HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 08 - Municipal Setting DesignationMEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BRUNO RUMBELOW, ACTING CITY MANAGERVLIV-
1,g�
MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
SUBJECT: PRESENTATION: MUNICIPAL SETTING DESIGNATION
RECOMMENDATION:
N/A
FUNDING SOURCE:
N/A
BACKGROUND:
Staff will make a presentation on the Municipal Setting Designation process that enables
public and private entities to develop or re -develop a piece of property that is impacted
by a subsurface environmental contamination problem.
Attached is background information and a draft ordinance prepared by the City Attorney
that will be reviewed, for discussion only at this time, on Tuesday night.
MS/ms
September 15, 2005 (3:50PM)
MEMORANDUM CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS
TO: BRUNO RUMBELOW, CITY MANAGER
FROM: JENNIFER HIBBS, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGE
9A
SUBJECT: MUNICIPAL SETTING DESIGNATION REQUEST
As you are aware, Bank of the West made a request for the City's adoption of a
Municipal Setting Designation (MSD) ordinance and support resolution to TCEQ for the
former Elliot's site. While this is a -highly visible site, there are several other potential
redevelopment sites in Grapevine that could benefit from the passage of this ordinance.
The basic premise of the MSD process is that it allows potential development sites to be
remediated to a lesser extent than would be required under current law. Specifically, in
cases where a public water supply exists and the groundwater will not be used, under
an MSD the applicant does not have to environmentally mitigate the site to the drinking
water level.
Should the City Council choose to proceed with the MSD process, they would pass an
ordinance which sets the process for the consideration of MSD applications. Once a
developer determines a potential site and makes application, the Council would look at
that site and make a determination of whether to pass a support resolution and an
ordinance restricting the use of groundwater on that site.
Attached is the following background information:
• Letter from Bank of the West requesting the consideration of an MSD ordinance
• MSD Q and A's
• MSD Process Timeline
• Draft MSD Process Ordinance
• MSD Information from Public Works Staff
• MSD Article from The TCEQ
• MSD Article from the City of Fort Worth Staff
Please let me know if you require additional information.
0, * k
BANK°f heWEST
Barry K. Emerson
Executive Director
August 4, 2005
Mathew A. Singleton
Director, Public Works
City of Grapevine
200 South Main Street
Grapevine, Texas 76051
Re: Municipal Setting Designation
Dear Mr. Singleton:
Bank of the West is seeking certification of a Municipal Setting
Designation (MSD) from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ) under Chapter 361, Subchapter W of the Texas Health & Safety Code
for the property located at 108 W. Northwest Highway, Grapevine, Texas, as
more fully described in the attached legal description (the Site). As explained in
this letter, the Site meets the eligibility requirements for certification of a MSD;
however, certain actions are required by the City of Grapevine before we can
proceed with our application to TCEQ.
MSD Eligibility Requirements
Texas Health & Safety Code § 361.803 (Eligibility for a Municipal
Setting Designation_) states that a person, including a local govern -rent, may
submit a request to the executive director of the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for a MSD for property if: (1) the property is
within the corporate limits or extraterritorial jurisdiction of a municipality
authorized by statute that has a population of at least 20,000; and (2) a public
drinking water supply system exists that satisfies the requirements of Chapter 341
of the Texas Health & Safety Code and that supplies or is capable of supplying
drinking water to the property for which designation is sought and property
within one-half mile of the property for which designation is sought. We have
confirmed that the Site meets both of these criteria and is therefore eligible for
certification of a MSD.
1204.CGR
2111 West Airport Freeway • Irving, Texas 75062 • 972/252-7183 • Fax 972/257-8050
August 4, 2005
Page 2
MSD Pre -certification Requirements
Texas Health & Safety Code § 361.8065 (Pre -certification
Requirements) states that before the TCEQ may certify a MSD, the applicant
must provide TCEQ with certain documentation. First, the applicant must
provide documentation that the application is supported by a resolution
adopted by the city council of the municipality in which the property is
located, the city council of any other municipality within %2 -mile of the
property (there are no other municipalities within i/2 -mile of the Site), and the
governing authority for any retail public utility with a groundwater supply well
located within five miles of the property (there are three retail public utilities
with a groundwater supply well located within five miles of the Site).
Second, the applicant must provide documentation that the property is
subject either to: (1) an ordinance that prohibits the use of designated
groundwater from beneath the property as potable water and that appropriately
restricts other uses of and contact with that groundwater; or (2) a restrictive
covenant enforceable by the municipality and supported by a city council
resolution that prohibits the use of designated groundwater from beneath the
property.
Request for MSD Ordinance
In order to satisfy the MSD pre -certification requirements for the Site,
Bank of the West requests that the City Council for the City of Grapevine take
the following actions:
1. Adopt an ordinance that I; ohibits i1 e use of groundwater at any
depth from beneath the Site for potable or other purposes.
