Capital Metro has bids out for 16 infill stations on the MetroRapid 801 and 803 lines. We’re excited! The stop spacing on the MetroRapid lines has been too far apart. In AURA’s Connections 2025 position statement we called for standard stop spacing every quarter mile. We were encouraged to see additional stops proposed.

However, also in that response, we asked that the stations be brought online as quickly as possible. Riders should not have to wait on construction of expensive “branded” stations. The current stations are difficult to implement due to the need for electrical connections to power their countdown clocks and wireless internet. While these are great amenities, we would rather have the infill stops implemented quickly.

Unfortunately, on and off the MetroRapid lines, Capital Metro has a poor track record of building bus stations that do not protect riders from the elements. The MetroRapid stations were created out of a special design process, but are particularly bad when it comes to shielding from sun or rain—worse than the stations on the regular bus lines.

In 2016, we published our Transit City report, which outlined AURA’s vision for transit in Austin. One of Transit City’s calls for immediate in the action was improved bus stations:

Build generous stations similar to those at Houston’s MetroRail and Dallas’s DART rail platforms at Austin’s busiest bus hubs like the 4th Street/Republic Square and West Mall stops by 2017. They should be sufficiently long and wide to comfortably provide shelter to all riders at peak times. Substantially increase the number of stops with basic shelters throughout the city. The design of these shelters must prioritize effectively shielding riders from sun and rain at a reasonable cost so that as many as possible can be built.

Last year, when we evaluated Capital Metro’s progress toward the Transit City goals, we found that bus shelters were an area that could still use improvement:

Capital Metro has a new, cheaper design for bus shelters, which will enable the agency to deploy them at many more stops. Unfortunately, these new shelters still do not consistently provide shade or protection for the elements. AURA calls for CapMetro to find a shelter design that can be widely implemented and actually provide basic shelter.

Unfortunately, the bid documents for the MetroRapid infill stations demonstrate that Capital Metro will be using the same “branded” MetroRapid station design for the new stations. These stations are expensive and difficult to construct, meaning riders will have to wait longer for badly needed additional stations. Furthermore, they provide little to no protections from the elements. Riders would be better served if Capital Metro could move to a simpler station design that could be implemented quickly, while providing better shelter.

Do you like this post?

2018 NEED: $300 MILLION IN NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOND FUNDS

AURA advocates for an Austin for Everyone. That means an Austin where everyone can afford housing that works for their families. While we believe that market rate construction is a key component of ensuring people can have a place to live that does not leave them cost-burdened, we are realistic. We know that no matter how much private development we allow, not everyone can afford market rate for their home, and “capital A” Affordable housing is critical to providing a city that welcomes all. With the 2018 bond, we have the opportunity to live our values as a city. To truly be an inclusive city, we need to make sure we build enough housing so that longtime residents and newcomers alike have a place to live. The market won’t build enough on its own; we need public investment to ensure homes for people from all income levels.

AUSTIN’S STRATEGIC HOUSING BLUEPRINT

The Austin Strategic Housing Blueprint (ASHB), adopted by city council in 2017, identifies the following needs to be paid for in part by local funds:

• 45,000 new homes affordable to people making below 60% of median income—20,000 for those making up to 30% median income and 25,000 for those between 30 and 60% median income. In 2017, that covered the range of people making effectively no income up to a family of four making $48,850.
• The ASHB found that there was a gap of 48,000 homes affordable to those making below $25,000 per year.
• Over $6 billion in need for affordable housing funding was identified. Not all of this amount can or should come from bonds, but the demand for affordable housing funds is enormous, and will likely grow as Austin grows.

PAST BOND PERFORMANCE

• Austin voters approved a $65 Million affordable housing bond in 2013. It is expected to be entirely spent before the end of 2019.
• Midway through the bond cycle, each unit of affordable housing developed with the help of local bond funds cost an average of $38,000. These funds were matched 7:1 by a mix of federal and other funds.
• Housing was provided for a wide range of populations—from people transitioning out of homelessness with very little income, to families of four making closer to 60% of median income.

