Travis County Commissioners Court
October 26, 2004
Item 15
[One moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...they have a shoreline all the way along here. Airport
is this property right along in here. They have submitted a (indiscernible)
to Travis County which would redirect onion creek, pushing it behind a dike.
So this is basically all a 100 year floodplain. After they get finished with
the modifications, all that water will be behind this dike. Dike. And then
comes state highway one 30. They have two plans, but the ones they're favoring
right now is to construct this dike and then the channel on the east side.
There's a tremendous amount of flow on on I don't care creek at this point.
Onion creek is at the end of a very long watershed. By the time the flood
water gets to this point, you have a fairly expansive flood area and a lot
of water. My concern is when you take this area and you reduce it to this
area, you don't necessarily increase the 100 year level of water, what you
do is increase the velocity of that flow. And my concern is on on properties,
and what that might do to eroding the shoreline along southeast metro park,
and quite frankly for the city of Austin preserve. We also have the erosion
on the hillsides along the park. And a part of our lake in this area of the
park is relying on an earthendam that's in the 100-year floodplain. If there's
enough erosion, it will erode away that dam and we will lose one of the lakes
within the park. All of this is just a hypothesis on my part. I would like
to hire somebody outside who has the expertise to evaluate the plans of interport
and -- the state of Texas to find out if we're harmed in any way as property
owners before this goes much further. And that's the purpose of my agenda
items, first just to make you aware of what's going on here, and how we may
be adversely affected as property owners. The problem I have here is tnr is
both a regulator -- we are the ones that review the permits that have been
submitted by interport and lsi for their part because we are floodplain administrators.
So I don't want to get into any conflict of interest here that tnr as a regulator
might do something unusual because we are also property owners. I need to
separate my houses so that the court as a property owner has due diligence
done aside from what tnr does as a reviewer of the applications on floodplain
issues.
>> can you turn that so that sh 130 is going north-south?
It's throwing me off that it's going east-west. It would be helpful -- thank
you.
>> this is the colorado river. This is state highway 130.
This is onion creek.
>> I can see it now. [ laughter ]
>> I知 used to where things are supposed to be.
>> it's a reality that that emotion will happen because it's
already happened on the colorado river down toward garfield. And so --
>> over in bastrop as well.
>> yeah. So it is happening. Since we're real close to it
here --
>> interesting. There was submitted two separate proposals
for dealing with the floodplain. Their other proposal would be to create a
bypass channel to the west of state highway 130. This bypass channel basically
would take about 40% of the flow of onion creek and move it directly to the
colorado river on the west side of 130, and then the remaining would go down
the onion creek channel. But they already had a mode of acquiring right-of-way
and drainage easements along the interport for state highway 130, so someone
had a conflict here and they're going to pay for right-of-way one way or the
other. They're probably looking at it from an economics point of view, what
is the least cost to them to acquire this channel through a developed subdivision
or an interport on the channel that takes it on the other side. We're neutral
on that. What I do want to make sure is Travis County and the city of Austin
are not damaged either way by whatever is the outcome.
>> but what insurance would we be given if their proposal
is finally approved? [ inaudible ] what if they do that and very serious erosion
that's caused by the project?
>> well, they have a mitigation plan. What I understand is
they have a mitigation plan adequate to protect us. They have some arboring
of that shoreline, so basically they've got some river rapid stuff that's
supposed to protect our property. I want to make sure from the evaluation
and their calculations that that is in fact good enough to mitigate for us.
>> but if mitigation is insufficient, what remediation remedy
do we have say 10 years down the road if there's a problem?
>> probably a lawsuit.
>> that's a nasty word, joe. We didn't want to hear that.
>> only when we're being sued, not what we're the sewer?
>> are -- is there something to remedy a result? Something
like this, you know, may not be -- there may not be a heavy rain for several
years after completion of construction. It's at that point that you see whether
or not the mitigation strategy works or not.
>> right. There will be intermittent events and you may see
this occur over a period of time, not necessarily all in one event. Emotion
-- erosion is that way. It may not happen all at one time.
