Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, September 20, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 3
Number 3 is a public hearing to consider and take appropriate action on proposed amendments to chapter 82, travis code, establishing water availability rules in subdivisions.
>> move the public hearing be open.
>> second.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> good morning, anna bolin and tom webber, Travis County t.n.r.
just a brief overview, we currently have a suspension on platting for final plats that use ground water from the trinity group aquifer and that was started in 2010 and is set to expire on October 31, 2011.
right now there are seven hill countries that rely on the trinity aquifer water, and six of these counties are in the pgma, the priority management ground water area.
thank you.
parts of our proposed -- this proposal comes from regulations from those counties.
so after -- after the -- hold on.
so the Commissioners court appointed a stakeholder committee to help us with the proposed rules.
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> I'm sorry?
>> one microphone.
this is Commissioners court, not the emmy awards.
>> excellent.
so the Commissioners court appointed 15 members to represent various segments of our constituency and we have had seven meetings since the stakeholder group was -- was established.
and since October 19th, just to let you know what kind of development activity we've had in the area, we've had seven applications in the area covered by this temporary suspension.
six of them were final plats and there was one prelim.
we took two plats with variances to Commissioners court and recommended them, one, because of average lot size being over 10 acres, and one was to combine two lots into one.
and this as a frame of reference, our development activity since the suspension was enacted is down throughout the county due to the economy.
we've only had 50 new applications in that time.
and one other thing that I want to say about this is the proposed code that we're discussing is -- would apply to subdivisions outside of an extra territory jurisdiction of a municipality.
it would not apply to commercial site plans and it would not apply to residential permits.
so what we did is we built on elements that were discussed in the stakeholder work group by adding components from other counties' ground water regulations.
by that I mean other counties that are in the pgma area.
and unlike the other counties in the pgma, Travis County does not have a ground water conservation district for the area covering the trinity aquifer, so we erred on the side of caution.
so here are the proposed -- some of the elements of the proposed rules.
plots that would use ground water from the trinity aquifer, any plats that would use aquifer source other than the trinity would not be approved.
so that would -- such as another source would be the colorado river alluvial aquifer.
>> if you would place a little more distance between you and the mic, they can turn up the volume if it's too low.
>> okay.
we currently have in our subdivision regulations the requirement for a tceq based certification of 30 years of ground water supply and we would add to that a detailing report of all existing wells within a half a mile of the subdivision.
so we would be adding on something that's currently in our rules.
we would -- these -- this proposed rule would call for lots layout in the subdivision to comply with well spacing and other limits based on the certification.
the wells from the subdivision wells could not be diverted to other sources outside of the subdivision.
and the next component would be water wells for large subdivisions would be monitored and the data would be reported to Travis County.
one of the proposals in this regulation is that subdivisions using ground water would have contingency plans and a minimum storage capacity to deal with droughts and other water-related problems. It's also proposed that all subdivisions would meet the minimum standards for water infrastructure sufficient to fight fires.
the next major part of this rule would be that subdivisions could not use ground water for amenity ponds or aesthetic features.
and there would be density estimates forral subdivisions over the trinity or edwards aquifer regardless of the water source.
and what is being proposed in this regulation if it's over the trinity or edwards recharge or contributing and a subdivision was proposing to use surface water that there would be a one acre minimum.
if they were going to use a centralized ground water system there would be a five acre minimum.
and if they were going to use individual wells there would be a six acre minimum.
it's also proposed that the geometry be limited to prevent these supply lots and I mean flags that wrap around the lot and take up a significant amount of acreage of the lots.
but to provide flexibility, variances will be granted if supported by date to showing there was no adverse impact on the water supply.
the stakeholders haven't reached a consensus on all of these points.
there's different consensus levels for each one.
seemingly I think we have more of a consensus for where we would like to be in the future, more of a long-range plan.
there was an interest to in the future be able to do a ground water budget and do some regional ground water planning goals and have a countywide monitoring program and data plan.
but for all of these long-range goals, we need information which we currently don't have.
but today what's before you is a public hearing only.
we do not have an action item on today's agenda.
we would anticipate being able to bring back and modify the rule before the temporary suspension expires at the end of October.
>> what ideas do you have regarding working toward a consensus on more items?
>> I would anticipate that we would get together with the stakeholders and anyone else that's interested because certainly not everyone that's interested is on the stakeholder group and just try to work through these and try to get to higher level of consensus.
some of the items will be easier than others, but I suggest that we just get together and see where we can get.
>> okay, if I could just ask a couple questions here.
point 6 there, you reference contingency plans.
so these would be mandated?
>> I would anticipate the contingency plans, what's appropriate for one subdivision may not necessarily work for the other, but I would suggest we come up with a list of things that we would anticipate seeing, you know, but work with the developer and emergency services to try to get something that works in each situation.
>> judge, I think one of the issues in regard to contingency -- I'm sorry?
>> your name?
>> yes, tom webber with t.n.r.
>> we all know you, mr. Webber, but many in the audience probably don't.
>> tom webber with t.n.r.
I think one of the important things relating to contingency is that you could have a situation where ground water becomes extraordinarily scarce in a particular year, and we're looking to see that there is a plan so that an interconnect could be established to another source, whether it be ground water that's pumped in or surface water or some other available water so that there is a situation that can protect the consumers in that type of a subdivision.
>> so we would require the contingency plan?
>> it would be required as a part of the demonstration and the approval of the preliminary plat.
plan.
>> so subject to the approval of Travis County.
>> yes.
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
>> I think somewhere there needs to be illustrated or highlighted in big font as much as possible, and when we've got through these particular recommendations, whatever we come back with from this -- get another poke at this to make sure that the public will be
>> [indiscernible] on this also, make sure it's applicable to just subdivisions, and otherwise you may have persons, especially I was looking at the colorado alluvial aquifer situation, you may have a person that think that oh, goodness gracious, I can't do this, I can't do that because even though they are not within a subdivision but on a single type situations like planning and stuff of that nature, I just want to make sure that those up front folks really understand what we are talking about here.
and so I would encourage some type of way to put that up front in big -- before they would start going through so they will know, hey, this really doesn't apply to me if they are not within that subdivision constraint.
so I would really suggest that if that's at all possible.
>> that's fine.
>> two more questions and I'm done.
what's the rationale behind number 8?
I guess the wildfires kind of --
>> judge, in this situation this would be water that would be pumped out of the ground and stored and subject to evaporation and loss and not -- in my viewpoint it would be not as beneficial of a use as -- as supplying people's primary needs for households or industrial or even agricultural uses.
we're talking about a priority ground water management area where shortages are expected into the foreseeable future.
and so we think this is somewhat of a luxury.
>> okay.
if we were asked what county we pattern our recommendations after, what would the answer be?
>> we actually patterned it after several of the counties in the pgma.
do you have that list?
>> yes.
they are listed by item.
>> from hays, from kerr, from gillespie, kendall, medina.
we looked -- we looked into the regs of, you know, the pgma counties and we did get -- we did take some from several of themselves.
them.
>> what was our goal when we did that?
