Travis County Commssioners Court
July 22, 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 31
31 is discuss and take appropriate action on magna-flow beneficial land use permit application on taylor lane near fm 969.
>> good morning, judge.
>> good morning, john.
>> I have the [inaudible] and then we'll get started on this item. When I left town, I asked that a graphic be put together in 8 and a half by 11, but the folks just didn't feel like it did the project justice, so a larger format was used.
>> this the helpful. Thank you.
>> the purpose of this item today is just to briefly inform you about this project and actually request your approval to move forward with staff drafting a comment letter that would be filed with the tceq in opposition to this project. On the map that i've handed you, magna-flow is a -- basically a septic pumping company, and they also service wastewater treatment plants and water treatment plants, I believe, in taking the sludge, the stuff that's left after all of the processing and doing away with that. Typically that sludge is either landfilled after it's stabilized for disposed of in this fashion, which is a land application essentially something like putting manure on a pasture. In this case, the sludge is a human byproduct typically, and in theory has been treated through the processes that, you know, treat the wastewater as it comes through. This is what's referred to as class 2 sludge. It's not dillo dirt, okay, it's got a little bit lower quality in terms of treatment for pat pathogens and [inaudible] than class 1. Class 1 of course could be put in bags and sold to the public to put on your yard and that kind of thing. This stuff cannot. The application states that 27.5 dry ton per acre per year could be applied to about 128-acre pasture that's located on taylor lane just off of 969. It's about three-quarters of a mile north of there, of that intersection of 969 and taylor. The biggest problem that we have with it as a staff is that it is directly in opposition to not only the letter but the spirit of our flood plain ordinance that says that no waste of this type shall be applied within 500 feet of the 100-year flood plain. Pretty much from what I can tell, the entirety of this application area, which you will see on the map there in sort of a yellow cross-hatch, is within the 100-year flood plain.
>> john, do you have any way of showing that particular area so the public -- if the camera can zoom in on that, because I think the comment that you just made is very, very significant. It almost consumes the entire flood plain with this type of proposed activity. Could you basically show that on the map, some kind of way to get the camera to zoom in on that?
>> right. I'm holding it up, and there we go. So on the map, this is the area -- the sort of purplish area is indicative of the fema 100 year flood plain, and this triangle represents the northern-most point of the application area, and this yellow cross-hatched area is the entirety of it. Thank you, trek. They, of course, have to have a setback -- there's a tributary of guildon creek so keep in mind there will be a buffer there, but it's not much of a buffer and it certainly -- there's really no way at this location they could comply with their early ordinance. The applicant's position is that since this was -- had been a registration site as early as the mid--'90s that is required to come back and actually get a permit as a result of legislation passed in the session before this last one, that it's, I guess you could say, sort of grandfathered is their position. And my understanding, if still the same frame of mind as that -- tom disagrees with that standing as well. So we're just asking for your authority to go ahead and draft a more detailed comment letter. It would come back here before you and, you know, you would have a shot at it to edit it or what have you. Thank you, trek. The way this this works in terms of time lines is that there's a 30-day period after it is published in a newspaper within which you have to get your comments in to tceq. It was advertised July 16th, so we've got until August 16th to get these in.
>> okay. And that is the time line that has been established. In other words, 30-day notification as far as the advertising concern, those comments must be in before the tceq for the public comment period. Is that correct?
>> right.
>> and that also is applicable to anyone who would like to make comments based on the beginning point of the advertisement, which is July 16th. Anyone else that would like to also go before tceq or either submit in writing their comments before tceq would be under the same guidelines. Is that correct?
>> that's correct.
>> for the public.
>> entities as well.
>> okay. All right.
>> one other little administrative -- or a couple of administrative details about this process is that, you know, this is a permit. It's not a registration anymore. And a permit has a whole higher level of, you know, potential notification and challenge abilities that are out there for the public. Typically tceq will have what's called a public meeting if there's significant comment from the public or if an elected official, state elected official from this area requests the public meeting. I would anticipate that there will be a public meeting on this, and you can just consider that we will -- staff will need to be there as well.
>> okay.
