, will go no further south than Travis County when the first phase opens in less than three years. He came away less than optimistic that officials will draft a regional plan that would appeal to an entire region.

“I think a bunch of people have gotten their minds set about what they want to see,” Schraub said. “Cities have notoriously always taken advantage of rural areas.”

sscheibal@statesman.com; 445-3819

Regional Water Quality Protection Plan Completed

Dear FA Friends, Neighbors and Members, Following is an email from Terry Tull to the community relating to the presentation of the results of the Regional Water Quality Protection Plan to the Texas Water Development Board. Terry, who is a retired Navy Captain and Naval Architect with degrees in Architecture and Planning, was fortuitously available to shepherd this process through to today, and for this we should all be grateful. We cannot thank him enough. Please read on.

From: Regional Water Quality Planning Office <regionalplan@zeecon.com> To: regionalplan@zeecon.com Sent: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 17:14:15 -0500 Subject: Regional Water Quality Protection Plan Completed

Greetings Regional Water Quality Stakeholders, This update is to let you know that the Regional Water Quality Protection Plan for the Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer and Its Contributing Zone has been completed and may be found on the Project website, www.waterqualityplan.org, after today. Thanks to a great deal of work by the Stakeholder Committee and our consultant, Naismith Engineering, the Final Water Quality Protection Plan was completed this month and delivered to the Executive and Core Committees.

On June 13, the Core Committee endorsed the Final Plan as follows: “The Core Committee of the Regional Water Quality Planning Project for the Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer and its Contributing Zone endorses the final draft of the Regional Water Quality Protection Plan, including the amendments dated June 3, 2005, as a framework for adoption of water quality standards by the local governments represented on the Core Committee, recognizing that each has a unique role to play in achieving the regional solution and that it will take more time and a continuing strenuous effort by government and the public to reach the level of water quality protection described in the Plan.”

On June 22, the Final Plan was delivered to the Texas Water Development Board. We are now making arrangements to print and distribute copies of the Final Plan to the members of the Executive, Core and Stakeholder Committees who worked so hard to create the Plan, and to the local jurisdictions they represent. We are also making arrangements so that individuals may purchase copies of the Plan from local printing outlets. We will be sending out further details about these arrangements over the next few days. My role in the Regional Planning Process is drawing to a close. My appointment as the Executive Director ends officially today. However, I have volunteered to help the City of Dripping Springs, which has served as the Project Administrator, to attend to remaining administrative and financial details over the next few weeks. Therefore, you may continue to receive a few more emails from me. While the planning process is drawing to a close, the implementation process is just beginning. All of us, as stakeholders, have a role to play in the implementation process.

It has been my privilege to serve you over the past year while this important planning work was done.

Thank you for your support and interest in planning for the protection of our vital regional water assets.

Sincerely, Terry Tull Executive Director Office: 512.858.2148 Mobile: 512.663.2093 FAX: 512.858.5646

US Mail: Regional Water Quality Planning Project c/o City of Dripping Springs PO Box 384 Dripping Springs, TX 78620 Website: www.waterqualityplan.org

LCRA drops development limits

Hill Country projects can tie into water lines by meeting new state rules.

Dear FA Friends, Neighbors and Members,

From Tuesday’s Statesman is a damning article that typifies the LCRA’s bait and switch behavior we’ve observed these past few years. While we often find words like “bait and switch” to be hyperbole or inappropriate, in this case it is simply the truth, plainly spoken. We cannot begin to chronicle the number of meetings in the LCRA boardroom and elsewhere that we attended with staff and/or GM Joe Beal, where we were assured that these new pipelines would require specific rules to be followed in order to receive water. And now we are left with a veritable free for all of development regs for all comers getting LCRA water in the Hill Country.

Granted, the LCRA points out and has pointed out in the past, that regs and enforcement of them should be a local government issue, but it has been their pipelines that have caused the urgent need for these regs. And it has been their disingenuous reassurances to the community about their own committment to us, that worked to minimize objections, as they sought to mollify the community rejections of their plans. At this they succeeded, as citizens who were unfamiliar with the histrorical mendacity of the LCRA acquiesced in the wake of their false assurances. Now, our over-developed roads will be littered with their lies.

