|
HAMILTON -- The Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) held its final meeting with the
recognized stakeholders in the Leon River Bacteria Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL) Project on Wednesday afternoon, June 28.
 |
|
STAKEHOLDER MEETING. The panel of stakeholders, seated at the
table, and a large crowd of TCEQ officials and interested parties
filled the Lee Conference Center in downtown Hamilton on Wednesday
afternoon as Earlene Lambeth, standing, makes the introductions. |
TCEQ officials explained that the model
that forms the basis for the entire river cleanup study is nearing
completion. They held the meeting to hear and answer more questions
regarding their effort to lower the maximum bacterial load in the
river in order that it be able to meet standards set by the federal
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Measurement of the Leon River’s bacterial
content in recent years has shown the river to regularly exceed the
EPA's standards for full contact recreational use. Contact
recreational waters are those in which people should be able to swim
without undue risk of infection.
The TMDL project models the runoff and
bacterial load characteristics from a variety of land types and uses,
including concentrated animal feeding operations, municipal
wastewater, various agricultural and wildlife. The TMDL model, when
finally approved by the TCEQ Commissioners, will provide the basis for
the next phase of the cleanup program, the implementation phase.
Much discussion at the meeting was
focused on whether the contact recreation water standard was
appropriate for the Leon River. Several suggested that a wading
contact use standard would be more appropriate, particularly since
that type of use would have a higher allowable bacterial content
standard. Others commented, however, that changing the standard would
likely be fiercely objected to by downstream water users.
Nevertheless, an effort was made by Hamilton County Judge Fred Cox to
enlist the stakeholders in an effort to request the water use standard
be changed.
There was also discussion regarding the
EPA's 20 year old contact recreational standard, specifically whether
it was too stringent and still justified by scientific data. Some TCEQ
officials at the meeting indicated that they might be willing to
support an appropriate effort to revise the applicable contact
standards.
One part of the TMDL model took into
account the bacterial load contributed to the Leon River from the
Proctor Lake water discharge. The average bacterial count measured by
the TCEQ at the Highway 67/377 bridge, approximately a mile below the
dam, was 133/100 m.l., which the Commission officials conceded was
higher than similar measurements for Possum Kingdom Lake (35) and Lake
Whitney (69).
An official with the Brazos River
Authority, however, said his agency had a large record of samples that
had been measured in recent times which indicated the bacterial load
at the discharge point for Proctor Lake averaged only 9/100 m.l. TCEQ
officials indicated they would be pleased to incorporate the BRA's
sampling data into their model.
The low bacterial load in the BRA
sampling data reinforced the TCEQ's decision to not include Proctor
Lake and above in its cleanup effort. It also served to weaken the
arguments of some involved in the cleanup effort to have Proctor Lake
waters and above included in the cleanup effort.
It was speculated that wildlife, both
birds and wild hogs, contributed to the wide difference in bacterial
content measured at the two relatively close river sampling points.
Much discussion was devoted to the large
amount of bacterial loading in the river which was identified by the
bacterial source tracking (BST) technology to be associated with
wildlife. A table of data distributed at the meeting showed BST
results for the Leon River with wildlife contributing 43% of the total
bacterial load and another 12% of the bacteria unidentified. Human and
pet sewage was identified as the source of 26% of the bacterial load,
and all livestock, both cattle, non-cattle and avian, as the source of
22% of the load. (It was not clarified why the listed percentages
totaled to 103%.)
When questioned on the large amount of
wildlife bacterial loading, TCEQ officials admitted that they had no
authority to control or regulate wildlife. Many in the audience
expressed concern whether the agricultural and municipal interests,
over whom the TCEQ can exert some control, would be made to bear the
full expense of the river cleanup, when they were not responsible for
the largest part of the problem. A stakeholder pointed out that since
the State of Texas owns the wildlife resources, that it should also be
financially liable for its share of the total cleanup cost.
TCEQ officials did not have any
satisfactory answers to the questions and concerns regarding wildlife,
other than to say that it should be taken into account during the
implementation phase of the river cleanup project.
One stakeholder complained about the
usefulness of the modeling process and the large cost (stated by the
TCEQ to be around $600,000 on the Leon River) associated with it. He
stated, "You can put any kind of numbers in that model to make any
kind of result you want to. I've done that before. I worked in the oil
field for 30 years. I've been in meetings where we've had these
discussions. And we've spent the money and we've got nothing for it.
I'm trying to understand what we're getting for it." A TCEQ
representative responded, "Well I hope that we're going to be getting
clean water."
The stakeholder continued, "I'll
guarantee you that running this model and spending $600,000 is not
going to get you clean water. I can promise you that. And you're not
going to know where the problem is at, you're not going to know how to
fix it, you're not going to have it defined and you're not going to
prevent reoccurrence. I can promise you that." The TCEQ representative
responded, "We appreciate your comments."
