Travis County Commssioners Court
July 29, 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 36
Another item we need to take up. 36 is to consider and take appropriate action on final document approving a restrictive covenant for maintenance of proposed flood plain modifications at the b.f.i. Site at 10200 giles lane. Yes, sir.
>> based on last week's discussion, I drafted up language and sent it to b.f.i. We circulated that the to the neighbors for comment. B.f.i. Agreed to the language. My understanding from dan smith was that he didn't get any comments back from the neighbors requesting any changes, so b.f.i. Incorporated that new language into the agreement and delivered signed copies to us this morning. So I believe this one is ready for you all to put the final stamp of approval on it.
>> that may have been two weeks ago, tom, instead of last week.
>> I believe it was two weeks.
>> is there [inaudible]?
>> my name is trek english, and I'm still opposed to this channelization project. I think that it's basically wrong to -- I brought you a map. Two maps here actually I want to show you. It's too far away for you to see the detail. I'll go by colors. The green area here is draining into walnut creek. All of the yellow is the drainage that they are modifying. And that will join all of the pink drainage and form what I showed you in the photographs I e-mailed to you. All of this, of course, is what bothers me is that it will drain into decker lake. Decker lake is a recreational area. Here is the b.f.i. Landfill here. This is their own maps right here. And it drains directly into decker lake. I think having -- we have not had e kind of pollution because most of the drainage was taking place towards walnut creek and no sampling has been done. I don't know that sampling is going to be done at decker lake to see if this pollution is entering the lake. I think it's wrong to have a major landfill drain into a recreational lake. I don't think that going up in height and width is going to help the flooding in this area. You cannot restrict a flood plain into a small channel and increase the amo nt of drainage and tell me that this is going to be taken care of. I mean, it's like we always go with proof after the fact, you know. After it happens, then we say, well, we didn't know it was going to happen. I think this needs to be challenged a little bit more. And judge, you know how much I wanted this channel in our neighborhood to work and how much I wanted it to take over and help the flooding. I was all for it. And the engineers were there from different companies, including the city of Austin, to see that it would work, and it's not working. Within two years, it's completely collapsed. And now there's flooding on properties that were not even affected prior to that. The erosion is tremendous. So I thinkthat engineeringly, i've had proof that these channels don't work. And I would like you to reconsider this -- this permit. Mainly because this was filed way before the violations were occurred for drainage problems. Their intention was to increase their landfill was not to address drainage. And if you look at your files and when they originally filed with the corps of engineers it was way before any of the violations were incurred and tceq stepped in and saw all of the carnage after the major rain events. So I think there is, again, a situation here where you are constantly ruling in their favor. They got their 10 feet. They are getting their rechannelization. Another thing that also concerns me is what I was involved with last week which is the changing of the rules at tceq. They are wanting to not just b.f.i., But most of the -- waste management filed a petition for rule making asking the tceq to change the basic rules that govern landfills -- landfill operations to where the language that is talked about being specific about their site operating plans would be diluted and all of the words would be removed that would make them obey a set of rules that would give them this -- this rule making is achieved, and the tceq changes the rule, then they will will not have to meet the basics of the language of the site operating plan. Right now we all agree that the site operating plan was so big it's hard to enforce. This is why you wanted something more concrete. They are going even further. They are changing that language and it's so vague already to where you cannot even issue a violation against them because the language is going to be even more vague that the inspector will not be able to establish that there is a violation has been -- has occurred. So I don't know how you are going to enforce something when they are working to soften the language that controls them at the tceq. Thank you.
>> thank you. Any problem with any language in this document? Two weeks ago we really listened to those that had comments. Staff's conclusion was that everything else aside, if we set to focus on the question are we better off with this drainage change or these drainage changes or with the status quo. We were told we were better off with the changes, right?
>> judge, fred [inaudible], t.n.r., Yes, sir, that's the case. These improvements that are proposed in this conditional letter of map provision are a positive thing for the drainage in the local area. They do not affect wetlands. There's nothing in the way of a negative impact that I could tell you about. I only see positive.
>> okay. And really we are posted today simply to look at the document itself and either approve it or change it, modify it or whatever we think is appropriate.
>> and it's a final draft at this point? Final document approving the restrictive covenants. I -- sounds like it's ready for approval and I move approval.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? All in favor of the motion? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you, fred.
>> thanks very much.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, July 30, 2003 12:31 PM