Tag: Cape's Dam

Hours 0:00 – 3:21, 12/16/25

by The San Marxist, posted in Hour summaries

Citizen Comment:

Two big topics! (I’m combining comments from 3 pm and 6 pm.)

Cape’s Dam nomination to be on the historic registry:

  • 5 people opposed
  • No one in favor

    The Data Center

    • 2 people (both developers) in favor
    • 10 people opposed.

    Details on what people actually said when we get to these!

    Other comments:

    • Update on the San Pedro cemetery: replacing historic pillars, repairing fences, surveying property bounds. Issues of drainage and erosion. We support low impact development nearby, but we’re concerned about something busier.
    • Kissing Tree gets called wealthy, but we worked for decades. We pay a lot in taxes. We need good jobs to fix poverty. Yay development!
    • San Marcos Civics Club is going to start issuing environmental score cards for each council member.
    • Support for naming the new airport road after Lieutenant Colonel George C Carruthers

    …

    Item 8: Cape’s Dam

    This item was pretty infuriating!

    It’s also not the most important thing ever?  I’m trying to keep perspective? I was irritated, but this is small potatoes.  

    Backstory:

    From 1867-1942, Cape’s Dam was a functioning dam. The dam creates a calm little side channel to the river, called the Mill Race:

    Since the dam closed, the Mill Race has basically been treated as quasi-private property for kayak and paddling retreats.

    The Army Corps of Engineers often likes to remove old dams. In the 2000s, the folks at the Meadow’s Center started working on this study saying Cape’s Dam is bad for endangered species.

    Around 2015, Council is looking at whether they should remove the dam. But before they decide, Cape’s Dam is destroyed by the 2015 floods.  It’s now dangerous.  The Mill Race is also not usable anymore.

    2016: Council approves removing the dam and filling the Mill Race. The federal government will pay for it.

    This turns into a huge controversy. There’s a campaign launched – Save the SMTX River! – challenging the Meadow’s Center report and saying they’ve got different scientists who say different things. They basically want the Mill Race to be preserved for recreation, but they’re making an environmental argument? and a historical argument?

    (Incidentally, the Save the SMTX River guy is also one of the Brighter Future for San Marcos PAC guys.)

    Council backtracks on their decision. The federal funding expires.

    …

    Everything grinds to a halt for a decade.  Council keeps passing the hot potato.

    Ten years go by. In the meantime:

    …

    This past March, Council finally dusted this whole issue off. 

    They authorized a feasibility study, to answer these questions:

    1. What’s the current conditions of the dam and the whole area?
    2. What would it take to rebuild it? Or partially re-build it? Or just remove it?
    3. What’s the environmental situation? What’s the permitting process?
    4. Do a bunch of public outreach and get public feedback.

    I can already tell you some answers!

    • The current dam has to first be removed, whether or not it is rebuilt afterwards.
    • You cannot rebuild without permission from SMRF, because they own half the land, and they have said many times that they are a hard no.
    • You cannot rebuild without lots and lots of money, which we do not have.

    This will all come to a boil in the next few months! Exciting times. (Full backstory here.)

    …

    Which brings us to tonight! Cape’s Dam has been nominated for placement on the national historical registry.

    Is there a legitimate historical claim? 

    Kind of yes!   The area was has a historical plaque with the Texas Historical Commission from 1979, in 1985 it was declared eligible for the National Register, and in 2017, it was included with a broader number of dams declared eligible for inclusion in the National Register. In addition, there’s credible evidence by a Texas State prof about the role of slave labor in building the dam.  

    So what’s new tonight?

    Preservation Texas is nominating the Thompson-Cape Dam and Millrace to actually be on the National Register of Historic Places.  

    …

    Lots of things about this are irritating!

    1. This is a rush job. You can submit nominations every three months, but the nomination people are determined to submit by the January 16th deadline.  This one is URGENT, full stop, no flexibility.
    2. Whoever is behind this is keeping their name hidden*.  The nomination came from Preservation Texas.  No one with local ties has put their name on it in any way.
    3. The complex already has plenty of historical recognition! There is no new development.
    4. All land owners are supposed to consent, but SMRF was not notified, and has not consented.

    *Aren’t I the biggest hypocrite! I also love hiding out in shady anonymity. I’m a jerk.

    ….

    How does that long, tiring backstory affect Council’s thinking on this issue?

