Austin Declares Drought Emergency

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Mike Olson

unread,
Jul 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/17/00
to
The city of Austin has marketed itself as the high-tech green oasis in
Texas. Luring thousands of people to come and live here. While we have
added thousands of new homes and hundreds of new sub-divisions, have we
allowed for a greater demand on the water usage?

wtm

unread,
Jul 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/17/00
to
I say we need mass taxes on these newcomers, I'm a lifelong Austinite and
have seen this city go way downhill in the past 15-18 years, So lets just
Tax the hell out of newcommers for the first 5 years(most of them or high
tech jobs that pay enough) say ohhh 400 on every 1000 dollars made, then see
how much you want to live in our once clean air and water communities
they've so ignorantly have dissolved into a Sanfransiscan dumpsite...

Mike Olson <olson-...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Lotc5.44928$T%3.40...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...

Hugh Bob (was STA)

unread,
Jul 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/17/00
to
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 17:38:09 GMT, "wtm" <w...@austin.rr.com> wrote:

>I say we need mass taxes on these newcomers, I'm a lifelong Austinite and
>have seen this city go way downhill in the past 15-18 years, So lets just
>Tax the hell out of newcommers for the first 5 years(most of them or high
>tech jobs that pay enough) say ohhh 400 on every 1000 dollars made, then see
>how much you want to live in our once clean air and water communities
>they've so ignorantly have dissolved into a Sanfransiscan dumpsite...
>
>

Isn't it all simply just an ironic result?

Austin, in the wake of economic slummage - real estate plummeting
downward, business plummeting downward.. due to all the reliance on
OIL. and its demise....

So what does Austin do? What does Austin seek? They seek out MCC...
The other candidate for MCC? North Carolina.. Austin paid way too
much...

Yet what was the plan? The plan was to rebuild the economy.
But wait - there was more... Yes, to rebuild the economy and to do so
without harming the environment...

So we grab High tech.. A perfect solution !. Hey it works for a while
and now...

Environmental problems, traffic problems...

There is such a thing as a plan that works too good...


..
..
Because nobody's life, liberty or property is safe while Congress is in session.

Kathy

unread,
Jul 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/17/00
to
Actually I spoke with the City Water people today and I was told that they
have plenty of water, just no means to treat it for the consumption that is
required for the new developments.

Kat

"Curmit" <Don'ttrustPo...@aol.org> wrote in message
news:8F7491F0...@news.earthlink.net...


> Mike Olson <olson-...@austin.rr.com> wrote in

> <Lotc5.44928$T%3.40...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>:


>
> >The city of Austin has marketed itself as the high-tech green oasis in
> >Texas. Luring thousands of people to come and live here. While we have
> >added thousands of new homes and hundreds of new sub-divisions, have we
> >allowed for a greater demand on the water usage?
> >
> >

> No, because all our water is going to rice paddies in S.Texas and
> agricultural and Industrial use where the taxpayers of Austin subsidize
their
> vastly lower prices.
>
> They have no incentive to conserve because the water is so cheap, they
keep
> using more and more which depleated the aquifer, and then the city tells
us
> that in order to keep the rice farmers and coal industry in record profits
> due to subsidizing the water costs, that we can't hose down our yard.
>
> Add new development gone amock by big developers who give jobs to city
> council members relatives and family and overseas bank accounts and you
have
> no regulation on growth, and then add that asshole Kirk Watson giving away
> our tax money and free electricity and land and city services to lure more
> and more companies to come here and raise prices even higher and clog our
> city streets, and you have a reciepe for stupidity, graft and venality.
>
> Curmit ®
>

Susan Laxton

unread,
Jul 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/17/00
to
"Kathy" <dak...@email.com> wrote in message
news:FpMc5.263$D67....@nnrp3.sbc.net...

> Actually I spoke with the City Water people today and I was told that they
> have plenty of water, just no means to treat it for the consumption that
is
> required for the new developments.
>
> Kat

I'm sure they cherished your comments and have totally re-worked their plan
in view of this enlightening new information.

arw

unread,
Jul 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/18/00
to
It turns out that Kathy is right, or at least has the same information that
the Austin American-RealEstatesman had this morning.