>> so the strategy of getting this looked at by a county
expert makes sense, but the other thing that makes sense is for us to get
some sort of insurance policy at least for the foreseeable future. Like you
say, onion creek looks like the most peaceful body of water in the world and
then all of a sudden after a heavy rain it rises up and becomes the biggest
monster in that part of the county. So what I知 saying is there -- the events
that are under our control that let us know whether or not the mitigation
plan works, and who knows when that will occur. In the meantime, it would
seem to me that we would to get a little bit more than the usual promises
in writing.
>> probably more in contract form. I'll have to look into
what would make that insurance binding.
>> when I thought about all this kind of stuff, weren't we
part of a planning process with the lcra on that whole kind of onion creek
floodplain? I知 having a flashback to an earlier discussion, and I知 just
wondering where does that fit into all of this? I thought we were in with
the lcra on it to study the floodplain, she's shaking her head, and the question
is do they play a role in any of this? Because rather than us looking at just
our little section and here's the city of Austin preserve and there's southeast
metro park, it's looking at the entirety of the floodplain because just right
up the block from this is temper creek and boy, do we remember timber creek
and what happened there. And certainly when we're dealing with the retention
issues on the del valle jail complex, we big time had to do far more than
we ever thought in dealing with getting that water conveyed down to onion
creek in a way that -- not only velocity, but it was also migration of yucky
stuff off the airport site.
>> you make a good point. We are involved with the corps
of engineers, the corps of engineers on that study. I would think that our
outside consultant would also want to look at the numbers produced by that
report and make sure they are consistent. I don't know whether -- how the
corps study takes into account the columnar that -- clumer that has been requested
by interport and lsi. That there are a series of things that first and foremost
I just want the scientists to look at it and say okay, we've looked at the
numbers, what can be variable, looked at and yes, they have the right number
or no, they don't. It's more realistic on this. So I really more than anything
else want to verify that these studies haven't done correctly and have watched
out for our are interest in the process.
>> so the consultant would start with the work that has already
been done?
>> absolutely. It's more like a peer review. To have someone
look over their shoulder and say okay, I知 also an expert, but I知 working
for the county, but I知 going to dig into your models, I知 going to look at
what you've been using, so I can advise the Commissioners court if there's
anything to worry about. And also, I mean, I would like this to be done generally
with the city of Austin. Quite frankly, we are a property interest with the
city of Austin even more so with regard to the onion creek preserve. I don't
know if they would agree to co-finance this study.
>> you've got talked -- you've not talked with them yet?
>> I have talked with the director of parks, approximate
but not with anyone in management.
>> do you think that 25,000 would be the total cost or the
county's share.
>> I think it would be less than that. Probably not to exceed
25. I expect we'll be able to get this done for a lot less than that.
>> do we need to give you a week or two to talk with the
city?
>> and touch base with at least one member of the council
to bring it to their attention. I don't know if they've had time to look at
it or consider anything else. But I would think that we would just want to
move on and then we can kind of get them to join us. I don't want to spend
a lot of time spinning my wheels with them and not letting this problem continue.
>> what's the source of funding for the $25,000?
>> good question.
>> that's why you're here, joe. [ laughter ]
>> i've got to get to first base, first, to find out if there's
any direction to proceed, I can come back, identify the scope of work, the
source of funding, whether or not the city will participate or not. My purpose
is just to brief you today and get a go or no-go as far as proceeding any
further.
>> what's the potential source of money for the city on this,
I can spend other people's money, is that the onion creek gigantic wastewater
treatment plant is also relatively in this area. They ought to be as concerned
as anybody since they also are discharging into the colorado river about anything
related to erosion of the banks, etcetera. We're all numbers in this in terms
of everything that goes downstream.
>> one week or two weeks?
>> on oh, I think one week. It will give us time to do a
little more communication with the city's folks and then come back with something.
I would say at least get permission to move forward on the issue and communicate
with the city of Austin and let's come back in a week and see where we are.
>> and Margaret, i'll second that. Would you include as a
friendly touching base with the regional planning efforts that's going on
with the corps?
>> uh-huh.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
Thank you very much.
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.
Last Modified: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 3:27 PM