ORDER NO. 17887 UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER AUTHORITY AUTHORIZED TO SUBMIT A RESEARCH GRANT PROPOSAL TO THE TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD On this the 9th day of May 1988, upon motion made by Commissioner Lich, seconded by Commissioner Ray, with Commissioners Ray, Lich and Baldwin and County Judge Edwards voting "AYE" and Commissioner Holland "ABSTAINING FROM VOTING", said motion carrying by a majority vote, approving that UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER AUTHORITY be authorized to submit a Research Grant Proposal to the Texas Water Development Board for their consideration. _. ~ ~~ ~`"% r COMMISSIONERS' COURT ML'ETING AGENDA REQUEST PLEASE FURNISH ONE ORIGINAL AND SIX COPIES OP THIS REQUEST AND ANY DOCUMENTS TO BE -.EVIEWED BY THE COURT. ADE BX: LANE WOLTERS OFFICE: U G R A EE'. NG DATE: M av 9, 1988 TIME PREFERRED: A.M. OR P.M. UBJ,~CT: (PLEASE BE SPECIFIC) CONSIDER PROPOSAL ~'OR INTER-AGENCY GRANT APPLICATION x~nc a mFxnG waTER DEVELOPMENT BOARD RESEARCH GRANT STIMATED LENGTH OF PRESENTATION: .L P IiSONNEL MATTER: NAME OF EMPLOYEE: !~ME.OF PERSON ADDRESSING THE COURT: LANE WOLTERS CIE iME FOR SUBMITTING TIIIS REQUEST POR COURT TO ASSURE THAT THE MATTER I5 POSTED IN ;CO'`9ANCE WITH ARTICLE 6252-17 I5 AS FOLLOWS: MEETINGS HELD ON SECOND MONDAY OF TILE MON'I'tt: 5:00 P. M. PREVIOUS WEDNE5llAY Mt~iTINGS HELD ON OTHER DAYS: 5:00 P. M. POUR WORK DAYS BEFORE MEETING BATE. PREFERABLE, AGENDA REQUESTS MAY BE MADE ON OFFICE STATIONERY WITH T1iE ABOVE INFORMATION 'TA:"ZED . IIS;REQUEST RECEIVED IIX: LS [IS ~ EQUEST RECEIVED ON: 3/26/88 @ A.M. - P.M. .L AGENDA REQUESTS WILL BE SCREENED BY THE COUNTY JUDGE'S OFFICE TO bETERMINE IF ADE- ATI~LNFORMATION NAS BEEN PREPARED FOR TAE COURT'S FORMAL CONSIDERATION AND ACTION AT ME F COURT MEETINGS. YOUR COOPERATION WILL BE APPRECIATIiD AND CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS UR REQUEST BEING ADDRESSED AT THE EARLIE51' OPPORTUNTIY. C; Upper Guadalupe RiverAuthority Danny Edwartls Kerr County J~_rdge Kerr County Courthouse Ker•rv i 11 e, Texas 78Cr28 216 W. Water St. P.O. Box 1278 Kerrville, Texas 7802&7278 6 C'˘~88 Re: Research Grant Proposal - Kerr County. Dear Daririy: I am requesting the Co~_trtrs approval research grant proposal to the Texas far their cr_,nsideratian. The grant rnnney can be used only for to 'the pr^otect ion and/or enharrcernent Cor_mt y. to submit the enclosed Water Develr~pnrent Board r•esear^ch that will lead of water quality in Kerr Dr^. B. L. Carlile has disc~_tssed the need for mcnitoring of on-site waste disposal systems, If awarded to I'.err^ Cc~untY, this grant money will be used 'tc~ hire a part-time employee, purchase monitoring equipment, analize water samples and pay for con..=,rtlting fees ass~_ciated with the research. Knowledge gained from this research, perfr_~med in Kerr County, would be beneficial i.n the cc~ntr•ol of non--point source pollution fcm the fo7.lowing reasons: 1) Perfor^rnarrce of existing septic systems ire high den=_:ity areas will be meas~_tred arrd evaluated. 8) Alternative disposal sy=_a ems will be monitored to deterrnirie if they meet the standards ~%f a hioh prc;per~ty lime e~Ffluent quality. 3) A quarit itat ive deter•nririat iori of the lowest cost on- site system that will no't contaminate grc~~_tnd water er cause public health nuisances can be made for the differing r^arrge~~ o'f soil ar~d site conditions in Kerr County. Altho~_tgh matching funds are rnerrtioned in the proposal, there wi17. he r~o additional costs to the Co~_tnty othc~zr than the money alreacJy a11r_~cated fc:~r the on-going soils study by Dr. Carlile which is scheduled for completion within several weeks. Respec//fully, ~'l_/~ LW:kk L_anc: W~_~lters, R. S. Director, Envircrrirnentai Encl. Health Services ~,~ ~ t~/a vex The researth newsletter of the Texas Water Resources Institute Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Coilege Station, TX. Volume 1, Number 2, Aprll,1988. ® RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES GULF COAST HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE RESEARCH CENTER ESTABLISHED AT LAMAR UNIV EASITY A new university consortium has been established at Lamar University to conduct research that may result in more affective hazardous waste management. The Guff Coast Hazardous Substance Research Center (Center) was created by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, and