Leslie Pool takes question of water extension requests off Council agenda

City Council Member Leslie Pool notified her colleagues that she has withdrawn her request that the group consider a controversial item related to the extension of water and wastewater service in the city’s Drinking Water Protection Zone and outside the city’s jurisdiction.

A service extension request is required when a property owner or developer wants to receive service but is more than 100 feet from an accessible water or wastewater system, or if existing infrastructure is insufficient to serve the proposed use. Extending water and wastewater service into the Drinking Water Protection Zone has always been a contentious issue and required Council approval.

However, in July, Pool and several of her colleagues proposed taking the question away from Council – and also away from the Environmental Commission – and leaving it to city staff. Council voted 6-4 on July 20 to postpone the item until Aug. 31.

Council Member Ryan Alter was a co-sponsor of the item, but he also voted to postpone. Reflecting on his vote, Alter said Thursday, “As I listened to all the testimony, the reason I voted for the postponement was I wanted to learn more about the issue and reconsider whether it was something I should support. What I want to understand is: What is the problem we’re trying to solve?”

Pool referred to the item on the City Council Message Board last week, describing it as “my resolution to restore technical decisions to expert staff on water and wastewater (service extension requests) and establish cost-sharing for projects outside of the City’s jurisdiction and within the Drinking Water Protection Zone.”

A number of environmentalists, including Bill Bunch of the Save Our Springs Alliance, asked members in July not to take decisions about service extension requests out of the hands of Council. At the time, interim City Manager Jesús Garza said city staff needed more time to look at questions about service extension requests. Many of those who spoke were concerned that no one would know about a service extension request that did not go through the Environmental Commission for Council. As a result, environmentalists would not be able to weigh in.

Pool wrote, “After discussions with the City Manager, he has requested time for Austin Water and the Watershed Protection Department to collaborate on ways to administratively ensure environmental review of these types of (service extension requests) and return to (Council) with recommendations. At his request and with the joint commitment of our staff, I am recommending the withdrawal of this (item from Council) to allow staff the time they need over the coming months to return to (Council) with their request for action.”

She added, “I continue to believe these are not political questions for our body; they are technical decisions to be considered by experienced staff, and that any projects should share in the cost to provide infrastructure. I look forward to the solutions they bring forward.”

Only Mayor Pro Tem Paige Ellis responded to Pool’s post, thanking her for her work on the item. Ellis was one of the item’s original co-sponsors but joined the majority in voting to postpone the item.

When asked for reaction to the withdrawal of the item, Bunch told the Austin Monitor via email, “Mayor Watson said it clearly on the dais: the process for reviewing (service extension requests) into environmentally sensitive areas, with the City Council making the final decision, is not broken. Leslie Pool’s position – that she still stands on – will break it and is a direct attack on a core policy for protecting the Barton Springs watershed. … There are technical issues, but sweeping the decisions into the backroom does not take the politics out of it. It only empowers developer lobbyists.

“The real issues are value issues: the value of the life source of Austin and the value of direct accountability of our elected officials. Council (Member) Pool has lost her values.”

The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.