2. Adopt a resolution supporting an application to TCEQ for
certification of a MSD for the Site.
Upon adoption of a MSD ordinance and issuance of the necessary
supporting resolutions, Bank of the West will submit an application to TCEQ for
certification of a MSD for the Site. Thereafter, Bank of the West will request a
certificate of completion from TCEQ under the Texas Voluntary Cleanup
Program.
1200:1035
August 4, 2005
Page 3
If needed, we would be happy to provide additional information about the
environmental conditions at the Site and surrounding properties, answer any
questions you may have about our plans for redeveloping the Site, or submit a
formal application for a MSD ordinance in the format that you desire. We greatly
appreciate your attention to this request and look forward to rkmg, r h you
towards certification of the first MSD within the City,¢ rapevi e
Enclosure
1200:1035
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
BEING a part of Lot 1, Block 1, Elliott's Hardware Addition an addition to the City of Grapevine,
Tarrant County, Texas as recorded In Cabinet A, Slide 714 of the Plat Records of Tarrant County,
Texas and being more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at a concrete monument found In the west right-of-way line of North Main Street
(R.O.W. varies) and the north right-of-way line of Highway Business 114L (R.O.W. varies) said
point being the southwesterly corner of a right-of-way taking as described to the State of Texas
as recorded in Volume 12083, Page 2070 of the Deed Records of Tarrant County, Texas;
THENCE'S 89° 17' 59" W along said north right-of-way line a distance of 192.73 feet to a 1/2"
Iron rod set with a "TQ Burks #5509" cap as said point being in the east right-of-way line of
Barton Street (40' R,O.W.);
THENCE N 000 10'33" E along said east right-of-way a distance of 282.73 feet to a P.K. Nail set
In the asphalt;
THENCE S 89" 17'28" W a distance of 40,00 feet to a'W' out on concrete and said point being
in the west right-of-way line of Barton Street (Abandoned) and in the east property line of Grapevine
Shopping Center es recorded In Volume 388-127, Page 91 P.R.T,C,T.;
THENCE N 000 10' 33" 15 a distance of 3,00 feet to a 1/2" iron rod set with a "TQ Burks #5509" cap
and being by plat call the northeast corner of -Bald Grapevine Shopping Center tract;
THENCE S 890 17' 28" W along the north line of said Grapevine Shopping Center tract passing
at 134.73 feet a 1/2" Iron rod found with a cap and being by plat call the northwest corner of Bald
Grapevine Shopping Center tract and the northeast corner of Lot 1 R, Block 10R Starr Addition,
an addition to the City of Grapevine as recorded In Volume 16706, Page 52 of the Deed Records
of Tarrant County, Texas and continuing in all a distance of 239.80 feet to a 1/2" iron rod set with a
"TQ Burks #5509" cap said point being by plat call northwest corner of said Lot 1 R, dock 1 OR and
also being in the east line of Lot 2R, Block 13R Starr Addition as recorded In Cabinet A, Slide 2668
P.R.T,C.T.;
THENCE N 00° 20'08" E along east side of said Lot 2R, Block 13R a distance of 217.70 feet to
a 1/2" Iron rod fou nd and said point being by plat call the northeast corner of said Lot 2R, Block
13R and'also being In the south line of Banyan Place an addition to the City of Grapevine as
recorded in Volume 388-217, Page 16 P,R.T.C,T.;
"THENCE N 890 05'38" E along said south line Banyan Place a distance of 573,98 feet to a 1/2"
Iron rod set with a "TQ Burks #5509" cap, in the west right-of-way line of North Main Street and
also being the southeast corner of Lot 3, Cook's Subdivision an addition to the City of Grapevine
as recorded in Volume 388-H, Page 345 P.R,T,C.T.;
THENCE S 00° 11'30" W along said west right-of-way a distance of 281.74 feet to a concrete
monument;
THENCE S 16" 3645" W along said west right-of-way a distance of 57,02 feet to a concrete
monument;
THENCE S 33° 00'68" W along said west right-of-way a distance of 69.43 feet to a concrete
monument;
THENCE S 23° 59'37" W along said west right-of-way a distance of 112,21 feet to the Point of
Beginning and containing in all 198995 square feet or 4.568 acres of land,
Municipal Setting Designation Timeline
1. MSD procedural ordinance approved by City Council
2. Applicant Files Application with the City
3. Public Meeting held within 45 days of receipt of application
4. Public hearing scheduled within 60 days of receipt of application
• Notification provided via newspaper
• Posted notice
• Mailed to private property owners within one-half mile of the subject
property
• Mailed to private property owners within five miles of the subject
property
• Mailed to Retail utilities that operate public water supplies within five
miles of the subject property
• Mailed to Municipalities with a boundary not more than one-half mile
from the subject property that operate a groundwater supply well
within five miles of the property
5. City Council approves/ rejects supporting resolution and ordinance prohibiting
the drinking of groundwater on the site
6. Other cities within a five mile radius, where groundwater is used a water
source, approve supporting resolution
7. If all of the above requirements are met, the TCEQ will consider the
application for MSD
Municipal Setting Designation
Questions and Answers
1. In simple terms, what is a Municipal Setting Designation (MSD)?
It is a legal option for some affected property owners to avoid what some
consider to be unreasonable environmental mitigation standards. Specifically, it
releases property owners from cleaning the site up to the drinking water standard
when the groundwater from the site will never be used for drinking because there
is a public water supply.
