Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Resident warns of alleged dumping near San Gabriel River as facilities contracts advance
Loading...
Summary
A Williamson County resident told commissioners he believes Chasco Construction has been dumping asphalt and other spoils near a drainage that runs to the San Gabriel River and urged inquiry ahead of an agenda item linked to county facilities; the court later approved items 50–59 by a 4–0 vote.
Ben Frascona, a Williamson County resident, told the Commissioners Court during public comment that material from Chasco Construction has been deposited at 786 County Road 131 and that the dumping is “literally 50 feet outside my gate.” Frascona said community members provided photos to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and that an investigator visited the site but he had not received a clear explanation of why the material was deemed legal.
Frascona told the court he was worried the spoils and waste would be used in work tied to a county contract to demolish the sheriff’s training center parking lot and that runoff could reach the San Gabriel River “less than a half a mile from my home.” He estimated that about 100 trucks had dumped material there in a single day and said 32 residents live in his small community, many with horses and acreage, and were concerned about property values and environmental impacts.
The Commissioners Court approved grouped facilities agenda items 50 through 59 later in the meeting by a 4–0 voice vote. Frascona had specifically cited agenda item 59 during public comment. The court did not state in the meeting record that item 59 was an award to Chasco and did not provide a separate response to Frascona’s complaint on the public record at the time of the approval.
Frascona referenced TCEQ rule 30 and asked the county to seek clarity about whether material at the site met state standards. “I even emailed the investigator directly to have him explain to me what is not illegal about what he’s doing,” Frascona said during his comments.
The court took no immediate, separate action on Frascona’s complaint during the meeting beyond the routine approval of the listed facilities items. The county’s public record for agenda item 59 and any subsequent communications with TCEQ or the contractor would clarify whether the contractor’s work or the dumped material required enforcement or remediation.
