 Submit Your Comments by May 3 and Spread the Word The public comment clock on the MoPac South Draft Environmental Assessment is ticking down. If you haven’t submitted your comment, now is the time. We will be adding more technical and legal comments before the Sunday at midnight deadline, but we need you -- all of our friends and supporters -- to write your comments and hit "send." The voice of the community matters here. Make it personal and urge them to recognize the impacts will be many and significant if they go forward with the proposed project. Ask for a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and less harmful alternatives. Austin City Council, Travis County Commissioners Court, and the Urban Transportation Commission agree. Save Our Springs Alliance has filed a lawsuit against CTRMA for refusing to release public comments and violating the Texas Public Information Act by withholding as “confidential” public comments filed in the Agency’s official public comment process. You can find the lawsuit here. While that legal process moves forward, your comment matters even more. Take Action You can submit more than one comment! The period ends this SUNDAY, MAY 3rd at Midnight.
 Hays Residents Push Back on Hays Commons’ “Poopy Proposition” Milestone Community Builders thinks its “poo” doesn’t stink; perhaps, that’s why it tried to sneak through a development agreement, without proper notice, at the Hays County Commissioners Court, for a massive new residential and commercial subdivision that would spray treated effluent over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. Luckily, we were watching. The development agreement—and an associated item on the agenda—included a variance to the Hays County Development Regulations designed to protect the Edwards Aquifer from overdevelopment. Specifically, Milestone asked to reduce the minimum lot size requirements from 0.75 acres to 0.16-0.20 acres (an 80% reduction). Because the recharge zone is extremely vulnerable to contamination from urban development, due to its unique, porous karst geology, surface water and pollutants enter rapidly through sinkholes and cracks with little-to-no natural filtration. That’s why the County regs limit the overall development intensity over the recharge zone through one of the few controls it has under state law, by requiring larger lots. The applicant’s variance application argues that smaller, clustered lots will reduce environmental impacts compared to larger lots dispersed across the property. In theory, clustering can lessen environmental disturbance, but that only works if the overall intensity of development remains the same and if the infrastructure serving that development does not introduce new environmental harms. Those assumptions do not hold here. Rather than reducing impact, the applicant invoked the clustering principle to justify maximizing the site’s development potential. Much of the site cannot be developed, because it is in the floodplain or has other challenges. This creates a fundamental contradiction. By shifting to the flatter lands, they end up building more lots than they otherwise would be able to achieve. Also, while the housing units are repositioned to keep more structures off the recharge zone, the proposal simultaneously relies on a Texas Land Application Permit (TLAP) system that would spray treated wastewater effluent from those households directly onto that same recharge zone. In effect, the plan shifts buildings away from the most sensitive area, only to use that area (the recharge zone) as the project’s wastewater disposal field, undermining the very environmental rationale offered to support the variance.  Milestone cannot credibly claim environmental protection by relocating structures, while spraying its poo over the area it claims to protect. It’s a poopy proposition. Nor can Milestone justify the ~128,000 million gallons of groundwater per year that its preliminary engineering report says it will pump from the Lower Trinity Aquifer. Dozens of Hays County residents submitted comments and spoke out, including powerful statements by City of Hays Mayor Lydia Bryan-Valdez and State Representative Erin Zweiner. Ultimately, Judge Ruben Becerra removed the applicant’s request for a variance from the agenda (Item K.7), and Comm. Walt Smith conceded that the development agreement was posted without proper notice (Item K.6). The good news is, perhaps, that we’re now aware of Milestone’s backroom dealings. The items will likely be headed back to the Hays County Commissioners Court in a couple months. Meanwhile, Save Our Springs continues to contest Milestone’s Texas TLAP permit (spraying effluent over the recharge zone) at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, and is actively suing to overturn the approval of their Municipal Utility District (MUD) application. We cannot do this without your support. We have an immediate need to raise funds to support expert testimony in these actions. Please consider donating to SOS today. Every little bit helps get us closer to being able to fund the scientific studies and reports that will help us defend the water quality of the Edwards Aquifer.  Data Centers Update: Disappointment and Progress
Amongst protecting the water quality of our creeks and aquifers from roads and developers, SOS is also working hard to encourage cities and counties to act to protect our local water supplies from overuse. Data centers, as you are likely aware, are among the worst water wasters. Depending on the size of the facility and the cooling technology it uses, a single data center’s annual water use can rival that of entire neighborhoods or small towns. There are two actions that occurred last week that we want to highlight. Guadalupe County. Last Tuesday, on a split 3-2 vote, the Guadalupe County Commissioners Court voted to approve a tax abatement and a development agreement for the Cloudburst Data Center, near the Hays County border. This is one of the larger data centers planned in our drought-prone region. How much water will Cloudburst use for cooling and its planned gas power plant? They won’t say.
