B and B

Developers' land-trashing behavior near San Antonio now threatens U.S. Army's Camp Bullis

The rate of land-trashing by real estate developers in northwest Bexar County has reached the stage where it threatens the continued existence of an amy training ground, Camp Bullis.  This threat has compelled both the City of San Antonio and the U.S. Army to act, which, finally, has brought some attention to the issue -- though, alas, not in a general sense.  Plenty of formerly beautiful Hill Country terrain and wildlife habitat has been scraped and blasted into nothingness in recent years without raising much alarm from anyone but those of us in the immediate area.

From the San Antonio Express-News over the weekend:

A federal judge Friday ordered a San Antonio-area developer to cease road-clearing operations for a new subdivision adjacent to Camp Bullis, giving wildlife experts time to evaluate the project's impact on golden-cheeked warbler habitat.

U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriguez granted a temporary restraining order against INTCO-Dominion Partnership and set a hearing for 10 a.m. Wednesday on an environmental group's request for a permanent injunction that would halt development next to the range.

The lawsuit, filed Friday by Aquifer Guardians in Urban Areas, contends that INTCO is destroying dense trees and brush that are home to the endangered migratory bird that nests each spring and summer in the Hill Country. Destroying warbler habitat is a violation of the Endangered Species Act.

“This is an early victory. It's not the end,” Aquifer Guardians President Enrique Valdivia said. “But if we didn't get the restraining order, the bulldozers might work through the weekend and there wouldn't be anything left to litigate over.”

INTCO has been clearing trees and brush on the 340-acre site near Bullis as it prepares to build a road for a high-end subdivision. The company's Austin-based attorney, Allen Glen, said it was “a safe assumption” his client would follow the order and suspend work.

...

Critics of INTCO say the project, and others like it, are driving the warbler onto Camp Bullis, and that if the trend isn't stopped the Army will be unable to train on the 27,994-acre range. As growth has exploded in the area, the warbler population on Bullis has nearly doubled from 672 in 2001 to 1,086 in 2007.

Fort Sam and top city and county leaders say any reduction of training area raises the risk of the Army moving 37,250 military and civilian workers to be on the post by 2011.

“The issue is bigger, of course, than the fate of the warbler. It's concern about development around Camp Bullis and, of course, the impact on the aquifer recharge zone,” Aquifer Guardians' Valdivia said.

Federal law and Defense Department policy forbid the Army from taking legal action, forcing it to rely on groups such as the Aquifer Guardians and the Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance, which had considered seeking the restraining order.

...

Post spokesman Phil Reidinger said court action is the only way to stop work on the site while biologists take a closer look, and added that Fort Sam “cannot shoulder the conservation burden alone” — a view shared by its advocates.

“The really big problem with this is Camp Bullis is really the only one in the area that is observing the law,” Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance Executive Director Annalisa Peace said. “If everybody was observing the law, it probably wouldn't be a problem for Camp Bullis.”

Hill Country Planning Association, aka "Hill Country Militia," rises up against developers' land-trashing

For a little story on the animosity that real estate developers are engendering in our neck of the woods due to the way they manage to transform bucolic hill country vistas into moonscapes of destruction, see this recent article in the San Antonio Current by Greg Harmon of harmon on earth (emphasis added):

[In early 2007] Reports that the San Antonio Water System was seeking to expand its authority across the city’s entire 5-mile extraterritorial jurisdiction, and that a new high-density development straddling Medina and Bandera counties was seeking SAWS sewer and water service, had rattled a broader geography of turf warriors. Many of them were already members of the non-profit Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance, whose mission is specifically focused on protecting the Edwards Aquifer.

In a galleon of a ranch house outside Helotes modeled on Yellowstone National Park’s guest quarters, they debated just what they could do to stop the quickening pace of sprawling development. While SAWS officials argued that extending their pipes would better protect area water supplies by limiting the creation of smaller, less-professional water-company operations or, worse, the explosion of septic-tank communities, the consensus in the meeting was that the lines would only ensure the continued rush of concrete, sheet rock, and tarpaper.

The mix of political persuasions was bridged by a collective, dawning environmental consciousness, perhaps best illustrated by the retired neurosurgeon from Quihi, busy battling plans for a quarry in his hamlet.

“I never considered myself an environmentalist. I really didn’t,” said Robert Fitzgerald. “But once you start looking at what people are doing down there, if you have any feeling at all, you become an environmentalist.”

A member of the Edwards Aquifer Authority publicly confessed the agency hadn’t been willing to act on many issues out of fear. “It’s fear of what the legislature will do. Really, it’s fear of what the developers will get the lege to do to us,” he said. “Some think it’s time we called their bluff.”

Then Bebe [Fenstermaker] shot off from the front of the room. “We’re losing Texas. I don’t know if you know that,” she said. “I can’t stand to drive anywhere anymore … We look like New Jersey.”

