The Edwards Aquifer Authority (EAA) wouldn’t declare a drought emergency for
the Southern end of the aquifer last week, despite pressure from a federal
judge to come up with an immediate conservation plan to keep the aquifer from
continuing to decline. The EAA vote on July 31 was close — seven members to
six — but “the prevailing feeling was that there was no crisis,” says
spokesperson Jeanne Jaynes. The aquifer is low, Comal Springs is going dry, and
San Marcos Springs is in danger as well; residents, industries, and endangered
species that rely on the aquifer and the springs may well go without, or die,
if the drought continues. The Sierra Club originally filed a lawsuit in U.S.
District Judge Lucius Bunton’s court to ask for restrictions on aquifer
pumping. Bunton asked the region’s users, i.e., the members of the EAA, to come
up with a conservation plan by August 1. Now, since no agreement was reached,
Bunton has appointed two independent environmental consultants to come up with
a plan — it will likely include strict restrictions on pumping, something San
Antonio, in particular, opposes. Three of the seven EAA members who voted
against the drought emergency are from the San Antonio area. As the largest
user, San Antonio has the largest stake in the aquifer and has vigorously
opposed any restrictions. Well, what do you expect from a city with a fake
river? — L.C.B.
The drought is wreaking havoc not only on the livelihoods of many South
Texans, but on their recreation as well. The Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority
issued a warning last week that conditions are ripe for disease-causing
bacteria from human and animal fecal waste and other amoebas that thrive in
warm, fresh water. Experts advise holding your nose or wearing nose plugs when
jumping or diving into South Texas rivers, streams, and lakes…
So what’s with this mandatory meeting set for all the city department heads
this Friday? Jittery employees must be wondering if it has anything to do with
the private talks held earlier this week between the city’s top personnel heads
and the city manager… — A.D.
Recycle This
Remember when recycling made us feel good inside? Maybe The New YorkTimes writer who said it’s a big waste of effort was onto something. Look
at the headache recycling is giving the city of Austin, Browning Ferris
Industries (BFI) and residents who live near BFI’s recycling center at 4712
Bolm Road in East Austin.
A fire of undetermined origin last month caused about $500,000 worth of damage
to the plant and placed nearby residents in fear of their modest wooden homes
going up in smoke. The blaze underscored what neighbors have complained about
for years — that an industrial-sized recycling center doesn’t belong in a
residential neighborhood. Health and safety matters aside, residents also
complain of noise, traffic and paper that invariably ends up littering their
yards.
Of course, the neighbors can point to a history of lax city zoning laws in
East Austin to account for their anger. So it was with these past zoning wrongs
in mind that Councilmembers Gus Garcia and Daryl Slusher sponsored a resolution
directing the city manager to assist BFI in relocating to a less-populated area
of the city. Still, there’s nothing like biting the hand that feeds you. BFI
pays the city about $700,000 a year for all the paper, cardboard, glass,
plastic, and cans collected in the curbside recycling program. Plus, BFI has
the only full-scale material recovery facility (MRF) in Austin that’s capable
of handling the city’s recycling. BFI’s contract with the city expires in
December. The company has the option to renew and, at this point, it looks like
the city has no other choice but to draw up another contract with the
company.
This awkward impasse between the city and BFI probably has Willie Rhodes, the
city’s solid waste director, a little nervous about the future of his recycling
program. “They’re the only major MRF in town,” he said of BFI. “So I don’t
think the city would want to do anything that would jeopardize the city’s
recycling program.”
Also, BFI’s relocation could put a dozen or so workers out of a job. About 20%
of the plant’s 72 employees live within a half-mile radius of the plant, and
most of them walk to work.
Exactly how the city plans to “assist” BFI in finding a new location is
unclear. Lynda Rife, BFI’s Texas manager of external affairs, said scouting
around for a new home isn’t so cut and dried. The plant requires a location
alongside a freight rail line — in order to ship paper to Mexico and pop
bottles to North Carolina — with plenty of space for buildings, and suitable
turn-around capacity for trucks. In the meantime, Rife said, BFI is doing some
serious soul-searching of its own. She concedes that the company hasn’t been
the best corporate neighbor in the world. “We haven’t been pro-active,” she
said. “We don’t, for example, have a neighborhood advisory committee, but we
intend to start one.”
Susana Almanza, director of the locally based People in Defense of Earth and
Her Resources (PODER), acknowledges that recycling has its proper place in the
world. “Recycling is a good thing, but it’s not fair that the company has been
allowed to grow from a small newspaper recycling center 10 years ago into a
full-blown industrial site.” — A.S.
