Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 17
>> 17 is to consider and take appropriate action on proposed language and issues regarding Travis County water availability rules, chapter 82, Travis County code.
>> good morning, anna bolin, Travis County tnr.
and with me I have tom webber and steve manila.
so just a little recap, we've been working on this project for over a year now, and last fall we came up with a draft proposal and we had public hearings and a public -- a couple of public meetings on the previous proposal and we discussed what we heard at a work session.
where we are today is we're wanting to get some direction from the court on some of the alternatives or some of the code provisions that we've had in the draft before where we hope to go in the future is to revise the draft, meet with the community and the stakeholders, finalize the draft and then have a public hearing and hopefully adopt a code by January 31st of 2012.
so what we did is we came up with a list of different types of concerns that were raised and some possible alternatives, but also for any -- any of the discussion items, the court -- it's a possibility to keep the provision as written or eliminate the provisional together.
so with that the first -- what we did was come up with different genres of questions and try to group them in a logical manner so that y'all could look at that and give us some guidance on how to go.
so the first item of discussion was small lot -- small division exemptions.
the basic question there is should these small subdivisions be exempt from the groundwater requirements, and this would previously be in effect if someone is using trinity or surface water from the edwards or colorado aquifers.
for example, some of the alternatives would be to have subdivisions of five lots or less -- the alternatives we came up with is that the exemption for the five lots or less, if the following requirements were met, such as lot averaging with each lot averaging over two acres.
requiring rainwater harvesting system as a primary source of water.
prohibit drilling additional new wells for any use.
and we had the alternative that the applicant would still be required to conduct the walking survey and interviews so that we could get information on adjacent wells.
>> judge, could we talk process a little bit on going through this?
because it's kind of lengthy.
and I think staff has done a really good job at least from my observations on collecting the input from these public meetings and then basically under the particular items where there were differing options brought up at these public meetings.
that they've listed them now in this attachment.
and it seems to me, and this is just my perspective on this, but rather than -- if there are any questions -- the process was we might go this and just say are there any questions about whether this item or this item was complete or whether others that didn't get on here and that kind of thing, but that if the list is comprehensive enough for the court, that this is the document that it seems to me that staff should take and then discuss with -- back to discussions with the stakeholders for trying to arrive at under each of these categories what they think the consensus is based upon discussions with the stakeholders and then do the revised draft that would then be put up for a public hearing.
am I theying along the lines of what -- am I thinking along the lines of where you were headed with this?
>> certainly.
what we would anticipate doing is revising a draft and taking that to the stakeholders and then finalizing the draft afterwards and having a public hearing on the final draft.
so I guess if there's any alternatives or any points of discussion in here that you would like us to take off the table, I would -- I think it would be helpful to hear that.
>> so you need guidance in coming up with the next iteration of the draft.
>> yeah.
>> all right.
so this has not been shared with the committee members?
>> I did email this to the stakeholder -- the stakeholder committee.
>> okay.
I don't know -- I don't know that the court is in a position to take any of these off the table.
I would be interested in getting the input from those impacted by them.
the only other thing I would -- ms. Richardson sent us a letter -- it looks like county staff got it and I did.
I don't know that the rest of the court did.
>> I did.
>> okay.
that's good.
but they suggest an option here that they think is not covered, and that is a development using surface water, plus a centralized wastewater collection system and a treatment system with a Texas land application permit.
so in our view if you meet those three requirements -- are you exempted or are you picked up by rules?
>> currently we would be required to have a one acre lot in those situations.
and I would say that that is something that is contemplated in here when you take into account the introductory paragraph that says for each of these items you could eliminate the requirement, you could keep the requirement or you could modify the requirement.
>> and it's also taken into consideration in the options discussed under protecting recharge to the trinity, edward's aquifer using minimum lot size requirements for subdivisions using surface water, isn't it?
>> that's correct.
so for the record, tom webber with tnr.
we list some day alternative -- listed some alternatives other than taking it out or leaving it the same.
>> so when you receive a request like this, do we respond to the communication and indicate why in our view more must be done?
that's what I'm hearing, right?
>> I actually talked with the attorney that sent the letter and I did point out that -- she looked at the introductory paragraph, then she would see that it's contemplated that that requirement could come out.
or stay in or be altered.
>> but that alternative had been discussed and in fact, in the backup that alternative is laid out as a possibility.
>> where is it in the proposed rules?
>> it's in the backup as an alternative to the proposed rules.
>> where is it in the proposed rules?
