By Meg Rein, Friends of Reed Park
You may have seen the green signs popping up around the neighborhood this month, encouraging passersby to “Rescue Reed Park.” Reed Park is a beloved local park with a large recreational field, a tree-lined trail that connects to Scenic Drive, and the historic remnants of Taylor Lime Kiln, a structure dating back to 1871. The 6.37-acre park is also home to Taylor Slough South, a creek that winds its way through en route to Lake Austin.
Since 2021, dedicated park-lovers have revived “Friends of Reed Park” (FORP), a group that existed before, but whose activities had waned until recent years. The new generation of volunteers came together with a mission to preserve and beautify Reed Park, and to coordinate with the City’s Parks and Recreation Department (PARD) to advocate for needed grants and improvements. Slowly but surely, improvements have come. A new playscape was installed in March 2022, new tables and benches have appeared, Reed Pool was re-filled and re-opened (and even has a swim team again this summer, after four long years without). Reed Park now has its own website with park information and a calendar of events (reed-park.org), volunteer work days are happening with increasing regularity, and red Adirondack chairs are giving park goers shady spots to sit all over the park.
What is the Watershed Project?
Recently, however, FORP has been in the spotlight raising concerns about a project the City’s Watershed Protection Department is planning at Reed Park. The Watershed project is the reason you may have seen those “Rescue Reed Park” signs. Its plan, made public in May 2023, is to construct four “biofiltration basins” and one “sedimentation basin” on and around the Reed Park playfield—the large recreational field at the front entrance of Reed Park, along Pecos Drive. The field now is a sprawling 240 by 130 feet, with long areas to run or throw a football. It hosts everything from Soccer Shots classes to t-ball practices and football games, and it is common to see neighbors relaxing in the chairs and picnic tables around the edge of the field. The playfield was marked out and set aside in the earliest plans for Reed Park, in the 1950s, as a place for recreational play.
Watershed’s project would put the largest biofiltration basin in the middle of the playfield, ringed with a raised concrete path. The basin would be a water retention pond in wet weather, holding water “for no more than 48 hours” after a rain, according to Watershed. Watershed says the basin would double as a playfield in dry weather but, even so, its size would be reduced to an area just slightly larger than a standard basketball court (about 100 feet by 60 feet). Under the plan, the backstop at the edge of the playfield would no longer be usable, nor would any of the picnic tables, benches or chairs set around the shady edges of the field. These would all be in no-mow basins, not usable for seating or play.
The plan requires concrete retaining walls for basins in the hillside at the left of Reed Park’s entrance, and to the right of the entrance, where the current backstop sits. Retaining walls would also be required along the pathway that meanders down to the creek crossing, currently home to picturesque, split wooden fences. Watershed has said the excavation of these basins will require heavy equipment and take about a year from the start of construction, planned to begin in 2025.
Watershed says these biofiltration basins will treat stormwater runoff from 127 acres of land upstream from Reed Park. They estimate some 30,000 pounds of sedimentation will be deposited annually in the basins, and will have to be removed by maintenance trucks (likely requiring a large truck access ramp off Pecos Street into Reed Park). The basins will also trap litter that will have to be removed by maintenance workers.
On a neighborhood call on May 11, 2023, and during a walk-through at Reed Park a few days later, interested neighbors expressed repeated concerns about changing the look and feel of Reed Park, and about the drastic reduction in the size of the playfield. Watershed representatives pledged to take neighborhood input into account. Yet, over a year later, Watershed has not yet revealed any changes or revisions to its plan.
Concerns about Precedent Projects
FORP has been raising questions and concerns about the Watershed project, along with West Austin Neighborhood Group, who has supported its efforts. The concerns they raise about Watershed’s project are of vital interest—not just for Reed Park, but for the City as a whole, and for other parks that may be targeted for Watershed projects.
Watershed failures at Battlebend Park
One concern is Watershed’s faulty execution of other, similar projects. In early 2023, Watershed representatives said their project at Battle Bend Park off South Lamar was a successful example of what they plan at Reed Park. The original renderings for Watershed’s Battle Bend project are similar to renderings for Reed Park, both featuring a “multifunctional water quality pond/playing field,” such as is envisioned for Reed Park.
