utwatergroup-blog

[utwatergroup-blog]

Ethnographic Introduction

This blog is a compilation of individually researched ethnographies conducted for Anthropology of Infrastructure at the University of Texas at Austin completed by a group of students during the Fall semester. Our group research project focused on water, examining how Austin residents interact with the watershed in everyday life. In Green Cities, Christopher Anderson talks about the definition of “Watersheds”, being “topographically” defined regions that are drained by a given stream or river system. They occur along a range of scale—anywhere from small headwater streams with small catchments to large rivers with watersheds that cover continental regions.” When it comes to the definition of “Watershed Protection”, he defines it as a “myriad of human measure” to protect water quality. Some of these human measures include government policies, programs, and practices; these vary by municipality and region. One such government policy being the 1972 Clean Water Act (CWA), a federal law put in to improve water quality. Other topics mentioned are Best Management Practices (BMP), The Conservation Reserve Program, and the effects of urban development, such as roadways, and the harmful impacts of stormwater runoff. An important thing Anderson points out is “Environmental Flow” to keep a healthy aquatic ecosystem, but from what is seen today, there is not a stable flow of regulations and guidelines to keep these. As we began our research, we settled on the following sites: Town Lake, Hancock Golf Course, Shoal Creek, Waller Creek, Light Loads’s portable showers and laundry facility, and student apartment water use. We depend on each of these sites in our ethnographies to answer our research question. In their Annual Review of Anthropology article, Water Sustainability: Anthropological Approaches and Prospects, Ben Orlove and Steven C. Caton stress the worldwide need to provide an adequate supply of clean water has become an urgent theme in anthropology. Anthropologically, water is not only a resource but also a substance that connects society. Anthropologists examine the different forms of water valuation, the often-unequal distribution of water, the rules, and institutions that govern water use and shape water politics, and the multiple, often conflicting knowledge systems through which actors understand water. Anthropological studies of water offer ethnographic insights into key water sites (watersheds, water regimes, and waterscapes, etc.).

The watershed protection department plays a huge role in protecting Austinites from the potential impact of erosion, water pollution, and flooding. Every interaction with water ranging from sink water to lake water is screened by the Watershed Protection Department for potential toxins that could affect people’s health. Additionally, the department is responsible for effectively disseminating warnings in case of a potential deterrent to health. These responsibilities communicate the key role the department plays in the consumption of water in Austin. Frequently when people think about water consumption, the actions of drinking and washing with water are the first that come to mind. However, while many people may focus on water’s practical uses, its consumption can be observed across a broad spectrum, ranging from its physical functionality to recreational and aesthetic consumption. Water consumption in all forms creates spaces for community and sociability as seen through each of our research sites. From the shower trailers, Light Loads has established for people experiencing homelessness to Waterloo Greenway’s annual Creek Show, Austinites engage with water in a variety of capacities. Additionally, this engagement with water doubles as a space for human interaction facilitated by present infrastructure. This infrastructure is seen within the theme of consumption through functionality and practicality, and the recreational and aesthetic use. We see the everyday use of consumption through daily routines such showering, washing dishes, and doing laundry. Similarly, we see consumption’s reliance on infrastructure when interacting with and within public spaces such as lakes, rivers, and creeks. Through each of our research sites, we examine the interaction with the watershed through the theme of consumption.

[utwatergroup-blog]

Hancock Golf Course

By Laura Rivera Arroyo

Hancock Golf Course

My individual research question addresses, how do golf courses and participating Austin residents interfere with water conservation? I look at the common theme for my individual field site that are also shared with those in my group with their own individual field sites. At the Hancock Golf course, there are several themes that can be addressed, one of them being consumption. Consumption can be seen through aesthetics and its functionality around the golf course. Within consumption is also the sense of community and sociability that brings people into Hancock to visit and play, also correlating back to golf courses aesthetics and functionality.

As you make your way up to the entrance to the Hancock golf course and up the hill, you notice a small parking lot where anyone can come in to park since Hancock is a public place. One of the first things you see when coming in through the entrance is a sign stating “We Conserve. Irrigated with reclaimed water. Do not drink from the irrigation system.” From the first sight of this sign, you see that the consumption at Hancock is different from ordinary places that consume potable water. Part of the aesthetic of this is that it is not noticeable nor would it of been known that Hancock uses reclaimed water if it wasn’t for the signs posted. From a first point of view, it is not noticeable at all as there are not any structures or features that would indicate the use of reclaimed water.

As you begin to walk around Hancock you notice there are no public restrooms to use, only a few porta-potties at the entrance when coming in. In this case, it brings up the idea that water consumption for restrooms is low, assuming there is at least one restroom on site to none since it is not connected to the water system. It is not an aesthetically pleasing view when coming into the golf course. I briefly spoke to Dayna, an employee at the Hancock golf shop about the water consumption. Dayna mentioned that the signs put up around the golf course regarding the water consumption is grey water used in their sprinkler system. Grey water meaning water that comes from people’s restrooms, such as sinks and showers.

When interviewing Kevin Gomillion, the Golf ATX PGA Division Manager with the City of Austin Parks and Recreation Department Golf Division, we discussed more in-depth the water consumption, the costs that comes along with it, and the type of water that is typically used. When mentioning the maintenance needed to keep up the aesthetics of the golf course, Gomillion stated that it depended day by day, especially the weather. The process mainly used is called “overseeding”, planting winter overseed grass that is used for about 7-8 months. About 70,000-150,000 gallons a day of heavy watering is done. At times the first week can require 100,000-150,000 gallons on the greens of the golf course. It is slowly backed off, especially during the winter in order to keep a balanced moisture in the soil, all varying by temperature.

Where “overseeding” needs to be done is flagged by the maintenance workers at Hancock all around the golf course to keep track on which areas need tending to and to also warn golfers that the area is being worked on. The purpose of this process is to have the greens look pleasing to the golfers that visit, having a relaxing and inviting feeling in order to have them wanting to return to the golf course. The utility bill seen for the golf course is about $4,000-$5,000 a year. Potable water consumption is around $400, while the reclaimed water consumption is closely $29,000 a year. When asked what makes the consumption cost to go up, Gomillion stated it is more due to the weather and temperature than the foot traffic of people golfing. Preventions are taken when it comes to golf tournaments being held at Hancock by watering more than usually before or after the event is over.

