Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment Pfas topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Polk County court adopts resolution backing state bills to limit PFAS contamination
Summary
Polk County Commissioners Court voted to adopt a resolution supporting House Bill 1674 and Senate Bill 886 to protect agriculture, groundwater and public health from PFAS contamination; court members urged caution about biosolids and watershed impacts.
Polk County Commissioners Court on Feb. 11 adopted a resolution supporting two Texas legislative bills intended to limit PFAS contamination and protect agriculture and public health.
The court voted to endorse House Bill 1674 and Senate Bill 886 after a brief discussion about local water-table and watershed risks. The document, provided to commissioners in advance, asks state lawmakers to consider protections that would keep PFAS-containing materials off county land and out of county landfills.
The presiding official said the county has begun reaching out to local and regional partners, including TRA, the county Groundwater District, JDEAL and an entity described in the packet as Texas CyberLife, to inform the resolution and coordinate responses. "I would challenge each one of you all to go and read about this contamination possibility because it's pretty, sobering," the presiding official said.
Commissioner Purvis seconded the motion to adopt the resolution. When asked, the court voice indicated support with the customary "aye" and the motion carried.
The court packet included a draft resolution and mentioned prior outreach by two court representatives to stakeholders; commissioners said the county's groundwater and downstream watersheds, including flows toward the Trinity River and Lake Livingston, factor into the decision to support state-level action.
The resolution does not create a county regulatory program; it registers the court's support for the two bills under consideration in the 89th Texas Legislature.
Votes at a glance: the court adopted the resolution (motion moved by Presiding Official; seconded by Commissioner Purvis; outcome: approved).
