Travis County Commssioners Court
February 24, 2004
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 22
22. Consider and take appropriate action on the following notices received from the Texas commission on environmental quality: a. Notice of February 26, 2004, public meeting regarding application of magna-flow international, inc. For approval of a site for land application of sludge on taylor lane one mile north of fm 969; and b. Notice of March 11, 2004, public hearing regarding application of cap tex, inc. For approval of a site for land application of sludge on skog road 7.2 miles northeast of the fm 1100/hwy 290-east intersection. John?
>> good morning, again. When we parted last, my commitment was to look back at the most current version of the magna flow permit and compare it to our comment letter of August 12th, 2003 and determine how much progress had been made. My assessment is that we should just reiterate the same comments that we submitted earlier. They were very detailed and comprehensive and -- and I don't really see much evidence of progress. So I think that's the best way to approach it. We are saying the worst thing that can happen is that they show that they have indeed made some -- some progress in their responses.
>> john, uh, in addition to the number of violations and also how we feel that the -- that the [indiscernible] floodplain ordinance is concerned, basically the [indiscernible] letter that we have here now, do you feel that this is basically sufficient to take to make the -- is that to the officials and the meeting on the 26th of this month?
>> yes, I do. I think that there are a number of land use technical and legal questions that -- that haven't been addressed yet, they just need to be addressed. So -- so that's kind of where I'm coming from. I want to make sure that -- that everybody did get the refresher on these -- on the comments. Did you get those in your backup?
>> right.
>> I got the one on cap captex. I did not get the one on --
>> I have a few --
>> I have captex.
>> okay. And -- was this -- with this public meeting, I guess that I need to also determine whether -- the public meeting, not a public hearing, is that any signal that it does not have the same merit or the same clout? Would that be something that would have merit and clout binding if a decision is to come forth? From tceq on this new application?
>> I definitely believe it has -- I mean the process has merit. The reason that they do this is so that in -- in case the community or elected officials or their staffs have -- have, you know, additional technical information that needs to be considered as a part of the permit, that it comes forth and is delivered sort of in a formal fashion. It may be that -- that some of these issues that they -- that they were given by us, they have sort of put off addressing, that is tceq. I have seen some public meetings have some pretty favorable results in the past.
>> okay. In addition in the backup here you had that the -- that the persons that -- that -- who have two cities of --
>> you had asked who the let's call them clients or donors of sludge would be, right? And -- and that is the last page of your backup. And there are 8 ways or there are a combination of wastewater treatment plants and water treatment plants and out of the 8 it appears as though two of them are Travis County, the rest are outside.
>> outside of Travis County?
>> there's san marcos, a couple from blanco, granite shoals, kingsland and johnson city. The Travis County ones are lago vista and point venture.
>> but it looks as though the -- the vast majority is coming from hays, blanco and I guess burnet.
>> john, have we ever had any direct contact with either lago vista or point venture in terms of the results of their -- their production.
>> I have not. One thing that you just jogged my memory, I meant to let you know, too, that as requested by Commissioner Davis that I faxed our original comment letters to -- to the elected officials at the state level as well as doggett where the tract falls it's kind of the boundary between dukes and sticks districts.
>> I'm glad that you did that.
>> ance in answer, getting to your question, perhaps one thing that we could do is also provide that to the facilities if you would like, to the Travis County facilities and/or all of them if you -- if you would like for them to see our comment letter.
>> okay.
>> well, the thing about, you know, the sludge application, unlike a landfill, a landfill is something that takes up an awful lot of space. And you have got to have a certain kind of -- of soils, et cetera. I mean it's a pretty big deal. But this kind of stuff is not something that is limited to you've got to have 600 or 800 acres to do it. I'm -- I'm perplexed as to why it is that san marcos and blanco and granite shoals and kingsland and johnson city, yes, we are going to name all of their names, why they cannot find sludge application that is available in their back yard. I -- I'm not understanding that. I do understand the regionalness related to a -- to a type one landfill because that is much more difficult to site and there are geographic constraints related to stuff happening to the west, but I'm not getting it on this about why this stuff has to be trucked in to Travis County. Adjoining neighborhoods.
>> right. It's just a relationship of convenience. In other words, they are small communities, they haven't gone to the trouble to get their own site going. They hire somebody to take it away, they don't need to worry about --
>> they need to start thinking about it. They don't worry about it because they haven't had to think about it. I think that we need to make them think about it.
>> they probably aren't even aware of where it goes, I think me need to be made aware.
>> we are.
>> that's for sure.
>> technical question. Is this the same stuff they make dillo dirt out of?
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> ... They do that. In fact, they do it in these areas. However, we don't get the complaints from those sites, at least not -- I haven't in my office. If you -- if you know where the hornsby bend treatment plant is on 973, they -- they do apply some there, and i've watched them do it and they do it with a spreader bar and do it technically correctly. There is apparently another tract of land in the webberville area where it's done, and I haven't witnessed that, but I haven't gotten complaints.
>> but in the sense it takes a tract of land --
>> right.
>> you can't contain it.
>> you can own it --
>> I'm in full agreement and I think that the judge and I are just working on part of this with capco because I'm firmly behind -- I mean if you are anotr county, then find a place in your county to put it. I mean and not bring it our way. I think the judge and I -- not just type 1, not speaking for the judge, but for me, I'm going to throw that into the mix with capco because I think that's what we're really looking for.
>> landfills and sludge.
>> you bet.
>> at the -- and the last time we had -- not last time, but iously we've had this item before us and we've had testimony from residents around there and hopefully they will be able to participate, and I know this time as far as the agenda is concerned here, location for this particular item, but I would like to make sure that the folks that are listening to this knows that it's going to be held at 7:00 p.m. At the manor middle school which is 10323 highway 290 east. So those that are really looking at this usually have looked at the agenda, that would be the time and location of this particular item. So I would like to move approval with this particular comments that have been generated by john kuhl and his staff and we present this to the authorities down here as we go through this particular public meeting on the 26th.
>> second. And there was a new exhibit, right? Added to the letter?
>> yes. There is an attachment. That was actually sent at the same time. We just -- tom and I realized that that should augment the letter, so --
>> okay.
>> that did go at that time.
>> and that's 22-a.
>> you sent that to tceq?
>> correct. To the chief clerk, ladonna castenleula.
>> > the delivery of comments from Travis County along with the attachment. Any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Any action required on b?
>> just wanted to let you know that, as you had requested, the county attorney's office filed two forms requesting admission as a party in the captex hearing that the scheduled for March 11th, 2004. So that was filed in a timely manner Friday and I'm hoping that you received copies of that.
>> yes.
>> yes. So we don't require action on 22-b? And receipt that those things have been done from the previous action that we took last week?
>> right.
>> is that basically correct, john? Thank you.
>> we don't need to do anything in addition to what we've done?
>> other than I suppose authorize us to prepare for -- for that hearing.
>> is that a direction or motion?
>> you've already done that, but --
>> yeah, we've already done that last week, so --
>> we need your continued blessing.
>> okay. You've got it. Those are the directions from the court.
>> thank you.
Last Modified: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 6:44 AM