>> the other final thing about the permit versus registration is that it can go to a full evidentiary hearing, so if the applicant continues to move forward and we feel we still have material concerns, then it could be at later date we come to you and discuss actually becoming a party in that hearing process. That's not before us today, but could be in the future.
>> okay.
>> john, when you mentioned that this person was making the claim that it was already a permitted site, was it the same boundaries that we are looking at today or was it a greater portion of the property or a lesser portion of the property?
>> as far as I can tell, it's the same.
>> okay. One and the same.
>> but this has never been in operation on this site or has it?
>> it has. It has. It was just under the registration regulatory framework as opposed to the permit.
>> judge, the only reason they are coming in and applying for a permit is because the legislature passed a bill that basically said these class 2 sites can no longer operate under a registration. They basically put an end point to the registration and say all of those facilities have to come in and apply for a permit.
>> so does that mean they have to start fresh with whatever the rules are, and at least related to these kinds of operations, our original ordinance dates back to '01.
>> pre-dates the application for this permit, but the only reason they are applying for the permit is the legislature forced them to.
>> so do we have an inventory of other similar types that are out there?
>> yes, have I those.
>> we have those identified?
>> yes, ma'am.
>> and so I think that whatever action we take today or direction to give the staff, that they prepare that inventory and be prepared with the same kind of comments so we don't have to waste time in you all coming and then being able to address these issues on a timely basis.
>> right. Frankly, I'm surprised -- I mean, I meant with this milk can't, including the landowners, and just very polite english I tried to tell them there was not a very good likelihood that they would be a good candidate for variance and that kind of thing just based on the location. And also I'm finding out on the compliance history as well, they've been cited for nuisance violations at this location and another on dunlap road. So they proceed on so we need to proceed on. That's the staff's recommendation.
>> anything else from the court? Anybody here from magna-flow? Anybody like to give us comments? If so, come forward. Give us your name, we would be happy to get your comment.
>> I won't make the same error I made earlier. My name is henry trell with the park springs neighborhood association. Again I want to thank you folks for the hard work on those previous ordinances and I recognize now why it is really necessary that you readopt the flood plain ordinance. I believe it's in the best interest of our county to adopt both of those, and we want to publicly thank Commissioner Ron Davis for his help on these issues and other efforts to pro protect our neighborhood from encroachment and endangerment by our city cousins. I also want to -- to application by magna-flow, international, inc. For that permit number 04484. Manville water supply corporation and their neighborhood association has each submitted letters to the tceq vigorously protesting the issuance of the permit and requesting a public hearing and a contested case hearing on the proposed permit. Our area, as you know, is rapidly urbanizing and the proposed land application is dangerously close to manville's water wells. They are just below this site and they just ainquired at great expense a site there they are going to have full wells on and this would endanger our water supply again. Manville currently serves 5,000 customers and that number will increase dramatically in the next several years. A neighbor's well has been contaminated by previous land applications in this area on this -- from this site. It cost one of our neighbors $10,000 because of the contamination from this land application. And I pass this site frequently, and I can assure you that it stunk like the devil and every time they apply it stinks, it creates flies and other hazards. For anyone not familiar with the dangers of class b sludge, which is the way I refer to it, tom, you referred to it as class 2, dr. David l. Lewis, an internationally recognized authority in microbiology and who solved the mystery of how several people were inhebgtd by the h.i.v. Virus in a dentist's office in florida reports that class b sewage sludge contains considerable pathogens known to cause human illnesses. Lewis says it contains 24 bacteria, seven types of viruses, five generic single cell animals and six genera of worms, multi-cell animals. The e.p.a. Code part 503 allows states and local governments to ban land applications of class b biosolid, which we refer to as sewage sludge. We solicit your support and assistance in protecting the citizens of Travis County of these health risks and as david samuelson and I told you several times last year we will no longer tolerate east Austin -- as our neighbors would say, you ain't seen nothing yet. If this permit goes forward, you will read, hear and see a lot more scientific facts. N the land application of sewage sludge. Stand back and watch us. As for our opposition, it will come from those with vested interest in the sewage sludge industry including the permit applicant and the sewage sludge providers, presumably local sewer systems. And by the way, if you really want to stop this stuff, you go to the provider of the sludge because they have to certify that tceq that there's no pathogens in this sludge. And they may try to certify that, they usually do, but believe me, according to well-known authorities, it will contain pathogens. We've cataloged numerous data sources on this issue and we can share those with you. Thank you for your time. I would like at this time to call on those citizens from our area who are here to support us in this matter to stand up so you know they are here.