In my interview with Gomillion, I asked about Golf ATX’s plan on conservation and consumption at Hancock. Gomillion said that “We try not to water during the day and only use water as needed. “We also try not to be visible using the water due to residents, such that if they are limited on water usage and watering their lawn but see that we water our lawn during the day then why can’t they? It’s complicated…” In this case to avoid any problems, watering is done at night or around 5 o’clock in the morning and also to avoid evaporation during the day and more water usage. Gomillion also mentioned that they only water by hand on very hot days to avoid stress on the grass. These are all part of the strategies used in order to keep the golf course looking nice and green.

The type of grass used to maintain Hancocks look is Bermuda grass, which is established summer grass, and overseed with Ryegrass. The infrastructure within Hancock is designed where the irrigation water does not go down the slopes or into Walnut Creek that runs right through the golf course. The water stays in a high profile zone. The water consumption shows to have little to no impact to the watershed. There can only be a big impact if the irrigation head gets stuck causing the water to flow into the creek.

An article, published in 2012, talked about the Hancock Golf Course and how even with its consumption costs, neighbors were eager to keep the golf course running. “Neighbors prefer keeping Hancock Golf Course because of its history, youth programs, and natural beauty,“ Nick Barbaro stated in his article. The Parks and Recreation Department installed a reclaimed water system to improve the golf courses greens, which were deteriorating, causing no one to come and visit. This made a decline in revenue. The re-piping process costed around $500,000, but later lead to $60,000 a year in water costs to keep up the golf course greens. The change will also support the current and future trees that are around by replacing and adding new ones.

Referring back to my individual research question, how do golf courses and participating Austin residents interfere with water conservation? From my research, observations, and interviews, it looks to be that the Hancock Golf Course does not have a significant impact to the Austin watershed and is conscious when it comes to water conservation. It’s aesthetic functionality, done through the maintenance work, is seen to consume a tremendous amount of reclaimed water that comes with a high cost but is balanced out with the money gained from visiting golfers. Golfer’s participation can cause an impact to the reclaimed water consumption if there are major events. As of now, Hancock does not have any plans for expansion or construction that would impact the watershed, water consumption and/or infrastructure.

[utwatergroup-blog]

Apartment Use of Water

By Victor Do

When water consumption is mentioned, the most obvious definition that comes to mind is the functional and practical use of water. To understand how Austin residents interact with the watershed in their everyday life, I decided to observe how Austin residents interact with each other and their apartment appliances regarding water. This approach focuses on one of the main and arguably most important piece of interaction with water infrastructure – Austin residents interaction with water in their apartments. Water consumption is present in many aspects of apartment life, including showering, doing laundry, washing the dishes, and many more. With residents acting with the need for water consumption, they are influenced in how they interact with one another and their appliances.

To find the answers to the questions posed, I investigated how a group of roommates interacted with their water infrastructure in their apartment located at 24 Longview Apartments. On a Sunday morning, I went over to their apartment unit and observed their actions surrounding water. From my firsthand experience, I was able to see the roommates do many of their tasks for everyday living in preparation for the week ahead, such as washing dishes, cooking food, or doing laundry. While many sources of water use, such as the refrigerator, freezer, kettle, dishwasher, and sink were easy to point out, there were also other uncommon sources such as a humidifier that used water to humidify the room. I was unable to observe other routines such as shower use or bathroom use. As one of the roommates made breakfast, she used water to use in a rice cooker as well as to cook food herself. Although the use of water while cooking was standard and not very notable, during my time in the apartment unit, I discovered three areas of interest. The first was the size of the kitchen space. While the shared space area, which resembled a small living room, was very spacious and looked to accommodate for four roommates, the size of the kitchen did not and looked small and crowded in comparison. The structure and layout of the kitchen could become a problem if multiple people were present, and not helping matters were multiple doors near the entrance into the kitchen that led to other bedrooms as well, making the kitchen even less readily accessible.

The second notable area of interest was the dishwasher, which seemed to be overstocked with dishes, causing it to not be able to close properly. After asking one of the roommates, I discovered that the dishwasher would break down routinely even after calling maintenance to get fixed. When opening the dishwasher, I could see that although many dishes were held by the dishwasher’s racks, they were not the cause of the dishwasher’s inability to close. The final area of interest was the laundry. The laundry rooms that most of the apartment residents used to wash and dry their clothes did not have nearly enough washers and dryers for the amount of residents on each floor. There was also a separate cost to using the machines not included in the rent. Overall, my experience observing the four roommates interact with the water infrastructure revealed certain questions I wanted to focus on. How did the structure and layout of the apartment, specifically the size of the kitchen and laundry machines, affect their water use? How does interaction with apartment appliances and interaction between roommates encourage, discourage, or force change in your water usage habits?

To understand how the roommates thought about their living situation regarding water usage, I conducted three interviews with three of the four roommates living in the unit I observed. Surprisingly, regarding the structure and layout of the kitchen space, all three interviewees had no problems with the smaller space. The laundry room, on the other hand, received complaints from all three, regarding the small amount that is supposed to accommodate for each floor. Interviewees also noted the extra cost when doing laundry when using the provided washers and dryers. When prompted to reflect on their water usage, a common theme I noticed was the increase in water usage when washing dishes by hand encouraged residents to use their dishwasher to save water. Although an addition of a water bill did not drastically change their water-using habits, two interviewees did start using the dishwasher more often to save water instead of washing by hand. Because of this, the dishwasher breaking down is more disruptive as it interferes with how the interviewees had adapted to conserve water. I also discovered that the dishwasher was not the only appliance that the roommates had problems with. The sink and shower drain would clog if the roommates were not careful with what was put in. Specifically the sink drain’s sewage grinder was unable to work properly even with small bits of food, so the roommates adapted by not allowing anything but liquids through. Whenever one of these problems occurred, maintenance took between a day to a week to get the issue resolved, which was satisfactory for the roommates. When prompted on the stability of the water, all interviewees were content with the consistency. Ability to change the water temperature was not affected by outside temperatures and access was usually always available. All interviewees felt like they had used more water while living on a college campus and were less wasteful when living in their current apartment unit. One interviewee noted that because the water was less affected by outside temperatures in the apartment setting, she wasted less water waiting for the shower water to heat up than she did on campus. When asked about their interactions with each other, there replied that there was no significant impact on their water use habits. Most of the changes that interviewees wished were implemented in their apartment did not relate to their roommates, instead were targeted towards the infrastructure. Their wishes included more washing machines per floor and changes to the shower and sink drains.

