Travis County Commssioners Court
March 11, 2003
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.
Item 7
Now going to item number 7, discuss and give direction on the proposed drafts of chapter 62, Travis County code, relating to the sighting of solid waste management or disposal facilities. There was a little letter that I sent out and I indicated basically what I think the options are, and my request is that today we give staff some protection dreks on how to proceed, these directions being to delay further. Two, put together an ordinance that includes type one landfills. And third, to put together an ordinance that excludes type one landfills, but would include all other waste facilities. There may be other options that come available during this meeting.
>> and judge, I'm going to join you in terms of one -- one of those options in terms to kind of cut to the chase. And I signaled this last week, that I think that what you laid out as a course of action related to what the staff needs to do and the work and the information that we have to figure out as to what the heck is going on out in northeast that it is premature to talk about spending a lot of staff time and energy on ordinances, that the result of that work can dramatically swing either way as to what we need to be doing. And that's what we need to figure out first before we start talking -- for my vote as far as siting ordinances, which I think are all about the expansion issues or not. I still think it's extraordinarily relevant, and I'm glad we're going to get this report under executive session related to our legal options. That is a totally separate issue related to what's going on out there and what options we may or may not have related to that situation. But for me, we've already got issues in terms of the staff and staff time and energy, and for me it is premature to move ahead on any kind of siting ordinances until we get what you laid out last week related to the technical information we need and to go -- and to go forward from there.
>> I guess, judge, where I'm coming from, I think that we can still look in the avenue of a siting -- a siting ordinance that will not infringe upon enforcement authority that the county does or do not have. I think the ordinances -- we have the authority to set forth solid waste ordinance and I think that we do need to set a direction for staff to review and overview with us a direction whereby I think we can put something in place. And again, the ordinance itself will not infringe on our authority to do just that. We have the authority to set forth and place ordinances that have certain criteria and siting criteria and stuff of that nature. So in my opinion it does not impinge on what we can do as far as ordinances, so I think it would be good for us to set forth a direction because I think we've been dancing around this thing for a long time. And I think we need to give staff in my opinion direction to say whatever option we want to look at a I think john has an overview on these things that we will bring before us the direction we need to go, and i'd like to thank you, judge, for putting this on with the type of directions, where we need to go, what we need to do, how do we get there type stuff here. And i'd like to hear from what john has to say as far as the options that we have available to us and the direction we can go in. So i'd like to hear what john has to say.
>> good morning, john cool, environmental officer. At the last meeting I did provide to the members just a summary of what at least four of y'all have lived there, if not the fifth commissioner, daugherty, you perhaps haven't been through all of this, although I know you've been briefed and are a quick study. Basically it just boils down to three ongss that are possible out there. The first one in my little overview that I provided is what we originally looked at. And that was an ordinance that addresses all types of solid waste facilities and basically treats them the same. The second option, of course, we moved into after the court commissioned the solid waste work group and we went through that process and we received input from that group of representatives of the community that said, you know, there ought to be different ways to treat different types of facilities and perhaps different setbacks for different types of facilities. Some greater than others based upon the nature and the amounts of the waste that are deposited there. Those types of input were received and incorporated into drafts that we looked at, and then it sort of moved into this concept of, well, perhaps some of the existing type one solid waste facilities could be exclude if there were contractual agreements that would keep the operating practices in check. So that was the second option. That would be an ordinance that effectively would include the expansions of the existing facilities with the understanding that there was a mutually agreed upon contract in place. The third option, of course, was what commissioner Davis had us work on last, and we brought forth. I forget the exact date, but I'm pretty sure it was right pf the holidays.
>> it was November 19th.
