For a few weeks, I’ve been observing the construction activities at the former golf course owned by Texas State University (TSU). I was motivated to do so after reading “TXST tree removal upsets residents” in the May 26 issue of this newspaper. The story quotes TSU’s Jayme Blaschke, who refers to a San Marcos River Foundation (SMRF) newsletter piece to explain what’s taking place there. A few things about this story disturb me.
First, quoting SMRF, the article assures readers there will be no “digging up the land,” in this case to install irrigation systems, and that a ban exists to prevent such excavation at historical sites. I take that to mean, as long as TSU is not installing irrigation, a process involving minimal excavation, it’s perfectly fine to “dig up the land.” Except the article goes on to state “they will be using existing grass and not trying to do anything new” and that this hallowed site, on which use of chemicals will be judicious, is “lying fallow.” That all sounds wonderful.
Here’s what’s actually going on: The land there has been totally stripped of topsoil to a depth of one to two feet. Hardly a blade of grass is visible. Hundreds, if not thousands, of cubic yards of the best topsoil in the county have been hauled off by eighteen-wheeler trucks lined up day after day and filled by huge loaders with soil pushed up by the cadre of bulldozers. Two giant excavators appear to be on standby for the next phase of “digging up” this historical site.
Second, touting TSU’s designation as a Tree Campus USA, Mr. Blaschke assures readers that the plan is to remove fewer than ten trees, none of those native species. He emphasizes “only non-native trees are affected.” He is apparently unaware that the pecan tree is native and the State Tree of Texas. On visiting the site and having to remain outside the fence, I couldn’t verify the count on the bulldozed trees, but I saw at least four very large tree carcasses among the piles of debris. They appeared to be pecans (and I recall that large pecans existed on this property). As a former Board Certified Master Arborist and Registered Consulting Arborist, now retired, I’m pretty confident about my guess. A review of the tree survey for this site could verify it.
On Monday following this story, I attempted to contact SMRF for clarification on discrepancies between the article and what I was observing. No one has responded. Neither were my attempts successful to access the SMRF newsletter quoted so heavily in the article.
Readers are warned not to trust social media “firestorms” about this topic, that we should be careful what we are “fed.” I agree. I don’t do social media, but I read the Daily Record. This story abounds with virtuous sounding entities and phrases, even invoking Earth Day, and suggests that citizens should not believe their lying eyes. I am not against construction projects, but I am against obfuscation. TSU can do what it wants with its own property, but if it’s going to advise the public, either directly or through its agents, it should be straightforward and clear about plans and specifications from the beginning. That way, citizens don’t have to feel as if they’ve been “fed” load after load of dirt.
Robert Hager
Retired landscape contractor and arborist
San Marcos resident since 1974