>> well, our goal was -- we don't have a ground water conservation district that covers this area of the trinity and this area of the edwards and so we were erring on the side of caution because in order to get the information, we felt that was appropriate.
>> court members, questions?
>> judge, I just wanted to follow up on that, judge.
I didn't mean to cut you off.
>> that's all right.
>> okay.
but I just really want to emphasize that.
I don't want to rehash it.
if there is any kind of way when this does come back to make sure that those folks that won't be tied into this will understand that it's only applicable to subdivisions only.
and so -- and especially those folks in the colorado alluvial aquifer exists.
so I just want to make sure of that fact.
so I just wanted you to take that and hope everyone has heard me.
I don't know if you guys heard what I said or not.
>> yes.
>> okay.
you all -- nobody said anything.
>> yes, sir.
>> court members, any questions, comments?
>> I have two questions.
on number 8, which I suppose relates back to g -- c 3 g, 82212, amenity ponds and other aesthetic features may not be supplied by local ground water, did the -- the stakeholders committee address reuse, the utilization of gray water foramen advertise?
-- for amenities?
>> that wasn't explicitly addressed, Commissioner, but we -- I wouldn't interpret this as to preclude the use of reclaimed water for these ponds.
>> okay.
>> if I may, I would also suggest that some ponds that are there for other regulatory reasons such as detention ponds, that could be used for an amenity of this sort as well, have a dual use.
>> and are -- what was the -- what was the consensus with regard to golf courses and most of them, my understanding is golf courses are predominantly irrigated with reclaimed water.
are golf courses included in amenities or is that outside the definition?
>> that's probably something we could strengthen or clarify a little bit further before we bring you something.
but I don't know that we even had a discussion about ground water patterns -- excuse me, golf court patterns use.
>> it would probably be worthwhile.
my understanding is irrigation of lawns and landscaping is the largest user of water.
and I use wanted to thank you for a-2.
that's very important as far ago as being able to know what wells are out there.
I don't know if the public is fully aware of this, but no governmental entity really has a comprehensive list of what wells are out there.
so without public participation, private participation in building that -- that knowledge base, we really have -- there's not a single entity in the state of Texas that could tell you what wells are out there.
with certainty.
>> now, several residents have come down to give comments on this item.
we would like for them to come forth.
and we also have representative workman right on the front row.
would you like to go first or in the middle or the last?
>> I'll go first.
>> okay.
and miss bolin, if we could get to you move to the end, there are three more seats available.
so if you would like to give comments during this public hearing, please come forth.
representative?
>> judge, Commissioners, thank you very much for allowing me to come and speak to you about ground water availability in southwest Travis County.
water is the resource about which emotions run as high as they can, short of dueling pistols.
we know there is a finite amount of water in the world and as competition grows that will grow.
we have to manage our water sources better than we have in the past to ensure we all have the water we need to sustain life.
given the current drought situation, I expect the next legislative session to have great focus and emphasis on water.
with fights that will cross both political and geographic boundaries.
certainly Texas needs to take bold steps to ensure that its citizens and its businesses have water.
some things that we're going to have to consider are downstream transfer reservoirs, cross country water pipelines, conservation and diesel nation plants.
using a healthy dose much good science and property rights.
this issue is particularly important to me as I get my domestic water from a well and a rain water harvesting system and I certainly want to make sure water is available to my family in perpetuity.
as you know, I was elected in November of 2010 and immediately thereafter I became aware that tceq was attempting to have the barton springs/edwards aquifer ground water conservation district annex southwest Travis County and I did not believe that was in the best interest of southwest Travis County.
so I went before the assistive law judge and requested a stay of that action in order for me to have time to study the issue and to develop legislation in order to create a ground water conservation district in southwest Travis County.
this stay was granted along with approval of tceq and I have been in the process since that time of working on legislation to create ground water conservation district in southwest Travis County.
the legislature has stated that a ground water conservation district is the preferred method to manage ground water conservation.
I now have a draft copy of the legislation.
it still needs a little work so it's not quite ready to direct, but I do have legislation prepared or will have prepared shortly to establish the ground water conservation district in southwest Travis County.
it's based on essentially the same legislation that created other ground water conservation districts in the area.
I will get that legislation to tceq and make sure it meets the water code and then I intend to introduce that legislation in 2013 in the legislative session and I see no reason why that legislation would not become law.
accordingly, the proposed development regulations that you are considering I believe are unnecessary and I'm asking that you table consideration of these proposed regulations until such time that I can get the ground water conservation district established and they can start taking care of the business of managing ground water.
thank you and I'll be happy to answer any questions.
>> [applause]
>> thank you.
so will we have access to a copy of that draft legislation?
>> in a couple weeks, judge.
I've sent it back for tweaking and it should be available in a couple weeks.
I'll be happy to distribute it.
>> any questions for representative workman?
>> yes, representative workman.
are you familiar with how long Travis County has been designated as a pgma?
>> a good while.
>> how many years?
>> I don't know how many years but probably on the order of ten.
>> it's been over 20 years.
and in that designation, a high priority for obtaining a ground water district was stated.
we are one of the only -- I believe the only county designated as a pgma that does not have a ground water district.
>> that's not exactly true but we're one of a few.
>> in this area.
are you familiar with the historic efforts that legislation for a ground water district?
>> I am not.
>> they have been many.
I would like to know how you think you could get legislation passed in 2013 that has not been able to get passed in the last 20 years?
>> well, I guess because I'm a good legislator.
I don't know, I didn't know that -- that my predecessor had filed legislation and that it failed.
but I have talked to the chairman of the natural resources committee.
I can't imagine why establishing a ground water conservation district in southwest Travis County would not pass.
>> well, it's been a long and arduous process and it's been unsuccessful and I applaud your efforts, but at some point we have to move forward with some -- in some ways that we can to ensure that we've got water availability in the future.
so that's where we are with this at this time.
>> Commissioner, I can tell you this, that if my efforts fail to get it passed, then tceq will establish the ground water conservation district by order.
and that will set it up whether we like it or not.
>> that's where we were when you asked them to stay what they were -- the process --
>> they were going to get us annexed by barton springs and edwards aquifer.
>> that was not their determination and they were following through on what you are talking about.
>> but they were not going to establish our own, they were going to have you annexed by barton springs.
>> representative, we appreciate you coming down and sharing with us.
>> I have a question too.
I 100% agree with you representative that is the state's responsibility to establish appropriate regulations.
but since we have been waiting a very, very long time and without any -- without any knowledge really of how many straws are out there now, it is certain that we are already oversubscribed on the aquifer.
>> how is that a certainty?
>> we have seen wells running dry even when we're not in drought.
so I think it is really not a question of whether we're oversubscribed, it's how much we're oversubscribed.
so as we wait for the state to take action, which we've been waiting for a very long time, would you be amenable to legislation that provides state funding for when, not if, but when people's wells run dry in western Travis County?
because right now if someone -- if your well were to run dry, who do you believe should come to your aid?
>> well, you know, the water rights situation in the state of Texas is such that you have the right of capture and that is established law, it's been argued a number of times, and so the -- the law is that if my neighbor dries my well up, there's nothing I can do about it but call and have water brought in.