    Council: LALALALALALA WE CAN’T HEAR YOU!

    Basically, Council members all pretend to be brand new babies born yesterday, who have never heard of the 10 year fight I just told you about.

    The most generous interpretation: council members are willing to nobly set aside long-standing feuds, and consider this on its merits.

    The least generous interpretation: council members are gleefully taking part in a craven attempt to sway the larger outcome by miring it in bureaucracy.

    You be the judge!

    …

    What did people say at Citizen Comment?

    • This is a ruse to force Council to rebuild the dam.
    • The dam is full of contemporary materials, like concrete sandbags
    • No effort has been made since 1950 to preserve the historic nature of the dam
    • This was a timber dam, which is a low cost, quick dam
    • There are 8 other dams on the river, and they’re also all super old

    And most importantly, the San Marcos River Foundation: Look, we own the land on one side of the bank, and we were not notified. The rules require that all owners give consent. We didn’t.

    …

    Council discussion!

    Jane: What exactly do they need from us?
    Answer: The Texas Historical Commission (THC) wants two letters – one from Council and one from the San Marcos Historical Preservation Committee (HPC) – saying they support the nomination. 

    Jane: Can we postpone this?  It seems very rushed.  The State Board reviews these every three months. Can we just wait till March?
    Answer: The applicant specifically said they are not willing to postpone until March.

    Amanda: Yes, this seems very rushed.  What about just waiting until after the San Marcos HPC meets, and hear what they recommend?

    Answer: Usually yes.  We prefer to have committees present their recommendations to Council.  But the timing doesn’t work out.  SM-HPC will meet on Jan. 8th, and then you all don’t meet until Jan 20th. But the letter is due Jan 16.

    Saul: The dam is not even close to the original structure. It’s got cement sandbags. I’m a no.

    Lorenzo: I’m a yes!  Wouldn’t that be great for people to see SAN MARCOS on the national historic register, when tourists come to town? 

    Jane:  Why didn’t the people who nominated this reach out to the city?  Where are they? We have a priority list of historical places. This leap-frogged over a bunch of other places on our list.

    Saul: Would this prevent us from making a decision about whether to rebuild or remove the dam?
    Answer: It carries political weight, but not legal weight.

    In other words: this vote sends a message to the public about which side your bread is buttered on. But it’s not legally binding.  You’re allowed to tear down the dam. 

    Amanda: This nomination provides a specific historical narrative.  It was white-washed to make white people look like noble saviors of enslaved people. If we send a letter of support, then that’s the version that will end up in the national registry.

    Alyssa: Yes, they’ve romanticized it.

    Jane: That’s why I want to send a very minimal letter.  We won’t address the historical narrative part of the application. We’ll just say, “Yes, there is a historical element!”

    Alyssa: Omissions are just as bad! That’s how status quos continue to flourish!  Whatever is in this application will be the skeleton of the final narrative.  That’s how these things work.

    Jane: Then let’s just be vague!

    Alyssa: That doesn’t make sense as a response to what I’m saying.  We’re writing a letter in support of a nomination. 

    Jane: I’m trying to be minimal! 

    Alyssa: …which will be interpreted as support, unless we’re explicit about what we don’t agree with.

    Matthew:  None of this matters!

    Shane: What’s the harm? 

    Lorenzo: Surely the Historic Registry will do their due diligence.  Let’s just pass this and let them do the heavy lifting. 

    Amanda: I want the narrative to acknowledge the role of enslaved people. 

    Matthew: The Cape family did not own slaves!

    Jane: The whole slavery thing is very contentious. Different people think different things.

    Amanda: Slavery is actually in the nomination already.  Didn’t you guys read it? I just don’t like how they handled the topic.

    Amanda is correct:

    and

    Alyssa: Clearly this is going to pass, so I’m going to suggest some language for the letter. 

    Proposed language, after some tinkering:

    They also include a note about how SMRF wasn’t notified.

    The vote: Should we support the super urgent nomination that absolutely cannot wait until March?

    So there you have it.

    ….. 

    Finally, let’s have a little reality check!

    The national registry is a big deal. Currently there are four historic landmarks for central Texas on the national register:

    1. The San Antonio Missions
    2. LBJ’s childhood home
    3. El Camino Real trail
    4. Mammoth Caves in Waco
    via

    Will Cape’s Dam be the 5th most historic thing in the entire greater Austin-San Antonio corridor?!?

