Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, November 1, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 36
Now item number 36, consider and take appropriate action regarding the availability of water at the Travis County outlet in southeast Travis County.
a, modification of terms for residential and commercial customers, and related issues, and b, availability of water on a permanent basis for certain residential customers in unincorporated areas of Travis County including the las limitas subdivision.
>> thank you, judge.
good morning.
I have a couple things we're bringing back.
you had asked us to create an application form similar to what we just did on the previous item we just discussed and we have a draft and I'll hand that out in a second.
tom will hand it out.
we have not received comments from the county attorney's office on it yet.
it's for y'all's comments when you have the time.
second, you had asked us for a cost estimate for what it would take to become a potable water supply.
and tom worked up that cost estimate and he will go through that with you.
and thirdly, you had -- well, the other component of this is to give you an update on where we are right now, and for that purpose I'll have harin give you an update on that.
>> thank you.
howard arin, t.n.r.
after the last Commissioners court meeting, we did in fact go through the process of operational attendant at that location at set 4.
that has been in place since that moment, since last Wednesday.
the hours of operation now have been identified and signs posted at -- beginning operations at 8:00 a.m.
in the morning, cease operations at 2:00 p.m.
we have the attendant there, has been authorized through the auditor's office and through t.n.r.
to begin that day with a sum of money so they could give changes when people shows up.
we've also began the process of identifying the appropriate job description so we could hire a permanent person to be on site as the attendant, and as of right now we're in an interim condition as we try to get somebody up.
we are targeting that for Commissioner, based on that question, that that person could be bilingual so we could be helpful and give appropriate information to everybody.
so we are moving in that direction.
we are securing stand pipe in the evening and going from there.
>> we are planning on putting a fence around it so people won't tamper on it and howard is working on that.
we had a visit from tceq.
>> we had a visit from tceq within two days of operation.
they did take pictures and advised our people on site that based upon our operations at that point we appeared to be in compliance with state requirements.
>> and that's for nonpotable water supply system.
>> the only -- the only thing that people have raised and a question about are the operating hours.
>> yes.
>> folks work.
all day long.
and I think we heard from someone here last week as well as from folks when we talked to them, and that Saturday and Sunday are going to be a better time for them to pick up their water.
they work all week long.
and they don't get to get off at 1:30 so they can make it there by 2:00.
for closing time.
>> we are looking at other contingency plans, but given where we're at right now that 8:00 to 2:00 was kind of a mean average that we could get somebody there at that particular time so the attendant would be on duty.
but we are looking at other contingency plans in the long term.
>> then we can leave that part open for flexibility.
>> yes.
>> it seems to me if in fact a Saturday opportunity makes sense, then we ought to try to get that.
I don't know that I would wait on it.
I don't know that I would do Saturday and Sunday, but for those who work Monday through Friday, and we hope they are if they are able to, then I would try to -- I would aim for a Saturday opportunity.
and so -- it can't cost that much, can it?
I think we ought to do that and we ought to see, in fact, how many come on Saturday and, you know, what the water needs are.
and modify our plan accordingly.
>> judge, that's always a possibility.
we have looked at that.
the idea though if we ran more than five working days, it would take shift work which would add human resources to it because we would have to move somebody on and number of.
>> Tuesday through Saturday.
>> that became part of -- have it closed Monday, be operational Tuesday through Saturday.
that becomes an easy transition if that becomes what's necessary.
what we may want to do is target some Saturday to see what our flow volumes are, how much water is being sold at that particular time.
>> then we can help send the information around to let people know that, you know, it will be available Saturday, but you need to go so we can see how many people will come Saturday.
>> that's a valid plan, Commissioner.
>> I think we can do that.
>> add like an index card to this saying would you use Saturday delivery if it were available and just poll the people as they use it?
>> I would defer that to tom.
>> I think that's what they prefer.
we don't need a poll on that is correct Commissioner.
>> I don't know that I do.
I would figure out a way to include Saturday as one of the five days.
>> we'll do that.
>> and I don't -- it's only a big deal if we make it a big deal.
and if it involves a few dollars more, then so be it.
