Double Trouble
Need a More Informed Discussion on Watershed-Based Strategies
RECEIVED Tue., April 1, 2008
Dear Editor,
Austin has been searching for the truth about water and Barton Springs for decades. Mr. Bill Bunch erroneously states [“Postmarks,” March 28] Lee Leffingwell's modification to the Barton Springs ordinance would increase development. Certainly Barton Springs water quality has suffered from developers insensitive to the environment, but not Leffingwell’s efforts to permit redevelopment.
There are no projects taking advantage of the ordinance. If there were, they would have to comply with Save Our Springs water-quality goals – nondegradation – which at this stage of Southwest Austin development would only serve to improve water quality. Still, Leffingwell’s attempt to promote redevelopment adding water-quality ponds falls short. Neither the city nor the market offers any developer an incentive worth losing existing revenue streams just to redevelop SOS noncompliant property.
Today, many (but not all) developers are more sensitive to the environment. But the city is not responding to current scientific studies or facts on the ground. The persistent focus on impervious cover prevents a more informed discussion from taking place on watershed-based strategies to protect Barton Springs.
One analysis by Andrés Duany tells us suburban sprawl creates three times more impervious cover per living unit than New Urbanist development. Research provided by the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Barton Springs Salamander Recovery Plan, and the Regional Water Quality Protection Plan all state sprawl is the cause of water quality problems, not development per se.
Population growth is a reality Austin cannot ignore. Austin does not have a viable strategy to protect Barton Springs from that growth. The city must preserve open space, not mandate low-density suburban development. New Urbanism offers more realistic strategies to protect Barton Springs than either Mr. Bunch or the city. But without linking development to preserving open space, even that policy would fail. Time is short. Change is needed.
Austin has been searching for the truth about water and Barton Springs for decades. Mr. Bill Bunch erroneously states [“Postmarks,” March 28] Lee Leffingwell's modification to the Barton Springs ordinance would increase development. Certainly Barton Springs water quality has suffered from developers insensitive to the environment, but not Leffingwell’s efforts to permit redevelopment.
There are no projects taking advantage of the ordinance. If there were, they would have to comply with Save Our Springs water-quality goals – nondegradation – which at this stage of Southwest Austin development would only serve to improve water quality. Still, Leffingwell’s attempt to promote redevelopment adding water-quality ponds falls short. Neither the city nor the market offers any developer an incentive worth losing existing revenue streams just to redevelop SOS noncompliant property.
Today, many (but not all) developers are more sensitive to the environment. But the city is not responding to current scientific studies or facts on the ground. The persistent focus on impervious cover prevents a more informed discussion from taking place on watershed-based strategies to protect Barton Springs.
One analysis by Andrés Duany tells us suburban sprawl creates three times more impervious cover per living unit than New Urbanist development. Research provided by the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Barton Springs Salamander Recovery Plan, and the Regional Water Quality Protection Plan all state sprawl is the cause of water quality problems, not development per se.
Population growth is a reality Austin cannot ignore. Austin does not have a viable strategy to protect Barton Springs from that growth. The city must preserve open space, not mandate low-density suburban development. New Urbanism offers more realistic strategies to protect Barton Springs than either Mr. Bunch or the city. But without linking development to preserving open space, even that policy would fail. Time is short. Change is needed.
David Richardson
Oak Hill
Oak Hill