additional legislation was passed by the Texas Legislature that year. Texas universities that are center members include Texas ASM University, the Texas Engineering Experiment Station, Lamar University, the University of Houston, and the University of Texas. For the current biennium, 51.2 million has been aporcpriated forthe Center. Approximately 80 % of the Center's effort will be concentrated in the areas of waste minimization and alternate technology development. The remaining 20 % is reserved forprojecfs that could support and enhance the application of this technology. Research projects will usually be conducted by the facukies of the member universities on their own campuses. Research proposals can be submitted by faculty members at member universities for review by the Canter's science and industry advisory committees. Multiuniversity interdiscipli- nary proposals are strongly encouraged to provide an inte- grated approach to hazardous waste problems. Projects have already been selected that were funded with state appropriations. Water-related projects that were selected include the following: "Feasibility Study of Groundwater Detox'rfication," Ku- Yen Li, Chemical Engineering Department; Lamar University "Microbial Degradation of Hazardous Wastes to Non- toxic End Products," T. Rick Irvin, Veterinary Anatomy De- partment, Texas A&M University, James Bonner and Rabin Autenrieth, Civil Engineering Department, Texas A&M Uni- versity, and Aydin Akgerman, Chemical Engineering Depart- ment, Texas ASM University "Hydrogen Perozide/Ultra-Violet Irradiation Process for the Treatment of Contaminated Groundwater,"Tim Symons, Civil Engineering Department, University of Houston, H. William Prengle, Chemical Engineering Department, Univer- 5''.'J Cf HC JS'.O~i Geosciencas Department, University of Houston For more information about the Center or its programs, contact: YJilliam Cawley, Director, Gulf Coast Hazardous Substance Research Center, PO Box 10011, Lamar Univer- sity, Beaumont, TX 77710. The phone number is (409) 880- 8707. TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD REQUESTS PROPOSALS The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) is now accepting research proposals in the following areas: water supply; water quality; hazardous waste management; water tinancing and economics; structural and non-structural }load protection; and water resource-related legal and social is- sues. Tne research should address practical problems. TWDB has allocated 5100,000 to fund these projects, and may fund up to 100 % of research costs. The availability of matching funds or services will be taken into consideration. Proposals must be submitted by May~(~1988. Send proposals to: M. Reginald Arnold II, Execu rve Administrator, Texas Water Development Board, PO Box 13231, Capitol Station, Austin, 7X 78711-3231. For more information, call (512) 463-7926. AWWA RESEARCH FOUNDATION ISSUES CALL FOR RESEARCH PROPOSALS The American Water Works Association Research Foundation is accepting requests for proposals (RFPs) in 18 subject areas until May 1, 1988. Funding far the research studies will be awarded on a competitive basis. Anyone interested in submitting a proposal can obtain the official forms from the Foundation. PrcjeC areas in which the Foundation is accepting proposais include: restoration of water supply wells; ad- vanced oxidation processes in wastewater treatment; taste and odor associated with chlorine dioxide used as a preoxi- dant; lead control strategies; microorganisms on granular activated carbon; biological treatment of drinking water; his- tory of plastic pipe failures; application of fiber optics to drinking water analysis; and others. Fcr a complete list of tooia or more detailed information, .,,- ,_- ==? ~~=_k, AW`;JA Rese=rch Foundation, 6666 `N. DEVELOPPfENT AND EVALUATION OF A MODEL COUNTY PROGRAM FOR NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION CONTROL IN A HILL COUNTRY WATERSHED Submitted to The Texas Water Development Board from Kerr County, Texas May 11, 1988 A. Project Classification: Water Quality, Water Conservation, Non-point Source Pollution B. Project Objectives: 1. Develop appropriate on-site wastewater system design for each soil-resource group of Kerr County to meet discharge limits adequate to protect water quality of surface and ground water. 2. Demonstrate and evaluate appropriate system design for each soil resource group where on-site systems can properly function. 