 Save Our Springs is excited to announce the beginning of the 2026 summer internship program! Every summer, Save Our Springs brings on a small team of college interns for our outreach programs. This internship is pretty competitive; this spring, we had nearly 50 qualified applicants and only 6 slots. Some of the most passionate young environmentalists in Austin apply for this, and we are happy to nurture that passion! Over the next few months, these students will spend their weekends at Barton Springs engaging with the public. They had extensive training on our waterways, and they have more opportunities for growth and learning throughout the summer, such as speaking at public meetings or going on salamander field trips. Many of these interns are creating their own outreach or advocacy projects, such as zines, reports, or documentaries, to connect even more deeply with Barton Springs. We look forward to seeing what they accomplish this summer, and invite you to get to know them below!
 Reclaimed water line photo by Jeffrey Parkinson In This Story… • The best strategy to make reclaimed water use more economic and widespread is to build lines to the largest customers. About 10% of Austin’s total water in 2023 was consumed by 3 microchip factories and 30 large commercial/multifamily customers near existing and proposed lines to these factories. • Microchip factories, which require ultrapure water, have successfully used reclaimed water in both the U.S. and Singapore. Turning Purple to Green In 2023, about 7% of Austin’s wastewater was purified and resold as reclaimed water. If all of the remaining wastewater in Austin could be treated to a high-quality standard and reused, it would supply the needs of an additional 764,000 people at 2023 per capita level of consumption. The impediment to expanding Austin’s reclaimed water system is not potential. It is cost. It is expensive to lay a completely new purple-pipe network to a section of the utility service territory. Austin’s reclaimed system is in fact subsidized by the ratepayers, and is not considered a profit maker. The question of economics for the system to operate at less cost, or even make a profit, revolves around finding enough customers in a designated area to justify expansion. Austin’s Mysterious Reclaimed Water Footprint The current and future footprint for Austin’s reclaimed water system is somewhat mysterious to people who do not work for the utility. The publicly-available map of the system showing the areas where current service exists and future service is intended has not been updated since 2015. This author’s attempts to obtain more current maps were met with frustration. This gap in public information makes it difficult for conservationists, journalists, and members of the general public to responsibly analyze potential expansion of the reclaimed system. In order to come up with a scenario that makes economic sense required overlaying the dated 2015 map of reclaimed water lines with the reclaimed system’s current customers and overlaying it again with Austin’s largest customers. This allows some estimates of system expansion to be made. In the scenario below, Austin’s largest Industrial customers become magnet destination points, with some of the City’s largest Commercial and Multifamily customers located near the pipelines between the wastewater plants and the destination points. Industrial Magnets  Nattapol_Sritongcom/Shutterstock.com Microchip wafer fabrication plants are ravenously thirsty. Austin has four of them: Samsung in Northeast Austin; two operated by NXP (one in East Austin, and one in Southwest Austin); and one operated by Cypress Semiconductor (now owned by Infineon) in Southeast Austin near Bergstrom Airport. In 2023, the 3 fabs near existing or planned reclaimed water lines collectively used 3.2 billion gallons, 7.2% of total Austin consumption, enough for 70,000 people at Austin’s 2023 level of consumption. Two of the fabs, NXP-East and Cypress, are within one-third of a mile of existing reclaimed water lines. Samsung, Austin’s single largest water user, has a proposed reclaimed water line running directly behind its location.  