>> thank you, good job.
>> just a minor provision on the sources. They do have to list the sources of the sludge, and interestingly enough not a single one is from Travis County. San marcos, blanco, a couple of places in blanco, granite shoals, lago vista, kingston, johnson city. There is one, wciv venture.
>> and lago is --
>> a couple of them.
>> yes, sir.
>> good morning. My name is larry beard. I think I know some of you all. I've been before you on other occasions. I have some handouts for you. I'm here to represent landowners, specifically the ones I'm involved with in development of property directly across the street, across from taylor lane known as Austin estates limited partnership. Also known as a platted subdivision that's been approved by this county and city of Austin on phase 1. It contains some 1537 acres. We're attempting a master planned development which will -- at this time we have designed some 4,000 housing, for affordable housing. If you go straight up taylor lane, you will notice that's the new county park. I personally have the 247 acres south of that under contract to close at the end of August. That means there's about 1900 acres that I'm involved with that's on taylor lane. And these are upstream or upwindow-i mean downwind because two-thirds of the year the wind throws from the southeast to northwest and it would be very difficult to continue to negotiate with national builders already active in the area to bring in an entrance for that area which we have about a mile and an eighth of property on taylor lane. First of all, I would like to address the issue of past citings of violation to this property and this participation. Numerous times as required it's supposed to be plowed under, the sludge is to be plowed under immediately upon application, within x period of time, I'm sorry I don't know the particulars, it's rarely ever done that way. It gets rained on, it goes downstream, it's -- you are just having an open sewer to the tune of several hundred acres basically across the street from you. And it's going to be extremely difficult, as you all are well aware, there's a lot of activity and we're very proud much being a part of that activity of the future growth of Travis County and the future tax base that it will create for the county, the opportunity that we're trying to bring about with affordable housing as other developments have come online and you've got a map identifying several of those. It's within reason to understand, I believe, that if we are to continue to try to provide opportunities for future development growth of east Travis County, it's no longer going to be agricultural. It would be developable. I've never said a whole lot about this in the past because basically I just ran cows on this property. But it is my request that you evaluate the comments that my partners and I -- I am the project coordinator of heritage crossing, and possibly future coordinator of the property that will be just north of this on 247 acres adjacent to your county park. I respectfully request that you consider the impact that this will have, the negative impact this will have when we have a long [inaudible] to develop east Travis County and bring about a viable opportunity for so many people in housing. I thank you for your consideration.
>> thank you.
>> yes, sir.
>> good morning, judge and Commissioners court.
>> good morning.
>> this is my first opportunity to come before the court and speak. My name is barry hall. I'm a small businessman. I'm a resident of twin creek subdivision, which is located about a quarter of a mile, 969, from the proposed site. I am an active -- I'm active in my community, a member of the naacp, second vice president, I'm also father, husband and concerned citizens much last Tuesday we received a land- delivered notice telling us they were going to propose a permit at taylor lane and fm 969 for the sludge. It was news to me. I went out and I began to talk to my neighbors, started a petition so we can voice our concerns about this. And what I found was that many of the residents never received the handout. Only very few. So we began a petition. We began to let people know what was being proposed. Now, I built a home out there about six years ago because of the quality of life. I have two small children that I'm raising and it's an area where the children can roam and play all day and they are safe. The quality is nice, it's open and spacious and the area is growing. Our concerns out there now are the large trucks and the highway because the increased traffic has made it a dangerous road. There's accidents out there all the time. Now we find the possibility of a dump sludge is going to be put there too. I echo the comments that came before me, the concerns. They are very obvious. The quality of life is obvious to us too. Eastern Travis County, like the rest of Travis County, deserves the right to be able to, as the framers of the u.s. Constitution said, there are certain inalienable rights, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. We too in eastern Travis County deserve the pursuit of happiness. Taken smell that way come from a proposed sewage dump site definitely threatens pursuit of happiness. And we're asking the Commissioners court today to at least stand with us and practice representative government and represent that part of precinct 1, eastern Travis County, to the tceq and let them know that we do not want that dump sludge there. And I thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you for your comments. Thank you very much.