Sadly, we all recognize the need for water out here, whether by rain collection, well or surface supply. But, unlike the financially motivated LCRA, we who live here tend to understand that there is a solid relationship between planned growth and its localized economic and environmental benefits and an obverse relationship with unplanned growth, it’s associated sprawl and subsequent negative affects on our schools, tax base, home values and environment. Neither of these relationships actually matter to the LCRA. What does matter to them is simply having more paying customers, which puts them in direct opposition with planning. The LCRA has paid lip-service to our concerns for five years now and their true ideals and unprincipled approach is now laid bare in the wake of USFWS abdication of oversight to the TCEQ. While the article makes it sound as though “new state rules” will takeover, what it fails to explain is that these “state rules” are virtually non-existant and unenforced, leftover in the backroom deal cut between Washington and Texas to abandon US Fish & Wildlife Service monitoring of our area to the TCEQ. Again, a reality that does not mean “local control” as it should, but rather state sponsored abandonment of protection guidelines for the Hil Country, as it relates to LCRA provided water. This ultimately becomes a massive state “agency” sponsored subsidy of LCRA infrastructure for developers.

Support for and institution of our Regional Water Quality Planning project of the last year is now more critical than ever. It is now up to Dripping, Hays County and other municipalites to fill the glaring vacuum left in the wake of the LCRA. Please read on.

LOWER COLORADO RIVER AUTHORITY http://www.statesman.com/news/content/auto/epaper/editions/tuesday/news_243da67da0fe6230001a.html

LCRA drops development limits Hill Country projects can tie into water lines by meeting new state rules.

By Stephen Scheibal AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF Tuesday, July 12, 2005 For years, the Lower Colorado River Authority has dictated the laws of the land in Central Texas: If you wanted its water, you followed its rules.

Since 2000, the agency has required developers in environmentally sensitive parts of the Hill Country to follow federal standards limiting the density of houses, roads and other hard surfaces.

But federal regulators are no longer enforcing those limits, so neither is the LCRA, a move that has some people fearing for the health of endangered species, particularly the Barton Springs salamander.

The river authority announced last week that it will no longer require builders to meet limits on pavement or building cover. To get water service, developers now will follow new state standards that don’t cap such density.

The change marks the first ? and, perhaps, most meaningful ? fallout from a recent decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to allow state environmental officials to enforce new standards that lack restrictions the agency once considered critical for protecting endangered species.

“It’s significant, and it is troubling,” said Daryl Slusher, a former Austin City Council member who helped lead a Central Texas planning effort that looked at environmental protections.

LCRA spokesman Robert Cullick said his agency, which manages water resources in the Colorado River basin, cannot block development that environmental regulators allow or impose restrictions that environmental agencies will not.

“The federal government has determined they’re not necessary,” Cullick said.

Limits that guided development by LCRA customers for a half-decade centered on the Barton Springs salamander, which lives only in Austin’s iconic swimming hole and went on the federal endangered species list in 1997.

Rainwater runoff flows across a 371-square-mile watershed along the Travis-Hays county line before percolating into the underground aquifer that feeds Barton Springs.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is charged with enforcing the Endangered Species Act and protecting the salamander. Regulators previously used limits on pavement and other forms of impervious cover in the watershed to maintain the quality of water flowing into Barton Springs.

Environmentalists and many scientists believe such hard surfaces can create pollution themselves or attract it from vehicles and other sources, plus make it easier for the pollution to enter water streams through stormwater runoff.

This year, the Fish and Wildlife Service recognized a set of optional standards that were drafted, and will be enforced, by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

The new standards do not limit impervious cover. However, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the state environmental commission have said they will be sufficient to protect water quality in the watershed.

Developers who abide by the standards ? which the state considers optional ? will be judged to have not harmed the salamander. Those who don’t abide could go through an environmental review with federal regulators.

The old development rules, on par with Austin’s Save Our Springs water quality ordinance, were best seen in the Fish and Wildlife Service’s partnership with the LCRA.

The restrictions essentially forced developers in the watershed to limit their projects in exchange for a water supply. The limits were a key selling point when the LCRA sought support for new water lines in the watershed.

Harry Savio, executive vice president of the Homebuilders Association of Greater Austin, said the region is better off following a single set of regulations established and enforced by the state.

“LCRA is in the water supply business. They’re not in the land-use business,” Savio said. And because there are few water options besides wells for Hill Country developers outside of Austin, he added, “In many ways, they’re becoming the only alternative source.”

But the Save Our Springs Alliance, which sued to make sure watershed developers followed the old rules before receiving LCRA water, said the change will only hasten a planned lawsuit over the state standards.

