Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, October 5, 2010,
Item 21
21 is consider and take appropriate action on a request for a variance to state and county septic regulations to the horizontal separation requirements to rock for a low pressure -- by the way, the motion passes by unanimous vote, did i say that misporter? Separation requirements to rock for a low pressure dozed septic drain field at 513 cuernavaca drive, and i guess this is in austin, texas, too.
>> austin, texas. Basically this system was permitted back in 2000. Steve and i figured there was a two-year period where they were allowing this system to go in in close proximity to fractured rock. Before all the required inspections were obtained before we received the designer certification. T.n.r. Never issued the lie science to operate on it. The system no longer meets current requirements because of the separation distance to fractured rock. It would have to be a completely new design, at least partially new design to bring it up to today's regulations. Again, this is the same thing of throwing the rules out the window. It's unfortunate the owners found themselves in this situation, but there is room on the property to put an appropriately sized and compliant system on the property, and staff is not recommending this variance.
>> mr. Winsell.
>> up again. This system was put in with lpd trench that's at the time we could put sand at the bottom of the trenches to end up allowing them to be cut into rock. That was that two-year window that we talked about on here. Basically what's happened is that the county inspected the tanks, they inspected the drain field and the pipes and did not do the final inspection of the landscaping and there was a valve that was put in to throttle down the pressure at one end of the drain field. That didn't happen. I showed in my computer that i issued a certification letter, but i could not prove or i don't have any way -- i don't get people to sign at the county when i turn in the certification, but the final inspection was not done. The heart of the system is there and it was done and inspected, you know, by the county, and this was put in by a licensed installer. A licensed septic system installer has continuing education and is a responsible party to put this in. This is one i hate to see the fact a license to operate wasn't issued, that somebody dropped the ball, be it the builder, owner, installer, somebody didn't call for that final inspection. That it was more of a paperwork issue and not a health and safety issue. The system was designed and put in properly at that time and it's a matter of the way i see it the license just didn't get issued for that system. Nothing has changed on the system. It does meet that -- the criteria at that time. So i'd ask that if the variance can be granted for that in some way, some manner let us, please, give a certification or reinspect it to say that it did meet the current criteria at that time. It's in the ground, it's
>> [indiscernible] now that it's going to do all the time and this has been eight years. I had a lot more hair eight years ago. It's a long time. It was one of the things that got dropped through the system and i understand there's thousands of them out there and this is another one that's there that happened and i just implore you to please let us look that there was a hole in the system right there at the end where it does become everybody's responsibility out here and nobody did step forward and do that. But i don't see that it's posing a health and safety issue because it was put in at the time and it's still being used as it was designed for.
>> when were the rules changed with regard to fractured rock?
>> in 2000. Probably on month or two before this system was -- after this system was permitted. Again, we're not talking enforcement here, we are not -- this is simply about a license to operate which the owners would like t.n.r. To issue based on expired permit. We did not -- they did not receive passing inspections, the ones they did receive, and the final inspection and designer certification was not received before the permit was allowed to expire.
>> what is -- what explains the eight-year delay in realizing that the permit wasn't issued?
>> the county had staff time and i think sent out a bunch of letters and let people know they need to get their license to operate.
>> but i'm assuming it's the builder's responsibility to --
>> builder, owner, installer, somebody has to take care of it on the other end, not the county.
>> what raised the issue eight years later?
>> the attorney got a letter from the county.
>> in 2008 when the economy started going downhill, we started using staff time to go back through files, do file audits. We've always caught these things during real estate inspections when homes go to sale or when somebody comes in to do a remodel and applies for additional permits. When we have the staff time we do a courtesy notice to property owners that there may be a violation on the property and that a system may be operated without a license.
>> okay.
>> you said that during the construction phase, the initial -- there were several initial inspections that did not pass? Did i hear you right?
>> they failed part of one inspection and this is what steve spoke to on the head pressure. Head pressure was too high and that was failed. They were instructed in writing on the inspection report that -- to adjust the head pressure, get with the engineer and they would recheck it again on the final inspection.
>> was that done?
>> no.
>> it was done in the field. I inspected it. I saw that time.
>> so the head pressure was --
>> yes, sir, it was done.
>> the problem was corrected.
>> the valve was installed.
>> but the county never got back out for that final inspection.
>> correct.
>> so i guess why is this important today?
>> a license to operate.
>> okay, so why do they need one? Since they've been operating ten years without one.
