1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 O.S.S.F. Technical/Regulatory Workshop 10 Monday, February 26, 2001 11 4:00 p.m. 12 Commissioners' Courtroom 13 Kerr County Courthouse 14 Kerrville, Texas 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 PRESENT: FREDERICK L. HENNEKE, Kerr County Judge H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 24 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 25 LARRY GRIFFIN, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 On Monday, February 26, 2001, at 4:00 p.m., a workshop on 2 O.S.S.F. regulatory and technical issues was held in the 3 Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, 4 Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court: 5 P R O C E E D I N G S 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: It is 4 o'clock on Monday, 7 February 26th, Year 2001. We will call to order this 8 workshop of the Kerr County Commissioners Court. Topic for 9 this afternoon's discussion is to consider and discuss 10 O.S.S.F. technical and regulatory issues. I'm going to turn 11 it over to Commissioner Griffin at this time. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. We -- this is a 13 follow-on to -- it actually was started as a -- an agenda 14 item on one of our court sessions, and it was object there 15 was probably more discussion that needed to take place than 16 we could do -- really spend on a single agenda item, so we 17 scheduled this workshop. At the point where we broke from 18 that agenda item, Charlie Digges, who I see is present and 19 got his stuff out, was making a presentation. I think you 20 have redone that, Charlie, if I understand it correctly, 21 from your distribution that you gave to us. You have -- 22 have you made some additional points and in an additional 23 way, and I'm sure you want to talk to some of this. I think 24 all the Commissioners have had a copy now for some time. 25 We've probably been able to go through most of it. I know I 3 1 have. But, the floor is yours. Give us what you want in 2 words to go along with this, and we'll use that as a point 3 of departure. 4 MR. DIGGES: Okay. The crux of what we 5 wanted to pose to y'all is that there has collectively been 6 changes made in the on-site regulations, but also the 7 Subdivision Regulations that we think when you combine those 8 two, could have an adverse effect. We're trying to address 9 water availability, and so overall we're going with larger 10 tracts, but because of the developmental costs of those 11 larger tracts, we think that in the future, you're mostly 12 going to have surface water that's going to be used which 13 you all are trying to -- to accomplish, and, you know, I 14 applaud you all for that. But we think that development 15 will be on -- on smaller tracts to -- to make things more 16 cost-effective for the developer and the public, but there 17 could be a long-term risk of that. And so, what we're 18 trying to show with this particular handout is that the 19 state regulations allow for you to have half-acre size 20 tracts, and even tracts smaller than that if you've got 21 appropriate soils for that. You can have greater densities. 22 But, at the same time, we've got illustrations, different 23 subdivisions, several in Kerrville South, then also in 24 Greenwood Forest, there's several phases of Greenwood Forest 25 and then out on 173, not in The Woods, but across the street 4 1 from The Woods subdivision, you have Oak Forest South, you 2 have Woodridge, and those are on half-acre tracts, and they 3 all have a tendency to be on sloping ground where you have 4 the terracing effect. And, it seems like when we combine 5 conventional systems in caliche and small tracts, we have 6 the evidence of surface water problems, and we're just 7 trying to say maybe we ought to look at -- at that. But we 8 have some other subdivisions that -- take, for instance, 9 Cypress Falls, which is across the way, across -- across 27 10 from Greenwood Forest. Its on small tracts too, but they've 11 got really good, deep, alluvial soils there, and we don't 12 have problems with water quality right there. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. I should 14 probably ask if it's all right to question as we're going. 15 Would this Greenwood Forest or any of those subdivisions you 16 named that have small lots under the current state law, 17 would it be acceptable to go in and put those exact same 18 septic systems on those lots? 19 MR. DIGGES: In some instances, yes, and some 20 no. If you -- if you saw evidence of shallow groundwater, 21 you could say that you couldn't put in a conventional 22 system, because the conventional system is the most deeply 23 installed in the ground, so you can go up to 3 feet deep. 24 And if you saw shallow groundwater at 4 feet, we have a rule 25 that says from the bottom of the trench to where you make 5 1 contact with shallow groundwater, there needs to be a 2-foot 2 separation. So, in -- notice that instance you'd have to 3 either raise the level of your conventional system to just 4 a -- 2 foot to the bottom of the trench, or you'd have to 5 install a low-pressure dosing system or aerobic system with 6 spray irrigation, perhaps. We don't like aerobic systems 7 with spray irrigation in a subdivision like Greenwood Forest 8 because of the size of the lots, but sometimes you can't 9 really tell, even -- even though you've done this awhile, 10 you can't really tell the presence of shallow groundwater. 11 What looked great this summer, you know, with all our -- our 12 wetness and saturation, you dig down and see shallow 13 groundwater, and sometimes it takes up to 6 months of 14 saturation of soil to -- to leave what they call the 15 modeling effect on soils. So you can see that in the 16 summertime you would have, you know, some trouble. So, in 17 answer to your question, there would be some sites where you 18 could still put a conventional system in there, and there 19 would be some that, because of the -- because of the depth 20 to maybe even a rock ledge, you wouldn't do it. And -- 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Charlie, let me 22 interrupt you there for just -- for just a second, ask 23 another question -- or maybe -- perhaps make a point. And 24 that is, in my reading of it, in Chapter -- in Chapter 285, 25 State rule, if you apply the criteria that are listed in the 6 1 tables and -- and figures in the appendices of 285 -- 2 MR. DIGGES: Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- characterize the 4 soil, go through the calculations for the necessary area 5 that the water has to be distributed. 