State Representative Sid Miller attended
the meeting and responded, "The gentlemen makes a lot of common
sense..." He then asked questions concerning the data that was used in
developing the TMDL model. After several questions and answers, Miller
seemed reassured regarding his concerns.
After almost an hour and half of
questions and comments, a quarter hour break was declared. Following
the break, Clyde Bohmfalk, program specialist with the Chief
Engineer's Office and the ranking TCEQ representative at the meeting
addressed the crowd. He noted that the Commission's main effort was to
"get the science correct" and added that if what was being done was
based on sound science, that everyone could live with it. He explained
that the agencies used models in all of its cleanup efforts and that
the value of the models was that they provided the ability to make
predictions on the results of specific cleanup efforts. He said, "They
are called predictive models for a reason. They predict. They don't
claim to be totally accurate."
Bohmfalk later noted that the agency is
measuring high levels of bacteria in certain points in the river, but
doesn't know completely why they are occurring or where they are
coming from. He said, "What we are using the models for, is to try to
give us some sense of where that's coming from. We are also using the
BST's to give us more accurate information. We use an awful lot of
assumptions in these models, but when we talk about 'verifying the
model', we use the data from the stream we're looking at to verify the
assumptions we're using are correct. And, we may have to adjust some
of those assumptions. But we're using these models to get some better
semblance of understanding of where these bacteria are coming from."
He later stated that the data from the model, once finally accepted,
would be used as a predictive tool in formulating a river cleanup
effort.
Comanche County Extension Agent Bob
Whitney, one of the stakeholders, was an active participant at the
meeting and has been closely following the TMDL process. Following the
meeting, Whitney expressed optimism that the TCEQ and the EPA would
accept that wildlife makes a significant contribution to the excessive
levels of observed bacteria in the Leon River and that they would
acknowledge that the wildlife portion was largely beyond their ability
to control.
Even after taking wildlife into account,
however, there will remain a portion of the excess bacterial loading
that is the result of human, agricultural and livestock sources. That
portion of the problem will still have to be solved and the solution
will involve dairies, municipalities, beef cattle operations and
other.
Whitney noted that there would be
problems with an effort to lower the standards. He said, "Every entity
up and down the river has a price to pay for that, too. If you say
there is no wading, then you have to post signs. You ultimately have
to fence portions of it." Whitney added that non-contract designation
might require other downstream municipalities to raise the level of
treatment for the water that they take from the river.
Whitney noted that the EPA's water
bacterial standards are being challenged elsewhere in Texas and in
other states. He added, "As entities try to meet those standards, they
are finding it so hard to do, cost-prohibitive to do, and there are so
many factors beyond the control of the constituents that the EPA is
doing a little bit of a back pedal."
Whitney summed up the current situation.
"Where we are, is to the point of approving the model, which is
nothing more than a procedure, supposedly a scientifically verified
procedure, for allocating the pollution load. We have a TMDL number
and we know where we are as far as the amount of pollution in there.
We know that we are above the TMDL mark, and the difference is what we
have to distribute out, and the model is what distributes it. At this
point, we are disagreeing with some of the model's assumptions because
it is not taking enough, or giving enough credit to wildlife. But the
model is going to assign the (bacterial) loads to the different
entities that are in the river. They basically feel comfortable enough
about it that they are going to run the model and we will get that
final report, which will be the precursor to submitting it to the TCEQ,
their lawyers first, and ultimately to the Commission board, to
approve the TMDL number."
Whitney gave a lot of credit to the folks
who have been showing up at the stakeholders meetings, noting how the
attitude of the people in the TCEQ has become much more accommodating
and reasonable as the result of the magnitude of the local area
response and interest. He added, "I think we have done what we set out
to do, which was to slow them down, to make them consider all the
parts that could be there, to bring in the wildlife and to put some
emphasis on that."
Whitney also expressed his opinion that
it was good that Proctor Lake waters were kept out of the TMDL
process. "I was imagining all sorts of scenarios when Proctor Lake
kept getting thrown up and thrown up as needing to be involved. I
thought that that would have increased everybody's costs. But anyway,
we have done a good job. We've slowed it down and got them to listen
to us. We got them to consider additional things that are going into
the model.
"The next phase, after they go through
the approval process, will be the implementation. That is where we
have to come back to the table and sit down and hash out what are the
problems, what is causing the problems, the different groups, and how
we will seek to solve that. Some of those groups have done some
things, and others are going to do some things, and I think we are
already working in that direction. Implementation shouldn't be a knock
down drag out. It should be a pretty good process of saying, 'Hey,
let's fix this problem and go on.'"
Whitney said he expected the
implementation process to bring in additional groups besides the
original stakeholders group to work on solutions. He expected the TMDL
approval process to be concluded in January 2007 and the
implementation work to begin thereafter. |