    Seems unlikely.  Like I said, this is small potatoes. 

    …

    Item 9: The Data Center

    Backstory: This developer, Mayberry, bought some land down here, a few years ago:

    Right next to the Hays County Power Plant:

    He wanted to build some homes. It turns out this was a terrible investment. Now he’d rather build a data center, instead. Could he please have a rezoning?

    The town responded HARD against this. People who live on nearby farms say it will ruin their way of life. People are worried about extreme water use during a drought and heavy electrical use from the shaky ERCOT grid. Tons of people have put in a lot of effort into fighting this data center.

    Last spring, P&Z turned him down. It went to Council in August, and Council didn’t have enough votes to overturn P&Z. So it failed.

    However, Council did not put the final nail in the coffin. They left a trail of breadcrumbs for Mayberry to come back.

    He dutifully followed the trail, and here we are. (Full version of the backstory here.)

    Tonight is just a presentation.

    Mayberry is back. Here’s the timeline:

    His pitch is going to be that he will sweeten the deal via a restrictive covenant.

    Here’s what he’s proposing:

    We don’t have the formal contract yet, though.

    The two big issues are water and electricity.

    Water: Texas has a big water shortfall. The 2022 State Water Plan projected big shortfalls, and everyone is working with those numbers. But ChatGPT didn’t come out until November 2022. There are now already over 400 data centers in Texas. The water use from these data centers is not included in the 2022 projections, but it’s all we’ve got.

    This data center would get their water from Crystal Clear. Crystal Clear gets their water from:

    • Edwards aquifer
    • Lake Dunlap
    • Carrizo-wilcox
    • SM River 

    By 2040, Crystal Clear is projected to be -40 acre-feet of of water. As in, they don’t have enough water rights to cover projected demand. And that’s using the 2022 pre-data center usage projections! Crystal Clear cannot deny service either. (This info was from an expert at citizen comment.)

    The proposal here is not the worst possible proposal. Evaporative cooling systems are the worst. This is a closed-loop cooling system. (I have no idea how many of the 400 data centers are evaporative.)

    Mayberry is estimating that they’ll use 25K-30K gallons of water per day, and they’ll put a hard cap at 75K gallons per day in the contract. That’s equivalent to the water used by about 235 homes. (Evaporative cooling centers are probably in the 100K-500K gallons per day range.)

    Electricity

    There’s a tradeoff between water and electricity. If you use less water, you’ll use more electricity. In addition, the Texas ERCOT grid uses water to cool the electrical generation plants.

    There is a longterm solution here – the more ERCOT switches to solar and wind-based energy, the less water needed to generate the electricity. (This is already cheap and available, if we want it.)

    Will utility rates rise? It depends on who you get your electricity from. This plant will be on Pedernales electric, so if you are too, then yes, it’s likely your rates will rise, too. But if you’re on San Marcos city utilities, your rates will not go up (yet).

    ….

    My $0.02: I’m conflicted, but I’m still basically in favor of this data center.

    Argument in favor: the data center industry is an absolute goddamn disaster for Texas. There are almost 100 between San Antonio and Austin. There are already four in the Hays-Caldwell area. This is catastrophic for the water shortage.

    But it is not a city fight. The heart of the problem is that Texas counties cannot regulate water and electricity usage. If we care about the water shortage and strain on the electrical grid, we have to fight that fight. Fight for county regulations of water and electricity use, and statewide data center regulation.

    In the meantime, we might as well take the tax revenue.

    Argument against: Maybe denying this one data center contributes momentum to a bigger movement against the other 400+ statewide?

    Listen, all you activists: You are on the right side of the issue, but you absolutely must join forces on a larger scale. The only meaningful answer is regional and statewide regulation.

    If I had to guess, good places to start might be:

    City Councils are much closer to everyday people than regional and state organizations are, but Council cannot move the needle on the problem. Any progress has got to deal with county land, outside of cities.

    …

    Just for kicks, how much money are we talking?

    I don’t really believe those numbers. It takes years to build these things, markets can crash, etc etc. But still, a fraction of that tax revenue would be helpful.

    Hours 2:50 – 3:56, 3/18/25

    by The San Marxist, posted in Hour summaries

    Item 23: Cape’s Dam 

    Hooboy, CAPE’S DAM. As you know, this is a whole epic story!   Let’s see if we can wade through everything.

