Travis County Commissioners Court
October 27, 2009,
Item 6
6.
consider and take appropriate action regarding a resolution in opposition to a petition for rule making that would repeal Texas commission on environmental quality regulations in title 30 Texas administrative code, chapter 311, that currently prohibit waste discharges into lake Austin, Lake Travis, and watersheds of both reservoirs
>> would you like to start?
>> okay.
>> you go ahead.
>> good morning, Commissioners, judge Biscoe forks the record I'm tom webber with transportation and natural resources.
this matter is to voice -- proposes to voice our opposition to a petition for rule making that was received by the Texas com mission on environmental quality.
we expect that they will consider this petition on November 18th, although that's a preliminary date.
the resolution would -- would voice our opposition for a few specific reasons.
number one, from the information that was presented with the commission, with the petition, we don't believe that there's been an adequate justification provided to us in terms -- or provided to the public at large, really, that would identify a -- a full reasoning for repeal of these chapters of the tceq rules.
a little background, in 19 -- in the mid 198 on's, under the -- in the mid 1980's, under the leadership of governor mark white, there was an effort to eliminate discharges of treated wastewater effluent to the highland lakes.
this eventually became a rule in 1986 affecting Lake Travis and lake Austin.
there were later amendments to the rule that extended this discharge ban throughout the -- all six highland lakes from lake Austin all the way up to lake buchanan.
in -- in subsequent development in this area, wastewater has been treated and then it is piped for irrigation and so it is -- so it is ordinarily used on land to irrigate a cover crop such as hay fields.
used to irrigate golf courses sometimes also used to water juniper trees in -- in the highland lakes area.
there's been a proper proliferan of this, throughout the area, as well aware in Travis County, but also allowing a way to deal with the wastewater that's generated from these activities.
the petition suggests not any sort of what I would call surgical or -- or focused amendments to these rules.
but the wholesale repeal of all of the rules.
and it's for that reason that I don't believe there's a reasoned justification.
there's -- there's nothing in the petition that indicates that we would prevent a degradation of surface water quality to Lake Travis, to lake Austin and I should mention that -- that to the tributaries of these reservoirs.
the discharge ban that's currently in place extends for 10 stream miles upstream from these reservoirs.
so it would -- it would remove a discharge ban from a lot of well-known streams from the watershed that are currently protected by the discharge ban, including hamilton creek, bee creek, further into more the city of Austin area, bull creek, and then in areas north of -- that flow into Lake Travis from the north such as sandy creek and kyle creek and then of course the upstream areas.
the petition does say that there are better levels of treatment available today than there were in 1986 in -- in that -- and that on its face it would seem practical that you could treat wastewater to a very high quality and have lesser impacts than maybe were known in 1986 with the treatment available then.
but we've -- we've been aware of, for instance, we've -- the -- the lower colorado river authority earlier in this year actually developed some water quality models to actually look at what would be the impact on Lake Travis if -- if there was wastewater that was discharged into the system instead of going to land.
and even under a very stringent set of effluent treatment, the -- they still noted in their model that there was a predicted impact on water quality in Lake Travis at places like hurst cove, at arkansas bend, and near the dam of Lake Travis.
the impact being an indication that there would be an increased growth of algae that could change water quality.
now, I don't think necessarily that the public model is the end of the story.
but what I do believe is that -- is that rather than just moving forward to repeal this rule, that -- that there's a lot better mechanisms to go about trying to investigate or to assess whether there are safe levels of discharge that could happen there and be supported.
but I think that we have all been a little bit blind sided by this repeal and not -- not having the chance of, you know, all scientific experts on this matter getting together, reviewing what lcra has found, reviewing what other models or information there is that could indicate what the impact is or is not of these discharges.
a final point that I think is worth mentioning, when it relates to this petition, is that it's indicated that we would -- that the system could get more water into it if wastewater was discharged into the lake.
just to kind of quote something that the lcra indicated, if all -- if all dischargers who are currently putting their wastewater on land were to discharge, you would get about 8,000-acre feet per year.
while this sounds like an impressive amount, in reality this is about -- well, it's less than 1% of the total 2 million-acre-feet per year storage capacity of lake buchanan and Lake Travis.
and, additionally, there are a lot of I guess more effective strategies to conserve water over the long term that are adopted into the Texas water plan that -- that identify that we would save an incredible amount of water, for instance, upwards over 100,000-acre-feet per year as water conservation measures are implemented over time.
it's worth point being out that this water that's being put on land, for instance, golf courses and hay fields, is water that would have to come from somewhere else anyways, and so if that was put back in the lake, you would wonder where would the water come for some of those irrigation techniques.
so I believe there's just a lot of questions.
and -- and that -- that it's not quite -- this matter isn't quite ripe for a rule making that would repeal all of those chapters of the existing rules.
>> so -- so what reason or reasons do those who advocate for the rule change give to support it?
>> they -- number one was the -- what I mentioned a little bit earlier, that the -- that there could be some fairly sophisticated wastewater treatment put in place right now that could reduce an impact, compared to the more conventional wastewater treatment that's been used over the years.
>> okay.
>> the second argument was that the system needs more water.
we have growing water demands.
and by -- by putting this water into the system, that the public gives Lake Travis more of a firm -- a more firmer yield, for instance.
the third relates to -- to the cost of wastewater treatment with irrigation of land and that cost is different and -- that perhaps -- perhaps higher than putting it just discharging it out of a treatment plant into a creek or into a reservoir.