The fact is, Austin has been in drought-like conditions for YEARS now in
both the real sense (measurable rainfall) and in the logical sense (not
enough rain per capita).

That the City of Austin continually annexes neighborhoods (who used to buy
water from other sources, thank you very much) and now cannot provide enough
treated water is ironic, yet so typical of the Mayor Watson era of "grow at
all costs." Or did that start with Mayor Todd? Or Mayor Cooksey?

I am building a new swimming pool. It is an average pool, which means it
costs $40,000 in today's hot Austin market. I have been paying taxes and
inflated water prices for years. I want to be able to fill my pool up (note
that its not being "wasted", because its not going to be drained - it will
be USED for recreation purposes). The City had better allow me to fill my
pool up, or I'll - I'll - why, I'll just hold my breath and turn blue!
<smile> Seriously, if I have to ration, then dammit EVERY single freakin'
business in Central Texas better be rationing, too, and feeling the pain
just like the rest of us. If not, well - vote the rascals out of office
next time, and protest, and find out exactly WHY OH WHY the City of Austin
cannot plan its own wet dreams.

--
Alan R. Weiss
EEMBC Certification Laboratories, LLC (ECL)
Austin Laboratory
13492 Research Blvd, Suite 120, #133
Austin, Texas 78750 USA
Voice: 512-219-0302 Fax: 512-219-0402 (call first) Cell: 512-845-1305
Text Page (175 chars, ASCII text only): 51284...@page.nextel.com
Main Email: al...@embedded-benchmarks.com
ECL: http://www.embedded-benchmarks.com
EEMBC: http://www.eembc.org
Susan Laxton <so...@texas.net> wrote in message
news:NrMc5.379875$VR.53...@news5.giganews.com...

Kathy

unread,
Jul 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/18/00
to
What?

"Susan Laxton" <so...@texas.net> wrote in message
news:NrMc5.379875$VR.53...@news5.giganews.com...
>

Kathy

unread,
Jul 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/18/00
to
I posted that information because people around here traditionally believe
it is landscape use that depletes the water supply.

Kat

Daryl D. Spillmann

unread,
Jul 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/18/00
to
Curmit wrote:
>
> Mike Olson <olson-...@austin.rr.com> wrote in
> <Lotc5.44928$T%3.40...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>:
>
> >The city of Austin has marketed itself as the high-tech green oasis in
> >Texas. Luring thousands of people to come and live here. While we have
> >added thousands of new homes and hundreds of new sub-divisions, have we
> >allowed for a greater demand on the water usage?
> >
> >
> No, because all our water is going to rice paddies in S.Texas and
> agricultural and Industrial use where the taxpayers of Austin subsidize their
> vastly lower prices.


What's this "our water" stuff? Was it "your water" when it passed
through Llano and Marble Falls? Surface water is property of the
state, not the landowner. Groundwater still falls under the "rule of
capture" which essentially says a landowner is entitled to pump as
much water from a weel as it will provide, although some specualte
that this rule may change during the next legislative session.

>
> They have no incentive to conserve because the water is so cheap, they keep
> using more and more which depleated the aquifer, and then the city tells us
> that in order to keep the rice farmers and coal industry in record profits
> due to subsidizing the water costs, that we can't hose down our yard.

Here's where a little research will go a long way. Austin gets zero,
zilch, nada, none of it's water from the aquifer. It all comes from
the Colorado River. Austin's water woes are not a supply problem. In
it's current size, there is plenty of water to supply the city. The
problem is distribution. Austin tried to encourage growth on the east
side of town, but those pesky developers that Austinites love to hate
kept building to the north and west. Consequently, Austin is faced
with trying to send large quantities uphill for long distances. This
is not something they anticipated back int he 70's and 80's. The
shortage at your faucet should not be confused with a shortage at the
river.