    Background:

    Here’s the part of the river that we’re talking about:

    (source)

    Cape’s Dam is here:

    Damn Dams, and the Damn Dammers who Dam them.

    In general, old dams are bad for rivers.

    US Fish & Wildlife generally recommends removing them, so does this other American Rivers group, and pretty much any other environmental group.

    Back in the 2000s, some folks at the Meadows Center began looking at Cape’s Dam. Would removing it be good for the endangered species?

    Eventually they wrote up this report for the city: Effects of changing height of Cape’s Dam on recreation, Texas wild rice and fountain darter habitat in the San Marcos River, Texas.

    It is insanely thorough! I can tell that much. They look at three things: fountain darters, Texas wild rice, and recreation. They conclude that removing the dam is good for the fishies, good for the endangered wild rice, and not bad for recreation.

    This is their graph on recreation:

    The 45 means drought, 100 is normal river, and 173 is after a lot of rain. The bars represent how much of the river is deep enough for you to paddle on. Removing the dam doesn’t really change how much of the river you can paddle down.

    In 2014, they reported all this to the Park’s Department. But before they talk to Council, we have…

    The 2015 Floods

    The 2015 Memorial Day floods come along.  A 40 foot wall of water barreled down the Blanco River, 11 people are killed, and tons of homes are flooded.

    In the course of all this, Cape’s Dam is destroyed.  

    Here’s what it looks like afterwards:

    (From this video) and from another angle:

    (source)

    I hunted for awhile, but I can’t find any photos of the dam from before it was destroyed.

    …

    2016: Council hears all of this for the first time

    Now the city is trying to cope with post-disaster San Marcos. They’re assessing damage, applying for disaster funding, and so on. For Cape’s Dam, they’ve now got a liability mess on their hands.

    The issue is presented: Should Council remove the dam and fill the Mill Race?

    Wait, what’s the Mill Race?

    I think it’s this:

    It’s this little channel that was built back when this was an actual mill. It’s very calm and smooth because it’s got dams on both sides. I think you get this nice little loop around Thompson’s Island. So there are groups, like the scouts and disabled veterans, who have used this stretch for learning to kayak and rehab and growth.

    It’s great for those groups!

    But as far as I can tell, this is an amazing stretch that’s been kept hidden from public use. That part irritates me. People living east of I-35 have not been able to enjoy the Mill Race or the rest of the parks on that map very easily.

    Back to 2016

    As far as I can tell, this is the source of all our problems:

    I actually went back and listened – you’re welcome – and here’s the problem: if you remove the dam, the Mill Race won’t have enough water 85%-90% of the time. Mostly it will have stagnant mosquito water, or dry up altogether.

    So removing the dam wrecks the Mill Race. You could still canoe and paddle on the real river! Just not the Mill Race part.

    …

    So it’s 2016, the dam is now dangerous, and Council is given this choice:

    1. Use free money from the Army Corp of Engineers to remove the dam.
      • Good for the health of the river!
      • Good for the endangered species!
      • Can still paddle on the regular half.
    2. Use free money from the Army Corp of Engineers to remove the dam, and then use imaginary millions of dollars that we don’t have to rebuild the dam.
      • Imaginary money is not real. We don’t have it.

    In March, 2016, Council votes to remove Cape’s dam.

    So now the shit hits the fan. Massive controversy.

    This organization springs up to save the Mill Race. They have some sympathetic points, but they also make some crappy arguments.

    It was in the news a LOT. Like, a whole lot. Like, it’s one of the biggest San Marcos controversies of the decade.

    The Argument about Historical Significance:

    This is the part I have the least patience for. The argument that takes hold is that Cape’s Dam is so historically significant that we’ve got to save it. For the children! For the historians!

    Look: if Cape’s Dam is so sacred, how come I cannot find one single photo of it anywhere, before it was destroyed? Didn’t we love it then?

    I do even think there’s interesting history here! What was engineering like a hundred years ago? That’s worth studying.

    The part that makes this bullshit is when you use it to say the dam must be preserved, in the river. Want to haul the broken pieces on the bank somewhere? Put up a nice plaque commemorating the dam? Knock yourself out! But don’t pretend that the historical significance means we need a functional dam in 2025.