>> yes.
>> good morning. [inaudible] I'm also a resident of the spring creek subdivision and the mother of a 12-year-old child. Taeu the road into town, 969, every day to town and back. That road is not designed for the traffic that's on it now. It certainly isn't designed for other industries, and we have alcoa looming over our heads coming in that way as well. When I go home or to town each day, I pass the walnut creek water treatment plant. If I go down 973 towards del valle, there's some sort of a treatment plant there as well. If I come home on 183, down 1st street or 7th street, there's something on that side of town. I don't have any idea what they are doing over there. If we aren't careful, we're going to be totally surrounded by water treatment and disgusting smells. I have a 7-acre piece of property with a two-story beautiful home out. We've got horses, and part of my property is in the flood plain, as are some of the other residents. You cannot tell me that there is not a tremendous health hazards coming my way for my horses and my child. The first time that the sewer treatment plant is caught in a flood and it washes our direction. We don't want this. We can't afford this. If that's not convincing enough for you, then think about the impact on our property values from that part of the county once this plant is built. Ly not be able to give my home away, and mine is not the nicest home in the neighborhood. We don't want this and we are prepared to fight this company. Thank you very much.
>> thank you for your comments.
>> thank you.
>> thank you very much.
>> anybody else to give comments today? If so, please come forward. What's the request now from staff?
>> to authorize us to draft a detailed comment letter for submission to the tceq.
>> judge, I would like to make a motion to that effect that staff do direct and construct -- well, we direct staff to write a letter to tceq opposing the magna-flow beneficiary's land use permit 04484, and that this letter be returned to the Commissioners court prior to 8-16, 03. When we'll have a timely -- will be within the time lines as far as the 30-daytime frame. I would like to see if we can get that detailed letter constructed to tceq.
>> and I second that. In addition, just a friendly, that they go ahead and pull up that inventory of other similar sites and be prepared to have a like letter to submit to tceq so that we don't waste any time addressing those issues. And then also to instruct staff to attend the public hearings as they come up.
>> right. I accept that friendly, Commissioner.
>> you john, question. Are we going to be detailing within that letter in terms of how this is contrary to the flood plain ordinance we passed in 2001, but it would also be contrary to the reconstitution of that ordinance in today's siting ordinance which also deals with sludge operations which brings in other receptor differences that I would like to see us enumerate in there related to the subdivisions and individual residences because it kicks out on 14,000 different legals and all of them are bad. Thank you.
>> yes, ma'am.
>> john, when do you think the letter will be ready?
>> the 4th, August 4th is a Tuesday, is it not?
>> the 5th is Tuesday.
>> the 5th, yeah.
>> we can have a draft then and that gives us a week to polish it and get it out the 12th, if there are changes or it needs to be brought back.
>> what are the deadlines of tceq?
>> I haven't actually counted those days, but I'm assuming the 16th or right around that time.
>> has the notice been published?
>> yes, the 16th of July.
>> any more discussion on the motion?
>> yes, sir.
>> john, no one is here from the magna-flow or mary -- is it weise.
>> uh-huh. Microphone on]
>> I don't think they are hear, Commissioner.
>> and they obviously were told that I mean, hey, we're having this discussion this meeting.
>> actually I did not actual them up to tell them this was on the agenda. I have to be honest about that. I did not. However, we spoke -- I have met with both the applicant and the landowner.
>> and they did send us -- I think tceq pointed out to them the existence of the newspaper flood plain ordinance. So the attorney for magna-flow sent a letter to tceq basically saying that doesn't apply so you guys need to ignore it. We were copied on that. And because we had the siting ordinance pending, I did write the attorney a letter saying you need to be aware that Travis County is considering adopting a siting ordinance, so they were aware of the other item on the agenda today, adoption of the siting ordinance. They are aware of what's going on. At the Travis County Commissioners court.
>> and i've been speaking with tceq staff that are in charge of theechnical review of this application and told them it was pretty likely there would be opposition from us. And that type of thing typically gets back to the applicant just about as soon as you hang up the phone.
>> sure.
>> how long has this sludge business been there? How many years?