3. Monitor surface and subsurface flow from developed lots in each soil resource group, including lots served by both on-site and central waste systems. 4. Implement county-wide operation and maintenance program including a licensing program for all on-site systems and determine number of.exis- tang systems in need of upgrading to meet defined water quality standards. ~ 5. Implement and evaluate a county-wide water conservation program to include mandatory compliance for all homes with on-site waste systems and a voluntary program for all other water users of the county. C. Project Location: Kerr County, Texas D. Project Description: 1. Background. Kerr County encompasses 1,101 square miles of scenic Edwards Plateau. The majority of the County lies within the upper drainage basin of the Guadalupe River, considered by many to be one of the cleanest riverine systems in Texas with respect to water quality and recreability. 2 The area economy is centered around tourism and recreational activi- ties with a central focus on the Guadalupe River as the County's major attraction. Approximately 45% of the County's 35,000 residents utilize septic tanks as a means of on site waste disposal. The City of Kerrville has recently gone on line with an advanced treatment wastewater facility to meet one of the most restrictive wastewater discharge permits in the state. The Upper Guadalupe River Authority administrates an Environmental Health and Water Quality Program for Kerr County under an interagency contract agreement and has acted as the licensing authority for on site waste disposal systems throughout the County for the past seven years. A five year sampling program of springs and tributaries of the Guada- lupe River through the River Authority's state certified laboratory has revealed contamination from shallow groundwater in areas where septic density exceeds one acre per dwelling unit. Specific water quality contam- inants include fecal coliform bacteria, nitrates, phosphates, and chloride concentrations in excess of the Texas Water Commission standards adopted for the Guadalupe River in Kerr County. At least one case of underground aquifer contamination in a shallow limestone formation has been attributed to septic tank leachate. The overall water quality of the Guadalupe River within Kerr County can be considered excellent. However, expected continued growth and iden- tified problems associated with non-point pollution from septic tank systems is cause for immediate concern. Even with suitable soil conditions and proper installation, the con- ventional septic tank system creates considerable concern about potential 3 impacts on health and water quality. These impacts relate to low levels of potentially harmful compounds and organisms present in today's typical domestic wastewater, i.e., toxic chemicals, viral pathogens, as well as various nutrient compounds including nitrates, chlorinated amines, and phosphates. The conventional septic tank-soil absorption system is not particularly efficient in the removal of these materials, especially in fragile settings such as high density, small lot developments near lakes and streams, or in areas with shallow soils to rock or seasonal high ground water. Since the potential for these contaminants to enter the environment and impact water supplies is fairly high in significant areas of Kerr County, the strategy for managing on-site wastewater systems must primarily be concerned with protecting the high quality as well as the aesthetic and economic value of surface and ground waters presently found in the county. The strategies to implement this plan can be defined as follows: 2. Water Quality Limitation The potential impact of discharge of wastewater to surface waters of the county have been detailed in reports to the city of Kerrville in con- sideration of construction and operation of new wastewater treatment facilities (Short, 1986, 1986A). Since discharge limits have been placed on the city in their operation of wastewater facilities, it appears reason- able that the waste discharge limitations faced by the city and paid for by its citizens should be essentially the same limitation placed on all other potential sources of wastewater which might impact waters of the county. r 4 Due to the nature of the soils and underlying rock strata in most areas of the county, on-site wastewater systems discharged below the soil surface quickly flow laterally