>> in the proposed rules it's under this -- and I don't have the -- what we sent out previously, but it is in this section where --
>> in exhibit a?
exhibit a, is it covered in here?
>> yes.
third to the last page.
>> okay.
>> it lists the clarifications and the alternatives.
>> I'm going to need better directions than that since we got printing on both sides.
my page counting is -- it is suspect.
>> there's the header near the bottom that says protecting recharge to the trinity edwards.
it begins there.
and then on the following page are some bulleted items. So we -- so under that category that you just mentioned, we would find the answer to this letter?
>> we would find some alternatives that we propose and also two points of clarification that we would recommend.
in addition to those alternatives, we could eliminate the requirement or keep it as is.
but there's five alternatives that we listed for the item that was referenced in that letter.
>> okay.
so when this court takes final action on proposed rules, we're expected to look through these five alternatives and choose one or more?
>> we may receive requests for variations to any one of those as well.
>> these are listed for us to consider one or all.
>> right.
>> but you don't anticipate us just approving all of them, or do you?
>> no.
>> some of them are conflicting.
>> I thought that you would be coming back after discussions with the stakeholders on these alternatives with hopefully having arrived at some consensus so that there would not be necessarily alternative listings, but there would be a revised proposal that would then go to the public hearing.
>> we came today to list the types of directions we could take in discussions with the stakeholders.
I think at the conclusion -- I picture us going into a meeting and saying here are the alternatives we've heard from one or more of all of you.
and really just kind of knock is out in that meeting.
we might be able to eliminate but two of them.
we might then figure out well, at least two alternatives, this is what we as tnr want to recommend to you the court members.
so we think we'll vet all these alternatives through this process.
it could be laborious.
we might after everybody sees these alternatives, it might be a lot greater consensus on some of the issues than others and we'll have a pretty good direction.
>> so the real response to this today is we receive your letter, we're working through our options, we're not far enough down the road to determine how our rules would impact you and we won't know that until (indiscernible).
>> and they will have an opportunity to bring forth whatever issues they have through the series of meetings staff are going to have with them.
>> in truth there was a lot of heartache over the idea of the lot size restrictions on subdivisions that were reliant on surface water.
but our rationale for the lot size restrictions was with regard to recharge, correct?
of groundwater.
>> yes.
>> even though they weren't pulling groundwater, they were having an effect on the quality and the recharging of the groundwater?
right?
>> yes.
>> so one other alternative that kept coming up a lot that may achieve consensus is lot averaging, which is one of the alternatives down here?
>> I think I agree with Commissioner Huber, I'm not sure we're in a position to give you specific direction at this point.
seems to me to make more sense to chat with the committee members, other residents, see what their input is, and then let's have another discussion.
and it also seems to me that that discussion ought to take place in the context of a work session on Thursday afternoon rather than a voting session on Tuesday.
and when we leave that work session, we will have better ideas about what ought to be in a close to final document that we in fact post for a public hearing on a Tuesday and after that public hearing give our intention to take action.
>> that's fine.
we were really hoping if there's anything you don't want considered beyond this point, tell us what it is and we'll strike it off.
but if you want everything left in there, that's fine too.
>> I don't know that I can really give you any informed opinion.
>> there's a lot of information.
>> and doing that in public is not good.
>> [ laughter ]
>> I mean, it all looked good to me the first time I looked at it, but I did notice some conflicting stuff.
I figured in time we'll work our way through these.
>> well, it seems to me like what ms. Bolin was suggesting is that in discussion -- having now put these on paper, committed them to paper, after having been through the public meetings, they've honed it down to half a dozen items or so, and granted some are in conflict, which allows them to now sit down with the stakeholders and say, here's what's on the platter.
let's eliminate the obvious even among the stakeholders?
so I think to me it seems like that whether or not we need a work session I don't know because I think the next product that we got from them after meeting with stakeholders may be relatively simplified from a standpoint of not having these multiple options because they've already eliminated them through the stakeholders meetings.
and I'm not talking about just the selected group of stakeholders that served on the taskforce.
you're talking about others that have come forward with some of these suggestions, whoever is on our list at this point.
>> right.
I'm talking about the people that have expressed interest in addition to the stakeholder group.
>> yeah h is fine with me.
I just have not been left with the impression that they will be able to go through those meetings and come up with a consensus document.
do y'all think that?
>> well, I'm hopeful that if we cannot reach a consensus, at least on all the items, reach a consensus on a lot of the items. And if there's a point of that we're not in agreement, bring that forward.
>> I'll try to remain optimistic.
