Travis County Commssioners Court
September 16, 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 28
We indicated earlier we would call up item 28 at about 11:00.
>> you are doing a great job.
>> 28, consider and take appropriate action on capt.e.x., Inc.'s sludge application including whether to file another motion to overturn with Texas commission on environmental quality.
>> judge, a little bit ago we heard from, you know, the way [indiscernible]captex representative to tceq. I guess a paper trail of events that have taken plays with the captex, inc., [indiscernible]. That has been highlighted. There's been a lot of backup here that has been supplied to us by staff. And so I don't know how you want to proceed with this, but it would be good, I guess, if you could look at some of the staff recommendations. But the committee and also a representative from captex did come and testify before the Commissioners court on this particular issue. But again, Travis County has a paper trail of a history of looking into this issue and addressing it to tceq on several occasions. So there's been a lot of involvement with this particular sludge problem operation. In far northeast Travis County. So, john, who is with t.n.r. Staff along with our county attorney has come up with a particular draft or a particular letter here, and we all have that in the backup along with the history of things that have taken place in regards to this particular sludge farm operation. Here in Travis County. So, john, if you will, could you give us a quick overview of this particular letter, you and tom, that we have here now for the court?
>> yes, Commissioner. John kool, environmental officer. Commissioners, I guess this is one of the founding bricks in the long and winding road of solid waste that we've been going down the last three years. If you'll recall as far back as the summer of 2000, this project was one of the ones that brought the community out and alerted us to some of the deficiencies perhaps that we had in terms of solid waste issues. We've gone through a registration approval, a motion to overturn. Had that document remanded back to at that time tnrcc staff, now tceq staff, and apparently we're back at that stage again where staff has worked out whatever technical [indiscernible] that captex brought to the table to the actual registration application and operating plan. And has felt comfortable enough to bring it forward for approval again. So that's why we're at this stage where we have the opportunity to file a motion to overturn. The deadline is tomorrow so we've got to act today. We have a draft letter that i'll take very little credit for and i'll let tom do the overview on. I did a first cut and he grammatically improved it and so we're here to bring that to you today, and we just plan to have that as basically a cover letter that introduces some new information that also reiterates all four of our previous filings with the agency. And i'll just kind of turn it over to tom to go over that unless you all have questions at this point.
>> okay.
>> where we are is the executive director of tceq has decided to issue captex their registration to operate their sludge site. The tceq rules allow people that are opposed to the executive director's action to appeal to the full three-person commission to get them to consider this and hopefully reverse the executive director. That's the purpose of the letter. And we really set out four grounds for the full commission to overrule the executive director. And i've handed you a new draft. I circulated a draft yesterday. That was based mainly on looking at the most recent documents we had received from tceq. I took the file home last night, looked at some of the older stuff we had received from tceq and found an additional grounds for appeal. So that's the reason for the change. And let me walk through the four grounds. First i'll go through the three that haven't changed since yesterday. The first one is a rather technical procedural issue. The executive director is supposed to respond in writing to all public comments. This has been a long process. A lot of comments have been filed. The executive director has responded to comments before. But we filed public comments, Travis County filed public comments on June 4th, 2002, and since that date the executive director has not responded to those comments. So our feeling is every comment the public makes, the executive director is supposed to respond in writing to. The executive director has never responded to the June '02 comments, therefore the commission should at least overrule the executive director, send it back to her and make her respond to those comments. Second ground is related, because the executive director has not responded to some comments, there are disputed fact issues. And at least until the executive director takes a position on some of those factual allegations, those are in disdispute and there's a provision in the tceq rules that say you can't allow an executive director decision to go into effect while there are disputed factual issues. So our argument is the commission has to put this on their agenda and say how they want those disputed fact issues dealt with. They may choose to decide them themselves. They may send it back to the executive director. Either way, automatically this is grounds for overturning the executive director's decision. Those are two rather procedural grounds. The other two you get into a little more substance. Number 4 is a land use issue. As you know, you adopted a siting ordinance containing lots of criteria for siting this type of facility. We've looked at this site and that ordinance and there are parts of that ordinance this site doesn't comply with. Now, as you know, they filed this application and captex -- tceq declared captex's application complete long before the ordinance was ever adopted. And there's a lot of law that says an application is filed and complete before the ordinance goes into effect, then they are grandfathered. And we're conceding that point. However, when you look at tceq statutes and rules, it's clear that the commission does have a degree of discretion regarding land use, and the argument we're making is we know the site isn't legally obligated to meet the requirements