FORP members visited Battle Bend Park in May 2023. James Page, who has led FORP’s efforts, described the scene: “The basin that was supposed to double as a playfield was overgrown and muddy, full of weeds. There was no proper grass at all; it was full of sediment deposited in the lawn area. There was a concrete entrance ramp for trucks to access the basin, surrounded by signs that advised you not to enter the water. It was an eyesore, and we became very worried about something similar happening at Reed Park.”
Page raised Battle Bend Park’s poor condition with Watershed on the May 2023 community engagement call. Watershed representatives blamed problems at Battle Bend on poor communication with PARD about maintenance and unexpected issues with groundwater seeping into the park. Watershed’s Lee Sherman said Watershed was “very committed to getting [the project] in the condition that we promised the community,” he said, "and…very aware it’s not there right now.”
However, when FORP rechecked the condition of Watershed’s Battle Bend project almost a year later, in March of 2024, conditions were worse, if possible. Landscape architect Cameron Campbell, who has donated his time and professional expertise in support of FORP’s efforts, was there for that visit. “There was a significant amount of mud, cones marking off areas, and signage and gates telling the community to ‘stay out.’ Someone walking by could never tell this was intended to be a playfield. The difference between what Watershed promised and what it delivered there really scares us in terms of what could happen at Reed Park.”
Broken promises by Watershed at Pease Park
Battle Bend does not seem to be a one-off problem for Watershed. FORP members toured Pease Park in June 2024 to view completed Watershed projects there. Richard Craig, founder of the Pease Park Conservancy, described Watershed as “an unreliable partner” that has abandoned large areas it originally pledged to maintain for the public’s use at Pease Park. Craig cites copious examples: on the west side of the park, along Parkway, Watershed proposed “swales”—areas where water could collect during significant rain events—that would be mowed and available for multi-use, unstructured recreation such as throwing a football or sunbathing. Craig says the Conservancy had “extensive discussions” with Watershed about its proposal in 2016-17, and “we were promised this whole area would be regularly mowed and that unstructured recreation could continue there as it had since the 1920s. We would have strongly objected to taking this huge area out of public use if they had suggested that.”
However, according to Craig and Ted Eubanks, a neighbor whose home borders the park, the promise to mow was broken after the swales were installed. Now, acres of impenetrable weeds cover the area. Eubanks pointed out huge growths of ragweed, hedge parsley, prickly lettuce, and bastard cabbage—all invasive plants that will quickly take over any disturbed piece of ground, he said, unless the landscape is maintained.
On the east side of the park, along Lamar, is another example. The Pease Park Master Plan called for a “seasonally mowed wildflower meadow” doubling as a basin, open for park goers to walk through and enjoy. Rather than following the Park’s Master Plan, adopted by the City Council, Watershed allowed thick vegetation to take over the basin; today, it is impassable, choked with weeds and invasive plants. Any wildflowers have long since been crowded out.
Craig laments that these areas were taken out of public use by Watershed’s failure to oversee and maintain them as required by park plans and per their explicit promises. Adding insult to injury, Watershed did not advise the public of the changes, or pay any compensation to PARD or Pease Park, though such compensation is usually required under Chapter 26 of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code (“Chapter 26”) when parkland is requisitioned for a new use. “This has caused real damage to the park, as these areas seed invasive plants in other areas, and drive all public park use into smaller, more crowded areas,” says Craig.
Watershed's track record at Pease and Battle Bend have sparked real concerns among Reed Park patrons, who worry that Watershed will once again fail to maintain this project—whether through lack of budget, changes in personnel, or poor coordination with PARD—and leave Reed Park in far worse condition than they found it.
Better Solutions
There are also questions about whether the project is the best way to address any water quality issue at the park. Watershed calls its plan the “Water Quality Improvement Project” and, according to Watershed on its May 2023 Zoom call with the neighborhood, the primary purpose is to improve water quality in Taylor Slough South, the creek that runs through Reed Park. Watershed’s Kshitiz Gyawali and Lee Sherman blamed “urbanization” as the major cause of the degradation in water quality, and explained that urbanization creates increased stormwater run-off that, in turn, increases erosion and degrades water quality in Austin streams, including Taylor Slough South. Gyawali also noted, however, that a wastewater line that runs through Reed Park is degraded and leaking, and said Austin Water plans to repair and re-route this line around the park in conjunction with Watershed’s project.
