Travis County Commissioners Court
January 24, 2012 (Agenda)
Item 2
Now let's call back to order the voting session of the Travis County Commissioners court.
item 2 is a public hearing to receive comments regarding proposed amendments to chapter 82, Travis County code, establishing water availability rules for subdivisions.
my intention is to hear from county staff first.
then members of the committee who would like to give comment, and then we will hear from the public.
normally we close down at 5:00.
so let's try to move efficiently today.
staff?
can I take care of one little matter?
this morning, item 4, we approved the proclamation for the Austin independent school district.
Commissioner Huber had to run to the capitol building.
we did approve it.
Commissioner Huber would like to be shown as supporting.
number 2.
>> thanks.
>> good morning -- or good afternoon, anna bolin, Travis County electronic and with me are steve manila and tom webber.
what I would like to do briefly before we start hearing testimony is just talk a little about how we got here, what we've done and where we are today.
if the court is agreeable to that.
so sellerly how we got here -- essentially how we got here, over the years we've been hear that wells have been running dry throughout the area and there's also been a lot of development activity in Travis County.
and according to the u.s.
bureau is population has increased 23% from 2000 to 2008 and it's going to continue to increase as time goes on.
during this we also had a drought, several significant droughts in the past, and we're in one now.
and in 1990, the Texas water commission designated portions of western Travis County to be in a priority ground water management area and as of this date there is still not a ground water conservation district to regulate the pumping of ground water from the trinity group aquifers.
so in October of 2010 the court suspended the approval of subdivisions using ground water from the trinity group aquifers.
and after that the court appointed a stakeholder committee.
so what we've done since we had the stakeholder committee is we've met with the stakeholder committee seven times.
six of them before the rural proposal back last September and once since then.
we also researched what kind of issues other counties, other hill countries in Texas have adopted into their water availability rules and what we found is most hill country counties in Texas, they address their water as a whole as opposed to just one segment, ground water or surface water.
and three counties also address fire protection in their rules.
six of the hill countries also in some form or fashion limit intensity of all subdivisions.
and so once we did that research, we found there were two issues in our initial proposal that we presented last September that we didn't anticipate originally having to include in this reg.
one was developing intensity for subdivision not using ground water and the other was fire protection.
after that did that initial draft rule we had a public hearing in September, a work session in October of last year and also in October we had two public meetings, one in western and one in eastern Travis County.
the court extended the suspension on platting until January 31st, 2012, which is next Tuesday, and in November we met with the stakeholder committee and we discussed a proposal for discussion that we came to after we heard the input at the public meetings and the public hearings.
staff believes that we've met consensus on most of the rule components that were in that proposal and that most of those components are reflected in the rule that you have before you that's going to be discussed today.
but there were a couple of areas where we still did not have consensus so we met with -- we had several meetings with individual stakeholders to try to reach a consensus on those points.
and so those two points were basically the use of ground water foramen active ponds and limits of development density over the edwards and trinity aquifer for subdivisions that were using surface water.
so on the first of those two points, how we tried to -- well, the issues were some believed water is so scarcity should only be used for domestic uses and basic needs not for such uses as pond or common area.
others believe if there is proof of adequate water being available they should be able to to use them if proof in the ground water certification.
we tried to balance the views in the revised recommendation so that -- and recommend if subdivisions are using centralized water, they can use ground water and common areas until there's enough treated -- I'm sorry, if they are using centralized wastewater, they can use the ground water and common areas until there is enough treated effluent for irrigation purposes or amenity purposes.
also in subdivisions the -- in all of the subdivisions the size of the water feature we're proposing to be limited and the use of water in common areas should be accounted for in the ground water availability certification and this type of use is to be to be curtailed in times of drought.
the second area and this is probably the hottest area is limits on development intensity over the edwards and trinity aquifers to protect surface and ground water.
really the surface water is the most unresolved issue.
and some believe that limiting the intensity of all development over key aquifers is necessary to allow those aquifers to recharge and recharge by unpolluted rain water.
and that the land, surface water and ground water are all interconnected in the watershed.
the ground water performs an integral function in the watershed by discharging to the surface as springs and providing base flow for streams and creeks which become our drinking water.
and that rain doesn't seep into the sole in western Travis County, it runs into the land and lakes and streams that make up the surface water component of the our drinking water source.
and both the 5:00 if you are recharge infiltration rate or recharge and infiltration rates and the rainfall runoff rates are site specific and affected by soil, geology, topography and the human uses of the land.
and that land development cannot only inhibit recharge but also pollute both the rainfall that seeps into the ground which would be our ground water and the rainfall that runs into the lakes which would be our surface water.
that's one side of the equation.
the other side is many others believe that limiting ground water -- or limiting development intensity is only appropriate for projects that are supplied by ground water, not surface water.
and recharges enhanced for surface water used for irrigation because it will seep into the ground.
so what we did, what we proposed in this rule, we listened to both sides and we tried to balance it.
we looked for guidance in some -- some things that have previously been approved regionally such as the 2005 regional water quality protection plan for the barton springs segment of the egg wards aquifer and its contributing zones.
this study was funded in part by Travis County and other jurisdictions and we looked at that for guidance.
and we also took into consideration that Travis County already regulates development intensity in parts of the city of Austin territorial jurisdiction through title 30 which is the combined code for Austin.
the environmental components of that which are primarily -- which are administrated by city of Austin counterparts, those regulate development intensity.
so what we ended up recommending there especially when we took into account the substantial areas in western Travis County that have been set aside for preservation, we recommended a development intensity of 30% for residential development and that study that I previously quoted, it had a range of intensity from 5% to 30%.
and 45% development intensity for commercial.
and that range had like a 7.5% to 45% recommendation.
we also recommended a one-acre average lot size.
and we said that no -- in the event you are doing a conservation subdivision there's not a lot size requirement.
but I do -- our current conservation subdivision regulations would call for I guess a 40-acre subdivision with you setting aside 20 acres of that and that's 50% of the property.
the other thing that we added into our recommendation for surface water is for large developments, there's some large developments that republican good-bye coming through the process in more than one preliminary plan.
one of the things that we heard is if you have a really large tract of land you might want to be able to average lot sizes not just amongst that one preliminary plan but amongst several preliminary plans because it may not be -- it may take longer to develop than what you would see in one plan.
so if they do a master development plan, which is something that's currently in our regulations, and we approve the use of the averaging, they could be able to average the lot sizes amongst several preliminary plans and have a little more flexibility.
we believe that with the exception of ground water used for amenity lots and if you are using surface water we basically reached concensus with the stakeholder committee.
that being said, I want to acknowledge not everyone in the community or even on the committee is in total agreement with every part of the rule.
since I sent the rules out, we have gotten some additional comments.
the most frequent comment we got was with regard to fire protection.
but we have attempted to make this rule that we're going to discuss today as fair and balanced as possible and I do want to be sure that you know that it may not address all the concerns in the community.
some will feel it's too strict, some will feel it's not strict enough and you are likely to hear a variety of comments today.
>> we are not posted for action today.
>> that's correct.
>> what do you have in mind in terms of bringing this back to the court for action?
>> well, I would say that certainly something will have to happen before court is out next Tuesday because that's the day that the suspension expires.
so depending on what you hear today, you know, either take action on the rule next Tuesday or extend.
>> court members, any questions for staff?
committee members, this is your opportunity.
if you are one of the 15 persons on the stakeholder committee, please come forth.
if you would like to give comments.
mr. Smith.
>> I get to stick my neck out first.
my name is hank smith.
I'm with Texas engineering solutions.
I was one of the shake holders on the committee.
anna's presentation is on the money.
a lot of the stuff we went through changes were made both directions.
and I think there was a lot of compromising that went on and a lot of good came out of the presentation.
there's a handful of things I would like to cover quickly that I think need clarification and there is one major issue.
there's -- when you get into the exemptions, which is -- I'll give and in a copy of this presentation.
82.212.
if you have a small piece of land you are trying to divide into five lots or less and you are just a mom and pop operation trying to do something for your family or a small lot, this code requires to you put in rain water harvesting for every home which is expensive.
on the one side we're trying to provide exclusions for people to save money and not have to hire an engineer to do a ground water conservation study but on the other hand they are having to go to the expense of putting in a rain water harvesting system which there is debate whether those are effecter on the or not during a drought.
it's not a big benefit when it's not raining.
it rained today.
during the times of drought it's not the most effective way to manage outside landscaping.
I don't know adding an expense in an area we're trying to reduce the cost for small property owners is beneficial.
there's a section in here that references grandfathering and I think it may be easier in section c to just reference 82.102, the grandfathering clause for the development as opposed to trying to come up with new language here.
and again, some of these are fairly minor issues.
there's a requirement for residential developments in a water and wastewater service area plan to come up with a drought contingency plan and one item under item I they want a means and procedure for enforcement the mandatory use of water restrictions including penalties, violations and so forth, but the last is a distinction of service.
they want a clause by which you would discontinue service for not complying with a water conservation plan.
there's a lot of state regulations that may prevent from discontinuing service.
from the legal standpoint does anybody have authority to cut off water to a customer because near not complying with a water conservation plan.
I don't know the answer to that but I know water management districts trying to cut water off for reason of use is very difficult when you try to go through the state in that process.
that needs to be looked at from there.
anna mentioned the fact that there were a lot of debate that went back and forth on using water features and whether they should be in or out.
just a point of clarification, we all agreed there's certain size limitations which they should be and during a drought time we agree if you have a water quality pond that's using ground water you should take it out of service during a drought.
a lot of drought contingency plans will be stage 1 is a year-round every other day water or twice a week watering limitation and it's imposed year round all the time.
stage 1 means different things depending on what year water conservation plan shows.
