This is such a great piece, and so important. (And not just because I get a shoutout of course, but thank you for that.) It's infuriating to read about the factors that contributed to this tragedy, especially re: the warning system. The shortsightedness of legislators! In our town, county councilors have pushed and pushed for the Department of Energy to transfer tracts of virgin land in the wildland-urban interface for new single family homes... all to avoid having any infill mess up their views. This, after two devastating wildfires ripped through our area relatively recently. And Ruidoso, NM just had catastrophic flooding reminiscent of what happened in Kerr County ... but Ruidoso was far better prepared for it.
Have you read Caro's telling of the story in the "Path to Power"? The section on the Hill Country is incredibly moving, but the part about the dam construction is colorful, in typical LBJ style.
You know, I assume, that Austin's zoning to minimize storm water runoff (and to permit aquifer recharge, which I always understood to be the most important reason it was adopted) was used as an example throughout the U.S. I used it in environmental planning classes I taught back in the 80s and know that colleagues did, too. Also, that the value of limiting impervious cover to diminish damage to watersheds is thoroughly confirmed by research. None of that means its still the right policy in Austin or anywhere else.
But generically asking, as you appear to be, communities to make huge infrastructure investments (and not just capital, but in maintenance) to permit higher density development is a big ask. The balance sheet may work out when protecting someplace like downtown Austin. But given the other virtues of maintaining open space along streams (continuing farm production, habitat protection, recreation, recharge, moderating heat islands, etc.), there are options (acquisition and easements, along with limited open space development) that will cost less in many situations.
That promoting (even requiring) higher densities is a good idea in the abstract doesn't mean it makes sense everywhere. I would never recommend exactly what Austin did (though it was state of the art back then), because it clearly isn't the best way to provide open space or neighborhoods. But I think a lot of people would like to see a balance sheet on changing it.
That's not what I've argued. There are a range of options open to communities, from evaluating what can be built in flood zones, to local or statewide emergency systems, to reevaluating land use policies, to major infrastructure projects. The latter likely only make sense in places where the expected increase in land value can justify it—in Austin, not on the banks of the Guadalupe way out in low-density Hill Country.
But I am arguing to let more people live where the infrastructure already exists to keep them safe—in the city. Austin has already made important land use reforms to help with this, supported by existing infrastructure. The city will also consider a bond next year that could pay for new investments in infrastructure to support further densification. My view is that anything the city does to allow more people to live in it is better for the region as a whole.
Thank you for this insightful perspective on sy Austin survived the recent flood and the infrastructure and planning and zoning tradeoffs involved. Well done!
This is such a great piece, and so important. (And not just because I get a shoutout of course, but thank you for that.) It's infuriating to read about the factors that contributed to this tragedy, especially re: the warning system. The shortsightedness of legislators! In our town, county councilors have pushed and pushed for the Department of Energy to transfer tracts of virgin land in the wildland-urban interface for new single family homes... all to avoid having any infill mess up their views. This, after two devastating wildfires ripped through our area relatively recently. And Ruidoso, NM just had catastrophic flooding reminiscent of what happened in Kerr County ... but Ruidoso was far better prepared for it.
This is one time where Lake Travis being abnormally low because of drought was a blessing, there was plenty of room to take in all that water...
No kidding!
LBJ, of course!
Have you read Caro's telling of the story in the "Path to Power"? The section on the Hill Country is incredibly moving, but the part about the dam construction is colorful, in typical LBJ style.
Just listened to the Hill Country section on a trip. Very moving. Lived in Austin in the 80s, LBJ’s shadow still felt.
Very true!!
Please write more. Excellent and ontime.
You know, I assume, that Austin's zoning to minimize storm water runoff (and to permit aquifer recharge, which I always understood to be the most important reason it was adopted) was used as an example throughout the U.S. I used it in environmental planning classes I taught back in the 80s and know that colleagues did, too. Also, that the value of limiting impervious cover to diminish damage to watersheds is thoroughly confirmed by research. None of that means its still the right policy in Austin or anywhere else.
But generically asking, as you appear to be, communities to make huge infrastructure investments (and not just capital, but in maintenance) to permit higher density development is a big ask. The balance sheet may work out when protecting someplace like downtown Austin. But given the other virtues of maintaining open space along streams (continuing farm production, habitat protection, recreation, recharge, moderating heat islands, etc.), there are options (acquisition and easements, along with limited open space development) that will cost less in many situations.
That promoting (even requiring) higher densities is a good idea in the abstract doesn't mean it makes sense everywhere. I would never recommend exactly what Austin did (though it was state of the art back then), because it clearly isn't the best way to provide open space or neighborhoods. But I think a lot of people would like to see a balance sheet on changing it.
That's not what I've argued. There are a range of options open to communities, from evaluating what can be built in flood zones, to local or statewide emergency systems, to reevaluating land use policies, to major infrastructure projects. The latter likely only make sense in places where the expected increase in land value can justify it—in Austin, not on the banks of the Guadalupe way out in low-density Hill Country.
But I am arguing to let more people live where the infrastructure already exists to keep them safe—in the city. Austin has already made important land use reforms to help with this, supported by existing infrastructure. The city will also consider a bond next year that could pay for new investments in infrastructure to support further densification. My view is that anything the city does to allow more people to live in it is better for the region as a whole.
With this clarification, I think we are in accord.
Thank you for this insightful perspective on sy Austin survived the recent flood and the infrastructure and planning and zoning tradeoffs involved. Well done!
Thank you, and you're welcome!
Oh look https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/15/9/4781