>> November 19th, thanks. And that was the ordinance concept that would bring forth siting requirements for pretty much all solid waste facilities with the exception of type one landfills. And I will say that there is a certain amount of business going on out there with tceq and some operators that do either land application of treated accept taj and sludge and water plant sludge as well as composting. Land application and composting facilities continue to file applications, and we don't have an ordinance in place to deal with land use restrictions on those sightings, with the exception, of course, of the 100-year floodplain, 500-hundred foot set back that we did put into place. So really there's three options, one with -- one that's all encompassing that does cover solid waste -- type one solid waste facilities and expansions. The second one that we looked at that would exclude those with the understanding that there's an operating agreement, and the third one that would just go to all other types of facilities besides type one landfills. And i've provided at least examples that the court has seen before of those three types.
>> any questions for john? Residents who would like to give comments today, please come forward.
>> judge, today is one of those days where it's going to be important to break at 12 noon. Our new county attorney is being sworn in and I know there's at least one member of this court that would like to be there for that.
>> if you have a seat, we'd be happy to get your comments.
>> my name is jody crankhall and I live in northeast Travis County and I live a farm, so I thank you today for your agriculture proclamation. And we are concerned in our area about the sludge farm and subdivisions. I just have two things that I would like to leave with you. Texas leads the nation in lost farmland. We're losing our farmland very rapidly. And also, farms pay for themselves. They generate enough revenue for our services that we actually make money for people in subdivisions. So we do pay for ourselves. We're inexpensive folks. So before we completely pave over Travis County, I do want you to know that the Texas black land prairie is in danger. Thank you.
>> judge and commissioners, i've talked with y'all before. My name is gary johnson. I represent the black land prairie concerned citizens association in northeast Travis County. As you know, our president, david samuelson, deceased last summer as a result of a tragic accident, but on his behalf I just want to encourage the commissioners court to pass an ordinance that would cover both the landfill situation and the beneficial land use application of this sewer sludge and things like that that so many of these unscrupulous operators are putting on farmland under the guise of being a fertilizer application when in fact it's nothing but a method of dumping sewer, sludge and waste and animal waste, compost, greece trap waste, whatever you can think of on our agricultural land. And I commend y'all for passing the -- recognizing the agricultural week here, and I just would like for you to keep in mind what that means when we're talking about all these other things that are encoaching on our agricultural area in northeast part of the county. Our president that's taken over since mr. Samuelson's death is unable to be here today. He's very active, works full time, plus he's on the boards for aqua water and the Travis County farm bureau and several other things. And I know on his behalf I just ask y'all to take some action on an ordinance that would be meaningful to the agriculture and rural interests of Travis County. And I thank you for your time. Appreciate it.
>> thank you.
>> judge and commissioners, my name is sparky anderson. I'm the state program director of clean water action. I've testified before congress, i've testified in Austin, i've testified at city council, the county commissions. This is my first time to testify before you. I'm here on the issue of dealing with solid waste and sewage sludge issues in Travis County. I want you to be aware that there are at least five concerns that we have in considerations that you have before you. The first is liability and super fund. Second, lack of enforcement not only in Travis County, but by state agencies in Travis County. Third, the issue of public confusion over what's being considered by this body. The fourth is I'm going to address briefly sewage sludge issues. And I wanted to also bring up the issue of agricultural week. On the super fund liability issue, our organization is one of four that has a pending request, a declaration of super fund at the waste management site. That declaration is currently under a review; however, it's been postponed as far as moving forward through the governor's office. Currently that consideration and declaration of super fund site is a political discussion and not a scientific one. I think your staff needs to be aware of the scientific ramifications with regard to this site, including the liability Travis County and its taxpayers will take on when you deal with this very sensitive issue. Second, on lack of enforcement. We've been addressing a problem with tceq and enforcement throughout the state. This site is a model site of the problems that we face in seeing especially forcement not happening in the state of Texas. And in addressing whether or not you give up your ability to participate or you take on additional roles of enforcement through these ordinances, I think you ought to carefully craft any kind of