>
> Add new development gone amock by big developers who give jobs to city
> council members relatives and family and overseas bank accounts and you have
> no regulation on growth, and then add that asshole Kirk Watson giving away
> our tax money and free electricity and land and city services to lure more
> and more companies to come here and raise prices even higher and clog our
> city streets, and you have a reciepe for stupidity, graft and venality.
>


Well, we might finally agree on *something*.


--
------------------
Daryl D. Spillmann
------------------

arw

unread,
Jul 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/18/00
to
Interesting post, and provided some useful insights.

Actually, I find it odd that as a consumer I cannot buy as much water as I
wish. I mean, if I want to have a green lawn and fill my swimming pool, I
should be able to do so. The PRICE may rise - possibly too high for my
tastes - but cutting off demand is the mark of a socialist, price-controlled
monopoly unresponsive to customer demand. Like the city of Austin!

Overall, I am cutting my own demand and my lawn has now died. Will the city
of Austin replace my sod lawn when there is water available? No? What
about the WASTE caused by destroying a nice green sod lawn (and the waste of
all that water that went into growing it)?

That's why government never gets it right - they don't capture enough
variables.

Now I need to re-sod my front yard, and that will cost thousands of gallons
of extra water that could have been saved had I just been allowed to save my
landscape and use a dozen gallons. My dead lawn is no longer producing
oxygen, or cleaning the air, either.

Alan


Daryl D. Spillmann <dar...@pop.tamu.edu> wrote in message
news:3974822D...@pop.tamu.edu...

arw

unread,
Jul 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/18/00
to
If I run my garden hose and it spills into the greenbelt, it ultimately goes
back into Bull Creek, thence to Lake Austin and the Colorado River. No
water is "wasted" - its not leaving Earth. It all goes back into the ocean.
All I have "wasted" is WATER TREATMENT resources, but in fact one could
argue I am IMPROVING the health of the Bull Creek greenbelt/watershed as
this is clean water, not polluted water.

In other words, unless I am boosting water off of Earth into space, water is
not be consumed, only used, and usage should be up to the consumer. Let
prices float based on demand, and we won't NEED water rationing.

Alan


Kathy <dak...@email.com> wrote in message

news:pU_c5.2$Ci1....@nnrp1.sbc.net...

Jor Jor

unread,
Jul 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/18/00
to
It has to do with how long it takes to set up water treatment plants and the
cost. We, Austin and the world population, are growing too fast. I remember
reading about how many distillation plants CA would need by 2020 to have
enough water. It was a staggering amount dotted up and down the coast.

W.O.

arw <awe...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:fH0d5.27$e34....@typhoon.austin.rr.com...

Kathy

unread,
Jul 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/18/00
to
Thanks for the offer Curmit - I just picked up my new Chevy Tahoe gas
hogging SUV on Thursday, I'll pass on the shitty Caravan and the land, time
share, card etc. I already own a great house (not on wheels) so I'll pass
on the trailer as well.

Appreciate the offer!

Kat

"Curmit" <Don'ttrustPo...@aol.org> wrote in message

news:8F7586BC...@news.earthlink.net...
> >
>
> I also have some land in Florida to sell Kathy, a beautiful time share in
> Montenegro, a genuine Wille Mays baseball card, a garunteed winner lotto
> ticket, a new "manufactured" house and a Dodge Caravan to sell her for a
very
> good deal.
>
> Curmit ®
>

Dave Anderson

unread,
Jul 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/18/00
to
arw wrote:

> Let prices float based on demand, and we won't NEED water rationing.

I agree - to a certain extent. The rate should should increase on a
graduated scale, much like the tax rate does. We never want to price water
so high that we threaten public health. A high flat rate could make water
almost unaffordable for some folks.

--
Dave Anderson

Unsolicited commercial email will be read at a cost of $500 per message. Use
of this email address implies consent to these terms.


Hugh Bob

unread,
Jul 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/18/00
to
On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 16:47:51 -0500, Dave Anderson <joea...@texas.net>
wrote:

>arw wrote:
>
>> Let prices float based on demand, and we won't NEED water rationing.
>
>I agree - to a certain extent. The rate should should increase on a
>graduated scale, much like the tax rate does. We never want to price water
>so high that we threaten public health. A high flat rate could make water
>almost unaffordable for some folks.