>> I move approval of the resolution.
>> second.
>> anybody else here on this item?
?
please come forward.
if you are here on this item, please come forward at this time.
joe has taken the chair behind him.
that would leave three more chairs.
and if you are here on this item, please come forth.
yes, sir, name, please.
>> Commissioners, my name is cole rowland, I live in Lakeway, I'm representing the highland lakes group, a non-profit organization.
>> okay.
>> in the audience is mr.
and mrs.
ken fossler, they are representing the protect Lake Travis association and another non-profit.
we're all here to support Commissioner Huber's resolution that the lifting of this discharge ban be dropped.
the ban be preserved in other words.
now, we could talk a long time about this.
we could talk about water quality and the effect on our drinking water.
we could talk about -- about water recreation.
but I think the most important factor to this court is that if the -- if the ban is lifted, and Lake Travis and lake Austin become polluted, the -- the impact on the multi-hundred million dollar piece of the Travis County economy would be very damaging, potentially.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> of backsliding by the tcq in protecting our state waters and includes their move to allow direct discharges to streams that feed the edwards aquifer, something that was part of sort of an informal ban on over the last 20 years but was sort of thrown over the tank when they approved the del tera rain water discharge on bear creek, I don't know if you have been paying attention to the toxic waters series on new york times but there is a lot of attention of the failure of the epa and the state's agencies that epa delegates, that is clean water act programs, too, which includes tcq, really failing to implement the clean water act and so I really hope y'all speak up, stand up and help the other groups who are fighting this ban.
one thought on that front, president obama, on October 5th, signed an executive order on sustainability and specifically included water quality measures and water conservation measures that I think the county may want to adopt on its own, the interum tied that staff mentioned, they are saying lets put the wastewater back in the late because we need the water, we find our cheapest water through conservation, almost everywhere we look we are wasting water and I am sure that includes in county operations, the obama executive order calls for reducing water by 26% by 2020, for all federal government agencies and it only applies to federal government agencies but it is a great rule of thumb for everybody.
our whole community as a whole, and I think if you don't see real leadership from Travis County and Austin we will see these other communities continue to waste water and to dump that wasted water into our lakes.
we certainly see the city of Austin willing to waste over a half a billion dollars of rate payer dollars, for a water plant we don't need, rather than look at water conservation, and that move, I believe threatens directly this county's investment in the bcp, the plant and transmission mains are right in the middle of our bcp preserves, so we really do need leadership from the county, both water quality and water conservation efforts and this is a perfect first step, or perhaps there has been others, without them right away, but this is an important issue, where we really need to look at our water resources comprehensively and we don't protect our lake by arguing that we should dump wasted water back into it.
we need to reuse that water and substitute it for -- in nonpodble uses so we take less water out the front end and that way you protect quality and keep the water in the lake to enjoy for recreational uses and other fish and wildlife purposes.
so thank you for your consideration.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
anybody else on item number 6?
if so, please come forward.
>> I will just comment while mr.
reefer is taking his seat that not only is new york times running an excellent series but there was also an excellent article about lcra's moratorium contracts because of the usability out of the water out of the highland lakes in the Austin american statesman.
>> okay and I also wanted to speak in agreement with my highland lake enthusiasts who are here and that, the commonsense logic would point to water as being our most significant resource and Lake Travis is such a blessing to all of us and allow the quality of water in Lake Travis to be wasted for nonsensical business concerns is counter productive to not only the quality of life for everybody here, but as was spoken to earlier, the economic health of our very area, and this is for long term.
and so for zero real benefit, those -- those standards would be relaxed, as far as the quality of water and I think it's just commonsense for nobody who cares about my fear in the beautiful state of Texas, and the phenomenal county of travis that we can't allow this to happen.
this is something that we should rely on your leaderships and of this body.
so I just wanted to throw in my two cents in appreciation for my highland lake fellow enthusiasts.
thank you so much.
>> thank you.
>> there is a motion by Commissioner Eckhardt, second approved by Commissioner Gomez.
any discussion?
all in favor.
>> gary wants to say a couple of things.
>> I am gary brown, chief of staff to Commissioner Huber.
she could not be in court today and she asked that I share with you her position on the resolution.
her comments are, and I quote, I adamantly support this resolution that opposes the petition to change the rules regarding discharging treated effluent into the highland lakes, lcra prevents the valid signs to support opposing this rule change.
moreover what the projected doubling of the population within the next 20 years and the domino impacts of this population and infrastructure including wastewater management, it is critical that long-range impacts are considered now.
when individual communities petition to make changes that can have potential negative impacts beyond their jurisdictions, we must look at what that means to the region as a whole.
likewise, when population growth stretch it is resources of small communities and their capacity to deal with issues like wastewater, it is time to ask ourselves if we shouldn't begin to look at how to solve these problems as a region rather than locally.
in considering lifting the discharge ban, we are talking about a direct correlation to our health and safety, economic development and quality of life.
we should not make rule changes like this proposed change without looking at the bigger picture.
it is my sincere hope that the court will vote in favor of this resolution, opposing the lifting of the ban to discharge treated effluent into the highland lakes.
thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> all those in favor?
this passes by unanimous vote.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, October 27, 2009 1:40 PM
