Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, November 30, 2010,
Item 13
Item number 13, mr. Gieselman.
, is to consider and take appropriate action regarding the formation of one or more groundwater availability stakeholder committees to make recommendations regarding groundwater availability requirements in chapter 82 Travis County code.
>> as you recall we've discuss this had on several occasions.
I think today you wanted to discuss the composition of the committee.
but the staff has got together, really came out where they -- what I think is a creative solution solution.
and that is to have one committee composed of 14 members, seven representing eastern Travis County and seven representing western Travis County.
we'll start with a single committee county wide.
we'll start with our expertise and experts to educate that 14-member group, but then when it comes to actually definitelying into -- deviling into specific issues, we'll have one dealing with the eastern aquifers and the western aquifers.
the issues may be such that you don't want to mix the two together.
I think that way each section of the county will get the appropriate attention it needs, develop policies that are appropriate for that area, and then make recommendations to the court about how to proceed.
the nature of the appointments are very much like we spoke last time, having a broad section of diverse representation by type.
we would have each member of the court appointing two members, and then -- and that would represent 10 and then the other four members being appointed at large by the entire Commissioners' court.
but in the appointment have those represented by type.
and we discussed the large landowners or small landowners with wells, and it's pretty much as outlined in the backup as we discussed I believe it was a week or two weeks ago.
>> let me ask a question.
especially -- well if I知 going to notify the persons in -- for example, in precinct 1, I知 not going to try to go into anybody else's precinct.
let's say he I notify the folks in precinct 1 who I feel need to participate in this particular endeavor.
my question is to notify them and notify them of the -- I guess the procedural notification.
I guess I値l call it that, as far as the charge and then all the other add-ons that we have dealt and are dealing with in this particular regard and see if they are interested in that.
of course they need to know what they're doing and why they're doing it and of course is it relevant to them according to type, are they farmers, ranchers, developers and on down the line?
and I think it's pretty significant and I知 not trying to tell anybody else how to do their business in their precinct, but I know I have a list of folks that I think would be very -- very instrumental and probably would be willing to participate under this type of setting.
so I guess my question is the charge that we have now, per se, is that sufficient enough to at least for me to send out for people to get on board?
because I really want to make sure that if we do this correctly, which I know we are, then the moving parts that are associated with this.
so that's my concern.
>> our intention is to bring back the charge, right?
>> I thought that we had that basically developed, per se, just a little bit anyway.
>> the development we didn't really approve it.
we said we would bring this item back today to talk about whether we would have one large committee or two small ones.
looks like they're recommending a hybrid.
the way it's posted here, the item really pertains to the formation of one or more committees, which is what we said we would do, why we only took a week rather than two.
but I think we ought to bring that back as early as next week and approve the charge.
>> okay.
that gives us a way to -- I知 talking to folks, judge, and I just need to have some communicating of vehicle to get the information to them.
>> two questions.
one is we stress the importance of emergency services folks, but they're not one of the groups represented.
>> we have theams a technical expert.
they are represented, but they are more like staff.
they're knowledge-based experts as opposed to someone who would be a user of the aquifer.
they're like any other service provider.
that's where we put them in the mix.
>> a good friend of mine, the late judge wright of caldwell county, used to say don't invite him to dinner if you don't eat.
so we think the emergency services people will appreciate their expert resource status rather than membership on the committee.
>> we actually -- and part of this is maybe just our frame of reference.
we include the esd's and the emergency service provider in the review of development when it comes to our process.
because we treat them like ourselves.
I mean, how will you have to deal with this development when it occurs?
so I guess that's our frame of reference.
they're shoulder to shoulder to us as technical experts in evaluating the development when it comes through.
so that is why.
and I presume that they would appreciate that same role at the minimum in this effort.
>> okay.
if we think that's sufficient, fine.
my last question is this: on page two you have each Commissioner will appoint two committee members.
do you mean each court member?
>> each court member, that's correct.
thank you.
>> I know it's around christmas time, but it's real bold when you openly exclude the county judge.
>> we want to be on your christmas list.
>> [ laughter ]
>> Commissioner Huber?
>> I wanted to follow up on the emergency services.
and I just wonder how that's different from the environmental community as far as technical expertise since they are one of the listed stakeholders.
>> quite frankly, when we were discussing this I wanted to make every effort to be respectful of the committee member's times and what things they were going to want and what things they were probably going to want to have the most discussion on.
there's certainly -- the e.m.s.
is certainly the -- very welcome in all of the discussions, but if they have limited time that we could use their time judiciously on the things that matter the most to them and they would be able to talk about the water -- the role water has in emergency services.
as opposed to a lot of the detail about the specifics about the characteristics of the aquifers throughout Travis County.
>> did we ask one or two of them?
>> we certainly can.
>> we haven't yet?
>> we have not.
>> I hear the position and I think that may be valid, but I kind of would like to maybe ask them because they're actually out there everyday all day and they see the challenges that are associated with the water availability.
so I want to be sure that they're interwoven into this in an effective way, whatever is appropriate.
>> mr. Priest?
>> yes, judge.
morris priest, speaking on my own behalf.
I wanted to say that I was thinking the same thing you did on the appointments, I know there are seven.
so you're saying there's going to be two people in each one of these seven categories, is that what I知 understanding?
the residential, developer, large tract, two in each one of those categories?
>> no.
there will be two appointed by each member of the court.
there will be seven --
>> you're saying it's going to be 14 members.
>> 14 total, yes.
so one by east-west, in that regard.
>> so it would be one on the east side, one on the west side.
but I知 saying it would be two -- two in each one of these categories?
>> yes.
>> that's basically the only thing that I was hoping to suggest was that I was thinking about cutting you out of the process, judge.