Or per monthly usage. Those who use less per month should get
credits...

Kathy

unread,
Jul 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/19/00
to
Don't have the 20 gauge (dying to learn trap and skeet) that I've been
wanting for years. Love camping (who wouldn't?) and only like labradors
that are fully trained by people who know how to do it (I don't have the
patience for those wonderful dogs). Haven't had a chance to take a picture
of my new truck but I'll be sure to send it to you when I get one.

Kat

"Curmit" <Don'ttrustPo...@aol.org> wrote in message

news:8F75EBA6...@news.earthlink.net...
>
> A girly girl with a house AND an SUV! Do you hunt, own a labrador and
like
> camping too?
>
> If so, I'm in love.
>
> Please send pictures of your dog and truck.
> ICQ # 2323 58599773
>
> Curmit ®
>

Hugh Bob

unread,
Jul 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/19/00
to
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:39:15 GMT, Don'ttrustPo...@aol.org
(Curmit) wrote:

>>
>Sounds great. Now, if you can cook, have a flat head and big ears, we'll get
>married.
>Shhhhh...meet me by the 2nd lily pond upstream from Barton Springs pool at
>the next full moon.
>I'll be the handsome frog waiting for a kiss. You'll be able to tell me from
>the others by the fact that I'll be all puckered up and waiting.
>
>
>Curmit ®

Shouldn't this be posted in alt.sex or better yet : alt.beastiality ?

arw

unread,
Jul 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/19/00
to
Curmit <Don'ttrustPo...@aol.org> wrote in message
news:8F75E4DB...@news.earthlink.net...
> Dave Anderson <joea...@texas.net> wrote in
> <B59A3AB6.1770E%joea...@texas.net>:

> California's San Fernando valley and water politics, if you're familiar
with
> all the shennaanigans and murders and graft and corruption that occoured
for
> the last 50 years there, will and is happening here.

I know. I lived near Owensmouth Ave. (literally "mouth of the Owens River",
which is nonsense since the Owens River never got near the San Fernando
Valley - until William Mulholland, that is!). We saw a semi-arid desert,
the Valley, turned first into an agricultural wonderland, then a suburban
ideal, then an urban strip-mall infested wasteland - in 25 years. Its
happening as fast in Austin.


> We in Austin are paying for the big rich agri business to waste water and
> destroy our envirmonent, killing shrimp and oyster beds and the fishing
> industry and migrating birds etc etc.
>
>
> Curmit ®

Yes, precisely. Something is rotten in Texas these days.

Alan

arw

unread,
Jul 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/19/00
to
Its all about "capacity to process water", which means someone in the City
of Austin KNEW Austin was growing as fast it has been - and fucked up by not
building enough water TREATMENT plants, fast enough.

Where is the Austin Chronicle on THIS issue, huh? Or the Real-Estatesman?
Lusers.

Alan

--

Curmit <Don'ttrustPo...@aol.org> wrote in message

news:8F75E9A9...@news.earthlink.net...
> arw <awe...@austin.rr.com> wrote in
> <TH0d5.28$e34....@typhoon.austin.rr.com>:


>
> >If I run my garden hose and it spills into the greenbelt, it ultimately
goes
> >back into Bull Creek, thence to Lake Austin and the Colorado River. No
> >water is "wasted" - its not leaving Earth. It all goes back into the
ocean.
> >All I have "wasted" is WATER TREATMENT resources, but in fact one could
> >argue I am IMPROVING the health of the Bull Creek greenbelt/watershed as
> >this is clean water, not polluted water.
> >
> >In other words, unless I am boosting water off of Earth into space, water
is

> >not be consumed, only used, and usage should be up to the consumer. Let


> >prices float based on demand, and we won't NEED water rationing.
> >

> >Alan
> >
> Very few people really comprehend the close loop cycle and the spaceship
> earth analogy.
>
> Curmit ®

Ruth Shear

unread,
Jul 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/19/00
to
G'day

Curmit wrote:

> Get a back hoe driver for a day, dig out some nice up-the-grade pits

Easier said than done - well at least on my side of the fault. Rocks and
more rocks.