I don't think it's the intent the stage 1 is a voluntary year round program you would not be allowed to do.
the first drought stage is triggered by true drought.
just language that would clarify that so we're not talking about a year-round program put in place in some plans.
the biggest issue I think is when you get down to looking at why are we limiting developments on surface water.
why are we imposing impervious cover.
and I think this is the one that has got the most discussion and probably had the most disagreement on what we're doing here.
whether or not the county has the ability on come in and impose a impervious cover limit.
if you are not trying to protect ground water, and there's a lot of debate whether limiting does protect ground water.
I think this is a particular part of this requirement that's very controversial and if there is something that is going to lead to a lawsuit from the development community this would be the area.
I don't know if it's worth it to put this requirement that in my mind has very little if any benefit and put in a regulation that's so controversial that's going to have a lot of people disobeying.
we need to be looking at surface water and ground water and rain water harvesting and not putting limitations on every way you develop a piece of property.
you can't have limitations on everything.
so we need to be encouraging surface water.
this requirement discourages the use of surface water.
it makes it more difficult and extend to build developments and extend surface water into these developments.
I think that is not something we need to be doing.
one thing the Commissioners court needs to decide on is how much do you guys want to get into the day in, day out policies of water use.
lcra decided they wanted to get heavily involved in retail and wholesale water use and we've seen where that's gone.
so the county needs to look at what is your mission in terms of ground water protection.
are you going to try to regulate and get into the nuts and bolts of impervious cover on people using surface water when there's not science that shows there's impact on the ground water system.
it's a philosophical decision on what it is you want to do.
I'm available to answer any questions, but really I'll provide this, but I think outside of the issue of limiting and regulating surface water, that was the biggest issue, there's a few cleanup items I don't think are controversial, I think they are minor issues we can get cleaned up over the next week.
but that's the biggest issue I've seen.
>> did you provide -- let me ask, has staff seen any of the proposed recommendations that hank has brought to our attention today?
has that been integrated into what -- I'm directing it to staff at this time.
>> hank --
>> okay, I'm sorry, go ahead.
>> I was just going to say the point that hank just raised, this is the first that I'm hearing them right now, but so no not yet.
>> some of these are issues until you put it into a real format, that's when you get into the details.
philosophically I'm not suggesting we change any of the philosophy but when you put tonight a rule format, this is okay, this is what they are putting into the rule.
not change the direction of what we want to do, but make sure the rule we have in place really does implement the philosophy what the group talked about.
>> I guess on the legal side of those comments, I guess especially if it appears that there may be suggestions that would trigger lawsuits, of course I think that information needs to be shared with our county attorney.
>> right.
>> also.
so whatever we look at, of course, we want to make sure that we are in the realm of what we're trying to accomplish here and if that's something that may fit into that realm as well as legal, that needs to be shared also as we go through this process.
>> right.
>> Commissioner, I want to aagree with hanks assessment that the first four issues are basically on things we could dispose of.
those are technical.
the bigger issue, the philosophical issue, that's not a drafting issue, that's a policy decision for y'all to make.
the legal issues have been discussed.
and so since they've been brought up, I think it would be a good idea to go into executive session at some point to discuss those.
>> that would be fine with me.
I just wanted to --
>> I agree.
most of these issues are minor and they are not changing the direction we want to go, but the biggest issue I see is restricting development that's using surface water.
I just don't see the benefit to doing that.
>> when we go into executive session, I'd like a refresher on both legal and -- as well as the actual scientific basis.
>> sure.
>> for which there is one despite the remarks made.
>> right.
>> I think the biggest issue is when you start looking at surface water, you are big in another source that is recharging the aquifer.
and so majority of the water that gets used in these areas is used in the landscaping on the outside of the house.
when you bring in another source that recharges, that is more than any loss you would have from putting impervious cover.
when it rains on impervious cover, the water doesn't go away, it simply runs off in a different direction.
when you are putting landscaping in yards, you are encouraging more recharge as you are holding the water in those lawns were longer than on the native vegetation and also bringing in outside source of water that's not there today.
those two things combine outweigh any loss you would have from rain that would occur without the impervious cover.
>> hank brings up an interesting question that I think has substance that I would like to ask and that's the 2500 gallons on rain water.
and just fyi, our cistern has been full for the last almost two months now.
>> it's been raining the last several months.
>> it doesn't take much to recharge a cistern.
you can still be in a period of drought.
the one I had for staff the rain water system of 2500 gallons, is that for homes that are on wells?
>> yes.
>> it's intended as a supplemental source.
>> okay, because I would think it would be worthwhile to say combination rain water or just recharge of wells because a lot of wells recharge slowly during drought periods, and having a holding tank that can hold the water and be readily available is what I think the intent of this perhaps was.
so we may need to tweak that language a little.
>> the only -- the last area, and again, it's not -- there needs to be some clarification because I'm a little confused when I read the requirement, about subdivisions that are served with a central ground water system.
and that is that it talks about the limitation is three-acre minimum lot size and a density of not more than four units per acre or one acre per four lots.
and those two don't mathematically match up.
if you have a 12-acre, three under one scenario, four under another scenario.
I'm not sure which standard applies.
needs some kind of mathematical issue there.
>> well, it's meant to where both would apply.
whichever is the more strict of the two.
>> okay.
then it says a lot must be at least three acres in size and total should not exceed divided by four.
you've got two different numbers.
one or the other but you don't need them both.
there's not going to be a scenario where you are always going to be limited by divided by four, that's the more restrictive of those two.
so I'll just -- mathematical, I was looking at a 12-acre tract that had frontage, difference in the numbers there.
any questions?
thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thanks for your help.
>> yes, sir.
>> my name is raymond slate.
I was on the committee and I'm a hydrologist and the only issue I want to comment about is the impervious cover limits.
that was an area of definite contention and I think the problem is some of the folks don't understand that even though there's some areas where they are not using -- where they are not using ground water, using surface water or ground water, when you have a impervious cover up to 30%, you are going to have serious degradation of runoff quality.
even though the people in that immediate area might be using solely surface water or ground water, that polluted water quantity is going to enter the aquifer.
a lot of recharge comes from that area and it's going to move and affect ground water elsewhere.
that's the problem.
30% is very high.
and I think I heard staff say earlier they are looking at surrounding limits when compared with with the s.o.s.
and others, I think the range was 5 to 30%.
30% is extremely high.
there will be degradation with with 30% impervious cover.
I've worked with national runoff program and many studies on urban runoff and so 30%, anything higher than that is going to be even substantially worse quality of polluted recharge for that area.
>> you used the term urban runoff.
a lot of folks in the affected area are still considering their area fairly rule.
but at 30% impervious cover, would you consider that rural?
>> no, absolutely not.
that's getting into very urban area, 30%.
>> thank you.
and thank you for your assistance on this.
>> when the area is going to be using sole ground water.
pardon me, surface water.
thank you.
but the problem is that -- that 30% impervious cover is going to create contamination that's going to recharge the local streams and then that recharge moves to other portions of the county and it will affect their ground water quality.
that's the problem.
>> judge, the rule attempts to address the density issue in three different ways.
for a subdivision that's using surface water, there are three options.
the developer can essentially limit the number of lots to an average of no more than one lot per acre in the subdivision.
they can meet the requirements of the conservation development ordinance, which basically says they set aside 50% of their property to preserve in its natural state.
or comply with a 30% impervious cover cover limit.
so what we've tried to do is address the issue of density affecting the hydrologic cycle by giving people three different tools they can use.
>> so 30% means you are all right as long as you develop no more than 30 or no more than 29%?
>> yeah, you can have as many lots as you want, as many houses as you want, but you have to limit your ground cover to no more than 30%.
or you can develop in a different way and basically limit your number of lots to an average of one per acre, one per acre in your development, or you can meet the conservation development ordinance requirements.
so what we've tried to do is provide some flexibility there.
>> okay.
>> [inaudible]
>> [no microphone on] I just wanted to point out that even with impervious cover, this is not the only requirement
>> [inaudible] additional requirements that require permanent water quality control using things like
>> [inaudible].
>> so we expect the two to be complimentary?
>> yes.
>> so this would be the swim fee?
>> what I'm trying to point out, it's not just this limitation alone
>> [inaudible].
>> that we also have swimt regulations?
>> we have the storm water management
>> [inaudible].
>> swmt.
>> yes.
>> I like to think of it as swimt.
>> we received from the general land office several months ago a two-pager.
it was sent to Commissioners court.
I guess we would have shared that with all.
and general patterson and his people basically make the case for treating tracts that use surface water from others.
and they are saying that should be less restrictions come into play when surface water is available.
so what's our response to that?
I think you addressed it a few minutes ago.
what's our response to that?
>> well, what we attempted to do is put -- put more alternatives in this regulation that we're talking about now than what we had back in September that they were commenting to.
>> we didn't have an averaging provision in the draft Commissioner patterson was responding to.
>> that is correct and we also had a variance requirement and we had heard a lot of testimony about the variance requirement bringing uncertainty to the development process that would be problematic so that's been removed.
and then we also back then didn't have the impervious cover provision, and I don't think that we had the other -- other option of if you were doing a conservation subdivision.
so we attempted to put more flexibility in in part to address those comments so if each tract is different and we wanted to give as many tools that were appropriate to the community.