>> to be compliant with our rules, you need a license to operate. It's likely they would need one should they ever try to sell the property. And if they ever wanted to do any additions or obtain additional permits from d.n.r., we check.
>> and the problem now is what the rules have changed.
>> the rules are changed.
>> so the requirements as it relates to the rules are different from what they were when this septic system was put in.
>> that's correct.
>> the only -- the only problem i have with this is that this is not the first or the second situation where we've got a septic system that for one reason or another didn't get the final permit, and it's -- it's hard to go back with all the -- the plethora of -- of items that go through a whole construction process to -- for people to go back and find the detail to support why. I mean we have an engineer saying that he did the final inspection. We have, you know, who knows what -- did we lose the paperwork at the county? That is a concern i have. And regardless of how we treat this particular situation, i personally would really like to see t.n.r. Put in a suspense system of some kind so that when you've got an expiring permit you send a jigglier. It would eliminate a lot of this kind of grief in the future just so people don't do this is why these things didn't happen. I -- on this particular issue -- i have a question for you, on the science of this style septic system because it was only allowed for a couple of years and it's in fractured rock. Does this have a impact on ground water?
>> if it was put in according to the way it was provided at that time, i'd say no. Now, that's why the sand filter part underneath the trenches was put in there to provide additional treatment for the wastewater before it ever enters into the ground water system. That was the intention of that. And again, it prevented the owner from having to get an aerobic system which burns electricity and not having to squirt chlorine into the fractured rock. I typically lean toward any system that does not require the homeowner to maintain the system or waste valuable energy when it doesn't need to.
>> the intent of the rule changes was exactly the potential that this could contaminate ground waters through fractured roark. That's why they require the secondary treatment nowadays.
>> but it's not like we can issue a permit and date it back to 2000.
>> that's the entire issue.
>> if we issued a permit today, we would have to put today's date on it.
>> and we have to issue the variances to do it.
>> so in order to issue a permit today, we would have to grant variance, which means sort of formal acknowledgement of failure to meet current requirements.
>> that's correct. I do want to mention that originally when we started looking at systems that may be operating in violation of -- without license to operate, there were initially 2,000. We are down to 1200, so that means a fair amount of folks have gone in and done costly repairs, updates to their onsite wastewater systems in order to comply with current standards.
>> go ahead.
>> would you say that in prior years there have been perhaps a laxity in the building community in getting these septic systems fully inspected knowing that the county didn't have the resources to go back and audit?
>> i think that's part of it. And i think until recently rule changes were fairly mild. What really caught a lot of people were the 2008 rule changes, setbacks to drainage easements. The system -- the one on cuernavaca were few and far between and that's partially because they were only allowed for a couple years under the rules. But i can tell you designers and installers and home builders have gotten a lot better since we started sending out letters.
>> and hopefully our water quality will also improve therefore.
>> and to answer commissioner huber, question, we have since june sent out reminder letters to homeowners and installers reminding themselves permits are about to expire.
>> why is the old rule only in place two years?
>> the state typically changes its rules on a two-year cycle.
>> so it's been ten years this time?
>> there have been several rule changes since the 2000 rule change that ruled out this type of system.
>> okay.
>> these aren't easy answers, but given the fact that i think our ground water is of high concern these days and the fact that this rule change is related, i mean these requests are related to a system which was changed by rule because of concerns in ground water, i'm going to move that we not grant this variance.
>> i will second that motion even though this is not my precinct, but also in recognition that a creek in my precinct does have high e-coli and other contaminants that we speculate may be from -- from septic that is not up to standard.
>> any final words, mr. Winsell?
>> no, i just -- when i think about 90% of the septic systems in travis county, most all of them are noncome in one way or another and i hate on to see the fact that paperwork wasn't issued ten years ago that we have to now scrap this system when it's in the same boat as probably tens of thousands of systems throughout the county. And so that's my only concern on that.
>> if we deny the request, presumably the homeowner would simply keep operating and hopefully keep the system from failing, and if there is failure, it will come to our attention probably. Then we take enforcement action.
>> that's correct.
>> so the homeowner unfortunately is in the same position he's been in for the last ten years. But without a legal permit.
>> correct.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. 25, is mr. Eckstein nearby? Since i don't see him we'll announce the executive session items.
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> beg pardon? All right, i haven't had a chance to look at 18. Has the rest of the court seen it?
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, October 5, 2010 2:27 PM
