Downtown Georgetown
Does Utility Have Any Credibility Left on Site Choice?
RECEIVED Mon., Nov. 6, 2006
Dear Editor,
Can the Austin Water Utility possibly have any credibility left on the important matter of choosing a site for a new water treatment plant [“Auditor's Report: Staff misled city board on water plant site,” Web Extra, Nov. 3]? The city auditor has now found that utility staff “misinformed” (as the article by Wells Dunbar notes, stronger words are likely appropriate) a member of the Environmental Board about the existence of a second alternative site on the Cortaña tract. Less clear from the auditor’s report is whether the utility similarly manipulated the facts from the alternative site review in its presentation to City Council. Nevertheless, the auditor’s findings demand immediate redress by the City Council and city manager.
As a former resident of Austin and chair of the Environmental Board, I know the board members have worked long and hard to recommend solutions to the need for water that would avoid permanent and irrevocable environmental harm. Throughout the process, the Water Utility politely stonewalled the board’s members, for example, withholding the Alan Plummer report from the board for some 10 months after its completion. Now we learn the utility was duplicitous as well. Neither the City Council nor the city manager should tolerate the kind of erosion of integrity in the process that has occurred here. If the City Council and city manager do not insist that utility staff tell the truth, how can the public expect the city to make sound decisions?
Can the Austin Water Utility possibly have any credibility left on the important matter of choosing a site for a new water treatment plant [“Auditor's Report: Staff misled city board on water plant site,” Web Extra, Nov. 3]? The city auditor has now found that utility staff “misinformed” (as the article by Wells Dunbar notes, stronger words are likely appropriate) a member of the Environmental Board about the existence of a second alternative site on the Cortaña tract. Less clear from the auditor’s report is whether the utility similarly manipulated the facts from the alternative site review in its presentation to City Council. Nevertheless, the auditor’s findings demand immediate redress by the City Council and city manager.
As a former resident of Austin and chair of the Environmental Board, I know the board members have worked long and hard to recommend solutions to the need for water that would avoid permanent and irrevocable environmental harm. Throughout the process, the Water Utility politely stonewalled the board’s members, for example, withholding the Alan Plummer report from the board for some 10 months after its completion. Now we learn the utility was duplicitous as well. Neither the City Council nor the city manager should tolerate the kind of erosion of integrity in the process that has occurred here. If the City Council and city manager do not insist that utility staff tell the truth, how can the public expect the city to make sound decisions?
Mary Ruth Holder
Mount Vernon, Wash.
Mount Vernon, Wash.