>> so do we believe that we sent his office a copy of the latest version?
>> I know that I have not.
I can.
unless they had emailed me and were on my email list.
but if I got it from someone other than them, I may not have.
>> I think we ought to.
can I share this letter with you?
>> certainly.
>> yes.
>> hello, my name is jennifer walker and I was on the stakeholder group.
I was appointed by Commissioner Davis.
and I work on water resources for the sierra club.
in general, we agree with the current rule package.
there's a couple -- the issue of the amenity ponds.
I guess I want to back up too and say that it's been really good working with staff through this process and that I feel that they have through the various iterations of rules have been responsive to comments and to working with the committee.
you know, that isn't always the case.
in the stakeholder process and I wanted to give them acknowledgement for that.
for the amenity ponds, we had sent in a letter, a group of stakeholders, seven or eight of us, in mid-december.
you all received it in email but it was right before the holidays.
but several of us got together and put together comments.
many of the stakeholder group members, and anna has that if you all have -- want copies of it or we can use mine.
but the amenity ponds, we do not think ground water should be used foramen times of drought ponds.
this is an unnecessary use of our limited water resource and we don't feel it's appropriate in an area that is really limited.
I think that what y'all are trying to do here is protect people who are already using ground water and to make sure that their worth source is viable into the future and also protect people that -- protect water resource of people who move into the county so they don't move here and find they don't have water for the homes that they've built or purchased.
and amenity ponds I just think are not appropriate in this area.
that being said, the -- the staff has proposed a compromise proposal and I do agree with hank that -- that it is appropriate for if amenity ponds allowed, that it's appropriate to curtail ground water use for amenity ponds for the first stage of drought but that needs to be clarified because we see all over this region and the state there are problems with rules like that because everybody has different drought stages and calls them different names and there needs to be some kind of clarification on that.
off the top of my head I'm not sure exactly how to do that, but we can try to come up with something too.
but other than that, in general we agree with the rules and think they have evolved into something protective and so I was glad to be part of the process.
>> I'm visualizing amenity ponds that recycle the same water over and over again.
are there other ponds that use new water every day?
>> well, I would say that the water would, you know, evaporate as part of that process, but --
>> okay.
>> so there is a loss.
>> so evaporation is an issue and the ones that have fountains will evaporate quicker but it's really filling it and keeping it filled.
>> although we talked about the amenity ponds issue, it also is
>> [inaudible].
>> I was going to ask if we keep amenity pond in the regulations with the overall water availability, one of the things that hasn't been addressed is the surface area and given the fact evaporation is such a part of that, do you have any knots on surface area?
>> I don't.
I'm not really familiar with how they are designed.
I don't have any suggestions on that.
>> actually, Commissioner, we did in this most recent proposal, we stated that the volume of the common area water features in the subdivision supplied by ground water should not exceed two acre feed for individual feature and six acre feet cumulatively.
>> that's volume is you spread it out real thin over a larger area is probably going to evaporate faster than if you have a smaller size surface area.
>> I think that's a really good consideration and, you know, I would leave it to somebody that actually designs and installs those but it seems you have more expense with the deeper you go and so --
>> but this
>> [inaudible] that we just covered regarding amenity ponds, regardless of the source of water whether it's surface or ground water?
>> it applies only to use of ground water for those amenities.
>> so if you have few it doesn't matter?
>> we're not limiting that in any way.
>> sir, please come up.
>> I've got a question.
is something like barton springs pool
>> [inaudible].
>> it's a public pool.
it's not an amenity for a subdivision.
>>
>> [no microphone on].
>> you have to --
>> microphone and your name.
our media people want you identified.
>> john hatchet, I'm a land northeastern southwest Travis County.
and I had a question about the definition of amenity pond.
if a spring fed ground water fed swimming hole, would that be considered an amenity pond?
>> if it's spring fed and you are just going to continue allowing a spring to run naturally, that's not part of the water supply for the subdivision so that wouldn't be affected in any way.
>> that would not be treated like -- okay.
it's naturally fed versus being pond fed.
>> right.
>> okay, these provisions would come into play when you are going through the subdivision process.
>> yes, sir.
>> all other times you don't have to worry about this.
>> right.
>> but when you file a preliminary plan --
>> or final plat.
>> or final plat with Travis County, these are the features we would look for.
>> yes, sir.
>> yes, sir.
>> judge Biscoe, Commissioners, robert ayers, I'm a landowner representative to stakeholder group.
I just want to say while I think all of us involved in the process could think of some way to rewrite things to be a bit more to our liking I feel like the staff has done an excellent job in listening to all sides and putting together a -- a very reasonable way -- it may not be perfect, but I think it's a very substantial step in the right direction and I just want to, again, express my appreciation to you all for engaging this issue and your leadership that way and I hope that -- that if you all can approve this in very close to its present form in the very near future.
thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> thank you for your comment.
>> should we read into your comments you don't want to go to another meeting?
>> [laughter]
>> I would not refuse that statement.
>> anybody else, whether you are on the committee or not, representative?
>> judge Biscoe, Commissioners, good afternoon.
I'm here really to remind you that I have got legislation prepared to submit on the first day possible to create a ground water conservation district in southwest Travis County.
>> you know we're not going to let you come up here and not state your name for the record.
you know we're not going to let you get away with that.
>> representative paul workman, represent district 47 which is southwest Travis County.
you should have all received a copy of the legislation that has been drafted.
that legislation has been through tceq and has been approved by them.
and so the first day of filing I intend to file that legislation.
Commissioner Huber mentioned last time we've been trying to get this done for a long time and I've done the research.
no one has ever filed legislation to create a ground water conservation district in southwest Travis County.
this will be the first time.
and I can't imagine any reason why we wouldn't be able to get this passed through the legislature because this is the preferred method for managing ground water in the state of Texas and I'm sure that we would be able to get that done.
so I just wanted to come up, encourage you to wait on this until I've had an opportunity to -- to file this legislation and get it passed and the creation of ground water conservation district in southwest Travis County.
on a a little side note, I've been listening to testimony about amenity ponds, and if any of you were out in the pedernales fire on labor day, you witnessed starflight traveling ten or more miles to get water to fight the fires in the canyons along there where you can't get trucks into.
it seems to me that we should be encouraging amenity ponds that can be used for firefighting in particular in times of drought because otherwise those fires are going to rage and we're not going to be able to do it, not to mention the fact starflight is burning a lot of extra fuel traveling further to get the water and taking more time to do that.
just a little side note there that I would put.
but I did want to remind you about the ground water conservation district and postpone any action until I've had an opportunity to get that through the legislature.
any questions?
thank you.
>> thank you.
>> I'm gene lowenthal.
most of the people in our neighborhood, including myself, are on ground water.
we rely on the trinity and we are anxious about long-term availability.
we had a meeting last night where the proposed subdivision rules were discussed.
I have to admit there was an air of pessimism because the county has so little authority to protect ground water the way it needs to be protected.
this really should be tackled at the state level.
the outdated rule of capture should be replaced by a legitimate water management system because, as everyone knows, population is growing rapidly in Texas and water is a finite resource.
but the state government is in massive denial on this issue.
so the bottom line is this, in the absence of responsible stewardship at the state level we need to do what we can locally and so therefore we support, strongly support the proposed subdivision rules and request that they be enacted, including, by the way, the impervious cover limits on surface water subdivision.
and in reference to representative workman said, I don't think the rules discourage amenity ponds so much as amenity ponds fed by ground water.
belvedere has agreed to keep their amenity pond supplied from surface water and I don't think anybody has an argument with that.
so that's the way to do that job.
so thanks to county staff, anna, the stakeholder committee members and others who have put in a huge amount of time to craft these rules.
thank you.
>> thank you.
>> if you have an amenity pond already that uses ground water, unless you go through the subdivision process again, you and that amenity pond will not be affected, right?
>> well, if you are an existing subdivision and have an amenity pond already.
>> right.
>> whether it's ground water or surface water or --
>> surface water is not affected at all.
>> what about ground water?
>> well, I suppose if you are going to redevelop your subdivision or resubdivide your land, you do have to in essence start over from scratch.
and under these rules you would have to prove that for the number of houses you are going to develop in your new development, taking into account the amenity pond, there's enough supply for 30 years for both.
so yes, if you are an existing subdivision but you want to redevelop, wipe the slate and start over from scratch, you've got a subdivision with 100 houses now and you want to resubdivide it into a subdivision of 200 houses, if you are going to be on ground water, you would have to factor in both the consumption by the house and the ground water by the pond.
>> but in my question you don't need to invoke the subdivision process.
>> no.
>> then even with ground water --
>> if you are already subdivided, there's no reason for you to come back to the county and these rules will not apply to you unless you elect to resubdivide your property.
>> and can I get a point of clarification.
by that you are meaning totally wiping off the old subdivision?
>> well, I can see a scenario where if it's a 100-acre subdivision -- it's all platted out, the lots on 50 acres are built out and they are just starting over on the other 50 acres and replatting that.
but again, if they are using ground water for that second 50 acres that they are redeveloping, they will have to prove there's adequate supply.
and if they are going to have an amenity pond that's got to be part of the calculation.
>> do we think everybody understands the -- the averaging option that you mentioned?
>> I would hope so.
I mean it's a one-acre average.
we intend it to be a gross average, not a net average.
and you know, I think that's -- the averaging part was something that we added in after the comments we heard in September of last year.
so I hope they do.
if they don't, I would be happy to talk about it.