Overall, the conclusion I reached from my observations and my interviews was that Austin residents would try to adapt to any problems they may encounter with their water infrastructure. Although the roommates had their complaints about the amount of washing machines, shower drains, and sink drains, they changed their water habits to better adapt to the conditions. The problem with the smaller kitchen space I noticed turned out not to bother the four roommates very much. The roommates were also very considerate of each other and had little conflict regarding water usage. Most interactions with appliances using water were done with water conservation in mind, and whenever water infrastructure did break down, the roommates would change their habits even after maintenance had come to fix their issue.

Relating back to our group research questions, I can conclude that Austin residents interact with the watershed a sizable amount in their living arrangement. From my investigation, in the normal course of a day, to fulfill the functional and practical consumption of water, residents interact with water infrastructure and other people. The watershed plays a role in providing water safe for consumption, so that residents can use it to drink, shower, brush teeth, etc. While conflicts may occur in this transaction, residents most of the time will adapt to make the most of the situation. Regarding interaction with other residents, most residents feel the encouragement to work together to provide the most comfort when using water for everyone. I believe this is caused through a common need for water consumption. The practical uses for water consumption force community and sociability and also require the appropriate infrastructure from the watershed to facilitate this consumption.

[utwatergroup-blog]

Homeless Access to Water

By Ryan Gebrael

Water access and consumption has never been something I have had to think about in my day to day life. There was always a shower in my bathroom that sprouted out a seemingly infinite amount of water. Showering felt more akin to a task rather than a privilege, and feeling unclean was only a sign that it was time for a shower. Because of this, when thinking about things that homeless people need, access to a shower isn’t something that would immediately come to my mind. My individual research question pertains to how access and consumption of water resources can affect Austin’s homeless population. Everyone in my group’s research looks at water consumption, and in my research these observations look at the practical and functional uses of Austin’s water, as well as the psychological effects that access to water can have on individuals. This access has long been desired by Austin’s homeless population, and can open up opportunities, restore dignity, and create a sense of community for all of Austin’s residents. 

Laura and James Ritchie are a couple who began providing food to homeless people last year. After asking these people what more they could do to help, some of the homeless people brought up that they struggled to maintain their hygiene without a means to clean themselves. To these people, not having a home also meant that their access to water was limited, and they were unable to shower or clean their clothes. Laura and James did some searching and found a nonprofit organization that provides people with access to a shower trailer, and after contacting them they decided to raise money to purchase a similar trailer. This was the beginning of Light Loads, a non-profit organization run by the Ritchies aiming to provide homeless people with the utilities they need to get back on their feet and live a better life. 

This past October I attended the block party for the opening of the first Lighter Load’s shower trailer. I arrived to a church parking lot where I saw tables set up with clothes on them. There were multiple stands set up under the shade, each with different signs. There was a stand with baskets containing hygiene items such as toothpaste and mouthwash, as well as stands with food, drinks, and snacks. The shower trailer was attached to a pickup truck parked by the sidewalk. At the event, volunteers worked to help provide homeless people with various services that they may need. I helped at the barber shop that was set up by the shower trailer, making a sign in sheet for the people in need of a haircut and finding and bringing them over when it was their turn. I noticed the whole event felt like a family get together, and the volunteers appeared to have known all the homeless people who attended for a long time. While helping with the barber shop, I was able to overhear as well as participate in some of the conversations that took place. Many of the homeless people would tell their stories, and from that I learned a lot about what an opportunity like this event meant to them. 

One by one, each of the homeless people at the event went in to try out the shower trailer. They made it clear that places to shower are hard to come by for them. One man mentioned that he had only taken two showers in the past 3 years. Without access to a shower, the water consumption of most homeless people is limited to whatever public bathroom they could find where the staff don’t ask for them to leave. The difficulty finding a place to shower does not appear to be unique to Austin, as Karim mentions the homeless population in Indianapolis having similar issues in his master’s thesis. He uses the term “bird bathing”, which is taking a quick body bath in whatever facility they have available, to describe how homeless people clean themselves. At the block party when one woman was asked what she thought of the trailers, she said that she could’ve really used it 10 years ago but she appeared happy to be able to have it now. After getting a haircut, a man went back to the bathroom and looked at himself in the mirror for a while before leaving the trailer with a smile. There was no question as to whether the homeless population had a demand for water infrastructure.

The trailer itself is attached to the church by a hose, where the water supply comes from. The hose can be disconnected, and there is a 300 gallon water tank that can be filled so that the trailer operates without being attached to a water source. For disposal, the trailer has greywater and blackwater tanks that allow for the waste to be easily separated and disposed of. It includes a shower, a bathroom, and a mobile laundromat where homeless people can bring their clothes with them to wash. At the event one man brought a glad bag with all of his clothes to wash with the laundry machine. The inside of the trailer reminded me of a motel bathroom, with an emphasis on functionality as opposed to space and comfort. The trailer functions as a form of mobile water infrastructure, and can be brought to different private locations where homeless people can use the water facilities.

Although the water consumption of homeless people is limited, a little bit of it seems to go a long way. I interviewed James Ritchie a couple weeks after the block party, and asked him about the impact of the shower trailer on the homeless people who he has been helping. He told me that two of the people who attended the block party were able to find jobs. A different man who was a felon that was released and enrolled into a second chance program told James that after showering and fixing himself up he enrolled in pipefitter recertification classes. Access to water utilities helps people in many different ways, and sometimes the effect can be mental instead of physical. James said that one of the goals of Lighter Loads was to bring back dignity to these people. When I showered after the interview, I noticed that the shower felt like a fresh start and brought a sense of cleanliness that couldn’t be physically measured. Bringing cleanliness back into people’s lives through water utilities gives them a chance to get back on the right track in life. 