>> so you believe that if residents in western Travis County start to see their wells run dry, that we should just stand aside and allow their wells to run dry?
>> I'm not saying that.
I'm saying what the established law is.
>> but I'm asking you, would you favor some state legislation that would provide state money toward individuals who no longer have a water source because of the state's failure to regulate the -- as you say, finite supply and there is no doubt that we have to manage better than we have in the past.
so you recognize a regulatory necessity in the -- in the failure of the state legislature to -- to step up to its responsibilities.
would you be in favor of the state providing money to those whose wells have run dry because of the state's failure to manage the finite resource?
>> whether I would be in favor of that or not, that's not going to happen because I've set a precedent that would ripple all across the state.
I don't necessarily subscribe to the belief we are oversubscribed.
I don't think the science has proved that.
a lot of wells that have run dry are shallow and they are not necessarily in -- I've been in the middle trinity for 15 years and have never had one bit of problem in my well.
I've heard stories about one well going dry and a half a mile away another well-being just fine.
so I don't know that the science is settled on that.
I'm not sure that we can say that definitely.
and I don't know how you would determine how much money someone would get if their well run dry.
I just don't think that's an appropriate or a logical thing to do.
>> so is it your belief we should stick with the rule of capture and if someone else runs someone else's well dry there should be no governmental intervention, no regulation of that at all?
>> you know, I'm not an attorney nor a water rights expert, but I think that that's law that's settled and I'm not sure that my commenting on whether I think the right of capture is appropriate or not is anything for me to say in this forum.
>> thank you very much.
>> okay.
thank you, judge, Commissioners.
>> let's go right here now, if you would free up your seat when you finish to give some other speakers.
how many plan to give testimony during this public hearing?
okay, then, yes, sir, your name.
>> my name is john dipnick, with the barton springs conservation district.
thank you judge and Commissioners for this opportunity to speak and thank you for establishing this process.
I'm a member of the stakeholders group and we've met extensively and had lots of good discussions and I think it's been very fair and a very productive process.
I'll keep my comments short.
I think the product is a good product.
I'm not saying it's the end all to be all.
apparently there is a few things that still need a little bit of work.
but I would like to call emphasis to the -- one of the guiding principles of our group and of these rules and that is a need for a regional look at the ground water situation.
currently the tceq rules only allow for a single well test or a snapshot in time.
and what we're proposing through these monitoring requirements is that we -- the counties start to build the data needed to look countywide, particularly in southwestern Travis County, on how the aquifer is affected by current withdraws and future demands.
so I would like to see a little more emphasis on that.
especially in terms of an end goal.
right now it just speaks to more monitoring, more data collection.
but I would like to see there is some sort of emphasis on establishing some sort of regional look and mainly linking up to the current ground water management area planning process.
currently the county is in a pgma, but is unrepresented in that process, but I believe there is an opportunity through these rules to sort of link those two efforts.
and aside from that, again I think it was a good process, it was fair and collaborative and I think we have a good product.
thank you.
>> thank you for year service.
>> mr. Smith.
>> thank you, my name is hank smith with Texas engineering solutions and I was also on the stakeholder committee.
the rule that came out at the end, they are at the end of your addendum, didn't really come out in the stakeholder group.
some of the key bullet items did, but as you dive into the details, those are things we saw two weeks ago for the first time and have not had a chance to sit down and really go over these.
so I don't think the rules that back up all the bullet points really came from the stakeholder committee, they came from somewhere else.
I think most of the developments -- most of the development process outlined here is geared around asking for variances.
they looked at five or six surrounding counties, came up with the most restrictive criteria in those counties as opposed to looking as one as a guiding theme, they took bits and pieces of one that were the most restrictive and applied those in Travis County with the idea being you can come in and ask for a variance if you need one.
those variances would come to this commission for approval.
and it's very difficult to get financing before we ever come to you with a project, we've got through a whole lot of planning and effort to get to that point.
that would take a lot of financing money to get to that point.
we can't get the financing basically to come before to you ask for a variance because no bank is going to loan us money if we have to going into a project know we have to get the following ten variances and it's going to be six months before I get to the point I can even ask for those variances and get those.
rather than writing a set of rules that requires variance for most of the items, we need to be writing the rules that could be applied to and we can live -- all live with and agree these are the appropriate type of rules and not require a variance.
there's been discussion of a ground water conservation district.
the biggest problem of a ground water district is who is going to fund it.
hays county conservation district a heavily subsidized by hays county.
and city of Austin has a big check coming from city of Austin.
I don't think either one of those districts would be able to operate the way they do now without that alternative source of funding.
until someone comes up with how are we going to fund this district it's not going to be feasible and it's not going to happen.
I don't think you can look at the new development and say we want all the new developments to fund this district because they are the ones that are succeeding from it.
that is not a financially viable situation unless you tax all the residents in that area and get a big enough pool of money to fund it, I don't think that system is going to work.
there's some -- we've talked about a regional approach and like we all agree a regional approach is what's necessary, these rules explicitly prohibit exporting water out of a subdivision.
so if I've got a public water system, I cannot export water out of my subdivision to somebody else.
so if I've got a great public water system and got all the water I need even during a drought time and my neighboring subdivision is out of water, I can't pump water over to them because these rules prohibit the export of water out of my subdivision.
we need to be careful when we look.
the philosophy we don't want someone sticking 50 wells on a property and trucking it to north Texas.
but the unintended consequence is I may not be able to help my neighbor.
we need to take a half a mile close look at the rules and what is backing these up.
I can go through the rules and I think in general we need more time to sit down and look at these rules and make sure there's not more unintended consequences.
these rules prohibit development not just in western Travis County.
north of the colorado, south of the colorado, east of i-35, west of i-35.
it's a one-acre minimum lot size.
if you are over the edwards aquifer or the trinity aquifer you are limited to one acre lot size.
you can get a variance but it doesn't speak to clustering development or a lot of concepts we need to be looking at.
those are all things you can obtain if you negotiate a variance.
going to a one acre minimum lot size when right now there is no minimum.
in hays county there is no minimum.
you could be in eastern Travis County over the edwards aquifer, water from the city of Austin, sewer provided from the city of Austin, you are limited to a one acre lot size, which makes no sense to me.
I would argue that limiting lots to one acre lots, the biggest user of water as you talked about is outdoor water use.
if we go to one acre minimum, we just made the situation worse.
if we can't come in and do a different development, a conservation style development where we have smaller lots and cluster those, then we're defeating the purpose by going to one acre minimum lot size.
a lot of the rules don't make sense and don't follow the guidelines which I think our task force and stakeholder group wanted to follow.
I'll be glad to answer any questions.
>> have you had a chance to chat with representative workman about the ground water conservation district?
>> I have not talked to him recently.
probably during the last legislative session, but it's been several months since we talked about that.
>> Commissioner Huber.
>> I'm sorry.
>> then Commissioner Davis.
>> thank you for your comments.
I wanted to -- I hear everything you are saying.