>> okay, an average of one home per acre?
>> uh-huh.
>> so we would look at the total number of acres and the total number of homes and we would be looking for a one to one average.
>> average.
>> okay.
yes.
>> good afternoon, Commissioners, carlota mclane and I've been following the process since inception.
I did meet with anna bolin on one occasion.
my comments are limited to the impervious cover limits.
and I'm here -- excuse me, let me back up.
I'm here as a member of the real estate council of Austin.
we're a nonprofit organization that addresses issues affecting the general business community and specifically the commercial real estate industry.
I'm a board member on the real estate council of Austin.
we have nearly 1500 members that represent a broad spectrum of our economy ranging from landowners and developers to various service professionals that facilitate the industry.
my comments today are specific to the impervious cover limits.
and throughout the process I have understood this to be ground water regulations, and my concern as it relates to the addition of these impervious cover limits is that the constituency that would have made their voices heard during the process might be different if they had understood that we were going to begin addressing impervious cover limits.
most of the people that I am aware of had no idea that this would reach out to subdivisions that are served by surface water and impose impervious cover regulations.
and so my only concern is that you have not necessarily heard from a vast spectrum of people who will be impacted by the implication of adopting section 82-216.
and I would ask that you defer and let that be addressed in a later process that is really designed to bring in the stakeholders that would be impacted by that regulation.
thank you.
>> thank you.
>> good afternoon.
we represent the single-family construction area in a five county their that includes Travis County and surrounding counties.
our members build approximately 95% of the homes constructed in that five county area.
I handed to tom who the providing to you our letters that we had presented previously that -- one is a letter that was prepared jointly by the home builders association of greater Austin and the real estate council of Austin.
the second one is a letter prepared by the Texas association of builders legal counsel.
I don't have for handouts but I understand that previously or subsequent to that you were also provided -- I'm sorry, the county attorney was provided a letter that addresses attorney general opinions now.
I understand that you are going to discuss much of this in executive session, but I -- there are some points I would like to make so that you'll be sure that you are clear on where you stand when you are discussing that issue with your attorney.
one of the key points and I think one of the main points -- let me speak generally that we request whether or not the county -- question whether or not the county has the authority to address water quality, wastewater except through septic tank regulation, water use, impervious cover et al, and most importantly and most critically whether you can prohibit plat approval that otherwise complies with state statute.
we would also propose that -- that this draft exceeds requirements for water use limitations.
now, anna did a very good job of laying out the two arguments, and even though there may be two sides, that -- what she really didn't address was the fact that even though an argument may be good or valid, and I think that's something we would like to discuss at length later, simply put, that doesn't mean that you can do it.
one of the things that was addressed specifically was impervious cover.
section 2-23.101 rules, and I'm just reading this because it's fairly simple, it's something that I think I understand.
it says that a county cannot regulate the bulk height, number of buildings constructed on a particular tract of land.
the size of the building can be constructed on a particular tract of land including the building of -- footage.
and that's what impervious cover does.
now, all -- we encourage all counties to really look at what county government is in Texas.
and why it exists the way it does.
and again, you guys sit up here every week, you know much better than I do, but what counties have been traditional -- more recently is an outlet for housing that does not want to live in an incorporated area or a city.
we've had discussions about when that was a mistake on their part.
but a large portion of the population goes to live in the county because that's where you can find more affordable housing.
and that is due in no small part to less regulation.
one of the things that we're most concerned about is density.
the way you provide more affordable housing is to be able to get greater density.
to be fair, a lot of my members built very nice, very expensive houses that are very good for the elite.
but county ordinances, county regulations and the state has said that we should not be in the business of trying to enact regulatory barriers for affordable housing.
thank you.
>> there are provisions that authorize counties to do certain things generally, and normally that authority increases when there are, quote, emergency circumstances.
so do you think that when there are drought conditions, our ability to regulate ground water would be understood a whole lot better by the legislature and the courts or do you think that language would be limiting regardless of circumstances?
>> well, judge, while I think that sitting here you and I logically might say that might need to be, if you are going to do that, you need to go change the statute.
now, the -- I am sure that under extreme circumstances limited action would be understandable.
generally I can tell you, though, for example, moratoriums that exceed a year in the case of municipalities, which have much greater, much more precise language on what they can do and in essence they say you can do -- statutes say you can do anything that you are not prohibited from doing.
they have home rule authority.
even municipalities have limitations on what they can do with respect to moratoriums. Again, I'm not here challenging the county's authority to enact a moratorium, but I think someone looking at it from the outside might say, you know, how long does an emergency exist?
>> okay.
any other questions or comments?
>> I'm just curious because you made the comment that we had the discussion before that there are those who don't realize that the county lacks regulations in the unincorporated areas when they move out there and there's a large number of people that buy homes and move into the unincorporated areas because they don't like the regulations.
I'm curious.
>> for affordability issues.
I wouldn't have to deal with the city of Austin regulatory barriers which is one of the most contentious building environments in the united states.
>> do they understand the ramification when related to water availability or fire fighting capacity and things like.
that and I'm curious if you have quantitative information on that.
>> I do not.
>> because we experience the other side of that in volunteer.
>> again, in a past life I was a city manager.
in a very distant past life budget director for the city of Austin.
so I understand that you do hear a lot.
again, I would encourage you to do the same thing is to take a quantitative look.
it's very easy for three, four, five, ten, 20 people to seem like a huge number of votes that are severely impacted.
but in terms of the total population is it really.
>> at one of our recent meetings we discussed that several of the nearby counties have similar regulations.
didn't we?
so do we know whether their authority in the different areas has been challenged?
>> I don't think -- I would ask tom.
>> comal county did something very similar to what we did and what mr. Savio said more tore number.
we have not said you cannot file an application to develop for a certain period of time.
that's in my mind what a moratorium is.
what the Commissioners court did was adopt a rule that says if you are going to propose a subdivision in Travis County, you have to prove up your water supply and that water supply cannot include ground water from the trinity and edwards aquifer.
I think a perception that that's a moratorium somehow was created by the fact that you put an expiration date on that.
and said as of today the expiration date is January 31, 2012, and as of January 31, 2012, the rule that says you can't use trinity or edwards ground water is going to go away.
so that being said, comal county did file a moratorium when they adopted a moratorium when they proposed their water availability rules, and they did get sued over that.
however, my understanding is that essentially there was a settlement of that lawsuit and there was an agreement by the county and the plaintiff as to when they would have their water availability rules done and finally adopted.
and comal county met that day and so that was the end of the lawsuit.
but to my knowledge, no -- none of the other hill country counties who have adopted water availability rules has had their authority successfully challenged in court.
>> a request for an opinion from the ag was filed and we filed a response but I knew saw anything from the ag.
a.g.
>> no, they essentially gave a date by which they would issue that opinion.
I don't recall off the top of my head exactly what that date is.
but apparently when they get an opinion request, they set a date, they set a deadline by which they will issue the opinion.
>> that's in the future.
>> yes.
it hasn't come yet.
>> harry, finished?
>> yes, sir.
>> ma'am, if you would come forth and have a seat, we would be happy to get your comments.
>> good afternoon, judge and Commissioners.
thank you for the opportunity to provide some input regarding your proposed water availability rules for subdivision.
I'm an attorney representing ted stewart, who is a landowner in southwest Travis County.
he couldn't be here today.
>> your name please.
>> derrick seals.
my understanding the genesis of these proposed rules was to address ground water issues in southwest Travis County.
which prompted what mr. Nuckols has described as moratorium in October of 2010 that would -- or that does apply to developments that use ground water.
and as we kind of watch this process unfold and move forward, the scope has been expanded over the last year, almost year and a half to include regulations on surface water.
and also the regulations on impervious cover that you heard a lot about here today.
at the outset I've got to say that I do applaud the county's willingness to be proactive in addressing the challenges that you are face, but as the previous witness mentioned, a county only has the powers that are expressly granted by the constitution or the legislature.
and the counties only have the implied powers to the minimum extent necessary to carry out the express powers that they have.
I'm only aware of two sources of legal authority expressly granted to counties regarding ground water regulation and my understanding is that, as I mentioned, this started off as a ground water requirement and it sort of morphed into a more comprehensive type requirement.
judge, I wanted to point out quickly those two sections of the state law that specifically give you what I believe give you authority to regulate ground water.
and the first is section 35.019 of the water code reporting priority.
>> reporter: management area.
I've heard previous discussions from the Commissioners.
I think you know we call those pgmas.
and this allows counties to adopt.
>> reporter: management ordinances but only if no ground water district exists.
as you know, only a limited portion of southwest Travis County is included in a pgma so it seems apparent to me that a ground water management ordinance could only apply to that portion of southwest Travis County.
however, as has been discussed here today, there are multiple provisions of the proposed rule that's in front of you today that apply countywide.
as mr. Nuckols pointed out, I am aware that comal county has adopted a countywide ground water ordinance based on a portion of comal county that's in a pgma.
but I have to say as an attorney, I would -- I would be hard pressed to advise one of my clients that it's okay to proceed with a course of action just because your neighbor did it.
I appreciate mr. Nuckols' discussion and I think it was a great question about whether any of these other similar ordinances have been challenged, and I'm not aware of any.