FUTURE NEED

• The recent US tax “reform” efforts are expected to cause a 14% decline in funds for the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, which helps finance 90% of affordable housing developments nationwide.
• Proposed budgets from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development gut other affordable housing programs.
• Over the next 4 years, prospects for continued federal funding of affordable housing are dim. Austinites must be willing to help make up the difference if we want to continue ensuring that low-income people can stay in the city. 

Austin should “go big” and ensure that the 2018 City of Austin bond program this year has a sizeable component for Affordable Housing to ensure that we remain a welcoming place for people of all income levels. We call on City Council to present a bond to voters including $300 million in new affordable housing funds.

We call on Austin City Council to amend the Draft Corridor Construction Plan to dedicate transit priority lanes along the Guadalupe Corridor.

Guadalupe Street by The University of Texas, also known as “The Drag,” is Austin’s primary transit spine. AURA first recommended extending the downtown transit priority lanes on Guadalupe north of MLK through the Drag in 2015, when we released our Guadalupe Corridor Study, based on AURA members’ on-the-ground research. We further elaborated on this call in our 2016 Transit City report, which called for the extension of transit priority lanes on Guadalupe from MLK to 38th Street.

This past November, we were pleased to see that the City’s Guadalupe Corridor Plan seconded that recommendation to prioritize transit through our most productive transit spine. What’s more, in November, Project Connect, our current high capacity transit planning process, released a case study for a transit line on Lamar-Guadalupe-South Congress; all of the possible scenarios along the Drag include designating right-of-way for transit. We are expecting to see the debut of Project Connect’s system recommendations later this month and fully expect to see transit priority along the Drag as a central part of that plan. Also this year, a new city transportation plan, the Austin Strategic Mobility Plan, will go before Council, and is expected to provide performance metrics to determine when a street should begin to offer transit priority lanes.

With so much data and so many plans calling for extended transit priority on Guadalupe, AURA was deeply disappointed to see that the Draft Corridor Construction Plan, which which will determine how the funds from the 2016 Mobility Bond are spent, does not include transit priority lanes through the Drag, other than a small contraflow section between 18th Street and MLK. At a meeting on February 6, AURA’s representative on the Corridor Mobility Focus Group was told that the transit priority lanes did not score high enough for inclusion, but that if other planning processes called for them or provided funding, the plans could be re-aligned.

The exclusion of transit priority lanes on Guadalupe in the Corridor Construction Plan is inexplicable. Transit riders represent about half the people traveling through the Drag during rush hour, but take up only 10% of the space that cars do. Transit lanes would speed up tens of thousands of transit trips each day without adding delay for cars. We understand that pending the recommendations of Project Connect, it may be premature to say what configuration of transit lanes is appropriate on the Drag. Capital Metro and Project Connect should help determine the location and design of the priority lanes. Yet, it seems clear that regardless of the mode of transit recommended for Guadalupe, the need for dedicated right-of-way for transit is crystal clear.215 SIGNATURES500 SIGNATURES

WILL YOU SIGN?

First NameLast NameEmail Send me email updatesAddress (Street, City, State, Postal code)CountryAfghanistanAlbaniaAlgeriaAmerican SamoaAndorraAngolaAnguillaAntarcticaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBermudaBhutanBoliviaBonaire, Sint Eustatius and SabaBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswanaBouvet IslandBrazilBritish Indian Ocean TerritoryBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCanadaCape VerdeCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChadChileChinaChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombiaComorosCongoCongo, the Democratic Republic of theCook IslandsCosta RicaCroatiaCubaCuraçaoCyprusCzech RepublicCôte d’IvoireDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Faroe IslandsFijiFinlandFranceFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGibraltarGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuamGuatemalaGuernseyGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHeard Island and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)HondurasHong KongHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIran, Islamic Republic ofIraqIrelandIsle of ManIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJerseyJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People’s Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacaoMacedoniaMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMayotteMexicoMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonacoMongoliaMontenegroMontserratMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorfolk IslandNorth KoreaNorthern Mariana IslandsNorwayOmanPakistanPalauPalestine, State ofPanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPitcairnPolandPortugalPuerto RicoQatarRomaniaRussian FederationRwandaRéunionSaint BarthélemySaint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da CunhaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Martin (French part)Saint Pierre and MiquelonSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSint Maarten (Dutch part)SlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSouth KoreaSouth SudanSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSvalbard and Jan MayenSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwanTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailandTimor-LesteTogoTokelauTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited StatesUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet NamVirgin Islands, BritishVirgin Islands, U.S.Wallis and FutunaWestern SaharaYemenZambiaZimbabweÅland IslandsComments (optional) Don’t publish this on the website