How much reclaimed water these companies can use is uncertain. Chip factories require ultrapure water, so pure that they must upgrade potable water supplied by the utility to a much higher standard. How much more money would be required to upgrade reclaimed water to this same ultrapure standard is unknown. The three corporations contacted for this article would not comment, and Austin Water has done no investigations of the potential. However, in Singapore, reclaimed water is provided to wafer fabs as a premium product. It is also supplied to Intel’s manufacturing facilities in Chandler, AZ. So there is obviously precedent for its use. In 2023, Austin’s reclaimed water was sold to Austin customers at a 35% discount compared to industrial rates for potable water. This provides financial incentive for investigation of its potential to provide some or most consumption at these plants. Serving Customers Along the Way In 2023, 16 of Austin’s largest Commercial customers were close to existing or planned reclaimed water lines. The biggest consumer was the Tesla manufacturing plant off of Highway 130 in East Austin. Other larger commercial customers include: the City of Austin district chilling stations; Data Foundry (a data storage center); Applied Materials (a microchip and electronics display engineering company); and downtown office buildings and hotels. The large commercial customers located within a mile of existing or planned reclaimed water lines consumed about 900 million gallons in 2023, about 1.9% of Austin’s total consumption, enough for 19,500 people at Austin’s 2023 level of consumption. Apartment complexes also often use huge volumes of water for landscapes. In 2023, there were 14 multifamily consumers located within a mile of these water lines that consumed 406 million gallons, about 1% of Austin’s total consumption, enough for 9,000 people at Austin’s 2023 level of consumption.  The proposed 12-mile reclaimed water line expansion (red) to the Samsung wafer fab (orange) has several large Commercial (green) or Multifamily (black) customers on the route. Existing reclaimed water lines are shown in black.  Map of two of Austin’s wafer fabs (orange) near existing reclaimed water lines and other large Commercial (green) and Multifamily (black) customers. Proposed line expansion is shown in red and existing reclaimed water lines are shown in black. It takes years to build out a system like the one described here. By the time a megadrought hits our region, it will be too late to implement this as an emergency strategy. A very public discussion needs to take place now to determine its feasibility. Among the things discussed is why the utility, with all of its personnel talent and brain power, has waited for environmental advocates to make this proposal. This article is the second of a two-part series on Reclaimed Water. CLICK HERE for Part One of the series.
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:
Stop the City Council From Paving Over the Dog’s Head Speak Out Against Items 38, 39, and 60 on 5/21 Agenda The proposed Dog’s Head Development Agreement (DA) affects 2,614 acres of land on the shores of one of the most pristine and biodiverse sections of the Colorado River, the free-flowing stretch renowned for its exceptional water quality and relatively limited urban development. Despite the ecological significance of this area, the City Manager has put forward an agreement that includes virtually no meaningful environmental protections, while offering the developer property and sales tax breaks. This deal was negotiated behind closed doors, with no public input or oversight, bypassing review by the Planning Commission, Environmental Commission, or any other relevant board. The draft of the agreement was quietly posted late Friday afternoon, giving the public minimal time to review it ahead of a City Council vote scheduled for Thursday. If approved, the Development Agreement is irreversible and will govern development of the area for the next 45 years. Help demand these items be postponed and sent to the Boards and Commission for review! Here are some of the known problems:
TAKE ACTION TODAY Email City Council (or sign up to speak HERE) and demand that the City Council POSTPONE Items 38, 39, and 60, send them through the boards and commissions process, especially the Environmental Commission. If this were truly a good deal for Austin, it can withhold public review. 20260521-038, Agenda Backup: Draft Agreement, PDF, 1.2 MB, posted 5/15/2026 20260521-038, Agenda Backup: Exhibits, PDF, 7.7 MB, posted 5/15/2026 20260521-038, Agenda Backup: Recommendation for Action, PDF, 121 KB, posted 5/15/2026 This item must be postponed immediately and sent through the Environmental Commission and full public review process before Council takes any action. Please spread the word, and speak out before Thursday’s vote. Austin’s Rain to River Plan Adoption Provides Sharp Contrast to Dog’s Head Paving PlanItem 45 on the Austin City Council’s Thursday agenda calls for adoption of the City Watershed Protection Department’s Rain to River Strategic Plan. SOS wholeheartedly supports the Rain to River plan. We hope the City Council will not only vote to adopt