A final decision on the local historical landmark status of Cape’s Dam and the mill race will have to wait.
The San Marcos City Council voted 6-1 to postpone a decision on granting the dam and mill race local historical landmark status after a lengthy and at times emotional public hearing on the issue. The vote came after council heard from city staff that if council ever decided to restore or remove the dam, the final decision would not lie with the council.
“After the designation of this landmark is made, there is a process of approval for any project that involves a substantial change to the designated landmark,” City Attorney Michael Cosentino said, noting that any change the council wants would need a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC).
‘It’s obvious it’s a historic landmark’
Part of the complexity of the Cape’s Dam landmark status is the conflation of that status with preservation. Hughson clarified for residents at the meeting that the council was not making a decision on whether to preserve or remove the dam.
“This is not a determination to remove it or replace — this is simply on the historic designation,” she said.
Still, many comments during the public hearing included sentiments about the dam’s preservation or destruction. San Marcos resident Kelly Stone spoke in favor of its removal, calling the dam a symbol of man’s demand for control over the river, “even though council has already voted to remove it, even though multiple studies show how dangerous and problematic this manmade river obstruction is to human, aquatic and vegetative life.”
Stone said that attempting to reverse the city council’s decision to remove the dam by granting the dam historical designation was comparable to “licking someone’s doughnut to try to deter them from eating it.”
Longtime San Marcos resident Frank Arredondo spoke in favor of the dam’s preservation, noting that during eras of segregation, Hispanics who were barred from going to Rio Vista could go to Cape’s Camp.
“I’d like for us to preserve it,” he said. “I’d like it to be there for my children, for my grandchildren, for the future youth of San Marcos.”
Charles Soechting, another longtime San Marcos resident, said that what Arredondo said about discrimination in San Marcos was “100 percent true” and urged council to grant the dam and mill race historical status.
“I don’t know why this is such a hard decision on whether to give it the status it deserves,” Soechting said. “Follow your own ordinances. It’s a simple decision.”
San Marcos resident Jordan Buckley presented a deeper view of the history of Cape’s Dam and the mill race.
“(Landowner) William Alexander Thompson did not by himself dig out the ditch,” Buckley said.
Buckley researched Thompson and the dam and found that when Thompson moved to Texas in 1850, he brought eight enslaved families with him and later enslaved more people. Buckley had a copy of a letter from the Texas Historical Commission questioning the wording on the historical marker near the mill race, which omits any mention of the role African-Americans played.
The dam and mill race nomination form for the National Register of Historic Places states that “water power channeled by the dam and ditch was utilized between 1850 and 1942.” It also states that Thompson reconstructed the original dam in 1867.
“If we are going to recognize local history in an honest way, then we must admit the ugly legacy that violent white supremacy has played in San Marcos,” Buckley said. “But white supremacy continues to persist when we irresponsibly re-write history in a way to conveniently overlook that trauma & violence, and choose instead to erase the individuals whose reprehensible bondage was truly the backbone of the early San Marcos economy.”
Council members did not seem to dispute the significance of Cape’s Dam and the mill race.
“It’s obvious it’s a historic landmark,” council member Mark Rockeymoore said. “Jordan blew my mind with all that information he brought to the table.”
Council member Saul Gonzales agreed.
“There’s no doubt that this should be a landmark, in my mind. … There’s a lot of history there and I want to preserve that history as well,” he said. This is a tough one, guys. It’s going to take a lot of searching and research.”
Mayor Jane Hughson agreed that the dam is historically significant.
“I think we have plenty of evidence in front of us to say that it is,” she said.
‘It’s another layer of approvals’
However, council discovered that granting the dam and mill race landmark status would complicate any future efforts to either restore or remove the dam. The city would already have to work with state and federal agencies, to embark on any project involving the dam and mill race, regardless of the structures’ local historical status.
“I would like for it to be made excruciatingly clear what kind of restrictions are being placed on us by our vote tonight,” Rockeymoore said.
Cosentino reiterated that any planned project involving the dam or mill race would have to be approved by the HPC.
“Your plans, whatever they might be … go to a different board you appointed to decide whether it gets approved or not,” Cosentino said, noting that an appeal of a decision by the HPC would go to the Zoning Board of Adjustments, not to council.
“It’s another layer of approvals that would be needed beyond the ones that would apply whether or not you make a designation,” Cosentino said.
Council member Ed Mihalkanin urged council to have a special meeting solely about the dam because, he said, there has not been a substantial discussion in council about the issue in years.
Hughson made a motion to postpone a decision on the historical landmark status of the dam and mill race for six months. Mihalkanin was the sole dissenting vote on the motion. City Manager Bert Lumbreras said he and the city staff will work as quickly as possible to gather information and options for council to consider, likely before the six-month deadline.
