ion_avenger
09-22-2009, 12:03 PM
City holds water-plant debate
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/cityhall/entries/2009/09/17/city_holds_waterplant_debate.html
By Marty Toohey | Thursday, September 17, 2009, 08:14 PM
More than 450 people filled a cavernous corner of the Palmer Events Center on Thursday to watch a sometimes contentious, tit-for-tat debate between city officials and environmental activists about whether Austin should build a controversial $508 million water-treatment plant.
The city’s water utility wants to build the plant on Lake Travis and start construction in spring. During an unusual three-hour panel debate, five city officials argued in favor of the plant, while five activists spoke against it.
Part debate, part educational forum, part political theater, Thursday’s panel produced arguments similar to, but more sharp and detailed than, what had been previously voiced.
Water-utility officials say the city risks running out of water otherwise in next few years. But many of the city’s activists say the plant will be an unnecessary extravagance that would divert money and attention from efforts to conserve water.
“When we’re being asked to support a project that will cost ratepayers $1 billion” — which environmental activists say will be the actual cost when interest payments are calculated — “should we really need the thing?” said Colin Clark, a spokesman with the Save Our Springs Alliance.
He later noted that Austin hit its peak summer water use in 2001, and in the eight years since has trended downward despite adding 100,000 more residents. Water-utility officials shot back that Clarks’ numbers are based on flawed assumptions, such as water-conservation continuing to reduce water use as much as the city’s new lawn-watering restrictions have over the past two summers.
“We have alternated between drought and flood conditions” over the past decade, said Steve Coonan, an engineer consulting with the city on planning the treatment plant. “The data for the last decade are unreliable because of unusual weather, and to stake the city’s future on it is not good.”
The debate format did not allow for public input, but both sides drew applause from the audience at various points.
City Council Member Randi Shade asked for the forum in early August, after the City Council selected a general contractor who will oversee the work should the council give the final go-ahead.
Shade was one of several council members frustrated that the activists and members of city staff could reach opposition.
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/cityhall/entries/2009/09/17/city_holds_waterplant_debate.html
By Marty Toohey | Thursday, September 17, 2009, 08:14 PM
More than 450 people filled a cavernous corner of the Palmer Events Center on Thursday to watch a sometimes contentious, tit-for-tat debate between city officials and environmental activists about whether Austin should build a controversial $508 million water-treatment plant.
The city’s water utility wants to build the plant on Lake Travis and start construction in spring. During an unusual three-hour panel debate, five city officials argued in favor of the plant, while five activists spoke against it.
Part debate, part educational forum, part political theater, Thursday’s panel produced arguments similar to, but more sharp and detailed than, what had been previously voiced.
Water-utility officials say the city risks running out of water otherwise in next few years. But many of the city’s activists say the plant will be an unnecessary extravagance that would divert money and attention from efforts to conserve water.
“When we’re being asked to support a project that will cost ratepayers $1 billion” — which environmental activists say will be the actual cost when interest payments are calculated — “should we really need the thing?” said Colin Clark, a spokesman with the Save Our Springs Alliance.
He later noted that Austin hit its peak summer water use in 2001, and in the eight years since has trended downward despite adding 100,000 more residents. Water-utility officials shot back that Clarks’ numbers are based on flawed assumptions, such as water-conservation continuing to reduce water use as much as the city’s new lawn-watering restrictions have over the past two summers.
“We have alternated between drought and flood conditions” over the past decade, said Steve Coonan, an engineer consulting with the city on planning the treatment plant. “The data for the last decade are unreliable because of unusual weather, and to stake the city’s future on it is not good.”
The debate format did not allow for public input, but both sides drew applause from the audience at various points.
City Council Member Randi Shade asked for the forum in early August, after the City Council selected a general contractor who will oversee the work should the council give the final go-ahead.
Shade was one of several council members frustrated that the activists and members of city staff could reach opposition.