>> one thing that I am concerned about moving forward with the public hearings, having attended one of the public hearings, is that if we're asking the public to come to a consensus on a draft, we really, I believe, need some mediation expertise and public outreach expertise.
otherwise the draft will be written by whoever shows up and speaks most often.
if that's where we're going, we can certainly do that.
>> actually, we weren't proposing to bring everyone in from all sides, the same type of meeting that you witnessed out at westside service center.
this is meeting with individual groups and finding out what they really feel strongly about and then pulling that altogether and bringing that back to court.
>> that would be much better.
>> that was my understanding.
plus I have learned to rely on capable professional county staff.
so we rely on the three of y'all basically.
I don't know that -- I don't know that we can achieve a whole lot more than that today.
>> well, we'll go ahead and proceed with these meetings with those out in the community who want to meet with us and talk through the entire thing and get a sense on where they stand on each other.
we will be coming back and you will have to weigh in on some of them.
you know that already.
>> do we -- do we have somewhere a statement of the purpose?
I'm looking at the introductory paragraph here and it sort of makes reference to major policy issues.
but do -- these rules basically are intended to ensure the availability of adequate water for residents, right?
>> yes.
>> groundwater.
>> we've had that statement in the presentations that have been made.
we started out with the slides and explain what the purpose is.
we can incorporate that into the backup.
>> all right.
but if you have surface water, groundwater doesn't come a into play, or does it?
>> well, we still looked at that, though.
>> the availability of water is what we're looking at.
>> right.
>> but if you are connected to an organized water system, do we assume that your water needs have been met?
or do we assume that we need a rule to protect you further?
>> judge, there are rules for -- even if you're on a surface water system, there are existing rules that essentially let us know whether the system is adequate or not.
the aspect of surface water, supply developments that's at stake here is how they affect the aquifers they're sitting on top of because by development on top of an aquifer, even if it's using surface water piped in from somewhere else, can affect the aquifer through, you know, pollution of the runoff from that development or simply that development basically by covering up a large part of the surface of the earth, preventing the aquifer from being recharged.
you know, the rain that seeps into the ground in its undeveloped state, once the land is developed, that water runs off somewhere else rather than seeping down into the aquifer.
that's the issue on the developments that use surface water.
>> okay.
where do we address that potential problem?
>> well, that's what they were pointing to you earlier over on the fourth page.
>> that's to protect the recharge to the trinity.
>> yes.
>> but if we're able to determine that in fact your surface water needs are met and safeguards are adequate, do our rules come into play on top of those?
>> it seems to me that we need a work session.
I mean, we're supposed to understand whatever we take action on.
and I can tell you that I am not close to understanding what we're trying to accomplish.
at least I guess we're pointing in a right direction.
>> is your preference that we go out to the community first, collect all their input and then come back and do a work session?
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
>> their meaningful input.
I would start with the committee.
I think we owe them that because they signed on, they spent quite a bit of time already and based on our last discussion with them they seem to have firm opinions about some of these.
and the document before us is in part based on comments that we got from them anyway, right?
but we can't close the door to other residents who are impacted simply because they were not on that committee.
so I would welcome that and I guess at some point the question for you is how many more of these do you need?
did we say when we would come back?
are we talking about three or four weeks?
>> well, the suspension is through January 31st.
>> moratorium?
>> what the people are calling the moratorium, yes.
>> a lot depends on how many people want to meet with us.
individually.
we're good until the end of January, I think, on the moratorium, but we may need every bit of that.
or if it's narrowed down to just a few, we could come back and like you say, three or four weeks, just depends on how many folks want to meet with us.
>> we will need every bit of that because we will also need to set the public hearing and be sure and when we have -- when we have a finalized rule that we can get that out to the public and so if they want to give testimony that they can.
>> we should have the public hearing it seems to me before christmas.
otherwise we're looking at having it seven to 10 days into January.
we do that, then we are in danger of not meeting that January 31st date.
but if we give ourselves like a target of a public hearing in about a month, that would throw us into mid December, which in my view would be far enough in advance of christmas.
doing it between the 22nd, 23rd and really January 3rd or 4th, really pretty much holiday periods.
don't you think?
we wouldn't want to have a public hearing during that point.
>> but just for clarity's sake on my part, the public hearing would involve a revised draft than we would hope to finalize, is that correct?
>> put another way, maybe would we come to the work session before the public hearing with the revised draft?
>> I'd say yes.
>> the public hearing should -- at the public hearing we ought to have a document that the Commissioners' court has had an opportunity to review and act on.
not final action, but some action to indicate how we seem to be headed.
so instead of thinking in terms of a month, we really ought to have that work session, seems to me, in about three weeks.