    But this gains traction. Preservation Texas has this blurb about the dam, Hays Historical Commission weighs in, and City Council holds a workshop with the Texas Historical Commision.

    Thus begins the next phase of the controversy, 2017-2024:

    We begin kicking the can down the road. For the next eight years, everyone just punts. You can read a nice summary of all the dithering here!

    Kick, kick, kick. We’re kicking the can. kick, kick, kick.

    Two extra details from this part of the timeline:

    1. The free disaster money to remove the dam expires. Now we’d have to apply for grant money. But like I mentioned, lots of organizations want old dams removed, so there’s money around.
    2. In 2017, San Marcos River Foundation acquires the land on one side of the bank.  They are a hard NO on rebuilding the dam.

    They have always been very clear on their position: it is best for the health of the river to remove the dam.  You can’t rebuild the dam unless you can access their side of the river.  They will not agree to rebuilding the dam on their land.  Therefore there is no dam.

    So now, in 2025:

    I’m no engineer, but I’m pretty sure this is the choice before us:

    1. Find grant money to remove the dam.
      • Good for the health of the river!
      • Good for the endangered species!
      • Can still paddle on the regular half.
      • Current dam is dangerous and needs to be removed. (A recent tragedy.)
    2. Find grant money to remove the dam.
      • Then find imaginary millions of dollars more to rebuild the dam
      • Find an imaginary way to get SMRF to consent to let us rebuild a dam that they are strongly opposed to.

    Look, it’s not actually a choice. No matter what, it starts with removing the dam.

    This brings us to Tuesday’s meeting!

    The issue at hand is spending $340K on a feasibility study. The study would do this:

    So this study is going to answer all our questions:
    – What’s the current conditions of the dam and the whole area?
    – What would it take to rebuild it? Or partially re-build it? Or just remove it?
    – What’s the environmental situation? What’s the permitting process?
    – Do a bunch of public outreach and get public feedback.

    ….

    What does Council say?

    There are a few things to keep in mind during the Council discussion.

    1. We need the feasibility study, no matter what.  Every outcome requires permits. You need this study to get those permits.
    2. The east side of San Marcos has been majorly neglected for river recreation. We need to develop this.  Not necessarily the Mill Race – the public couldn’t access this anyway. They definitely deserve good river access and recreation.
    1. Most likely, you have to remove the dam, no matter what. (I’m no engineer, but look, it’s a pile of rubble.)

    Council has a lot of confusion.  This is understandable – it’s a big, complicated topic.  But you’ve already read 1000 words on this, and trust me, you don’t want to read about them going in circles.  There are a LOT of circles, and they go round and round.

    Some highlights:

    Q: Can we skip the study and just put the money towards re-building?  (Shane)
    A: No. You need it to get permits and apply for grant funding. Plus the re-building would be way more than $340K.

    Saul Gonzales is quite clear-headed about keeping safety front-and-center in the conversation. Everyone is focused on this, but Saul is the one who repeatedly mentions it.

    Q: What about liability, should someone get injured?
    A: Yes, we are exposed.  This is a man-made thing in a public space, and we’re supposed to be in charge of it, even though the state owns the river.  SMRF would maybe have some liability in court, and parks get a little immunity for being outdoors, but this is not a natural outdoorsy thing. It’s a big risk.

    Q: Aren’t we partnering with the county on all this?
    A: Sort of, yes.  They’re interested in rebuilding. Or they were, in 2021, when we last talked with them about this.

    Several councilmembers point out: The east side needs some good river access!

    I agree with that!

    Shane, Jane, Matthew, Lorenzo, and Alyssa are all open to rebuilding the dam.  They seem to be thinking that this is the way to support river access on the east side. They’re wrong about this, but it’s sympathetic.

    Saul’s position: “I’d like us to make this safe, as quickly as possible. Let’s start with taking it out, and see if everyone likes it.  After that, if everyone wants a dam, we can rebuild the dam.”

    Amanda’s position: “Rip it out and let the river flow. Then create recreation on the East Side.”

    This aligns most closely with my beliefs.

    …

    Jane and Amanda go off on a tangent about getting public input first.  Now, the folks doing the feasibility study are already supposed to get a bunch of public input. And it’s a LOT:

    But Jane and Amanda are proposing that the city get a bunch of public input, before the folks in the study get a bunch of input.

