Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, October 19, 2010,
Item 11
Item 11, consider and take appropriate action regarding an amendment to chapter 82, Travis County code, to adopt temporary subdivision plat approval requirements regarding the availability and protection of ground water from the trinity group 5:00 fers. -- aquifers.
>> good morning, anna bolin and tom webber, Travis County t.n.r. Since this item was here last week, some proposed language is added to the regulation which would basically allow for preliminary plans that were under process or under final plats from those prelims or final plats
>> [indiscernible] to be able to continue should this proposed code language or code modification be approved at court. And just as a reminder, this new chapter -- or this amendment to chapter 82 would impact subdivisions that are in western Travis County that would use ground water from the trinity aquifer group for their water supply. It would not impact subdivisions that are in Austin's e.t.j. Or subdivisions that have surface water for their ground water. Additionally, this is just subdivisions. It does not have an impact on site plans and subdivision exemptions.
>> so what's our definition of subdivisions for those unfamiliar are our work?
>> it's basically plat -- or dividing up a tract of land, going through the subdivision process creating a plat. Depending on the type of subdivision, there's often a preliminary plan that's first stage of the planning process that then final plats would come out of in the future.
>> do we make an effort to share the revised language with those from whom we would receive written communication, on calls and who attended the session last week?
>> yes, sir. Anybody that had corresponded with me east prior to or after the agenda -- either prior to or after the agenda item, and I attempted to get email addresses and forward that information to everyone who spoke last week at court.
>> anybody here who has not received the revised language? Or do we have an extra copy?
>> I could make an extra copy, but I believe I did send it to you, ted, last week.
>> [no microphone on].
>> we did send it?
>> uh-huh.
>> it would have been last Thursday or Friday, right?
>> Thursday.
>> okay. Sorry to cut you off.
>> and we've prepared a map that shows the -- that area of the county, and tom, would you like to show --
>> yes. For the record, tom webber with -- also with t.n.r. There's an area of blue that you see in the western part of the county. It's shaded. And that is the area. There was a lot of discussion last week about southwestern Travis County, but definitely wanted to clarify that on the map it covers -- the trinity aquifer covers both northwest and southwest Travis County. The blue shows the airs outside of subdivisions platted, it shows areas outside corporate boundaries of cities. And we also put in the parklands and other kind of preserves that likely wouldn't be subject to development. So we also provided you in your backup a suggested time line. Point out some of the earlier things that we identify here is to include appointments of interest to the Commissioners court for a stakeholder advisory group which would get under way in the early part of 2011. The highest priority is the need to consider some refinements to the requirements that we have for demonstrating available ground water. We see that as the primary purpose, but we're also looking not just at western Travis County but ground water availability in the other parts of our jurisdiction, eastern Travis County, and we also think that we ought to consider surface water documentation that's provided during the subdivision process just to -- along the same lines of logic that we're certifying up front that there's a reliable firm or long-term source of water supply to the consumers and residents that would move into a platted area.
>> my office received a phone call from an official in hays county. I think part of one of the special districts there. Is that person here?
>> yes.
>> okay. And you basically want to clarify what point? Please come forward and if you would give us your name and connection, we would be happy to get whatever comments you might have. I didn't chat with you yesterday, but my office did.
>> my name is jimmy skipton. I知 the president of the hays trinity ground water conservation district. And just want to make sure that this court is aware that we have a resolution that we passed from our ground water district that we do not want to be in a priority ground water district with hays -- hays, comal and Travis County all as one district. It's very important to our constituents, people that live in our district. We want to stay local. We don't want to be in a super district. We will fight it to the end. And just want to make sure this court understands that, that you don't think -- I know tceq put a document out giving ideas of how to make this priority ground water management happen in your area. There's three different ideas there. The one I think everybody was looking forward to was combining our district, travis and comal. We will fight that the best of our ability to keep it in our local control of hays county. The resolution was passed on the 16th of September, and I致e highlighted the very end where the board -- the board of directors opposes including hays county in the same ground water conservation district as any district that includes parts of comal county or Travis County.
>> we haven't been turned off a party we have not intended to attend.
>> I think it would be in your best interest not to have us involved with you all.
>> you already shared with tceq?
>> yes, we have. If you read the tceq on page 22 of their report, the tceq -- let me make sure I知 at the right place. Authority to create a gcd is not clear but the optional consideration because it would provide for the most effective ground water program of the hill country corridor, part of the pgma. Executive director notes this would create dual water entities in the hays county portion of the pgma and anticipates that the option would require the initial support of hays trinity gcd. And subsequent legislation action to dissolve the hays trinity gcd. Neither tceq nor the hays gcd is authorized to dissolve this district for establishing a new district. And just didn't apartment you all to go into it blind. I know everybody is talking this was -- this document was going to happen. Our district right now is very much a posed to it and we will not be supporting it and we're not going to work with tceq to make this happen. We'll work with tceq to make -- help you all get a district. You need a district. Very important that you get a district. But I think barton springs, edwards would like to be parted of you all, that sounds great the me. I just didn't want you all to go into this thinking this was going to be a quick process and we were all on bore and we're all going to be together. It makes the district way too big. If you really study this report, you would see that Travis County was going to get one vote on this new district. Hays would get two and comal would get two. And most of the tax money would have come from Travis County. So some people in my county have told me we want travis for their tax dollars. It will help fund the district.
>> but you and I don't agree with that, do we?
>> I wouldn't think so. But if you would like us to handle your money, we understand that too. And just so you know, the very last page of this document that tceq put out, if the taxes were not approved, the district would have to find an alternative method to finance fully its operation. It is estimated that only $41,000 can be generated by the well production fees. Even if we set up this super district, if it goes to the voters, which it will have to to be approved for a tax, if the tax is not approved, we only have $41,000 for three districts or three counties to operate. Right now hays county is funding us. They -- last budget cycle gave us $125,000. If travis would like to give us half a million dollars, it would really help us, but I知 not sure -- I just don't see how this would work out for your citizens to have a say in your area. Because what happens in comal versus travis are two different things. Same thing with hays county. And I just -- y'all are a great county, just don't -- those of us that moved to hays county, we have ground water problems of our own. You have your own issues here. Comal county twice has voted down a ground water district. Twice. It has gone to the voters and they voted no. So if we go to them for a third time, we're not sure if that will really help us. We're making very good strides. I don't know if you want me to read this whole resolution, but you all have it.
>> we have it. Thank you very much.
>> you are in favor of us -- of us doing some management of our trinity aquifer because it's to your advantage in hays county if we manage it.
>> oh, yes, you need a ground water district.
>> and has the hays county water conservation district -- well, the official name, sorry, hays trinity ground water conservation district, have they -- is the -- is the district in favor of this temporary suspension while we study the issue?
>> I知 not sure what it will accomplish for you right now. Right now the aquifer is full. We're in good shape with the aquifer.
>> which makes it a good time to take a breather, I would think.
>> you could, but I知 not sure if it's going to -- I知 not sure the effect you are looking for. Right now most of our wells are doing really good. They are all full. We've had good rains, things are great. Normally we see when people want to do this it's in a drought when you are going to hurt some wells. Right now I don't believe the aquifer is so full right thousand that there's going to be a big help today. Maybe if we go into a drought six months from now it will become a huge issue, but I知 not sure if doing it today before you have everything ready for ground water district, it is a very complicated process.
>> the -- I don't think we're really posted for an indepth discussion on the ground water district, but since you made this presentation, I know I am and I think many of us have some problems with the way what is working through tceq is -- the structure of it what we need to look at further. I also would ask if you are aware your hays county Commissioners court has passed resolution on record supporting the three counties?
>> yes, they are, and of those Commissioners now one of them has came to me and said that possibly she would like to change that idea due to the fact we've been working with andy samson and the institute that she realizes it may have been a mistake. They have not voted on it formally.
>> well they have --
>> they have not voted on it formally again.
>> just for the record, I wanted you to know that early on all three county Commissioners courts had supported that proposal.
>> yes.
>> thank you.
>> we have a copy of the tceq document that he refers to. Page 22 is the first one that you referenced, right?
>> yes, sir, page 22.
>> okay. Any stuff response? -- any staff response? Thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> now, anybody else here to give comments on this item? If so, please come forward and give us your name and we would be happy to give your comments. Please come forward. We did hear loud and clear last week so to the extent possible if you would, please don't repeat yourself. Unless there is some short statement that is super important.
>> good morning. My name is todd reimers. And just to give you a little bit of history of my family and our residents in southwest Travis County and the impact. Everybody may or may not be aware, my family has been in 2 southwest portion of Travis County since 1882 when they immigrated from germany. The sixth generation is now alive. We've owned that piece of property since then and have ranched it and owned that. Also, just kind of as a little background, back in the mid '40s when rural electrification took place, my father was about to start kindergarten so we've seen a wealth of change that has happened in a short amount of time in southwest Travis County. Also in case you are not aware, back in 1985 we had run hamilton pool as a park open to the public for many, many years, and Travis County came in and through eminent domain took that away from us. Then more recently, my cousin milton has sold a large portion of his property to the county for a park. So that basically puts us between two county parks. Basically what we see a lot of is we see a lot of people that are new to Austin, to Travis County that want to come in and change the rules. And that's okay. You can propose changes, et cetera, but what I知 having a hard time understanding is why do long-term property owners who have been stewards of the land have to suffer the consequences for the actions of people that are relatively newcomers to the area. And that's what we're faced with and whenever that happens and amendments get proposed and we want to rush and put a moratorium-development --
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> what then? We're forced to take less because again relative newcomers to the area have decided that they want to take a pause and study this and penalize the people that have been there the longest? That's what I really have a hard time with. Irrelevant know a few years ago lcra brought some water out there and this particularly targets wells, but I guess my question is this, and particularly Commissioner huber, would you support bringing surface water to us if you're going to take away our riewts our rigo drill wells?
>> this absolutely supports the surface water concept for development.
>> I guess my particular question was would you personally support bringing surface water to us?
>> I would support developers that brought surface water to their property for development purposes.
>> I知 not sure that quite answered the question. You know, the other thing I would point out is there are a handful of loners in this portion of Travis County that are primarily targeted by this. I think the Commissioners and the county would be best served to take a pause and have a dialogue with these landowners who to my knowledge are not intent on developing their property. Get their feedback, do something different as opposed to enacting a more moratorium. We've had an opportunity for years to do this and I think it's a good idea. I知 not opposed to having a groundwater conservation district, but I am opposed to basically what results in devaluing our property while we take an unknown amount of time to study this issue and to make a decision. I知 in full support of being a part of the stakeholder group that addresses this and tries to come up with a proactive solution, but this amendment doesn't help in that fashion.
>> would you feel better if we told you that our intention is to end the moratorium in one year?
>> yes, judge Biscoe, I understand that is the intention. But like a lot of things, these goodin tensions may or may not come to pass. It would probably make me feel a lot better that there was a guarantee that it would end in a year, but personally what I would rather see is to have us step back and have an honest dialogue about what we need to do in this situation and come up with a solution, propose that and enact that rather than just flat out say we're not going to allow development while we try to figure this out. To me that's not the right way to handle this. And again, it unfortunately makes the long-term citizens of the county bear the burden for everybody else that is new. A few years ago I was part of the southwest Travis County growth dialogue process along with Commissioner huber at that time. And the mentality of people, as one lady said, she had moved here two years ago and the growth was out of control and she wanted to stop it. You know, I don't mind if people don't like the growth, but you can't move here two to three, four, 10 years ago and decide that you want to infringe on the property rights of people that have been here since my family in the 1880's and who have done mog nogalitos wrong. So that's the -- who have done nothing wrong. That's the contention I have. I think we're rushing to enact a solution that is not a solution. It's maybe a temporary fix, maybe at best. And again I知 for a groundwater conservation district, but not in the form that it's before you to vote on today.
>> mr. Reimers, first of all I would like to point out it's been 20 years since this area was designated as a high priority area for groundwater conservation district and we have yet to enjoy strong support from the development community to get a groundwater district in place. Secondly, this is an interim rule that we're looking at. It is not about growth or no growth. It's not about new versus old. It's about ensuring that whatever does happen out there that those people that buy those homes have a long-term water supply available and it's also ensuring that those that are already out there like some of your family that are on wells, continue to have water in their wells in the future. So we just feel -- I feel like it's time for us to step back, take a long look at what the water is available. We had good science presented last week. I don't know if you had the opportunity to look at the video from the presentation last week. We know that there's a downward trend in availability of water even when there's plenty of water out there. There's no distances right now between what wells can be put in. And we know that this area is targeted for high growth as soon as this economy turns around. In fact, it has continued to enjoy growth through this downturn. So it's an interim rule. It's designed to protect you and everybody else and their property rights. That's where I知 coming from.
>> respectfully I disagree with that because if it's really a high priority, then I think we should focus our efforts on coming up with a solution in the short-term rather than taking this time to enact an amendment that infringes on our property rights. Yes, it's high growth. It's been an issue, but we're not out there drilling wells. We're not out there, you know, relieving the aquifer of its water. There's surface water already down hamilton pool road to ranch road 12. It's not an immediate issue. With the economic downturn there's -- I can't imagine that there will be new subdivisions in the near future, especially not the next year. And I think if you -- if we're really truly racing against the clock, so to speak, then that creates an urgency, if you will, without the amendment, otherwise it gets forgotten about. People realize they have a year and just like everything else, we tend to procrastinate if we have time. Without an amendment it forces us to address it head on, the sooner the better, and to come up with a solution. And that's what I知 asking for. Let's proactively address this issue. Let's do it without an amendment so that we can address it quicker, faster and come up with a solution that works for everyone.
>> yes.
>> mr. Reimers, are you aware of the -- we all unfortunately have been involved in litigation at some point or another. Are you aware of the concept of at the beginning of a dispute you sort of freeze the circumstances so that you can then have a conversation about the circumstances without -- without the facts changing under your feet?
>> absolutely.
>> because I am mindful of your suggestion and I hope I知 not paraphrasing, to take a pause and have a dialogue with the loansers. O. Owe landowners. I think that's what the suspension is is taking a pause to have a dialogue with the landowners. While I personally feel that that we've been in this area is possibly irrelevant to our diminishing water resources, if it makes you feel more confident, I too am a sixth generation -- my father was born here in 1913. So I知 in a similar situation of being from a family who has been here a long time and seen considerable changes in the last several decades. But I hope that you can see that the idea of the spus pension is to just hold the facts on the ground steady while we discuss and arrive at a solution for the distribution of this diminishing resource.
>> Commissioner, I understand that and I understand that's the intention. What I知 -- what concerns me greatly is the fact that the suspension is written in an indefinite format. It can end on October 31st, 2011. It could continue on for an unforeseeable number of years. To me that is an excuse to let this process linger on long past its viability. And in truth again I point out if you're going to have this meaningful dialogue and you want to make this happen, without that it's a pressing issue and there's a sense of urgency to it. If you say well, it could end on October 31st 2011 or it could end 2012 or 2013, there is no urgency whatsoever.
>> I would suggest that there is an urgency and it's called politics. I would suggest that if the Commissioners court were to keep the suspension in place indefinitely, there would certainly be a ground swell of opposition to that that would be heard loud and clear at the Commissioners court. I think that there are market fox news firsts that are exerting a good and positive pressure to assure that the suspension isn't any longer what is necessary to get the people at the table to discuss the facts on the ground and come up with a solution. I think to select an arbitrary date at this point without full knowledge of the facts on the ground -- because there hasn't been adequate study frankly despite the fact that tceq declared this as a diminishing resource 20 years ago, I think that there is a sense of urgency on both sides of the table that will keep this process as compact as it can be.
>> and the other question I would have based on that is it sounded like the stakeholder group wasn't going to start until January. Did I understand that correctly from earlier?
>> let me review the staff backup on that. This is just a draft timeline.
>> I could have misunderstood that. That's what I understood. If it is truly urgent, why will it not begin November 1?
>> we will be putting it together in November, the stakeholder group.
>> that's what the draft timeline says at this point, that the Commissioners would identify appointments to the stakeholder advisory group in November.
>> and when would they actually start addressing the issue?
>> I believe we would sit -- at least according to the draft timeline -- and again, we're moving as expeditiously as possible. Set agenda and meet with local state hydrologists to discuss and gather information December 2010.
>> once again, I知 not opposed to a groundwater conservation district. I知 opposed to the way we're going to put a moratorium on this for the time being. I agree if this is urgent and I understand your issue about freezing time, but the fact of the matter is nothing is happening right now and nothing is going to happen in the next year. There's nothing to freeze. If we take it up with a sense of urgency and come up with a solution is a far better answer than a moratorium that only serves to hurt the long-term residents of that area of the county.
>> any final words, mr. Reimers?
>> no, sir.
>> thank you.
>> my name is john (indiscernible), I知 a professional geo scientist. Judge, respective of your instructions, I won't repeat my comments, but at any time this becomes a referendum on the value of a district and the shape of that district, we would like now to request permission to participate in that conversation. I think we have some strong feelings about what that should look like and what is most viable and what is feasible and sustainable. And a quick rebuttal to some of the comments that have been provided here today. In 1990 with the designation of the pgma, they basically established that in terms of groundwater management we were in a hole in this area. The first rule when you're in a hole is to stop digging. I think that's essentially what this proposal does. I think it's a prudent measure. And short of that without being repetitive, I don't have any other comments.
>> any questions?
>> I just have one question. How quickly can we turn into a drought situation here in central Texas?
>> it can happen quickly. In fact, if you look at the hydro graph that I provided last week you see the cycle. We were in a severe drought in 2006. We came out of a drought in 2007. We were again in a severe drought in 2008 and all through 2009 and everybody remembers what that was like. So to not act because times are good now I think is not being proactive. To wait until there is a drought I think is react active. I think it's far more prudent to be proactive.
>> thank you.
>> thank you. Yes, sir. By the way, if you would like your comments today, this is the time to come forward.
>> I知 gene lowwe nthal, president of the hamilton pool road scenic road association. I don't get my input from the reimers ranch or the peacock ranch or the large ranches that want to develop. The people I listen to are smaller landowners, including the crumleys who have been around about as long as the reimers who tend to have smaller pieces of land that are not going to subdivide, that are dependent entirely on wells for drinking, washing, all the essentials, who will never get lcra water. They ran pretty scared during the drought. Some of their wells were marginal or went dry. To them there's a sense of urgency. I don't think that we'll ever get to a gcd if the county doesn't take action to really send a message that we'll do something if you guys don't. So I applaud on behalf of my group, we applaud the moratorium and look forward to in some form or fashion a gcd being put in place. I would say that there's a lot of misinformation out there about how much a gcd would cost. Astronomical taxes. They would try to control residential wells. A whole bunch of myths that are being promulgated to scare people away from voting in favor of a gcd. So I think that it would be wonderful if the county both took the action and did something to educate the electorate on the low cost of a gcd. A lot of people say well, I don't have a well, why should I support people with wells? It's a pretty negative logic. It's like why should we support -- my kids are out of school, why should I pay taxes to the isd. I think there needs to be education and I think you need to take action today, and thank you.
>> thank you. Yes, sir.
>> thank you, judge Biscoe, Commissioners. Bill bunch with save our springs alliance. I want to thank y'all for taking this initiative. And it is overdue. We've paid probably too much attention to water quality issues and let the quantity issues get away from us the last decade. And it's really important that y'all have stepped forward to grasp this nettle. It is about protecting both private rights in groundwater and also water as a shared resource that is in short supply and that we need some rules that allocate it fairly and preserve it so that generations ahead will have water and we won't just dessicate western Travis County by excessive pumping. Two points. I think you probably know this, but I think it's worth noting. We have this rather draconian state, if you want to do anything you need to take this step promptly to preserve current conditions. And then you can step back from it or substitute, but if you sit by and preliminary plat applications are filed, as you know they're grandfathered and you can't do anything. Or if you take action a year from now it will be too late. Another important thing to keep in mind, and this is in this larger context of what is the solution that we're trying to get to. Some recent science that hasn't gotten a lot of attention shows that the blanco river watershed recharge there flows to barton springs during drought times. So basically the recharge in the trinity, western Travis County, feeding that aquifer, flowing out at jacob's well and other springs, then flows through on the surface and then goes back into the recharge and the edwards. And then helps sustain barton springs at the most critical times. So what that tells us is we really have to come up with a management structure that is consistent and the three county approach makes sense. The groundwater is not obeying the county line. And this recent science really showed us how connected our interest in Travis County are with what happens in western hays county as well. So again, thank you and I do urge you to take action today.
>> thank you. Mr. Priest?
>> thank you, judge, Commissioners. Morris priest speaking on my own behalf. I do think that we have the finest county staff here. Our county attorneys are excellent and I would hope that they would ask you to take this into executive session. We have people in community such as on October the 28th that are going to be discussing this. This issue is going to be discussed in this next upcoming legislative session. It is the cart before the horse. I do think there's some serious subject matter jurisdictions. I don't think this will be anything but an expense to the county for lawsuits, and I don't think that this is going to be successful in prevailing in such matters. I知 not a lawyer, so I知 not practicing bar ris try, but I can read and I also know we have a problem with our county government connecting with our city and state government on so many issues such as this. And it's in the same line with water treatment plant 4 and some of the other water issues that are going on. But basically this is -- this is an ill advised time to take any action on this matter at this time because there's other people discussing this and many things are going to be changed and evolved in the legislation as well as the fact that what is being planned isn't going to be a solution and it's still once again the Travis County Commissioners court trying to control the weather. Thank you.
>> thank you. Yes, sir.
>> my name is ted stewart. I live at 26,800 hamilton pool road. And I致e sat before this group before about these same type issues. I apologize for two things up front today. One is I知 going to read my thoughts mostly because I知 not an attorney and as I値l say later, proud of that fact and haven't done that. And also I知 pretty blunt in what I say. I want you to know where exactly I知 coming from. I want to start by saying mostly I agree with whatted what rodreimers and others saido have been out there a long time and the take that he presented. And I think it's real good. I want you to know that I personally do not object to the creation of a groundwater district over our property. The state of Texas has created a process along with the specific path of how to achieve this. I致e in fact met with the blanco gcd requesting annexation into their district. They didn't see the value of including us, this little piece of Travis County between the river and blanco county into their district or for whatever reason. The local environmental -- let's just call it movement, if you will. They call themselves that. They sponsored a bill last session to have our property included into the -- I believe the barton springs edward's aquifer district. The state of Texas looked at that and they didn't see merit in that bill and didn't pass that either. The state of Texas has a way to put the groundwater district there. We should have a groundwater district distribution. I have no objection to that. Travis County is not the entity to police that and do that. I certainly wouldn't object if another high density subdivision was never built in western Travis County. In fact, I don't see how another subdivision could be safely developed when my county Commissioner is dedicated to killing infrastructure improvements that are -- that have no other benefit except to help the safety of the existing residents. What I do object to is the blatant dishonesty which this court uses to practice its well honed skills of expanding their regulatory authority to confiscate what amounts to private easements over private property. This court has shown in the past that it is willing to use a moratorium to further its no growth agenda without any regard for the lives affected by such an oppressive move. A moratorium of any subdivision means that a landowner with 100 acres could not carve off 25 acres to give to his two children. It would also mean that in these hard times that a rancher could not sell a parcel off to meet his financial needs. He could not even borrow money against a portion of his property to help with financial burdens created by a health problem of a family member. In fact, this moratorium in fact would not have allowed my sale of 44 acres to west cave preserve to expand the boundaries of a wonderful program out there in the beautiful preserve. What I do object to is the movement by a few individuals to decide for me and my neighbors how our property will be used for their personal gratification. Anyone foolish enough to believe this moratorium is abouting the principality aquifer is simply uninformed, naive or both. This moratorium is just another step in removing private property rights from a few landowners for the gratification of others. It is about establishing view corridors, buffers, set backs from creeks and streams, establishing water quality zones, protecting historical landmarks, establishing habitat for all god's creatures. All these creatures, that is, except for those folks who are fortunate enough to have either inherited or purchased this land with their hard earned money. For those folks these protections are a taking of their property. That may surprise you to hear that I知 for all of those protections that I just pointed out. I知 for all of them being established over my property. In fact, that is what I致e endeavored to accomplish over the last 18 years, the limited funding that I致e had at my disposal. I致e cut cedar, I知 protected buffers, protected protection and of wildlife habitat by developing spring flows and watering holes. All of this I致e done with my own hard earned resources. The undeveloped land you aspire to protect are there because my neighbors and I would like to leave them there in the first place. They're there for the enjoyment of thousands of cars, motorcycles, school buses and bicycles that travel out of Austin, Texas and into the hill country along hamilton pool road, throwing bags out on the side of the road, beer cans, trash, everything else that the county doesn't have the resources to pick up and clean up. Or just won't do it. This is a beautiful place and it would be a available asset to future generations to enjoy if it could be left the way it is. I do not believe it is the responsibility of my neighbors and me to donate this valuable asset to future generations of the general public. I知 no lawyer and proud of the fact, as I said, but I知 shocked to read the court's position and I assume tom knuckles wrote it, that this temporary moratorium, which we all know in and of itself is a lie, is a taking, but there is no devaluation of the property as a result of not being able to subdivide the property into smaller tracts. This position is so unbelievably ignorant of the facts that it can only be assumed that he is making the statement to agriculture tagnize the stakeholders to bring suit against the county. All the halls of this -- after all, the halls of this courthouse are filled with lawyers looking for ways to expand local government. And the taxpayers I知 seam to have an endless -- seem to have an endless supply of funds to the atrocities against them selves. I致e already given to the office. The real estate values are apprised on comps. I壇 be willing to debate the issue of whether the subdivision of a large parcel of land into a smaller par sal adds value to the overall price per acre with anybody, including Commissioner huber and tom knuckles. In fact, I suggest you look at the 44-acre parcel that I sold to west cave reserve. It's very indicative of our area and the difference in value per acre of a tract of land that the movement thought was valuable enough to be part of their preserve out there and we agreed and we were willing seller, willing buyer. This is where I think we need to have our conversations. I致e paid my taxes for 25 careers in this county. I owned a company for 45 years that employed hundreds of people which did the same. Sold my company and was planning to move on to my property and into a house which I spent six years building myself. I don't intend to spend my money and the rest of my life in a lawsuit with you goof balls. What I do plan on doing is making this court's every attempt at confiscating people's personal property and ultimately their lives transparent and known across the great state of Texas and beyond. I believe the truth in this matter is that Travis County is preparing to write a subdivision ordinance under its newly established powers granted under senate bill 1299 in the last session of the legislature. Travis County was given powers under the bill that no other Texas counties other than bexar and harris counties are given. I believe the governor signed this bill as a local bill and was not fully aware of the abusive intents of this court. The hill country movement wrote, paid for and pushed this bill through with the support of Travis County, patrick rose, belinda bolton and other land socialists in the area. In other words, Travis County rural residents pay taxes to support the confication of their property values by their elected representatives. Is this a great republic or what? I want to leave you with a vocabulary lesson today and three new words for the week are: temporary, stakeholder and moratorium. Temporary with this court means forever or until we get the ordinance passed that will allow us to take the property and any other rights that we might deem necessary. And as his heck heart says politics. It's all about politics and we know that.
>> that's why it's not (indiscernible).
>> remember the temporary interim rules that were passed three to four years ago as a result of the southwest Travis County stakeholders meeting, which I was a part of? To my knowledge those temporary interim rules are still in effect four years later. Well, maybe not, but I think they are. Stakeholder, with this court what that means are those folks in the movement. Mostly downtown metro sexuals or other folks living on five acre subdivided parcels of land in the beautiful western part of the county. They've already been subdivided. Have a water well. Or maybe some of these people have sold their property, cashed in on the subdivision next door to them. They're out here to protect it, but that's what we do. In moratorium, with this court that means death to the principle of the protection of private property rights. Death to the concept of just conception -- compensation for the death of personal property and death to the folks who make a living when the property is subdivided, fence builders, home builders, well diggers, farm supply businesses, road and tank builders, surveyors, livestock managers, cedar choppers, wildlife management companies and on and on and on. I ask you to reconsider this moratorium. Be truthful in your goals and sit down with a real stakeholders. People who are being asked to give up their property. The values of their property, not just for posterity of all the residents of Travis County, but for our generations to come of our families. I know where this vote is going because the Commissioners court has in the past shown that the downtown -- the problem I see in a we as rural landowners have is we don't have an elected representative on the council. The voting block for all the precincts lies inside loop 360 and downtown Austin, the pie-shaped deal where there is a few people out in the hinterlands and we're not represented. That's my story and I知 sticking to it.
>> thank you.
>> [ applause ]
>> could I ask staff to clarify the statement that was made by mr. Stewart with regard to subdividing by family members? Which is not covered at all. It is specifically excluded under 245.
>> yes. The statutory exemptions or exceptions that are bound in the local government code and in our regulations, that would still be a permitted activity during the suspension if it gets approved.
>> and even irrespective of what is decided over the course of the year with regard to any new rules that would be put in place, statute prohibits us from regulating any kind of subdividing by family members. So I want to make sure that that piece of information that was provided by mr. Stewart is clarified as simply erroneous.
>> okay. So is there -- you made an earlier statement that the subdivision, you defined it as a platting, building of roads, etcetera, that we go through to get a subdivision. If one doesn't do that and carves off let's say 25 acres, is there a minimum acreage that is exempt from the subdivision?
>> well, there's several different exceptions to subdivision platting. One of which is a family member exception for people within three degrees that does not have an acreage size associated with it. In addition, several others, but one that you kind of spoke of had to do with conveying to a neighbor or just splitting your property without going through the subdivision process. And if each tract is greater than 10 acres, so 10.0001 even, then that could be exempted from the subdivision process. Now, naturally we have to look at the information and verify that everything -- I would recommend that we look at the information and verify that everything is greater than that, and if you so desired, we could do an affidavit of supporting the exception.
>> that's to an adjacent landowner. But to carve off 10 acres and sell to a third party for the situation I described here for a financial hardship --
>> if every piece of it was greater than 10 acres, then it wouldn't have to be to a neighbor. There are exemptions. I値l be happy to discuss them.
>> so 10-acre minimum tracts then would be exempted from the moratorium.
>> if every piece of the tract that's being split up is greater than 10 acres, then there is an exemption on the books. Yes.
>> which we have no authority to change even if we wanted to, which we don't.
>> so for the record here today, what -- the way I understand that statement, that any subdivision, 10 acres or larger, carving off of 10 acres or larger of another tract would be exempt from the moratorium to any third party sale, is that right, tom?
>> point of clarification. The statute exempts it if it's over 10 acres and you're not laying out a new road. Since the basis for county subdivision authority focuses on what are you doing with new roads, if it's over 10 acres and you're not laying out a new road, no plat is required, therefore it would not be subject to this amendment.
>> so if you own a helicopter you can get to it with a helicopter, then you're okay.
>> if you don't have to lay out a new road --
>> what does lay out a new road mean?
>> let me add this. I think it's a -- it's not quite accurate to say that this amendment is going to stop development. I think this amendment raises the bar for subdivisions that are going to use the trinity as their groundwater source. And basically says for the next year that's not business as usual. But built into the rule is an individual exception that doesn't depend on any of the statutory section. Built into the rule is the opportunity for an individual landowner that says I was planning to do a subdivision and use trinity and I was ready to go now. This is a hardship on me. That owner can come to the court and get a plat approve. So I hear people saying -- I致e heard almost everyone say no one expects a subdivision application to be filed over the next year because of the state of the economy. If that's the case, then the market is stopping development. But if there is a landowner that is subject to this that says I was going to do it, I was planning to do it, I need to do it, they can come to the Commissioners court and get a plat approved that uses trinity groundwater as their water supply.
>> and this doesn't affect the application for a water well permit for a piece of property that's already platted.
>> exactly. Exactly.
>> we can give you responses in writing if there are specific questions that you need answered.
>> tom? On part three, new section 82.213. 82.213 d says this section expires October 31st, 2011.
>> right.
>> that would be what's called the moratorium.
>> well, I would say that's an expiration date.
>> of the moratorium?
>> right.
>> and that's fairly clear in order for that not to take place the court would have to put it on the agenda and extend the deadline.
>> it expires automatically if you don't do anything. If you want anything to happen after October 31st, 2011, have you to put it on the agenda, do the notices, do the public hearings, do the takings impact assessment and do all that to continue anything. Otherwise it expires of its own accord.
>> so we did not have similar language for the interim rules. Did we?
>> I would have to look.
>> there was no expiration date on those. I think they sort of got the shorthand term interim because people were expecting additional rules to come down the road later. Those are -- that's right, the interim books are still on the books because we have yet to come back with those additional rules. But obviously this rule making effort or the stakeholder effort that's being launched as part of this effort could be looked as say now it's time to do -- follow through on what we said in 25 and do some more rules than the interim rules.
