Thursday's Internet Edition, December 04, 2008.
to Leon River TMDL plan
|
| CONCERNED LAND OWNERS- More than 100 people attended a public meeting held by the TCEQ last Thursday night at the district courtroom in the Hamilton County Courthouse to accept comments on a proposed draft TMDL (total maximum daily load) for bacteria in segment 1221 of the Leon River (below Proctor Lake). Above, Frank Sprague states his concerns about the plan. Of the approximately 20 people who spoke, all expressed some degree of opposition to the TMDL. Staff Photo |
Although not proposed as a regulatory document, the TMDL would set goals for reductions of bacterial contributions by the various sources in the watershed including farmers, ranchers and municipalities.
There have been concerns expressed that the TMDL could be a first step in the TCEQ seeking additional regulatory authority in the future. They already do have regulatory authority over cities and confined livestock operations.
This was the last scheduled public meeting to receive comments, however, written comment will still be accepted by the TCEQ until 5 p.m. on May 5.
Hamilton County Commissioner Dickie Clary was the first to speak at the Thursday meeting. He read from a prepared statement that set the tone for the evening. It was evident throughout the night that those speaking had done their homework and had given much thought to the TMDL proposal. More than 15 people made comments and there was a consensus of opposition to the draft TMDL. No one spoke in favor of adoption of the draft as it now stands, although one lady did say she supports parts of it.
Tom Weber, TCEQ manager for the TMDL program, presided over the meeting. Terry Niemann from the TCEQ Water Programs Division gave a brief project overview before public comment began. Weber stated that they were there to receive oral comment and would not respond to the comments during the meeting.
The TCEQ officials did remain after the approximately two hours of public comment to informally answer questions from individuals.
Commissioner Clary began, “We want to be an active participant in improving the water quality in the Leon River watershed. While we strongly oppose the approval of the proposed TMDL, we fully support alternative water quality initiatives that offer practical benefits to the general public as well as to those people in this watershed whose lives and livelihoods are affected by the bacteria concentrations in the Leon River. We believe that all acceptable water quality improvement initiatives must be both socially and economically attainable.
“Our opposition to this TMDL should not be construed as simple obstructionism but rater as opposition to TCEQ’s current bacteria reduction approach that fails to adequately address stakeholder concerns. We offer our strong support for reasonable water quality improvement initiatives, which can, with stakeholder buy-in, achieve desired water quality goals.
Clary offered two alternative remedies to the bacteria impairment. First, Clary suggested, implement a well developed watershed protection plan, instead of this TMDL, to determine how effective voluntary, stakeholder development and stakeholder supported “best management practices” are in reducing bacteria levels in the Leon River. The proposed TMDL should be put on the shelf for a period of not less than five years, while the WPP is being developed and implemented.
As a second alternative, Clary proposed, “TCEQ should recognize that the physical characteristic in segment 1221 do not support ‘contact recreation’ activities and therefore should initiate a sanitary survey as well as a Use Attainability Analysis to determine the appropriate designated use. Subsequent to the findings of the UAA, TCEQ should actively seek EPA approval to change the designated use of the impaired portion of the river to match the existing use of non-contact recreation.”
Clary went on to explain, “The existing use as defined in the Texas Administrative Code of the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards is ‘a use which is currently being supported by a specific water body.’ The existing use in segment 1221 currently supports non-contact recreation activities and its associated criteria for E.coli of 605 cfu per 100 ml. Non-contact recreation use in segment 1221 is currently an attainable use as defined in Chapter 307.3 of the TSWQS. Non-contact recreation use can be reasonably achieved by segment 1221 in accordance with its physical, biological and chemical characteristics.
“Applying contact recreation use criteria in segment 1221 is inappropriate because its physical, biological and hydrological characteristics to not support contract recreation activities involving significant risk of ingestion of water. TSWQS clearly states that classified segments are designated for contact recreational use unless elevated concentrations of indicator bacteria frequently occur due to sources of pollution which cannot be reasonably controlled by existing regulations.
“Wild animals are the major source of bacteria in segment 1221, contributing more than 41% of the total load. These animals are considered background sources which cannot be reasonably controlled by existing regulations; therefore, in accordance with Chapter 307.7 of the TSWQS, segment 1221 should not be classified for “contact recreation use.”