>> we'll work it out.
>> however, we should know in a couple months whether as a Saturday availability matters more than other days.
>> we would know that very quickly.
you would see the amount of business that you would have on a Saturday.
>> now, we were kind of left with the impression this fencing was important.
>> I would like to see it fenced so that -- because it's outside of the perimeter fence for that office.
anybody can drive up, tamper it, drive a car into it, mess with it.
I'd rather see a fence placed around it and locked up.
make it more difficult for people to try to get in and mess around with the stand pipe.
>> what can the Commissioners court do to able you to expedite the incomes.
>> you just did that, -- the action?
>> you just did that, judge.
>> you all did talk about what rate are we going to charge, how are we going to deal with commercial versus residential, how would we enforce that.
there's still questions out there that need to be answered.
>> okay.
speaking of questions out there, we received the form.
can we turn that into one or two suggestions.
at the top we asked for phone number and email address.
I would add street address.
>> okay.
>> at the end of the second full paragraph, we say requirement will result, violation of this will result.
I would say may result.
and the reason for that is that if you come to us and you have a family relying on this water and the violation was sort of minor, I don't see us terminating your service.
but at least it implies we would look at circumstances and take appropriate action.
>> okay.
>> the other thing that -- do we expect this form to be used for residential purposes as well as commercial?
>> that was my intent, judge.
>> we say number of persons living at the residence and I guess I would put or location where this water will be used.
which would pick up the commercial, right?
>> it should.
>> somewhere on there I would have, I have obtained water from this location for blank years.
and at some point don't we need to consider what action we take if we have an influx of new people accessing this water?
>> that is a problem.
I don't know how we would limit the region.
I mean someone can come in from another county if they wanted to and take advantage of this.
I was trying to think maybe we ought to limit it to folks who live within so many miles of the stand pipe, just to try to control it, to manage it a little better, but it's tough.
how would we enforce it.
>> how would you prove it?
>> right, exactly.
>> where a person comes from --
>> and I think we still need to get to the many above how many people are out there who are in this same position that las lomitas is in and until we flush out all the developers who have not gone through the entire process to make sure people have water and other things, you know, it's going to take a little while for us to finish that.
>> and the rate, if you are charging the same rate the city is, there's not much incentive for them to come over to us.
that's going to play into it as well.
>> hadn't we discussed capping the amount that one could get at a residential rate so we wouldn't even have to police whether it was residential or commercial.
look being if you say there's five people in your house, the average use of five people is x so we'll -- you know, over -- you know, y gallons of water it's the higher rate.
>> we could do that.
everybody has a need that goes beyond what they expect though I would think at some time or another.
>> even if we made it twice the average per capita consumption, just I'm concerned about laying it out with a commercial rate and an individual rate because there's no way to police it and we don't want to -- we don't want to encourage people to continue to rely on this water exclusively.
we want to come up with a permanent fix.
>> putting a cap on it, you know, we would have to maintain a register of all of these folks, I would think.
otherwise anybody could come in and ask the brother-in-law to pick it up this time.
>> that's true.
>> it gets back to enforcing and policing that.
if you are on the register --
>> maybe we just want one flat rate then.
>> I don't know, it seems to me we owe the taxpayers two separate rates.
I don't mind keeping it low for residential, but I think it ought to be higher for commercial.
>> everyone will just claim residential rate though.
>> that's why you ask for the address though.
>> right.
>> and ask for the location.
just a minute.
we ask for the address not only of the person picking up the water but we also ask where it's used.
they may be different answers to that.
but we get both of them.
and it seems to me that if -- in order for us to work toward a permanent solution, this is basic information that we need ourselves and we will need for grantors once we started granting application.
and if you start looking for grants to put in permanent solutions, typically they prohibit commercial outlets.
they are really designed to meet residential purposes.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> for that permanent solution, how far up and down 183 do we go?
I'm hearing folks who don't live there --
>> I might add, too, judge, Commissioners, that the use on commercial is also kind of augmented by the agricultural use.
there's a lot of people that come in, get the water to support agricultural function rather than just straight commercial function or straight residential.
it gets a little iffy.
we were trying to group those as agricultural and commercial as one.