I wanted to specifically ask about the variance because I have some concerns about that.
the pressure that would put on staff.
would you prefer to see the details more specifically stated in like lot averaging and things like that instead of a variance?
>> yes.
the flag lot is a issue and when we had our meeting two weeks ago, anna explained how some developers are abusing those flag lot issues.
if it's a one acre minimum lot size because of ossf, they are having a flag that wanders around the county and gets over to here and their actual building size the 2,000 square feet.
that may be an exaggeration.
I agree.
the easy way is to say you have to have a half acre lot size, 90% in a buildable area or half acre buildable area.
you can have a flag from wherever from a legal standpoint but don't make that included in the buildable area.
there's a lot of ways to get to where we want to besides coming in and asking for a variance.
it's not only burden some on staff, it's burdensome on us and us trying to get financing from the banks.
the toughest thing is trying to finance these projects eye hear you and I think there's opportunity to tighten that up for the benefit filth of all.
I wanted to say that the comments been made more than once that staff cherry picked the most stringent regulations.
I believe that our staff has -- and advisers have looked hard at what is out there that's appropriate for Travis County.
so I just wanted to say there are two sides to that coin.
>> that was also said at the stakeholder meeting, they picked the most stringent so I'm reiterating what was told to us.
>> I wasn't aware of that.
but given the challenges we face that we need to do something, that we need to look at this as a process.
the other thing you said about not being able to share water with the neighbors.
I just wanted to highlight that we already have situations where because of the power of the pump on subdivision being stronger than the individual pumps in adjacent areas, we already know that we are at least in certain times of drought and reduced water, rainfall, that the independent private wells near some of these subdivisions are having stress because of the cone of depression effect of the more powerful pump.
it's a cause effect and I just wanted to throw that in being able to offer water to your neighbors because indeed the subdivision may be the need tore the cause of the neighbors --
>> I think that's where it leads to more research.
I represent a district, we have nine wells.
I can have two wells 300 feet apart and see no influence.
one there perform at 35 gpm, one at 15.
when I crank one on and one off, it doesn't affect the pump 300 feet away.
it's a very different type of aquifer that's out there and without the data we need to evaluate it, I can't necessarily say because one area is pumping heavily you take water out of this area.
nobody knows where that water is coming from.
that's the problem with not having the research and data.
>> we do need on more data.
we have data, we have some substantial data, but we need more data.
do you support the data collection that we're proposing here?
because I see this as a process, not a this is it, we'll stop here.
we need to set something in motion.
>> I do agree to data support.
the devil is in the details.
what these rules go back to, instead of doing the data review, walk the perimeter, see what's on the adjacent property, you have to interview everybody within I think it's 500 feet of your property.
and that may be a very large number of people.
what you may be getting from a personal interview from somebody may not be good data.
they may not know what aquifer they are in, they may be giving you bad information as opposed to information you really need.
again, getting down to details, we want you to personally interview everyone within 500 feet of your property or whatever the distance is, may not be the best solution.
but I do think more data is necessary.
>> I would offer up that we have to take a step somewhere in starting to collect that data.
and I just found out over the weekend an example of where this kind of data collection was in a half a mile of a proposed subdivision might make a difference because at one of the spicewood fundraisers for fire victims, I was talking with people that live on a small eight-home, old community well.
and it was in the neighborhood of a subdivision that you and I know well, and it turns out, I mean they just never reported this, and this is academic at this point, but going forward it may be very beneficial.
their well strata collapsed with what was going on in the construction of that subdivision.
it was either the well drilling or something other significant to their -- their well and they actually ended up having to drill a completely new well.
but it was definitely tied to some activity over there at the time, if their perception.
if we had this data collection, then we would know what happened in the future or perhaps have the opportunity to investigate it.
>> en I think it gets into how you dick these wells.
there are different standards for digging wells.
a public water supply well, there's very stringent material.
casing the wells that won't collapse and can't collapse.
older technology didn't have the casing.
private wells you may not have the type of standard to comply.
I agree there's different standards and specifications for digging wells.
that's the concern just going out and ask someone how well their well is performing.
maybe their well was dug wrong, wasn't cased properly.
so there's a whole lot of reasons why things can happen just a property owner telling you this is what I think is the case may not be good evidence coming back to you.
>> any other questions for mr. Smith?
>> judge, do you mind-the Commissioner raised a couple of points and I want to make sure that the roles are being characterized to y'all and the public accurately.
I feel the need to speak up right now on a couple things.
first there is no prohibition in one subdivision sharing water with the subdivision next to it.
what the rules say is if you develop a subdivision on ground water, you have to do the tceq water availability certification and you can't share water with the subdivision next door unless you get that certification updated.
because the engineer or the hydro geologist who said water is available for the.
>> lots in this subdivision may say -- for the 50 lots in this subdivision and it's only available for those 50 lots, there's not enough to share with the subdivision next door.
there's no ban to say on one subdivision sharing water, there would be a ban only on one subdivision sharing water if there's not enough water to share per the tceq water availability determination.
second is there the no lot size minimum if you are on surface water in east Travis County.
the lot size minimum applies only to the portion of the edwards and trinity aquifers in western Travis County.
>> okay.
thank you.
any questions for mr. Smith?
>> yes.
just wanted to make a comment on something he had stated earlier and that is the conservation -- ground water conservation, setting up a district of that nature.
and, of course, it is very difficult to get a district, ground water conservation district set up.
years ago we attempted, my staff and i, t.n.r., the attorneys, we looked at trying to do just that to see if we could get a conservation district in eastern Travis County.
and, of course, we had the thing surveyed, we did a lot of things, a lot of, a lot, a lot of things, getting in touch with residents, but then when it came down to the funding end of it, of course they would have to be taxed and there was a whole lot of other things that was all involved in this.
and, of course, we did not get a chance to achieve that, but it is a very difficult task.
and tom, you were there.
you recall some of those things that we did, if you don't mind telling on the other end what we had to look at back then.
I know john kuhl was a part of it, you and the others and the entire community in precinct 1.
and if you recall on some of those things that we ran up against.
>> the issue was the lost times ground water conservation district had been created for the cariza and the barton springs springs, edwards aquifer had been created for the edwards and there was talk of a trinity ground water district.
and in that big scheme of things, the big scheme of things the way legislature has mandated ground water be ledge straight in Texas.
the colorado alluvial was basically left out of the picture.
so the issue was does the lost pines district manage the colorado river alluvial or do you create a district to manage the colorado river alluvial, or do you just leave it unmanaged contrary to state water policy.
and as you know, it ended up being number 3.
>> and, of course, a lot of the funding aspect of it, especially if they don't bring you in under existing conservation district so you will have difficulty, but the funding end of it, when you start looking at far as the boundaries and say this is what it's going to take to actually do the monitoring, to -- someone to oversee it and operate it, you start looking at all this data and then the money just starts getting tremendous.
and, of course, folks didn't want to be taxed for that amount of money.
they said no, wait a minute.
let me back off this.
because that is a lot of tax that we would have to pay if we become independent and don't buy into anything else.
so it's really a tough situation.
so I understand what you said when you said -- brought up the funding aspect of it.