Clary gave 12 reasons why stakeholders “strongly oppose” implementation of the proposed Fecal Coliform TMDL for the Leon River segment 1221.
The following is a brief summary of those reasons.
1) There are alternative remedies to the bacteria impairment in segment 1221;
2) We oppose this TMDL because the segment is inappropriately designated for contract recreation use;
3) We oppose this fecal coliform TMDL because it fails to meet EPA’s implementing regulations requiring water quality criteria to be based on sound scientific rationale. This TMDL is based on and calculated for fecal coliform and is not scientifically defensible since it fails to use the most current water quality criteria for bacteria which is E.coli. In 1986, EPA abandoned the use of fecal coliform as a useful indicator for bacteria and recommended states adopt water quality standards which use E.coli as the preferred indicator of bacteria, since fecal coliform densities show little or no correlation to gastrointestinal illness rates in swimmers;
4) We oppose this TMDL because segment 1221 of the Leon River has been inaccurately accessed for recreational safety;
5) We oppose this TMDL because the use of fuzzy math rations to calculate E.coli load densities from this fecal coliform TMDL is not defensible and should not be approved despite the cost of this project:
6) We oppose this TMDL because we believe that TCEQ, through the use of their current permitting enforcement authority, already has the ability to cause all regulated point sources to reduce their bacteria loadings to levels prescribed in the TMDL document.
7) Becasue the Bacteria TMDL Taskforce recommendations, that were unanimously adopted by TCEQ Commissioners and the TSSWCB, have not been followed.
8) Because the Leon River has been improperly identified as a water body that exposes people to possible health risks through contact recreation use.
9) Because we believe that there will be no tangible benefit to the illness rate of swimmers resulting from the implementation of this TMDL;
10) Because it will require large amounts of money to be spent trying to prevent a hypothetical and unsubstantiated health risk that historically and currently does not exist;
11) Because current water quality data conclusively demonstrates that elevated bacteria levels pose no risk to human health or to the recreational safety and drinking water quality downstream;
12) Because it calculates bacteria reduction allocations for all known sources of bacteria except wild animals, which is the major contributor of bacteria by more than a two to one margin over any other source.
At the conclusion of Clary’s remarks, he received a loud round of applause.
Many of the ensuing speakers also had well prepared statements in opposition to the proposed TMDL, but largely they were reiteration of the points Clary had already made.
Mitchell Walker, a Gustine landowner, complained that there had been only one sampling station below the City of Gustine and that the South Leon had been unfairly targeted.
He complained of a “failure to identify the sources” in the TMDL draft.
Derrick Turner spoke on behalf of the cities of Comanche, Gustine and Hamilton, but said his comments also pertained to the other municipalities. He said the cities were in total support of improving water quality. He pointed out that several of the cities already had wastewater treatment plant improvement projects underway before the TMDL studies were begun.
He questioned whether there was any physical data to support the amount of bacterial impairment claimed.
“There are several areas of this model that can be improved,” said Tuner.”
He also pointed out that the studies indicate that the cities are contributing less than one percent of the load.
Wastewater treatment plant projects are underway in Gustine, Dublin and Hamilton. Hamilton is nearing completion of a new UV wastewater treatment facility that is purported to be state of the art.
He further said the cities fully support the Brazos River Authorities efforts to reach a 21% reduction in bacterial inflow, but also questioned the funding mechanisms available.
Frank Sprague said, “As a landowner adjacent to the Leon River I request that you as commission members withhold approval of the TMDL for the Leon River pending further investigation and study. There is strong support for maintaining the Leon River in a safe and clean condition for use by residents of Hamilton County. The concern with the present study is it’s lack of facts and accurate information on which to base any needed program of water quality improvement.
“Farmers, ranchers, towns and other units of government are willing to assist in any needed cleanup of the Leon River, but would like to be assured that time and monies are effectively used. The present document does not indicate that adequate study has been given to the watershed to allow an effective treatment program to be developed. In short the problem has not been clearly defined and on-going local effort have not been recognized.
He specifically questioned the impact that wildlife has on the water quality. He pointed out that “large nesting populations of swallows inhabit bridges on the Leon River where water quality samples are taken.”
