Travis County Commissioners Court
January 31, 2012 (Agenda)
Item 13
>> let's call up 13 and then 18.
13, consider and take appropriate action regarding the following: a, proposed amendments to chapter 82, Travis County code, establishing water availability rules for subdivisions; and b, an order temporarily suspending approval of subdivisions supplied by ground water from the trinity aquifer.
good morning.
>> good morning.
>> well, anna bolin, tom webber and steve manila with Travis County t.n.r.
this is kind of a continuation from last week's public hearing and on today there's two items, either adopt the regulation or extend the temporary suspension because the -- it currently is set to expire today.
>> we did get some input from residents last time.
what, if anything, did we do with that?
>> well, most of the input we received here last week were things that, you know, are consistent with what we had been hearing as we moved through the process.
in my view, the two biggest points of discussion had to do with surface water and things related to regulating that and amenity ponds.
and we had taken that into account when we made our recommendation.
there's still two views out there, but, you know, we stand by our recommendation.
>> one of the other major points that some of the folks brought up was our legal authority to do this.
that's still out there.
>> did you actually -- and I want to make sure that the information that we had before us had really disseminated throughout the community and I'm really concerned, of course, about eastern Travis County just as I am the other parts of the county, but the residents as far as we're hearing today, this information has gone out.
and I know we have people that serve on our committee, but -- but other than that, anna I guess I'm asking you, has there been actually sent out to the community and any response, anything like that?
are they pretty much pleased with what is -- have we had any response from that?
>> well, what I did, as I collected email addresses as we've gone through this, and we've been working on this probably almost two years now, I emailed that information out.
I got a lot of the email addresses from eastern Travis County when we had the public meetings in October, both east and west, and I did send the information out to the people -- the citizens that attended those meetings.
so --
>> okay.
thank you.
>> remind me of the specific language regarding amenity ponds.
>> do you want the code language or just the -- what we're saying for amenity ponds for common area features such as water features and irrigation and landscaping, sports fields, that if a subdivision has centralized wastewater service, ground water may be used only until sufficient quantity of effluent is available.
in the plain required under the 82-2-213, water and wastewater availability service plan, the applicant shall include a phased replacement of the ground water with the treated effluent.
the second part we say in the plan that's required for water and wastewater availability service plan, the applicant shall account for the use of the ground water for common area features and the use of ground water for common area features shall be curtailed in the first stages of drought as divide in 10-d and water availability service plan and that the volume of the common area feet nurse a subdivision supplied by ground water may not exceed two acre feet for an individual feature in sick acre feet cumulatively.
there was one thing brought up last week that possibly needs the definition needs to be improved upon and that -- the third item that I mentioned about ground water for common area features being curtailed in the first stage of drought.
the drought stages, from what I understand, people define them differently in different areas.
and what we're meaning when we say that is the first time that water -- water is restricted because of the drought, that's when these uses should be curtailed.
from what I understand, some people use the terminology stage 1 to be just normal things that we should be doing all the time to conserve water.
but our intent is that the first time that there is a -- a mandate to conserve water, that's when -- when this use should be curtailed for amenity ponds.
>> so we intend to provide that clarifying language?
>> yes.
>> when we say first stage of drought, we mean first stage of water restriction.
if you would like to be more precise, we can just say first stage of -- first stage in which water is restricted.
>> I think we ought to say what we mean.
>> yes, and I think that that covers exactly what we mean.
first stage of water --
>> first stage of drought in which water is restricted.
>> yes.
the the.
>> restricted by whom?
>> whoevee utility.
whoever is operating the water supply system.
they will have a drought contingency plan and they will have to follow that plan.
>> and that contingency plan is also part of what's submitted to us.
>> yes.
>> okay.
that's fine with me.
>> okay.
and the surface water?
>> you heard considerable testimony last week.
we still have this in our recommendation because the water is all interconnected.
you know, we really tried to put as much flexibility in and balance that with, you know, being conscientious about water.
and so that's how we achieved what we achieved in this regulation.
>> we recommend keeping the language regarding surface water as is.
>> okay.
so if there is a surface water available in a sufficient quantity, what's -- how do these rules kick in?
>> well, if there's surface water available, then the lot size or impervious cover restrictions from these rules would kick in in a new subdivision.
>> so irrespective of the quantity of surface water available, this goes to the impervious cover for the water quality of the ground water.
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> yes.
>> you can just use lot size.
>> we can use lot size.
>> judge, let me clarify.
the wording actually indicates that -- although I use residential, there's similar language for commercial.
impervious cover cover in a residential subdivision shall not exceed 30% except impervious cover shall not be limited if.
and the if indicates that you have a minimum lot size.