consideration here. Obviously the state is in major withdrawal systems right now. They're taking money out of budgets, including tceq and its enforcement powers. This may add additional responsibilities on to counties, and I think you ought to be very careful about the way you craft an ordinance with regard to enforcement. You should ask of these types of questions under item 46 of your executive session today. Also, i've talked to several citizens about this particular site and there's a tremendous amount of confusion about what's being considered here today. I think you will serve the citizens better if it's clear and up front in advance. I've asked commissioner Davis' office to provide me copies of the ordinances that will be proposed by this commission. I hope i'll be put on a mailing list so that I can continue to monitor what's being considered as your setting an important precedent here in this consideration. On the issue of sewage sludge, I happen to be known at the capitol as the patio guy. Known as the poo guy. I'd like to be able to address your staff about the requirements and the necessity for sewage sludge responsibilities by counties. There is legislation being proposed right now that would extend additional authority to counties, have oversight on sewage sludge applications. There's also consideration of legislation that would restrict types of beneficial bio solids being land applied, going from dallas b, which is the worst, to class ae, exceptional quality, which is more on the lines of like dillo dirt that you hear about in the city of Austin. We think that you need to look at a lot of the ramifications here, but we applaud you for wanting to address the role and responsibilities counties have to deal with this very important and growing issue. Finally, I am a bit concerned that any negotiations in an ordinance my place the county not only in some additional liability by taking on or not taking on your enforcement powers or authority, that you also face within yourself the responsibility of enforcing yourself on, for instance, with your contract with wmi and how you would go about holding your own self accountable at a site that's already in a critical stage of being in noncompliance. Also, I just wanted to make a note that consideration of the horns that you're looking at may actually support the expansion of these fills. I want to go on the record as saying, clean water action is opposed to any expansion of the northeast county landfill sites currently in operation or in the future. There are a whole host of reasons and I don't have time to be able to explain to you, but I would like to come to your office and tell you specifically about impacts to air quality, water quality and quality of life in that part are of our county. By taking on these additional responsibilities or not and actually supporting expansion of the landfills, I think you have an impact on your own resolution today of agricultural week. For there is an agricultural enterprise operating right next to this site and it will impact that owner's ability to stay in business. I think we ought to be careful about how we go about crafting special deals through ordinances, whether they're your own operated sites that we have contracts with or companies asking for special favors. Especially the types of companies that we've been dealing with all across the united states that have worked against the system in every possible way they can. And that have to be dragged to court to be accountable and to have enforcement take place. I don't think the taxpayers or this county has the wherewithal or resources to go through that process time and time again. It sichly can't happen at this site. I appreciate the opportunity to comment. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
>> thank you.
>> mr. Anderson, i'd like to ask you a question. Does clean water have a written policy as to what should be done with solid waste? Do you all have something written that says, here is what you do with solid waste and here is where you ought to do it?
>> no, sir. The reason why is because each solid waste site has its own characteristics. It would be inappropriate for us as well as state agencies to take a one size fits all attitude towards an opinion on a site. What we prefer to do is make written comments specifically about specific sites in consideration of hydro logic feature, quality of life impacts, safety, odor issues and a whole host of other reasons before we would sit down and have a written policy. Our policy is very clear, however, that we think citizens come first. That is a written policy within our mandate of our organization. And we think that any government body ought to be considering citizens first over corporations or even serving the needs of municipal dpomplt, state and county government.
>> would you agree, though, that there is a situation that we have that all of us have garbage. You have garbage. Every one of your members has garbage. It strikes me odd that you wouldn't at least -- I mean, or that the organization wouldn't say, here is where these things need to take place. I mean, it's not a one size fits all. All of us know that we need to do something with the garbage. All of us know that we have a problem in northeast Austin because people are living in these conditions, but I think that before an organization can come and tell you all the reasons why you shouldn't have something, somebody needs to be prepared to say, here's really what you ought to do with that garage.