AURA—an all-volunteer, member-driven grassroots organization—responded to the fundraising report for the pro-Proposition 1 PAC ‘Let’s Go Austin’.

“I’m not surprised they think it’s a good idea to spend half a million dollars on mailers that are going straight to the trash can. After all, they are supporting an inefficient plan that will waste limited transportation dollars and reduce system ridership”, said Brad Absalom, chair of AURA’s transit working group.

“It’s simple: light rail should save money, not waste it. By following a route through low-density areas, the Proposition 1 rail line will siphon money away from Capital Metro’s bread-and-butter bus service. This will reduce ridership and make congestion worse,” argued AURA member Kevin Miller.

Miller is the author and maintainer of WorseThanNothing.org, a website that details the pro-transit argument against the road and rail package on this November’s ballot.

Members of AURA — just named ”Best Grassroots Group” for 2014 by Austin Chronicle readers— were highly involved in promoting a better transit system for the past two years as part of the Project Connect process. Due to the proposed project’s harmful effects on transit, AURA members are overwhelmingly opposed to the urban rail proposal.

AURA is a grassroots urbanist organization focused on building an Austin for everyone by improving land use and transportation through policy analysis, public involvement, and political engagement.

Contacts:

• Brad Absalom, AURA Project Connect Central Corridor Working Group Chair: bradabsalom@gmail.com, 214-236-3293
• Kevin Miller, AURA Project Connect Central Corridor Working Group: aura@happywaffle.com, 512-560-5208

For Immediate Release

AURA will host a press conference Tuesday, November 17 at 8:30 am at City Hall

November 17, 2015

Austin, Texas

AURA, an urbanist grassroots non-profit that works toward an Austin for Everyone, along with a diverse coalition of organizations strongly urge Austin City Council to adopt the draft ordinance on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)—known colloquially as granny flats, garage apartments, or backyard cottages.

This draft ordinance is the result of a lengthy, thorough process with numerous opportunities for public input from a wide variety of Austin citizens. Since June 6, 2014, when City Council passed the resolution directing the City Manager to produce a draft ordinance, the public input process has included:

• Two public meetings to collect input, on September 18, 2014 and October 20, 2014
• Three public hearings before the Planning and Neighborhoods Committee, on June 9, 2015; August 17, 2015; and September 21, 2015.
• Public hearing before Planning Commission, on April 28, 2014.
• Two public hearings before the Codes and Ordinances Subcommittee of the Planning Commission on February 5, 2015 and March 17, 2015.

“The data shows that backyard cottages are affordable, so we should build more of them,” says Eric Goff, an AURA Board member. “Austin’s Fair Housing Action Plan identifies limits on ADUs as a barrier to affirmatively furthering Fair Housing.”

In addition to the substantial public comment in favor of the changes, more than 1,000 Austinites have signed AURA’s petition urging Austin’s City Council to allow granny flats and other small houses everywhere in Austin.

“All eleven council members campaigned heavily on alleviating rapidly rising housing costs in Austin,” says Cory Brown, AURA member. “The proposed changes to allow more backyard cottages is a win across the board: renters and people with modest incomes get more housing options, while homeowners get another tool to offset their tax burden.”

Join us at City Hall on Tuesday, November 17 at 8:30 am as we show Austinites the broad coalition of support for backyard cottages as a tool to provide more housing options that benefit renters and homeowners citywide.

AURA is a grassroots urbanist organization focused on building an Austin for everyone by improving land use and transportation through policy analysis, public involvement, and political engagement.