>> I'm sure we'll be asked to support the agricultural use.
>> included in that would be like cattle, I would guess.
>> yeah.
>> and I guess I don't have a problem with that, we probably ought to kind of run it through the sustainable foods committee.
>> this is touching on issues that are broader than the portal through which we saw this with las lomitas, there's been discussion that the sustainable food policy board with regard to long-term water availability through use of agricultural ponds or whatever.
this falls into that category to some degree and also might be something that we want to reconvene the economic development subcommittee of this group to look at identifying agricultural industry as something that you would want to support through things like this.
>> mr. Lofton?
come forth, please.
anybody else here on this item?
if so, please come forward.
if you would give us your full name, mr. Lofton, we would be happy to get your comments.
>> yes, it's daryl lofton.
and basically my comments is y'all a couple of questions y'all had, more lifestyle than commercial.
a lot of -- it ain't very many commercial people that come to this particular water stand.
and it is just like a couple of tree companies out of Austin like ted's trees.
it's just a couple.
and I know I'm there, I just kind of got a lot of time.
I know a lot about my county.
but more and more -- a couple of comments for ms. Gomez, are you aware of the street that I live on.
it's like eight, 12 --
>> right.
>> all right.
throughout this week, you know, since I was here last week, I just kind of doing a little riding just looking okay.
all of our water, all of everybody's water comes through our block.
okay.
our street will never be developed because we got this humongous gravel pit to the north.
okay.
with onion creek running through the middle of it.
you have mckinney falls to the west.
state park.
never be developed.
okay.
and then you've got the volcano to the south.
okay.
to the east,
>> [indiscernible] racetrack, but they've got huge water pipes.
sitting there.
waiting to send water to this racetrack.
all we need is a four-inch water line coming down our street.
that will take care of everybody.
you can go 10 miles this way with water for a racetrack.
but you can't come two miles this way with a four-inch water line.
as far as mr. Davis, I'll personally hook every neighbor on my street up.
there's only 12 of us.
I'll do it myself, you know, it's like before the racetrack should get their water going 10 miles that way with huge water pipes, come two miles our way, four-inch line.
my dad worked for the city of Austin water and wastewater for years, he said a four inch water line will take care of our whole street.
we already have the water coming down the street for another half of a mile.
another two miles.
it don't got no water.
nobody looks at us because nothing ever going to happen out there.
if you get to the south, william cannon comes down to mckinney falls, water, water, water everywhere.
the biggest water tower in Travis County sits on top of the volcano, water, water, everywhere.
they are building tons of houses to the south of Austin.
but we're in between Austin.
they get further away from Austin building houses, Austin is taking up everything, building houses, but just this one street, 12 families.
a couple of my neighbors actually rent and, you know, they talking about moving.
it done just got too complicated for them.
they are hispanic.
it's kind of getting a little complicated for them.
I'm losing a couple of good neighbors behind water, you know, just one four-inch water pipe.
take care of everything.
we got sweat labor under control.
and that's just my comments for today, you know, before the racetrack, you know, don't send it 10 miles this way.
just come back two miles that way.
I mean, get the racetrack people to pay for it.
they'll pay for it if they think it's going stop the racetrack.
>> thank you mr. Lofton.
>> thank you.
>> there have been pockets of I guess persons in the community of Travis County who do not have permanent based water source coming on to their property.
I want to make sure that those persons that reside, those residents that reside here in Travis County have, of course, access to this particular water situation, even if they don't stay within the radius.
I just want to make sure that what we do here accommodates the residents of Travis County.
precinct 1, of course, has a lot of similarities as precinct 4 as far as some of the colonias and things of that nature.
however, there may be other pockets in Travis County that I'm not aware of, that's not within precinct 1 or precinct 4 that maybe have challenges such as that -- as that are being experienced here before us today, being expressed before us today, and I want to make sure that -- that those opportunities are also available to them if we're going to look at this particular as a source of water.
thank you.
>> mr. Reeferseed.