“Development will be done differently,” SOS lawyer John Fritschie said. Cullick noted that landowners, activists and government officials across the region have worked on a growth plan for the watershed that may offer more protections for water quality and the salamander.

And Slusher said LCRA’s decision makes it more important that smaller governments take action to limit the effects of development on water quality.

“By bringing the water, LCRA is potentially catalyzing much more growth over the aquifer,” Slusher said. “I think they have a responsibility to protect water quality as they spark more growth in any area.”

It’s unclear what will happen if developers who have already agreed to the development limits decide they want to change or scuttle their contracts and build projects under the new guidelines.

Cullick said the agency’s board would have to decide how it would handle such an issue.

“I think there’s always a difference between people who are in an area early and people who are in an area later. It’s rare that the same set of rules apply to all development,” Cullick said. “Usually, it goes against the people who wait. This time, they may think it doesn’t.”

sscheibal@statesman.com; 445-3819

State hearing to discuss Edwards Aquifer

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality will hold a hearing today to receive comments on how the agency should protect the Edwards Aquifer from pollution. The hearing will be at 9:30 a.m. at the agency’s office complex on Interstate 35 in North Austin: 12100 Park 35 Circle, Building E, Room 201 S.

Optional measures to protect Barton Springs

By voluntarily following a new set of standards, which will be administered by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, developers can avoid potentially difficult reviews by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of their projects’ effects on the Barton Springs salamander and other endangered species, as well as tap into Lower Colorado River Authority water lines that run through the Barton Springs watershed. The new rules:

-Impose no limits on pavement, buildings and other forms of impervious cover.

*-Protect caves, creeks and other features with buffers.

-Require gates over caves and similar features.

*-Call for devices that trap sediment and pollution.

-Require maintenance records to be submitted every three years.

** Change from previous Fish and Wildlife Service rules.

Driveway Sealant Threat to Watersheds

Industries hear city’s findings on pollution More data on parking lot sealants is needed, company representatives say.

Special Series: ‘Toxic Waters: An Austin treasure at risk’

By Stephen Scheibal

AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Austin officials who think they’ve found a new pollution problem presented it Monday to people who may prove part of the solution: representatives of companies making or applying chemical sealants that protect parking lots.

The city and the U.S. Geological Survey released a study last month tying parking lot sealants to a rise in pollution from polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, in urban waterways. PAHs in sufficient concentrations and exposure levels can threaten the health of humans or aquatic life, though officials say the contamination levels they’ve found probably will not make people sick.

Monday’s meeting, held in a small ballroom in the Lions Municipal Golf Course clubhouse, allowed the city to present the findings of the study and to collect reactions, and advice, from the industries that are closest to the chemicals.

Through the extremely technical discussions of statistical studies and chemical concentrations, the audience of about a dozen industry representatives warned that the study might not account for variations in products or parking lots, not to mention a range of PAH sources from motor oil to the wood smoke that flavors barbecue.

“There’s always more to the story,” said Bob DeMott, an environmental consultant studying the sealant findings for an industry group called the Pavement Coating Technology Center. “The beginning finding is only a beginning. The story is always more complicated in the end.”

Last month’s report blamed parking lot sealants for as much as 95 percent of the PAH pollution in urban watersheds.

City officials have said they might seek to ban some sealant products to protect the environment.

Austin officials have worried about pollution from parking lot sealants for years. When the American-Statesman published stories in 2003 about pollution in and around Barton Springs Pool, the city pointed to the sealants as a likely source.

High levels of PAHs also have been found in parts of Waller Creek through the University of Texas campus, the ponds in the Central Market area north of UT, and Walnut Creek in North Austin.

City officials were most concerned about sealants made from coal tar. The substance comes from a toxic byproduct of coke, a fuel that’s used in the production of steel. PAHs are primary components of coal tar sealants.

Such products are usually easy to find at home improvement stores, though the city has worked with sellers and contractors to stem their use.

But authors of last month’s report stopped short of narrowing the blame for PAH pollution, saying it isn’t clear that other types of sealants, including asphalt-based ones the city has recommended, are substantially better for the environment.

Peter Van Metre, who represented the U.S. Geological Survey at the meeting, closed his presentation by noting substantial increases of PAH levels in Town Lake as well as urban waters in Chicago and Virginia.

“This could be an important source that has not been looked into,” Van Metre said.

DeMott, in turn, rattled off a menu of information that he still wants to see about the study’s methods and findings.

“Right now,” he said, “there are a lot of details that are only available in city offices.”

sscheibal@statesman.com; 445-3819