 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
EAA hints at raising pumping cap; downstream cities bristle In the legislation that created the EAA, a pumping cap of 450,000 acre-feet was prescribed, and the EAA was given the authority to raise the cap if evidence became available that it should be higher. Subsequently, the EAA issued pumping permits for more than 450,000 acre-feet, with the intention of "buying down" the excess rights. The EAA now believes that average annual recharge is about half a million acre-feet greater than previously thought, so more should be available from the Aquifer. If the cap is raised to 500,000 acre-feet, it will also mean there are fewer excess rights the Authority has to purchase. A group of small cities northeast of San Antonio, the Northeast Partnership, favor raising the cap, which could potentially give them access to more water. However, cities such as New Braunfels, San Marcos, and Seguin, which make up the Guadalupe Basin Coalition, view any increase in pumping as an additional threat to Comal and San Marcos Springs. The proposal to raise the pumping cap is expected to be considered by the EAA board sometime in 2003. On December 10 Judge Biery issued his long-awaited ruling and said the development can proceed for now without a public vote. Supporters of the PGA Village applauded the Judge for leaving the decision up to elected officials, while critics charged the decision was highly political. The Judge appeared to personally favor setting aside the land as a game preserve instead of a golf resort, but found the opponent's legal arguments did not support their policy goals. "The court finds....plaintiffs (Save Our Aquifer) are trying to fit a voting rights peg into an environmental round hole." Opponents had wanted Biery to halt the project unless a citywide referendum was held. |
||
|
Cost for preserving cave creature habitat estimated at $22.1 million In December 2000 the US Fish & Wildlife Service listed as endangered nine cave-dwelling invertebrates that live in the Aquifer's karst formations in Bexar county. There are three beetles, one daddy long-legs, and five spiders (for more see the section on karst-dwelling species). In November 2002 a new federal report estimated that as much as $22.1 million could be spent over 10 years to protect the species. Most of the cost would fall on private landowners who would need to purchase and preserve similar lands in exchange for being allowed to develop their own. The USFWS is proposing to designate 9,516 acres as critical habitat for the species, about half of which is already state or federally owned. The federal agency can stop or limit development of land containing endangered species, but will sometimes allow habitat to be destroyed if other lands containing the same species are set aside. Advocates of species protection say the creatures are like barometers of aquifer health. Critics of the study say the $22.1 million figure underestimates what the true costs will be and will make it difficult for owners of small parcels to develop their lands. Owners of large parcels may be able to set aside portions of their tract without much sacrifice, but owners of small tracts may find it difficult to develop what they have or purchase additional lands as a set-aside. On November 12, 2002 the Edwards Aquifer Authority adopted permanent drought rules that require pumpers to increasingly limit their withdrawals whenever springflows or J17 levels decline to the point where endangered species may be at risk. During dry periods in 1998 and 2000, the agency implemented emergency rules that mandated specific water-use cutbacks. The final rules require percentage cutbacks but do not specify what steps cities must take to reduce pumping. For more see the page on Restrictions. On November 7 lawyers for the City and Save Our Aquifer returned to Judge Biery's court for another round of debate over whether progress on the new development deal should be stopped until the court determines whether the city violated federal law by not putting the issue on the November 5 ballot for a public vote. During the five hour hearing, opponents claimed the City subverted the will of the people by rescinding the initial development deal and replacing it with a slightly revamped proposal that would not be subject to a public vote. City lawyers countered that federal voting laws apply to elections involving public officials, not referendum petitions. Judge Biery said he would issue a decision later. |
||
|
EAA adopts underground fuel storage rules On October 8 the Edwards Aquifer Authority adopted rules that bar new underground fuel storage tanks on the recharge zone. The rules also require that existing tanks ultimately be upgraded with triple-wall containment, and they bar new above-ground tanks of more than 600 gallons. The rules were proposed in March, and the action marked the first time the 10-year old agency has used its powers to adopt rules that protect water quality. The proposed rules would have required removal of all underground tanks, but the Authority backed off that proposal after complaints from gas station owners that said it would put them out of business. EAA General Manager Greg Ellis said adopting the rules was an extremely significant step in aquifer protection, because "One of the key areas of vulnerabilities to the aquifer are underground storage tanks." The City of San Antonio barred new underground fuel tanks on the recharge zone within the city limits in 1995. On October 3 the final public hearing on the new development deal took place at City Hall, with few new ideas presented but with plenty of passions flaring. Proponents have been rather quiet and small in number, but in recent months their numbers have grown and they have become more vocal. There were many heated exchanges with the same arguments made; on one side proponents say it will be good for the City, on the other side opponents say the City is trying to ignore the citizen's call for a vote. Nothing that happened at either public hearing appeared to change any Councilman's mind, with a large majority appearing to be in favor. A vote on the project was scheduled for October 24. On October 9 a stunning development at City Hall occurred when City Councilmen Enrique "Kike" Martin and John Sanders were arrested on federal charges they received a total of $12,000 in bribes from lawyers Henry J. "Jack" Pytel Jr. and Juan Peña earlier this year. Prosecutors and news reports indicated that more indictments could follow. The entire city Council was subpoenaed to appear before a federal grand jury. With the entire Council under a cloud of suspicion, calls began emerging from many quarters for a delay on the vote. Council members were given copies of the new PGA Village deal on the 22nd, two days before the scheduled vote, and on the 23rd they were scheduled to appear before the grand jury. Some Council members complained they would have no time to review the deal and suggested a delay. Nevertheless, Mayor Garza pressed the issue forward and on October 24th the proposal zoomed through Council on a 10-1 vote. At the last minute the PGA made a commitment to pay all hotel workers and PGA employees who don't receive tips a minimum of $8.75 per hour. The lone dissenting vote was Julian Castro, who was uncomfortable with the idea the new deal is not subject to a citizen's referendum. On the next day, October 24, PGA opponents went back to federal court asking that progress on the development deal be stopped until the court decides whether a public vote is required. Several days later Judge Fred Biery decided to let the city proceed and scheduled another round of hearings for November 7. |
||
|
In early September, with rallies in favor of the PGA Village continuing, public opinion appeared to be shifting. A Survey USA poll conducted for KSAT-TV showed 60% approved of the project and 36% were opposed; in March the numbers were 54% opposed and 36% in favor. Save Our Aquifer representatives said they would go to federal court to block consideration of a new agreement if the plan doesn't include a public vote, saying the new deal has changed so little from the old one that it should be covered under the referendum. The new deal was shaping up to be less lucrative for the developers, but still with significant benefits. On September 5 City Attorney Andy Martin issued an opinion that the new plan would not be subject to any petition drive. According to Martin, State courts have consistently ruled that annexation agreements are not subject to referendums because such agreements require public hearings. Even so, opponents vowed to continue to press in federal court for a public vote. By mid-September, some details of the new agreement began to emerge. A parcel of around 250 acres is separated from the main tract of land and by state law the City can only annex contiguous parcels, so the new agreement will apply to about 2,600 acres instead of 2,861 covered in the previous agreement. On September 19 City Council approved a resolution authorizing a three-year annexation plan for the area. It was a procedural move required by state law that sets in motion hearings that result in a service plan for the area. The Council is scheduled to consider the final plan on October 24. In the meantime, the City released a list of services it would have to provide for the area such as utilities, police and fire protection, and garbage collection. The first of two public hearings was scheduled for September 30. A raucous crowd of nearly 400 turned out, including many more proponents than at previous meetings. The second hearing was scheduled for October 3. |