Something I noticed while at the block party was the sense of community that was present during the event. The homeless people there already had a relationship established with the founders of the organization. They had been providing food to the homeless for over a year, and in that time had gotten to know each of the 20 or so people that they helped. During the event, I watched as everyone greeted each other with familiarity, and being the only one who hadn’t met any of the volunteers or homeless people before, I felt like the odd one out. I asked James if he believed that as many of the homeless people would have shown up if he hadn’t previously established a relationship with them. He explained that when Lighter Loads first began feeding the homeless, many of them were doubtful about if the organization was really willing to help them. “Yeah right, nobody comes back to us, nobody cares about us” was the tone of the responses when James and Laura outlined their plan of purchasing the shower trailer. He had to work to gain their trust, but helping them access water infrastructure resulted in a family-like relationship between the organization and many of the homeless people. At the end of block party I even noticed that some of the homeless people stayed to help them pack up. 

Austin’s homeless population has a very limited access to water utilities, and this results in less water consumption than what these people need to get themselves back on their feet. Homeless people who have the means to keep themselves clean have access to opportunities to improve their lives, such as getting job interviews, as well as helping bring people their dignity back. They have a limited interaction with Austin’s watershed, and their water consumption comes from whatever facilities people allow for them to use. Lighter Loads is an example of an organization working to provide homeless people with access to showers and laundry service so that they can overcome some of the barriers they face and live a normal life. The interactions between this non profit organization and the people who desired water utilities helped build relationships and created a community of people who are all trying to ensure that homeless people have access to the water infrastructure required to improve their lives.

[utwatergroup-blog]

Erosion and Landslide Impact on Austin Urban and Residential Areas

The overarching research question throughout this ethnography of Shoal Creek, a local water feature in the downtown Austin area, is: How does the erosion of the creek bed and surrounding trail area immediately impact the Austin residential and Austin urban area(s)? In order to get an accurate answer to this question, one must look at the common theme that links all of these projects: consumption. Now, whether that consumption is purely functional in the overt physical sense or more of a metaphorical aesthetic consumption depends on the individual project itself. However, this project at Shoal Creek focuses on the latter––the more metaphorical/metaphysical view of consumption in a purely aesthetic sense. This is connected to the individual research question of erosion (i.e., a natural event) affecting the Austin residential urban area(s) along with their interaction with the site by the fact that as aesthetic consumption increases, interaction with its physical functionality decreases. In a simpler sense, people interact with the infrastructure of field sites/locations high in aesthetic consumption by not interacting with the infrastructure. Furthermore, any location high in aesthetic consumption and low in physical functionality such as Shoal Creek is also high in community and sociability. Individuals come together at field sites such as this to engage with both each other and the aesthetic surroundings. In this personal project, five themes were continuously found: (1) Damage to nature and natural damage to the environment classified as erosion, landslide(s), and flooding; (2) Construction and modification of nature; (3) A looming cosmopolitan preventing true immersion; (4) Classic and pure nature; and (5) Avoidance of interaction when compared with true interaction.

When walking onto Shoal Creek property, the first thing noticed is the various Trail Closed signs posted around the 24th Street entrance and parking area. The primary function of these signs is to limit interaction with the surrounding environment and infrastructure. Although the physical functionality is not a priority at this fieldsite, when it fails (when the water infrastructure is damaged through natural events or deliberate modification) the rate of aesthetic consumption is immediately affected as it directly affects how those around the fieldsite interact with the environment. After being diverted by the Trail Closed signs, I am forced to walk on Lamar Boulevard, which conveniently hides the magnitude of the damage to the trail and creek area from the erosion both last year and earlier this year at the beginning of the summer. With such an easily accessible area of Shoal Creek being shut down for construction with a detour route, there appears to be a drastic downturn in trail use. Only a scattered handful of runners, if that, traipse throughout the fieldsite. It is not uncommon to only see another person at Shoal Creek every twenty minutes or so. When those with dogs walk around the park, I notice that they keep their animals a safe distance away from the creek bed along with any puddled and stagnant water on the ground. This is yet another example of interaction with the infrastructure through complete avoidance of the surrounding environment.

With this area of Shoal Creek being entirely in a construction zone from the prior erosion and landslide(s), current temperatures, and prior weather, participation is already lowered/decreased. During this ethnography, it appears to me that this trend will only continue. While walking throughout the fieldsite, the vehicular and cosmopolitan ambiance from Lamar Boulevard can be easily heard over the gurgling and flowing of the creek. Honking cars, tires careening around corners, racing engines, squealing brakes, sirens from ambulances––they’re all beyond the greenbelt of Shoal Creek, a constant reminder of the downtown environment and the possible immediate danger that fallout at Shoal Creek can potentially pose. This only raised the question in my mind of how the new water design created by the AWPA interact with its environment and how the people of Austin will continue to interact with this design. In addition, will this new water design change how the trail appears? As of this moment in time, Shoal Creek appears to be as natural as a water infrastructural feature in a cosmopolitan downtown city can. Will this quasi–natural state be obliterated with this new design or will it, instead, be saved in some way?

Clayton, a somewhat active participant with the Shoal Creek infrastructure (a tentative participant, really), says that “any sort of change would make [Shoal Creek] seem less natural” because the fieldiste is already “in the middle of a downtown city . . . [with] sixth . . . just around the corner.” He goes on to say that, “With how unnatural it seems already and with how aware you are all the time that you’re still downtown, I think any sort of change like that would just bring it out even further. You would think the one thing that would still be natural in a place like this would be the water features, but apparently not.” Throughout my observations and ethnography of Shoal Creek, a recurring theme was that of a looming cosmopolitan. This theme was even found in Clayton’s own comparisons of Shoal Creek and the downtown Austin area to Central Park in the Manhattan cityscape. According to Clayton, when he is at Central Park, he forgets that he is in the middle of downtown Manhattan, that Central Park is so big that he can’t even see out of it. He states that it is hard to not be aware of his proximity to downtown Austin at all times while at Shoal Creek, especially “when [I] see those skyscrapers just over that direction.” For Clayton, and most likely for most other Shoal Creek participants, the constant reminder of the bustling cosmopolitan puts an immediate barrier to true interaction with the site and promotes its purely aesthetic consumption. That is, aesthetic consumption from a distance.