6 MR. DIGGES: Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Evaluate the depth to 8 bedrock or shallow groundwater, et cetera. It will tell you 9 at the end of that analysis whether or not you can put a 10 conventional system in. 11 MR. DIGGES: Right. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And if you can't, then 13 usually, the way I think it works in practice, is that very 14 quickly you come down to what the possibilities are. I 15 mean, if you can't put a conventional system, can you put a 16 low pressure dosing system? Can you put a biofilter system? 17 Can you put an aerobic system, et cetera? So, I'm having a 18 little difficulty when we say that the half-acre rule is a 19 problem. It may be that a 3-acre rule would be a problem, 20 or a 9-acre rule would be a problem, because if the soil is 21 not of the proper characteristics and will not take the 22 loading that's called for in the tables and figures, in the 23 appendices of 285, then you can't put a system in. And it's 24 times two; I mean, it's the area. 25 MR. DIGGES: Right. 7 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Plus the reserve 2 system -- or reserve area. So, I don't understand the 3 half-acre or the 1-acre, the three-quarters of an acre or 9 4 acres is a starting point. It just says, hey, if it's less 5 than that, you can't put one there, period. You've got to 6 go engineer some other system. And I understand that. If 7 it's more than that, you know, you've got to go through what 8 the rule says, and that is you've got to characterize the 9 soil and do those kind of calculations that we just 10 mentioned. Isn't that the case? 11 MR. DIGGES: Yeah, you're not missing a 12 thing. All that is true, and I would agree with that. 13 The -- the perplexing thing about it is we do have these 14 examples of when we've done these smaller lot subdivisions 15 and we've used conventional systems in caliche. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. 17 MR. DIGGES: With a terracing effect. We do 18 have -- I mean, we have empirical data that says we have 19 problems. 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Let me jump in, 21 because I'm -- I'm saying that there should be, and we hope 22 that there are ways that we can remediate the whole system. 23 I'm saying that for anything from this point forward, if 24 somebody comes to our Designated Representative and has a 25 half-acre lot or a 9-acre lot, I would hope that we're going 8 1 to go through soil characteristics, we're going to make the 2 calculations that's called for in the rule, and we're going 3 to determine whether or not a system can go there. With the 4 proper setbacks, proper reserve area, all of those things 5 considered. So, that -- that from this point forward, if we 6 apply the rule and we apply the technical end of that, 7 that's back in the appendices of 285, it seems like to me we 8 get around the problems that -- that -- of creating 9 additional problems make like we may have on some existing 10 small lots. Now, am I correct? 11 MR. DIGGES: Well, I think that -- that's 12 true. I think it's also true to say that our analysis in 13 the field isn't always going to be perfect, and that 14 sometimes a solution to the pollution is dilution. And, we 15 can't do the diluting with water, but we can do it somewhat 16 with land area. If you're -- if you're discharging 250 17 gallons a day into one acre instead of 500 because there's 18 just one house there instead of two, then we're limiting our 19 potential for problems. And, what I'm saying is the -- the 20 on-site business isn't a -- isn't a perfect science. That 21 mistakes are made by installers, mistakes are made by 22 regulators, and we designed a system in this last summer 23 that appeared to be next to a -- a dry creek bed, and now 24 it's running all the time. Well, your -- your setback from 25 that dry creek bed is 25 feet. If it's got live water in 9 1 it, it's 75 feet, and we had to move -- relocate the 2 drainfield. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But those situations 4 would occur, would they not, no matter what the rule is? 5 Because you're going to have those kind of rules where an 6 old, dry bed suddenly becomes an active one. That can 7 happen with any acreage limitation on the size of lots. And 8 -- 9 MR. DIGGES: Right. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And I don't -- and 11 those -- when you find them, you got to go fix them, just 12 like you apparently did. So -- so, I am not -- the reason I 13 am not spring-loaded to jump at the acreage limitation is 14 that -- is that it seems that there are protective technical 15 means that are in the rule that we would always apply on a 16 new system, and that if we have a noncompliant system or a 17 system that's creating a hazard or a nuisance, we're going 18 to apply those same standards to it. So, I just want to 19 make sure that we're all on the same page with that. It -- 20 and you're right. It's not an exact science. Soil 21 characterization has got an awful lot of subjectivity to it, 22 or could have. 23 MR. DIGGES: Yeah. 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And there are better 25 and better means being developed all the time from the 10 1 literature, as I can tell, for being able to characterize 2 soils and, in fact, there -- the one I think that -- didn't 3 you guys get the book -- the book that we got from A.S.T.M., 4 American Society for Testing and Materials has several 5 papers. I haven't had the opportunity to see them all, but 6 a large portion of those papers are dedicated to the subject 7 of soil characterization. 