Travis County Commssioners Court
August 12, 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 5
Number 5, discuss the request from Texas clean air working group members to provide input on federal house resolution 1891 authored by representative Ron paul and take appropriate action.
>> good morning, celine walker with Travis County t.n.r. As noted in the backup on this item, basically Travis County participates in the group Texas clean air working group, which is a statewide group of officials from throughout the state working on clean air issues. Several members brought to the last tcog meeting that all the members look over h.r. 1891 introduced by congressman Ron paul in washington, d.c. In the house of representatives and provide some comments or take a position on the bill because congressman Ron paul was asking the san antonio region basically to do so and he had asked them to ask tcog to take a position. There was reluctance on several members' part to become involved in this issue, but it became clear this bill is not the only avenue that the discussion about the bill contained -- is being pursued so they went ahead and requested all members to take a position. Basically h.r. 1891 would exempt monitored violations of the clean air act, national am bee ambient air standards, the current 8-hour standards that were the result from, quote, from or caused by an act of nature. Including volcanic eruptions, dust war, war, terrorism or fires that occur beyond itself jurisdiction related to land clearing, agriculture and ecological restoration and management. So that's simply -- that's basically all the bill says is two lines almost. T.n.r. Staff is recommending that the Travis County Commissioners court not support the bill at this time because the language is so broadly written and we believe that the clean air act already has provisions and guidelines that address most of the concerns raised in this bill. There are a few exceptions to that and I can discuss it in further detail if you would like.
>> it doesn't say where these eruptions, dust storms and abilities of god and nature occur, because that's what's interesting is when you have the huge fires and when a volcano blows in mexico, that stuff does wind up here. We've also had instances where dust from the sahara as wound up here because of weirdness with the thermal conditions. So I mean --
>> right.
>> I can see where there's a direct relation of one to another because you can actually see the movement on radar with the fires we had a couple years ago, but some of the other stuff is pretty broad.
>> the bill's language says result from or are caused by an act of nature.
>> anywhere.
>> anywhere. And as you may know, the trees and shrubs outside this building emit v.o.c.s so there's concern this bill affects every act of nature. The congressman I think was trying to address smoke from mexican fires, which is -- which has been a concern here in our state. E.p.a. Actually exempted some high monitored readings two years ago when that occurred, and so the clean air act does already allow e.p.a. To look at those issues and take some steps to make sure they are not included in your monitored violations. So that is real broad. But I believe this language in this bill just reaches far beyond that issue, and you are right, it does not at all --
>> well, is it a matter of saying no, we don't support it or just not taking action?
>> it's up to you. You are being asked to let the tcog know your position on the bill.
>> I move we officially take no action.
>> second.
>> any more suggestion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you very much. Number 6, discuss comment letter for proposed tceq permit number 04484, magna-flow sludge land application on taylor lane near fm 969 and take appropriate action.
>> john, last week, we were here on this last week, we had looked at some language at that time, but there needed to be a little more fine tuning on this particular letter to tceq opposing this permit. -- permit number 04484 by magna-flow. Is there any way possible I guess during this presentation to just maybe hit on some of those things that have been brought up as far as the new position? Not new position, but the updated language that will be sent to tceq on this particular item?
>> yeah, I mean --
>> just briefly, if possible.
>> no problem. John kool, environmental officer. We had -- I would assign 80, 90% version last Tuesday and we really didn't need to go over it at all. We don't really need to today. All we really did was sort of tighten up some of the fact backgrounds that we were still researching at the time. We literally have to go down to the tceq offices and pull files and check with subdivisions here internally and make sure that certain things we're claiming are true, of course. The other thing that i'll bring up is -- well, before I move onto the map, the letter we did refine and get out to you all Friday afternoon, so hopefully you've upd those issues and take some steps to make sure they are not included in your monitored violations. So that is real broad. But I believe this language in this bill just reaches far beyond that issue, and you are right, it does not at all --
>> well, is it a matter of saying no, we don't support it or just not taking action?
>> it's up to you. You are being asked to let the tcog know your position on the bill.
>> I move we officially take no action.
>> second.
>> any more suggestion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you very much.
Last Modified: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 7:52 AM