Contacts:
Eric Goff, AURA Board Member, eric.goff@gmail.com, 512-632-7013
Cory Brown, AURA Missing Middle Working Group, tcory.brown@gmail.com, 512-850-8467

Should you and I, as residents of Austin, have a say on CodeNext, the first major rewrite of Austin’s Land Development Code in 30 years?

Yes.

Should you and I, as registered voters of Austin, get to vote on CodeNext, the most important policy question facing our city in at least 5 years?

No.

Despite what the political groups Community not Commodity and IndyAustin say, you and I should not vote on CodeNext in a referendum. These groups claim that such a referendum would be more democratic and would lead to a more robust debate. But, as Austin’s own dark history with the Fair Housing ordinance of 1968 shows, a CodeNext referendum, far from guaranteeing democracy or debate, will subvert our representative democracy and disenfranchise the most of vulnerable of our citizens.

Let’s start with the claim that the proposed CodeNext referendum is “about democracy” as Fred Lewis, from Community not Commodity stated in a recent Austin Monitor article.

In 1968, the Austin City Council courageously passed Austin’s own Fair Housing ordinance to prohibit all forms of discrimination in housing. But a certain group of Austin property owners, who said they wanted to “give democracy a chance”, petitioned to put the ordinance to a vote. The referendum that followed rejected Fair Housing with 57% voting against and 43% voting in favor. Only 27% of registered voters and 10% of the total population voted in the election. That’s hardly representative of the will of the people. Worse still, as the map below attests, the overwhelming 59% of east Austinites that voted for Fair Housing were crushed by the 61% of West and South Austin that voted against.

1968 Austin Fair Housing Referendum Results by Precinct

Some things have changed since 1968. Austin no longer has legal segregation and is now seen as a progressive haven in an otherwise conservative state. But some things have not changed. We still face the same turnout challenges: less than 17% of registered voters cast a ballot in the last referendum. Worse still, while 30% of Austinites live east of I35, they only make up 24% of the registered voters. In fact, the map below showing registration percentage from 2017 looks strikingly similar to the map above showing percentage AGAINST the referendum from 1968.

2017 Voter Registration by Precinct

Under the 10-1 council system, East Austinites have a fair say in CodeNext through the representatives they elected. In a referendum, they do not.

After the 1968 referendum, then-mayor Harry Akin said, “if there had been half as much interest in the election as there has been in the football game, we would have had a fairer measure of the will of the people”. A CodeNext referendum risks the same. That doesn’t sound like democracy to me.

Next, let us consider the claim from Indy Austin‘s Linda Curtis that “if you put it on the ballot it will cause a big debate such that you might have a chance of informing a lot more people”.

Here is what the property owners of 1968 provided as “information”:

And my personal favorite

We should not expect a more informative debate on CodeNext. The fact is most people don’t have the time to brush up on Land Use Regulation in their spare time. As Curtis herself said “find a regular Austinite who is just trying to pay their mortgage or rent, they’ll go: ‘Code what?’”

When the people voted for their representatives to sit on the city council dais under the 10-1 system, they placed their faith in those representatives. We should not lose our faith in those representatives or the 10-1 system that Curtis herself campaigned for.

This proposed referendum is not about democracy or debate. It is about delay. Because of the property owner’s referendum in 1968, minorities of Austin had to wait decades for another fair housing ordinance. Half a century later, we cannot afford to make the same mistake. We cannot afford the same decades of delay with our land development code.

We absolutely should have a say on CodeNext. And we do – by talking to our council members, who we elected, and encouraging them to develop the best CodeNext they can. We count on our representatives to pass a code that helps erase the vestiges of our city’s dark past and create an Austin for Everyone. If they don’t, it is our duty to hold them accountable at the ballot box.

Code and Data

Source Code for Maps, Precinct Data for 1968 Referendum and 2017 Voter Registration*

Original Sources

1968 Results by Precinct*, 1960 Precincts, 1969 Precincts, 2017 Precinct Data, 2017 Voter Registration by Precinct

Notes

*The tax office does not have a map of the 1968 Austin voting precincts. I have approximated the positions by combining the 1960 

Dear CMTA Board members:

I am President of the Board of Directors of AURA and write to you today to support Connections 2025 in the strongest possible terms. I know you have been hearing many different things about the Connections 2025 service changes. I urge you to approve these changes tomorrow and implement them in summer 2018, as planned.