>> I wanted to echo mr. Lofton's concerns and I admire his point bringing this up that we've got to start caring about the people that live here and somehow quit paying off these -- I blame the city of Austin basically for the racetrack nightmare.
I mean, it's a polluting petroleum based nightmare for Travis County.
it just kind of snuck in.
we're going to have to pay out the wazoo for it, instead of taking care of our citizens with a four-inch pipe
>> [indiscernible] also as a water consumer I have a question.
that is where I live, not far, it's my water company used to be inverness point, it's been taken over by another california based conglomeration that chose to pollute our water.
I've been living there for 20 years.
now we've got fluoridated poison water.
I have to drive into town, buy my water I use for drinking, cooking, eating, gardening, from wheatsville to buy gallon by gallon water because it's poison.
if you all haven't done any research on it, fluoridated water is poison, toxic sludge.
it's hard to grasp --
>> mr. Reeferseed, anything relevant to the availability of water in the southeast Travis County --
>> yeah, I'm asking.
is it possibly that california company called southwest water company, if so, let's get out of that.
let's use somebody else.
>> okay.
anything relevant to item 36, though?
this is now -- water availability to southeast Travis County at the county outlet.
>> I'm in southwest Travis County.
our water company --
>> I know.
okay.
thank you.
>> thank you.
on a we have before us the draft questionnaire, Saturday delivery as one of the five delivery days.
expeditious completion of the fencing that tceq recommends that we have.
>> actually, I don't think tceq recommended the fencing.
that's something that I recommend that we do because of where it is.
it's outside of the perimeter of our fencing.
I think it would be a good investment to --
>> your recommendation is even more persuasive mr. Manila --
>> anything else related to item a?
>> yes.
the time.
2:00, even though it's five days a week, let one much those days -- let one of those days be Saturday.
2:00 is not good.
2:00 is not good.
I mean, it's a county employee, you know what I mean, all county employees don't have to work from 6:00 to 2:00 you know what I mean.
they don't.
some of the time they are at convenient stores, other times in truck.
let them work the hours they work for us.
if it's only going to be sixhours a day, don't let those hours be from 8:00 in the morning to 2:00 it does no good.
8:00 in the morning most people trying to get their kids to school, get everybody situated.
the one that's don't work like in the mornings 7 then by the time you get there.
these ain't huge tanks.
you get 350-gallon tank you know you may have have to take two trips.
you put this tank in your truck, go, wait in line, fill these tank up, you go back, you have a little bitty pump that pumps this out of your little bitty tank into a big tank which takes 30 minutes.
then you drive back to the pump, you wait in line again, you get water again, you go pump again.
so I mean it like 700 gallons of water is about like a two and a half hour trip just to get two tanks of water.
bigger families need three, you know.
it takes time.
ain't like --
>> let's try these hours and see how they work out.
all right?
we will revisit this in a month and see what happens.
>> perfect.
>> couple more things, judge, if you don't mind.
go ahead, tom.
>> yeah.
for the record, tom webber, environmental program manager, t.n.r.
the question arose, you asked us to look at what it would cost to go from we now have as a potable -- non-potable to a potable system.
>> I haven't forgotten that.
I was trying to tie up.
>> a.
>> tie up a, immediate action.
>> okay.
>> then I was going to turn to that.
>> most certainly.
>> we will make it bilingual.
>> that's fine.
this motion can't cover everything.
three key things, though.
approval of the draft questionnaire before us with the recommended changes.
>> okay.
>> including Saturday as one of the five days in the times that you mention.
footnote that that we will revisit the time roughly a month from now unless it comes to our attention that we should change that beforehand.
I would say let's see when people use it.
our problem is that we are government and people typically work from 8:00 to 5:00.
>> our operational hours are 7 to 3:30 for rod and bridge.
that's where the labor force is coming from.
>> supervisors, too.
we are trying to allow some time on the back end for the record keeping that's associated with this.
if we do this, what the auditor has said is we have to do better record keeping, otherwise she will find some problems and we all may be in trouble.
close to it.
>> I understand that.