A woman at the opposite end of the stone and timber expanse shook her jaw. “New Jersey looks better.”

Some attendees compared the motivation behind the night’s meeting to the survival ethic of the early Texians. “We’re kind of like the pioneers 200 years ago,” said one. “When there was a fight, they all left their homes and came together.”

No surprise that in such a charged environment when prospective names for the group were floated the combativeness of the moment seeped out. “How about militia?” offered one. “Hill Country Militia?”

It took time, but eventually the more mundane Hill County Planning Association was adopted.

Early versions of the group’s Master Plan struck one prominent participant as a rewrite of the Communist Manifesto, though it read more like an early American Revolutionary screed. A trace of those rhetorical flourishes remains, particularly the opening “We the People.”

After lengthy defining of place and purpose, the group’s Master Plan comes to a solitary demand: “An immediate moratorium is called on all development in The Hill Country to assure compliance with all local, State, and Federal laws and until a comprehensive cumulative environmental impact study is completed.”

...

Group members were still working out the final language of the Master Plan when developers at Sonoma Verde were blasting and excavating their way to the perfect limestone tabula rasa, a blank slate devoid of any living thing, atop that cherished Edwards recharge zone.

...

Today the [Fenstermaker] sisters watch as Post Oak Development blasts a hill flat on the backside of Crownridge Canyon Natural Area off Kyle Seal Parkway. It’s like nothing they’ve ever seen before.

“This is like West Virginia coal mining,” Mary Fenstermaker says.

“We’ve seen land raped, but we’ve never seen that,” Bebe says. “I’ve never seen Texas treated like that.”

For much more, read the entire article.

Geoengineering: Rolling the dice with the only planet we've got

If "geoengineering" is truly becoming a mainstream concept, as suggested by Chris Mooney at the Intersection (based on a recent mention in Time magazine), then we are truly on a dangerous path.

Time writes, "Geoengineering has long been the province of kooks, but as the difficulty of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions has become harder to ignore, it is slowly emerging as an option of last resort."

Are we already reduced to thinking about last resorts?   If we ever reach the point that we have to say, Let's purposefully try to mess up our planet's extremely complicated climate system in order to restore a poorly understood equilibrium that we lost a while back," then we are truly f****d. 

We don't have a planet to practice on.  We've never done anything like that before.  What are the odds it would work as intended?

If we reach that point, it's far worse than the equivalent of a Hail Mary pass at the end of a football game, or pulling the goalie at the end of a hockey game.  After all, those strategies have been tried before and we know they can work, if rarely.  In the case of geongineering, it won't work.  To even think of attempting it is to think that we're doomed anyway so we might as well have some fun on the way out.

We're not there yet, thankfully, so let's send the talk of geoengineering back to the science fiction books where it belongs.

Mayor Hardberger and SAWS take a stand against rampant development over the Edwards Aquifer

San Antonio Mayor Phil Hardberger and the board of the San Antonio Water System took a stand against the rampant development of the Hill Country landscape earlier this week.  This is a decision that deserves wider recognition.

From the Express-News, Dec 5:

Taking a rare stand against a developer to protect a pristine watershed that drains into the Edwards Aquifer, trustees of the San Antonio Water System unanimously rejected an agreement Tuesday to provide water to a planned subdivision in the remote hills northwest of the city.

Baruch Properties wanted water for the Hills of Castle Rock, a 1,766-acre property near Texas 16 and Park Road 37 in Medina County. The nearest SAWS water main is 7.5 miles away.

Environmentalists and neighbors argued that SAWS water service would allow high-density development that otherwise is not likely to occur because of a lack of available water supplies.

High-density development, they said, would bring polluted runoff and downstream flooding to San Geronimo Creek and an on-site wastewater treatment plant whose effluent would be added to the creek that drains into the aquifer a few miles downstream.

“Density development in a sensitive zone simply is not a good thing for the citizens of San Antonio, for our city, for our neighbors or for our water,” said Mayor Phil Hardberger in explaining his motion to deny the request.

...

Hardberger said he recognized that to get a SAWS water main to the site, the developer made concessions such as scaling back from 3,500 homes to 2,700, but he said the city's policy should not be to diminish the harm but to do good.

He said the city's “irreversible mistakes” in planning over the aquifer's sensitive areas are on display by driving out Loop 1604 North and U.S. 281.

Later in the article, the developer suggests they can simply go the state agency (TCEQ) and leave San Antonio and SAWS out of the process entirely.  Given how the state government works, they would be likely to get their way via that route, so I am unsure how this battle is going to work out.

But I am happy to see that the city government of San Antonio is in no mood to encourage  destructive development of the Hill Country and the Edwards Aquifer.