8 MR. DIGGES: Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And I know -- and 10 that's all '97 or thereabouts stuff. It's moving forward 11 pretty rapidly, and we ought to take advantage of that when 12 we can. And, I think what T.N.R.C.C.'s approach, at least 13 what they've told me, is that because of the inexactness, 14 they have built -- in their view, at least, they have built 15 in some safety factor. Now, if every entity as we go down 16 the line adds another safety factor just to be cautious, we 17 end up with a very over-regulated -- at least, that's the 18 risk we have -- a very over-regulated program there. So, 19 I -- I think that if we can do proper soil characterization, 20 we can properly design the system in accordance with the 21 rules, and I don't argue at all with the -- with the fact 22 that we have problems in certain small acreage lots. We 23 have problems in some large acreage lots too. But, I don't 24 argue that, but we will avoid those in the future by 25 applying the rule. That's my sort of bottom line. 11 1 MR. DIGGES: Okay. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'm not -- you guys 3 jump in any time you want to. I'm just -- but -- 4 MR. DIGGES: And Lane, too. I'd like for him 5 to be able to -- because Lane and have I talked about this 6 at length. 7 MR. WOLTERS: I would comment on that. 8 And -- Commissioner Griffin, you're exactly right. The 9 rules should take care of these -- of these problems. And 10 -- but look into the future, and when somebody comes before 11 you with a large plat with, say, 100 lots or 50 lots that 12 may be quite small -- we have some subdivisions in the 13 review standards now that are being looked at by your D.R., 14 but basically they're kind of a generalized look at the 15 whole subdivision. I'm afraid that when you get into these 16 smaller lots, that you would -- would be up against a -- a 17 wall, so to speak, to not see the whole situation on every 18 lot, because we don't go in and do a soil evaluation on 19 every proposed lot. The larger you give the lots, the more 20 insurance you have, as Charlie was explaining, against 21 having a lot that would have all the problems on it that may 22 be missed in the subdivision review, like steep slopes, high 23 groundwater, bad soils, all together, and then all of a 24 sudden -- I think Charlie's going to show maybe some 25 pictures of an actual on-site development of a lot, are you 12 1 not? That -- that takes up different space. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's in the package, 3 yes. 4 MR. DIGGES: I didn't bring the slides today 5 or anything. 6 MR. WOLTERS: Anyway, you're right. We're 7 all right, I guess. But from our experience in the past, I 8 remember Tiner, back in the 19 -- about '84 when they 9 finally changed the original lot size requirement in the 10 rules, and the minimum standards began -- as far as I can 11 remember back, it was 15,000 square feet. That's probably 12 why you see so many lots here that are 100 by 150. Pretty 13 standard lot over many of these subdivisions that Charlie 14 was mentioning. And, I went to Tom because we were having 15 problems with these lots back then, and I went to Tom Tiner, 16 and -- in Austin, and asked him, "Why did you set the lot 17 size at 15,000 square feet?" And his answer was -- it just 18 blew me away -- was, "Because anything else is too small." 19 And, so, they had not done a lot of work on this. But, the 20 -- what was coming in all around the state was that these 21 smaller lots, 150 by 100 in size, were really not big enough 22 to do a house, a driveway, a swimming pool, an outbuilding, 23 a trampoline, and on-site waste disposal system that had a 24 replicate area. Just wasn't working out all over the state. 25 So, they upped to it half acre, and those were the main 13 1 reasons that acreage size recommended by the State have 2 gotten larger. And, we've seen the same thing -- we have a 3 lot less problems with 1-acre lots -- well, we have a lot 4 less problems with half-acre lots than we do with 1,500 -- 5 15,000 square feet ones, and a lot less even with 1-acre 6 lots, especially when you're looking at high terrain, 7 midpoint terrain on sloping situations, or anything that 8 involves a higher elevation. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a question. 10 And -- well, two questions. First one is on the density, 11 you mentioned the high sloping. Are you familiar with 12 Falling Water Subdivision? 13 MR. WOLTERS: Yes. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which is similar to a lot 15 of subdivisions -- 16 MR. WOLTERS: We were at Falling Waters 17 today. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: A lot of subdivisions 19 very similar to that. 20 MR. WOLTERS: Right. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you look at the actual 22 density of where the houses are, they're on the summit. 23 Lots of places, the lot sizes may be 3 acres, but the houses 24 are almost on small lots, 'cause they're up on the ridges. 25 MR. WOLTERS: Exactly. 14 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, how does going to 2 a -- a 1-acre or whatever, a minimum lot size, help that 3 situation when the actual density of the houses is even 4 closer? And, part of the intent I had with the Subdivision 5 Rule language was to not have an acreage limit, have a site 6 requirement, and the developers would have to basically, you 7 know, look at the site and get with -- and get -- or our 8 Designated Representative to sign off on that. 9 MR. WOLTERS: On each individual -- 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the lot configuration, 11 based on that site. And, it is it more of a burden on the 12 developer to do more work and possibly spend additional 13 money. If they didn't want to do it, they could -- you 14 know, they can increase the lot sizes. 15 MR. WOLTERS: You're exactly right. If you 16 had 3 acres on a bad site, you still have a lot more choices 17 than you do if you have a half acre on a bad site. Let me 18 give you the example of -- I hate mentioning exact 19 subdivisions, 'cause I don't want to step on anybody's toes, 20 but if you're going up Rimrock, go down Lehmann Drive past 21 the Post Office, go up Rimrock up to the top, there are some 22 lots left up there on either side of that ridge that are 23 half acres, okay? And they -- I think -- I think, you know, 24 that what's left up there is those people are having to buy 25 or lease two lots, maybe three, to make anything work up 15 1 there, and they're on the fringe of -- they're on the edge 2 of not being able to make anything work, you know, because 3 of the requirements that we have in place by the minimum 4 state standards. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Mm-hmm. 6 MR. WOLTERS: So, those are your options, is 7 to either make each individual lot be approved on an 8 individual basis -- 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, let me ask a 10 question. That was going to be my question. If the 11 developer comes in here and let's say he's got 10 lots -- 12 ten 1-acre lots, as an example. Wouldn't make any 13 difference -- ten half-acre lots. And, we go through, 14 there's available water, each of these systems is going to 15 have an on-site sewage system in their proposal. And, for 16 whatever reason, we don't question that very closely or 17 whatever, we approve that subdivision plat. Before any 18 owner -- when those lots gets sold, before any owner could 19 go install a system, he would have to go through the 20 process, would he not? And, at that point, if that 1-acre 21 lot or whatever it is will not take a standard system -- 22 conventional system, that's when we're going to find that 23 out, right? 24 MR. WOLTERS: Well, you're right. 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Because, I mean, even 16 1 though the subdivision developer didn't get preapproval or 2 do any analysis or anything, each individual owner is going 3 to have to step up to the plate and start with the D.R, and 4 go through all the hoops like we've laid out. Is that not 5 correct? 6 MR. WOLTERS: That is correct. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That should catch it. 8 MR. WOLTERS: That's correct, but in the back 9 of my mind, it seems that people believe that when they buy 10 a lot, it has been through an approval process; that they 11 will be able to put an on-site sewage disposal system on it. 12 If -- you know, if it came back -- if your scenario came 13 back negative and they couldn't put a house and everything 14 on this one lot and they had to buy another lot, and there 15 was another lot available, that would be fine. I'm worried 16 about the -- the last lot. 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. 18 MR. WOLTERS: -- in the subdivision. 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right sure. 20 MR. WOLTERS: So, somebody's already bought, 21 you know, and -- and started the building process. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Or the guy that -- or 23 the gal that bought the lot in good faith and went and 24 started building their house and went to get the septic -- 25 didn't do the septic system first. 17 1 MR. WOLTERS: Makes everybody the bad guy. 2 Makes the D.R. the bad guy, makes y'all the bad guy, makes 3 everybody the bad guy if you can't put an on-site sewage 4 disposal system on the lot that you intend to. Because if 5 they spend $15,000, you know, they're just not thrilled with 6 you. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: But, theoretically, the lot 8 size has nothing to do with that scenario. Because, yeah, 9 we all recognize that the bigger the lot, the more likely it 10 is that they'll be able to put an O.S.S.F. system on there. 11 But, theoretically, if you have a 10-acre tract on a gravel 12 bar next to the river, you may not be able to put any sort 13 of a system on it. 14 MR. WOLTERS: True. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: And so the lot size doesn't 16 have anything to do with it. I mean, what I'm hearing is 17 that the there really -- there really is two kinds of check 18 points. First of all, when the subdivision plat comes in, 19 the Designated Representative says that the lot 20 configuration is suitable for on-site septic systems, but 21 then when the owner has to put a system in, they have to 22 come in and the soil has to be tested and the system has to 23 conform to the conditions on the ground. And, the concern 24 that you're expressing is a legitimate one, which is what if 25 the amount of ground that that landowner buys does not allow 18 1 them to put a -- a system in at all, or at least a 2 reasonable-cost system? Well -- you know, I hate to say 3 that's tough, but that's kind of the -- you know, the 4 situation that -- that they find themselves in, because 5 that's the state law, and there's nothing you can do to 6 necessarily wire completely around that scenario. And, the 7 other thing I'd say is, we've crafted the O.S.S.F. Rules 8 with the state law, hopefully looking forward. We can't go 9 back and fix Kerrville South and Greenwood Forest. All we 10 can do is move forward and, over time, allow those problems 11 to be corrected by subsequent owners or any -- any action 12 that needs to be taken to correct any failing systems. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I have a point, and 14 this is a "what if." I have to -- I guess I have to ask a 15 question of Charlie. Charlie, when you sign off on a plat 16 that says, you know, you -- preliminary comes in and then 17 they do a final, and they may -- maybe have done some 18 drainage studies, and they -- what you are saying in the 19 septic world is that -- correct me if I'm wrong -- you're 20 saying these lots meet the average size by the subdi -- 21 well, we do that by the Subdivision Rules, but if O.S.S.F. 22 has the proper lot sizes and all, that individual septics 23 can be -- can be installed, correct? You don't go any 24 farther, you're not certifying anything beyond that -- that 25 point, right? 19 1 MR. WIEDENFELD: No. That they're capable of 2 a septic system. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right, they're capable 4 of. And I'm just wondering if we could either change the 5 language of that certification, or perhaps in the approval 6 of the plat, so that the public -- the buying public would 7 be aware that the certification that it's capable does not 8 necessarily mean that a system can be put on there until a 9 complete evaluation is done or something. Do I make sense 10 there? Could we -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: On the plat, at least, 13 we've then said that, hey, this is not the final word. 14 You've got another hoop to go through, because you're going 15 to have to have -- you're going to have to have the site 16 evaluated and then you're going to have to have all of 17 the -- the calculations done to see what kind of -- if you 18 can put a system and what kind of system, if you can. 19 MR. WIEDENFELD: The standard plat note does 20 go on further to say that a permit and a license to operate 21 is required before -- 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And should be based -- 23 and must be based on a site evaluation or something. That's 24 what I'm saying, is that we could probably caveat that to 25 help that problem a little bit so that we get away from what 20 1 Lane's talking about, the last lot that goes up for sale 2 doesn't have -- he can't buy another lot next to him, and 3 he's stuck. 4 MR. WIEDENFELD: Well, to add a little from 5 my observations on, I guess, small lot sizes, our topography 6 here in Kerr County is not the state average. We have 7 probably the most limited site -- sites to work with. And, 8 a half acre, when we have 30 percent slope across the whole 9 thing, is, you know, very restrictive in putting in septic 10 systems. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And -- 12 MR. WIEDENFELD: And -- 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- the appendices' 14 calculations will tell us that you cannot put a standard 15 system, right. 16 MR. WIEDENFELD: And with all the 17 improvements that many people are putting in these hills, 18 we're sometimes limiting the amount of sewage that can be 19 generated by, say, a normal 3-bedroom house. We're having 20 to go in and only put in 100 gallons a day, so we got a 21 Cadillac house with a Volkswagen septic system. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Mm-hmm. 23 MR. WIEDENFELD: You know. And, again, maybe 24 it's a training that needs to go on before they ever start 25 building. Maybe in the -- in the plat process -- which they 21 1 will say, well, this lot here is only -- you know, if you're 2 going to have a half acre or -- or let's say a quarter acre 3 is going to be impervious cover. You can only put in 4 150-gallon septic system or disposal site. But, that gets 5 really, you know, into land planning and, you know, you're 6 getting into way more than what people -- 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Charlie, is there a -- 8 and this is actually for Lane, Charlie, and Charlie. Is 9 there an acreage size that almost, you know, I never like to 10 say always, but in most -- almost all scenarios, you can put 11 a system on that's economical? It was 1 acre in the past. 12 What is the size that -- that would meet that threshold 13 requirement of being able to put an on-site system on? 14 MR. DIGGES: If you're not in a floodplain or 15 floodway area, and you're not on a real, real steep slope, 16 you're hard-pressed to keep us from installing on an acre. 17 We've gone up and -- I know Lane's done it, too -- in 18 Northwest Hills, which they're probably about a third-acre, 19 the lots up there, and mostly, you know, rock. So, you end 20 up putting in a -- an aerobic system 'cause you're in rock, 21 and you bring in fill and you seed it or sod it, but boy, 22 you spray every doggone little spot on that whole lot, and 23 you just hope that the homeowner is keeping up with their 24 chlorine and little Johnny isn't out there right after the 25 sprinklers have gone off and doing some hand-to-mouth 22 1 contact, you know. That's been my concern with those 2 scenarios. But, the answer to your question, I -- an acre 3 has seemed to work okay for me, but there are times when an 4 acre is not enough. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The reason I bring it up 6 is that, I mean, seems to me that the -- I understand 7 y'all's concerns and agree with them, but it seems that 8 rather than change the Subdivision Rules, it can be done 9 through the procedures that U.G.R.A. does by signing off on 10 lots as part of their operating procedures. If it's over an 11 acre, it's pretty much -- you know, it's signed off on 12 relatively easy, but if it's less than that, the developer 13 has to then prove that those lot sizes are going to work 14 from a septic standpoint, and that can be done through -- 15 internally through our Designated Representative, to me. I 16 mean, and I think it would solve the problem, give us the 17 flexibility that we're trying to give to the developers, and 18 also give them -- and if they want real small lot sizes, 19 they've got to be able to pay to have a study done. That 20 small lot size can be done, and do that to the satisfaction 21 of our Designated Representative. 22 MR. DIGGES: I think so. If we take that 23 approval process to that next level, where there -- they 24 know it's more incumbent on who's ever doing the research 25 that -- providing Charlie with the background data to 23 1 approve that subdivision, then if everybody knows up front 2 what's expected of them -- because right now, at the level 3 it's being done, I don't think we've -- we'd be happy with 4 the results. There was a time when -- when even on the 5 large tracts, like 15, 20 acres, you had to go out and do a 6 couple of soil profiles, and that got to be too much the 7 other way. We were over-regulating, you know, and there 8 were complaints that way, and I think we eased up on the -- 9 the review process. But, you know, with the -- the -- the 10 onset of these new smaller lots, I think we need to bring 11 that back. Maybe, just like you're saying, have a different 12 criteria if you're this acreage and above, and this criteria 13 if you're this acreage and below. 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That could be in the 15 subdivision -- that could be in the platting process. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nothing do with 17 Subdivision Rules. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's right. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just Designated 20 Representative procedures. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: As far as reviewing sub -- I 22 wasn't aware of any circumstances where we would have to go 23 out and do an analysis for the actual system. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Are you? 24 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: At time of construction. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Right. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: At the time of 4 construction of each lot. That's what I'm saying. But, in 5 the platting process, it's a -- it's a general go-ahead, 6 because these are -- these lots are laid out, and that they 7 should be capable of accepting some sort of O.S.S.F. It 8 doesn't necessarily be -- wouldn't necessarily be saying, at 9 least in my mind, that that's a conventional system. But, 10 see, I think we could go a -- maybe not go a step further at 11 that point, but at least we can say in the platting process, 12 that this does not mean that any O.S.S.F. is approved for 13 any particular lot; that you've still got to go through the 14 process to get that lot installation -- that lot's 15 installation approved. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's -- I think 17 it's good. We should do that now, strengthening the plat, 18 itself. Unfortunately, I think a lot of people don't look 19 at the plat. You know, a lot of people, probably a majority 20 of buyers, don't actually look at the plat. And, if their 21 attorney doesn't or title company -- granted, it's buyer 22 beware, but there's no reason for to us create a situation 23 that's going to be problematic. 24 MR. DIGGES: Is there a way for you all to 25 require, before they dig the first trench for the 25 1 foundation, that they've got to satisfy Charlie that an 2 on-site system could go in? Because, you know, right now, 3 you can do it any way -- any time along that building stage, 4 and you could be investing money into something that you're 5 either going to have to scale back on the house size that 6 you want, or you're simply building on something you really 7 can't make it work, or you're going to spend $20,000 on an 8 on-site system. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think all of us 10 would probably agree, we don't have that kind of 11 ordinance-making capability. 12 MR. DIGGES: Okay. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Commissioners courts 14 of the state of Texas just don't have that. Maybe after 15 this Legislature. We don't know. They're considering 16 granting some or ordinance-making powers on things like land 17 development land management and so on, so maybe that's 18 downstream. I don't think we can do that now. 19 MR. DIGGES: Okay. 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Is that -- am I not -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's correct. 22 I think that's something that is incumbent upon the -- 23 basically, the home-building community as a whole to, you 24 know, do that. If they're building a home, they need to 25 make sure they can put a septic system in before they build 26 1 it. 2 MR. DIGGES: Yeah. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's just kind of good 4 business. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Do that first. That's 6 what I would do, 'cause I'd go apply -- and, in fact, I know 7 of several people in my end of the county that are doing 8 just that. First thing they do, because I've told them 9 that's what they ought to do, is go apply for a septic 10 permit and see if you can get a permit to construct, and -- 11 and make sure that's in first, before you start laying 12 driveways and foundations and all that stuff. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We really need to do 14 that before you close another property. 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's right. 16 MR. DIGGES: And some folks do that. They'll 17 come to us and say, you know, we'll do some soil profiles 18 out here to see if we can even get a system in. And, 19 sometimes you walk out there and it's just all rock, and 20 there's -- you can do a rock profile. But, sometimes you'll 21 know just from walking out there, but -- 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only comment I will make, 23 just 'cause a lot of people are in the audience, I mean, 24 the -- because of the water availability requirement that 25 you referred to, unless you're on surface water, then you 27 1 can have small lot sizes. The density, because of the 2 requirement you can only have one lot for every 5 acres in 3 the -- yeah, for every 5 acres in the subdivision, we're not 4 going to be able to create these very dense, very large 5 subdivisions. There is going to be large greenbelt areas 6 inherent, unless they're on surface water, and there's large 7 areas of the county where there's -- that's never going to 8 be feasible. 9 MR. DIGGES: Yeah. Our concern there, at 10 least mine, was that development was going to become more 11 expensive because of the larger lots, and just to build a 12 county spec roadway was going to be somewhat expensive to 13 have the road frontage to serve 25-acre tracts across each 14 other. And, so, there might be a natural migration towards 15 trying to utilize surface water, which was going to bring 16 people in closer to the City of Kerrville, 'cause that's 17 going to be their first choice. U.G.R.A. is working on 18 having surface water rights and providing that, but it 19 seemed to me that it was going to attract developers to go 20 that route, and -- and so I thought it was a real 21 possibility to have that. You know, you have the density of 22 the city and the ETJ of the city that's already there, and 23 just continue on with that. 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Let me point out, 25 since we're talking regulatory as well as some of the 28 1 technical aspects of sizing and all, is that we have a lot 2 more flexibility, even though it's limited, but we have more 3 flexibility in the Subdivision Rules than we do in the 4 O.S.S.F. rule. 5 MR. DIGGES: Okay. 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Because the State does 7 not directly tell us how we can write Subdivision Rules. 