||
|
SAWS pitches in for bat cave, recharge zone protection On August 20 the Board of the San Antonio Water System approved contributing $625,000 towards $2 million that is needed to secure a conservation easement on land near the Bracken Bat Cave, home of the world's largest colony of Mexican free-tailed bats. A conservation easement would ensure the property is never developed. The land contains many recharge features and offers a phenomenal daily display when about 40 million bats emerge for the evening. In May 2002 the Edwards Aquifer Authority contributed $375,000 towards the project. Fluoridation of Edwards water begins Until February of 2000 when Bexar Met began delivering treated surface water from its ultrafiltration plant (see previous Newsflash), people in San Antonio had never had any water except from the Edwards. They were very proud of the fact their entire supply of municipal water was wonderful artesian groundwater, and they had always been reluctant to mix water from other sources or any chemicals with it. Fluoridation of the public water supply was voted down in 1966 and 1985, but was finally approved by 52.6% percent of voters in November of 2000. On August 1, 2002 fluoride began coursing through the pipes of the San Antonio Water System and Bexar Met, who worked together to reduce costs and ensure that everyone in the city limits will receive fluoridated water. Critics contend fluoride is a dangerous and unnecessary poison, while public health officials say it will go a long way toward fighting tooth decay and reducing public health costs. Nurse Practitioner Alina Matutes-Eckhardt, who provides care for indigent patients on the city's south side, says that tooth decay is one of the biggest public health problems she sees in her practice. "People that are against this say those who want fluoride can buy toothpaste or supplements. If you never leave the northside, it's pretty easy to forget there are thousands in our city who can barely buy food, much less toothpaste. Having fluoride in the public water supply is going to have tremendous long-term health benefits for my patients," says Matutes-Eckhardt. Fluoride occurs naturally in Edwards water at a concentration of about 0.1 to 0.5 parts per million. Fluoridation will boost the concentration to about 0.8 ppm, the level recommended by the Texas Department of Health as optimal for preventing tooth decay. On August 1, just before City Council was to meet to call for a public vote, the PGA called it quits, saying it "no longer wished to be involved in an issue that is creating so much controversy and divisiveness within the San Antonio community." Instead of scheduling a referendum, City Council instead rescinded the ordinance that approved the development. Supporters of the project said San Antonio had sent a signal to the rest of the country that it is anti-business. They warned that development would now occur with little environmental controls. On the other hand, opponents celebrated a major victory and pointed out that even if the PGA had been environmentally responsible, a development boom on adjacent tracts would occur without adequate Aquifer protections. They insisted that saying no to this deal was a good start towards making elected officials create and enforce effective regulations to protect the Aquifer. That same day, Mayor Garza said the door was not yet completely closed on the PGA project and he began working on a different kind of deal that would not include a taxing district. Lumberman's said it would focus on turning the tract into a sprawling residential development. Owners of a large tract on the west side that had been previously mentioned as an alternative again offered their site, saying they would consider a land swap or a joint venture or just about anything. That site is the location of a proposed development called the Village at West Pointe. Lumberman's said it was committed to using the original site if the PGA came to San Antonio, so the offer to use the West Pointe site was withdrawn by the developers. On August 7 Mayor Garza traveled to Florida to meet with PGA officials in an attempt to send a signal there was still significant interest in bringing the PGA to San Antonio, and he returned cautiously optimistic that a deal could yet be worked out if the City acted quickly. He planned to ask City Council to support a letter of intent to design an agreement built around an incentives plan that would delay annexation of the area for up to 15 years in return for strict environmental controls. Leaders of the Save Our Aquifer campaign said they would oppose the new plan because it would still be over the recharge zone. COPS and Metro Alliance said they wanted to see the details of the new plan in writing before taking a position. On August 12 Mayor Garza unveiled his new proposal and received unanimous City Council support. Under the new plan, the City would not collect any property taxes for 15 years, the environmental controls would be essentially the same, 700 acres of open space would be required (as opposed to 1,100 previously), and there would be a limit on impervious cover of 25% (as opposed to 15% previously). The new proposal does not include a salary floor or a "living wage" component as in the previous agreement. On August 13 the resort's developers signaled their approval of the concept by signing and returning a letter of intent. Supporters insisted the new proposal is sufficiently different from the old one that it wouldn't have to go to a public vote under the original petition drive. Opponents said the deal is a repackaging of the old one and that the citizen's right to petition for a referendum is meaningless if city officials can say a slightly different plan is unrelated to the old one and not subject to a public vote. On August 15 lawyers for Save Our Aquifer asked Judge Fred Biery to hold the city in contempt of court. In June, Judge Biery issued a restraining order forbidding the city from taking any action on the resort except to rescind the ordinance or call for a public vote. On August 19 Save Our Aquifer broadened their complaint against the City by submitting an amendment to their previous filing. The group alleged the City violated the Texas Open Meetings Act by deliberating about the new deal in private, and they also asserted the new deal violates the Voting Rights Act by denying the due process rights of those who signed the petition. On August 22 Judge Biery said the concerns of Save Our Aquifer were premature and lifted his restraining order, allowing the City to proceed with negotiating a new deal. He said that if and when a deal is struck, the Court would address the matter at the appropriate time. The new deal was taking longer than expected to construct and was not expected to be ready until perhaps early September. Supporters of the PGA Village project launched a barrage of rallies to show there is significant public sentiment in favor of the project. Meanwhile, COPS and Metro Alliance said they would consider reversing their position against the project if an environmental attorney were hired to approve the proposal and if the "living wage" of $8.50 an hour were paid to all resort employees. Mayor Garza said the first demand could be met, but the second was not under consideration and might not be legal. |
||
|