Water pollution report should be an embarrassment for all Texans

Water pollution is still a major problem, particularly here in Texas.  The Express-News reported yesterday (emphasis added):

Texas leads the nation in the number of treatment plants and industrial facilities that fail to meet pollution standards for the wastewater they dump into rivers and streams, according to a report released Thursday.

The report, Troubled Waters, found that 318, or about 53 percent, of the state's major industrial and wastewater plants failed Clean Water Act standards in at least one of 12 reporting periods in 2005.

...

The data were compiled by U.S. PIRG and released by Environment Texas on the banks of the San Antonio River in Brackenridge Park on Thursday. Nationally, the groups are lobbying for Congress to pass the Clean Water Restoration Act, which would strengthen water quality protection.

Although Texas tops the nation in the number of facilities that violate water pollution rules, it falls in the middle of the pack when looking at the percentage of facilities that do so. The list is topped by smaller New England states like Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Hampshire, all of which had more than 75 percent of their plants earning violations.

Locally, Environment Texas has been leading efforts to change state pollution laws that, the group claims, makes it profitable to pollute in Texas.

A 2003 state auditor's report that looked at 80 pollution cases backs that contention. The auditor found that state fines for the pollution cases totaled less than $1.7 million, but the facilities involved benefited more than $8.6 million by not complying with regulations.

Glenn Shankle, executive director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, recommended changing the regulations to address the profit issue in 2006, but the commission has not adopted the recommendations. Agency spokeswoman Lisa Wheeler said the commission will likely take up the issue again early next year.

Rep. Mike Villarreal, D-San Antonio, who attended the news conference, promised to sponsor legislation next session to "take away the incentive for these worst polluters to make a profit at the expense of the rest of us."

It would be the fourth consecutive session such legislation is introduced, Environment Texas Director Luke Metzger said.

"Each time the Texas Chemical Council and others have been able to defeat the bill in committee," he said.

This state of our waterways should be an embarrassment for all Texans.  I hope we can do better.

For the full Troubled Waters report, visit Environment Texas.

Republicans for Environmental Protection, all 70 of them, meet in San Antonio

A group called Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP) just had their national conference in our fair town.   Given the nature of GOP policies over the last, say, 27 years, the name sounds oxymoronic, perhaps an intentional obfuscation.  But I've followed this group for many years, and they do appear to be legitimate--pathetically ineffective, perhaps, but legitimate. 

The REP website proclaims that this conference is "Truly... our most exciting conference ever!"

The Express-News reports that at this most exciting conference, the keynote speaker, GOP pollster Whit Ayres, spoke to "crowd of about 70, including about a dozen Texans."

That reveals a lot about the current standing of conservation in the party of Theodore Roosevelt.

REP's website lists the awards they have given out since their founding in 1996.  Amongst these awards in one called the "Environmental Legislator of the Year," presumably limited to Republicans.  Here are the winners:

1996 - Rep. Christopher Shays, CT
1998 - Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, NY (now retired)
2000 - Sen. Jim Jeffords, VT (later become an Independent allied with Democrats; now retired)
2002 - Rep. Nancy Johnson, CT (defeated by a Democrat in 2006
2004 - Rep. Jim Greenwood, PA (now retired)

I guess they gave up after 2004, because I don't see any such award since then.  Rep. Shays is the lone survivor, and he is hanging by a thread.

"Conservation, stewardship, those are very bedrock conservative issues," said David Jenkins, the group's governmental affairs director. "The party has gotten away from that some."

Some, indeed.

Wind energy battle on the south Texas coast

The fight over wind farms along the south Texas coast continues.  From the Express-News over the weekend:

A coalition of bird and conservation organizations will make a last-ditch effort Monday to stall or kill two large wind farms on the Texas Coast.

The increasingly acrimonious dispute pits two favorites of the environmental movement against each other — the supporters of wind energy and bird lovers.

A coalition of bird and conservation organizations will make a last-ditch effort Monday to stall or kill two large wind farms on the Texas Coast.

The increasingly acrimonious dispute pits two favorites of the environmental movement against each other — the supporters of wind energy and bird lovers.

...

The debate has become nasty at times, with local Audubon societies and the famous King Ranch facing off against the John G. and Marie Stella Kenedy Memorial Foundation and the John G. Kenedy Jr. Charitable Trust, which own the land where the turbines would be built.

The developers of one of the farms, the Australian-based Babcock & Brown Ltd., claims it has conducted more environmental study on this site than almost any other in the world.

The company's chief development officer, John Calaway, said those studies show the wind farm has little potential to harm birds. Calaway said the company is even pioneering a radar-based system for the project that can shut down the turbines within a minute in the event of a massive bird run-in.

But Calaway said it's unlikely at this point that he would share the studies with any of the groups in opposition.

