Posted: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 06:47 AM - 8,085 Readers
By: Sloan
The sun finally came out Sunday after what seemed like an endless streak of cold, wet misery (I wonder what people from Minnesota or Seattle would make of that statement).
To take advantage of the 70-degree freedom, I biked across Austin, from West Campus through the Capitol grounds and downtown, across East Fifth — my favorite street in the city — and beyond.
The ride reinforced what I already knew: Austin is quite a town. We should be forever grateful to call it home.
Although UT and Austin are deeply interconnected, they are not entirely dependent on each other, and it’s better that way. As the late, great Walter Cronkite said in one of those UT commercials that I still watch occasionally on YouTube, “It’s hard to describe the heart of a city as diverse and creative as Austin.”
Given the healthy synergy between the University and the city, it’s in our best interest as students, faculty and administrators to ensure that Austin develops in a positive manner.
We can’t deny that Austin is growing — upperclassmen and Austin locals can attest to how dramatically the skyline has changed in a matter of years — but we can attempt to direct the growth in a progressive, sustainable direction.
The construction of the $1.2 billion Water Treatment Plant #4, if realized, will be a decidedly regressive step away from that goal.
The plant is set to be built in northwest Austin and will draw water from Lake Travis. Austin Water Utility has requested funds from City Council to construct the plant and claims that Austin needs to increase the city’s treatment capacity, which they say will soon be threatened by population growth.
Public advocacy groups like the Austin Neighborhoods Council, Clean Water Action, Public Citizen and the Austin Sierra Club have denounced the proposal and cite problems with Austin Water Utility’s methodology and outlook. These critics question why the city would choose consumption over conservation and efficiency, especially given the economic climate we face (the $1.2 billion construction cost isn’t petty cash).
In 2002, Austin Water Utility told the City Council that peak day demands for water would rise from the 2001 figure of 240.3 million to 281 million gallons a day by the summer of 2009. Yet, as of February 2010, despite an increase of 100,000 citizens to the city, water demand has declined since 2001. This downward-sloping plateau can be attributed to gains in efficiency and conservation, and — as the City Council would be wise to realize — the initiatives that have thus far been implemented are just scratching the surface.
As Colin Clark of Save Our Springs repeatedly pointed out in a public debate over the plant in October, if the city spent only a fraction of the money designated for the plant on implementing policies that involved efficiency, conservation and reuse, Austin citizens would be far better off, both monetarily and culturally.
Yes, this is a cultural issue. In the long run, living with less water is going to be a reality that all Americans are going to have to face. Despite what we’re taught in elementary school about the “water cycle,” the truth is we’re draining water tables across the country — and globally — at an unsustainable level. We’re treating fresh water as a replaceable commodity, and not as the valuable resource that it truly is.
But when problems arise, so do solutions and opportunity. Austin could incentivize “grey water” systems and develop rainwater harvesting. We can fix leaking pipes, install efficient appliances and plumbing fixtures and enforce responsible irrigation techniques. We can create green jobs for a new, ecologically conscious economy.
When biking around Austin, I realized that the city currently stands at a crossroads. It can follow the typical model of expansion or redefine it and institute smart growth policies. The debate over Water Treatment Plant #4, which if implemented will lead to the formidable building of tract homes in the north, is a fight over Austin’s soul.
It’s not that Austin Water Utility is entirely wrong about their estimates; it’s that they have a different vision of Austin’s future. But do we want to submerge ourselves in debt just to subsidize some developer’s vision of endless suburban sprawl? That experiment has already failed our country.
If you enjoy that Austin doesn’t resemble Los Angeles just yet and would like for city policies to revolve around sustainability and not short-term gain, here’s some good news for you: You can do something about it.
Attend the rally on March 11 against the Billion Dollar Boondoggle, and let Mayor Leffingwell and City Council members know that their actions have electoral consequences. For more info visit savewatersavemoney.org.