>> that's the key.
if you can solve the funding aspect, I think it would be much easier to create the district.
>> but I think the thing to take into account on district or not, hank is correct that the staff proposal did essentially take the strictest provisions from all the other counties that have water availability.
but all of those counties have ground water conservation districts.
and the reason staff chose the strictest provisions of those rules is that despite having been declared a pgma for 20 years, the trinity in southwest travis still doesn't have a ground water conservation district created for it, and despite the best efforts of representative workman's -- representative workman and others, it still may not.
it may never have a district.
so staff's feeling was literally err on the side of caution.
really state what water policy is for primary ground water management area.
someone, the legislature, tceq, is supposed to create a district to manage the ground water there and that sort of manages the withdrawal of the water.
but the role of the legislature has given to the counties is you sort of regulate the demand by regulating subdivisions.
and so there's sort of two pieces or two sides to the water management structure in Texas.
we don't have a ground water district so staff felt it was appropriate to basically say, then on the other side of the puzzle the subdivision regulations, we need to compensate for that by having regulations that are at least as stringent as counties who do have a ground water conservation district.
>> Commissioner, another point relating to what Commissioner Davis said relating to the colorado river alluvial aquifer, one of the things that the tceq did is very investigated whether eastern -- northeastern Travis County should be a pgma.
and they came to the conclusion that this aquifer, which isn't even considered a minor aquifer, it's considered less than a minor aquifer, is not something that should be a pgma.
that the plan, the long-term plans through the water planning process calls for this area to be served by surface water supplies.
either from the highland lakes and the city of Austin system or cariza wilcox water that could be transported, in other words, nonlocal ground water.
so we believe it was very inconsistent with what the state saw that if someone is coming in with a new subdivision, that they should be more or less directed toward the surface water supplies in there is some very special circumstance, I think that is in fact an appropriate use of a variance.
>> if I could offer up something on that real quick.
on the one acre minimum regardless of the water source is a disincentive to people to bring in surface water.
the real solution is a regional water solution that incorporates ground water, surface water and every available source.
but with a minimum lot size even on surface water of a acre, -- building subdivisions on wells out in the area and not trying to bring in surface water because it's not affordable to bring in surface water when you are restricted a lot even when you bring in surface water.
that's part of my concern.
need to find a way to incentivize it, not disincentivize it.
>> we will need those two seats.
you have a question, Commissioner Eckhardt?
we need to move along.
we need to have a work session next time rather than trying to meet on Tuesday.
that way we can do the give and take that we seem to be getting today.
I think we ought to give those who have come down for the public hearing an opportunity to express their opinion a bit more and we do need to move on in order to finish this agenda today.
Commissioner Eckhardt.
>> thank you so much for so productively participating in the project.
as you've remarred.
we don't have a ground water conservation district, so in lieu of that, the Commissioners court is stepping into the role because we are concerned that if we don't step into it we will be subsidizing a lack of water flow for drinking water and for fire suppression.
so we're going to subsidize it one way or the other.
would you be willing to continue to participate in -- in -- I agree the rules need some more work.
of course, perhaps the stakeholder group didn't see the actual text because lawyers had to get together and put it into a form that was code.
but would you be willing to continue working on this through the creation of a ground water conservation district so we could come back and amend the rules as we see what kind of regulations the ground water conservation district puts in place?
because we are simply operating in a vacuum.
>> I hear you.
>> thank you.
>> I would enjoy doing that.
>> thank you very much.
we need those two seats.
mr. Stewart.
mr. Stewart.
>> thank you, judge and Commissioners for giving me this time again this morning.
before I go into what I wanted to say, I'd like to say thank you to mr. Workman for coming here this morning.
I know you said you've been working on this ground water control district, the county has for 20 years.
my rebuttal might be it might not have been presented exactly right up until now and as I've been working on private property issues out there for over 18 years since I've owned my property, we continually have to go to the state of Texas for what we consider a governor to be on our rights out there.
and also a comment to mr. Nuckols.
in effect what mr. Nuckols is doing now is the same thing that Travis County did on the first moratorium they put over our property in southwest county which is called the interim -- which resulted in the interim rules.
southwest Travis County growth dialogue.
and the philosophy was adopted there.
if we don't have the money, which is the point you are bringing up today and you always bring money up, nobody wants new taxes, the way to get what you want is to regulate it, pass a rule, regulation with a majority of the people and who see it as a good thing.
and -- and basically put the people who are -- who are being hindered by these rules and regulations under regulatory taking.
so this is a solution that mr. Nuckols has -- is pretty well honed it, but anyway, that's my comments.
actually I'm the last guy receipt I have workman wants to represent, I guarantee you, and his philosophy, or any other elected official.
you know me as a landowner in southwest Travis County.
obviously I'm here to voice my opposition to chapter 82 to establish ground water availability.
I'm here on behalf of some ranchers in Travis County and we're concerned we're not getting equal treatment in the k we're being unfairly punished with the second of two moratoriums that have been in place five years and affects only southwest Travis County.
I do appreciate the fact that Ron Davis asked for the entire county to be included in this process.
interesting to note that tom says most of this stuff really only applies to southwest Travis County or there are bits and pieces that only apply there and good tore Commissioner Davis that's the situation because I do know some people with large -- in eastern bastrop county.
voter approved funds for the reimers-peacock study was redirected.
improving the safety of the pedernales river bridge were delayed or canceled.
rhymer peacock road plans as far as I know is still shelved.
I would like to make a comment I stood on the bluff of the pedernales river, the fire on 71 got within a mile of my property and destroyed the houses of some of my friends, and when your only access to the fire is water buckets hanging from starflight and helicopters, you know you have a problem with transportation.
the reimers-peacock would have provided direct access into the fire for that area.
it's just another example of how we are targeted, I guess, unfairly.
although the Commissioners court did create a stakeholder committee impose ing this second moratorium, the outcome was pre-destined before the committee started its work.
the prescriptions and discussions have focused -- presentations around and discussions.
rather than working with our legislator who to my knowledge was just now called into the process or the landowners, the true people, the true stakeholders in this, in the process to create a ground water conservation district.
our county is not covered by a ground water conservation district and we do not oppose the creation of ground water districts.
I've gone to the blanco ground water district and asked to be included in their district.
us a know my problem is being regulated by the downtown Austin portion of governance.
so anyway, we strongly prefer that our ground water be managed by a ground water district rather than Travis County via this development ordinance.
this is consistent with state law which the legislature has made clear.
ground water district are the preferred method of ground water management.
my request of Commissioners court is step back and let the land owners work with legislators on creating a ground water district for our area.
tceq process which is underway is not appealing.
in fact, the process has grown from formation for several reasons.
the landowners need to be given the opportunity to control or have a voice in our own destiny and the tceq process and the assistive law judge and state agency and about a dozen public interest groups have more of a say in creation of a ground water district on our property than we do.