and become surface water seeps along breaks and hillsides. Therefore, it seems relevant to ensure that these subsur- face water sources do not become surface water discharges, exceeding the limit of pollutants that can safely be discharged to area streams and lakes. It is proposed that all on-site systems be designed such that any water leaving any property boundary, either by surface or subsurface flow, meet the discharge limits reasonable to protect water quality of the county. Since on-site systems are routinely installed as close as 10 feet to property boundaries, this means that all system installations should insure that the wastewater is treated to reasonable limits of 10 mg/1 BOD, 15 mg/1 Suspended Solids, 2 mg/1 Ammonium Nitrogen and 1 mg/1 Total Phos- phorus after flowing through no more than 10 feet of subsurface soil mater- ial. These limits, while not as stringent as the 5 mg/1 BOD, and 5 mg/1 TSS to be met by the city wastewater system, can be expected to adequately protect water quality of the county, since nutrient limits have been defined in the report by Dr. Short, to be the major criteria for protecting the aesthetic value of surface water. This also implies that the wastewater will be treated sufficiently with regard to bacterial and viral levels. These standards are generally determined by fecal coliform analyses which are indicators of wastewater contamination. The standard of 200 fecal coliforms/100 ml is recognized as adequate for recreational water quality and is proposed as a standard for on-site systems in Kerr County. The exception being systems installed 5 within 1000 feet of the Guadalupe River and its tributaries (as defined by the UGRA) in which case on-site systems should meet a more stringent limi- tation of less than 100 fecal coliform per 100 ml. These limits should be adequate to protect the aesthetic value of surface waters and the drinking water quality of ground water of the county. 3. Demonstration and Monitoring Once the design criteria are determined for on-site systems which should meet the above limits of treatment for each soil resource group of the county, a demonstration and monitoring program will be required to verify that these criteria are being met. Systems installed initially under this program will, by necessity, be somewhat conservative until a level of confidence is established for each soil resource group and appro- priate system. This conservatism can be implemented by either installing conservatively loaded systems initially or requiring reserve areas set aside for future enlargement or replacement of the system if so needed. Systems selected for demonstration and monitoring in each soil resource group will be those that are simplest in design and least expensive in installation and operation but which function adequately to protect public health and the environment. 4. Operation and Maintenance The third strategy involves operation and maintenance of on-site systems. It is anticipated that systems more complex than the conventional gravity septic tank-soil absorption system may be required on many sites to 6 meet discharge limitations. An overall policy toward operation and main- tenance of the various on-site systems must be developed and detailed in the early stages of [he project. Permits for on-site systems should be issued for a specific time period with renewal contingent upon a valid 0&M contract. A plan for notifying the homeowner of inspection, pumping or other special activity should be developed and authority obtained for legal "right of access" to private property. A schedule of maintenance functions should be identified for each type of system and procedures for identifying and correcting system problems and providing opportunity to hear complaints should be clearly established. A fee schedule for a county-wide on-site management plan should be established and a uniform method of fee collec- tion identified. It is anticipated that these fees will be similar to sewer fees paid by city residences. Only through an adequately funded and properly operated 0&M program, will the goals of this project be met. 5. Upgrading Existing Systems There are some 16,000 septic tank systems presently in use in Kerr County discharging some 400,000 gallons of wastewater daily into the envi- ronment of the region. This wastewater doesn't magically disappear but must enter the hydrologic cycle as shown in the following figure. The question then