    Look: No. That is just more kicking-the-can down the road.

    Alyssa makes the exact right point here: “We have engaged with the public for YEARS.  EVERYONE has an opinion.  I know what the results will be.”

    That is correct.

    ….

    There’s discussion of partial rebuilds. Can the proposal consider that?
    Answer: Yes. It’s in there.

    Jane says: The main problem is that the Mill Race needs more water. Can we fill it with reclaimed water?
    Answer: Uhhhhhhh…. you’re freaking us out. You want to release sewage into the Mill Race?

    Jane: it’s treated, not raw sewage, and it gets released to the river downstream. So why not release it upstream?
    Answer: We’re feeling woozy just trying to imagine the permitting process involved in releasing reclaimed water into a recreation area. Oh god.

    I admire Jane’s problem-solving ambitions!

    …

    Bottom line: The study should take about 10 months. Then we will have a lot more information!

    My belief is that the dam should go, and we should focus on creating recreation access for the public on the East Side. The mill race has always been treated as a fancy, restricted portion of the river, and the exclusiveness is bullshit.

    …

    If you’re curious:

    Here’s a great read from 2000, from an old-timer named Tom Goynes, who has been paddling the river since the 1970s.

    And here’s someone’s video, showing what it looks like to kayak through all this stuff we’re talking about:

    It’s pretty amazing and beautiful.

    Explainer: Cape’s Dam

    by The San Marxist, posted in Explainer

    Cape’s Dam is complicated.

    1. The Woods

    In the early 2010s, City Council was very beholden to developers, and approved a bunch of very controversial apartment complexes. This is when the The Cottages and The Retreat were approved, and most contentiously, The Woods. (Which now has a different name – Redpoint – but everyone still thinks of it as The Woods.)

    The Woods was built on property where the San Marcos River meets I-35. It would have made prime, beautiful park land. The city had the opportunity to buy the land a few years before this controversy, and declined. (That makes me angry every time I think about it.) But in 2013, City Council allowed approved The Woods to be built there.

    The Woods was to be long and skinny, and was to be placed between the Blanco Gardens neighborhood and the river. It would completely block residents of the neighborhood from being able to walk over and access the river. Blanco Gardens is an old neighborhood – traditionally poor, Hispanic neighborhood, just east of 35, and historically has been neglected due to racism. The Woods was going to be marketed to college students from families who could afford the newest apartment complex. The racism, classism, and riverfront destruction massively angered the city.

    Here’s a map of Blanco Gardens, and the addition of the apartment complex.:

    There was a huge outcry and wave of activism against the Woods, and council approved it anyway. (There was a second complex right at the headwaters that was barely defeated at roughly the same time.) As a result, that city council was mostly voted out of office and replaced with more progressive councilmembers. (Thomaides and Scott were both voted out in this wave.)

    But the apartment complex got built, and currently exists.

    2. The Flood

    THEN! In 2015, the Woods was partially built when the Memorial Day Floods happened. The Blanco River rose 40 feet. 11 people died in Hays County. Homes and property were destroyed. The community was traumatized. It was a mass natural disaster.

    Along with several other neighborhoods, Blanco Gardens had several feet of standing water. The town uniformly believes that The Woods caused Blanco Gardens to flood.

    Is that true? It’s hard for me to say.

    • The flooding came in from The Blanco river primarily, not the San Marcos River.
    • The San Marcos River does meet up with the Blanco River just past this intersection, so when the Blanco floods, the San Marcos River backs up.
    • Apparently in four hours, the San Marcos River went from 700 cubic feet of water per second to over 70,000 CFS.

    So, the water came in from the north part of the neighborhood, from the Blanco river. The issue is whether or not The Woods prevented Blanco Gardens from draining into the San Marcos river.

    I saw an engineer’s presentation to the city claiming that The Woods did not cause Blanco Gardens to flood – and I frankly didn’t buy it. It smelled like computer modelling bullshit to me, with too many simplifying assumptions to be worth anything. Furthermore, he kept trying to use The Woods as if it were already built according to plan, as opposed to a messy construction site with sand bags over the drains to keep construction detritus from entering the waterways. He seemed to feel that the null hypothesis was that The Woods wasn’t a problem, and the analysis was too hard and complex to decisively disprove that.