>> it's -- you know, I was looking back on it. It's just about 10 years. They were doing land applications out there in the early and mid-90s. I don't know exactly what their schedule is and how much they put out there, but when I met with the landowners, they were very positive, of course, about the operation and how much it had helped their yields of hay and what have you and that kind of thing. And, you know, it sort of put me in a tough position because I was just having to tell them that our concerns were primarily, you know, water quality, particularly as it pertained to the ordinance we had already adopted. And then of course aesthetics for residents nearby. And so it's a tough issue. I mean from a agricultural perspective they see perhaps only the benefits, and from the neighbors' perspective, obviously there's a whole different side.
>> how long has the manville water supply -- is it the wells out there?
>> they've had wells down below there for a number of years. I don't recall how many. Five, six years, something like that. But in addition, of course, they've just acquired pipe down below the corner of taylor lane and 969. They say [inaudible] I don't know the dollars they invested. But all of us, including the developers and the communities out there are drink that water. You are welcome to come drink it with us.
>> well, that's not -- I mean I don't mean that to be leading. Here's the problem that we have, you all. Nobody up here wants you all to deal with this, but we are a governmental body and what we find ourselves sometimes in the middle of is somebody complying with something that all of a sudden we're bear hunting with a switch. And that is -- and that really makes it difficult for us. I mean, there's not a person up here that would want to live in those conditions, nor do we all wanted you to live in these conditions. But I have learned in the nine months i've been here, unless you get enough information and you start asking the questions about who was there, how long were they there, did the development go in, did somebody else -- has manville done another water well knowing that this thing is there and that they might not be able to do anything about it, and you would ask the water supply company why in the world would you do something like that. I mean, I want to have some of these -- I don't want to just get bush whacked up there and all of a sudden somebody come up here and we didn't ask the right questions. You all are aware of what we're talking about because we find emotionally we can be with you. It's like oh, this is going to take us about 10 seconds to listen to you all and go absolute, we don't want that. But I want to make sure we get enough information, because I will assure you this group will come -- I mean the industry, as you mentioned earlier, the industry will show up, and industry doesn't show up not pretty prepared. I mean, you know, they got resources behind them, and we need to have some of that information.
>> you are right, sir, and I want to thank you again for your attitude up here because you all seem to understand our predicament. Now, this type of situation has been fought in other areas. In particular in wilson as atascosa counties, which is my home area t provider in that case was the city of san antonio's water and sewer department. And they -- the local people defeated this issue down there by going to the provider with overwhelming numbers of residents until they backed them completely off of that land application down there. As a matter of fact, they have promised the people down there that they would not do this in the acog 11-county area, that's the alamo council of governments 11-county area. What I find interesting is I was unaware because I hadn't had time to check to see who the providers were, that it's coming from our friends in san marcos and other outside areas to our county. Now, what we all need to do is to go to those providers and tell them that we won't stand for it and that we are going to embarrass them publicly, I'm talking about the neighborhoods now, if they persist in this matter. Because they are bringing their sludge up to us. Why? They don't want it in their area.
>> well, and I would -- I'm sorry. I would also recommend, henry, that the other area where we really need for your -- for you to take your voice is tceq. I mean what we have found here is that we go -- and you know that tceq gets approached a lot from industry, and again, when industry goes down there, they go down there with lots of things jingling. I mean and that is one of the areas that we have found that we have got to make sure that we get the neighbors' support and the help from those kind of efforts. But I think, you know, that you will find that we will be ready to fight the fight. I just want to make sure i've got all the information at hand before I take that up.
>> well, we appreciate that. You are also right that we have to have the help of the neighborhood, the developers, everybody. But we have lots of numbers. If we can motivate our people, we can overwhelm them, and that's what we must do. Now, unfortunately it's my understanding that the review by the tceq is almost perfunctory if they get a certification from the provider of the sludge that that sludge doesn't contain any pathogens. Now, how they get somebody to honestly make that certification, I don't know. But they hire people to do that. And they pay them to do that. But we have a lot of documentation, it's available to everybody. I cited some of it. I got a lot of mine off the internet. I got some of it from south Texas, from those folks who fought this battle. But it's available. There are pathogens in there. There are case studies where it has caused cancer, tumors in cattle, humans, all kinds of things. Particularly respiratory diseases. But we need to approach tceq, but I'm not sure you can win the battle. Think you really need to take on the providers.