becomes "Is the wastewater adequately treated, as defined in section A of this report, when discharged to public waters of the county?" There is some evidence from past sampling programs, that many existing sys- tems are not meeting the defined gooks of this proposed plan. THE YYQROLOCTC CYCLE water wh re it e m gOe om . an~ vvhe _ _~ ~~ _ ~ ~ CYC1-E EI~Apolj~JRaTi`a ~/`/\1( ll. RUtiOFF 1~ /1/ 11 l` The Ultimate Fate of Home 1~'astewater i, Infiltration and ground water recharge Z, Infiltration and surface water recharge g, Infiltration and plant uptake and evapotranspiration 8 Upgrading existing systems will not be a simple, easy or quickly implemented task. A reasonable goal would be a 5-year program of monitor- ing and implementation. It is anticipated that many existing systems will have no economical on-site solution to a problem due to unavailable space and poor site conditions. The proposed program therefore involves a plan to insure that all new systems from a specified date forward meets the goals of the program and that all existing systems be placed in a program as defined below: 1) All existing systems be placed in the 0&M program with appropri- ate fees as outlined in Section D. 2) All existing systems be permitted on a 5-year basis and inspected for adequate operation during the interval. Systems not func- tioning be repaired with appropriate system to meet discharge goals. Funds for repair to come from 0&M fee collections. 3) Monitoring of existing systems to be conducted during the S-year program to determine approximate percent of existing systems on each soil resource group which do not meet defined discharge limits. 4) Where discharge limits cannot be met with appropriate on-siCe technology, define alternatives for off-site treatment and dis- posal and secure appropriate funding for such alternatives. 5) Once it is determined that existing systems in specific soil resource groups are most likely not meeting defined discharge limits, require all homes with on-site systems in that soil resource group to implement a home water conservation program as a condition to their permit. 9 6. Water Conservation The final strategy centers on a program that not only helps preserve the quality of water 3n Kerr County, but also helps conserve the supply of water for future development. This involves a county-wide home water conservation program. As [he costs of developing, treating, and transport- ing water and costs of transporting and/or treating sewage continue to increase, water saving fixtures and devices in the home and reduced water usage and/or wastewater reuse in the yard should become common place. A gallon of water saved and a gallon of wastewater not produced in the home is the cheapest source of water supply and wastewater treatment we have available. Water conservation is being viewed more and more as a way of saving or even making money, rather than a way of being just a good citizen. .The following figure has been developed to show the potential impact of a water conservation program in the home. This potential impact does not include additional savings gained from greywater or total wastewater reuse in the yard. A program should be implemented to mandate that all future construction in Kerr County utilize only water conserving fixtures in the home. In conjunction with this, an educational program should be developed for the county whereby youngsters and adults alike would be edu- cated on the need for conserving water in and outside the home, methods to accomplish such tasks, and initiate an on-going program on the potential and safe use of greywater for landscape watering. All homes with existing on-site systems not meeting defined discharge limits should be required to implement a water conservation program to . 10 Figure 1 POIE2tITAi. WA'IfR SAVItT5 ' ' F~.ly of Fats Normal Water Use 60 Gal/Day Per Person Canventinnal Percent of Canaervatic~ Savings Savings Device Total Use Devices HnQloyed Percent Gal/Dsy Toilet (5 Gal/Fluah) 40L Toilet (1 Gal/Fluah) 8QL 76.8 3ioc+er ~ Bathtub •30L Lov Flow 3iowerhesd SQL 36,0 Avt~stic Clothes Washer (35 Gal/I~) 17x (17 Gal/Lnad) SOZ 20.4 Ritch® a~ . Launiry Fm~ceta 7X Aerators 20X 3.3 Automatic Dishwater (11 Gal/I,oad) 6x (7.5 Gal/Inad) 38x 5.5 lOQl 142.0 C7D Normal Use - Savings in Water m Total Wastewater Diadiarge 240 GPD - 142 9S GPD -3^ 59.2X Reduction 11 include a minimum of devices such as toilet dams, low-flow shower heads and faucet aerators. These devices and the educational instruction for their use should be provided as part of the services to the citizens of Kerr County. 