>> let's get that fence up.
as soon as possible.
we have a fencing contract don't we?
>> we do.
mention Commissioner Gomez's name a couple of times if you need to.
anything else on the motion?
>> I'll second the motion.
>> my motion, seconded by Commissioner Gomez.
discussion?
>> judge, could I ask t.n.r.
one question?
are you all planning to keep records of how much water every person that signs this form and comes and buys water actually uses?
so that over time you have a record of how much water they have bought.
if they say it's residential, they are using water at some ridiculous rate, that you know that they have essentially falsified a government document.
I think that will provide some incentive for folks, you know, not to say I'm residential when they are really commercial that they are using it in Travis County when they are usually really using it in bastrop county and things like that.
>> we can do that, sure, that's not a problem.
we can do that.
>> that will basically give you a database over time so you can later make some of the policy decisions on commercial residential one way versus two, et cetera, et cetera.
>> require that the information from these four be keyed into the database.
>> we've been accepting only cash historically.
>> yes, sir, cash only, paid in advance.
no accounts receivable or anything else.
cash at the stand pipe.
we issue a receipt.
>> the auditor wants to see periodically the receipt book is what we do in the other departments.
>> the auditor wants to see it.
the requirement is the receipt book be available for daily inspection.
if someone wants to see it.
that a department is made daily.
deposit made daily.
I think there are time lines that the auditor's office gives us, no more than two or three days, but they are really targeting a daily deposit and that turn through the runner as they go back.
>> that's the other thing.
as a public entity, you deal with cash.
then you have all kinds of requirements that come into play.
this person is I guess out there sort of working alone.
we expect him or her to do the full thing.
>> everything, right.
>> if that's going to the case, the county outsources jobs all the time.
outsource the job to somebody.
it will be cheaper.
just getting somebody totally different to do it.
that way the county don't got the headaches, county don't got this, that, outsource the jobs, give it to somebody else, they don't have to be off work at 2:00.
it would be more usable for the constituents of precinct 4, you know.
just outsource the job.
I don't want it.
>> let's look at that in a month, too.
put this under the lofton recommendations, that's two.
>> as far as mr. County attorney, I mean you talk about, I mean, water -- I can go from residential to commercial it's like it all depends on okay did my stock tank dry up.
I have livestock at a different location.
luckily enough I've been around the county long enough that I have a good place with a good tank.
but everybody around me most of their stock tanks are dried up.
if my stock tank dried up, do I haul water or sell cows.
you know, I would probably haul water.
I use 1500 gallons of water a month, just me and my three sons, you know, that's all.
we don't got no women in our house.
1500 gallons of water will last us 30 days.
but if I was feeding livestock or if I had a girl child.
>> what are you saying?!!
>> [laughter]
>> it would be totally different.
I've got a friend of mine that stays out in loss lomitas, he hauls 500-gallons of water three times a week.
he got two girls and a wife for them.
>> as a friend of yours, mr. Lofton, it may be time to stop.
>> [laughter]
>> it will be okay.
that's it, outsourcing and just think livestock, you know, a lot of people got livestock in a drought.
>> any more discussion of the motion?
>> not at all.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
mr. Webber, you were about to tell us.
>> again, tom webber with t.n.r.
we looked at the cost from a stand pipe at the non-potable service, we looked at as we discussed making it a potable water service.
we think it would cost about another 40,000.
what would entail would be required engineering assessment as built plans for review and approval by tceq.
potentially some upgrades to that stand pipe system.
to make it meet tceq design standards.
additionally, there would be the -- the costs of the person who is dispensing the water, our county employee or other.
and that person would need to be certified by tceq as a public drinking water operator.
they would also need to have a certificate of competency from the Texas department of state health services, this would be for a required food manufacturers license.
under the category of food and beverage, this would be beverage obviously.
for drinking water.
then there would also be testing for chlorine residual, we think that would be done ourselves and we would get the necessary test equipment.
we would have to test for bacterialogical quality and other chemical tests as well.
then there are fees that have to be paid to tceq for the testing that they periodically do as well as the regulatory assessment.
which is based on one percent of our sales.
we estimated -- then there's the wholesale cost of water, which if we go by what we -- the volume that we were charged by the city of Austin in September, that would come out to over 7 million gallons a year and that is a cost of $43,000.
now of course we're talking about making up some of these costs, I guess I should point out that that 43,000 is more for estimating our regulatory assessment because we still have that cost if we keep it non-potable.
there's -- as a very low likelihood, we may need to booster the disinfection there.
we have -- we will know more about that once if we start testing the chlorine residual.