I testified in favor of representative workman's legislation in April that would have allowed southwest Travis County to be removed from the tceq process.
control of the ground water district is a major issue.
the landowners are the true stewards of the land, not our neighbors living in downtown Austin.
as in other water control districts throughout the state the district should be managed by the residents within the boundaries of the ground water district.
all ground water control districts are basically set up that way.
tceq's latest recommendation is the barton springs, edwards aquifer should swallow up the territory in southwest Travis County as part of that water district.
the facts are the southwest Travis County is over the trinity aquifer, not the barton springs, edwards aquifer aquifer.
it is in ground water management 9 whereas the rest of Travis County is in region 8 or 10.
it is in the pedernales watershed and not the colorado watershed.
bottom line is the ranchers and landowners of southwest Travis County would like to have a meaningful say so in what happens to our ground water.
clearly the landowners need to be informed as the impact of these rules and what these -- what the impact of these rules will have on their property values.
we've gone from in the beginning establishment of ground water control district to a full-blown development ordinance with the proposal that I just saw for the first time this week.
there are a lot of requests in there that I know my neighbors don't understand, they don't realize what's happening, and I appreciate your concerns that we need to go out and interview -- a developer needs to go out and interview everybody within five miles or half a mile or whatever about where his water wells are, what they look like, but most processes require that you give notice to all of the adjacent landowners on anything you are doing.
I've been through the tceq process of permitting and I've not seen anything that's reaching out actually to landowners.
what I'm asking you to do, some of the questions I have, like I just saw this -- this latest thing that says that we need assurances, for instance, the county doesn't view the surface water from lcra as colorado river -- as a colorado river alluvial water source or coming from that source.
I mean let's look at -- I would assume --
>> of course not.
>> thank you.
that's one thing I wanted to get.
we need to understand the implications of the development restrictions incorporated into these rules.
there are a lot of details that need to be explored.
these amenity ponds that people don't like for one reason what they are looking at is where the helicopters were able to get their water.
there were several of them in my area where they were picking up water because that was the only thing that was out there.
the pedernales river had a few puddles over there, but they were so shallow they could barely get in and get the water.
right now ann huthnance is the only affected stakeholder from a land owning standpoint that's involved in the rule making process.
I don't believe this court should continue through this process to create a mandate that is overreaching and discriminating without at least a fair hearing from those of us whose ox is being gored.
my recommendation is we have a workshop meeting.
I think that's great because people are uninformed out there, the landowners are uninformed.
and what I would like to see either the stakeholders committee or the Commissioners court to put -- allow us to put together a group of landowners with a certain size properties, let's say maybe 100 acres or pick a size, I don't care, some of the larger landowners whose -- for future generations are going to be affected by the rules that are coming in place as a result if this passes.
and I'd like to see you hold two meetings.
one is a informative meeting to explain -- mr. Nuckols to explain some of these rules.
we have some misunderstandings.
I'm sure I have some grave misunderstandings good some of the things that are there, and to know what's going on.
and then a second meeting to allow us maybe to come back and give some input.
and some alternatives maybe to see of these things.
that you are proposing out there.
the thing that's funny to me is when you talk about the trinity aquifer over in southwest Travis County, literally the blanco ground water control district is yards from my property.
it's probably less than three-quarters of a mile from the edge of the blanco county line to the pedernales river.
that little strip on the other side of the pedernales river that runs from 71 from hamilton pool road probably doesn't have 25 or 30 landowners.
and this is targeted in this as a special piece of property, which it is, and I don't understand why it needs to be singled out for the trinity for this ground water control district and the rules and regulations.
so anyway, that's -- that's my request is to allow landowners to sit in a meeting and discuss and be informed as to what you guys plan on doing to us.
and, you know, we will -- whatever you enact in law will be the law, we'll live under it, and if it requires us relief we have to go the the state of Texas.
>> any questions of mr. Stewart, court members?
Commissioner Eckhardt.
>> sorry.
sorry I have a question.
>> we're used to it now, Commissioner Eckhardt.
>> mr. Stewart, how should# represent future residential interests in Travis County?
you speak of current large landowners and I am sympathetic to -- and I think this court has made sure that large landowners were included in the stakeholders and will be included in the conversation moving forward, absolutely.
but one area where it is difficult for us to meet our obligations.
listen to all who will be affected by this, is many of those large landowners like yourself are maintaining what I believe is a fantasy that we are still in a agrarian world setting knowing all too well large landowners have every intention for subdividing for residential uses, maximizing profit on the property which is perfectly fine unless there is not adequate future ground water supply for those residents.
so is it -- is it your assertion that current large landowners can represent those future residential homeowners who may see their water supply disappear if we don't do something to manage what is in truth a common pool resource?
it is not an individual property owner's resource to manage individually.
we know that hydrologically, that that is not realistic.
we know that.
the law has not caught up to hydrology, but we do know that water is a common pool resource.
it doesn't sit under your land alone.
so how do we represent those future residential homeowners who will be on those large tracts that are currently ranched but will in all likelihood be developed because it is the highest and best use from an economic standpoint?
>> well, first of all, fantasy may be the correct description, but I think the description that you just made that all landowners out there are involved and interested in developing their lands is maybe not a fantasy but maybe a phobia.
and I would say that that's not the case.
I have no intentions of developing my land.
if I wanted to, I've had numerous opportunities.
it's probably the prettiest piece of property in Travis County, in my opinion.
it's got water all over it.
I have no intent -- intention of doing it.
what I have a problem with is you saying, okay, the people that are here have theirs.
they have their wells, they are set up, and everybody before you professor it from the selloff and not doing right.
they overdeveloped, we all overdeveloped.
in most cases in government when they come in and take something, there's a protection under the right of eminent domain.
in the regulatory proceedingss that we have been fighting here in Travis County, we don't even have that right.
you guys could raise your hands today, vote for these rules, it's over with and we can't do anything with that land.
it does establish a value, not necessarily for development, but I've proven and many people have proven there is a greater and higher value for open space, environmentally sensitive properties.
I believe that's the case and I believe the more land you restrict around me that some point in time like the adirondacks parks in new york are an example.
people who still own part of that it's very valuable.
what bothers me you do all of this regulation outside the people without regard for the people who own this property.
anne said one time that these are our portfolios.
if all of a sudden you walked into merrill lynch one day and said your portfolio, I have too much there, we can't -- you don't need that much money, we now want to take a third of your portfolio because we need it, there's no difference in that and somebody who has worked his whole life to establish his value in his land.
or who it was given to who inherited it from his grandfather or his father.
that to me is the rub.
and that's why I say if you'll silt down with some of these landowners.
most of the landowners time talking about don't have any -- let's put it this way.
the conservation development ordinance that you have is a safety net at this point in time.
I don't -- are you saying is there anything -- I'll like to know from mr. Nuckols, that trumps the conservation ordinance.
if somebody would agree to develop under your existing ordinance as a conservation development ordinance, would it be given a waiver under the new rules.
>> yes.
>> variance.
there is nothing there there that's going to be more restrictive than the conservation ordinance we have today.
regardless of water usage issues, et cetera.