it but use it and follow it. If it did, Endeavor’s Dog’s Head deal would not be on the table. The cognitive dissonance could scarcely be greater. Here’s one key part of the Watershed Department’s plan: “What We Will Do: We’re committed to making our environmental and drainage standards clear, consistent, and enforceable. By improving how we work together and share expectations, we will reduce uncertainty while holding projects accountable for meeting watershed protection goals. This work prioritizes transparency and responsibility so that development supports the health, safety, and resilience of our community.” Imagine a world where the City Council actually followed through on these same commitments. Alas, the Council’s moral and environmental compass is either lost, broken, sold, or discarded. And yet, here it is!! Hiding in plain sight. Thank you to all of the Watershed Protection staff and community members who put such hard, thoughtful work into this process. City Council Commits to Fossil Fuels Behind Closed DoorsFor Item 7 on the 5/21 Council Meeting, Austin Energy will be attempting to get the City Council to vote on potentially a billion-dollars worth of investment in natural gas peakers, behind closed doors, in Executive Session. Our friends at Public Citizen and other environmental organizations are speaking out, and we wanted to make sure to share the information. In an obvious attempt to bypass transparency and public oversight on a decision that would result in a de facto abandonment of the City’s carbon-free by 2035 goal, this closed-door meeting allows the City and Austin Energy to negotiate directly with unnamed companies for unspecified quantities of gas turbines, without going through a competitive purchasing process. Under the Energy Resource, Generation, and Climate Protection Plan to 2035 (2035 Plan), Austin Energy is required to issue an RFP to openly evaluate all available power generation, including renewable energy and battery storage. Importantly, Austin Energy must test whether carbon-free sources can meet the same reliability needs before pursuing gas peakers. Yet, without publishing the results of the RFP or any of the alternative generation analysis, Austin Energy now seeks Council approval for closed-door negotiations to pursue natural gas peakers. This abrupt reversal of requiring a transparent and competitive process by Austin Energy undermines the cornerstone of the 2035 Plan: “Community collaboration fosters transparency.” What is at stake is Austin’s climate future. Natural gas peakers (even new and more efficient models) are an environmentally harmful solution, as they perpetuate reliance on fossil fuels that emit greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane, contributing to climate change. Adding more peakers to the grid will only result in more emissions. And because natural gas peakers typically operate during periods of high demand, their emissions align with times of peak air pollution, exacerbating environmental and public health issues. Tell City Council and Austin Energy to follow the 2035 Plan and focus on carbon-free options already available instead of rushing into buying gas peakers without giving the clean energy path an opportunity to succeed. TAKE ACTION Speak at City Council this Thursday, May 21stWhere: Austin City Hall, 301 W. 2nd Street, Council Chambers When: Meeting begins at 10:00 AM; AGAINST Agenda Item 7 (Regular Meeting) (Sign up to speak online HERE before noon on Wednesday or at City Hall before 8 am on Thursday). Sign Up to Speak at Council Help Shape the Future of Texas WaterTexas Water Development Board Is Planning for Massive Groundwater ExpansionThe Draft 2027 State Water Plan lays out a future shaped by massive groundwater pumping, new pipelines, desalination plants, aquifer storage schemes, and explosive demand from sprawling development and data centers. State officials are projecting nearly $174 billion in future water infrastructure needs, and rural Texas aquifers are squarely in the crosshairs. The Texas Water Development Board is accepting public comment right now, and this may be one of the few opportunities ordinary Texans have to get concerns on the record before these projects move from paper to reality. If you care about your well, our creeks, our springs, our wildlife, or the future of water in Texas, now is the time to speak while it can still make a difference. Bring Your Voice to the Water BoardAttend the public hearing on May 27, submit comments before May 29, and tell state officials that Texas water is not an unlimited commodity to be pumped, piped, and sold off without consequence. The people driving these projects are