of our ordinance, but tceq, have you a lot of discretion on land use, and what you ought to do, your policy on land use ought to be look to the local governments on land use issues. Land use is traditionally a local government issue and generally, you know, the state is supposed to defer to the entities that are closer to where the action is on land use. In this case that's you all. So what you are really doing is saying tceq, you've got the discretion if you choose to to deny this application based on land use, look to our ordinance when you make that decision and deny this application. And then the last ground is compliance history. And what I gave you yesterday pointed out that, again, because we haven't received updated findings or responses from the executive director, we don't know what they've done on compliance history. Clearly things have happened regarding captex and compliance since tceq last took any action on this site. And they don't say how they took those into account or even whether they took those into account. Captex and the owner were basically had some charges filed against them by the Travis County attorney's office, and again, tceq has not said how those relate to their consideration on this application. Also related to compliance history is tceq adopted its chapter 60, very detailed rules on how they take compliance history into account. And they have not said whether they evaluated this application under this new rules or whether this application is grandfathered. Either way, I think they are obligated to let us know one way or the other so we can make a decision on whether we agree with what they did and whether it's legally propose. Again, those are sort of proper grounds. Tceq hasn't explained what they did and they owe us that explanation. When I reviewed the file last night, what I found was in a previous statement from the executive director, they did conclude under chapter 312, the substantive chapter on sludge sites, they felt the commission did have the discretion based on that chapter alone to deny an application based on compliance history issues. That was back in November 2001. Again, since that came out, and i'll back up. The executive director at that time said based on the compliance history to date, meaning November 2001, we don't see anything serious enough to deny the application. There has been more recent activity regarding captex and its owner and charges filed and monetary sanctions paid and so on, so what i've added is a request to tceq that they take that into account and decide whether now there have been enough violations of rules for them to deny this application based on that ground alone. And I hope that's clear. I'll be will glad to answer any questions.
>> can we spell Commissioner Daugherty's name with an "a"?
>> I don't think we even have to take a vote on that one.
>> how do we determine what order we would make our points? By the --
>> it's sort of the technical procedural ones I put first because they were quick and brief. And those were easier to write so those ended up being written first. No particular order.
>> should they be in order of magnitude? I think it's where the judge is headed in terms of the ones we just think are bigger packages. Seems to make sense.
>> in my experience, [indiscernible].
>> renumber them.
>> obviously the two more substantive ones you want moved up, compliance history and land use. Do you have a preference which one is first?
>> I think I would put land use first.
>> okay.
>> anything from court?
>> no, I think it's a good letter, and I would second a motion that we send this.
>> second.
>> move approval.
>> we have a motion and second. We do have residents and representatives from captex.
>> [inaudible].
>> okay. In what order would you like to speak?
>> well, can I also say that -- I'm pretty fed up with the way that a lot of these things operate, and especially east of i-35. I'm really, really getting a strong feeling that east of i-35 is the backyard of this community. And I'm pretty tired of this. And if we're going to look at relocating even the landfills in precinct 1, I don't want them going south of the river to precinct 4. And I want to be real clear about that. And all of these operations, I really don't want them east of i-35 where it's treated as the backyard, where we keep all the junk and all the trash that no one wants any visitors to see. And so I really feel like I'm ready to take action on this. Let's not waste any time and let's get going.
>> yeah, Commissioner, I share with you --
>> i've heard everything from everybody.
>> do residents have representatives? Commissioner, I'm not looking over you, I'm coming back to you.
>> I understand.
>> do residents have -- okay. Sir.
>> judge, Commissioners.
>> could you state your name? [multiple voices]
>> I was trying to get a -- [inaudible].
>> [indiscernible] with Commissioner Gomez. For the first time in the history of Travis County, this Commissioners court felt to it pass a solid waste facility site ordinance that would help us determine location as far as setbacks where the facilities can locate. It's a health issue. And for years we have not had an ordinance to help govern land use of such facilities. Of course, we have that in place now. And it has been a constant battle since i've been here to try to direct and bring about a quality of life to the folks in the precincts that I represent and this is where we are today. And I am pretty much overwhelmed with the continued struggle that we have to continue to make own a case-by-case basis even at this point. And you come before us and the neighborhood and the neighbors and the folks that have to deal with this kind of stuff are at arms. And I don't blame them. Not one bit. So what we're doing here is not only looking at an ordinance that we already have in place that this court adopted to protect the community, but we also are looking at ways of whereby we can continue to get the attention of the state persons with tceq that know we're not pleased with some of the things that are happening here now, and that we need to move forward with so motion to overturn such a registration application. And it's nothing personal. Believe me, it's not. There's a need, and i'll ask you some specific questions later on.