    At the same time, the amount of water that came down on Hays County that day is beyond comprehension, and it’s also true that it would have been a mass catastrophe no matter what. But Blanco Gardens might have had less damage.

    The net result: The Woods still exists, but there is a lot of anger that is loosely divided into political camps, focused on this stretch of the river.

    3. The damage to Cape’s Dam

    What does all this have to do with Cape’s Dam? Behind The Woods, the river splits. This is manmade, dating to 1866. The river was dammed, and a cement channel was built to power a mill. The dam holding the main river is Cape’s dam, and the this cement channel that goes to the left is the Mill Race. The Mill Race is 1/4 mile long, and then they meet up again.

    (Honestly, the geography of this thing is difficult to figure out, because it’s so hidden from the public view. And there are other nearby dams and channels that make it tough to figure out from Google WorldView. But I’m pretty sure this is right.)

    Before the flood, the Mill Race was used mostly by a private company, Olympic Kayak Company, to rent out kayaks and such for recreation. In theory, it’s public land, but it’s never been publicly accessibly in any way, except via this private company or insider knowledge. I think both parts of the river were used – under the dam on the main river, there’s supposedly a beautiful swimming hole, and the mill race channel was nice and calm for people learning to kayak. But I’ve never seen any of this for myself.

    In the 2015 flood, Cape’s Dam was severely damaged and the area was no longer safe for recreation. I remember hearing that it would cost millions to fix it and the Army Corp of Engineers recommends removal of old dams, not repairing them, so that the environment can return to its pre-existing state. At the time, there was federal disaster money available to remove the dam (but not to repair it). In 2016, City Council voted to remove the dam.

    That’s when the owner of Olympic Kayak Company, Ben Kvanli, got involved, because of course this might affect his business model, along with another guy, Sam Brannon.

    My opinion is that they approached this in bad faith. The legitimate position might have been, “This portion of the river is wonderful for recreation. We are going to advocate that it benefits the community to have these opportunities. Let’s balance the environment and safety with the benefits of recreation.” But they did not. Instead they threw everything but the kitchen sink at the problem. They formed an organization, Save the SMTX River (which you can google and find their link), and launched a campaign. My memory is that they had scientists saying that the science was not so clear cut – that the 100 years of growth had meant that endangered darter fish now thrived and their habitat would be destroyed if the dam were removed. But as of 2021, I can’t find any trace of who this might have been. Links are broken, citations aren’t there, so I don’t know who this counterpoint is.

    The other major argument they made is that this dam has meaningful historical significance. Again, what? It’s old, but no one can seem to find any name or any event, or any architectural significance, or anything that merits more than a plaque saying “Here be ruins of ye old mill.”

    One thing that clouds this is that Kvanli and Brannon are vocal rightwing Trump-style supporters (although this drama slightly precedes the most aggressive of Trump’s wave). As my URL suggests, I’m positioned on the opposite end, and it’s hard not to let that color my perception of these events. It certainly affected the lens that I saw this through as it was unfolding.

    4. The current holding pattern

    The federal money to remove the dam expired, and Council caved and agreed to not-decide quite so quickly. Commissions were organized.

    The Historical Preservation Society tried to get it designated as a historical landmark, but they were denied at by the Planning & Zoning commission, and my memory is that the meeting was entirely about the subtext: that the designation was a farce in order to force the dam to be rebuilt and privilege recreation above the environmental concerns.

    As of 2021, a long slow planning process is playing out. How will we balance recreation and the environment? What are the different options and how much will they cost? This is probably the appropriate way to proceed. “Proposed rehabilitation of the dam” shows up in the vision documents, but I’m not exactly sure what that will end up being.

    October 6th 2019, at the Visioning Study Work Session:
    Rockeymoore supported removing the dam
    Marquez supported restoring the dam.
    Saul Gonzalez wanted another opinion
    Prewitt supported removing the dam
    Melissa Derrick supported removing the dam
    Mihalkanin supported restoring the dam
    Jane Hughson said she was on the fence.

    (Gonzalez, Derrick, and Hughson are still on the council.)

    My personal opinion is that the recreation is important, the environment is important, and the historical significance is bunk. Remove the dam, and fund a solution that balances public recreation with environmental protection.

    One big caveat: going forward, recreational uses need to be available to the public. It’s total bullshit that this one really cool stretch of the river has only been available through a private company, or people with insider knowledge.