I haven't done an extended amount of legal research on it, but I think the statute speaks for itself.
in addition, judge and Commissioners, the second part of state law that I believe grants you authority to regulate, so to speak, ground water is in section 232.032 of the local government code which will ask counties to require certification for plat applications for new subdivisions that rely on ground water.
it's a very narrow statute and my understanding after looking at some of the legislative intent is that provision of the code was designed to deal with some of the colonia issues that the state was facing along the border over the last ten years or so.
and I would say that the proposed rules that are in front of you today do go further in my opinion than that particular section of the local government code.
I'm going to wrap up.
a few remaining points, both sections I have mentioned only apply to ground water.
they are both in sections of the water code that do not address surface water.
but my understanding is that parts of these proposed rules that would apply to surface water are based on that straight.
the second point is section 272.101 of the local government code also has some specific prohibitions on what a county can do with regard to implementing density requirements or impervious cover requirements.
I would encourage you, I'm happy you are going to have a discussion in executive session counsel.
there is a pending attorney general's opinion out.
I believe that pun was submitted in October of last year and under state law the attorney general has 180 days to respond to that so I think that is expected sometime mid April.
I would suggest to you that there's a much better discussion in some of the briefing documents that have been filed with the attorney general regarding some of these legal issues that I've brought up.
in closing, you know, my suggestion to the Commissioners court would be that if you feel like it's necessary to move forward with this ordinance to rework the proposed rules to be consistent with those express provisions of the water code and the local government code and that this ordinance not have countywide effect or apply to surface warm.
judge, I think you brought up a great question or point about emergency authority in times of drought.
I would suggest to you that I haven't seen anything during these discussions that this particular rule would only apply during an emergency or time of drought.
this doesn't have any such limitations.
and the other thing I would suggest to you is, as you heard from representative workman, he's planning on filing a bill to establish a ground water district.
I've heard discussions before, Commissioners court is well aware there's a process underway at tceq to establish a ground water district and I would suggest because ground water districts are the legislatively preferred method, if you move forward and if a ground water district is established and rules are created the ordinance would no longer apply.
there again, Commissioners, I very much appreciate your time and I would be happy to answer any questions.
>> any questions?
>> thank you, judge, Commissioners.
>> yes.
>> I just wanted to comment.
I'm hope
>> [inaudible], landowner in western Travis County and I really wanted to just comment, the worst one-year drought in Texas history I would consider an extreme circumstances.
these are limited restrictions.
we've waited 20 years for a ground water district.
and as far as I understand, there's no funding in the legislature for a ground water district at this time so I'm just a little -- after 20 years to have this great optimism about a ground water district is -- I'm skeptical.
thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> hi.
thank you so much for taking this issue seriously.
we have a very serious water issue in Texas.
and I think you all know that.
this is the driest year ever we're no right now ever recorded, but the problems we're having with our water supply in your county aren't just because of the drought, they are the way because we're using our water resources.
I want to thank you.
anna, you laid the situation out really great.
I particularly want to thank you for addressing the ground water district concept in the language and also for referencing the regional water quality protection plan that is a great document and I'm glad to see you are using it now.
I'm thrilled that representative workman is filing legislation for a ground water district and I can't wait to see it.
that's fantastic.
it's the first I've heard.
it would be helpful to know that in other hill country counties they have.
>> reporter: conservation districts that are well supported by the landowner community.
they like their district.
the landowners want the district, and the districts work in tandem with the counties.
and they have these similar rules to what you are proposing and those rules compliment what the ground water conservation district does.
they work hand in hand together.
I can't imagine the day when you are going to be looking at rule changes where you won't have a good turnout from the development industry here arguing against it.
and -- but the reality is you have the responsibility and your county authority is to protect the health, safety and welfare of your constituents.
and just across the county line to north of you today there's an article in the paper this whole community of spice wood is about to run out of water.
the ground water table is very low.
in outlying parts of the hill country we're seeing a little recovery in some of the creeks and streams because of recent rain.
but we're not seeing that here in Travis County.
there hasn't been a trickle in bee creek.
that's because we're using so much more water.
so we just cannot do business as usual.
those days are over.
and I commend you for looking at some very responsible, very reasonable changes that have been looked at by all kinds of stakeholders.
and I have some very good friends that I've discussed this with that are concerned about their development proforma and I think that's legitimate and I'm concerned for them too.
but the bottom line is we have a county full of people who need water.
people today that need water.
and state water plan doesn't believe we have enough water for those people now.
the state is looking at some big solutions that are going to cost big, big money.
and they are unrealistic really, to get a lot of the things done that are in the state water plan.
and so we need the local county government to address these issues locally, and thank you very much.
I do hope you move forward on this.
appreciate your time.
I'm going to give you a paper here that we wrote at the hill country alliance.
it's just a good reference guide to kind of how we manage water in the region and things to think about.
thank you.
>> any questions?
>> [applause] thank you.
Commissioner daugherty.
>> judge Biscoe and Commissioners court, thank you for allowing me a couple minutes.
first of all let me say thank you to Commissioner Huber for being so involved in this and especially for doing the things that she's doing out at the lake.
we haven't even made mention much of Lake Travis in this conference and I'll tell you when that thing is down 52 feet, it is a scary puddle of what's left out there and I think that that is just an indication of why this is so important.
let me just say this for amenity ponds.
I don't even know why we would even consider allowing amenity ponds during this time, during these times, y'all.
as a matter of fact, I guess to incriminate myself, I've been the president of my 46 home gated community with an amenity pond that goes flowing out beyond our gate.
I will tell you as the president of that I'm going to go back and make sure that next week when I have my first annual meeting this year that I suggest that we turn that thing off because as a matter of fact we are in stage 3 out in the Barton Creek area and I think that's the right thing to do.
let me -- but let me just say that as grave as this water issue is in western Travis County, and y'all, I mean I quite frankly -- I don't care what the law says we can do and what we can't do county authority-wise whenever it comes to something as vital as water.
I mean drinking water and water as it promotes economic development.
it is a huge deal.
the people that are out there that moved out there thought that they had water, it is the reason why we have got to get to the table with reasonable solutions to deal with the water issue, judge.
why fear, and I fear it because of just one little section of what this committee has come up with.
the only thing that I can tell you that has been more contentious in my life in Austin, Texas in the 44 years that I've been here other than toll roads, and I will tell you that that little subject matter I probably will never get over, but let me say that the only other contentious item that surpasses that, I mean by many fold, is s.o.s.
and how it relates to the really, really tough word to get beyond s.o.s.
as many things as s.o.s.
has done positively, when you use the word impervious ground water, those are fighting words, y'all.
those are fighting words to create a situation so that the legislature -- and quite frankly, y'all, I don't, quite frankly, want the legislature necessarily involved in what we do with western Travis County and its water because I think that all of us that are sensible enough understand that this is a problem that we need to roll up our sleeves and deal with.
but I know what's going to happen if we keep the impervious cover part of this thing in this thing.
now, I could probably take both sides as to whether it makes any sense to talk about impervious cover, whether it's surface water or whether it's ground water.
you know, quite frankly, I mean it's water and we need both kinds of the water in western Travis County.
but I would hate to see and I think that the reason that a number of years ago Austin had this reputation of dreading the legislature coming into town because they had this Austin, Austin bashing legislation.
and I fear that that's exactly what's going to happen.
this does not -- this really, this subject matter does not need to become a political football in western Travis County.
I think everyone should get to the table regardless of where you stand politically and say water is the deal that we have got to deal with.
and we need good minds at the table and not throwing something into it that will immediately put this thing into something we -- quite frankly, y'all won't be able to defend it.
you can stand up and send the attorneys over, attorneys go to law school, they love it.
I'm sure tom would love to defend his viewpoints.
and I'm not saying his viewpoints are wrong, I'm just saying what we will watch in this community is that kind of fight.
meanwhile, in western Travis County, we'll all be trying to figure out taking our eye off the ball because politics gets involved and I do think that the impervious cover part of this thing is the thing because what I heard is that you basically had a lot of consensus with this subject matter until you got into talking about, you know, limitations as it relates to impervious cover.
I don't doubt raymond's findings.
my god, he's forgotten more about hydrology that I will ever know.
so it's not like I'm going to try to take him to the mat on that.
unfortunately, I mean you've got all sorts of people that have credentials as long as raymond does, and they probably can take the other side.
but we all know what that is.
hey, I'm paying you to go in there and argue.
this guy is pay ing this person to come in here and argue.
where do we get?
nowhere.
I do think that I would like to see a little time, even if you have to do another moratorium, bought quite frankly, even though the cistern is full and we're getting a little bit of rain, we're not getting anywhere near the rain that we know that we need for the aquifer and for the lake.
but I think there needs to be a little more time given to say, okay, how do we -- how can we get people to the table to not get so agitated when they hear a certain phrase.
that -- that's what I would ask, and I think this community is smart enough, I guarantee this community is aware enough of the issue that you have and I don't know, I mean Commissioner Davis may have the same issue, Commissioner Gomez, in eastern Travis County.
it never gets elevated, you know, from the water issue, anyway, or the impervious cover like it does in western Travis County.
and hopefully y'all we can work around this so that it doesn't become the political football where we -- at the end of the game guess what, nobody necessarily lost, but nobody won the game but we still have the water issue.
that would be my request.
>> any questions for Commissioner daugherty?
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> sharon
>> [inaudible].
I live in spicewood.