I think if we had to put in a disinfection system that could change the operator requirements that we have since we would now be treat being water and -- treating water and we would have to have the assurance that the person doing that knew what they were doing and trained and had that competency level.
that could cost -- it's hard to estimate kind of an infrastructure upgrade like that.
but I think it would be less than $100,000, maybe 75,000.
so all in all, about $40,000 of that, the recurring costs would be about $5,000 per year.
>> where do the seven and five thousand come from now.
>> 75,000 would be in the low likely who if we had to add chlorination to the system.
there's a minimum amount that is supposed to be in a distribution system.
we think it probably does have that chlorination, it's typical for it to be present even in the outlying areas of the distribution.
but if it isn't, then we would need to booster the chlorination.
>> we're getting the water from the city of Austin water supply.
they chlorinate it themselves, but that northern nation concentration -- chlorination concentration could reduce the further out you go.
you may have to boost it up is what he's saying.
>> kind of a contingency cost what if.
we want you to know what we could be getting into in this scenario.
>> in water steadily flows.
it flows daily.
it's not like it's standing still.
>> it will be for two days a week.
if we go the way we're talking about.
>> chlorine evaporates, right.
>> > the chlorine would dissipate in the system as it travels from wherever the city treats it to wherever you turn the value.
>> tceq knows that we're getting this from the city of Austin.
>> yes, they do.
they also know that there's a back flow preventer on it, which was one of their chief concerns.
one of the reasons when they looked at it last week they saw it to be satisfactory.
>> okay.
questions?
so it gets to be -- it could be pretty expensive and I guess my problem is that we put in place a kind of long-term temporary solution, I guess at some point we have to ask ourselves realistically are our residents consuming this water potable or no?
>> well, that would be a question that they would have to answer.
one of the things that we try to do of the form that we talked about on item 36 a was that we do identify down there that it is non-potable and we indicate what it means to be non-potable is that it's not consumed by humans and we indicate how that is there.
so -- so people could take this water and decide to boil it, put iodine tablets in it and it could be safe to drink in those kind of situations.
but we are not providing it as something that's suitable for that.
there's also contamination from the use of containers and reusing the containers, not sanitizing them and other factors like that.
>> so they are hauling the water from the stand pipe to their home could introduce contaminants and it would make what was potable now non-potable.
>> that would also be true, if we want to potable there would still be the potential for contamination down the road, so to speak.
>> as well as the storage container at the place of residence or business.
>> that was our problem previously.
people had cisterns out there.
some were new and a little safer, others were old, they were out there in the weather outside of the home.
>> so even if we were providing potable, would we still want to advise people to boil or otherwise treat their water once they had it at home?
because as we have no idea what their transmission from -- from the stand pipe to their mouth is.
>> I probably want to benchmark that idea and we do have people that -- corporations that sell bottled we are and in parking lots, you bring your container.
there might be kind of an industry standard of how you advise or communicate those kind of risks.
>> that's a good point.
would it be maybe we should find out what the industry standard is on from companies that do that kind of water provision.
>> I think we ought to.
my problem is if you've been using this water for years and drinking it, I don't know that you stop because there is a note from the county saying non-potable.
it depends on what alternative source of drinking water you really have.
something new, mr. Lofton, something new.