Monster rains give major lift to Aquifer; water restrictions cancelled Two days after Stage I water restrictions were implemented in late June, a low-pressure system parked itself over south central Texas for a week and dumped as much as 43 inches of rain in some places. The J-17 index well responded by rising 35 feet by July 9, to just below 685'. The incredible rains claimed 9 lives and caused an estimated $1 billion in damage as floods raged down the Medina and San Antonio Rivers and turned more than 20 counties into disaster areas. The spillway at Canyon Dam was used for the first time since the reservoir was constructed in the early 1960s. All of Castroville was evacuated over concerns about the integrity of Medina Dam, but engineers determined it was still safe. By July 27, the level of the J17 index well had been above 650' for 30 days, so Stage I water restrictions that were imposed in June were ended. Monster rains and severe flooding in the first week of July seemed to put debate over the PGA Village on the back-burner temporarily. On July 5 City Clerk Norma Rodriguez sent a report to council that indicated the opponents petition drive did not fall short. Exact numbers were to be released at the Council meeting on July 10. There were rumors that Council was prepared to repeal the ordinance that established the special taxing district and work out a non-annexation agreement with the developers. Few other details emerged. On July 8 U.S. District Judge Fred Biery issued an order that indefinitely extended his June 25 restraining order forbidding the city from taking any action on the resort except to rescind the ordinance or call for a public vote. On July 10 Council held a special meeting during which City Clerk Norma Rodriguez said her staff had verified 77,419 signatures, far more than the 63,006 needed to force Council's hand. Council's options are to either rescind the ordinance or hold a referendum. A majority of Council appeared inclined to let a public vote proceed. Such a vote would be held on November 2. PGA Village opponents picked up the support of former Texas Land Commissioner Jim Hightower, who spoke at a fundraiser for Save Our Aquifer. By mid-month, business and city leaders began to express doubts the PGA Village would ever become a reality. Chamber of Commerce Chairman Marty Wender said "I believe they are going to scrap that idea. The taxing district is dead." Meanwhile, in an effort to restore public conference in city government, Mayor Ed Garza said he would ask the Council to let voters decide in November rather than rescind the development agreement. Some observers noted the public's loss of confidence was partly caused by Garza himself. In March, Mayor Garza said he would not support any plan that might end up the subject of a public referendum. Along with most of City Council, he ended up voting in favor even though scientific polls showed a majority of San Antonians were against the project. Opponents criticized the vote as an arrogant lack of respect for the citizens. The last two weeks of July went by with almost no news or developments. On July 30 Bill Kaufman, an attorney and lobbyist for the developers, said he was worried the PGA was about to pull out of the deal. |
||
|
San Antonio implements Stage I conservation measures On June 26, after the J17 index well fell to 649.7 feet, San Antonio implemented Stage I water conservation measures. For details on what the required conservation measures are, see the Drought Restrictions page. June began with Mayor Garza saying he had a hunch the number of signatures needed for the PGA petition drive would fall short. He was right. When City Clerk Norma Rodriguez released the number of verified signatures on June 6, the number was 13,493 short of the number required to force a vote. PGA opponents had submitted 79,083 names and 49,513 had been approved. Because of the confusion in May over the 'suspense list', it was unclear up until the last minute how many signatures would be needed. The number was finally determined to be 63,006. Petition organizers vowed to continue their efforts and get enough signatures in the 20 days they had to do so. A flap erupted over some names that may have been disqualified because of incomplete voter registration records. In years past, voters were only asked to supply the year of their birth, not the complete date. As county records were updated, the birth date for those voters was listed as "01-01". On the PGA petition, complete birth dates are required, and if they don't match county records they can be disqualified. The City Clerk said her office would re-examine the disqualified names, determine how many might have been thrown out for this reason, try to confirm their voter status, and validate all names of people who are qualified to vote and signed the petition. By mid-June, there were reports that Mayor Garza, COPS, and Metro Alliance were discussing changes to the plan that would result in the petition drive being dropped by the two anti-PGA groups. COPS and Metro Alliance said they would end their participation in the drive if there were guarantees of higher wages, expert oversight of environmental controls, and a shorter life for the taxing district. Several City Council members said they did not support further negotiations or changes because the public deserved a chance to vote on the current plan, and members of the Save Our Aquifer Campaign questioned the legality of changing the development plan before the petition drive had run its course. An item was placed on City Council's agenda for June 20 that would allow discussion, amendment, or repeal of the development agreement. Representatives for Lumberman's said they would meet and listen to Garza's recommendations, but ruled out shortening the life of the taxing district. On June 18, the Express-News reported that during a re-examination of disqualified petition signatures, the City Clerk was able to validate an additional 3,812. Some had been disqualified because of the "01-01" problem and others had listed erroneous birth dates. The inclusion of these signatures reduced the number of additional ones needed from 13,493 to 9,681. The parties were not able to negotiate a compromise for consideration at the June 20 City Council meeting but hoped that a new development deal would be ready to offer at the June 27 meeting. Mayor Garza appeared to have sufficient support among council members to approve a revised plan. Meanwhile, Save Our Aquifer officials threatened to take the City to court over what it said was an amazingly high rejection rate among petition signatures. City officials promised that signatures would not be disqualified because of minor technicalities, but a spot-check of disqualified signatures by Express-News columnist Rick Casey revealed that many were thrown out because people had signed with their familiar name instead of a more formal name on the voter registration rolls. Casey reported that the preliminary results of a more thorough examination being done by the newspaper supported Save Our Aquifer's contention that many signatures were disqualified erroneously. There was also a computer glitch that caused the City Clerk to begin a re-evaluation of 1,166 disqualified signatures. They were thrown out because voters had signed a petition before the effective date of their voter registration in the computer records. The City Clerk agreed that a programming error might have caused the computer to read the wrong date from voting records. On June 25 PGA opponents delivered 26,000 more signatures to City Hall, and the City Clerk said she would report the total number of verified signatures at the July 10 council meeting. The Save Our Aquifer group also made good on their threat to file suit against the City over disqualified signatures. The suit alleges the verification process resulted in the disqualification of a disproportionate number of minority voters. Many voters signed with an Anglicized version of their name, such as Joe, but if a more formal name such as Jose was listed on the registration rolls, the voter was disqualified. Also on June 25, U.S. District Judge Fred Biery placed a temporary restraining order on the city, preventing it from taking any action on the PGA project until Save Our Aquifer's legal challenge can be examined. The Judge scheduled a hearing for July 8. |
||
|
City contributes $2.9 million to Aquifer protection land purchase On May 30 City Council voted to spend $2.9 million under the voter-approved Proposition 3 land acquisition program to help fund the purchase of 1,163 acres of land in northwest Bexar county, most of which is on the recharge zone. The tract is wedged between Government Canyon State Natural Area and another 1,033 acres the City purchased in its first Proposition 3 land acquisition in December 2000. Addition of this tract means that almost 10,000 contiguous acres have been preserved from development for aquifer protection. In the current deal, Texas Parks & Wildlife will buy the tract with the City's money and another $2.9 million in federal funds. EAA drought and UST rules out for public comment On
May 14 the EAA board released proposed permanent drought rules for
public comment, along with proposed rules that would ban new
underground petroleum storage tanks in the recharge zone. The
proposed drought rules are more stringent than emergency rules adopted
during droughts in 1998 and 2000, but in April the agency
admitted they still will not accomplish the legislatively mandated
objective of keeping Comal Springs flowing
above 200 cfs to protect endangered species.