>> okay. Speaking of stakeholder process, I知 looking at the draft schedule that you've provided to us, mr. Webber. What really needs to happen in order to us to complete our work by October 31st of next year?
>> we want to have a dialogue first with some of the other professionals in this region who have adopted similar rules and that that after that effort we want to then go forward with the stakeholder meeting for two or three to discuss the various concepts that we're thinking of proposing to get feedback. Is this the way to go? What do you think we expect we'll get different views on some of the technical standards. But all in all these sttsz that woor looking at -- these standards that we're looking at considering are to basically I am prove the demonstrations -- improve the demonstrations that have come forward with the plat application so that when we look at that we can be more assured that there is going to be available groundwater. Right now what we have on the books are rules that are the standard boiler plate from the tceq. Many of the hill country counties adjacent to that have gone ahead and enhanced and refined those. Bearing in mind the specific problems with availability in the trinity aquifer. So dpl the stakeholder process we want to lay out each of these things that have been done in adjacent counties, that are in place right now and I believe are working well to -- to basically verify that we have this groundwater. So we want to just have those stakeholder meetings to talk about those issues and then to come forward with a draft rule after that. And as you see from the timeline, we expect to do it before the end of October next year.
>> so how does this fit with what tceq is considering?
>> well, I think the rule amendment language identifies that if there's a groundwater conservation district formed before the end of the temporary suspension, October 31 of 2011, that we wouldn't need this suspension to continue. It's pretty optimistic that the tceq process would end by then and that there would be a groundwater district established. So they're somewhat independent. It's addressing the same issue. I think what we mentioned last week is that we're sort of in a default position of managing groundwater until there's a gcd formed out there. And so this is a rule making that would end once we laid out an ordinance similar to what's going on in some of these other counties, I think. Not when the gcd is formed. So if that process takes two, three, five or some longer period of time, that's sort of independent of what we're trying to do here at the county level.
>> and judge, let me point something out. What's in the amendment and the authority you have over water availability is not in any way contingent on whether there is a groundwater conservation district. In most of the other counties that have adopted rules for water availability, we gave you the chart last week that talked about all those things, mainly the hill country counties that are in the same priority groundwater management area. And most of the counties where the Commissioners court adopted rules there's a gcd, but they're managing activities. The gcd is managing the withdrawal of water from the aquifer. The Commissioners' court is managing the development activity on top of the aquifer that affects the aquifer. But what you are doing is not dependent on gcd creation. If no gcd is ever created in Travis County, you can still adopt the other rules the counties have adopted for managing development over the aquifer.
>> conversely even if the gcd is developed, we may still have some need for rule making authority with regard to induced demand for the diminishing resource.
>> yeah. Clearly the bulk of the counties in the hill country priority groundwater management area felt they still needed to do that even though they had a groundwater conservation district in place.
>> now, for the vote to the gcd, is that by all Travis County residents or just people who reside in the district?
>> just people who reside in the district. And it's basically because if the gcd is going to collect ad valorem tax, you want to have the consent of the people that are going to have to pay that tax, and that's only the people in the gcd.
>> those are my questions. Any others? Questions or comments?
>> ready for a motion?
>> yes.
>> I move we put in place the proposed interim rule, chapter 82, and launch the stakeholder and review process for our rules related to groundwater availability.
>> just for the record, you received the memo from joe gieselman, and it has an order attached with that language.
>> all right. I move we accept that language.
>> second.
>> do I need to read it?
>> no.
>> so the motion covers the proposed order, including the exhibit a.
>> yes.
>> the exhibit contains the exploration date of October 31st, 2011.
>> yes. Just to make it clear for the record what y'all are voting on.
>> okay. What about the schedule? Do we simply just -- do we simply indicate our intention to follow the proposed schedule?
>> yes. And that can be direction to staff to follow that schedule.
>> all right. Several residents have indicated an interest in serving on that committee. I assume our position would be we would try to get a cross-section of interested residents involved.
>> that will come back on your agenda next month. Based on this schedule.
>> okay.
>> I would suggest to staff if we can move up the inclusion of stakeholders in the conversation to an earlier date, it would be good. Although I do recognize that there's considerable work to be done between now and the first meeting of any stakeholder group.
>> so do we want to give out the general invitation now for those interested to let ms. Bolton know of their interest in writing? I guess by letter, e-mail, a written communication of some sort is preferable over a telephone call, right? So we'll have a record of it. And if you could indicate why you're interested, it may help us to do that. I知 assuming we'll get a lot more requests than we have spots. About what size?
>> I don't think we have a size in mind yet. I would hope for something large enough to include a good cross-section, but that we can still work with to try to reach an dpreament and consensus with. Agreement and consensus with.
>> any discussion on the motion? All in favor? Show a unanimous court. Thank you very much for your input.
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 19, 2010 2:33 PM