San Marcos, Texas. We’re getting there in San Marcos. That same Tuesday, the SMtx City Council considered amendments to its land development code. Several of the amendments pertained to data centers.
 Austin Stands United on “Mopac South Expansion.” We Deserve a full Environmental Impact Statement and Reconsideration of Alternatives. In a powerful display of unity from local elected officials, both the Austin City Council (unanimously) and the Travis County Commissioners Court approved actions calling upon the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority to prepare a full environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed expansion of MoPac South. As County Commissioner Brigid Shea said, “If you’ve done even a preliminary review and it shows likely environmental harm, you shouldn’t be proceeding,” Shea said. “You should stop and go back and do a full environmental impact statement.” The message is clear: our elected officials acknowledge that this highway expansion will have significant environmental impacts that require thorough review, not the deceptive "Finding of No Significant Impact" (FONSI) that CTRMA is trying to push through.  Hundreds of concerned citizens turned out last week for the MoPac South Town Hall at Austin High on Earth Day Community Voices Ring Out at MoPac Town Hall Last week's MoPac Town Hall, hosted by Save Our Springs Alliance and the Better MoPac Coalition, was a tremendous success. THANK YOU! Hundreds of students, parents, environmentalists, and concerned residents packed the Austin High School cafeteria to speak out against this destructive highway expansion and to call foul on CTRMA's proposed FONSI. And for good reason. This expansion will:
It’s time to demand better. The community is tired of watching CTRMA and TxDOT sacrifice our environment, public health, and quality of life for highway expansions that don’t solve congestion. Two Critical Actions You Can Take This Week 1. Attend the CTRMA Board Meeting – Wednesday, April 29th at 9am This is our chance to speak directly to the decision-makers. Show up on Wednesday morning at 9am and tell the CTRMA Board to:
2. Submit Your Comments by May 3rd -- and Spread the Word! The deadline for public comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment is this Saturday, May 3rd. This is one of the most important ways you can make your voice heard. You can submit more than one comment—and please share this widely: socials, workplaces, family, friends, and your communities (running groups, paddling crews, trail runners, water lovers). A huge number of people still haven’t heard anything about this highway expansion, and the only support we’re seeing for proposed plan is coming from those who stand to profit from it. What to Include in Your Comments:
Demand a Full EIS: CTRMA is cutting corners with a predetermined FONSI. Under the National Environmental Policy Act, a full EIS is required when a project will significantly impact the environment. Drilling into the Edwards Aquifer, harming endangered species, damaging parks, and worsening air quality next to Austin High School are all significant impacts that should trigger a full EIS. Question the Outdated Analysis: This project started in 2011, and the traffic model used to dismiss alternatives was finalized in 2012—over 14 years ago. Since then, we've had a pandemic, expanded telecommuting, and approved Project Connect. We need CTRMA to rethink this project with reconsideration of alternatives, updated data, and consideration of local goals and policies. Challenge the "Benefits": After 5-7 years of disruptive construction, the project will save only 5-6 minutes for someone traveling the entire 8.77-mile length during rush hour. Meanwhile, construction delays will largely zero out these minimal improvements. Protect Endangered Species: CTRMA admits the expansion will adversely affect 4 federally endangered species but refuses to consider design alternatives that could avoid these impacts. Construction will threaten the clean flow of groundwater to Barton Springs and kill cave ecosystems that cannot be restored. Demand Clean Air for Students: Austin High School students and nearby residents will be exposed to higher levels of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) from increased traffic, tire wear, and brake dust. CTRMA's claim that air quality will improve despite 331 million more vehicle miles traveled per year being added to the corridor is not credible. Protect Our Water: The proposed water quality treatment doesn't meet the standards that Travis County and the City of Austin use for their own roads. During construction, sediment and pollutants will flow directly into the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone, causing irreversible harm. How to Submit Comments: Easiest option: Use the Better MoPac Coalition's custom form at bettermopaccoalition.org. Email: [email protected] Mail: Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority, ATTN: MoPac South, 3300 N. IH-35, Suite 300, Austin, TX 78705 Voicemail (3 minutes max): 512-387-5811 Tips for Effective Comments:
Every city has traffic problems, but there's only one Barton Springs. No other City in the world has such a unique, spring-fed pool minutes from downtown. We don't have to accept CTRMA's false choice between destructive highway expansion and doing nothing. We can demand better solutions that protect our environment, keep our air and water clean, and invest in modern, sustainable alternatives like transit and demand management. We can also pursue small tweaks to fix bottlenecks to get traffic moving at a fraction of the cost, without construction delays, using existing pavement. The momentum is building. Let's finish what we started. Submit your comments by May 3rd, and we'll see you at the CTRMA Board meeting on April 29th. For more information, maps, and resources, visit bettermopaccoalition.org In Solidarity, Save Our Springs Alliance & Better MoPac Coalition Water Conservation: The Broken River Part 2, The Economics of Massive Water-Pipe Replacement4/14/2026
by Paul Robbins  TheWaterMeloonProjec/Stock.adobe.com In This Story… • The lower first cost of Handcox water treatment plant makes it tempting to overlook fixing old water pipes as an alternative. But a lifecycle analysis has never been done to compare the two options. • A preliminary lifecycle analysis of replacing old water pipe, including water savings, maintenance savings, using the system to supply more people, as well as long-term costs of water treatment maintenance and reconstruction, makes the cost of new pipe the more economic option. The Choice of the Century Should Austin cancel construction of the second Handcox water treatment plant and opt for water-pipe replacement instead? Replacing all of Austin’s Polybutylene and Cast Iron pipe would save roughly 14% of Austin’s 2024 water consumption at a first cost of $1.7 billion in 2025 dollars. (Interest is not included.) A superficial glance would lead one to assume that, from an economic view, it would be simpler to adopt a tolerance for a considerable amount of leakage. The first cost of a water treatment plant, about $145 million in 2025 dollars, is cheaper. However, Austin lacks a lifecycle economic analysis comparing treatment capacity and water supply with pipeline replacement. Since new pipelines are expected to literally last a century (by one estimate, ductile iron pipe can last 250 years), a lifecycle analysis is essential to understand the real economics. And from a survival perspective, Austin could have treatment plants on every block, but if there is no water to supply them in the new era of climate change, these plants would be unusable. Add to this, Austin is looking hard at expensive sources of alternative water to mitigate its Highland Lakes supply when impacted by population increases and future drought. This author has tried to compare the cost of a massive public works project, christened the Broken River Replacement Project, to water treatment plants as well as an alternative source of water. Handcox Water Treatment Plant Unit 2 – The first cost for an additional 50 MGD of capacity is $145 million. (Interest is not included.) However, all of its components can be assumed to be replaced between 1 and 4 more times. There will also be 100 years of operation and maintenance, including employee salaries, electricity supply, and treatment chemicals. Pipe replacement has inherent savings that water treatment plants and alternative supplies do not. New pipes avoid the purchase of untreated water (in the case of the treatment plant, from LCRA). They save 100 years of costs for water lost through leaks that can then be sold to customers. And assuming that Austin densifies, with more people living in the same land footprint, more water provided with the same pipeline will bring the delivered cost down. The average annual volume saved by this new pipe in the timespan of a century will equal the average yearly output of the treatment plant. According to preliminary lifecycle estimates, Handcox Unit 2 will cost between $1.07 and $1.54 per thousand gallons. However, despite the huge $1.7 billion capital expense of the Broken River Replacement Project, as well as its upkeep, the costs range on the order of 59¢ to $1.37¢ per thousand gallons, with the midpoint below the average lifecycle cost of a new treatment plant. The cost range varies with the assumption that the same water pipe footprint can serve 43% more people as the city densifies. This is less than half the population increase that is expected in Austin in the 100-year timespan. (The low cost assumes no increase in pipeline size, while the high cost assumes a 78% increase in volume capacity.)  Aquifer Storage Reservoir – Pipe replacement also competes well with alternative water supplies. Austin’s utility is in the formative stages of developing an Aquifer Storage Reservoir in rural areas east of Austin. This would initially store the equivalent of about 4 months of Austin’s current use underground, with surplus water supplied to it in rainy years. This would be drawn on in emergencies. These emergencies, however, can last as long as 5 years during extended droughts. The $1.5 billion cost for the aquifer storage and pipeline, when completed by 2035, would provide water at more than $6.36 per thousand gallons of water stored.  Surviving a Drought is Not a Luxury The assumptions in this 100-year comparison of the Broken River Replacement Project can be debated. The point of publishing this challenge is that Austin Water will not debate them. The utility is inexorably tethered to a dated business model that values new treatment plants over all else. A megadrought only 15 years from now can trigger a dire situation where Austin can no longer depend on its historic water supplies. A new approach is no longer a luxury. It is a prerequisite. Paul Robbins is an environmental activist and consumer advocate living in Austin. He has been Editor of the Austin Environmental Directory, a sourcebook of green issues, products, services, and organizations, since 1995.