>> is it time to post for the public hearing before the end of the year and get --
>> (indiscernible).
>> you may need to do that.
>> what that does is really -- since we have thanksgiving coming up, it really compresses into less than three weeks staff's need to meet with the stakeholder committee anyone else and then come back and revise the rules that are on the table now.
so that becomes a very rapid process.
>> I'm having a hard time seeing hundreds of people calling and asking for a meeting.
I have in mind that the committee or 15 people and maybe another 12 to 15, and they would be developer types, wouldn't it?
or engineers that work with developers.
>> there will be individual landowners who will want to meet, there may be other interest groups out there.
I guess that's part of the issue.
how broad is the universe of people that you want us to meet with on this.
>> my open government vein says that if you're a Travis County resident we want to meet with you.
>> it also says county staff, go for it.
>> why don't we -- do we need a status report in two weeks?
are we available to meet with those who want to meet immediately?
>> absolutely.
we're absolutely available to meet with them and talk about these alternatives and anything else that they would like us to take consideration before we come back to a work session.
>> how many meetings did the committee have over the course of the year?
>> I want to say six or seven.
>> then we also had a work session with the committee.
>> yes.
>> and then how many public hearings did we have?
>> we had two public meetings in addition to public hearings here.
>> right.
so three total.
and this backup represents a compilation of all -- this is a compilation of all that we heard regarding the concerns.
>> it seems to me like there's been plenty of opportunity for people to weigh in up to this point and that we should be getting to sort after funnel where those who have already raised these issues are fairly well-defined.
and I think we need to be careful that we don't -- we're not just starting over with public input.
>> but what they said at the work session was that the document before us, they had only seen for a few days.
so they complained about lack of notice of that.
and what was clear from the work session to me was that we're a long way from achieving consensus.
so if our goal is that, then it seems to me that we need a document.
we have a document here that sets forth options and I guess during those meetings I would get further input regarding which options they view as being preferable, which one is not and for what reason.
it would help me to know that.
>> I agree with you, judge.
my comments were directed to the greater public, not the stakeholder groups.
>> if you drink water it's kind of like agriculture.
if you eat you're involved in agriculture.
if you're human you need water protection properly.
but I still don't see a whole lot of people requesting it.
I could be mistaken.
>> well, you can give us an email status report in two weeks.
and if it looks like droves of people are interested in meeting, then we've got to put our heads together and come up with another strategy.
but if we're looking at the committee and then maybe that many more or a few more than that, then I would say let try to get that done.
>> and then we're still considering coming back for a work session in about three weeks, talking about those items that we have hopefully reached consensus on, and those items that we haven't to get direction, is that correct?
>> unless we conclude that we don't need a work session.
so I'm -- I'm sort of thinking based on the way it looks today, we will need a work session, for the court, not for them, but for the court.
but if in fact those who -- with whom you meet are singing the same song and the song makes sense to you and you're recommending that to the court, then all of a sudden the work session becomes unnecessary.
and so we would just have to respond to the specifics that y'all are -- that y'all bring back to us in a revised draft.
>> okay.
>> I would just leave that door open.
>> okay.
>> because -- you know, it's -- it's a discussion that could take a few hours and normally in a work session context we really do get a lot more done than, say, the voting sessions on Tuesday.
>> okay.
I think we have our Marching orders.
>> well, I've been doing all the talking.
that's the way I see t.
>> I think we need to continue to fast track it as comfortably and appropriately as possible.
>> and if we sent this out -- it seems to me that I would ask for email input and then an opportunity to sit down after that.
>> would that help?
>> sure.
>> I regret that I'm not part of y'all's group.
>> [ laughter ]
>> you're doing a great job on this, by the way.
it's not an easy subject and they're doing a really good job on it.
>> the scope of this is large and they've done unbelievable work.
>> speaking of good work, don't let us hold you up further today.
thank
>> I hope I can put in a few resources for everyone to look into because water is everyone's concern.
for this gentleman who spoke earlier about water runoff, the upper mississippi, there's people that have planted some of the natural grasses back were there at one time.
and when they did, the water was filtered to a better standard.
now, the other concern is nasa is just around the corner from us.
it may be public information on how to filter water better for everyone, house per house.
and china has already adapted similar situations on their tent meant buildings and they've gone out and checked their water meters to see if they're working directly and put new ones on.
so these things are available.
I'm sure internationally for everyone to look into and consider.
>> thanks.
>> okay.
thank you.
thank y'all.
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.