counting on silence, fatigue, and the assumption that nobody is paying attention. Let’s show them we are paying attention. Public Hearing on the Draft 2027 State Water Plan May 27, 2026, 1:00 PM Stephen F Austin Bldg, 1700 N Congress Ave or virtually via Teams Meeting (Meeting ID: 280 904 566 316 4; Passcode: fp9Lk2bs. Audio access only: 512-298-6360; phone conference ID: 508 590 523#) Written comments accepted through May 29, 2026 Make Your Voice Heard There's rumbles of big storms gathering across Central Texas, with forecasts showing anywhere from 2-6 inches of rain over the next week. After years of drought, heat, and watching our springs struggle, we welcome it. Let’s hope it comes in sheets, sinks deep into the ground, fills our creeks, and cools the soil and trees. And while the skies open up, we need people to show up too. This week’s City Council agenda contains decisions with consequences that would last generations. If you can attend, speak, write Council, or help spread the word, now is the time. Public pressure and presence matters, and we've seen it make a difference time and again. In Solidarity, SOS Alliance In This Issue:
 Austin City Council Gives Nod of Approval to New Economic Incentive Agreements, Including Data Centers and AI CompaniesAt their May 7th City Council meeting, the Austin City Council voted (on consent) to approve a resolution that aims to reignite tax incentive agreements to attract businesses to Austin. Sponsored by Kirk Watson (M), Chito Vela (D4), Ryan Alter (D5), and Zo Qadri (D9), the original draft of the resolution praised “enterprise AI and data infrastructure” as an “explosive growth sector” fueled by venture capital. No, this isn’t April Fools Day. The draft of their proposed policy can be read here. Their proposed resolution displays a concerning disconnect from ongoing national, state, and local conversations about the well-documented strain data centers are putting on our water, air, and quality of life. It also ignores the recommendations put forth by the Austin Environmental Commission. Just over a month ago, on April 1, 2026 (ironically, actually ON April Fools Day), the Environmental Commission issued a recommendation to the City Council to adopt policies that prioritize sustainability and environmental protection in managing data centers. This included a moratorium on new data centers within Austin city limits—and specifically included a recommendation to prohibit the use of tax incentives to recruit these facilities. After people noticed the data-center praising language hidden in a separately linked “Exhibit A” to the resolution, the community reacted strongly in opposition. Austinites highlighted the environmental impacts of data centers, along with the troubling intersections between AI, surveillance, and the defense industry. Before the council vote, the resolution was amended to remove explicit references to identification of the “target industries.” But, this change was superficial at best. The revised language does little to walk back the original intent of incentivizing data centers and fails to explicitly rule out the use of taxpayer dollars to recruit them. The City Council should heed the advice of its Environmental Commission and follow up with a resolution adopting their recommendations. The Council’s failure to act on them signals a troubling willingness to compromise Austin’s environmental policies in favor of corporate welfare. Speaking of corporate welfare—the decision also opens the door to a larger question: Should Austin return to the practice of issuing economic incentive agreements to recruit businesses to Austin? Prior councils wisely shifted focus away from corporate welfare for large businesses in favor of supporting local workforce development and supporting local businesses and residents. By offering tax breaks and incentives to attract billionaire-backed corporations like data centers, the city risks exacerbating Austin's affordability crisis, giving away our water for resource extraction, and eroding the quality of life for its residents. Instead of chasing industries that contribute to environmental degradation and rising costs of living, Austin should double down on policies that promote sustainability, equity, and support for local businesses. The Environmental Commission has already provided a roadmap; it's up to the Council to follow it.  