“Bacterial Source Tracking indicates that wildlife is a predominant source of pollution in the Leon River,” said Sprague. “Additional work is needed to better define the sources from wildlife as well as feral hogs. Data is lacking or appears to be incorrect with regard to existing conditions in the watershed.”
In conclusion, Sprague said, “It is my feeling that the best course of action for the commission is to not approve this TMDL until such time as the status of the stream can be assessed in light of ongoing local efforts. If the commission does see fit to approve the TMDL it should be with the provision that it be revised to reflect a scientific approach to assessment of conditions in the watershed and a clear and complete description of sources of pollution.”
Lloyd Huggins said he is a beef producer in the Leon, Bosque and Lampasas rivers watersheds. He said he is a steward of the land and considers himself a conservationist. However, he stated that he feels the “TMDL study has no scientific creditability.”
He further stated that he believes the study is based on the preconceived biases of its authors. “The study defies logic.”
Several persons who signed up to speak, deferred saying that their opinions had already been stated. Richard Layne said that he fully supported what Commissioner Clary had said.
“Environmental quality is always a concern of everyone. But you haven’t proven your point,” said Layne.
Evan Brown said, “The TMDL study needs to be denied until costs and who benefits from it is fully disclosed.”
Rodney Stephens, a farmer and rancher on Indian Creek in Comanche County said he has been in and out of the river for 40 years and he guessed it stunted his growth. He said he is 6’5” tall and weights 300 pounds. “This is a witch hunt to create more regulations,” said Stephens.
Rusty Harris said, “I resent the present agenda being touted by the TCEQ.” He also said that he resented the “dictatorial attitude of the TCEQ at the first meeting on the TMDL which he attended in 2006. He also said that in that meeting it was stated by the TCEQ that if all the cattle were taken out of the river watershed it still would have no impact at all.
“I also resent the TCEQ holding stakeholders’ meetings at Temple and not telling us,” continued Harris.
He concluded, “I don’t trust this organization.”
Susan Alexander of Mercer Gap said there are some things in the TMDL that she does agree with, but a lot she does not. She also questioned the lack of public involvement. “If the earlier process had been more open, there would be less contention now.”
“There may never be enough data for everyone to agree, but I do agree there needs to be more data,” said Alexander. “There needs to be better public education and a broader consensus.”
Marvin Reavis from the City of Gustine spoke about the improvements that the cities are already making in their wastewater treatment systems and the fact that they are already sending in monthly samples for testing.
He concluded, “There is not enough data. We may be several years away from being able to support a decision.”
Frank Volgmann spoke on behalf of dairy farmers in the watershed. “Water quality criteria should be based on sound scientific data,” he said. He complained of an inconsistency of sampling. He said he supported postponing implementation of the TMDL. “It is essential that the stakeholders buy-in,” he concluded.
Jay Bragg from the Brazos River Authority briefly discussed a water protection plan that his agency is working on with landowners and other interested parties to formulate. He said it is important that stakeholders have a say in any plan.
The BRA watershed protection plan project was referred to by several speakers during the night and it was suggested that TCEQ adoption of the TMDL should be delayed until the BRA plan is completed.
Jim Kenton said, “As landowners, we all see ourselves as stewards of our land. We want the Leon as clean as possible. Then he questioned, “Why weren’t we involved from the beginning?” He also said that there are still one and a half to two years to adopt a plan, “why this big rush?”
Charles Levessy said he has a place on the Leon River west of Highway 16. He questioned how the river could be declared polluted in that area when much of the time in past years it has been a dry river bed.
Damon Chumney again questioned why the early meetings had been held in Temple and why notice had not been placed in the local newspapers.
He said, “It appears you had a pre-conceived agenda.” He said the study is based on assumptions.
“What people are saying tonight, you need to go back and really do your homework.”
He also questioned why DNA sampling has not been used to identify sources of contamination.
“More research is needed,” said Chumney. “We are not up against the wall on time. To form a document based on assumptions is not acceptable.”
State Representative Sid Miller was the final person to speak. He thanked the TCEQ for holding the public comment meeting and thanked the residents for attending and participating.
“My hope tonight,” said Miller, “is to take the recommendations of some very intelligent people here – slow down – do not make the mistakes made in the Bosque River watershed.” He also said he supported Commissioner Clary’s suggestion to change the designation of this segment of the watershed. “That would give us more time,” concluded Miller.