Travis County Commissioners Court
March 16, 2010,
Item 20
>> 20 is to consider and take appropriate action regarding proposed comments to the Texas commission on environmental quality on proposed surface water quality standards and related implementation procedures.
>> approve the record -- for the record again, tom webber with tnr and with me is john white, director of natural resources, environmental quality division.
we recommend that the court provide formal comments to the tceq on the rule-making that would revise the Texas surface water quality standards.
along with comments on the rule, tnr is also recommending that we comment on the procedures for implementing these standards, which is proposed by the tceq as permitting guidelines.
comments are due tomorrow, March 17th.
the e.p.a.
-- this is a bit of background -- requires that states periodically revise and update their state standards to reflect new scientific information and new guidelines that are being implemented by e.p.a.
particularly for the npds program.
it's important to note also that after the state adopts the rule, then the e.p.a.
has to approve what the state adopted, so there's sometimes even a longer process for epa consideration of state standards and their changes.
most of the rule changes and procedures have statewide applicability.
tnr's review focused on the standards and changes that are of most interest to us here in Travis County or that could affect us in our citizens.
so there's -- I wanted to just make note of two subject matters.
one of them is new through ents.
nutrients are like phosphorus that are in our wawrts.
to determine in nutrients, chlorophyll a content of water is analyzed or measured as an indicator of high algae growth.
phosphorus concentration is also used as a secondary measure of nutrient impacts.
you have high phosphorus, there's a good likelihood you might have high chlorophyll.
so those are two things that are done.
tnr is -- excuse me.
tceq is proposing numeric standards for chlorophyll a and total phosphorus and for clarity in three reservoirs here in our county.
those would be Lake Travis, lake Austin and lady bird lake.
tceq's proposed knew make rick standards for large number reservoirs in Texas, numeric standards, however, have not been developed for smaller reservoirs.
they've not been developed for streams and for coastal wawrts.
those are -- coastal wawrts.
these are assessment activities they plan for a later rule making effort.
but in those places where there's not knew make require standards, they are proposing some screening methods for wastewater discharges and that would be a assess whether a nutrient rich discharge does need to be controlled even when there isn't a numeric standard set.
the -- so what we wanted to comment on in regard to nutrients is that the laboratory methods that they are proposing to promulgate for chlorophyll a and phosphorus that they need to be able to quantify to very low concentrations, and that's because tceq proposes a chlorophyll a quantification level that is basically at five micrograhams per liter, but we know that the water quality in Lake Travis and lake Austin is about half that amount.
so we believe that chlorophyll ought to be analyzed at this lower concentration, otherwise we're sort of writing off the whole low end of a range between about two and a half and five.
we have coordinated with lcra, who is the lead water quality monitoring entity for our area.
they routinely are able to reach a quantification level of two micrograms per liter.
we understand that they're probably making similar comments to this effect.
if the defacto number for chlorophyll and the similar one for phosphorus is promulgated, then the loading of nutrients could approximately double before these lakes are flagged as either not meeting their standards or that they're impaired.
so we feel that's a very important issue.
we also comment on their screening methods where they don't have a numeric water quality standards and we make requests that those screening methods be more stringent.
so those are our comments on nutrients.
the other big issue is bacteria.
tceq proposes to set more lenient numeric standards for e-coli in Texas waters.
e-coli is an indicator to determine whether or not bacteria is at a marmful level -- harmful level that makes our lakes and streams unsafe to ingest water accidentally.
and I stress accidentally because we don't intend any of our waters to be something you can just drink out of without, you know, water treatment.
but for every -- for every freshwater stream and reservoir in the state, tceq proposes to change the standard from a mean of 126 colonies per 100 mill la liters up to 206 colonies per millie liters.
>> what does that mean?
>> that means that --
>> what is the measurement?
>> yes.
going from 156 to 206 practically doubles the standard.
and what it means is that it increases -- well, the basis for their -- this might answer your question.
the basis for their change is that it's within the risk level that's allowable by e.p.a.
guidelines.
the current standard of 126 is based upon an assumption that eight illnesses per one thousand people who swim could get sick, gastrointestinal illness.
the 206 is based on an assumption of 12 illnesses per thousand.
so about eight illnesses up to 12 illnesses would be their suggested change.
>> okay, I see it.
but during the summer months -- I remember the drought being significant throughout Travis County and of course the lakes at a low level, there was some effort to encourage a lot of people not to swim in certain areas because of the ecole lie and the -- e-coli and the measurement of the bacteria that would make you sick.
i guess my whole point is is there any type of wanting an appear tus to let folks now and how pervasive is the apparatus to let folks know that this is really not a safe area for you to swim in because of the e-coli levels?
and in this particular area how is that done.
could you just maybe explain to the public?
>> Travis County in fact does that.
Travis County in fact does that at hamilton pool.
they take samples and they're analyzed and that dictates whether we keep hamilton pool open for swimming or not.
other entities, usually local governments that have parks or kind of public swimming beaches that are kind of -- they might have life guards and things, they're more formal areas.
they -- they sample for either e-coli or one of the other indicators.
and they put together beach closures if they need to.
>> okay.
okay.
thank you.
>> looks like the tceq is really -- is relaxing some of the standards.
>> in the case of nutrients they're strengthening the standards, but we've got concerns about how they'll implement that.
with bacteria you're correct, they are relaxing those standards, there's been a lot of concern with the e-coli test, and that it is too stringent of a number, that it has led to too many water bodies being considered impaired.
that it -- they also are -- one of their proposals is to exclude data during high flow conditions, like when a river is flowing at like the 10 percent highest -- the highest 10 percent of its expected flow they're going to exclude data from the standpoint that it's unsafe to swim during there and trying to reach a standard of the water being very free of bacteria is very unrealistic.
which I -- I agree with that, but that -- I think you could put in a high flow exclusion and keep the 126.
and I think you could eliminate a lot of these sort of kind of false positives.
>> if we had to give a bottom line for Travis County comments to tceq that the county judge is signing for the county, by the way,.
what are we saying?
>> we're basically saying that there is not a need at this time to change our standard.
the e.p.a.
is coming up with -- they're under court order to come up with a new up to date standard that replaces what's been in place, and therefore we should just wait until that comes about.
and then when it comes to nutrients I think you would say that we need to have the best laboratory methods utilized in order to ensure that we're measuring the nutrients at the very low level that they exist in our lakes.
>> mr.
white, were you about to add something?
>> I would -- I think that tom just gave it a real good synopsis of what the draft letters say.
i guess I would also point out that we are extremely fortunate to have someone with tom's expertise working for Travis County.
he's got a number of years of experience at the state level working in water quality issues.
the sophistication of our comments and response on this is elevated by having tom with us.
>> I want to make a final comment and I know it's close to lunchtime.
but tceq is not aware that the e.p.a.
will come down with its own outlook on bacteria?
>> they're probably aware of that.
>> and if so, -- you say they're quite a ways from doing that?
>> e.p.a.?
tceq is quite aware of what e.p.a.
is doing to develop a new criteria for bacteria.
but I think they are -- they are facing a lot of pressure from the regulated community over the existing standards.
and I think that's -- that's influencing their move.
the e.p.a.
is saying right now that you can raise the standard up to 206 and that's within the range that they'll accept.
>> okay.
>> that's why I move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
by the way, that motion also included the county judge signing those comments and sending them to the tceq.
>> I second that too.
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:
Tuesday, March 16, 2010 2:10 PM