DrRuth

arw

unread,
Jul 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/19/00
to
Curmit <Don'ttrustPo...@aol.org> wrote in message
news:8F75EE84...@news.earthlink.net...
> arw <awe...@austin.rr.com> wrote in
> <fH0d5.27$e34....@typhoon.austin.rr.com>:

>
> les.
> >
> >Now I need to re-sod my front yard, and that will cost thousands of
gallons
> >of extra water that could have been saved had I just been allowed to save
my
> >landscape and use a dozen gallons. My dead lawn is no longer producing
> >oxygen, or cleaning the air, either.
> >
> >Alan
> >
>
>
> I hate ta bust jor chops, but your lawn is an environmental nightmare
unless
> everything is done exactly right.

Not true. Lets see why:


> Grass doesn't produce nearly the same amount of conversion from CO2 to O
that
> a stand of trees would.

I have both, by the way, but no one - repeat, NO ONE - plants just trees in
their front yard and not some other type of turf or groundcover.

Secondly, a healthy lawn produces a LOT of oxygen (I can dig up the figures
if you'd like ... lemme go get them).


> Grass/nitrate runoff is killing our streams and bayous with fertilizer.

I don't fertilize with commercial chemicals, so this does not occur. In
fact, I concentrate on improving the soil itself and on smart watering and
mowing strategies. I used to work at a sod broker and lawn spraying
service, and mostly I know fertilizer is NOT needed for a healthy lawn.

Also, 8 months out of the year I have a LUSH rye-grass overseeded lawn that
produces a LOT of oxygen and takes ZERO fertilizer, period. When it dies,
it becomes food for the underlying St. Augustine/crapgrass (which I was
planning on replacing before the city of Austin forbid it now!).


> But,
> its the big chicken and dairy and hog farmers that do that the most, but
> still...
> The amount of energy used to keep a lawn green with water is a negative
> effect on the environment.

Not true. I'll find the oxygen-production figures and post them, OK?

Also I don't water nearly as often as my neighbors yet have a nicer lawn,
until now that is.


> Xeroscaping is the only way to go, if you're green, and I hope we're all
> green on this newsgroup, right?
>
> Its not easy being green.
>
> Curmit ®


If we were REALLY green we'd replace monoculture grass sod lawns with
gardens that produced food. But that would violate lots of city and M.U.D.
ordinances, wouldn't it?

So much for Austin's "green" reputation, too.


Alan


arw

unread,
Jul 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/19/00
to
JRob <nob...@dev.nul> wrote in message news:8l25ee$hbn$1...@news.jump.net...
> From a parallel universe, Mike Olson transmitted:

> > The city of Austin has marketed itself as the high-tech green oasis in
> > Texas. Luring thousands of people to come and live here. While we have
> > added thousands of new homes and hundreds of new sub-divisions, have we
> > allowed for a greater demand on the water usage?
>
> Well the bottom line is, "Didja wanna grow or not?" If Austin wants
> to grow and be big like SV, it's gotta upgrade that infrastructure.
>
> Mebbe "smart growth" wasn't all that "smart" eh? And, is there a
> practical steady-state solution, or does it always require economic/
> political upheaval to limit growth? Inquiring minds want to know.
>
> --
> jrob

Growth sucks. As long as I have a job (and I do - I own a business that
does not rely on local money), additional people and growth is an net
negative, not a positive. I LOVED Austin when it was depressed, hungry,
eager to please, and the people were nicer.

Growth? What for?

Alan

Dave Anderson

unread,
Jul 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/19/00
to
Alan wrote:

> I have both, by the way, but no one - repeat, NO ONE - plants just trees
in
> their front yard and not some other type of turf or groundcover.

You apparently have never lived in El Paso. It's quite common there.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages