Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, March 15, 2011,
Item 14
>> 14 is to consider and take appropriate action on request to approve a process for seeking interested party input on a rule-making relating to environmental quality.
>> good morning, judge and Commissioners.
I'm tom I'm tom webber of environmental quality program manager and tnr.
with me is john white, division manager of natural resources and environmental quality.
I'll first give you a very broad overview of the rule making and then discuss our recommended method to involve the public to get input on these draft proposals.
they are developing rules to address federal and state requirements set out in the Travis County storm water management permit.
the permit requires us to develop regulatory mechanisms that are enforceable.
and to control, reduce and eliminate the discharge of pollutants into our storm water, our lakes and rivers and streams. The tceq previously approved of the county schedule for completing an update to the Travis County code for August 11th of this year.
ttion it is for principle subdivisions sites to maintain and operate water quality ponds and structures, for environmental assessment of sites and setbacks from waterways and sensitive features.
we've also -- we are wanting to propose procedural requirements that will improve our transparency of our permitting processes and establish what we're expected to see when people submit their proposals to us.
it will set out what materials need to be submitted with an application.
how they will be in sync with an overall development process t also gets into how the storm water management staff will conduct inspections and carry out enforcement.
to extent practical, we're considering expanding our requirements into our jurisdiction that have already been established elsewhere in our community.
for instance, requirements set out by the lcra and the city of Austin.
we're updating requirements based on new regulations adopted by the u.s.
e.p.a.
and the tceq.
unlike the water quality requirements set by the county in 2005, so-called interim rules, these requirements would also apply in the e.t.j.'s of municipalities, which is a part of the area that we're required to operate our storm water program.
to accomplish the state mandate we've proposed to consolidate environmental requirements into a new chapter 104 of the Travis County code to amend parts of our existing chapter 64 and 82 and to repeal chapters 62 and 108.
the repealed sections would be updated and moved to chapter 104.
so it's more of a reorganization.
and I guess I should mention chapter 62 is our requirements for siting of solid waste facilities and 108 is our tree protection policy.
at this point we're not yet ready to formally propose rules.
that is forecasted for early July.
first we recommend setting out the rules --
>> could you repeat the effect on chapter 62 again?
>> the effect on chapter 62 would be to repeal it and to move the substantive requirements in 62 into 104, so it's a reorganization of those requirements.
>> to repeal it, but remove some of the same content that 62 has?
>> yes.
>> so we're really not getting rid of 62, we're just moving it to another --
>> not at all.
we're looking at a couple of things to make the -- to make the procedures a little bit more clear --
>> we'll move to what chapter?
where would it house itself?
>> we're proposing a new chapter 104.
>> all right.
104.
>> Commissioners, let me say this is all
>> [ inaudible ].
we'll have to take a look and see where -- where things fit.
and if there's any down side to even recodifying chapter 62.
we don't want to do anything to chapter 62 that will create fallout.
we'll be looking at all of that very closely.
>> I hope so because that's that solid waste siting ordinance that sets buffers and protect neighborhood, churches and a whole lot of other things out there that -- the setbacks.
we want to make sure that if we don't have the (indiscernible).
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> where people can e-mail any additional information they would like to obtain from us.
>> Commissioner, if I may, we expect this to be a very open kind of process.
we will get all kinds of comments.
I am confident we will make adjustments in whatever it is we are recommending based on some of those comments.
we get very informative feedback from folks, talk about the practicality of this process, that requirement, this requirement, those things, so we expect it to be a very open and interactive process until we get to the point where we have a rule that we think is worthy of bringing forward to the court for consideration.
>> here, today, and there is somebody who would like to make a comment on just the basic rule that you have right now, that you receive comment on, I guess within the time line that you set forth, I guess these go out in April, just the basic rules, as far as getting started, just a draft portion, the first part of these rules for comment, would there be something out there on the webpage for persons that feel they need to make a comment on those rules that may be affected, as far as what -- as far as what we are trying to get to?
>> well --
>> or are they open ended, or do they have to be identified.
>> anybody.
>> sorry.
>> anybody can make these comments on these kinds of things.
we obviously would consider things from residents of the county and such and first and foremost but we with may get comments from anywhere by somebody and saying do you know what, here is an improvement you can make in your rule.
>> okay.
well, that may help me out because it appears that the way we are going, sometimes it appears sometimes in the month of July as this draft would continue to develop would have to make a determination in August, I guess of of this year, but it appears that July is the, I guess the final phase of it, as far as receiving comment.
am I reading this correct?
>> we -- the process is going to be pretty much be open without time -- without deadlines until we get to formal proposal, and then, at that point, we will --
>> but in August, though, -- sometime in August, with we will have to make a determination on what we want to send forward.
is that correct.
>> yes.
>> that's what I am getting to.
>> in July, I imagine we will have a public hearing here.
>> yeah.
>> and then come about the first week of August, we will ask you to consider adoption of what we have at that point.
that is our ideal time line for this.
>> okay.
>> so how do you plan to use the attachment 1?
>> attachment 1, I think you should consider that, judge, as kind of a prototype of what our initial thoughts were.
we wanted to show you or anyone who is looking at the backup that we were considering all parts of our community balanced and broad, but, again, this is now kind of out of date because the list has grown from these entities to now to 95.
>> ninety-five.
>> and so we would like to -- I guess the key point, maybe this gets to your question is we are not trying to assign any particular entity or person any kind of special designation as a stakeholder or as someone who is selected of appointed, we are just basically saying we know there is a lot of interest in these kinds of matters in the county and anyone who wants to provide us comments on this, please do so.
>> okay.
>> basically like a notification type situation?
>> yes.
>> we ought to be -- the 95 folks, here we are with draft techs and here is a process where you can comment via notice?
>> yes.
>> okay.
>> you are asking us to approve the general process you've just described?
>> yes, sir.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion on the motion?
all those in favor?
>> yes, is there a motion?
are we open for discussion on the motion.
>> we are open for comments from you, comments, questions.
we will be happy to get them if you tell us your name.
>> I am richard mcdonald.
I feel like a stakeholder because I live on one of the major creeks on eastern Travis County and I live near the proposed gravel mind and because that's mentioned in the mining rules -- the mining rules are mentioned in the backup materials, as I looked at this list of stakeholders, it seemed heavy handed to me for engineers, realtors, home builders, txi, centi grove business interest and one general comment I want to make is it seems to me, although I am all for input from every sector of the county, my interpretation of what I have seen over the last couple of years is that sometimes the rules and the decisions the county makes have a little more interest -- or more for the interest for business and development interest than they are for the citizens that live there and that is one of the things I am worried about.
specifically there is a few things -- and I don't know if I -- because I just walked in here and my missed it.
what does it mean, a new program to prevent post construction water qualities is proposed.
is that clarified -- was that clarified already today?
>> I don't think we have addressed that specifically but we have talked about that in the past with some of our earlier rule making opportunities.
part of the storm water programs involve the structure that we will actual control storm water run-off and will actually then serve some sort of treatment purpose and what we are trying to do is make we have got it very clear on how these will be permitted an maintained and regulated over the future.
>> so that's not specifically for used mining pits that are full of water?
>> no.
>> it is not specifically about those.
however, we are -- we are going to be looking at the inclusion of some kind of a -- some kind of rule revisions that would address mining activities.
>> okay.
>> because we do not have explicit guidance on that in our code right now.
>> one of the reasons I mentioned this item is because every night I drove home, I get off of loop -- the new toll road and turn east on 969 and there is an area there that has been previously mined by txi and it is always full of water and that water is the creek water that used to flow down through my property.
elm creek goes right under the highway there and you can see elm creek meandering back through the neighborhood there or off towards Austin's colony where it is, but on either side of elm creek are exmining sites, that are going into these pits -- so it runs into his pits and it sits there and sits there for days and that's where we just put a new power line through there and I know in all of this txi planning nor reclamation and stuff, they are talking about wetlands but I am wonderingif somebody will address the fact you are lowering all of the water sheds across the creeks and the water doesn't go into the creeks anymore, how are the creeks going to survive, because my creek -- I know there has been a drought because there is trees growing it now because all of the water is sitting up 130 and stuff.
>> we understand -- this is the kind of issue that we will probably be discussing over the next several months and I am hopeful we will have some kind of proposal in the end that we listen able to address these things for future activities.
I am not sure there is much we can do about existing sites that have been mined and abandoned, but certainly for things that would be new, I would hope that perhaps the rule would be able to address those satisfactorily, but, again, these are the kinds of things we will openly discuss with everybody as we go through the next couple of months.