8 There's a lot of things we have to abide by in the -- as we 9 all well know, in the O.S.S.F. world, there's a very strict 10 way that the rule has to be read and implemented and so on, 11 so that what we've tried to do here -- and this, again, is 12 in a workshop sense here, just trying to impart 13 information -- we've tried to marry the Subdivision Rules, 14 which include other things like water availability, which we 15 cannot include in the O.S.S.F. rule, we've tried to mesh 16 those two rules so that they make sense and that we can 17 regulate what we can regulate and should regulate in one or 18 the other. 19 MR. DIGGES: Okay. 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, it's not a 21 straight-cut deal that, hey, why don't we just put all of 22 this in the O.S.S.F. rule, or why don't we put it all in the 23 Subdivision Rules? We have to make those play together, and 24 everybody really needs to understand that. And, I know 25 Jonathan's put a lot of work on the Subdivision Rules, and I 29 1 think -- but, like O.S.S.F., we've all said before, we can 2 change whatever needs to be changed, but we still have to 3 maintain this meshing. 4 MR. DIGGES: Right, and I think that's good. 5 The -- the thing that we've been concerned about with the -- 6 the smaller lots and the open-door conventionals back into 7 caliche is that we just don't have the answer for sure on 8 caliche. Now, I know that that's controversial. I'm just 9 saying -- it may be very well proven that caliche's going to 10 do an adequate job, but I'm saying the jury is still out. 11 And, I just had a conversation two weeks ago with Dr. 12 Wilding, who's doing the research on -- for the Research 13 Council about caliche, and he said he thinks it's hard for 14 us as installers to decipher which ones are going to be good 15 for treating wastewater and which ones aren't, although he 16 thinks some can. And, that was the other purpose of asking 17 for a little bit larger lots, was while we still don't know 18 the answer to that -- and we've had situations that created 19 a problem before, which could or could not be related to the 20 caliche -- it may be still a factor that they'll be playing 21 into it, and we could err on the side of being conservative 22 in that regard. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: All good points. I -- 24 I really -- I really feel like we're not -- we're all, in 25 part, saying the same thing. We want to be able to protect 30 1 public health and safety and to have systems that don't 2 create a nuisance of any kind. That's the law. We have to 3 relate that -- in the O.S.S.F. world, we have to relate it 4 to those two things, and sort of not what we would like to 5 have, but what we can legally have, and what is -- or what's 6 the most we can do without assailing property rights -- 7 MR. DIGGES: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- of people who own 9 property. And, that's the -- that's the balancing act that 10 the Court has to go through, just because we have to weigh 11 all of those, and so we're sensitive in going beyond what 12 the law says, unless there's a really a demonstrable reason 13 to do that. And -- but I don't think we're that far apart 14 on what the real goal is. I think if you've watched the 15 last several subdivision plats that have come through the 16 court, every one of them, unless they've got huge acreage in 17 them, and a few of those we let go, but every one of them 18 gets discussed on water and sewer every time it comes 19 through, on a preliminary or a final plat. We're very 20 careful to go into that as deeply as we can, and we'll 21 continue to do that. 22 MR. DIGGES: Okay. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No matter what the 24 rules are. 25 THE WITNESS: Okay. 31 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Because we're all 2 trying to do the same thing. 3 MR. DIGGES: I think we are, too. I mean, 4 I -- I feel like this discussion is exactly where we need to 5 be, and there are some thoughts that you all have had that 6 I've never heard before that helps me, and perhaps some 7 things that we're bringing out that lets you know where 8 we've been coming from. But, when we've had the public 9 meetings before, it's mostly us get up and make our 10 statement, and we don't get a chance to really discuss it 11 back and forth, and so I appreciate the chance to do that. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My last comment is that 13 the -- there is a possibility of us, you know, relooking at 14 the revision of plat situation on the Subdivision Rules 15 coming up. We need to discuss that a little bit in court on 16 probably the next agenda -- or not tonight, but in two 17 weeks. And -- you know, so if there's not -- I mean, we can 18 always change the Subdivision Rules. And, if anyone on the 19 Court -- I mean, just because we wrote it that way, if we 20 want to put in acreage, I have no problem going back. I 21 don't think it's that different now. I -- I think we can 22 defer it to the Designated Representative as easily -- or we 23 can tighten up the Subdivision Rules and then make them come 24 get a -- if they want to get a little bit smaller lot size 25 than 1 acre, make them go out and prove it. Have another 32 1 provision -- I mean, we can do it either way, doesn't make 2 that much difference to me. We can look at it -- 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Look at it. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We may be looking at one 5 other provision that Travis is looking into, some legal 6 aspects on revision of plats, as well. 7 MR. DIGGES: Thank you. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Does anyone else have any 9 questions of Mr. Digges or Mr. Wolters? Okay. We've had 10 some individuals also sign up to speak. We'll give you an 11 opportunity -- and I would remind everyone that the posted 12 agenda item is O.S.S.F. technical and regulatory issues. We 13 will ask you to hold your comments to that topic. 14 Otherwise, we'll have to ask to you come back at a different 15 time. So, Paul Siemers. 16 MR. SIEMERS: Paul Siemers. I live in Hunt, 17 HC-1, Box 156N. I'm not sure I'm going to -- not going to 18 deviate from what you just directed, but my concern has to 19 do with the lack of a deed transfer stipulation in the 20 rules. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's not -- that is not the 22 topic. 23 MR. SIEMERS: Thank you. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Bill Stacy. 25 MR. STACY: Gentlemen, thank you. I got my 33 1 introduction to O.S.S.F. at Camp Mystic at 14 in 1939, and 2 it's a very deep subject. A number of things that I'd like 3 to recommend to you for years, 40-some-odd years. We used 4 the state rules of septic systems that were three cells and 5 a leach line, and we followed those at Camp Mystic and at 6 Camp Rio Vista, which I had to do. I have a -- a 7 subdivision I put in in 1980, I believe it was, and the 8 State keeps changing its rules, and we have about three or 9 four different systems there. All of them work, for a very 10 simple reason, and you must remember this reason. The water 11 evaporates up, because the leach lines are 18 inches, and 12 then gravel. So, the heat evaporates -- the sun evaporates 13 that water up. 14 We do have areas of our community which -- 15 Kerrville South and Greenwood Forest, which don't -- there 16 are some lots there that have a real problem, and that 17 should not be used as an example, but the problem has been 18 -- and I heard it the other day when I was in court on an 19 exception that you were asked to rule upon. What has 20 happened is the State has kept changing the rules, and so 21 the people in charge of administering those rules have 22 forgotten what worked 10 or 12 years ago that the State had, 23 what they had to comply with. And, I've had disagreements 24 with U.G.R.A. over their rules, because the systems were 25 what was approved at that particular time. And, if it was 34 1 three cells or one cell -- used to be one cell the State 2 liked. Then they went to two cells, and they -- you know 3 they don't know about -- about caliche. And caliche, if 4 it's -- we have -- Bill Bocock has a leach line in solid 5 rock, and it is imbedded in gravel, and Bill will tell us 6 it's been working fine. So, you can put it in solid rock, 7 because the water evaporates up. It does not go down. So, 8 this Court can take care of -- of I know that you don't like 9 to hear it, but there's some -- when there's some 10 differences on -- on a system that is not broken; that is, 11 it's not obviously bad, then it's got to come to the court. 12 And, when I was there, we didn't have that many. So, 13 gentlemen, I can urge you to look back at the rules that 14 you're evaluating when those very systems that are being 15 appealed to you come in, 'cause I've been there, and I've 16 done it, and you can help these people out. And, there's a 17 classic example of the Hunt Store, and I turned them in. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Mr. Stacy -- 19 MR. STACY: They violated -- 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- the topic is technical and 21 regulatory issues. And you -- 22 MR. STACY: Didn't I cover them pretty much? 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: You're getting a little far 24 from that. 25 MR. STACY: Oh, where did I get far from 35 1 them? Excuse me. 'Cause I've been in, and I've told you 2 about these systems that work, and the three systems on my 3 little subdivision are all different, because the State 4 keeps changing the rules. And, don't change them; give them 5 more flexibility. That's what I'm asking for. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. Pat Parker? 7 MS. PARKER: I misunderstood the announcement 8 that you put in the newspaper yesterday -- or in Sunday's 9 paper, because I thought we were -- one of the things we 10 were addressing was the opinions of people on whether we 11 needed transfers at -- and you're not, so -- 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay, thank you. Anyone else 13 who wants to participate in the technical and regulatory 14 issue discussion? Any other comments from Commissioners? 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, I -- in a 16 technical sense, I would mention that -- that we are always 17 looking at better ways to test and inspect systems, and if 18 there are good ways, state-of-the-art ways to do that -- and 19 there's been much improvement in -- a lot of improvement in 20 that area in -- in recent years; in fact, even in recent 21 months, on how you inspect septic systems, and there's some 22 work being done in other states. And, we can always steal 23 from anybody who's already done work for us, if we can -- if 24 we can find out what they've done. But, the State of 25 Minnesota, for example, is one that's done a lot of work in 36 1 the area of how you inspect systems. And, before -- and it 2 wouldn't make any difference whether it's -- whether it's a 3 property transfer or any other inspection of an existing 4 system. We need a rigorous way -- I'm talking technical 5 stuff now. We need a rigorous way to test and inspect a 6 system, and it's got to be repeatable, so that you would do 7 the same thing to different systems. And, so we're looking 8 for and always evaluating those kind of things, us and our 9 Designated Representative. We're trying to find better ways 10 of doing business, and that's one of the areas where the 11 technology has not improved much in the past 30 years. I 12 mean, we still inspect systems pretty much the way we did 30 13 years ago, and there are better ways of doing it now, less 14 invasive, less destruction tiff, and we'll keep working on 15 those. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. If that's all, we 17 stand adjourned. We'll see y'all back here at 6:30. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, everybody come 19 back. 20 (Workshop adjourned at 4:50 p.m.) 21 - - - - - - - - - - 22 23 24 25 37 1 STATE OF TEXAS | 2 COUNTY OF KERR | 3 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 4 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 5 County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 6 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 7 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 2nd day of March, 2001. 8 9 10 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 11 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 12 Certified Shorthand Reporter 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25