In this Issue:
 MoPac South Town Hall: Learn. Discuss. Take Action. Austin faces a defining moment, and we're ready to meet it head on. CTRMA’s draft Environmental Assessment is full of holes and downplays real damage this expansion would cause to our aquifer, the unique ecosystems above and below ground, and our communities. Join your neighbors, transportation and environmental experts, and leaders from Austin ISD, Travis County, and local conservation groups on Earth Day, Wednesday April 22nd from 6-8 PM at the Austin High School cafeteria, the campus that would be hit the hardest by this disaster plan. Come ask tough questions, share your perspective, and submit official comments before the upcoming May 3rd deadline. We’ll provide pizza, beverages, and childcare, so that all ages (and parents) can participate. What’s at stake? 7-9 new lanes along 8.8 miles of MoPac—from Enfield Road to Slaughter Lane—directly over Lady Bird Lake, Zilker Park, the Butler Trail bridge, Barton Springs, and Austin High School. This project won’t fix traffic; it will make it worse, while increasing water, air, noise, and light pollution along the corridor. Show up and help shape the future of MoPac and protect Austin’s water, parks, schools, neighborhoods, and public health.  Help Save Austin’s Historic Barton Springs Bridge Speaking of taking matters into our own hands, here’s one that’s been building for a while. The Barton Springs Bridge, built in 1926 and expanded in 1946, is a centerpiece of Zilker Park and part of the National Register Historic District. But the City is planning to tear it down and replace it with a massive highway-style bridge, nearly twice as wide, at a cost of $54.5 million, while destroying parkland, harming Barton Creek, and disrupting access for years. The good news? The City’s own experts have confirmed that the bridge can be restored and upgraded for bike and pedestrian access at a fraction of the cost. Austin has a history of saving its iconic bridges. In 1997, the Lamar Bridge (much like Barton Springs Bridge) was threatened with sudden demolition. The community stepped in, and instead of tearing it down, Austin preserved the bridge and built the Pfluger Pedestrian Bridge alongside it, improving bike and pedestrian access without sacrificing history. Now, we can do the same with Barton Springs Bridge, protecting our iconic architecture and Barton Creek while creating safer, smarter connections for everyone. The Barton Springs Bridge will most likely be on the agenda of the next meeting of the Historic Landmark Commission at City Hall on Wednesday, May 6 at 6 PM. Please plan to join us if you can—and help spread the word to others! In the interim, we’ve prepared a letter to the Mayor, Austin City Council, Austin Historic Landmark Commissioners, Austin Parks Board, and Austin Environmental Commission members, asking them to halt demolition and pursue restoration. You can join the cause! Add your name to the letter and help show city leaders that Austin stands for historic preservation, smart growth, and protecting our parks and waterways.
The plan sets a target for carbon-free energy by 2035; however, Austin Energy continues to evaluate the addition of new fossil fuel generation, including methane gas-fired peaker plant which would increase greenhouse gas emissions and local air pollution. The alternative is to continue investing in local batteries and solar, as well as energy efficiency and demand response. Please come out to one or more of the meetings and speak up for the clean energy path. And bring a friend!
 Every day is Earth Day, but in April we go all out! Come see SOS at these awesome events over the next few weeks. Learn about our work, meet like-minded folks, and find ways to protect our waters, parks, and wild spaces.
Earth Day ATX 2026: “A Moment for Us” When: RESCHEDULED May 2nd, 12 PM-5 PM Where: Huston-Tillotson University (900 Chicon St, Austin, TX 78702) What: Join one of Central Texas’s longest-running sustainability celebrations at HTU. Explore engaging exhibits, hands-on activities, and interactive programming that connect you to the environment and the local green community. Meet fellow attendees passionate about environmental stewardship and discover practical ways to make a difference in your everyday life. Meadows Center Earth Day Festival When: Saturday, April 18, 10 AM-4 PM Where: Spring Lake (201 San Marcos Springs Drive, San Marcos, Texas) What: Celebrate the 13th Annual Earth Day San Marcos Festival with family and friends at the headwaters of the San Marcos River. Enjoy live performances, demonstrations, and hands-on activities while connecting with local eco-focused organizations and vendors. This year’s theme, One Heart, Many Waters, highlights our community’s deep connection to water and the ecosystems that give us life. UT Austin Earth Day Fair When: Wednesday, April 22, 2 PM – 5 PM Where: Gregory Plaza, UT Austin (2101 Speedway, Austin, TX 78712) What: Earth Day is a movement to protect our planet and inspire new practices. Stop by the Hooked on Earth Day Fair to explore sustainability initiatives, green innovations, and ways to support a healthier campus and community. Connect with student organizations, programs, and local sustainability leaders, sip on solar-powered smoothies, and learn how small actions can make a big difference. It’s a busy month! But don’t let the MoPac South expansion move forward without your voice. Join us at the MoPac South Town Hall on April 22, come ready with your hard questions, and tell everyone you know who love the caves, the water, the trails, and the Lake—this plan hits so much of what we love about Austin. Sign up, show up, and speak up. We appreciate you! In Solidarity, SOS Alliance |
Archives
May 2026
Categories |
RSS Feed
Save Our Springs Alliance
|
Quick Links |
SOS is a 501 c3 non profit and your donation is tax deductible