I am a realtor and I also have a small real estate development there.
and when I bought my property in 1994, there was a small creek that crossed that property.
it has long since dried up.
and I feel a little incredulous that people have come forward to, you know, challenge the authority to do this when we're -- when we're in a drought that we've not seen since the '50s with a population that is so much greater than it was then.
and you know, if you don't take responsibility and if we don't get this done, then it won't be an issue because there just won't be any water.
you know, and I was looking at property with a group of realtors on a tour last week in spicewood, and it -- it was frightening.
it's frightening to see what it looks like, you know, what travis looks like on down.
it's just very scary.
so I encourage you and appreciate the efforts that you are taking to resolve this issue and help us manage our ground water because there are a lot of people who are at risk.
myself included.
of not having water if we do not do something.
and I think that's far more important than any further development and building and growth.
we've got to take care of what we've already got.
so thank you.
>> thank you.
any questions?
thank you.
yes.
>> good afternoon, jake patowski.
I don't come here representing anyone other than a resident of Travis County.
I've -- water is incredibly important issue to this county, to the hill country, to central Texas.
and, of course, with the drought recently the scrutiny on water issues has never been higher in the 26 years I've lived in the Texas area.
that's not entirely true.
I was born in Austin, spent 14 years in hays county, and last lived in washington, d.c.
for about seven years and I've just come back.
been back about a year and a half.
I can tell you that one thing that hasn't change understand those seven years I was out of Texas are water issues.
they were water issues seven years ago.
I'm sure others have mentioned there were water issues 20 years ago.
another thing that hasn't changed since I left and came back to Texas was the increase in population in Texas.
this is a very attractive area to live in.
that's why I came back.
we have to realize that managed growth is the best way to move forward.
and responsible growth is the best way to move forward.
there's plenty of people in Austin who would argue we don't need anyone else to live here, Austin is fine as it is, but the fact of the matter is people are going to continue to move here.
the best way to address that is look at how to manage these things not just from an emergency perspective because that is important, because it's when the emergencies are occurring that we realize there is an issue and it's an issue that, you know, really the only way to address it is to be proactive rather than reactive.
you know, in the articles in that I have read about this issue and the proposed rules, the thing that stood out most is consensus.
you had a great stakeholders board that provided a lot of input and sounds like there was a consensus that was met.
I think what's most interesting about this is it's not about restricting anything or anyone.
it's really about that responsible management of growth.
no one is saying stop growth, it's about doing it in such a way that provides for resources for the rest -- for future generations.
who knows how much growth is going to continue to come into Austin and surrounding areas.
it's not going down.
we're not going to suddenly turn to rain forest.
this is not an environment that receives a steady amount of rainfall over periods.
we've gone through other droughts and this will not be the last one assuming we come out of this in any near future.
no one can ignore those strains on our water resources.
rather than become overly restrictive, the regulations being discussed here today I think take an honest and forward thinking approach to to managing the dwindling resources with the balance of continued growth.
one thing that was mentioned earlier I believe haynes mentioned this about possibly taking out the requirement for rain water harvesting in mall lot subdivisions.
you know, I would say perhaps in the interest of getting these rules passed, maybe that's something that gets dropped but I would criminal justice the commission to continue to look at those types of forward thinking initiatives.
I'm fully aware you are not in the business of selling water catchment systems, but there can be more done at the county, the local and the state levels to afford those systems more affordable and attractive.
while it may be worthwhile to put it
>> [inaudible] I hope you continue to look atnr issues like that.
>> thank you.
yes, sir.
>> yes, my name is steve harris and I'm going to read a resolution the save Barton Creek association into the record.
I've supplied copies to your council.
it says here resolution of the Barton Creek association whereas the ground water resources in Travis County --
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> whereas the proposed rules will help current and future users and to provide for the public safety by ensuring adequate supply for fire protection and whereas the proposed rules has been vetted with professional staff including stakeholders including hydrologists, landowners and conservation experts there for be it resolved that the said Barton Creek association supports the proposed amendments to chapter 82, Travis County code, establishing water availability rules for subdivisions and encourages the Travis County Commissioners court to adopt the proposed amendments in their entirety.
be it further are resolved that the Barton Creek association appreciate it is work of staff, stakeholders and Commissioners court and others in developing these amendments and recognizes their adoption as a critical step in the ongoing effort to protect springs, creeks and lakes that make Travis County unique an abiding place to live.
this was adopted January 23, 2012, signed by president Barton Creek association board of trustees.
that's our position.
I would like to speak on a personal note.
I think a superlibertarian approach to driving might say, let's just say and wait until cars crash into each other until we exercise law and maybe everybody can sue in a tort action to make whole their injuries.
I think the problem with me driving 100-miles an hour, well, I don't see it.
but if all of the rest of you drive 100-miles an hour, too, on the freeway, we might start to have some really bad collisions, and I would suggest to you that freedom, not adolescence concept of freedom would say that people are crashing into each other on water availability right now.
it was mentioned earlierber nut county community have two or three weeks supply of water right now.
lake medina which supplies san antonio with surface water only 21% full.
it is 52 feet below its normal level.
the water development board says reservoir statewide are only 61% full.
so I would encourage you to take a look at the fact that what you are actually regulating here is rural subdivisions and your restrictions are pretty much the standard size of what people are billing and it says here for commercial, there is no impervious cover limit if the primary drive access is on a state road.
so what we see here with the residential limits of 30%, that would allow a typical subdivision,
>> [indiscernible] or units 3 or 4 to the acre.
it would allow apartments and as far as the commercial parts, a 30% limit, I don't knowif it -- oh, it says 45% limit that certainly would allow substantial amount but the up only kind of typical development I would see that wouldn't fit under this might be a big box retailer and that is going to be a primary driveway access on a state level road.
; so to me, it is a god step god step forward but let's face it, 30% impervious cover, the aquifer and streams are dead and this is only incremental step forward and I encourage everybody to work with everybody else instead of threatening to go to the legislature like they do.
I think it would be constructive.
maybe the sweet spot -- for one thing we will hit a hard limit on growth when our water goes away, so it should be in their interest to have adequate water supply.
and I think that's the sweet spot, is we can work on capturing water off this impervious cover and using it beneficially to irrigate and to take care of that that water demand, and that's a common interest of ours, but if they want to keep fighting, I guess that's their choice.
thank you.
>> any questions for mr. Spears?
thank you.
yes, sir.
>> judge, my name is rick wheeler, president of wheeler malone engineering.
I am here today representing several on going projects, subdivision projects in municipal utility districts that are situated in western Travis County.
I was not a member of the stakeholder committee, although I have been on several lcra water use committees most recently the water management plan update stakeholder committee for lakes travis and buchanan, and I am working with several entities as we are very rapidly putting together significant water curtailment plans for various lcra customers as we speak in anticipation of things not getting better any time soon, so very familiar with all of the water issues.
those particular clients are not opposed to the preservation and conservation of the water resource in any sense of the word at all, but as in any case, where there are new rules being promulgated and proposed by regulatory authorities, there is a certain level of trepidation and unease that ripples through landowners and those who have made large investments in utility infrastructure that are currently underway.
and so it's from that perspective that I made some comments, made self phone calls of questions to the staff, seeking a clarification on the applicability in a retroactive sense of the rules to any projects that had already achieved all of the entitlements that it needed and was currently -- and processed.
those conversations were very positive.
we were assured that, in fact, that that would be the case.
it would not be retroactively applied, and it appears that section 82-212c specifically addresses that issue, and if that is an affirmation of that question, then we are pleased that it got included.
we think it's a very positive step toward recognition that many investments were made many years ago, and that those projects are in the mix with all of the current lcra surface water customers of figuring out how to curtail water use by very large percentages.
those are my comments.
I appreciate the ability to have the input, perhaps in your legal executive session discussion, you can reaffirm amongst yourselves that there is no retroactive application.
and tom is laughing because --
>> we will reaffirm it publically.
>> okay.
very good.
thank you very much.
>> thank you, mr. Wheeler.
>> thank you.
>> hi, my name is debra soho and I want to make a few comments on the rules.
I appreciate the opportunity to do that.
I applaud you all for putting your time and energy into trying to make a difference on water quality and water availability issues in a constructive and forward thinking way.
I wanted to say that overall, this is a good effort and I urge you all to pass these in at least their current forms. I would encourage you, though, in a few specific instances, to consider going further, and the water quality is very sound in terms of impervious cover, we know that the districts that have underlined the water district of 10% of the impervious cover is what we need to look at protective.
thirty%, we have already lost a lot of that fight.
so these are not that conservative in terms of water quality.
in fact, they are fairly risky.
let me kind of make some -- so if we could make these stronger, that would be better.
the problem is, once we get the development, there is no going back, so whatever you do, I would urge you to continue to make progress on these rules, even if it's not in this first iteration, that we continue to look at more conservative rules.
pretty soon all of the land will be developed and there will be nothing left to work with.
we are talking about limited amount of land as there is.
I am a landowner in southwest Travis County.
I am a little concerned about some comments that were made that I want to sort of make some statements about.
one is that you might think at repealing these rules if a ground water conservation district is created.
to be clear, these are consistent with ground water conservation district regulations.
there is no problem with overlap.
counties and districts have authority.
ground districts have authority.
they all work together.
no ground water district would want you to repeal these rules.
so that would not be a good idea.
there are -- let me flip through my comments on the rules.
this amenity restriction in 82.214g isn't limited specifically by what period of -- if time it applies to.
doesn't say we are talking about annual limits so I encourage you to clarify in that rule that I am assuming these are per year limits on use.
it is it is not acres, it is acre feet so it is consumption.
it should be specific.
I urge you to take out the amenity upon allowing amenity in the fist place, but if you are going to do it, it needs to be clarified exactly what you are doing.