I really want to make sure you understand the inclusion of that list was not intended to be restrictive but rather to say, look, these are people we are reaching out to, by the fact we will put it on our website and are reaching out to everybody, we want to make sure it is a very inclusive kind of action by us.
>> and I really appreciate your coming.
that's why I made the comments earl, if you heard me earlier through the staff, I want to make sure whoever wants to be involved in this process are able to be involved in the process and of course whoever is looking at this particular presentation that was made the other day, if anybody wants to be a part of this process, you can, and that includes you and when I look at the list of the so-called stakeholders, I actually looked at it and I did see folks who are very active in this area, for example, the del valley community coalition which is made of folks many in that area, a lot of them, there seems to be a balance here but I want to make sure that thatstakeholders will continue to make comments in this whole deliberation that we have here today and so the student for those folks that was just listed -- and I am quite sure there may be more, because it is up to 95 now and the list we have now is obsolete, but the list we have, even with the obsolete list, we have del valle community coalition, which are very active and you yourself won't be excluded.
you are included.
>> I didn't know I was already on the list.
I don't know.
>> but I want to make sure you include it.
so that was part of the concern as we go through this process.
>> thanks.
I just have one more kind of specific question.
I know the issues and opportunities, it says generally the rules -- generally the rule making will result in development that is more protective the natural environment but then at the bottom, item, 4, it says revisions to the solid waste siting rules which will provide more flexibility of recycled waste management.
I was down here for the public hearing when centigrove wanted their variance on putting their variance not quite up to dillo grade material and -- over at the creek and the home owners were there and I am wondering is there going to be revision where is the rules are lowered, because I know that voted on that eventually but it was an issue and we what we have is a lot of pits out there and I don't want them to get filled with not quite dillo dirt.
>> right.
>> there is -- this -- this is -- I listed that as an opportunity because I think there is -- there is some ways in which we describe our variance procedures that are hard to interpret, so we want to clarify some wording.
there is also, I think, some pieces of chapter 62 that apply to activities like sewage sludge or recycling that don't appear -- they seem to have been written for someone who is going to operate something like a landfill, so I think there are ways we can clean things up a little.
have the same substantive requirements but this, again, will be something that we will have people comment on.
I think we will have people from all different facets of the community in that.
>> county looking for more places to put that stuff, the dillo dirt?
>> no, we don't operate --
>> I think that when we talk about the cleaning up the process, we had difficulties ourselves, as we went through the process, because the language was written in such a way that we had to come back twice.
so we are hoping to correct those kinds of things and hoping to avoid also a one size fits all regulatory approach, somethings that going to be more specific to a specific kind of activity, so the idea is not to lower the threshold, but rather to clean up the process so everybody understands very clearly what is going on.
>> and let me say this, as far as the solid waste site ordinance, we really struggled with that during the course of time when it came before the Commissioner's court and it is an adopted chapter and I in any way, shape, form or fashion will I mitigate those at this point.
so I want to make sure that is spoken loud and clear.
>> we will move that stuff to west Austin.
>> thank you, mr. Mcdonald, you may proceed.
>> I have a couple of questions, comments.
>> I understand, mr. Mcdonald, you had to email t and r to get added to the list but you and everybody else who is interested can get at it.
>> proceed.
>> that is one of my questionses are, is how do you get on the list?
I wanted to thank y'all for providing this information and the access you are talking about and you said the t and r, how do you get on that list?
I actually have something that can be displayed that is on the laptop here if media would like to focus on that.
there you go.
that's where you go.
basically it iswww.traviscountytx.gov/tnr/de fault.asp.
it is up there on your screen, and that's where you are expecting the wents go up today, pending the court's approval .
>> do you have a card on you.
>> pardon.
>> until that goes live, just have him email you directly.
>> I will.
I will do that.
>> after we vote, if you give him an email address, we need another person here, anyway.
>> yes, you do.
we will proceed and give you his email address in a minute.
>> that's great, thank you.
>> any or comments on this item.
>> only, another question, does this -- I am totally ignorant here but I an activist on the floor, do you have anything to do with the fluoride inclusion in -- in like in the city of Austin, they do -- out here or out where I live, it's southwest water company, I have been calling them but don't get an answer.
do you have any access or anywhere influence on the fluoridation issue?
>> in a nutshell, no.
>> okay.
great.
well, I won't bug you about that.
one.
thanks so much.
>> thanks.
>> thanks for the of card.
>> all those in favor?
this passes by unanimous vote.
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, 2011 2:19 PM