>> sure. I can start to try to simplify an answer to you, but it's a very complicated one. In our goals, on our signature sheet where we ask members -- which we have about 70,000 members in the state of Texas. When we ask members to look at our goals and to get behind our organization, one of the issues that we ask goals to get behind is whether or not they support recycling and reduction of waste streams. That's very important that we start looking at that. And we have been. We have aggressive programs here in this region and we need to continue to expand those programs. I'm proud to see you have a sticker on your door up there that says you recycle. That's what government should be doing is encouraging that. And we encourage that kind of action to happen. When it comes to being responsible about your waste that you're not able to recycle, the first thing that has to happen is we have to have discussions about the science that's evolved with this. What's being considered here is this particular site in northeast Travis County goes beyond science. It's about politics. And we need to be very careful about decisions made through orption processes and how they impact people. So my simple answer to you is that people ought to come first and be involved in making this decision. We should not be lean outing to an ordinance process with regard to the sites in northeast Travis County with a blind fold on. You cannot be blind to fact that those sites are problematic. You're right, we have to put garbage somewhere. Well, there are other options in Travis County. And there are other options to consider beyond Travis County. All those options need to be fully explored. And they need to be explored on a scientific ground first. That's so key here. And I don't think that that's been done effectively. I think that may have impact here to your ordinances that you're considering and what you decide to do about enforcement or not with certain sites.
>> well, trust me, we are not looking to do an ordinance just because we do not have anything else to do. We are trying to craft something so that we can help the people in northeast Austin and we are trying to put some teeth into something that we know that there is an issue. But I look forward to you coming by my office and setting up some time time and bringing me up to speed on all the things that we need to be looking a I appreciate that.
>> and I would like to meet with the new county attorney to talk about enforcement requirements and responsibilities that counties do that. I think it's critical he be briefed on that as well as be briefed on the current situation about enforcement in Travis County, not by Travis County, but by other agencies. Mostly the lack of. And what impact that's having on all kind of considerations you have, including your own contract, put waste into the wmi site. That site is still being considered a super fund site.
>> you said that you had testified around the state before, the other cities and counties. Is there another county or city where they have got it right related to how they have dealt with a similar kind of situation and basically got a hold of the situation and resolved it to the satisfaction of everybody involved?
>> there probably are of, and I don't have the ability to give you that right now off the top of my head instances. The characteristics of what I would say of a county or city or local government doing it right would be first to consider the citizens' issues first and primary. You have to sit down and negotiate and sit with those citizens and know what impact that's having. We cannot -- we can't do that today without impacting a landowner. The hope is you would find a landfill site that is at least the least offensive to those landowners neighboring that site. The second thing is you have to consider all the scientific characteristics. Like I said, hydrology, wind patterns, soil composition, a whole host of things need to be considered. That science needs to be done with without political review. And there are times when we have seen that happen in the state of Texas.
>> and I guess that's my hope is amongst your 70,000 members, surely there has got to be somebody that has dealt with a state agency that has been less than out there related to the enforcement and the frution traition that we are all feeling in terms of we want to do the right thing, but feeling not empowered to do what is necessary because the state agency that is in power to do it doesn't have the teeth in its laws and we have even less downstream. So I'm just wondering not for today, but if you could just circulate among your members, surely member has had to go through this somewhere in the state of Texas and has a better story to share with us than the one that we've had here in Travis County.
>> and I would say that you are not the only government body that has this dilemma. But I will tell you this, and in one of my conversations long ago with the attorney general's office, the state attorney general's office and the enforcement division, I asked the question, is there ever a possibility for citizens to stop a permit? They said probably not. That the best we can do on enforcement in the central Texas is to see that a permit becomes the most restrictive as possible. And that's it. So we have to look at all the ramifications that are made, even in an ordinance dealing with your enforcement power or not within the county zone. Then when you look at the ramifications, individual sites and the characteristics of those sites. And i'll see what I can find for you, where I can find happy stories, but i'll tell you stealing dealing with this state agency, we have not found that many happy stories.
>> would you please set up an appointment with my office because I would love to sit down and visit with you?
>> can you give your business card to mr. Cool there. Ms. English?