>> i'll be happy to answer them.
>> so that's my comments right now, but I will have some questions later of the applicant. Thank you. I'm not upset either, so don't think that.
>> I am.
>> I'm not mad to the point, but I'm just disappointed and frustrated and discouraged by the continued activity that's going on over there where we're the dumping capital of the world as far as when it comes to this kind of stuff. And that's not right and not fair to the people of that area.
>> yes, sir.
>> my name is gary johnson. I've been before the court a number of times, judge and Commissioners. I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to talk again. As i've said before, I represent myself as an adjacent property owner to the proposed site. I also represent the blackland prairie concerned citizens organization which is neighborhood organization in the northeast part of the Travis County to #- 73 to the bastrop county line and to the Williamson, Travis County line. And I would like for some of my neighbors and friends to stand if they would, please, that are here in support of me and this request that you send a letter to tceq it is now to overturn this motion. I think if the facts are really given, captex is not a good neighbor. He has not been a good neighbor in briggs, at the site fair that's been operated a number of years, all you have to do is talk to the residents of briggs. Briggs. And go look at the site. It's not a farming, ranching maintained situation. It is a dump site of sludge. This is exactly what we are feared is going to happen in our neighborhood at [indiscernible]. Also the compliance history which we did not have when I was before you before several years ago about the illegal dumping in bastrop county. The claim is that they didn't have any knowledge that the permit had expired. I find that hard to believe. Tceq has indicated that there wouldn't be runoff from the property. All you have to do is watch a rain out there. My son and daughter-in-law have videotapes of the water running off of that property in very large volumes. There are three distinct drainage areas that come through that property or adjacent to that property. Every one of them dumps water in the creeks in my property either directly or indirectly. And that is a major concern because class b sludge is not a safe process. There is many lists of information from around the country where people have actually died from being exposed to class b sludge in one of these beneficial use operations. Quote unquote. I just -- I just feel like that it will be a real blight to our neighborhood. This has been a good farming community with cotton, grain sorghum, corn being grown for over 100 years in that area by the pioneers that settled that area. And I ask Commissioner juby or his attorneys, would they accept this as their next-door neighbor? I seriously doubt it. And that -- that is what we are faced with. There's window blown organisms that come from this if the sludge is dry. There's waterborne if there's runoff. Yes, they have buffer zones, but anybody that's ever been in any rainfall at all will know that -- at all will know that if the ground gets saturated rather rapidly and you start to get rapid runoff, it doesn't make any difference where on that site you have dumped this sludge, it will find its way to the creeks and run downstream. I think odors are a problem. Odors have been a problem in the briggs site i've been told, and tceq has a problem addressing odors. That is definitely a very significant problem to the neighbors in the neighborhood. Everything that we get from tceq says it won't be a problem if it's done correctly. This organization does not have a record of doing things properly. That -- that is my major concern. And I think when you look at the files and see that the notice of violations that have been issued, some resolved, some not resolved, apparently they say they follow the rules, but the truth is it doesn't appear that way. Mr. Joe payne had pictures of them dumping right out the back of a truck up there in briggs. He was there and witnessed one of it. And that's supposedly spreading it evenly and taking care of it and following the rules? Well, not according to my definition of following the rules. Again, in summary, I just appreciate your time and your listening to me with my concerns, and ask that you continue with the motion to overturn as you have previously discussed. And I also want to thank mr. Nichols and mr. Kuhl for their assistance in this and each of you, judge, and the four Commissioners for your concern in the past, and especially mr. Davis for your concern in this matter in our rural area out there. And we know development is coming to the area. We just don't want this kind of development. And we don't think this is development. This is just -- this is just making a dump site out of a nice rural farm. And the idea behind beneficial land use is supposed to be to fertilize crops. About all i've seen growing on this property since this ownership changed is sun flowers and weeds. I thank you for your time and appreciate your concern and your interest.
>> thank you for your comments, mr. Johnson.
>> yes, sir, if you would give us your name, we would be happy to get your comments.