>> or meets the conservation development ordinance requirements.
>> so you have three options.
>> there's three options.
>> and just to further clarify, the minimum lot size in that case is averaged one acre lot size.
so as this is evolved, I think what we recommended back last September was just one acre minimum.
that was it.
and as we continue to hear from our constituents, we realize adding some flexibility in was a good idea so that's why what you have before you now has more flexibility built into it.
>> so did the committee agree that that flexibility is a good thing?
>> I -- I -- well, I think I heard from the committee that flexibility is a good thing.
I would not characterize it as 100% consensus that surface water should be in the rules.
but I don't think that means that flexibility isn't a good thing.
>> okay.
there are several people here on this item.
if you would like to give comments, come forth.
if I'm reading the court right, we plan to act on this today.
right?
maybe the final opportunity before action.
if you give us your name, we would be happy to get your comments.
>> my name is hank smith.
I was on the stakeholders committee.
don't have really much to add.
I think there's still some issues.
my testimony last time is basically the same.
the rules don't seem to have changed.
there's a little confuse what the posted in the backup today as opposed to the hearing.
there was a version January 10th and a version January 20th and then there seems to be a version January 10th as modified, January 26th.
and they are all subtley different and I'm not sure which ones we're supposed to be looking at.
in terms of commenting on.
there's not major differences but there are subtle differences between what was on the different agenda postings.
just want clarification as to which one --
>> I did not do a new backup for today.
this is somewhat of a continuation of the work we did last week.
my recollection is the January 20th was the most recent version of the rules.
>> correct, and what's posted for backup today, which is part of my confusion, is January 9th, chen draft.
it says updated January 26.
we up grated the January 9th draft on January 26 but what was at the hearing was the January 20th version.
>> I believe it was the January 20th version we met on last week.
>> but what's posted today is the January 9.
>> I'll say this, substantively nothing has changed from the January 20th version.
substantively there is no difference.
>> I haven't had a chance to go through.
looking at the back --
>> different dates may have been put on their automatically by the word processor.
the substance hasn't changed since January 20th.
>> okay.
other than that, other than the testimony I had last time, I'm available to answer any questions.
I think it's fair to say there's still some opposition from everybody involved.
I guess that's always going to be the case.
>> complete 100% agreement.
>> I wish there could be, but I very rarely see that occur.
>> just not going to accomplish that.
just about on every issue.
>> we had a set of rules that will be in effect and be enforced in the long term is what I'm looking for.
>> any questions for mr. Smith?
>> nancy mcdonald.
we are an advocacy organization.
an active rica member and active member of hba.
our members build the schools, hospitals, retail that with generate property tax and held fund all the services y'all are inni charge of.
I wanted to thank you.
it was this time last year that we were forming a stakeholder group.
I was watching you all make your appointments and you went through about three different meetings in order to do that, to include everybody that would be affected, the fire guys and engineers and so forth and you did a really thorough job and that 15 member stakeholder group, we also watched real closely.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> changed all of their rules, looked at ought of the aspects.
what came out of that group, a similar stakeholder group was no limitations when you are on surface water.
that was simply not an issue on surface water.
there was a limitation on lot size if you are on surface water and had septic, but if you had a public water system, there simply-- there was the consensus that was the appropriate way to treat the surface water.
this one seems to be taking a different course.
same element, when you cross over a county line into hays county, right across the line there are no limitations on the development on surface water.
>> [indiscernible] part of the concern is that -- we didn't feel, I'm not going to say why they didn't do it in hays county, I don't know what the actual reasoning was, but it was decided not to include that limitation of hays county.
>> for our part, you know, we understood this to be ground water availability.
the entire last spring, last winter, last summer until sent when -- until September when the first draft came out.
the surface water issue much I don't know if the stakeholder group might have been comprised differently if we were talking about surface water.
I understand that part of the rationale, t.n.r.
staff, it does affect the ground water.
we don't necessarily agree with that.
were we talking about quality, availability -- there was a lot of unknowns, we would have liked to have been at the table sooner on that discussion.
the fact that it's regular gating, you know -- regulating impervious cover and density when you are bringing in surface water that might even be adding to the ground water, it's gotten very problematic for us.
>> so the ground water language triggers the impervious cover requirement.
then there are three ways to deal with that?
>> no.
actually, judge, having the -- having a subdivision that is on surface water gives you the three alternatives.
either a lot size of one acre or greater, following the conservation ordinance, or if you want, if you are not satisfied with the lot size limitation, you can justify a smaller lot using the impervious cover.
you could -- limitation.
so -- so it's three choices.
not -- not -- not impervious cover as a first step.