In April the agency sent the rules to its staff for economic and environmental impact
studies (see
previous Newsflash). The proposed rules do not specify what
steps cities must take to reduce pumping, but do require utilities to
adopt conservation pricing by July 1, 2003. Under the proposed
rules, the trigger levels and major provisions of each Stage are
listed below. EAA moves to protect sensitive tracts in Grey Forest and near Bracken Bat Cave On May 14 the board of the Edwards Aquifer Authority approved contributing $125,000 towards the purchase of 78.9 acres in the Edwards contributing zone in Grey Forest. The purchase would help protect water quality and quantity. The property is adjacent to 1,300 acres purchased by San Antonio and overlooks the famous Grey Forest Inn. Another $375,000 is needed to complete the purchase, and city officials were hopeful the remaining funds could be secured from SAWS or the federal government. The Edwards board also approved contributing $375,000 towards $2 million that is needed to secure a conservation easement on land near the Bracken Bat Cave, home of the world's largest colony of Mexican free-tailed bats. Though it is not an outright purchase, a conservation easement would ensure the property is never developed. The land contains many recharge features and offers a phenomenal daily display when about 40 million bats emerge for the evening. On May 11 the Express-News reported that on April 25 US District Judge Sam Sparks dismissed a six year old lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club. The suit had been filed against San Antonio and major aquifer pumpers, seeking cutbacks in aquifer usage to protect endangered species. The lawsuit was the second filed by the Sierra Club; the first one was filed in 1991 and resulted in the creation and empowerment of the Edwards Aquifer Authority to allocate groundwater rights and regulate pumping. The dismissal was not opposed by the Sierra Club. All sides conceded it would probably be more appropriate to bring action against the EAA. The Sierra Club is unhappy with the EAA's failure so far to adopt a drought management plan and has indicated it may sue again if low springflows threaten endangered species. In April 2002 the EAA proposed drought rules, which are currently undergoing economic and environmental impact studies (see previous Newsflash). Construction over endangered cave creature habitat receives OK On May 3 a federal judge cleared the way for construction of the Shops a La Cantera to proceed on recharge zone land containing endangered cave creatures. In December 2001 USAA received approval from the US Fish & Wildlife service for a plan to preserve 179 acres in exchange for permission to develop a new shopping venue near 1604 and I-10. The Center for Biological Diversity, a non-profit environmental group, filed suit against the USFWS alleging it failed to minimize the development's impact on the endangered cave creatures. For more on USAA's plan see the September and July 2001 newsflashes. For more on the affected cave invertebrates see the Endangered Species page. May began with news that construction of the main road for the PGA Village would take place regardless of whether or not a public referendum on the issue would take place. Lumberman's officials said that even if no PGA Village was built, they would still build a subdivision and that construction of the Cibolo Canyon Parkway would begin in about three months. On May 6 the City Clerk's office acknowledged that PGA opponents could get an extra 20 days to gather enough signatures to force a referendum if they needed it. City Clerk Norma Rodriguez said such extensions were standard practice. But several days later PGA opponents said they would not need the extra time and that they would have enough signatures by the May 13 deadline. On May 9 Carlos Guerra of the Express-News reported that a new scientific poll showed 56.3 percent of voters said they disagreed or strongly disagreed with Council's decision to proceed with the project. Within a margin of error of less than five percent, 55.5% said they would vote against it, 35.4 percent said they would vote in favor, and 9 percent were undecided. On May 12 Express-News columnist Rick Casey explained that nowadays it is more difficult for the public to place issues on the ballot because the list of registered voters, 10% of whom have to sign a petition, includes names of many people who have apparently moved away. When the county mails a voter a new registration card and it is returned as undeliverable, state law requires the name to be left on the list of voters for several years. On May 13 a raucous and confident crowd of PGA opponents delivered petitions with about 83,700 signatures to the City Clerk's office. To force a referendum 68,023 signatures of registered voters are needed. The City Clerk's office has 20 days to validate the signatures, and if the total falls short of 68,023, PGA opponents will have another 20 days to gather more. A public vote could be scheduled for either September 14 or November 5. In a Survey USA poll for KSAT-TV, 72 percent said there should be a public vote on the issue. On May 15 PGA opposition organizers said that petitions with about 4,000 signatures had inadvertently been left out of the batch delivered to City Hall on Monday, but they could be used later if needed. There were also reports that COPS and Metro Alliance had met with Mayor Garza to see if a deal could be cut that would avoid a referendum election. A few days later, both sides said that no deal was in the works. While temporary workers at the City Clerk's office culled through signatures, the City and the resort developers signed the final version of the development plan on May 20. On May 23 Mayor Garza said that if the petition drive successfully places the issue on a ballot, the PGA developers would probably back out of the deal. The Mayor and Council unanimously signed a memo supporting incentives to develop a different site off the recharge zone that had previously been mentioned as an alternate location. On May 26 Express-News columnist Rick Casey reported the analysis in his column of May 12 was flawed and that according to state law, the PGA petitioners would need only about 61,000 signatures, not 68,000. The number required is 10% of registered voters, but everyone involved had previously assumed the number was based on a total of registered voters that included names placed on a "suspense list". The list contains names of voters whose new registration cards were returned to the county as undeliverable. Most of them are voters who have moved away, but if they show up on election day they are allowed to vote in whatever district they reside. Tax Assessor-Collector Sylvia Romo advised Casey that "suspense list" voters don't count for petitions, and Casey confirmed it with the Secretary of State's office. Nobody in the City Clerk's office was aware of this provision in state law, but Elections Administrator Cliff Borofsky estimated there were about 70,000 on the "suspense list", which would reduce the total needed by 7,000 to 61,000. |