>> good morning. My name is derek english, and I am -- frankly, I'm kind of surprised because I don't know what we're trying to find in landfill in Texas. That would be a happy story. There's no landfill in Texas has 21,000 barrels of industrial waste in it, so you're not going to find a happy story because whatever they've done, they've not had to deal with 21,000 barrels. And if you don't want to look at that as the biggest white elephant or the biggest albatross in your face, then we're not going to have any communication because that is the problem, and you know it. And this stuff is everywhere because it is not contained in normal landfill conditions. You have basically a moat. You know this thing in the middle and it's surrounded by the contamination all around it. And you're acting as if it's so isolated that it's not causing anything. It's surrounded by creek beds on three sides, okay? And under that is areas of landfills that are not meeting full subtitle d conditions. In order, there's no liner, no leachate selection, nothing. So if you're not willing to look at this, then you are not willing to look at the rest of the data that is available to you. Because that is the number one data you need to look at. And when you say are you're going to put your waste, put it somewhere where you don't have 21,000 barrels. That would already be a great big help. Number two, you've got it right here, it drains into a recreational area. Decker lake! Okay? Are you willing to look at that, number two. Number 3 on the other side, you've got a huge creek. Look at the size of the creek that is running through the landfill. We cannot keep putting garbage next to a creek. We are not in the dark ages. We've learned things since then. We know that you cannot put landfills next to water or into the water or whatever it is that we used to think was a good idea. Now we just found out in the last 24 hours that there's a permit for a plat subdivision. In other words, waste management is now forging ahead with their expansion. So we have two landfills now vying for expansion, while we've been sitting here trying to come up with an ordinance that is going to have absolutely no effect on us. And that is really annoying me because -- it's more than annoying me.
>> so the three options that we're looking at, which ones would you recommend?
>> which one do you recommend? I recommend that you help us oppose any expansion of landfills because of the condition that are present at the -- in the northeast quadrant. Fact we can't live there any more.
>> we're not posted to act on that. We're posted to act on a siting ordinance. And the question is we have three options unless you can think of a fourth one. But of the three before us, which one do you recommend?
>> well, if the first option is to pass an ordinance that is going to not affect us at all, I don't see how that's going to help. The second one was the contract with --
>> go over those three options again, please.
>> right. Just the way that I laid it out, we had -- wait that we started with no operating agreement contemplated, then we moved into the concept where we had an operating agreement component and then the third option, which is what commissioner Davis brought before the court on number 19 November 19th simple disassociated itself from msw landfills. That gets you away from the operating agreements, which I know you guys oppose, but it doesn't necessarily deal head on with expansion.
>> what about option one? I think that's what she was basically --
>> well, option one goes back to the days prior to the solid waste work group where we had just a broad treatment of all solid waste facilities and would ask in the body of that ordinance that they come into compliance with the sighting requirements espoused there in before they would be allowed to expand or a new site was allowed to be built. And we -- we went through a whole lot of discussions with the industry on that, and of course, they've got their opinion about their ability to do that legally and so fort, but that is the way we started. That's what I would consider to be option one.
>> option one is a siting ordinance that include all waste facilities.
>> correct.
>> let's go to option two. It would exclude type one waste facilities, which would be landfills.
>> the way I listed it, judge, I apologize, but option two, just going in the way that we have -- this body reviewed them, option two had operating agreements imbedded within it. The third option did not deal with type one msw facilities.