"I don't think that, because of the way they've been referring to us, that we will be jumping up and down to accommodate then," he said. "And quite frankly we don't have to."

It is this kind of in-your-face arrogance that makes me, who might normally be sympathetic to this particular energy development, extremely suspicious.

What are Calaway and his company hiding?

Whooping cranes' habitat threatened by development pressure

I was distressed to read this morning that housing development is threatening to eat into the small area of remaining habitat for the majestic, endangered Whooping Crane on the Texas gulf coast. 

From the San Antonio Express-News:

An Austin developer who insists he is doing everything possible to protect the species wants to be the first to build a subdivision in an area deemed critical habitat for the sole remaining wild flock.

The dispute centers on 100 acres of the roughly 35-mile-long swath of Texas coastline named critical habitat for the species' survival by the federal government in the 1970s. The development, if allowed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is being touted as a potential precedent setter by both sides and has caught the eye of national environmental organizations.

Those who are adamantly against the project worry that it could open the floodgates for development in the environmentally sensitive habitat. They are pressuring the corps to order a full-scale environmental impact statement on the project.

...

[Developer Bill] Ball is a managing partner of Seadrift Ranch Partners. The corporation bought the roughly 6,000-acre ranch near Seadrift last year. Current plans call for developing a 700-acre residential and marina subdivision on the San Antonio Bay. Roughly 100 acres of the property on the southern end of the development are in critical habitat.

...

[Tom] Stehn [of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service] said it's too early to cast judgment on Ball's proposal, but he said he is worried about the overall impact of coastal development on the whooping crane.

"I'm afraid that development will rob the species of the opportunity to grow," he said. "This is just one. There will be others. We all knew (development) was coming, but it's just exploded."

As Stehn points out, this is just the beginning.  If we are not careful, before we know it, we could lose a major chunk of habitat.  If that happens, we could well lose the Whooping Crane once and for all.

For more on this impressive bird, see my December 2005 post, Whoopers put on a show.

Lake Teshekpuk vs Bush and Big Oil -- the saga continues

Desipte setbacks, the oil-industry and their puppets in the Bush administration are continuing their pursuit of an area in far north-central Alaska owned by the people of the United States--an area that is a crucial habitat area for migratory birds--an area separate from, and perhaps even more important, than the famous Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to its east.

"The area (Teshekpuk Lake) is one of the most important areas in the entire Arctic, and I don't just mean in Arctic Alaska," said Stan Senner, executive director of Audubon Alaska. "It is simply the most important goose-molting area in the Arctic."

We first noted this story back in early 2006.  Jaded Thea, at her blog, reminds us that this is story is far from over.  What has happened since then is summed up by the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner:

In January 2006, the BLM approved a plan opening the sensitive area around Teshekpuk Lake to limited oil and gas drilling. The plan restricted the number of leases in the area, the overall acreage developed, and the time of year when work could be done.

Leases were included in an NPR-A lease sale scheduled for Sept. 27.

But shortly before the sale, a federal judge sided with environmental groups, including the Fairbanks-based Northern Alaska Environmental Center, and blocked the sale of leases in the northeast planning area. The judge claimed the BLM had not sufficiently accounted for cumulative impacts associated with development in the neighboring northwest planning area.

In November, the Bureau announced it would develop a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to address cumulative impacts, and it put out a call for “specific … recommendations as to stipulations, operating procedures, and other mitigating measures that the BLM could consider to further its goal of reducing impacts.”

Wilson said the supplemental was originally expected out in June and will be released soon.

“We’re just adding new information, revising information based on new information, and then addressing the concerns of the court,” she said. Among other things, the new document will take into account a recent assessment of public health concerns.

The BLM is considering a number of alternatives for development, but has not given up plans to allow drilling around Teshekpuk Lake, according to Wilson.

At the same time, we are now learning that coastal erosion in this area of far northern Alaska is accelerating, perhaps due to the warming climate.  From a separate article in the Daily News-Miner: 

Taken together, drilling and erosion would create a “double whammy for the sensitive goose molting and caribou calving and insect-relief habitats,” wrote [Pamela] Miller [of the Northern Alaska Environmental Center], a former wildlife biologist, in an e-mail.

The Northern Alaska Environmental Center looks like a good place to go for more information on this ongoing saga.

The word from Audubon on how to help declining bird species

I looked into the Audubon Society report on the dramatic decline of a number of common bird species in recent decades, but, unfortunately, the report was not designed to determine the cause of these declines.  That is left to intelligent speculation and to future studies.

Meanwhile, though, Audubon has provided a list of things we can do, in general, to help preserve troubled bird species.

The bulleted list:

• Protect local habitat
• Promote sound agricultural policy
• Support sustainable forests
• Protect wetlands
• Fight global warming
• Combat invasive species

See Audubon for the details.