It is easy for me to notice throughout my observations at Shoal Creek that although there is a handful of individuals at the fieldsite, there are not that many truly interacting with the environment and infrastructure directly. As stated earlier, it appears that interaction at the Shoal Creek fieldsite is through intentional avoidance. Consumption at Shoal Creek is, therefore, not a literal consumption as one might find at a fieldsite like a student apartment complex or the shower trailers at Lighter Loads, but a metaphorical consumption meant only in regard to the appearance (the aesthetics) of its infrastructure. In this regard, any and all interaction with the fieldiste is done with the earthen nature of it: the trails, the walkways, the sidewalks, the manmade features. Much of the natural creek is left to itself. This begs the question: What is the incentive to coming to Shoal Creek for interaction with nature if there is no interaction with the creek? Better yet: What is the incentive––purpose, even––of coming to Shoal Creek with how it has been affected by the erosion and landslide(s) in the area?

With this being a critical part of the research question, I asked Clayton why he came to Shoal Creek even with the modifications to the environment. His answer? It is just a part of his routine. When asking him how the damage to the area has affected his routine or if it has impacted his routine in any way, he answers that the construction has forced him and his dog, Penny, to come to the park at earlier times before the construction starts as “loud noises and Penny aren’t exactly a match made in heaven.” He goes on to clarify that the construction doesn’t make interacting with Shoal Creek any easier. Not impossible, but not easier. With this, it can be concluded that the modifications to Shoal Creek from the damage can be moved as a nuisance of sorts. Although his own personal residence was not affected by the storms, erosion, and landslide(s), he does admit that the weather patterns did demolish the area. He says that it all looked like a “Texan tsunami.” Clayton, however, does admit that the weather patterns and the damage to Shoal Creek did make him stay away from Shoal Creek long enough to avoid the flooding because the area was a “nightmare . . . a hurricane zone.” With this answer, it becomes evident that the erosion and landslide(s) do have an immediate effect on people’s interaction with the site and the residential and urban areas of Austin. With so many barriers to true interaction already in place at a fieldsite like Shoal Creek, all this damage does is put up yet one more barrier, and this one more final than the others.

At the end of this ethnography, after all the observations, notes, and records, it appears to me that the natural damage to the Shoal Creek fieldsite has an immediate effect on both the urban and residential Austin areas because it single–handedly prevents any sort of interaction with it. This can be simply defined in the Trail Closed sign immediately found at the entrance to the Shoal Creek trails. Immediately at the outset, interaction is authoritatively prevented. Whether this effect to the urban and residential areas is from a concrete inability such as the Trail Closed sign or from nuisances from construction noises or construction blockades or personal property damage such as that of Clayton’s wife’s friends’ homes, it is evident that the AWPA’s upcoming water design for this fieldsite is created in order to prevent such negative effects from taking a hold of this community once more yet again. Even though it is true that such a synthetic and modified water route and construction to Shoal Creek could change the perception of the area, it could also  prevent such destruction from happening to the immediate area again and, as such, could possibly have more benefits than drawbacks. This, ironically enough, would lower the aesthetic consumption of the fieldsite but up the ante in regard to its physical functionality. Although it has minimal physical functionality unlike Lighter Loads or water infrastructure/interaction found in a student apartment complex, it currently ranks high for aesthetic functionality and consumption. The purpose of interacting with Shoal Creek, when permitted, is not to consume the water or interact with it in any sort of functional way but simply to consume the aesthetics of the environment and the fieldsite in and of itself. To observe, to exist, is to interact.

[utwatergroup-blog]

Town Lake’s Algal Bloom

By Benton Banowsky

Lady Bird Lake, more commonly known as Town Lake by Austinites, experienced a harmful algal bloom between July and November 2019. When cyanobacteria, also called blue-green algae, produce toxins, it is called a harmful algal bloom. Blue-green algae is common in Austin and worldwide. There are many types of blue-green algae and only some species can produce toxins. Blue-green algae tends to be more prevalent in late summer and early fall. It thrives when temperatures are hot, nutrients are high, and flow is low. Zebra mussels, flooding during the fall of 2018 and climate change are potential contributing factors. Reportedly, there were five dogs that died after swimming in Lake before the public was made aware of the harmful algae. Due to this recent crisis, I decided to investigate how the toxic blue-green algal bloom had affected the routines of people at my individual research fieldsite, Town Lake at Auditorium Shores in Austin, Texas. The sections of Town Lake and Auditorium shores that I visited, observed, and studied are located east of the South Lamar Boulevard bridge, west of the South 1st Street bridge, south of West Cesar Chavez Street, and North of West Riverside Drive.

Town Lake is a river-like reservoir on the Colorado River in Austin, Texas, that runs parallel to downtown. The City of Austin created the reservoir in 1960 as a cooling pond for the now-defunct city power plant. The surface area of the lake is 416 acres and it is currently used primarily for recreation and flood control. Auditorium Shores is a bordering greenspace or public recreational area that contains a section of Austin’s Ann and Roy Butler Hike-and-Bike Trail, a partially enclosed off-leash dog park, a nonoperational boat ramp, two wooden dock-like structures, and several large grassed fields. At this site, between the trail and the water’s edge, Austin’s Watershed Protection Department maintain several long stretches of Riparian/Grow Zones.