I’m not afraid to criticize CapMetro when I think they make mistakes, but Connections 2025 is not one of those mistakes. It is an important first step toward getting bus ridership growing again and making Austin a transit-friendly city. In our Transit City report, AURA called for a high frequency bus network and with Connections 2025, CapMetro has delivered on that in a big way. AURA recently gave CapMetro a grade of A- on our Transit City report card, due in large part to the promise of Connections 2025.

It is necessary that to remake Austin for transit, we must make some tough decisions. Some of those decisions may involve sharing neighborhoods with more neighbors, or making it slightly more difficult to use your car, so that more people can benefit from transit. Another tough decision is cutting a few—a very few—bus routes, so that literally thousands more riders can use transit effectively. For some, this may allow them to perhaps make the decision to live car-free or car-light lifestyles. For others, it may be the cost savings that allows them to access their jobs and continue to afford rent in the city by reducing their transportation costs. High frequency networks unlock the city by allowing people the confidence to ride without the fear of missing the next bus.

I was highly encouraged by ADAPT’s endorsement of the new service plan as well.

I am unable to come speak to you in person tomorrow, but I urge you to please, please approve Connections 2025.

Best,

Susan Somers

Following a vote of its members last week, AURA has taken positions on each of the November 2017 Travis County bonds.

AURA opposes Proposition A: Roadway, Draining, Bridge, Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects.

AURA supports Proposition B: Parks and Conservation Easements.

As seen in the bond project list, too much funding in Proposition A goes to expand sprawl-serving roads and travel infrastructure. Despite the inclusion of some bicycle projects, Proposition A mostly subsidizes sprawl. In contrast, Proposition B includes parkland dedication and conservation easements outside the city limits as a way to preserve green space and make sprawl that much more difficult.

More information on the bonds is available at the Travis County bond website. 

AURA is a grassroots urbanist organization focused on building an Austin for everyone by improving land use and transportation through policy analysis, public involvement, and political engagement.

Over the last two years, AURA members have advocated a bold, visionary overhaul of Austin’s land use rules that would create a more environmentally friendly, livable, and affordable city.

The release of the CodeNEXT Draft 2 last weekend made clear that consultants and staff are unwilling to rise to the task of making meaningful strides toward AURA’s goals. Both drafts leave in place most of the barriers to abundant housing that have been driving up rents and accelerating displacement. Continuing this broken status quo is not acceptable.

AURA demands a CodeNEXT that provides the following measurable improvements in affordability, alternative transportation use, and environmental quality:

• We need a code that makes Austin more affordable by encouraging the construction of new housing stock in the central city where people want to live. In particular, we need a code that will create the conditions to actually add at least 150,000 new homes on the ground in Austin’s city council District 9 within ten years, in addition to new housing elsewhere in the city. Actual construction is different from “zoning capacity”—building 150,000 new units will require entitlements for half a million.
• We need a code that makes Austin more affordable by adding a significant amount of “missing middle” housing—triplexes, fourplexes, sixplexes, and row homes—the cheapest housing to build: at least 40% of the new units added under the new code must be missing middle housing, not counting ADUs.
• We need a code that makes Austin more affordable by affirmatively furthering Fair Housing: at least 75% of the land area in every urban core neighborhood must be eligible for a realistic affordable housing density bonus, as called for in the 2016 fair housing resolution.
• We need a code that gets people out of their cars and into alternative modes of transportation that alleviate Austin’s gridlock and reduce carbon emissions: the number of Austinites getting to work some other way than driving alone must double from 25% to 50% within ten years as a result of land use reform under the new code according to realistic, credible forecasts. We need zoning that takes the share of solo trips by car below 50%.
• We need a code that minimizes impervious cover at the metro area level: CodeNEXT should minimize our geographic footprint by encouraging housing in places and forms that use less impervious cover per person in order to mitigate flood risk and improve water quality.