>> my name is john riley, I'm an attorney here in Austin and I represent captex, incorporated. I did not anticipate this meeting this morning. I have not prepared any remarks. I'm happy to address any questions the Commissioners might have. However, I would like to point out that there doesn't seem much point. It doesn't seem as though captex for consideration for this site as being made specifically -- what I'm hearing from the court is there's a bigger issue here, and even though Commissioner Davis you said this isn't personal, this is playing out in the context of a small closely held business, and this application is personal. It's certainly personal to the jubys and the company captex. And in fact, I would point out that your ordinance acknowledges this and says specifically that your ordinance does not apply to existing applications. To use a back door, so to speak, that the commission -- the tceq can consider land use issues when your own ordinance says we're not going to try to rewrite the rules for folks that are in the business or already in the application process to urge them to consider your ordinance and the standards in your ordinance is simply a back door to imposing your ordinance on the commission, on the tceq. I understand. We all have concerns about waste. It is not infrequent in my line of work to hear basically the comments made just a minute ago, not in my backyard. But this is not waste that captex generates. This is waste that we all generate. These are products and part of our society, and the disposal of them, until we come up with a better solution, is in beneficial use, which this clearly is, and landfilling, or otherwise disposing of waste. I understand that you have acted to impose certain restrictions or set certain criteria for new sites, but this is a site that's been in plan for some time. The fact there are no crops growing out there right no just evidences the fact no application of sludge has occurred out there right now either. The site has not been operated, it's simply in existence. A new site. Again, I don't intend to try to rebutt what I understand the points to be in your letter. I am happy to try to do that if it's helpful to you all, but I will tell you that as for the siting ordinance, your own ordinance says it doesn't apply to existing applications, and I think if your ordinance hadn't said that or acknowledged there were people out there in business with sites that wouldn't meet your criteria, and you've acknowledged that and allowed them to continue, I think the law would, as mr. Nuckols said, would say that you can't change the rules mid-game for people who have applications pending. And I understand that you've acknowledged that in your ordinance. There's been much talk and much, I guess, fear raised about captex's compliance history. So let's talk about that. Let's talk about captex's compliance history. They have an agreed order which is not uncommon in the tceq enforcement process, and that order dates back, I believe, to the '97 time frame. That had to do with weather weather application in the briggs site. I did not represent captex in that matter, but i'll point out sometime in the past since there's been trouble at the briggs site, there's been some additional notices of violations. Those are considered minor enforcement actions and those are just what they sound like, notices of violation and there's an opportunity to address those. The other issue that continues to be brought before decision makers like yourselves and tceq is this criminal case. Which by the way was disposed of last January. I did not handle that. I was not the attorney for captex in that matter. That was an attorney by the name of scott young. And as I said, I represent the company captex, incorporated, jubys individually. I was aware of the situation that was reached like in many cases by agreement with the county attorney's office and the disposition was a 30-day deferred adjudication, no conviction, and $100,000 fine. Actually I think it was a little more than that, I think there was reimbursement paid to law enforcement investigation. I would point out, I don't mean to be overly legalistic, but your county attorney's office determined it appropriate not to call for conviction. The deferred adjudication was pertain to go kerry juby. And i'll come back to tceq handling of compliance issues. But there was no conviction against this company and there is no conviction against the individual. The fine amount is substantial, and that was paid essentially as a calculation of the money that would have been paid to captex for the loads that were delivered to a third party site, although organic resources was the name of the owner of the site. Captex did not have a relationship other than business customer relationship with organic resources. They are the folks that let their registration expire. In fact, there is some dispute on that. There was speculation that maybe captex knew bit and continued to bring loads to that site, but frankly, captex had other alternatives and didn't have to bring the loads there, it believed organic resources as it had been prior to that was an authorized site. And was unaware of it. When it became aware of it, when captex became aware that organic resources authorization for disposal at that site had lapsed, they stopped deliver there. So for some period of time in 2002, there were a number of sludge loads that were taken to a site that simply let its registration lapse. Which by the way could have easily renewed, but for whatever reason, those third parties decided not to. So there shouldn't be a lot of speculation and concern about what's in the shadows. To the best of miding, and i've -- understanding, and i've spent time discussing these matters with captex and its representatives, that is what happened that is underlying this so-called compliance history issue. Those are the overarching compliance items for captex. If this is a a bigger issue, Commissioners, I would suggest to you that you've addressed this in adopting your siting ordinance. And it is not fair to play this out in the context of a single application burdening that applicant with the decisions that are broader in scope.