7. Soil Supplement Report: The published SCS soil survey report of Kerr County is useful for broad planning purposes but has limited use for small area evaluation such as an individual lot. This is due to several factors such as: 1) not detailed enough for site specific use. 2) not accurate in some details. 3) not understandable by non-soil scientists. 4) not helpful in system technology or sizing. 5) not accepted by regulatory officials. While there are some thirty different soil mapping units identified in the Kerr County Soil Survey Report, these units may have enough similar characteristics in many cases to be classified together as a Soil Resource Group. For Kerr County some 5 to 7 soil resource groups most likely can be delineated which: 1) Represent soils with similar physical and hydraulic properties. 2) Represent soil with similar site restriction. 3) Represent soil which require similar system design and loadings. The development of a supplement to the Kerr County Soil Survey will delineate these 5 to 7 soil resource groups, illustra[e what the signifi- cant soil and site limitations are for each group, define the current available technology to overcome or minimize the limitation of each group, iz and develop the appropriate field evaluation procedures to technically evaluate a siCe and determine its appropriate soil resource group. The basic soil resource information will still be found in the Kerr County Soil Survey Report but the on-site supplement will allow this infor- oration to be utilized without having to make broad arbitrary interpretation. Appropriate system design and technology for each soil resource group will be developed. These systems will be defined and documented based on sound so31 science and engineering principles. The system or systems proposal for each soil resource groups will be that which is the simplest and least expensive technology which function reliably to protect public health and the environment. The ultimate goal of this report will be to develop system design option for each soil resource group which offers a functional waste system of least expense and management problems to the home owner or management authority. This information will be developed in a logical sequence as follows: 1) Soil and site modifications. 2) System design criteria. 3) System design loadings rates. 4) Minimum lot size required. The question of minimum lot sizes in a very debatable issue. Having reviewed state and local ordinances in some fifteen southern U. S, states over the past five years, it has become evident that regional or county density restrictions cannot be technically 3ustified based on septic tank standards. ~ 13 The only technically justifiable density restrictions are based on specific soil and site limitations and should be developed are as follows: 1) Determine appropriate system technology for each soil resource group. 2) Determine loading rates and area required for the selected waste system design. 3) Depending on data base (or confidence from experience) with system selected, add 50 to 100 percent reserve area. 4) Determine needed set backs. 5) Determine development area required - house, pools, driveway, patio, etc. 6) Determine potential unusable area on a lot due to rock-outcrops, gullies, drainage ways, etc. 7) Summarize to obtain minimum lot size requirement. The approach is quite conservative and will result in varying lot size requirements for each soil resource group. This in turn will require con- siderable site investigation before minimum lot size can be specified for any development area. E. Specific Project Tasks: ' 1. Determine appropriate on-site design criteria which should meet defined water quality standards for development on each soil resource group of the county. 2. Install and demonstrate appropriate on-site system for each soil resource group. 14 3. Monitor surface runoff and/or subsurface flow from appropriate lots in each soil resource group. This will include lots that have: a. Existing conventional on-site waste systems. b. Alternative on-site waste system appropriate for the site. c. A sewer collection system and off-site treatment and disposal. d. Implemented water conservation program to reduce wastewater flow and/or yard watering. 4. Evaluate the existing condition with on-site systems in Kerr County and project the impact of a fully implemented program on future water quality of surface and groundwater of the region. F. Time Schedule of Tasks to be Completed: Sept 88 Jan 89 Aug 89 Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task 4 G. Project Principals Project Manager: Mr. Danny R. Edwards County Judge, Kerr County 700 Main Street Kerville, TX 78028 512-257-6711 Project Director: Dr. B. L. Carlile, P.E., CPSS Consultant to Kerr County P. O. Box 2677 College Station, TX 77841 409-776-8575 Project Coordinator: Mr. Lane Wolters, R.S. Director Environmental Services Upper Guadalupe River Authority P.O. Box 1278 Kerville, TX 78029-1278 512-896-5445, Other Project Personnel: is Field and laboratory personnel of the Upper Guadalupe River Authority Kerr County commissioner court has entered into an arrangement with Dr. B. L. Carlile, a nationally recognized environmental engineer and social scientist, to assist the county in the problems with on-site waste systems and non-point source pollution. Dr. Carlile brings some twenty- five years experience working in over twenty southern and southwestern states in similar problems and will serve as project leader in the program. Dr. Carlile serves on the Technical Advisory Committee for the Texas Department of Health in revising and developing current regulatory stand- ards. He was recently named by Governor Clements to serve on the on-site wastewater treatment research council. Mr. Lane Wolters, director of environmental services with UGRA is a registered sanitarian and has an educational and working background in the biological aspects of water quality and pollution control. He has been involved with monitoring of non-paint source contaminant along the Guada- lupe River and its tributaries for several years. He and his staff bring a broad base of knowledge of Hill Country problem concerning waste systems and water quality. Resumes of the principals are attached. H. Project Costs: Project Director: 220 hrs @ $50 $11,000.00 Project Coordinator: 0.25 MY @ 28,000 7,000.00 URGA Staff Sanitarian - 0.25 MY @ 24,000 6,000.00 Field Technician - 0.5 MY @ 16,000 8,000.00 Other Project Costs: Lab Analyses (1200 analyses @ $8) 9,600.00 Travel 2,400.00 Supplies and materials _ X200.00 Total Project costs: $47,200.00 16 , Matching Funds Kerr County Govt. $ 8,000.00 URGA 13,000.00 Subtotal 2b~y-~96~6H a~, o-~m •v ~ (Additional matching funds will be requested from the Texas Water Resources Institute) Funds Requested from a•(~~'ZpO•D'r~ Research and Planning Funds $33-~$s-AO I. Implementing Research Results This project to be an added importance in light of passage of HB 1875. This bill requires all counties of Texas to implement an on-site wastewater ordinance. Any county not complying with the provision of HB 1875 and the revised state on-site wastewater guidelines, will be deemed in non-compli- ance and the Texas Department of Health must then enforce the standards in that county. This project will serve as a model program for county imple- mentation of HB 1875 as well as a model program for on-site wastewater management and non-point pollution control in other regions of the Hill County of Texas. While the technical points of the program, namely system design and soil conditions will vary in other regions of the state, the 17 strategies and methodology of implementing a county program will be useful in any area of Texas. This project will define reasonable goals of an on-site wastewater management program and step-by-step methodology to implement those goals. J. Other Potential Uses Results and methodology from this project will be presented at various local, state and regional conferences of the Public Health Association, National Environmental Health Association, American Water Works Associa- tion, National Association of Lake Managers, Soil Science Society and Water Pollution Control Association. Workshops will be presented in Kerr County with invitation extended to all Hill Country Counties to visit the project and share similar problems. Non-point source pollution is a major concern of the Texas House of Representatives as evidenced by the recent public hearing of the House Natural Resources Committee. The subcommittee on non-point source pollu- tion is taking testimony and looking at areas where new legislation may be necessary during the 71st Legislative Session. This project could serve as a model program for legislative reviews.