Festival Beach Food Forest urges pause and city review after wastewater pipeline decision

Natalie Evans, a volunteer core‑team member with the Festival Beach Food Forest, told the Environmental Commission on Feb. 4 that the volunteer group contracted by the city to steward a 3.5‑acre parkland tract east of I‑35 was not notified about a wastewater pipeline project that will remove a barrier berm volunteers completed as part of Phase 2. “We are losing money, labor, time, plants, and soil at a value of a half million dollars,” Evans said in public comment, urging the commission to press the City Council for an immediate pause, a formal review of the Chapter 26 stakeholder process, and reallocation of easement funds to cover salvage and storage costs.

Ali Tharp, another festival beach volunteer, told commissioners the berm and more than 90 trees and shrubs planted since 2021 were not considered during the pipeline review and alleged that only an engineer paid by TxDOT testified at the Parks Board hearing and that the board was misinformed. Tharp said the group is assessing whether legal remedies under Chapter 26 remain viable but that an immediate administrative pause and redirection of funds would enable volunteers to remove and store plants and recover community investments.

Festival Beach Food Forest volunteers asked the commission to email council members and draft a recommendation reflecting those requests. Parks and Watershed staff acknowledged they were not fully looped in early enough to prevent the loss, and the commission added the item to future agenda considerations for follow‑up and possible recommendations to council. The commission’s record shows the group is asking for three specific actions: pause construction, conduct a formal review of communication failures in the Chapter 26 process, and redirect easement funds to cover salvage and replacement costs.

The Chapter 26 process the speakers referenced is the state statutory procedure that governs the taking of parkland for public utilities and similar uses; the Food Forest volunteers characterized the situation as a “critical failure of the Chapter 26 stakeholder process.” Commission staff and the volunteers agreed on next steps for engagement: volunteers will provide the commission and city staff documentation and the commission signaled interest in placing the item on a future agenda for additional discussion and possible recommendation to City Council.

The commission did not take a formal vote on a staff or city‑initiated action during the Feb. 4 meeting but committed to keeping the item on the docket for further review and community engagement.