There are numerous points where one can access the areas of Town Lake, Auditorium Shores, and the surrounded trails. I am a frequent user of this site, taking my dog here for two to three hours a day, three to four days a week during the summer months, and when I arrived here for my research, I did so as if I were coming here with my dog as usual. On the day that I took fieldnotes here, the sun was out, and temperatures were comfortable, somewhere between 70 and 80 degrees with a slight breeze. Upon parking on West Riverside Drive, east of South Lamar Boulevard, I exit my car and head eastward along the sidewalk towards one of the trailheads, about fifty yards away. It was around 2:00 PM. Along this section of sidewalk are a few benches, q water fountains, trashcans, and a dog-bag receptacle. There is also a small area with pullup bars. As I reach the trailhead, I take the path westward towards Auditorium Shores and the dog park, hooking around the large stone wall barrier and foliage that stretch along the entire trail. Along the approximately 200-yard walk, there were people walking and running on the trail and others sitting on benches that face the water. There was also someone fishing underneath the South Lamar Boulevard bridge, standing a few feet away from the trail.

Once I arrived at the Auditorium Shores dog park, there were people walking, running, and biking along the trail. The exercising here is an individual as well as a group activity. Somewhat rare from my experience, there are people fishing on the shores, more commonly I see them in boats. Canoeing and kayaking is very popular year-round along this stretch of the lake. I assume due to the algal bloom, or maybe the time of day, there were very few partaking in these activities. During the hot summer months, there can be hundreds of people out on the water for hours at a time; it is a very social activity. There are also ‘party barges’ that move through the space regularly. There are people simply relaxing, sitting on the benches, some napping. People come here during their lunch breaks to eat, families enjoy picnicking here. The dog park is very popular; people and their dogs come and go at all hours of the day. This site is a popular backdrop setting for special occasion photography – weddings, quinceaneras, prom, homecoming, etc. There are city workers present, working on various things, tasks, and duties. A wide range of age groups uses this space, however, mostly young-adults and senior citizens, not so many families, teenagers, or children. The family’s that use the site are usually passing through while exercising. The users of the space are very diverse ethnically and racially, possibly not economically due to the site’s proximity to downtown. The users of the space seem to interact depending on their activities – dog owners are more social, while individual exercisers tend to keep to themselves, overall there is a sense of neighborliness and friendliness in the space. The canoers and kayakers are especially sociable. The people onboard the barges also socialize with those they can reach vocally. Generally, the space is being openly shared by all the users as they enjoy themselves while doing their respective activities. The site is public, and no individual group of people is trying to take over the space, the concept of it being an equally shared space for everyone is acknowledged without having to be told.

The exercisers primarily use the trail, although some use the open fields. The canoers and kayakers primarily use the river’s water towards the middle and share the space with the ‘party barge’ patrons, people fishing, and dogs that swim near the shore (it is prohibited for people to swim in the river due to the usual current and debris at the bottom). The people who take their dogs here for exercise use the several grassed fields, sharing the space with people playing sports, people relaxing, and picnickers. The benches and tables places throughout the site are shared by various groups and used for sitting, eating, and even sleeping. From experience, the physical layout of the site encourages interaction and encounters with one another, however, it would not be difficult to keep to oneself if preferred.

Town Lake cuts down the middle of the site, flowing west to east. On both sides of the river are trails and green space; the south side of the river is where Auditorium Shores, our site, borders the water’s edge. A slight westerly breeze blowing against the water gave the illusion of the river flowing backward. The river’s normal eastward current was not perceivable at the time; it was the first time I have ever seen the water there so calm. There are sounds of nature present – birds singing, bugs chirping, leaves rustling in the wind. Depending on your proximity to the river and the water’s current, you can hear the water flowing. There are sounds of people socializing, a slight buzz of traffic noise, the crunching of bike tires rolling over the trail’s gravel pavement, and dogs barking. There is an overall sense of community here, a feeling of everyone being here because they want to enjoy themselves while being surrounded by nature.

When interviewing James Reed, a frequent user of the site, he shed light on how the blue-green algal bloom has affected people’s routines there. Asking him if the blue-green algal bloom had affected his routine of visiting Auditorium Shores, the trails around Town Lake, or Town Lake itself, he said, “Well for one, the [algal] bloom has kept me from bringing my dog to the dog park since it is an off-leash park and she loves the water, so she would want to go directly down to the shore and swim. At first, I was hesitant to bring my dog here to walk on the tails just in case she somehow got to the water and drank any, but since the weather has gotten colder I’ve started walking her here again because the algae can’t survive in water that isn’t hot, I think I saw that if the water is below 70 to 80 degrees the algae can’t survive. The [algal] bloom seems to have also kept people off the lake, like boating and fishing. This has made the social aspect of kayaking here less enjoyable, but it hasn’t kept me from coming here to kayak on weekends.” His testimony confirmed my original hypothesis that the algal bloom did, in fact, affect people’s routines at Auditorium Shores and Town Lake; furthermore, his answers and my past experiences and recent observations at the site showed how those routines were impacted  – interaction between water and Austinites had decreased dramatically.

[utwatergroup-blog]

Lady Bird Lake’s Algae Bloom

By Neha Thippana

Lady Bird lake rests in the heart of Austin, Texas. The presence of the lake, the trail and park around it adds character to the city. It creates balance between city and nature. Lady Bird lake and the surrounding park are used for recreational and aesthetic consumption by the inhabitants of Austin. This includes kayaking, paddle boarding, taking dogs to play and photography. Due to the close proximity of the lake-trail to the city, visiting the site is a regular expedition for many city inhabitants. In this paper I will be discussion how the presence of the blue-green algae affected people’s routines. 

During my first visit to Lady Bird Lake I immediately noticed the intertwining of city and nature. At first the towering buildings and noises of the busy city flooding into the park area made me uncomfortable. It made the lake and trail feel busy and chaotic like the city instead of the usual tranquility I feel when I am immersed in nature. The media portays the stark contrast between nature by a city and nature away from a city. The first half of the audio is taken next to Lady bird lake. The audio was taken on a particularly busy day, however, you can clearly hear noises of traffic and many people walking and talking. You wouldn’t have even known that the audio was taken on a trail by a lake because you can barely hear the nature. The media conveys a sense of chaos by Lady Bird Lake. The second half of the audio was taken from Lake Pointe Trail in South Austin. On this trail you can hear water, birds, insects. It incites a feeling of calmness at the Lake Pointe trail. I asked a frequent visitor to the trail how she feels about the close proximity of the city to the lake. She said she liked being able to see the city but being in the park felt like a break from the city. In general it seems as if people living in the city weren’t too affected by the interlacing of city with nature. 