More than 8,000 public comments slammed into CTRMA’s MoPac South expansion scheme before the May 3rd deadline, the largest response we’ve ever seen for a single public comment period for this project. Thank you to every single person who took the time to speak up for Barton Springs, the Edwards Aquifer, our parks, wildlife, neighborhoods, and Austin’s future. The message was loud and clear: Austinites are tired of billion-dollar highway boondoggles masquerading as transportation solutions while our water, trees, and public lands are put on the chopping block. This fight is far from over. Now CTRMA has to publicly post -- and respond to -- every single comment submitted. Their staff will eventually make a recommendation on how to proceed, likely sometime in fall 2026. Between now and then, we intend to keep the pressure on with a second wave of advocacy, continued oversight, organizing, and public scrutiny. We are incredibly grateful to the powerhouse team of scientists, engineers, biologists, arborists, and transportation experts who helped dismantle the deeply flawed Draft Environmental Assessment piece by piece:
What about the TPIA lawsuit? Our Texas Public Information Act lawsuit is already producing results. CTRMA is now cooperating and has stated they intend to provide the records and attachments we requested. We are waiting for them to fully come through on that commitment, and we expect another update within the next week. Transparency matters. Especially when billions of bond dollars and irreplaceable environmental resources are on the line. Help SOS Keep the Pressure On Your donation helps pay for independent science, legal action, expert review, public education, records requests, and the relentless watchdog work needed to protect Barton Springs, the Edwards Aquifer, Zilker Park, and Austin’s future from a disastrous highway expansion project that should never have made it this far. Please chip in today and help us fund the next phase of this fight. Hays County: Speak Up Against Darden Hill Road Extension
If approved, it would turn Darden Hill Rd. into a segment in the broader “Dripping Springs Bypass,” diverting US 290 highway traffic from RM 1826 to the western side of Dripping Springs and paving the way for increased development in extremely environmentally sensitive areas. Local opposition is growing. Nearly 500 residents have already signed a petition organized by the group at savedardenhill.com, voicing concerns about safety, noise, and environmental impacts. If you want to learn more or make your voice heard, there’s an important meeting on May 20th at 6pm, Twisted X Brewing (23455 W RR 150, Dripping Springs, TX) hosted by County Judge Ruben Becerra, who is stepping in to help address community concerns.
SOS guest writer and water watchdog, Paul Robbins, takes us into the tried-and-true possibilities of reclaimed water, what other drought-stricken regions are doing right, and how those practices might be understood, adapted, and emulated here in Austin. Thank you for staying engaged with our current work, from highways to data center industry to purple pipes and back again. We know it’s a lot, and we appreciate you taking the time to be in it with us. Meanwhile, the spring weather is spring-ing, and we hope you’re finding time outside; on the greenbelt, at the springs, or doing cartwheels into your favorite patch of wildflowers.
We’re glad you’re here. In Solidarity, SOS Alliance  Purple pipe supply line at Austin Bergstrom International Airport • Photo by Paul Robbins In This Story… • Reclaimed water is wastewater treated to a high standard and reused for both potable and non-potable purposes. Some states and cities have made tremendous efforts to use this resource. • Nevada, Arizona, and Florida reclaim at least 50% of their wastewater. San Antonio reclaims 17% of its wastewater. The El Paso water utility is building the first direct wastewater-to-tap water treatment plant in the country. • Austin, which considers itself a leader in water conservation, reclaimed less than 7% of its water in 2023. If all of Austin’s remaining wastewater in 2023 were reclaimed to drinking water standards, it would provide for 764,000 more people. A recently published story on water supply in Central Texas explained that acute water shortages could afflict our region in as little as 15 years. New approaches to protecting water supplies are no longer a luxury. They are a prerequisite. In addition to demand-side conservation and replacing old water pipes, another valuable strategy is reclaimed water. In several states in the U.S., it is quite common to treat large percentages of wastewater as a resource. In the arid state of Nevada, 85% of its wastewater is reclaimed. In Florida, it is 55%. Significant percentages of wastewater are also reclaimed in: Arizona, 52%; California, 22%; and New Mexico, 18%. Often the water is used directly in a dedicated reclaimed water utility constructed with purple pipe, so that it is not mistaken for potable water (drinking-water) pipes. Reclaimed water is used for landscape irrigation, cooling towers for air conditioning in large buildings and electric power plants, industrial manufacturing, and toilet flushing. Other times, water is upgraded to an even higher standard, and used to replenish reservoirs and aquifers. It is also used for crop irrigation. And a trend is beginning to use advanced water treatment technology to upgrade wastewater directly into potable water, with some of the first plants of this kind in the U.S. being built in water-scarce regions of Texas. The Texas Leaders Though Texas only recycles about 4% of its wastewater, the state is planning to obtain 14% of its new water supplies from reclaimed water by 2070. Some Texas cities have emerged as national leaders in reclaimed water use. • Big Spring – The spring for which this West Texas city was christened was never big by modern standards. Even when it was a watering hole for Comanche and Apache Indians, its average daily flow would have only satisfied about 500 Austin-sized homes in 2023. Due to growth from settlers and railroads, the spring went dry in the mid-1920s. This parched city’s water utility built a plant converting its treated and chlorinated sewage to drinking water via microfiltration, reverse osmosis, and ultraviolet-light/hydrogen peroxide disinfection. When commissioned in 2013, the plant was the first of its kind in the U.S., and provided 40% of the city’s water supply. The utility typically mixes this water with a different raw water source to reduce the stigma associated with direct use of sewage. However, it provided undiluted water directly to consumers during a drought in 2014-2015. • El Paso – El Paso has three different kinds of reclaimed water production. 1. Beginning in 1963, its purple pipe utility provided non-potable water for landscapes, cooling towers, street sweeping, fire protection, building construction, and industrial processes. The system reused about 8% of its 2023 wastewater production. 2. Since 1985, wastewater upgraded to drinking water standards has been used to help recharge the Hueco Wells Aquifer, which provides 38% of the city’s total water supply. 3. In 2025, the city began construction of the 10 million gallon per day Pure Water Center that will purify wastewater to drinking water, which will go online in 2028. Its four-step process includes reverse osmosis, followed by an ultraviolet light/hydrogen peroxide disinfection process, followed by carbon-filtration, and finally completed with chlorination. Unlike the Big Spring plant, it is intended for direct use without dilution from other water sources (another first in the U.S.), and it will process six times as much water. • Wichita Falls – Since 2017, this city on the Oklahoma border has directed highly treated wastewater to Lake Arrowhead 17 miles away. The mixture of raw and reclaimed water is then retreated to potable standards. • San Antonio – San Antonio’s water utility began its reclaimed water system in 1999. It provides non-potable water to commercial buildings, industries, and CPS Energy power plants for cooling. In 2024, about 5% of its wastewater was used by individual customers, and 12% was used for power production. The Austin Experience To date, Austin Water has not invested as much attention and money in reclaimed water as other utilities with higher-achieving systems. Austin began using reclaimed water in 1974, when it began to irrigate a golf course with it. It was also sold as cooling water to Austin Energy’s Sandhill Power Plant in Southeast Austin. Austin’s reclaimed water line mileage has doubled between 2011 and 2023, when the system reached about 70 miles in length. (This compares to the drinking water system over 3,900 miles long.) If not reclaimed, this treated wastewater would otherwise flow back to the Colorado River. In 2023, about 3.3% of Austin’s wastewater was reclaimed for uses including cooling towers for Austin’s district chilling system, landscaping, and non-potable uses at the Mueller Airport redevelopment and Austin’s Bergstrom Airport. Another 3.3% was used in the wastewater treatment process. If all of the remaining wastewater in Austin could be treated to a high-quality standard and reused, it would supply the needs of an additional 764,000 people at Austin’s 2023 per capita level of consumption. This would be equivalent to 67% of the population in Austin Water’s service territory in that year. If you believe Austin should expand reclaimed water use as a central water supply strategy, write in and let local water policymakers know this matters today. Use the form letter link below to contact the Water and Wastewater Commission and the Water Forward Task Force to encourage smarter, more responsible water management. 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. NEXT WEEK: Part 2 – The Economics of Reclaimed Water in Austin In This Issue:
 Illustration courtesy of Wall Street Journal This Thursday, May 7th, the Austin City Council will vote on Item 24, a resolution that opens the door to economic incentives for data centers and the artificial intelligence industry. We need you at City Hall! The resolution establishes a “new economic development framework” that names “Data Management & Artificial Intelligence” as one of the ten Target Economic Sectors in Exhibit A, which calls it an “explosive growth sector: three of Austin's four largest-ever venture funding rounds closed in 2025; enterprise AI and data infrastructure.” If Council passes Item 24 on Thursday, here is what it actually does:
On April 1, 2026, Austin's Environmental Commission voted 10-0 to adopt Recommendation 20260401-004, urging the City Council to take a coordinated, protective approach to data center development in Central Texas. Among other things, the Commission asked Council to:
This resolution will pave the way for tax breaks and other incentives for data centers that drink hundreds of thousands of gallons of water a day and pull as much electricity as small cities. This Thursday, we need you at City Hall. Speak for the springs, the grid, and the water. Here's How to Show Up! 1. Speak at City Council on Thursday, May 7 Where: Austin City Hall, 301 W. 2nd Street, Council Chambers When: Meeting begins at 10:00 AM; AGAINST Agenda Item #24 (Regular Meeting) (Sign up to speak online before noon on Wednesday or at City Hall before 8 am on Thursday). Speaker Form Here. 2. Spread the Word - Send this email to your friends and neighbors that care about Austin’s water and are concerned about the proliferation of data centers locally  Speak Up for Our Historic Barton Springs Bridge at Austin Environmental Commission Tomorrow The Austin Environmental Commission will hear a briefing on the proposed demolition and replacement of our historic Barton Springs Bridge tomorrow, Wednesday, evening at 6:00 P.M, at the City's Permitting and Development Center, Room 1405, 6310 WILHELMINA DELCO DRIVE. To register to speak remotely (on Item 2), sign up before noon today by contacting Nicole Corona (512-974-3146), [email protected]. You may sign up to speak in person at the meeting, before it starts. City staff and contractors continue to say the bridge cannot be repaired, but their own reports show the bridge can be saved for tens of millions of dollars less than tearing it down and replacing it with a giant highway bridge that, if built, will pave Zilker Park land and tear up Barton Creek and riparian habitats. Go to Austin Free Press here for the overview. The Commission will also discuss, and hear comments, on the proposed 6 to 8 lane expansion of MoPac South. That is Agenda Item 4.
 Austin Singing Resistance along with local activists come together at Barton Springs for song circle and to submit final comments against MoPac South expansion A Massive Outcry Against Proposed MoPac Expansion -- THANK YOU!
The Austin community flipped the script for the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority, who claims that its 8.77-mile expansion, with an additional 6-8 lanes over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone, will have “no significant impact” on Austin’s environment. More than 6,000 comments were filed through the Better Mopac Coalition advocacy page, with thousands more submitted directly to CTRMA. The home stretch brought a massive wave of support and joyful resistance. On Sunday, nearly a hundred people gathered at Barton Springs Pool with songs and education led by Singing Resistance Austin, Jade Fusco, Mary Olivar, Matt Dietrichson, and others. It was a strong, spirited close to a 75-day sprint of collective action, grounded in shared purpose and place. What’s Next? While the official public comment on CTRMA's draft Environmental Assessment closed at midnight Sunday, the CTRMA Board of Directors will not decide on its next steps until after its staff has prepared responses to public comments and made a recommendation. That will likely be in late summer or this fall. Between now and then, please stay engaged with us and the Better MoPac Coalition and watch for opportunities to speak up. In the short term, we will share expert reports and summary comments from SOS and the Better MoPac Coalition. More updates to come as the process moves forward. Stay tuned! In Solidarity and Gratitude, SOS Alliance  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