Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, September 21, 2010,
Item 2
Anybody here to receive number 2? Number 2 is approve resolution in support of the gilleland atlantic total maximum daily load implementation plan proposed by the texas commission on environmental quality.
>> we recommend approval of a resolution that shows our support for total maximum daily load prepared by total maximum daily load implementation plan prepared by the tceq. In really kind of shorthand, this is a plan to produce bacteria that gets its way into gilleland creek, which is a 30-mile body of body that flows from Pflugerville down to the cool river. The county has committed to two particular management strategies, one which we briefed you on in may to revise our development regs in concert with the other partners on this plan. To look at things like setbacks from creeks -- from the creek and waterway and try to minimize whatever wastewater collection lines run along the creek. Secondly to undertake a stepped-up effort to inspect septic tanks, especially ones closest to gilleland creek. In this particular matter, the public comment matter closes on the 27th of september. So we would like to get the resolution to tceq by the 27th. Which is before the next time you meet. However, we have heard some concerns that maybe we ought to brief commissioner davis in particular on this matter, and i think we do -- if you would like to proceed today, we could proceed today, but i think we could still put forward a resolution in support of this after the official comment period and before the commissioners up there act.
>> john, all the things i know that we have looked at this and, of course, we looked at water quality and particularly our plan is supposed to address a lot of these things. As you know, this is a pretty extensive creek in as far as watershed.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> this is even a little deeper as far as some of the septic tank -- the on-site septic systems and stuff like that. And really the setbacks i think that we need to ensure that the degradation of our water is not impeded to the point whereby we have nothing to go by, so my question is with this particular resolution if the court does decide to approve this particular vehicle to take forward to tceq, my question to you is how long do you think it will probably take to implement this and of course to ensure that those safeguards that were in place and even with the buffer area to protect the creek, the buffer from what point to what point, i guess from the center line of the creek, i really don't know, to the extent of the buffer is very critical. And one more question i need to maybe throw out, and that is the -- addressing the discharge maybe of treatment plants, per se, to make sure that the discharge of those particular -- those particulars are also involved in making sure that we have no more degradation, at least mitigate the degradation of the pollutants that will be discharged into our water. So i kind of threw -- i didn't throw a curve ball at you, but i'm just throwing a ball. Hopefully you will be able to hit it.
>> let me address those three questions. First of all, there's been an extensive public participation process through the tceq starting in around 2004. There was a formal stakeholder group. There's been meetings. There will continue to be meetings as this implementation plan moves forward approximately every year to kind of update and make sure that we're on track and to hear concerns with the plan. The second thing is relating to the measures that we're going to try to put in place. We will have a process when we look at these -- we're going to be bringing forward a proposal to change regulations regarding setbacks. We'll be talking about headwater areas that lack a lot of protection. I don't know if stacy would like to say anything about what we're planning on the ossf.
>> it would be good to say something on that because all these moving parts here, of course, have to have a cooperative movement toward that end.
>> part of the problem is we don't know what's from the elevated bacterial count in the creek. It could be from the water treatment plant discharge, it could be from agricultural activity. So the approach to plant is kind of to cover all bases. One of those would be to inspect the on-site -- the existing on-site wastewater systems or septic systems in the watershed. We would do that with the existing resources based on their proximity to the creek in the floodplain, whether or not they have existing maintenance contracts on them. These would be done voluntarily and otherwise homeowners would have to give us permission to come to the property to look for these things. We're also identifying funding for if, for instance, a low income individual needed to make a repair or replace a system.
>> the answer to the third question relating to the wastewater treatment facilities is the plan requires that each of them monitor and report the levels of e-coli or bacteria that are released from their effluent. Now, it should be non-detectable or very low because they're required to disinfect using chlorine or other means. This is a verification step that as stacy indicates figure out has this been or is it continuing to be a source.
>> (indiscernible) in travis county, and this is my last question. I know commissioner eckhardt probably have maybe some questions because it does -- as stated earlier, it does go through her precinct also. But the city of austin, all the other players, are they basically in line to make sure that we are in unison as far as the process is concerned as we proceed forward with this? Is everybody basically on board as we go forward?
>> yes. Our principal partners are the city of Pflugerville, the city of austin and the lcra and the texas agrilife extension extension service has all been involved in this and are probably similar to what we're doing today looking to endorse this plan.
>> okay. Thank you. Commissioner, i know you probably have a ton of questions also.
>> it was actually just a couple. The backup was really superb on this effort. I want to commend our staff, but also the city of austin, city of Pflugerville, lcra and so many of the other communities that are coming together to make this a reality because gilliland creek is truly a very, very beautiful community asset. We've worked very hard at establishing a trail system at the head waters of the gilliland, and hoping to continue that network of trails along gilliland. This is a major community asset and sort of to frame the idea, the size of the problem is that we have found elevated levels of e-coli and fecal chloroform in the water that that's a big deal and we need to fix it and that's exactly what government is supposed to do. So to that end i notice with interest the portions of the backup with regard to on site sewage facilities or septic tanks, that there are more than 2,000 in the watershed. And i also note with interest this is related to some of our other items today and i will have in the future with regard to non-compliant septic systems. Can you tell us a little bit about at what point did the septic regulations change last time? And to what extent do we believe those more than 2000 septic tanks are -- were installed prior to the change in regulation?
>> the last change in the state regulations for on-site wastewater was september 11th, 2008. All of the 2000 systems were installed prior to that date. And i do want to point out those are the 2,000 systems we know of. It wasn't a requirement until 1982 to actually get a permit for a septic system. It was kind of a voluntary thing. So most of these are going to be the older, aging systems.
>> so what i'm asking for in my precinct specifically, but i know that -- i don't think i'm going out on a limb here and the commissioners court would ask for participation on the whole that in order to protect this resource we really need cooperation of individual property owners with septic systems. And we will do everything that we can to take a look at all options for replacement of non-compliant systems. This is a big issue across the county, not just in the gilliland creek watershed, and it's something that we're wrestling with now figuring out how to face it. But this is going to be a very big deal for us and it is already and it will continue to be as we struggle to find ways to increase the availability of centralized sewer systems for an increasingly dense population. Septic is growing less and less appropriate for more and more of our county.
>> second? Somebody had a motion?
>> i move approval.
>> any more discussion on the motion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank y'all.
>> please give our friends at the state this beautiful proclamation in support of that plan.
>> thank you so much, y'all.
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, September 21, 2010 2:20 PM