People come to the lake and surrounding park area for a variety of reasons. I visited the grassy area by the trail bordering the lake in the middle of the day. A majority of people came to lake to either exercise or play with their dogs.  I noticed the space was used by office-workers as a break from work to. Since many of these workers came to the lake alone, it seemed as if they came to enjoy the calmness of the lake. The lake was used as a background for photography and kayaking. Most of the visitors were familiar with area. The runners and bikers knew exactly which route they were taking and the people with dogs knew exactly where the dog parks were. Their excursion seemed to be a part of their routine.

The blue-green algae outbreak was a considerable deterrent of interaction between people and the water. The Watershed department released a statement restricting people from swimming in certain areas of the lake and recommended that pets stay away from the lake altogether. Water samples in 8 locations of Town lake turned out positive for the toxic algae in early October. The statement highlighted the potential side-effects the cyanobacteria could even have on humans. 

During my visit to the park, I noticed that many people did not allow their dogs to go near the water. The frequency of kayakers and paddle-boarders was lower than I expected it to be. According to a dog owner I interviewed, there have been significantly less amount of people and dogs in the water. She even mentioned that she stopped taking her dog down to the lake area because she didn’t want her dog to accidentally drink the lake water. She has even had to stop people who weren’t aware of the algae from allowing their dogs in the water. In general, the algae outbreak only affected her direct interaction with the water. She still went on runs frequently and saw no decrease in the number of people who exercised on the trail by the lake and in the dog parks further away from the lake. 

The Watershed department did not seem to do a good enough job in disseminating warnings about the danger of taking pets near lake water. When I went on the trail, I only saw one small sign in the corner of the trail head which could have been easily missed. The dog-owner I interviewed said she had to stop multiple people and warn them not to allow their dogs in the water. She mentioned that she was disappointed that she found out about the blue-green algae through Facebook instead of a more reliable news outlet. The Watershed Protection Department has a responsibility to Austin residents to effectively warn them of toxins in the water that can significantly affect families. Their inability to warn people about the algal bloom in a timely manner gravely affected 2 Austin families when they lost their pets. Due to their failure to place more warnings, many families didn’t even know about the toxins present in the water. 

In conclusion, the algae outbreak substantially affected the recreational consumption and the direct interaction with the lake. People who had regular routines of interacting with the water were affected the most. However, it did not affect the aesthetic consumption of the lake. The trails and dog park were still used to their normal extent.  Overall, the watershed protection department failed in its responsibility to warn Austin inhabitants about the water toxicity caused by the blue green algae.

Media(Audio Recording): 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ze1IaIsfIlErrvhflJpaFtDKw2FXQHU4/view?usp=sharing

[utwatergroup-blog]

Aesthetic Consumption of Water: A Case Study of Waller Creek

By: Caroline Lewin 

Consumption can be defined as the utilization of a resource. For the purpose of this paper, I understand the consumption of Waller Creek, at the future sight of Waterloo Greenway, as an ‘aesthetic consumption’ in order to examine how Austinites interact with the Watershed. For clarification, any reference made to Waller Creek is specifically referring to the Waterloo Greenway portion of Waller Creek and any mention of Waterloo Greenway is a reference to both the Creek along the Greenway and the restoration projects. My ethnographic work engaged with Waller Creek at Symphony Square and through Waterloo Greenway Conservancy’s annual Creek Show, a visual art exhibit comprising of various installations along Waller Creek from 9th Street to 12th Street. Additionally, I will draw on information from the final draft of the City of Austin’s Waller Creek District Master Plan and an interview with Melissa Ayala, Community Engagement and Government Relations Manager at Waterloo Greenway Conservancy, and Michelle Bright, Capital Projects Manager at Waterloo Greenway Conservancy. Furthermore, this paper will examine the role of the Conservancy’s current restoration project on Austinites’ consumption of Waller Creek at Waterloo Greenway, a 1.5-mile park system along Waller Creek from 15th Street down to the eastern edge of Lady Bird Lake, through 3 themes: connectivity, visibility, and aesthetics. Ultimately, I argue, by engaging with the challenges identified in the 2011 Master Plan as inhibiting current consumption, Waterloo Greenway Conservancy is constructing how future consumption of Waller Creek will transpire. 

To understand the current restoration project along Waterloo Greenway, it is important that I detail a brief history of Waller Creek and the role it has played in Austin. Waller Creek has been plagued by an infamous history of flooding, most notably the April 22, 1915 flood which took the lives of 60 people and decimated over 1,000 homes (Rambin, 2017). Similarly, Waller Creek has a long history of improvements with little achievement until the completion of the Waller Creek Tunnel in 2015, a flood control project which removes 28-acres of downtown from the floodplain (Master Plan, 5). Infrastructure along the creek has been a topic of discussion throughout the 20th century, however the most notable changes were the addition of pathways which many hesitate to label as improvements. The current restoration project aims to reclaim and reintegrate Waller Creek into the life of the city, as a means to enhance the image and identity of the City (Master Plan, 6). The restoration aims to create connectivity, visibility, and an aesthetically pleasing linear park system, all of which I identify as currently lacking through my ethnographic research.

As I approached my ethnographic research I realized the current consumption of Waller Creek was limited. However, I saw this as an opportunity to utilize my ethnographic materials as a compass to navigate an understanding of future consumption. As previously stated, the consumption of Waller Creek is highly aesthetic. However, this should not be broadly applied as many communities in Austin currently interact with the Creek. Nevertheless, the aesthetic value of the Creek is currently utilized through the annual Creek Show, as the Creek transformed from an almost entirely overlooked part of Austin to an outdoor art gallery (see figure 1). Although I engaged aesthetically with Waller Creek, current consumption is largely not aesthetic in nature. However, this event does offer insight into future consumption practices as supported by the Waller Creek District Master Plan and my interview with Melissa Ayala and Michelle Bright.

Figure 1: Creek Show art installation, AURORA. Photo taken by author.