>> mr. Riley, I would just like to add that this Commissioners court is not just all of a sudden taking interest in this particular site. We have diligently been working on this. And if you look in our backup, I am amazed by the fact that we have a letter here August 15th of 2000, and at that point Commissioner baxter was the precinct 3 Commissioner. We also weighed in on this in terms of a letter from this Commissioners court to tnrcc, at that time, June 4th of 2002, when Margaret Moore was the precinct 3 Commissioner. And so once again here we are in 2003 with Commissioner Daugherty as our Commissioner. And it's like we have been -- we are not -- not some kind of sudden move, and I think it is extraordinarily unfair to basically say the discretion that tceq has in its application process, that because they have discretion on this issue, I don't think you would call the other things they have discretion that perhaps went captex's way, that that was a back door way to go and approve the registration. To me discretion is meant to be discretion. The tceq is allowed to take a look at the complete and whole record. And I don't consider that to be back door. I consider that to be the process. And this court has been desperately trying since 2000 if not before to try and address this. And to me this is not something new. It's not popping out of nowhere. We are desperately trying to make something happen, and that -- we are creating a public record that I think adds to why discretion ought to be utilized in this particular case. It's not back door as far as I'm concerned. That's what discretion means.
>> let me just address your comments because what I'm suggesting is -- on the front of the ordinance, it says we will not apply these criteria to existing applications. That's what I'm saying. [multiple voices] and I certainly don't mean to offend the Commissioners that there is some issue that we are not willing to address. If there is a technical issue, and I have not been fitted from seeing the letter that you have prepared, but if there is a technical issue in the sense there is an environmental concern or if there is something that I'm unaware of that the Commissioners court is interested in addressing with captex, I'm here to tell you we're happy to talk about those things.
>> I guess the only thing I would add is if this Commissioners court had the sole authority as to whether you proceeded onward with your application on that particular land, I think you are correct. But we are not the final authority. It always has rested with tceq, and we're working the process the same way you are working the process.
>> we're not really working the process, but if you have technical issues related to environmental concerns, we're happy to try to address those.
>> the ordinance recites that it doesn't apply to facilities with applications approved or pending because that's state law. This court really didn't have any choice but to often their provision and we just repeated it in the statute. I think -- and our position on this does go back to tceq's discretion. Once -- now that we've got the ordinance in place, from here on out they don't have discretion over land use anymore. Their discretion has been supplanted by yours. What we're faced with is what is tceq's policy on the applications that pre-date the ordinance. Tceq had discretion over land use before the ordinance was ever adopted. We're just suggesting that it would be appropriate in their exercise of that discretion to defer to local government.
>> well, if that's the case, and that's simply the point, there's a reason the [indiscernible] exists that deference to local government has to be prospective and it stems from a case near the coast where a county acted in some manner, as this county court is acting or acted in adopting an ordinance, it did it frankly mid stream. So the legislature acted to make sure that the applications that were in-house would be evaluated and judged on the law as it existed when the application was filed. My point is not to instigate with the Commissioners court. I would like the repeat just as basically as I could if you have tech concerns, and frankly, I haven't heard any of those in the four points that have been made in your letter as I phaeupblgt based on mr. Nuckols' description, if you have technical and environmental concerns where there's some way to address your issues, as a representative of captex we would like to engage in dialogue. If this is simply about working process, I suppose we'll see how this plays out and we'll address this no doubt in trying to work the process, but we frankly would rather talk about issues and try to address concerns both of the Commissioners court and the neighbors.
>> I don't know what anybody else is trying to do, but what I'm trying to do here is protect the citizens who live east of i-35. And if it's technical, fine. And there are many other things that are facts of life, but I don't have to like them and I don't have to accept them and this is probably getting close to being one of them. And -- but I think that the letter is appropriate and I think it needs to go to tceq, and if you all are interested in any kind of conversations to have with us, fine, but I think that, you know, the records that you all have -- not you personally, but this kind of industry, it just isn't good for the family that we're trying to support east of i-35.
>> I understand, and the families that benefit from our wastewater treatment plants that generate this sludge and the plants that benefit from our drinking water treatment plants that generate this sludge and all the folks and all the ratepayers who pay for trash and garbage disposal in Travis County are also here. They don't show up, you don't see them sitting out here in the audience, but they are also out there. And as you take away disposal facilities, you limit options, increase rates and impact those people just as much as the people who live right next door. Because somebody always lives right next door.
>> but somebody has to be concerned about the families who will be next door to these facilities, which then are not taken care of to operate properly. And so that's the record that's been there for years. So back door, front door, whatever it takes, I will protect the best I can the families who live east of i-35.