>> this is where this all got started.
>> a point you made, especially the point -- let's go back. And I'm going to be very brief. But let's go back when former Commissioner Davis, samuelson and you and a whole bunch of folks started looking at sludge operations not only there but in all different segments of Travis County. Mostly in Travis County. But the sludge operations in full force. What we did today -- let me put tonight perspective. Before the only leverage we had was basically to deal with the flood plain ordinance that gave us some type of protection, and we passed that October 2nd of 2001. However, with the advent of ts particular solid waste siting ordinance that we passed this morning, there are certain criteria as far as setbacks or siting of any of these facilities that must be adhered to. From neighborhoods, from schools, from public water wells, health facilities, just on down the line there are setbacks that now have to be complied to, according to the ordinance. Which also brings into [inaudible] any of these types of operations in the future. So we're talking about some neighborhoods as far as the setbacks, the tkrpbs criteria. So there is added protection aside from the flood plain ordinance which we had before, the only leverage we had before, until this particular phase of the ordinance was adopted this morning. So there is still some satisfaction in knowing that we still have some control as far as setbacks to help further protect the community from the onslaught of the things that you just stated earlier.
>> yes, sir.
>> Commissioner, this is exactly where we started two years ago, and it has been two years, and it had to do with the sludge operations. And the one place we felt extraordinarily secure in that it wasn't a switch, that it really had some leverage had to do with placement of these kinds of facilities within a flood plain. Because it doesn't mean it might flood, it is going to be inundated with water, and with the nature of these operations, the least likely thing to be engineered and going through a registration process, not even a permitting process over at tceq, that is true leverage related to the flood plain. Now, I would ask mr. Nuckols, surely somewhere in the state of Texas there has been this question asked now that there has been a change in state law, somebody someplace who had a registration is getting a permit, and whether the current rules of that county were respected or they were grandfathered. And where I'm going from is where I love to play lawyer, and I'm not, is that related to 1704 exemptions through the state legislature of rules that were in place, health and safety code has traditionally not been part of 1704 because even the legislature recognized that things related to health and safety code, conditions change. And you ought not be grandfathered for something back in the '50s in current days. Health and safety code has never been a 1704. So has anyone in the state already asked this question of the attorney general in terms of which rules apply.
>> I'm fairly confident nobody has asked for a a.g. Opinion on it, but it was legislative mandate all these facilities stop operating under the registration and get permits. And there was a deadline for that, and I think deadline is sometime in August. So I'm sure it's an issue that is being raised and being -- a question that's being asked in other places, but I don't think anybody either county or tceq or the a.g. Or anybody else has made any sort of official ruling on it yet she but it's definitely an issue and we'll look at it very closely and address it in our letter to tceq.
>> it would seem intuitively that the state legislature in switching from a registration process no one was happy with and there really wasn't very much of any kind of but a perfunctory review to going to a permit and then having to come to the individual county, that would seem to imply that there was more scrutiny that was going to be allowed and that you wouldn't be having one gigantic list of grandfathering occurring around the state of Texas. That doesn't seem to make sense.
>> uh-huh.
>> so I don't know if it's helpful to ask that question of tceq of has somebody already raised this question. I know an attorney general's opinion is just an opinion, but it is a helpful opinion.
>> yeah.
>> any more discussion of the motion?
>> may I make one last comment? I would suggest that your attorney look and see under rule 503 if it's possible for the county to adopt some type of bantorpbs banning this type of application.
>> any more discussion? That passes by unanimous vote. I move we notify magna-flow representatives of the action we have taken today and also that we will call this matter up in two weeks from today to review the specific language.
>> second.
>> any more discussion of that motion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> judge -- [applause]
>> and in addition to that, I think we should not overlook the note in the memo that this could call for additional staff for t.n.r. In order to maintain this inventory for these kinds of facilities.
>> we have been asked by the county attorney's office to call item 34 back up. I move re authorize appropriate county staff to notify tceq of the action taken on the solid waste facility siting ordinance today.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? Would that get it done, tom?
>> yes.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 1:52 PM