||
|
Aquifer Authority proposes drought rules On April 9 the board of the Edwards Aquifer Authority started the process of adopting a permanent set of drought rules by sending proposals to the agency's general manager for economic and environmental impact studies. Although the proposed rules are more stringent than the emergency rules adopted during droughts in 1998 and 2000, the agency admitted they still will not accomplish the legislatively mandated objective of keeping Comal Springs flowing above 200 cfs to protect endangered species. Under the proposed rules, by December of each year every user will indicate what their expected water use will be for each quarter of the next year, and any drought-related cutbacks will be made from their scheduled usage. J17 index well levels of 650, 640, 630, 627 will trigger cutbacks of 10, 15, 20, and 30 percent, respectively. The rules will probably not be adopted until late this summer, and it does not appear they will be needed this year. In September 2001 the EAA was widely criticized for proposing drought rules that were thought to be too complex and unenforceable (see previous Newsflash). April began with Mayor Garza expressing confidence that a near-unanimous City Council would approve the development plan if the final issue involving wages of at least $8.50 per hour could be worked out. A scientific poll commissioned by KSAT-TV showed that public opposition to the plan had decreased to 54% of those responding. On April 2 public meetings were held in each of 10 council districts to answer questions about the development plan. At many of the meetings, people were frustrated and upset by the format, which allowed only written questions. In District 5 Councilman David A. Garcia pulled the microphone plug when COPS leader Father Walter D'heedene tried to address the crowd, and most of the room walked out. At other meetings, residents complained the format was designed to help the City sell its proposal. Just before Council convened the meeting on April 4 to decide the PGA fate, Archbishop Patrick Flores, who in February urged the archdiocese to oppose the plan, said his concerns had been addressed and he gave the project his blessing when asked by a TV reporter if he would do so. He later said he considers himself neutral. Even without the last-minute boost from the Archbishop, it was clear that Council had made up its mind and would vote in favor. During the Citizens To Be Heard segment, opponents begged Council to trust the people and let them decide by placing the issue on a ballot. Some said the impending affirmative vote, which apparently would take place even though a majority of citizens were still opposed, represented an arrogant lack of respect for the citizens. Proponents said Council was taking a historic step toward securing San Antonio's economic future. At 2:17 am on April 5, after a marathon Council meeting, the development plan was passed by a vote of 9-2. Opponents immediately launched a drive to gather the 68,000 signatures needed to force a referendum. Mayor Garza said he would work toward turning the anger and energy shown over the resort into a focused effort to develop a comprehensive plan to control pollution over the recharge zone. PGA opponents remained mum about the progress of their petition drive as they gathered signatures outside Fiesta events and by walking neighborhoods. Four ex-San Antonio mayors, Henry Cisneros, Nelson Wolff, Bill Thornton, and Howard Peak all endorsed the project. A flap developed about a provision inadvertently left in the draft contract regarding using recycled water on the golf courses. In March the City and the PGA had eliminated a wastewater recycling plant that had been planned for the facility and also agreed that recycled water would not be used. Many questioned how it could be that such language had not been removed, but officials explained the draft was just that....a draft....and there was no intention to include the provision in the final agreement. In late April opponents pointed to a fine issued by EPA as evidence the project will compromise Edwards water quality. The federal environmental regulatory agency issued a $72,100 fine against Lumberman's, alleging the firm violated the Clean Water Act by failing to obtain a permit during construction the Village at Western Oaks subdivision in Austin. Lumberman's vice-president John Pierret said it was simply an administrative penalty and that all required environmental protections had been performed, while opponents said the fine raised questions about whether the developers would try to skirt the rules in San Antonio. |
||
|
SA River upgrade announced; refurbished section of River Walk reopens On
March 16 officials unveiled plans for an extensive San Antonio River
upgrade that will create a linear park more than 15 miles long from
Brackenridge to Mission Espada. The project will be accomplished
in five phases, cost more than $140 million, and take at least 10
years. These improvements will focus on restoring the River's
natural environment and enhancing the communities along the River's
banks, not on amenities for tourists. New stream meanders will
be created in long stretches of the River south of downtown that in
decades past were channelized, straightened, and lined with rip-rap
for flood control. These stretches currently resemble a drainage
ditch, so new landscaping and trees will create a more natural
feel. Planners also envision bank-level urban development in the
northern reaches, and links to existing communities in the
south. For more see the San Antonio River page.