>> I'm not sure that some of the folks that are sending this sludge, and this is coming from from -- I think there was one city, I'm not going the say the same because I don't want to say the wrong name of a city on the west side of Travis County, I'm not sure it's really been laid out to them what the impact is of their decision to hire your company and where they wind up taking it. I think as far as they are concern is take it away from here. We've contracted with you to deliver specific service. I don't think it's been made clear that in doing in that they know specifically they are creating an issue for the folks in the lund community. I don't think that's been laid out. They've just basically said not here, make it go away so that we stay in compliance as opposed to the impact it's going to have on these folks here. Those are good discussions to have with some of those folks as to where is the ending spot of some of these decisions they are making on behalf of their ratepayers and taxpayers. I don't think -- perhaps we ought to educate them.
>> this has not been a secret. It certainly has received a good amount of attention from this court and the media, si would be surprised there wasn't a general awareness out there.
>> that was after the application.
>> there was a front page story in metro a couple weeks ago.
>> the thing that amazed me when it surfaced about three years ago was -- it's hard to regulate the state of Texas. I'm not trying to apologize for state, but the siting standards were non-you existent. When the issues were brought to Commissioners court and we discovered siting authority, we began looking at it and it's fairly complicated, but at the same time before I think basically you sited one of these facilities with no obligation to notify the immediate neighbors. And so is that made us think if we have authority to act, we ought to put in place some standards that we think will afford some protection. It just so happens that the captex application kept playing issues to our attention. And we did understand that the law prohibited us from giving receipt tro active application, but at the same time, we seem to think that the state regulatory authority has the discretion to do that. And what we're doing is simply asking. And so in a way, it's just coincidental captex is the first major application that comes to our attention since these problems were brought to our attention.
>> yes, sir. I certainly understand your point and I don't mean to sound like I don't. I would like to point out this is a new site. There are no problems that have existed previously at this site.
>> that's not what we're hearing from the residents, and then again, I think mr. Johnson -- and this goes farther than -- three years ago, judge, you mentioned, I can remember former Commissioner david samuelson who I had extensive conversations with about the operations, about this particular site. So it goes a long ways. There's a history in this thing, and it's just not off the cuff that we are looking at this this morning. It has been a history, and again, I think the quality of life, in my opinion, should be afforded to every resident in Travis County. And I'm pretty hell bent on standing occupy this.
>> you will get no disagreement from me on that.
>> with that, a motion, and I don't know if you have anything else to say --
>> I will extend my offer again if there is a technical environmental issue that is of concern to the commission or the staff, that we can help address or try to address through an open dialogue where we understand the technical issue, work towards a resolution where certainly we will do that.
>> with that, sir, anything else from the residents? Mr. Johnson?
>> well, I guess i've said, you know, what our opinion is, but again, I would ask mr. Riley, if he owned the land and lived out there next to it, would he be welcoming this in his neighborhood? I seriously doubt it.
>> there are many things that happen in my neighborhood that I don't approve of.
>> that's true, sir, but I'm sure it's not sludge. I would be willing to bet you don't have sludge in your neighborhood, do you?
>> there's a dump site across the street. Would that count?
>> what kind of dump site?
>> I have no idea. Again, I'm not here at Commissioners court to do --
>> well, this is a rural area of farms and ranch that's have been in business for many years, and this was purchased by your [indiscernible] strictly for the process of dumping sludge and getting rid of it rather than going through a more costly alternative of disposing of that sludge. There are other alternatives. And yes, it may cost the ratepayer a little more, but you mentioned the ratepayer was here. If he was here, but he's not here, that there really, you know, aware of this. When I talk to people about what this is being proposed, no one that is not familiar with it has any idea that could even be done. And it's my understanding that it's getting to the point where there's a nationwide problem with this. And e.p.a., It has erred in their assessment of khrs b sludge and the tp-bgts it can have on people. -- effects it can have on people. I've got indication there's been a number of deaths in pennsylvania caused by people being exposed to sludge. How do you address that as not being a problem?
>> I honestly don't have any information.
>> I know you don't. You don't --
>> I have a question. This is not being helpful -- [multiple voices]
>> I rest my case.
>> and I understand your frustration, believe me. A motion has been made and seconded and I'm ready to vote.
>> questions to approve the draft letter with the change.
>> with the modifications.
>> and to sent it to tceq before the deadline.
>> yes, sir.
>> Commissioner Gomez asked that she be shown as supporting this. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified: Wednesday, September 16, 2003 7:52 AM