>> well, I would say the conservation development ordinance was never written with the concept of any type of ground water management in mind.
what's on the table now, the water availability rule speaks to ground water management.
so if the two fit together, I don't see the water availability rules as somehow trumping the conservation development ordinance.
I think, you know, the two dove-tail together.
>> there are a lot of questions we have and I think this work session, if we can have that with landowners.
and you know, and I'm proposing that actually the people who I think would be most valuable in this would be to have Commissioner Huber, have tom nuckols.
I would like hank smith to be there, ann to be there.
I'd like -- we have an attorney who works for us named derrick seal who was general counsel to the tceq at one point in time and he understands rules and regulations there.
and sit down and have a real workshop, happy to do it at my place or anyplace you want to go, and explain to us, I mean first will be an explanation what we're doing.
if you said guys, the conservation ordinance is the most restrictive you will see placed on your land, if you would comply with that I would think you would see a lot of people go home and go to bed.
I think we just have this fear because you don't include the landowners in your process.
it's all a process of how do we shut down these ugly developers.
and there are ugly developers and I'm against -- you know, we can't afford another development on hamilton pool road right now when it's more of a bicycle lane than it is -- there's no traffic.
can't afford another park out there either, from my standpoint.
how can you keep putting more traffic in an area where we already have -- have problems getting out there.
so there are lots of issues that I have on the table that I would like to address.
>> any other questions for mr. Stewart?
thank you very much.
we'll take that recommendation under advisement.
>> thank you.
>> mr. Priest.
>> thank you, judge, Commissioners, morris priest speaking on my own behalf.
I know that the court when this matter came up previously did ignore the overwhelming testimony against this, and I am again still in opposition to this.
this is chapter 82.
these rules -- this is about personal property rights and this is versus the court actions and moratoriums which have been nothing but awaits of time and non-- with unproved data or no science anything other than except to offer another taxing district.
always want to go throw money at a problem which is most of the time along with this present administration cradle to grave.
there is a personal responsibility we take when we purchase land, and many of the actions and facts that have been discussed in this court have been wrong.
this is just another money pit with no solution, a convoluted process which drives up the expenses in all areas whether it's transportation or development or other things that we need to do to have a productive society.
this is nothing more than another bill or terrorist plot to provide more laws which we don't have the police to enforce.
but I think that you are going to see change and I think this court is facing what the state legislature faced in 2010, and that's that you can't stop 2012.
and most of this problem that we're having here is failed leadership from this court and I just want to make sure that y'all are aware of the fact that the overwhelming majority of the issues has been brought to this court has been ignored time and time again whether it's southwest 45 or whether it's respectful requests of property owners for y'all to value our constitution and our bill of rights, but thank you and god bless you.
>> thank you, mr. Priest.
mr. Reeferseed.
>> thank you, sir and I want to echo everything that was said by the two previous speakers with maybe just a friendly suggestion or an idea or a question.
for mr. Stewart about that work session idea.
I think it's great, but just a suggestion, need you also to include small property owners like me.
because we have ideas and interests that are also in line with everybody.
we have a duty as well.
but yippee, I guess it's finally hit the fan people.
I choose to pronounce my name ronnie reeferseed.
hey, that's my right.
and in the first amendment of our precious u.s.
constitution, absolute freedom of political speech is what it's all about here.
>> mr. Reeferseed, water availability?
>> oh, I'm sorry.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners] the amount of water that evaporates from surface -- exposed surface water like that is quite stunning and I do think that's the luxury we really can't afford and I think it's unfair for surrounding property owners who are relying on that same water for more essential purposes.
and my last point is to the variance section at the end, and particularly the first of those variances which basically says that if a developer can demonstrate an abundance of ground water that -- that then perhaps a higher density would be allowed, and I guess I'm just uneasy about this provision because I'm skeptical that first of all, there are many situations where that kind of abundance really exists, but also because I'm not sure that the data can really be attained particularly as it affects the impacts of future -- other future development on ground water supply and I would just suggest that perhaps that Commissioners whether that variance should be disallowed and then just to focus on the other two at the end of the ordinance.
so unless you have questions, that's fine.
>> questions for mr. Ayers.
>> thank you.
>> thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> yes, sir.
there are two chairs available, if you would like to give comments.
name, please.
>> okay, good morning, Commissioners and judge.
>> good morning.
>> my name is blake halt, I reside in houston, Texas, and hope to some day be a resident of Travis County.
I'm one of the individuals who has sought a variance which has been on hold for approximately a year now.
as referenced, I'm a licensed professional geologist in the state of Texas and have been engaged in the practice of environmental assessment and remediation of soils and ground water for the past 27 years, it's my opinion that the proposed amendments of chapter 82 Travis County codes would make it cost prohibitive for single parties such as my ceph to pursue subdivision of properties which would not meet the exemptions already listed without a variant.
my situation is that I'm -- I am seeking a subdivision of a -- of a 2.75-acres out of a 25-acre tract owned by a family friend who is trying to create a parcel of property for my wife and I so that we may join him in Travis County and retire up there.
currently that would not meet any of the exemptions listed and I would have to rely on a variance to create that subdivision of property.
I really don't even at this point have to have a water well.
I'm one of the people that would consider gray water system and trucked-in water.
so I would fall out of the water well situation.
asper compliance with the rules as they're written right now, it would be so cost prohibitive for a single individual and it's my experience that the walking survey alone would cost probably $2,500 for a single parcel, and as you've stated already, the state of Texas has over a million ground water wells in the state and only records on 130,000 of them.
in this post 911 stage, it's my experience that land owners are not willing to comply with requests for information unless directed so by legal means, and most of the land owners don't even know what their wells -- how their wells are constructed.
that's -- that's the bottom line.
so I would ask you to look at either exemptions which would exempt, help parcels of property such as mine, maybe five lots in a subdivision, average density of, you know, 2-acres a lot.
>> any questions mr. More halt.
>> point well taken with regard to the ease of the process.
we don't want to have unintended consequences knocking someone like yourself out.
>> no, ma'am.
a full blown geologic study as you suggest would be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and would only be feasible for large subdivisions.
>> thank you, mr. Halt.
>> thank you.
>> yes, sir.
>> my name is karl conley with conley engineering.
I'm an engineer in Austin Texas, Travis County, and we represent both large and small subdivisions alike, and I'm here to kind of speak on behalf of the fact that some times the rules that apply to large subdivisions are difficult to apply to small subdivisions as mr. Halt indicated.