CodeNEXT Draft 2.0 makes some incremental progress toward these goals:

• It allows construction of ADUs in more places
• It allows residential uses in commercial zones

Despite these improvements, the draft still falls short on the AURA goals enumerated above. To wit:

• By City consultant firm Fregonese’s own admission, the new drafts adds only 19,481 new housing units in District 9— and that’s capacity, not a true forecast.
• That District 9 number is far less than the 32,231 projected net new units in District 1. This allocation of housing capacity continues pushing development out of Central Austin into the East Side.
• Only 18% of the projected new units under Draft 2—again by Fregonese’s own admission—are in missing middle housing. For the most part, missing middle will still be missing if nothing changes from here. That’s a small improvement over the status quo, but it is not the bold reform we need.
• From the Affordable Housing Bonus Program maps we’ve seen, it appears essentially zero neighborhoods will be even 50% density bonus eligible. Even with improvements that extend the density bonus program to more places, eligible land is still a tiny portion of most neighborhoods and completely unavailable in our most common zones.
• We have not seen numbers on mode shift, but it strains credulity to believe that the draft’s mere tinkering around the edges of the status quo will produce the car-independence we need.
• The broken system of lot-level impervious cover percentages, which has resulted in the paving of tens of thousands of acres of hill country, forest, and prairie in and around Austin, remains in place. This approach has long been recognized as counterproductive by the EPA. We need smarter, more holistic approaches.

Cities are growing, dynamic entities.  If we do it right, CodeNEXT can give Austin the tools it desperately needs to allow our neighborhoods to provide enough homes for the next generation. Providing enough homes will require change—a meaningful departure from the broken status quo that has created the housing shortage that is devastating our community with high rents and rapid displacement all over Austin. AURA calls on our City staff, consultants, and leaders at the Planning Commission and City Council to show courageous leadership and use CodeNEXT to create an Austin for Everyone.

This post is part of a series on Imagine Austin’s priority programs, in light of Austin’s current CodeNEXT rewrite process. View the entire series here.

This program is focused on conserving water resources and improving watershed health. This includes issues such as public health, recreation, conservation, and water supply. Austin’s Water Utility is municipally owned, which allows Austin Water to work more closely with all departments that have an impact on water supply and watershed health.

In the past four years, we have gone through significant drought, highlighting the need for careful conservation of our water resources. We have also had some significant floods which have damaged many homes, particularly in the Onion Creek area. These events have highlighted the need for watershed protection to ensure creeks and streams are healthy and can handle heavy rains. Because of Austin’s location in “flash flood alley” this concern was built into Imagine Austin with this priority program.

Key updates in the past four years include:

PRESERVATION OF LAND

1,700 acres of land over the critical Edwards Aquifer recharge zone has been preserved from development. Preservation is a key step in ensuring that our water supply as well as that of San Antonio’s is protected from pollutants.

City council approved buyouts of homeowners living in the floodplain of Onion Creek. This action was taken after devastating floods in which many families lost their homes. Much like Boggy Creek and its floodplain, the homes purchased will be demolished and the creek will undergo restoration and protection as natural wetland to ensure safety for residents as well as proper runoff in storm events.

WATERSHED PROTECTION ORDINANCE

This ordinance was adopted by city council and Travis County Commissioners Court in 2013. It’s a huge document and you can read all of it here if you want to. The most important part is this—a large community of stakeholders worked together to balance the needs of the environment with desire for development (all the new residents to Austin have to live somewhere). Stream buffers keep development far enough away from streams and creeks to remain safe from floods as well as to prevent erosion. With the increased setbacks, the city plans to restore creek beds as well as provide trails for people to walk and cycle, serving to connect communities and provide options for healthy transportation.

REDUCED WATER CONSUMPTION

Through water restrictions as well as rebates for rain harvesting and newer homes built with more water-saving features, Austin has decreased water consumption significantly city-wide.

Austin is well on its way to better protection of our water resources now and in the future. Although we have had heavy rain this year and lakes are now full, the programs which have been put into place will help with conservation and protection no matter what, as our area is prone to flood as well as drought.  Because of the progress we’ve made we are more resilient in the face of any changes in our climate.