Travis County is in a ground water management area, so clearly the state has already determined we are in a situation where we don't have enough water available so I think that is a circumstance ongoing and provides ongoing support for these rules.
I am really concerned by 82.216a2, and the limit on impervious cover, this 30% level for residential subdivisions doesn't apply if the lots are 1 acre in size.
so there is no impervious cover restriction there so you could have 95% impervious cover in a lot if it is at least one acre in size which seems to me such a big loophole to drive through.
so I would encourage some restriction there as well.
there was another comment made about ground water conservation districts.
it escapes me now.
oh, retrospective.
yes, the laws are retrospeck tif unless expressly made -- I mean protective unless expressly made retrospective, so there is no need to put the language to say we mean this law to be retrospective, it is not, unless you say it is.
I don't see that a problem.
I appreciate the work you have done.
I encourage you to do some more work based on water quality information we have available to you.
thank you.
>> thank you.
this was a good public hearing.
>> [laughter]
>> it is going to get better, judge.
>> [laughter]
>> we have four chairs available.
it would help us if four -- if you plan to speak today, it would the four to come forward, as a person finishes his or her statement, if we could use that chair, it would be good.
if we could get your name and we are at the point where we need to hear new and different stuff.
I have been carefully taking notes, and some of them I have written several times.
if you have something new and different, it's time to say it.
if you simply want to indicate opposition or support, that would be real good.
new and different is what we are looking for.
after your name.
>> tom hatchet, I am a property owner in southwest Travis County.
I was not on the stakeholder committee and you feel like I had enough input into the process, but in consultation with several realtors that have been trying to do some marketing of my property in southwest Travis County, I have been told that my property value will be affected by these rules, both in the value of the sale price of the property, as well as in the added expense of developing my property if I were to do so myself.
this past year, during the moratorium, I had to turn away a sale of approximately 1 and a half million dollarss because of of the moratorium, so I would like to see the moratorium come off.
I would like to see the restrictions or the rule making be confined to just the issues that are for the protection of ground water.
expanding those rules to cover things like impervious cover and the fire protection are, in my mind, not part of the ground water protection agenda and are causing me to have a loss of value with my property.
>> thank you, mr. Hatchet.
that was new and different enough.
yes, sir.
>> my name is
>> [indiscernible].
I have been in engineering and I want to apologize in advance.
tom, if you would pass those out.
>> I didn't catch your name.
>> keith young.
somebody had to do it and I have a client that has surface water project that that he is in the planning stages and when the question came out on impervious cover, the question came to me, will it work.
and so what I did was I started going through the revised ordinance and had a number of questions and I don't expect them to be answered today or even within the next week.
I think what -- what I see here is that the surface water question was a johnny come lately.
it was added on to the ground water availability issue.
and I think try as staff did to try and keep up with the questions on how to answer, there is still a lot of questions remaining that I brought up in this.
it's going to be very difficult once this ordinance is enacted to work through it.
there is a lot of interpretation right now on -- at least on the surface water standpoint.
for example, impervious cover, there are definitions.
Travis County has the definition.
it doesn't go into a lot of detail.
city of Austin has definition that excludes sidewalks in the right-of-way.
there is a reason for that.
a long story, but essentially people were requesting variances to get rid of sidewalks because it counted against them.
so city of Austin has sidewalks in there that are exempt from the impervious cover calculations.
ponds are exempt.
talking about water quality and detention ponds.
swimming pools are exempt.
now, the decking around them are not exempt, but the pools themselves are exempt.
it doesn't say that in this ordinance and so these questions start to build.
okay.
what is impervious, what isn't impervious?
those need to be adopted.
you go to lcra and in there they talk about coarse statement for driveways, that counts as a credit against your impervious cover because they are trying to encourage the water to be cleaned upright there in the driveway.
it goes through the driveway.
just a number of items that if we are going to adopt surface water regulations, we need to look at these.
we need to address them.
I don't -- and I may be wrong in this but I don't think the moratorium addresses surface water subdivisions.
I think it is only ground water.
so enacting the ground water ordinance and lifting the moratorium has no impact.
if we can pull the surface water out of here and address these issues, we talk about approval of a subdivision.
what is that?
we have approval of the master plan.
we have approval of the preliminary plan.
we have approval of the final plat.
we have approval of the construction plan but I don't know what approval of the subdivision is.
it was a gallant attempt to come up with criteria, but to me, there is a lot of holes in here.
we talk about, in here, a plan of financing.
I don't know what that is.
for construction, operation and maintenance of facilities, a plan of financing.
what is it?
does anybody know?
>> yeah.
>> what?
>> the -- well, you present your plan for financing over time to make sure that it's -- that it is sustainable.
that the system is sustainable.
>> but financing from your bank or what?
>> well, if we were -- on one hand, the folks are complaining about regulation and then, on the other hand, you are are complaining that the regulation isn't specific enough to confine you down to the only type of financing.
I would think you would want it to be flexible enough that you could bring what works for you.
>> but I never have seen that before.
>> let me speak to that, because you weren't on the stakeholder committee, but this is an issue we assessed at the stakeholder committee and one we got consensus on.
the water and wastewater plan provision came out of the hays county regulation, so if you go read the hays county regulations as they exist today, you are going to have the same question.
but that's one of the issue that is the applicant and the review staff have to work through and so your plan for financing the utility infrastructure will be whatever it is.
if you are getting private financing, that's what you put in your plan.
if you are creating a m.u.d.
and issuing bonds, that's what you put in your plans.
if you are doing public improvement district, that's what you put in your plan.
so there is no set narrow rigid definition for that.
it is not a shortcoming.
it is based on something that appears to be working well in hays county so that's what we try to achieve here.
>> which is, okay, if this -- this would be municipal utility district, okay, if that's all that is needed.
but to me there needs to be clarity there because if I come in and says it is a municipal utility district and say that's not enough information and we got caught of when is the -- when is there enough information to satisfy the staff to check that offer.
off.
-- to check that off.
there has some timetables in here as far as when a district is going to be created or when something is going to be set up.
I don't know -- and it all depends on when we are talking about.
are we talking about the master plan stage or at the preliminary or final?
you may not know what those timetables are.
let's see.
oh, there was something in -- talking about getting a -- certifying that the water source is available and we would be going to lcra, the question I have -- and it may be a simple thing to change is the contract with the lcra acceptable?
is that what we are looking for?
but it doesn't say so in here but I know once we get into dealing with that project, all of these questions are going to come up and it is the engineer in me, I am sorry.
but there is just a number of that we have, I think if we dig into it, we can work with the staff but I don't think it can be done within a week, so what I would like to see is the surface water be removed so we can still work on these issues, still do the ground water, because that's where the moratorium is, and work towards something that I think will work for all of us from the service water end of it, because when I was asked the questions of 45% and 30% work, I had to say, I don't know.
>> would I give you any solace -- I hear what you are saying and I have sympathy for individuals who are looking for certainties so they don't feel like there is going to be undue cost and undue -- undue chaos in what is already a chaotic circumstance in the finance community and whatnot.
would it help at all to view this -- this is policy, just as statute is policy, whereas, you know as well as I -- the legislature, where the statute, and then there is the Texas administrative code that has the devilish details.
>> yes.
>> right.
this the policy.
you are absolutely right.
there will be procedure that comes out of this policy.
does that help at all?
does that give you any comfort?
>> well, if that's the cards I am dealt with.
>> an example, keith, we do say in the rule that the impervious cover calculations are done according to the lcra technical rules.
>> but the question there is lcra does not define what is and what isn't impervious cover.
city of Austin does.
so is that part of it, can you do that?
can you use the city of Austin, because I think it has worked for them.
>> the difficulty was the area where this is going to apply is an area where lcra already enforces their watershed ordinance, so what we didn't want to do is make people calculate their impervious cover cover two different ways, one using city of Austin, one using lcra.
>> right.
>> we essentially said, since lcra already has a presence out here, that's the standard we will use.
the same with the drought plan.
>> and I understand that.
but it is a question.
>> well, I guess the point I am trying to make is we didn't leave a total vacuum there.
if there are questions about the level of specificity of the lcra technical manual, those issues exist out there today for you, and you see that it's making it any worse.
I know you can never write a technical manual that answers questions 100% and removes all sense of doubt but this is not like we have left a blank canvass, you know.
we do say the existing lcra technical manual is the technical tool you use to implement these rule provisions.
>> and if I might, one of the companion pieces to this will be a revision to the completion form that we use when people bring subdivisions in, either -- we have a final plat version and preliminary plan version.
I figured there would be enough discussion here today, enough things to talk about without including ha that.
but, you know, that form flows from whatever policy and tries to capture what things are required to be a complete application and so that will further be, you know, defined in a companion piece.
and we can greatly use your help in defining that.
and my --
>> I am here.
>> and I don't know if it will provide you some comfort, also, if we were even to state our intent, which I think is our intent, to utilize existing definitions that have already been vetted to good use and wide usage by other regulatory entitieses, because it is to our advantage.
you know, we don't want to, you know -- we don't want to reinvent the wheel.
first, it is expensive.
second, it is not efficient, and third, it would --
>> yes, we don't need that many sets of criteria.
>> right.
I don't -- I think that -- I feel pretty confident that if you want such a statement on the record, you can easily get it from us.