>> [ laughter ] but basically wanted to split up the people with the precincts, since there were 14 and there are four county Commissioners.
each of them having 12 and then the two environmental -- of course you would get a vote on all these things, so you wouldn't be cut out, but the two environmental people would be voted on -- in other words, those two people wouldn't be selected from a precinct.
that would be county wide.
>> I think the person elected county wide should be able to appoint all of them.
>> no.
the --
>> [ laughter ] the two people that are environmental people.
so you wouldn't have two in southwestern Travis County.
does that make sense?
>> yeah.
>> so in other words, you have to have one from the east and one from the west.
because I知 thinking that you could that person would be -- in other words, what I知 saying is if each one of you picked the people you wanted -- if Commissioner Davis picked the people he wants for precinct 1, that the court would just approve those two.
>> I do think the court ought to approve the whole list at one time, which means that if we don't approve one or more, they're not on the committee.
>> right.
>> but it's 14 people.
the likelihood of that happening I think would be slim, you know.
normally, whether it's good or bad, routinely we approve a court member's recommendations.
but we also normally request a resume or some sort of description of the person''s background when the recommendation come forward, and it seems to me that that's a good practice.
>> that's the only thing.
do y'all understand what I知 saying.
>> you raise a good point.
>> what I致e seen in other appointments in the past is maybe one precinct, you know -- if Margaret Gomez and so on and so forth, y'all each gave your two and that was like an automatic approval, because I don't think any Commissioner would approve someone that wouldn't qualify because otherwise we're not guaranteed that we're going have representation from each precinct.
>> well, in building on what you're saying, inc.
it's important to point out we're talking east and west here and 43% of the county is the western half, so if anyone is on the shortened of the stick on the appointments is the Commissioner from precinct 3.
although I respect my other colleagues' appointees, so I知 sure they will work to see that the county is effectively represented geographically as well.
>> it will be important for Commissioner Gomez and I since both of our precinct dozen have fingers into the west to provide some balance in that regard.
and the backup suggests a work session in January for us to be -- for us to discuss the 22222 and then filling out the casting with the four court wide appointments, which I think may go to what you're saying, mr. Priest, is that you're suggesting that perhaps the environmental community not be considered from geographic standpoint?
that those should be court wide?
>> yes.
in other words, out of the seven categories you have two environmental and then one would be from the east and one would be from the west.
and then each one of you, all five of you, could nominate the two -- the people that you think would be that person.
okay.
irregardless of your geographic.
so then each of you, the five of you would select -- because of the fact that to maintain this humor that was here earlier, I知 not sure if these people are unbiased in their opinion.
I知 hoping we would get a better shot at getting somebody different than some of the people that have spoken on the matter before.
>> and that's a good point and I think it goes to some of what mr. Gieselman was saying about the emergency service district, not just esd's, but also fire marshal and whatnot.
they generally are at the table.
what the stakeholder group is about is pulling people who are not necessarily inside the echo chamber usually.
>> and that's the only reason I was bringing up this appointment process in this manner because it does seem like sometimes when the public watches y'all and we see these meetings unfold, sometimes it appears like, well, we're going to have five people here.
and in the public's mind everybody gets to pick one.
but then all of a sudden things change along the way and I think -- I may be mistaken and I would never in my wildest imagination ever speak, you know, for Commissioner Davis, but I think he's connected with what I知 saying.
you know, I think that you are.
can you understand where I知 coming from, mr. Davis?
>> yes.
>> so that's why I think it would be a good idea to -- I hope y'all will implement that suggestion.
>> Commissioner Eckhardt?
>> my only -- I thought the backup was great.
my only suggestion, and it doesn't have to be discussed today.
this might be something we want to decide at the work session.
but to have an end date for the work of the committee as a whole and the subcommittees.
just so that the folks who are volunteering their time know what their commitment is.
and I think that we would probably be able to recruit people more easily if we said, look, there's a specific end date.
you will be done by this date.
>> let's bring that back with the charge.
>> with the charge, right.
>> as early as next week.
and any other issues that we need to discuss.
next Tuesday soon enough?
not too early, right?
so what's before us really is one large committee that divides into two subgroups for most of the work, but the whole group will meet periodically and get this work done.
and then next week we will land on what the work really is.
>> I would like to move approval of that, what you just stated.
>> with one or two minor changes recommended.
>> with one or two minor changes because we can move forward with the charge.
>> one is instead of each Commissioner, each court member.
>> oh.
of course.
>> now, if you are here on this item and would like to give comments, come forth at this time?
second of the motion?
it did not have a second, did it, miss porter?
okay.
any more discussion on the motion?
>> are we not -- if we're going to ask them to contact a couple of the emergency services people, does that figure into the categories?
>> we consider that aspect of it next week when it comes back.
but today what we're approving really is a larger committee than recommended last time, specifically a total of 14.
and our goal is to get half of it from the west and half of it from the east.
and we expect them to break into subcommittees from time to time to get the work done.
but I think that if we talk with the emergency services folks and they express a strong desire to be represented, and I think we ought to at least discuss that next week.
so we can make sure that the posting allows that.
okay?
>> it would be good.
especially if it's possible they can echo that sent meant here before the court, the emergency services folks, if it's possible.
if possible.
>> that's fine with me.
he's suggested if somebody feels strongly enough to voice an opinion, maybe they feel strongly enough to come here and voice it and we would hear them.
>> yeah, we'll hear it.
>> mr. Knuckles, is this all right?
your expression was not a frown of bewilderment, it was of approval.
>> [ laughter ] any more discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
and we'll work on the wording and make sure it says exactly what it should between now and next week and bring this back.
believe it or not, I think we are making progress, but slowly.
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, November 30, 2010 2:08 PM