>> at this point I would have to meet with the rest of the group and give you a definite answer. My first idea would be that if you could not address the landfill issue and their expansion and have any impact that would help us in the near, very near, near future. We're talking -- now we're really running head to head. At this point I don't feel that spending more months arguing an ordinance issue would help us in any way. And there are ways that you can deal with the sludge activity through an ordinance, of course, to help future permits, but I don't think the solution is to take this sludge and stick it into a landfill. There's enough stuff going in that landfill that when you have a catastrophe like they've had in the last two years, you basically have no remedy because the stuff is just oozing out everywhere and the smell gets worse. But there are ways to use grease traps and certain ingredients of the sludge that can be converted to bio diesel fuel which would cut down your knox emission by more than half. And that is not even being taken into consideration by the Texas bureaucracy. It's being addressed in cal california cal, but not here. Yet you have 22 counties where there are trucks, diesel trukdz bringing stuff here in a non-attainment city on a daily basis and then you scream that we need to do something about clean air, but your garbage trucks by themselves are the biggest complete flooet coming down here, using i-35, which is so congested. You are not willing to look at all the ramifications of this landfill being placed in this area. And I can give you more. And I have testified at the legislature on bill sb 1374 and 1365, and I will send you a copy of the letter that I'm sending them. And which strictly deals with emissions, and the data that you need to see what you're contributing to the non-attainment by allowing this to go on.
>> judge, I'm going to ask that we defer the action item on this item until after we receive our legal briefing under 46, which I think is right on point with what his english and others have said related to what is the advice that we're going to be getting from the county attorney ago office on our legal enforcement and compliance options to expand respond to the complaints from these folks about environmental laws and regulations. I think that will give at least this member a better context for what we ought to be sending our staff off to do under number seven if I have a clear indication of what we can or cannot do under 46.
>> okay. Tom and john, if we assume that the meetings that we had between, I guess, April and August, were productive, if we had adopted an ordinance direction of where in we exclude type one waste facilities, ie landfills, concentrated on all the other waste facilities, how long would it take for us to have prepared a draft ordinance for consideration.
>> commissioner Davis had asked for a draft last November when he put it on the agenda, but it didn't go forward. Obviously if there's three folks, we can revive that same draft.
>> okay. Then in my position, to move forward after we get the legal briefing, unless we hear something dramatic, it seems to me that we ought to pull our tape one waste facilities, put an ordinance in place dealing with oartz and we ought to try to get that done in three to four weeks. Next week we will get from staff responses to the request for qualifications to try to figure out how much time and money it will take to deal with the odors. If in fact expansion applications have been filed, we really need a specific item on the agenda to enable the court legally to address them. I don't know of any. That is not to say they weren't done. I'm the last to find out anyway. But in order for the court to address that issue specifically, we would have to have a posting with the language that really covers it. So what I'm suggesting is this afternoon that we get legal advice from counsel under that item, but unless something dramatically different is told us, then I think we ought to go ahead and move expeditiously on the non-top one waste facility facilities, which would include everything but the four landfills. All right? We will use the wording to include everything except a full landfill. Waste management, bfi, Travis County, two or three others.
>> then you need to include type one and type four license.
>> I'm just saying that's the way I'm looking at t then that will give us a little bit more time. I'm thinking that the type one waste facilities will take a lot more time than the others. Throughout all our meetings it seemed to be that there were a couple of outstanding issues on the others, but by and large we steam to be -- seem to be real close to --
>> that is the real issue because the landfills love the idea fighting the sludge people because they get all the sludge in their landfill. So they will be against -- they will be for any legislation -- [ inaudible ].
>> it has surprised me where there has been opposition and support. I'm assuming that when we lay it out there through the public hearing, notice of a draft that we're thinking about adopting, there will be people to come down on both sides of it. What it does is to allow us to get -- if there is a simple category to get that behind us and at the same time move towards some resolution of the issues of finding out there is no resolution and then turning to the type one facilities. And if the actions that are taken in the meantime to which we should respond, then we need an appropriate agenda item to do that.
>> judge, based on that, I move we se assess until 1:30.
>> if I had to guess what time we would get to legal counsel this afternoon, the legislation item will take one hour. That gets us to 2:30. The -- there probably will be 45 minutes of other court work. We're looking at 4:00 o'clock in my view.
>> judge, are you -- I think questions that trek had. Options one, two and three. Can you answer them so we can be very clear on what we're doing here?
>> yes, sir.
>> okay?
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM