Dear Editor, In reply (and this will be my last … promise) to Mr. Raymond Slade’s letter [“Postmarks Online,” Jan. 23], I offer the following. My letter does not state that all recharge from Williamson Creek discharges to Cold Springs. I am merely summarizing the results of the referenced study (www.bseacd.org/graphics/Report_Summary_of_Dye_Trace.pdf), specifically that, “Cold Springs is hydraulically linked to surface water recharging from the upper portions of Williamson and Barton Creeks on the recharge zone.” Table 1 of the report shows that dye injection at sites A, F, and G (all of which were recovered at Cold Springs, not Barton Springs) were conducted under high, moderate, and low flow spring conditions. As for “misread[ing] and misinterpret[ing] the dye studies,” I again refer to Figure 4 of the report, which shows the outline and inferred flow direction of the Cold Springs Groundwater Basin of the aquifer. I have not found any study at odds with the results of this report and would gently suggest that Mr. Slade take issue with the authors of that report regarding any perceived errors in their methodology or conclusions. The impervious cover numbers quoted by Mr. Slade are muddled, inasmuch as the current 3.3% value is for the entire contributing zone and the projected 14.9% represents only the city of Austin’s jurisdiction (p.11 of his referenced report). Even a cursory review of aerial images (Google Earth, for example) of the Southwest Austin area shows the existing extensive commercial and residential development directly over the aquifer. My point of all this is merely to suggest that incremental development at AMD’s Lantana may not spell the demise of Barton Springs. As for the thinly veiled suggestion that I represent “somebody who wants to ignore the truth,” as a fellow scientist, he should know better.