Council Decision on AI Tax Incentives & What's Next for Fighting MoPac

In This Issue: 

1. Austin City Council Approves New Incentives, Including Data Centers and AI Companies
2. What's Next for MoPac: 8,000 Comments and Expert Reports Submitted
3. Twice Removed: Reclaimed Water in Austin
4. Hays County: Community Meeting on Darden Hill Road Extension (May 20, 6pm)

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:
​

• WATER QUALITY REPORT by Dr. Lauren Ross, civil and environmental engineer with Glenrose Engineering, exposed major failures in the project’s water quality analysis, including inadequate treatment assumptions and the near-total dismissal of highway-related pollutants including heavy metals, tire dust, and microplastics washing directly into our waterways. She also notes that 272.93 acres associated with the proposed highway expansion receive no water quality treatment prior to discharge; including large areas that drain into Barton and Eanes Creek watersheds. More than 44% of the highway runoff area within these sensitive areas receive no treatment, draining into karst landscapes that flow directly into the aquifer, Barton Springs, and Cold Springs, allowing highway contaminants to directly enter and degrade these sensitive features. 
• TREE CANOPY REPORT by Sydney Dwoskin, a certified arborist, documented the staggering ecological cost of removing up-to a massive 70 acre swath of urban canopy, including heritage trees and sensitive parkland vegetation already stressed by drought and climate change. The loss of this canopy would cause irreparable harm to ecosystems while exacerbating urban heat island effects. 
• AIR QUALITY REPORT by Dr. John Zamurs, transportation and air quality expert at Zamurs and Associates, exposed traffic modeling built on stale assumptions, inflated projections, and magical thinking about congestion relief. He explains how the highway expansion will expose residents and students at Austin High School to higher concentrations of air pollutants. Yet, there is no analysis of the environmental health risks of PM2.5, PM10, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), or ozone. His analysis also laid bare the project’s failure to seriously consider transit, climate impacts, or induced demand in the Environmental Assessment.
• TRAFFIC MODELING by Norm Marshall, President of Smart Mobility and one of the country’s leading transportation planners, showed how the traffic analysis was rigged from the start to justify widening MoPac no matter what the actual data says. His work cuts straight through the smoke and mirrors. He points out that the data used to initially dismiss alternatives is from 2012, and now travel time savings estimated for selected alternatives are significantly less than what was previously assumed (only 5-6 minutes, during rush hour, if you travel all 8 miles).
• HYDROLOGY and CAVE REPORT by Dr. Nico Hauwert, pioneering hydrogeologist and one of Central Texas’ foremost experts on karst systems and dye tracing, detailed the enormous risks to the Edwards Aquifer, caves, recharge features, and groundwater flow systems that make Barton Springs possible in the first place. The expansion would increase impervious surfaces, leading to greater runoff of pollutants such as heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, and sediment into the aquifer.
• SALAMANDER REPORT by Crystal Datri, conservation biologist and salamander expert, documented the serious threats posed to endangered salamanders that live within these fragile underground ecosystems. The EA very much downplays these federally protected species. She emphasizes that the Draft EA fails to propose sufficient mitigation measures that relate to the actual taking of the species, making its conclusion of "No Significant Impacts" scientifically indefensible.

Together, these reports paint the real and devastating picture that this project threatens some of our favorite natural areas in Austin, including Barton Springs. If continued as planned, it would risk endangered species habitat, along with air quality, public health, and Austin’s climate goals, all while relying on outdated traffic data and a deeply biased review process designed to avoid a full Environmental Impact Statement.

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.

SUPPORT THE MOPAC RESISTANCE

---

Hays County:  Speak Up Against Darden Hill Road Extension

map courtesy of savedardenhill.com

Have you heard about the Darden Hill Road extension? It’s yet another controversial road project, championed by Hays County Commissioner Walt Smith, that will accelerate unsustainable growth in the already water-scarce Onion Creek watershed. 

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. ​

SIGN THE DARDEN HILL PETITION HERE

---

Reclaimed Water: A Missed Opportunity Austin Can’t Afford

Water conservation is on the brain as always--and for good reason. As pressure on local supplies grows despite the May rain respite, the question of how we manage every drop becomes increasingly urgent. 

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.

READ MORE ABOUT RECLAIMED WATER AND TAKE ACTION

---

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