>> well, the -- I think the last item I've got is that -- I like the lcra when they wrote theirs, had incentives to do things, the coarse pavement, to give you a credit in your impervious cover, rain water harvesting.
there are -- there are -- there is a credit method in there and for years, as a -- I guess one of the guys on the dark side, it has been, well, we create these rules and you just do the bare minimum.
well, it is a free market out there, and anybody that does above and beyond without some gain is going to lose out to his competitor.
but if there is a credit program out there, if there is something that would encourage rain water harvesting in a surface water development, then -- then, it might be hey, let's look at that.
that's something that can become a buzz word, and he would know, he is my neighbor, by the way, but if that's an incentive, then, hey, yes, our subdivision that, or we do that.
this is what we do for the environment.
I think people's attitudes are changing.
so I told you wouldn't like what I had to say.
>> we need to hear it.
>> it is actually really useful and it will be useful moving forward.
>> so I am available if you want my help.
>> good afternoon.
my name is clint jones.
I live in western Travis County.
I first learned of this issue back in December when christy muges contacted me.
we are good friends.
I think she contacted me primarily because different circumstances particular to me.
I live on the lake.
my cove behind me is dry right now.
we have a water pump we pump water out of the lake but two years ago when I had to pump and haul for my family, we had to drill a well to build supplies for water.
I am a recovering attorney.
I am not here to talk about the legal issues.
>> [laughter] and I am former general counsel of national home building and today a developer and I have a ground water development finished on Lake Travis that I did several years back so I have some particular background to all of this.
the main reason why I wanted to speak and I wasn't planning on it today was the practical effect of, in particular, the surface water measure in this.
that is, as a developer and formerly as a home builder and I think I was the one that ms. Muges represented when she wassic with with the proform answer to evaluate whether we can do a development.
from a practical approach, the problem I have with surface water measure, and there are measures in place, for purposes of treating and making sure that what soaks through the ground has gone through the requisite to be treated.
the problem is it is already so difficult for families.
I met a gentleman at the football game where I think I saw you at the same one who lives in burnet and loves to move to Travis County and he has kids and wants to live in the Travis County school district.
he can't afford to move there.
there is already affordability issue in with western Travis County and the problem is, a lot of landowners out there, what they will see with this is either their prices on their land that they have held for a number of years is going to have to come down dramatically for a lot of these production neighbors and some of these are very nice production neighbors.
you look at falcon head neighborhood and some of those where I live, very nice neighborhoods put together well.
well, the problem is, is that from a practical standpoint, based upon what the values are of the landowners that the land costs, when you add to that development costs and then you impose upon it this impervious cover, I did quick calculations on it at 60-acre track I was looking at, probably with this 30% with the road are ways and everything else, could probably only get about -- on an acre basis, probably only about 2 houses per acre.
in other words, I could probably only get out of that 60-acres, could probably only develop 18-acres.
I lose a great deal of that to the roadways and everything else and by the times the said and done, now I have houses that are on half acre lots.
when I go to the builders and try to get the builders to pay what they can do to still keep those home prices within affordability range, it won't happen.
in today's credit market, for example, to hit a conforming loan for most of these buyers that are out there that can't go to the jumbo loans, you run into a problem where I think the conforming loan is around 400,000 and if you combine that with a second lien, you might get up to $550,000 for a home, which is still a very expensive home.
but you can't, in terms of doing that, on a lot of these homes, it is very difficult to keep it within that if you start messing, for lack of a better term, with the density, because they do make it off of the density in a lot of instances.
so I am only here basically because the ground water -- having pumped and hauled myself for my family, I understand the importance of water.
the ground water is an important issue but what I would ask the Commissioners to consider is to take off the table the surface water.
let the lcra and those others that are providing the surface water regulate that and then look at just the ground water for purposes of what the right size is.
the only reason I say this is I would like to see my community grow.
I would like to see others have the opportunity to live in the community where I live, and I am afraid by doing this from a practical standpoint, I certainly am going to have difficulty trying to do a development as would others that would allow for some of these members of the public that may want to move in there have an opportunity to do so.
thank you.
>> any questions for mr. Jones?
thank you.
yes, sir.
>> hi, there.
judge, are you read are difor something new and different?
my name is brister melton.
I am -- bruc and I am a recovering land consultant engineer and I want to talk about climate change and rain water harvesting.
my background.
I have been before you guys, talking about transportation in the past.
I wasn't near as fuzzy then as I am today.
and I have been involved with land development issues focusing on the environment in Austin since 1984.
I went to work for the lcra in 1990-'96, helped develop the technical manual for the Lake Travis ordinance and I did a million dollars worth of clean water act, storm water treatment research with them.
what I am about to say is not common knowledge.
that's why I am doing what I am doing today.
that's why I am a recovering land consultant development engineer.
shortly after the turn of the century, I started writing about climate change.
this is because for the previous ten years, while I was doing my research for the lcra in the early '90s, I discovered that what the climate scientists were saying about climate change was worse than what the media was reporting.
there was a disconnection between the climate scientists and the media.
up until the turn of the century, the disconnection kept growing.
I became more concerned and decided I wanted to use some of my knowledge about earth sciences and my knowledge that I had gained from my epa research with scientific outreach to try and educate the public about the environment that we are in and about the way climate scientists were really describing climate change that is happening in the academic literature.
a fellow named james hanson is the director, has been for, I think this is his 30th year, the director of the nasa goddard institute for space studies, this is the government's leading climate change modeling organization.
hanson is the director.
y'all probably recognize his name.
he's been in the news a lot.
hanson has written that the drought in Texas is an excellent example of the beginnings of the climate change in our country and across the world.
beginnings of climate change.
hanson has been very outspoken, that climate change is here, real, getting worse and is getting worse faster.
if we had started reducing our emissions nearly two decades now, to levels below 1990, we probably wouldn't be having the issues that the climate scientists are telling us about.
they are so much worse than what they expected with climate change.
but we didn't.
our emissions also are 50% greater now than they were in 1990.
just a week or two ago, national public radio evaluated some 100 leading climate scientists across the world to choose an outreach spokesperson for national public radio.
they chose another climate scientist at the goddard institute named gavin schmidt, and what he said what we need the most today, what the climate scientists need, what we need, is for knowledgeable people to stand up and speak out about climate change.
and he is talking about people who understand climate science, who read the literature and know the scientists.
climate scientists are lab geeks.
they are not outreach specialists.
I was trained as outreach specialist at the lcra when I did my research.
I just published my first book.
I started writing about this about the turn of the century and the last several years my articles have been picked up across the world.
so I am here to tell you guys that what we have seen today is going to get a lot worse.
the latest modeling, the highest resolution supercomputer models, the last couple of years are telling us that this decade, 2010-2020, we are going to see the hottest heat wave of the 20th century, similar to what happened in the '50s.
similar to what happened again in the teens.
occur two to three times in this decade, 2010-2020.
the decade 2020-2030, we are going to see dust bowl conditions across most of north america happen two or three times.
by 2060 we are going to see permanent dust bowl conditions, the average condition and the worse conditions will be up to 4 times more extreme than the dust bowl.
what gavin schmidt was saying about outreach is that our public leaders need to understand what's in our future.
rain water harvesting is going to be very important in the adaptation of our society, to our changing climate.
we will be able to fix a little bit of it, but maybe a lot of it.
maybe all of it but it won't happen for 20 or 30 or more years because of the great capacity of our oceans to absorb heat and to buffer the climate changes that are happening now, to hide the warming.
so y'all need -- I don't want to tell you what to do but I want to ask you to take climate change into consideration and educate yourself about the latest findings in climate science and try to interject in everything you do an understanding of our future climate.
let me get to my specific request about rain water harvesting.
the cost of rain water harvesting, 10-20-gallons per single family residential unit is very similar to the cost of drilling a well.
ten inches of rain can provide relatively luxurious amount of water with 10-20-gallons of water of storage.
10 inches of rain is a little less than what we experienced in the worse 12-month period in the recorded record, which happened last year.
we had 11.4.
there are hurdles when you get to public water systems, and I can say fairly confidently that undoubtedly, in the very near future, because of the acceleration of climate change and where we are headed, the dceq will be addressing public water systems and rain water harvesting.
again, I ask you to be pioneers and look at rain water harvesting as a method to do something that keith mentioned, offering incentive to the developers so that they don't have to comply with the ground water rules by exempting them, if they can show, to the best engineering practices available, that they can provide an appropriate water supply with rain water harvesting.
I want to leave you with one more thought.
I told y'all that I am a storm water treatment researcher.
a lot of my research involved storm water treatment amenity ponds.
and I am going to go against some of the things that have been said by the environmental community about amenity ponds.
there are engineering problemtises that can design -- there are engineering practices that can design water bodies to hold water during long periods of drought, like Lake Travis, not a lot but allowing the body to maintain the biology within a water system that does the storm water treatment.
maintain a little bit of water in the bottom of the pond.
you have the fish and the bacteria in there.
and this is without augmentation from ground water.
when you hook up a relatively small pond to a relatively large roadway system, you can get a a lot of water in that pond with just a little bit of rain.
that's part of what my research looked at, was how to size those ponds, based on historic drought so that those ponds would remain viable.
that's all I have to say right now.
thank you for your time.
>> thank you, mr. Melton.
last call.
final call for last call.
we will take this matter into executive session for consultation with attorney under that exception as we will have several questions to discuss with legal.
this matter will be on the court's agenda next Tuesday with two or three parts, and we will have that language worked out tomorrow and available to the public on Thursday.
okay.
so when we go into executive session briefly or shortly, we will take this item in there with us.
there were a couple of other items that we did not reach in open court this morning that we ought to try to reach at this time.
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.
Subscribe for updates