>> when we say ground water, we are really talking about just an organized water system.
>> or individual wells on -- on lots.
that could be either a central system, which -- which my understanding is -- that would serve less than 15 or individual wells on individual lots.
>> okay.
mr. Priest.
>> thank you, judge, morris priest, speaking on my own behalf.
I did want to say in relationship to government that this is a state's issue for most of us.
we don't believe that it's the proper arena or that the county has the proper scope.
I think the confusion that we've heard this morning in this morning's testimony is still ongoing and I did want to echo the words of gerald last week when he was saying that in contentious matters, whether it's toll roads of course I don't think this comes up to the level of information, and other -- other things such as communication, that were issues that we're having with our government, but I do think that the reason, you know, this is just going to create a convoluted process as we are cleaning the city, many people believe the reason that we have so many mcmansions is because we have a mcmansion ordinance.
and I think that any time that, you know, that -- that, you know, this is resistance is futile with the developer driven agenda councils that we have and organizations in the community.
but I do view it as a proper rights issue -- a property rights issue which most people have come out loud and clear.
this really is a property rights issue.
I just would encourage the court to -- to have this to wait until the next legislative session.
I would -- I wasn't in favor for the moratorium or any of these issues with this chapter in this agenda here, changes.
but I just don't think that there's going to be anything productive to come out of this.
we should leave this matter to the state and just wanted -- the -- I can't emphasize enough how much it's a property rights issue.
we will just make everything from affordable housing or any of the other issues that you all commonly face, you know, just make things that much less affordable and -- and more costly and -- and pretty much about as ridiculous as the situation we saw last week at the city with their sign ordinance, you know.
it's just a waste of time for our government to be spending on this, especially since -- since it's a state's issue, it's going to be taken up this legislative session.
I think that you should wait until this next legislative session to -- to address these matters.
thank you.
>> mr. Reeferseed, thank you, sir, I would like to echo mr. Priest's feelings about property rights.
though my question, I'm -- I am apologizing for my ignorance on the -- on what you all have in front of you.
that is are there limitations to the -- to the -- is there a grandfathering kind of aspect to this?
in other words, I live in the development that's been there for -- for lo these many years and I'm wondering, do these -- does this have the power to go back to old developments and -- change everything?
>> no.
>> for new stuff.
>> it would be for new projects.
>> all right.
great.
>> problem, thank you.
>> we are looking at the January 20th version.
yes.
>> and if we approve this today, it would be effective when.
what's the effective date?
>> judge, it will be effective immediately unless you specify otherwise.
keeping in mind that the suspension on subdivisions using trinity edwards ground water does expire today, so if it's not effective today, in terms of that part of the roles there will be a gap.
okay, we receive a legal opinion regarding several issues last week.
your position on those opinions remains the same today?
>> remains the same.
any other questions?
>> move.
>> second.
>> comments?
Commissioner Huber?
>> I just wanted to say first of all thank you to staff and all of the stakeholders that participated in this, this has been a long, two-year process.
I think the evidence of the length of time that it has taken is -- is evidence of -- of the efforts to -- to educate, listen, learn, try to work towards a very workable proposed set of rules.
and -- and I know that -- that these -- that we will never get 100% on these because you always have, particularly when you have economics involved on both ends, those who need to have the water, need to have it available in the future, those that want to make money in the process of providing places to live and work, those are -- those are tugging forces at each other.
so I just want to say thank you in coming up with what I believe is a very good minimal, actually, there's some places I personally would have preferred to see stricter rules.
but these are rules that have been accepted in -- and proven and -- in other counties with similar conditions.
and I believe that we would be irresponsible or shirking our civic responsibility at this point if we did not proceed.
the news is rife of wells going dry, subdivisions without water.
I believe that we need to do what we can to provide at least a basic level of water availability assurance.
so with that said, judge, I'm prepared to make a motion.
>> let me say this, also.
it's very critical, I mean, water has been constant as far as the number of users.
one person will tell me that the water is worth its weight in gold.
they said it would be that way one day.
it appears that it is, just as persons have predicted that it would be.
I guess the question is how we will make sure that we have substantial water availability as we look at growth in Travis County.
I think this is a good start.
it's not, as I stated earlier, no -- no shoe fit all.
it's not one hundred%, but it is a good start -- 100%, but it is a good start going in the right direction to let everyone know that we are really concerned about our water availability.
we just went through a drought.
we are still in a drought.
I guess that you heard the testimony today.
as we looked at the drought situation in the early item.
we are still there.
