AustinAction Sanity Island

It seems that someone in favor of AMD’s move managed to recruit an exploration geologist to write a letter to the editor disputing claims that development in the area will be harmful to water quality. If you missed the print version last week, you can still read it online at the Chronicle’s website. The letter is from Douglas Watkins, Exploration geologist, and is in response to a previous letter about urbanization of the Edwards Aquifer from Raymond Slade, who is a certified Professional Hydrologist and one of the de facto experts on the aquifer.

Some poking around online confirmed a connection between Mr. Watkins and the Oil and Gas industry - the point here being the obviously significant fact that an oil guy would be disputing the claims of a water guy about… water.

It remains to be seen whether or not Mr. Watkins has business relationships with any of the parties involved in the AMD development, but I can’t help but wonder.

For the benefit of education, I am posting Mr. Slade’s letter here:

Either Lacks the Knowledge Or …
Dear Editor,

Mr. Douglas Watkins’ letter stating that all recharge from Williamson Creek discharges to Cold Springs is wrong ["Postmarks," Jan. 20]. He misread and misinterpreted the dye studies he quotes. The dye studies have been done during extreme low-flow conditions. For each study, the dye was injected to a single fault, cave, or hole. The entire recharge zone for the creeks has not yet been tested. Additionally, three dye studies have been done in the Williamson Creek basin – for two of the studies, the dye discharged to Barton Springs rather than Cold Springs.

Furthermore, water-volume budgets conducted for Barton Springs and the aquifer prove that the recharge contribution from Barton and Williamson creeks to Cold Springs is limited to be only a small part of the total recharge from these two creeks (pubs.er.usgs.gov/pubs/wri/wri864036).

Additionally, the aquifer is not “extensively” developed, as Watkins states. The impervious cover in the recharge zone and contributing zone is only about 3.3% but is projected to be 14.9% in the future (almost five times higher than present), as referenced by the city of Austin report at www.cityofaustin.org/watershed/downloads/bart_inv4.2_.pdf.

Even with the minimal development, Barton Springs water quality has degraded substantially as shown in table 2 of the city of Austin report at www.cityofaustin.org/watershed/downloads/barton03_wq_update.pdf. For example, organic carbon has increased 180%.

I have studied the hydrology and water quality of Barton Springs and the aquifer for many years and authored about 25 reports on the subject. Mr. Watkins claims he is amazed at the lack of scientific logic applied to this issue, but maybe he either lacks the knowledge or represents somebody who wants to ignore the truth.

Raymond Slade Jr.

Certified professional hydrologist

Damn those scientists!