Another stretch currently being refurbished, between Convent and Houston Streets, is due to reopen in early 2003. EAA proposes removal of underground storage tanks, ban on new ones On March 12 trustees of the Edwards Aquifer Authority approved a draft proposal that would ban any new storage tanks for fuel or hazardous materials in the recharge zone, and it would also require existing ones to be moved above ground within 10 years. Leaks in underground tanks are very difficult to find. Leaks in above ground tanks are very easy to find; however, they can explode. The proposal is the EAA's first attempt at possibly passing rules to protect Edwards water quality. Since the agency was created in 1996, it has focused only on allocating Edwards groundwater rights and issuing pumping permits. San Antonio banned new underground storage tanks in the recharge zone in 1994, but only a small portion of the recharge zone is within San Antonio's jurisdiction. The State also regulates development in the recharge zone, but its rules for protecting Edwards quality are often criticized as weak and inadequate. There were many interesting developments in January and February, and March began with word that attorney Mayo Galindo had determined a public referendum would indeed be possible if City Council approves the project. Galindo was hired by the City in February to look into the possibility that citizens could overturn Council's decision. Also, Councilman Julian Castro was finally granted a waiver by the development corporation that he asked for in January that will allow him to vote on the PGA Village. Since he worked for a law firm that represented the development corporation before he resigned in January, he needed the waiver to vote on the project. There were reports that intense, marathon negotiations were going on in order to meet a March 14 deadline for city staffers to present City Council with agreements for developing the site and monitoring environmental quality. On March 3 Councilman Julian Castro announced he would vote against the project, calling it "corporate welfare" and not worth a giveaway of $60 million. He said that about three out of four of his constituents that he had heard from were against it, and that he was also concerned the special taxing district would give the developers too much power in creating "a golfopolis". A few days later Councilman Carroll Schubert became the first Council member to announce intentions to vote in favor of the project, saying he saw it as "a good development agreement and good for the citizens to have this kind of project come to our city". He was followed by Councilman David Carpenter, who also said he would vote in favor, making the score two in favor to one opposed. On March 7 a native American group, the American Indians in Texas at the Spanish Colonial Missions, announced it opposed the project because of water quality concerns and because the site has always been revered by them as sacred and contains American Indian burial grounds. Also on March 7, the City and the PGA agreed to eliminate the wastewater recycling plant that had been planned for the facility, although it was not made clear what would be done instead. It was also agreed the recycled water would not be used on the three golf courses. That means the golf courses will have to use drinking water quality water from either the Edwards or the Trinity. It was also revealed the Archdiocese of San Antonio has plans to build a church near the PGA Village over the Edwards recharge zone, even though in February Archbishop Patrick Flores urged the archdiocese to oppose the Village in order to protect our water. Just before the first public unveiling of the development plan at a sparsely attended City Council meeting on March 14, Lumberman's Investment Corp. complained that environmental controls proposed by SAWS were too expensive, and it proposed an alternative environmental plan of its own. SAWS is proposing strict controls on the use of fertilizers and pesticides that have never been required of anybody before. When the public finally got a look at the plan, Mayor Ed Garza warned it was still a work in progress and that many issues remained to be worked out. He also said the scheduled March 28 vote was not a hard and fast deadline and if a deal could not be finalized within two weeks the vote could be postponed. Negotiations continued hard and fast. The City asked for $10.5 million more from the developer for new road and drainage work; and Lumberman's countered by asking that the taxing district last 20 years instead of 15. The City and the developer disagreed over funding for public projects in other parts of the City, a provision which the Mayor said must be included for his support. County Judge Nelson Wolff said the tax subsidy was too generous to the developers, but that didn't necessarily mean he would oppose the project. Attorney James Blackborn, Jr., the lawyer the City hired in February to review and assist with the project, briefed City Council in executive session and said that before the City signs an agreement, environmentally sensitive features should be identified and methods for their protection should be clearly stated in advance. PGA executive Jim Awtrey said the resort would go to another City, not to another site, if San Antonio did not approve the development agreement. On March 21st an emotional crowd of almost 600 people jammed City Council chambers to hear pro and con views of the resort. The boisterous crowd applauded and chanted while about 100 speakers expressed a myriad of views. Many opponents were concerned mainly with protecting Edwards recharge quality. Other opponents said that regardless of the effect on the Edwards, the taxing district would give too much money and too much power to the developers and that a golf resort is a paltry vision for our City. Proponents pointed out that water agencies felt it was a safer alternative than residential homes, would use half the water, and would be a fantastic economic generator for San Antonio. Others were mainly concerned about the inclusion of minorities and women in construction contracting and operation of the Village. Some said they liked the idea of a PGA Village, but not in the proposed location. Activist groups said that instead of voting on the project, City Council should go directly to the people and hold a public referendum. On March 22nd Mayor Ed Garza shocked the development corporation by announcing that he has his own version of a plan to build the resort. It is a scaled-back version that reduces the spending authority of the special taxing district and shortens its life, although by how much was not made clear. It would not include some of the roads the developer is proposing, would limit impervious cover to 15% including golf courses, and would include the Mayor on the taxing district's board. The Mayor hopes the compromise plan will bring the community together in support of the resort and bring it to San Antonio. Representatives for Lumberman's said they would take a look at it, and the compromise appeared to be gaining tentative support among some community groups that were strongly opposed to the development plan unveiled on March 14. Other groups, such as the Smart Growth Coalition, said they were still opposed because the new proposal still involves a site on the Edwards recharge zone and a special taxing district. By March 25, City Manager Terry Brechtel had decided that everybody needed more time for review and negotiations, so the final vote scheduled for March 28 was postponed for one week. On March 27 Mayor Garza said he would not support any plan that might end up the subject of a public referendum. Express-News polls showed that opposition was decreasing, but a majority of San Antonians were still against the project. By the end of March, City negotiators and the developers had reached a tentative agreement that reduces the life of the taxing district to a maximum of 13 years. The biggest unresolved issue was whether the Marriott hotel would agree to pay a "living wage" of at least $8.50 per hour to all employees. |
||
|