But as recently as March 2022, an article in the Austin-American Statesman discussed the water quality in Taylor Slough South and Andrew Clamann, an environmental scientist with Watershed, said the quality of Taylor Slough South had improved under a five-year improvement plan implemented by TCEQ. He noted it was among the creeks that “show[ed] clear reductions in concentration,” and said it “should be back in compliance in a few years.” Clamann said TCEQ’s five-year plan included steps like building up plant life along creek beds and a more aggressive approach to inspecting and repairing leaking sewage lines.
This disconnect raises questions: if the water quality at Taylor Slough South was improving and on track for compliance in 2022, why did Watershed begin preliminary engineering studies for the Reed Park project within the same year? When and why did the degradation in Taylor Slough South’s water quality begin? Since Watershed reps say that aging wastewater infrastructure may be a source of pollution in Taylor Slough South that has not been addressed, might this be the main cause of any sudden degradation in the creek’s water quality? Should the leaking sewage pipe be repaired first, to see what impact the fix has on Taylor Slough South’s water quality, before drastic changes are made to Reed Park?
Campbell affirms FORP “is certainly not opposed to well-planned efforts to treat water quality issues, but the cause of degradation should be clearly identified and the plan narrowly targeted to fix the issues that are actually causing the problems.” Campbell says he and other FORP members are very supportive of efforts to improve water quality, reduce erosion, and treat stormwater, “but it can and should be done in ways that are thoughtful, will be sustained in the long term, are good for Reed Park, and will cause as little harm as possible.”
Preserving Precious Park Space
As PARD Board Member Holly Reed said at PARD’s recent board meeting, “We need to preserve every inch of parkland for our citizens… We don’t have it to spare, and we don’t have the funds to acquire new parkland.” Reed Park sits in a dense urban area, and its playfield is a desperately needed field that gives recreational space to citizens for miles around. The City recently passed new land development code amendments that will increase impervious cover, and therefore stormwater run-off issues—the very same issues Watershed says necessitated this project. According to Reed, the project may well set a precedent and is one that must be handled carefully and correctly, lest the City make a habit of solving stormwater runoff issues by taking precious parkland out of public use.
Chapter 26 does limit City agencies from using or taking any public park land unless there is “no feasible and prudent alternative to the use and taking of such land” and every effort has been made to “minimize harm to the land.” There has been no Chapter 26 hearing for this project, even though it will fundamentally change the use of the playfield at Reed Park from a recreational playfield to a stormwater treatment area. Watershed has acknowledged this change would require a Chapter 26 finding and, ultimately, the payment of mitigation costs, but many questions remain unanswered: what evidence is there for a Chapter 26 finding in this case? Even if Chapter 26’s strict standards were met, what would be paid, to whom, and how would it be spent?
What’s Next?
After studying Watershed’s plans for Reed Park, seeing the precedent projects at Battle Bend and Pease, and engaging with Watershed for over a year on its proposed project, FORP has ramped up efforts to galvanize and educate the community about Watershed’s plans at Reed Park and their track record with other projects. FORP’s membership has grown rapidly in the past few months, as KVUE News ran a story in May on the proposed project and its precedent at Battle Bend Park, signs went up around the neighborhood in June, and a petition started by FORP to stop the project recently reached over one thousand signatures.
FORP members attended a PARD Board meeting on May 20, 2024 to ask PARD to recommend that the City Council direct Watershed to seek alternative solutions to its plan, so that its goals could be met without changing the use of a beloved and much-used neighborhood park. The measure was voted down 4-2, on the basis of Watershed representative Janae Spence’s statement that Watershed is pausing design work to consider revisions to its plan and work on its community outreach. The PARD Board, for now, expressed a desire to let that process continue to play out. FORP’s efforts seem to have gotten Watershed’s attention, but it remains to be seen whether the concerns FORP has raised will be addressed in the next version of Watershed’s plan, whenever it comes.
For its part, FORP is working on proposing alternative solutions to the plan, such that Watershed’s goals can be met in a way that does not fundamentally change Reed Park. Are you interested in learning more? Want to sign FORP’s petition? Visit reed-park.org to learn more and join FORP’s mailing list, or follow @FriendsofReedPark on Instagram to stay in the loop.