>> I will kind of weigh in.
always new and exciting.
as far as like the drinking water, aspect of this, almost everybody in the county has water coolers.
and that will be the five gallon jugs and you can fill them up.
most of the people in our area like h.e.b.
on william cannon and 35, that's our grocery tore because it's like coming in -- we ease on out to lockhart depending on the time of day, time of the week.
you can go five gallon jugs, buy your coolers at home depot like $38, you just turn the bottle up inside of it.
actually on the water poured out there, there's a place where you can put a water hose at the bottom.
so you don't have to have tons of water coming out into a big container.
you can hook a little water hose to it, fill up four or five of --
>> do people drink county water or not?
>> very few people drink the county water.
like you say, I have had the same tank probably three years, I've never washed it out.
I've never cleaned my storage tank since I bought it.
I bought it from a guy in out in oak hill when they got water out there.
he didn't need his system no more.
I bought his system, brought it home, set it up, went to using it.
as far as bathing, washing clothes, dishes, I really don't got a problem with it because we always pour bleach in our water like when you are washing dishes.
things that you do, you kind of like know that.
it's just things that you do, you know.
I don't pour bleach into my holding tank, but I'll use bleach in certain situations.
you cook with hot water, you just boil -- there's ways of using the water, I don't think anybody's tank is sanitary, anybody's.
you know, because you would have to throw a small kid off into most of them.
there's just a hole.
once it's set up, it's so huge you can't disconnect all of these pipes and flip them over and get the water out and go inside.
so the tanks get unsanitary.
>> why don't we have our whoever staffs this for us, let's have him ask people to come by there.
just ask him that.
I would be interested to find out.
>> ask them --
>> do you drink -- do you and your family drink this water.
because in the past the systems that the communities that we worked with, they used the water for the same purposes that folk in an organized system did.
they had water there, they drank it.
people who get water from the city of Austin, they still buy water and do it.
>> yeah, but that's people with water issues, this water is not -- you wouldn't drink water -- you have the tank sitting out there.
birds on top of the tank, storage tank outside.
summertime everything goes to that tank for water.
ants you see --
>> if you can afford not to.
three our four cases that I have in mind, those residents cannot afford the luxury of using the alternative sources of water that you described.
>> the water is there at the stand pipe.
all that you need is a bottle.
>> I'm talking about water they took home.
>> you just have to boil it.
>> all that you need is a bottle.
the water is at the stand pipe.
all that you need is a hose, fill up your bottle, you got clean water from the stand pipe.
>> you were saying they don't drink that.
>> judge, our sign says not approved for human consumption.
>> that's what tceq told us, they shouldn't be drinking this.
>> county, liability reasons.
>> [multiple voices]
>> people will drink it.
>> make sure that we got mr. Lofton's phone number just in case we need to contact them
>> [laughter]
>> I don't know if we want to ask people if they are drinking it.
we are putting a sign up there saying don't do it.
>> ask them whether they have in the past.
>> I think it would be good for us to know.
seems to me that the more people that we know have been drinking this water, in my view, the greater the need for us to put in place a potable water temporary solution.
>> judge, I think it's how the question is asked.
>> I withdraw my question.
>> but leave the comment there.
>> the comment might be are you choose being to endanger your own health by ignoring our advice not to drink this water.
we're just curious if you are doing that.
>> I mean he want to stress this, because I lived on well water my whole growing up.
and when something would happen to the well, we just had to boil the water or put additives in the water.
are we providing information to the folks using this about how you do make water safe.
because you can make water safe.
>> do we need to take this into executive session.
>> sure, let's do that.
>> we don't know that we might.
>> let me just offer -- I mentioned the costs about $40,000 more to make this potable.
I think from the comments we've heard, you can see we can declare this potable and we'll have met our regulatory burdens.
but then we still don't know subsequently where this water goes, what type of open containers are used or containers that aren't clean.
even if we did go to the costs, you still may not change, you know, some kind of pattern of possible contamination.
>> and perhaps the better service that we can provide is helping people with information about how to make their water wherever they are getting it, if it's not a tap, safe to drink.
to avoid water born illnesses and other things.
>> okay.
anything else in open court?
let's can it our intention to take 36 b into executive session under consultation with attorney, just in case there's legal advice that we need to hear.
okay.
thank you all very much.
thank you very much, too, mr. Lofton.
>> all right, thank you, judge.
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.