San Antonio makes more aquifer protection land purchases On February 28 San Antonio made two more purchases of environmentally sensitive land under the Proposition 3 land acquisition program, bringing the total land area purchased so far to almost 3,500 acres. One of the two latest purchases is a 403 acre addition to the 640 acre Thrift Ranch tract which the City purchased in March 2001. The property is located in northwest Bexar county north of 1604 and between Hwy 16 and I-10. A previous addition to the Thrift Ranch tract was made in May 2001 when the City purchased the 242 acre Cedar Creek tract. With another 31 adjacent acres that were donated, that makes 1,316 contiguous acres that have been set aside. The other tract in the current round of purchases, called the Mayberry Tract, straddles the Bexar-Medina county line, so the City purchased 169 acres in Bexar county and accepted 176 acres in Medina county as a donation. Revenues raised by Proposition 3, a 1/8 cent sales tax passed by voters in May 2000, can only be spent in Bexar county. The City made its first Proposition 3 purchase in December 2000, acquiring 1,033 acres adjacent to the Government Canyon State Natural Area. Another tract adjacent to Government Canyon, the 594 acre Iron Horse tract, was also purchased at the same time the City acquired the Thrift tract in March 2001. That same month, the City acquired 208 acres in Crownridge near the Friedrich Wilderness Park. So far there have been seven acquisitions. SAWS, LCRA sign major water deal On February 27 SAWS and the Lower Colorado River Authority formally signed a 1 billion, 87-year contract that could enable SAWS to transfer and treat almost as much water as the City gets from the Edwards Aquifer. The first seven years of the contract will be a study period during which SAWS will fund studies to determine if the project is economically feasible and environmentally sound. If it is, the project will enter an implementation period. It is likely the water will not actually be delivered to users in San Antonio until after 2020. For more details see the Colorado River page. SAWS delivers Trinity Aquifer water The San Antonio Water System announced that customers who live and work in far northern San Antonio will start receiving water from the Trinity Aquifer in February. This marks the first time the city-owned utility has delivered water from any other source than the Edwards. The area that will receive Trinity water is north of 1604, roughly bordered on the west by 281 and on the east by Bulverde Road. For more on this new water source, see the Trinity Aquifer page. Supreme Court upholds EAA's power to regulate pumping On February 14 2002 the Texas Supreme Court issued a landmark decision that appears to have decided once and for all the Edwards Aquifer Authority's powers to regulate pumping. The court ruled the Property Rights Preservation Act has an exception or regulating groundwater, and the EAA need not prepare a Takings Impact Assessment before adopting rules. For more on the case and the history of Edwards legislation, see the Laws and Regulations page. EAA to prepare Demand Management/Critical Period Management plan In a follow-up to it's September action, on February 12 the Edwards Aquifer Authority board instructed its staff to draft a drought response plan. Cutbacks of 10% would occur when the J17 well drops to 650', 15% at 640', and 20% at 630'. If the level remains below 630' for 30 days, 30% cutbacks would be imposed as an emergency springflow protection measure. Proposal to extend Proposition 3 tax abandoned On February 7 the idea of a vote in May to extend the Proposition 3 tax (see previous Newsflash) was abandoned because it became clear the City is prohibited by law from using tax revenues to purchase land outside Bexar county. Since only a small portion of the recharge zone is in Bexar county, the City feels it needs the ability to acquire land elsewhere. Mayor Ed Garza indicated the City will seek the authority to purchase land outside the county when the Legislature convenes again in 2003, and then it will schedule a vote. After all of January's interesting developments (see below), February began with the City announcing it intended to hire attorney Jim Blackburn to review the environmental aspects of the proposed project. Blackburn is a well known environmental lawyer who worked with the City on water quality ordinances in the mid 90's. Mayor Ed Garza announced he could not support the proposal in its current form and prepared to travel to Florida and meet with PGA officials to press them on the issue of selecting another site. Before he could get there, the PGA reiterated that it was not interested in any other site and gave the City 90 days or less to decide on the project before shifting its focus to another city. When he met them face to face, the PGA officials said they were not absolutely opposed to any other site, but the City would have to work out the details with the developers. Also in early February, both the San Antonio Water System and the Edwards Aquifer Authority sought involvement in monitoring water quality for the project. SAWS proposed that it oversee a testing program for each of the three golf courses and conduct random, unannounced inspections. EAA would like to have the right to review and even reject whatever plans the developers come up with to protect recharge water quality. The Aquifer Authority is in the process of promulgating water quality rules for the recharge zone and expects to be implementing them in 2003. On February 6 the Edwards Aquifer Authority held a public meeting to provide information about the PGA Village. Several hundred people attended, indicating there is a great deal of community interest in learning about the pros and cons of the project. The EAA board was to vote on February 12 on whether or not to support the plan, but Mayor Garza asked the Authority to delay taking a position on the project until the development agreement was complete and could be reviewed by EAA staff. On February 7, County Judge Nelson Wolff announced that he also would like to see the PGA Village built off the recharge zone, and he was confident the county would help the City come up with an alternate location. Wolff is an extremely popular businessman and political heavyweight who built a successful grocery chain, served as mayor, state senator, and chairman of the Greater San Antonio Chamber of Commerce. His backing of the Mayor's suggestion that PGA locate elsewhere was widely seen as providing strong and important support for the idea. However, by February 12 the project's developers indicated they were absolutely opposed to any other site. A few days later the City abandoned it's plans to have staff establish a process for an alternate site selection, and a council vote deciding the fate of the Village appeared likely in March. In the meantime the City hired an attorney, Mayo Galindo, to determine what powers the citizens might to have to overturn a decision by City Council in favor of moving forward with the project. City Council began focusing on obtaining concessions from the developer and getting the best deal possible, a tact that was seen as a sign the Council might be leaning toward approving the project. Even though Mayor Ed Garza had asked it to remain neutral, the Edwards Aquifer Authority sent a letter to City Council indicating its position on the project. The EAA Board said it favors the PGA Village over the other alternatives. Up until mid-February, more attention had been paid to the project's impacts on the Aquifer than on the economic pros and cons. On February 21, the San Antonio Economic Development Foundation released a report claiming that just the construction of one hotel and the golf courses would have a $193 million dollar impact on the City's economy. Citizens Organized for Public Service (COPS) staged a rally against the Village, saying they are prepared to welcome the PGA to San Antonio, but they oppose the location of the resort and the non-annexation agreement that would give millions of dollars in tax-revenues to the developers to build infrastructure. The Express-News reported the tax-abatements would indeed be huge, making any abatements granted before look like small potatoes. The paper reported that altogether, San Antonio has granted 47 tax abatements in the past 13 years, foregoing $13.7 million in property taxes. The Lumberman's project could generate up to $60 million in taxes over 15 years that would not go to the City. Focusing attention back on the Aquifer, on February 24 the Express-News announced that it had interviewed five prominent aquifer scientists, and three said they felt the project would compromise water quality in the Edwards and spur more development that would cause additional risk. One characterized the threat as very low and was confident that because of flow patterns within the Aquifer, local wells would not be affected but some in northeast Bexar county and western Comal county might be. The fifth scientist was uncertain. While meeting with community groups that oppose the project, County Commissioner Tommy Adkisson and his Democratic primary opponent former City Councilman Mario Salas both said they would use their influence and lobby City Council to vote the Village down. To the north, Comal County Commissioners voiced their concern the project would also affect the Trinity Aquifer. The controversy over the PGA Village actually began in Spring 2001 as a Trinity Aquifer issue, but lately the focus has been on the Edwards. On February 27 Archbishop Patrick Flores stunned developers by releasing a letter urging the Archdiocese to not support the proposed special tax district, protect our water, and contact elected officials to voice opposition. Opposition to the PGA Village appeared to be spreading like wildfire. Representatives from Lumberman's Investment Corporation met with the Archbishop the next day but were unable to move him from his position. |