Future aesthetic modes of consumption and features of Waller Creek are elaborated in my interview with Melissa and Michelle. Melissa spoke widely to future modes of consumption as she spoke of the Conservancy’s engagement with the community to better understand how people see themselves engaging with Waterloo Greenway. This involves outreach around food, different design elements, and activities which will assist in reconnecting and reorienting the city to the creek to make it a centerpiece of a revitalized east side of Downtown as seen in figure 2 (Master Plan, 2). Additionally, the Master Plan argues that “to realize its full [aesthetic] potential, the creek corridor must be cleaned up, upgraded, and improved in order to make it feel safe and secure and a positive feature within the community” (Master Plan, 5). While Melissa spoke to aesthetic modes of consumption, Michelle spoke more to the concern of implementation of aesthetic features to the creek that will influence consumption. These features include the design of wetland benches, leveled off ‘bench-like’ areas that allows for vegetation specific to that feature to be placed, and wired together natural tree limbs to be placed in the creek for a more authentic feel. As Michelle importantly noted, these aesthetic features are dependent on the functioning of current infrastructure, Waller Creek Tunnel. These aesthetic implementations work to construct a specific image of the Creek in order to increase its positive visibility.

Figure 2: Pre-design Plan for The Refuge, a destination along Waterloo Greenway at 7th Street-9th Street. Photo courtesy of WGI.

Creek Show and events at Symphony Square bring increased positive visibility to Waller Creek as they work to construct or even alter popular sentiment felt towards the Creek. This is made evident during my night spent at Creek Show, as my fellow observers were seen constantly snapping photos and expressing amazement of the light show. The act of bringing communities to the Creek is a central aspect of the Conservancy’s project. This is intended to create an understanding of Waterloo Greenway project’s aim to cultivate a space for the benefit of the community. While positive visibility is important for community understanding of the projection of the corridor, in our interview Melissa fails to mention this positive visibility being important for future investments and developments in the corridor. Melissa’s emphasis on community is not surprising as Waterloo Greenway Conservancy is a nonprofit, however, I wish to critique her use of community as an ‘essentialization’ of communities in Austin as impact will not be positively homogeneous.

As I read through the City of Austin’s Waller Creek District Master Plan, I was deeply concerned by their ability to rely consistently on a positive rhetoric of development. The City argues that with riparian restoration strategies “visibly threading through the city,” the landscape “signals to everyone that we live in a healthy, vibrant and caring city…” (Master Plan, 8). Similarly, the Plan suggests that new developments in the corridor “will build a population with direct interests in the on-going quality of the creek corridor and will create a vibrant and vital place within the heart of the city” (Master Plan, 2). Additionally, the Plan states that “newfound richness and meaning to life on Waller Creek will help instill a sense of pride in the community that is essential to the management and maintenance of this valuable resource over time” (Master Plan, 2). Not only do these statements make invisible the communities that have lived in the area for decades, but it offers no solution for possibilities of displacement of current populations.

While the City of Austin and Waterloo Greenway Conservancy fails to mention the negative impacts of the project I have understood through my ethnographic research, the two do reiterate what I believe to be the project’s greatest asset: connectivity. An aspect of connectivity I had not previously considered is the re-connecting of the floodplain to the creek. Michelle detailed in our interview, the current dis-connection between the floodplain and the creek and the positive impact to the Creek’s ecosystem that will be kick-started once the project is complete. In addition to the re-connected ecosystem, the project will integrate adjacent parts of the city enabling utilization and engagement through movement systems and pathway systems for both pedestrians and bicyclists as seen in figure 3 (Master Plan, 1-2). This mobility will be realized through a creek trail and a creek-level boardwalk trail, which Michelle highlighted will allow for optional mobility below street level and traffic cross-walks.

Figure 3: In-design depiction of Waterloo Greenway at Creek Delta, situated between Cesar Chavez St. and Lady Bird Lake. Photo courtesy of Austin Towers.

In conclusion, the current lack of infrastructure to connect Waterloo Greenway combined with the limited positive aesthetic and high visibility of Waller Creek are challenges the City and Waterloo Greenway Conservancy are seeking to address through this massive restoration project. Although the Creek is currently not broadly consumed in an aesthetic manner, the Conservancy has made strides to promote an aesthetic consumption, which I am positive will lead the construction of future aesthetic interactions with the Creek. Additionally, the promotion of an aesthetic consumption of the creek is actively influencing the increased positive visibility of the Creek. Similarly, increased aesthetic interaction and positive visibility of the Creek will continue as connectivity is repaired along the Creek.

[utwatergroup-blog]

CONCLUSION

Our ethnographic research has explored different facets of the consumption of water throughout the city of Austin. This ranged from the practical use of water in apartment appliances and showering to the aesthetic consumption of water in the Waller Creek Show. Each of the individual ethnographies investigated the consumption of water in their field site as well as the interaction of their fieldsite and the watershed.

The blog begins with the two ethnographies dealing with the functional and practical use of water in daily life. The watershed is responsible for providing water that is safe to consume for everyday necessities such as cooking, drinking, and showering. The next ethnography investigated an intersection of practical and aesthetic consumption of water in the Hancock golf course. Here, the waters consumption has limited interaction with the watershed due to the use of non-potable water. The next three ethnographies examine the recreational and aesthetic consumption of water in the field site Shoal Creek and Town lake. The Shoal Creek trail is at constant risk of erosion and landslides. It is the responsibility of the Watershed department to protect the Creek and City of Austin to protect Austin residents from being harmed by the landslides. Both the ethnographies that had Town Lake as a field site demonstrated that due to the recent algae bloom, interaction with the water had decreased dramatically. Furthermore, the ethnographies demonstrated that the watershed protection department failed to effectively advertise warnings about interacting with the water because of the toxins. The last ethnography primarily explored the aesthetic use of water with the Waller Creek Show and symphony to bring positive visibility and interaction with the Creek. 

Throughout all the ethnographies, the primary interaction of the fieldsites and the watershed was to ensure safe consumption of water whether it be for everyday use of drinking water or the recreational and aesthetic consumption of water in Town Lake, Shoal Creek or Waller Creek. The blog walks you through a diverse spectrum of the consumption of water and the effect it has on Austin residents.