I think there's a need for an exemption in the rules that allow for subdivisions of ten lots or less with one to two acre average type lot sizes.
the -- right now the rules call for a six acre minimum lot size.
it's not the size of the lot but the number of lots that have an impact on the aquifer, and so again on small subdivisions of ten lots or less, that average lot size can be something that is more appropriate and affordable, I would suggest that be considered.
as mr. Hal indicated, there's the cost for a hydrology study is excessive.
if you have hundred lot subdivision, that cost can be feed into the number of lots.
if you're dealing with ten lots of less, that type of a hydrology study would be economically astronomical to be perfectly frank and would prohibit smaller non-large scale subdivision.
again, the notification of the property owners.
we're going through a process of that now and finding that the adjoining property owners are either not interested, reluctant or hesitant to provide information about their system because again they're afraid somebody might come in and take a look at their system and say wait a minute, you know, they don't want the invasion into their property,zz that study to be difficult to get good, reasonable, justifiable data to support or not support a subdivision.ockir wells, especially for single family residential, is only one to -- excuse me, 200 to 300 feet radius from the well, and therefore a -- a study of a half a mile beyond the property of a subdivision, again, is oneruk and I think that needs to be looked at as far as finding the applicable science to make the rule with.
don't create a rule without the science.
on site water wells, people who have those have alternatives, during situations like the current drought, they have rain water collection, they have surface water opportunities.
drilling their wells deeper and improving their wells will provide additional water.
they can haul water in.
and I think this is something that has been experienced not just in the recent drought but, you know, decades past.
people manage their properties, their water consumptions, and their water sources.
the fire protection storage requirement again for small subdivisions of ten lots or less, the cost would be astronomical to build a storage tank, a water surface -- like a stock tank for water -- dor fire protection, again, you pump water out of the ground, put it many a stock tank, it tends to evaporate, you create this regenitive need to keep pumping out of the aquifer.
a lot of rural districts, water districts, don't provide fire protection, even though they're a centralized water system because of the liability associated with fire protection and again as you get a large spread-out community, the larger the lot that you require, the more spread out, the more cost -- costly it is to spread the system out and then to provide fire protection on top of that is bound to be astronomical and cost prohibitive to most of my clients.
storage containers for fire protection that are near structures, if you were to do rain water collection and also try to use that as a fire protection technique, usually the rain water collection is located near the house, but if the house is on fire, the fire people can't access those tanks for the water because, again, it's just not as safe for them, and usually a container -- a storage container close to a house would be consumed by the fire also, so it's just not available to fight fire.
as you require larger and larger lots, I think I mentioned before, the distances between connections become greater and greater and the cost to install a centralized water system becomes again cost prohibitive, so the larger the lots, the more you depend on water wells not on centralized water systems. One of the reasons I've mentioned ten lots or less is ten lots is the cutoff where you're serving approximately 25 people or residences, and once you get above 25, tceq comes into play as far as their regulations for centralized water systems and again whether they can regulate the amount of water taken out really has to deal with the overall study of the aquifer and something bigger than what the small property owners, small subdivisions can afford to participate in.
so I would ask you to consider that.
just the last point, flag lots, I've seen abuses with flag lots, but I've also seen that flag lots are used to deal with taupe graphic constraint -- top graphic constraints and property shape constraints.
they're not all bad.
they're not all good.
the question is to not prohibit them completely but again to have the staff consider them how they're being used and whether they're reasonable in the subdivision process.
so those are just some of the suggestions that I've observed in trying to apply an actual subdivision through the county process within the last six months so...
>> mr. Conley?
>> yes.
>> just to comment on one thing by and large people cause fires, not open space.
so are you suggesting that we should continue with our rapid population growth in higher density in small subdivisions without fire suppression?
because I can tell you in the recent spicewood fire, there were a number of small areas that were completely devastated and it's because of the proximity of those homes to each other and the lack of fire suppression that contributed to that.
>> I'm not a fire expert.
I'm not a firefighter.
I have lots of friends and stuff like that that are involved in that.
the source of fires, we can eliminate people, we could probably eliminate some of those.
we also have problems with overhead power lines that are suspect in the ranch deal.
there are all kinds of things that can create the fires and I'm up for the safety.
I try to stress that with the design of my subdivisions.
>> but you're suggesting that we should not address fire suppression capacity as we deal with these and review these opportunities.
>> it's not that they shouldn't be addressed.
it should be looked at in fire safety of the structures.
whether the city or the county has building code os deal with that.
I would like to see a fire hydrant in front of every subdivision.
>> that's the public subsidizing the development that did not have adequate water flow.
this is the context that we're operating in.
I know you're not suggesting that we not look at fire safety.
I hear what you're saying.
but to put it in context, what we're dealing with is the county that has more than a million people in it with 27 municipalities and those areas in between those municipalities, individuals particularly in the area that would be most affected by these rules, are individuals who are in many cases retiring to Travis County, many cases it's a second home.
in many cases some fairly powerful and interest -- interested individuals and I don't have any illusion that if their house catches on fire, that they won't feel entitled and understandably to fight the county to put out that fire.
so in the absence of adequate water flow provided by the developer, the rest of the county will have to subsidize their fire safety, so it's -- it's really a question of, you know, we are becoming a more densely populated county, and if we don't have appropriate regulation for the whole with we will suffer.
>> talked to many of the firefighters, the volunteer firefighters, as you get into more of a rural application, it's not as much as the water there to fight the fire, has to deal with response time.
>> in a rural application you would stand back and let it burn because you wouldn't have the infrastructure to get there fast enough.
but we're not in a rural setting anymore.
even areas that feel rural right where you are, they are immediately adjacent to a municipality.
they have a rural feel, but we really aren't a rural county any longer, and that's something we're struggling with, with our emergency service districts as well.
they're still under a rural statutory construct even though they're not operating in a rural context.
>> and subdivisions that are adjacent to centralized water systems, I find that most of my clients prefer that.
it's more dependentable, and subsequently, and they do get fire protection at that point in time.
we deal with rural fire districts, creedmore hot water supply corp.
they serve -- they were developed initially to provide water service to the rural communities and not fire protection.
and so literally I helped transfer 7,000 acres out of the creedmore water supply into the city of Austin's water supply service primarily for the fire protection issue, and so -- but as you get further and further out and it's uneconomically feasible to extend water service from centralized water system, so a lot of subdivisions will create their own water districts and again even the city of Austin has a problem with that because they want to be the water provider.
>> yeah.
>> they feel like they can regulate it better than anybody else including some of the mud districts so...
again, it's not -- one set of rules doesn't fit all -- somebody that is immediately adjacent to a water district or centralized water system has opportunities that you don't find on something that's two, three, four miles out, and uneconomically feasible for somebody that owns, say, 20, 30, 40, 50, acres that wants to sub divide.
>> we're in the urban interface, it's not the urban rural interface anymore.
>> you seem to have a lot of details there, if you want to reduce those to writing, get them to ms. Bowlen, she will scare it with court members interested in seeing it.
>> ann and I will have conversations.
>> okay.
>> those are persons --
>> you said cone of influence for a residential well is how many feet.
>> to 300 is typical.
>> those are the persons who chose to give comments during this public hearing.
move the public hearing be closed.
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
move that we have -- suggest we have on next week's agenda an opportunity for us to give direction on this matter and decide how to proceed.
it would seem to me that if there is a location in western or southwestern Travis County where we can invite those interested in receiving a presentation and asking questions as mr. Stewart suggested, then it would make sense to do that.
my preference is that after that we have a work session where we have -- provide a better forum for more substantive give and take after that sort of educational session.
what we may want to do between now and then is think through that, work on the specifics.
I notice mr. Stewart did not invite me.
I think I will be out of the country on the day of the hearing anyway.
thank y'all very much.
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.