Wait And Hear
The noise complaints issued around the Barton Springs area may be getting allof the attention right now, but if the buzz of Sixth Street merchant’s
“wait-and-see” attitude could be registered on a sound meter, it might just
read off the scale. According to an Austin police memorandum addressed to
downtown merchants, Austin’s Municipal Court has changed the filing procedures
for noise ordinance violations citywide, requiring that complaints be filed
under state law instead of under the city ordinance. As a result, says Austin
Police Department Lieutenant Harold Piatt, nights clubs and merchants will be
in violation when a complainant convinces the courts that a noise is
“unreasonable” — thereby making the local ordinance’s custom of a mandatory
decibel reading virtually obsolete.
Already, merchants say they’re worried about the apparently vague nature of
the new law. “If [the law] is going to make it harder [to issue citations],
that’s great,” says Steamboat’s Danny Crooks. “But the way we [clubowners]
first read it, is that an officer can walk by and consider the noise
`unreasonable’ without having to back it up.”
However, Piatt says he is not anticipating that the new law will constitute a
“substantial change.” In fact, the change could put a heavier burden on the
complainant to make his or her case that noise emanating from a club is too
loud. “Under the city ordinance, anything over a reading of 85 decibels past
10pm constituted a violation,” says Piatt. “Now, a complainant must go before
and prove to a judge or jury that the noise was unreasonable. First though, the
complainant has to call [the police], and we’ve directed our officers to first
issue warnings upon such complaints. That way, citations will only be issued on
subsequent violations on the same business night.”
Another change in enforcement that ought to rankle downtown residents who say
they are perpetually bombarded by loud music is that officers will discontinue
their regular practice of “sweeping” the streets with decibel meters, and
instead wait on citizen complaints. Even then, says Piatt, the noise must also
be deemed “unreasonable” by the officer issuing a citation. “Just because
there’s a complaint doesn’t mean we’re going to take enforcement action,” Piatt
says. “It’s like a speeding incident; just because you tell an officer you saw
someone speeding doesn’t mean we can issue a citation unless an officer saw it
themselves. Therefore, the officer acting on the complaint is also going to
have to witness, after the warning, an unreasonable noise in his presence.”
City attorney Gail Posey backs up Piatt’s contention that, despite the new
filing requirements and elimination of the decibel reading mandate, nothing’s
actually changed. Posey — who admits requesting the official change in filing
procedure — explains that for the past two years, officers have been re-filing
citations issued under the city ordinance and prosecuting under the state’s
Disorderly Conduct Law for reasons of uniformity and appropriate legal
principle. The recent move just makes it official. “This way… there’ll be
fewer clerical errors and less cases that have to be dismissed or re-filed —
which isn’t to say the city ordinance is bad law or that decibel readings can’t
be used and considered. But what we’re offering is a broader question for a
judge or jury to consider.” — A.L.
Sue No Weevil
Tommy Funk was a believer. Now he’s a plaintiff. In January, South Texasfarmers voted by a margin of almost 3 to 1 to get rid of the boll weevil
eradication effort in the lower Rio Grande Valley. The farmers — who lost an
estimated $140 million when their fields were invaded by the beet armyworm —
blamed the insect problem on the eradication effort. But Funk, one of the
largest cotton growers and ginners in the region, voted to keep the program. He
believed it would help the cotton industry over the long term.
Now, seven months later, Funk has changed his mind. And he has joined dozens
of other farmers in suing the Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation, the
agency in charge of spraying malathion on more than a million acres of Texas
cotton fields. Funk’s suit, filed on July 18 in Cameron County, is the latest
of three lawsuits filed against TBWEF, alleging that the assessment TBWEF has
been levying on cotton farmers is unconstitutional.
On July 19, a state district court judge in Hale County agreed with the
plaintiffs that the assessment scheme is unconstitutional, and issued a final
ruling in the case known as Eddie Lewellen et al. v TBWEF. The agency
quickly filed an appeal with the Texas Supreme Court.
Other legal battles are looming. The Texas Department of Agriculture is
pursuing 829 cases against cotton growers who did not pay their 1995
assessments to TBWEF. Growers in several zones owe TBWEF a total of $544,093
from last year, and TBWEF has filed dozens of lawsuits for non-payment.
Funk is not happy that he has been forced to sue TBWEF. “I’m disappointed that
a program that had so much potential and was so successful in other areas was
mismanaged and has resulted in just the worst situation in the cotton industry
in the Valley that I’ve ever seen,” he said. — R.B.
This article appears in August 9 • 1996 and August 9 • 1996 (Cover).