I understand that it takes about 20 inches of rain to get out of the drought conditions that we are in.
of course, we're going to try to do what we can do from the power that we do have available to us, as -- as -- at the Commissioners court to address those concerns.
and I just want to thank everyone person, those -- those persons that I appointed to serve on this committee, very familiar with you having no problem with it, you attended the meeting.
I had a chance to attend the meeting in my precinct.
of course it's going to be a challenge for all of us.
collaboratively if we work together, we can overcome the situation until the rains come and when the rains come, they will come and hopefully will fill the lake back up and make sure that our aquifer is at peak.
but we are going to have to really look at this, as far as making sure that we make sure that we don't run into a pattern where -- whereas Commissioner Huber has stated, that wells running dry and people having to -- needing water and we have experienced that throughout the county.
so again I applaud staff, I applaud the committee, the appointed committees that -- that serve from this Commissioners court, they are appointees and as we move forward I just think again it's a great step in the right direction to deal with our water availability crisis situation that we have in Travis County.
thank you, staff.
thank you.
thank you, legal, also, tom, I didn't forget you.
>> motion by Commissioner Huber to approve the January 20th version.
is that with the clarifying language regarding amenity pools that we talked about today?
seconded by Commissioner Davis.
any more discussion on the motion?
>> briefly, judge.
because politicians -- I have -- I still have some pause over the amenity ponds issue.
with regard to the fact that we are currently in extreme drought, if not exceptional drought according to any credible source.
I also have concerns with regard to the -- to the impervious cover options in that we know from experience that residential development autolesion is coming in at under 20% impervious cover.
development is coming in at under 20% impervious cover, so the impervious cover option seems to have plenty of wiggle room in it.
but I defer to staff and to this incredible stakeholder group -- groups, a lot of work that's gone into this, while unanimity was not reached I don't think -- I do think consensus has reached and a delicate calibration has been achieved, I'm for the going to upset that delicate calibration by a different provision for the amenity ponds or different provisions for the impervious cover option.
I know that it's difficult, I know our work is not done.
I ask you all to stay engaged on these issues because all indications are our drought will not end this summer.
>> the motion includes an immediate effective date?
if -- if it -- if it is approved?
>> yes.
>> okay.
so if we monitor the impact of the rule we're about to adopt.
when would we be able to tell whether it's achieving the desired result or not?
>> well, it really comes down to the development that occurs from this point forward, how much water they use, measuring it, setting up, you know, determining what the baseline is today, and houses don't get built immediately, even when they start the process, they can take two or three years from some subdivisions to be built out.
it could be a year or more I would think to be able to see if there's any measurable improvement.
>> if I might add.
as we start getting subdivisions in, you know, we'll be looking at okay so what did you end up doing?
I will probably ask them okay but for this regulation, what would you have done, just so I kind of get a gauge of kind of what the impact was on the planning and engineering of the projects that we will be seeing.
and, you know, we'll monitor that and -- and see if it's doing what -- what, you know, we were intending with this reg.
>> well, that would really be only the first step because in terms of monitoring, you are talking about decades and you're talking about development of -- of basically southwest Travis County, how that plays out every decades, how that affects the quantity and the quality of both the surface water and the ground water.
and to adequately monitor that, you would have to -- you know, spend a lot of money and put up a lot of -- of monitoring stations that monitor not only water quality, but water quantity.
of surface and ground.
>> right now we don't have state statutory construct to even have a baseline of how much water is available or what the quality is in aggregate, correct?
I mean, we have spot -- spot indications of how much water is available in this snapshot and what its quality is, but we don't have a mapping of water quality or quantity.
>> that's correct.
this rule does take the step forward of -- of dedicating a well site in certain circumstances.
and then we would pick up that -- we would begin that monitoring.
>> I think the Sunday article covering the states struggling with the same issue highlights that -- that we need to do something.
we need to do our part.
>> one of reasons for doing this is the aquifer is already stressed.
that's established.
so the proof of the benefits of this will be does it continue to stress more.
given the understanding of the dynamics of nature.
but does it continue to stress more from development or not.
and as was said the baseline will help us monitor that.
>>
>> [indiscernible] our intention to call it back up one year from now.
whatever -- whatever impact we see, we see.
>> yeah.
>> yeah.
>> if it's not there, we don't see it, that's the
>> [indiscernible]
>> any more discussion?
>> just one thing, judge, I just want to thank the folks that I appointed to the committee.
thank them for their time and their commitment to attend the meetings and hopefully it did contribute to -- to a good decision in this issue.
>> okay.
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
thank you very much.
>> thank you, judge.
item no.
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