||
|
Extension of Proposition 3 tax proposed In January 2002 Mayor Ed Garza proposed holding a referendum in May to extend the Proposition 3 tax by another five years to raise an additional $100 million for purchases of environmentally sensitive lands. Initially approved by voters In May 2000, Proposition 3 is a 1/8 cent sales tax that will raise $45 million for purchases of recharge zone land and $20 million for purchases of riparian lands along Leon and Salado Creeks. The tax is set to expire when it raises the target amount, which is expected to occur sometime in 2004. About 2,700 acres have been purchased so far. Garza's proposal was widely applauded by concerned citizens, and although some have speculated the additional money could be used to purchase the site of the proposed PGA development (see below), City officials insist the two issues are unrelated. Garza also proposed broadening the scope of the tax to allow purchases of land outside Bexar county. SAWS to conduct study on recycled water use over recharge zone On January 15 the San Antonio Water System board of trustees approved a two year study to evaluate the effects of using recycled water over the Edwards recharge zone. The study will look at how well soil that is likely to be used on golf courses can neutralize small amounts of nutrients and bacteria that remain in wastewater after treatment. The SAWS' staff is proposing a policy that would allow use of recycled water over the recharge zone after it is further treated to drinking water quality. Critics of the study have complained the type of soil to be used does not occur naturally over the recharge zone, but SAWS believes the soils to be used will be of the type brought in by developers. Soils on the recharge zone are generally very thin and highly calcareous, so developers of golf courses and housing developments usually truck in large amounts of rich black soil from the south side of town. For more on how recycled water is produced and how it is used in the San Antonio area, see the page on Water Recycling and Reuse. Debate continues to rage over PGA Village Ever since plans to construct a PGA Village over the Edwards recharge zone in northern San Antonio became a hot topic (see previous Newsflash), debate has continued to rage over the proposed development and a groundswell of public opposition has emerged. Developers have insisted the project is environmentally sound and the only alternative would be a 9,000 home subdivision that would pose a much greater threat than the golf resort. In November, the developer’s argument was diluted by revelations that agreements with the San Antonio Water System exist to provide sewer service to only about half that number of homes. Also in November, brief consideration was given to a plan that would allow creation of a special taxing district to fund infrastructure while not requiring hotels or golf courses. But State Rep. Robert Puente, who carried the bill to create the taxing district through the Texas House, was enraged the City would even consider the idea and it was quickly abandoned. Meanwhile, Mayor Ed Garza and citizens groups pushed for an independent environmental review of the project, and the head of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service warned the City and developers were proceeding at their own risk because his office had not been contacted to determine the extent of endangered species habitat on the site. In December, a debate over the project’s pros and cons at the University of the Incarnate Word’s First Friday Forum quickly turned into a gripe session and developers felt the heat of public opposition. The independent environmental review of the project, a three-week evaluation of previous studies, was criticized by environmentalists as a mickey-mouse affair. They were also angered that George Veni, who is widely recognized as being a foremost Edwards Aquifer expert, was not hired to conduct the study. Texas A & M geologist Christopher Mathewson was hired instead. On January 10, Mathewson told City Council his review indicated the PGA Village would be environmentally sound and would not harm the City’s drinking water. Members of a newly formed civic group, the Smart Growth Coalition, sharply contested the findings and termed the development a grave threat to the Aquifer. The group warned that if City Council approves the project, it will immediately launch a petition drive to block it. Proponents of the project continue to insist the Village would be an important economic asset for the city and a model of responsible development over the Aquifer. A public forum to discuss the environmental issues surrounding the project was set for January 16. About 140 people attended, and nobody spoke in favor of the project. After meeting behind closed doors the next day, City Council indicated it still had more questions than answers. Council member Bonnie Conner said she wanted more details on the resort's pollution abatement plan, and other council members were concerned about the possibility that under the draft agreement, developers might receive millions of dollars in tax revenue for land they might have to set aside anyway to comply with the Endangered Species Act. In mid-January, it was not certain whether endangered golden-cheeked warbler habitat exists on the property. Reports indicated that nesting warblers had not been observed on the site, but if they exist, the development corporation might be required to change its plans to minimize potential harm or mitigate the damage by acquiring and setting aside additional land elsewhere. The Edwards Aquifer Authority scheduled a special session on February 6 to hear presentations on the proposed development. EAA General Manager Greg Ellis weighed in on the controversy by pointing out that in this case, because of the proposed taxing district, the City is at least in a position to insist on strict water quality monitoring to protect the Aquifer. The State has only minimal required protections, and normally developers can simply file a water pollution abatement plan and proceed. Ellis said he believes "our science is up to the task" of protecting recharge water quality. Even so, critics of the project are bothered by the fact that monitoring would be left up to the developers themselves, and they are worried the development would surely lead to even greater development over the recharge zone which might not be done as responsibly. The Archdiocese of San Antonio joined the opposition, saying they were concerned about the adverse impact on the Aquifer and that Christians should be good stewards over the Earth and its natural resources. On January 25 Councilman Julian Castro said he intended to ask the development corporation for a waiver of all professional duties linking him to the firm so he can vote on the PGA Village. Until January he worked for a law firm that represented the development corporation and could not take part in any deliberations concerning the project. However, since he never worked on the Lumberman's contract, he hoped that by resigning and requesting a waiver, he could then participate in the eventual City Council vote. On January 27 the San Antonio Express-News dropped another bombshell: developers had publicly maintained they did not intend to disturb any endangered golden-cheeked warbler habitat that might exist on the property, but studies obtained through the Freedom of Information Act showed that seven of 19 locations where the birds have been documented would be lost to development. On January 28 all three of the City's major chambers of commerce announced their support for the project. Greater San Antonio Chamber of Commerce chairman Marty Wender said his chamber, along with the North San Antonio Chamber of Commerce and the San Antonio Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, had made their decision to support the project only after being convinced by the City's engineer the project would not harm the Aquifer. On January 30 mayor Ed Garza said he would like to find alternate sites to recommend for the PGA Village in case the current deal does not work out.
|