2. What is the City's role in establishing an MSD?
The property owner must apply to the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality (TCEQ) for the MSD designation. The City must formally adopt an
ordinance that prohibits the use of groundwater from the requesting site and a
resolution recommending approval to the TCEQ. In addition, the City must
incorporate a public involvement process.
3. Why does the State require cities to endorse the designation to the TCEQ?
Some areas of the State are more dependent on groundwater (South Texas)
and, thus, it is a more politically sensitive issue. The endorsement requirement
allows local governments more control over the groundwater resources in their
jurisdictions.
4. When did the State pass this law?
The law was passed during the 2003 Legislative Session.
5. Who administers the review at the State level?
The TCEQ has jurisdiction over all MSD's.
6. What is the standard that a site has to meet if it is not granted a MSD?
The site must clean up to the drinking water standard which is a very expensive
and complex process.
7. What is the standard if MSD status is granted?
The site must still be cleaned up to a certain point, just not to the drinking water
standard. Site monitoring is still provided by the regulatory agencies to insure
that there is no threat to human health and/or the environments.
8. Is the environment protected with a MSD? If yes, how so?
This is a difficult question and subject to individual opinion and argument. We
know for a fact that human health is better protected by the fact that the use of
the contaminated groundwater is formally restricted by this process. The
Legislature and TCEQ both have endorsed this process.
9. is the MSD getting the property developer out of clean-up costs they
should be paying?
No. The MSD helps spur development by decreasing the burden of unnecessary
clean-up on the developer. The TCEQ still monitors and requires a certain level
of clean-up.
10. Are there more sites in Grapevine that may qualify for the MSD?
Yes. Essentially, any groundwater area in the City that has been polluted by
human actions could qualify for MSD. Many times, these areas are associated
industrial and commercial land uses such as manufacturing and gas stations.
11. Procedurally, what steps must be taken by the City for submission of an
MSD application to the TCEQ?
The City must adopt an ordinance prohibiting the use of groundwater at the site
and must pass a resolution endorsing the application to the TCEQ. The City must
also assist with the public involvement process.
12. Has the City Attorney looked at the proposed ordinance and signed off on
it?
Yes.
13. Is the City exposed to criticism from environmental groups by adopting the
MSD?
Of course, that is a risk; however, the environmental groups did have the
opportunity to comment and criticize when the MSD was being considered in the
Legislature. No environmental groups were critical in Fort Worth when they
passed a MSD ordinance.
14. What kind of liability could the City be subject to if someone violates the
ordinance and drinks the groundwater?
The City of Grapevine is entitled to the protections of the Texas Tort Claims Act,
and such Act provides immunity to the City for such an incident. This is especially
so where the City would have legally prohibited such consumption, meaning any
claimant would per se be violating the law.
J ,
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25 OF THE CITY OF
GRAPEVINE CODE OF ORDINANCES, AS AMENDED, BY THE
ADDITION OF ARTICLE VII, "MUNICIPAL SETTINGS
DESIGNATION," PROVIDING FINDINGS AND DEFINITIONS,
PROVIDING FOR THE PROHIBITION OF THE USE OF
GROUNDWATER FOR POTABLE PURPOSES IN A MUNICIPAL
SETTING DESIGNATION, PROVIDING FOR AN APPLICATION
PROCESS FOR A MUNICIPAL SETTING DESIGNATION,
PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC MEETINGS AND HEARINGS,
PROVIDING FOR NOTICE TO PERSONS WITHIN THE
AFFECTED COMMUNITY, PROVIDING FOR LIMITATIONS ON
REAPPLICATION, PROVIDING FOR PROOF THAT RESPONSE
ACTIONS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED ON A SITE, PROVIDING
THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS CUMULATIVE; PROVIDING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A FINE OF UP TO
$2,000.00 FOR EACH OFFENSE IN VIOLATION OF THE
ORDINANCE; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, due to limited quantity and low quality, there are areas of
shallow groundwater within the city and its extraterritorial jurisdiction that are not
valuable as potable water sources, and therefore are not utilized for potable
water; and
WHEREAS, many commercial and industrial properties in Grapevine and
its extraterritorial jurisdiction are underlain with unusable groundwater that has
become contaminated by historical on-site or off-site sources; and
WHEREAS, the City of Grapevine does not utilize groundwater as a
source for public drinking water, and less than six percent of all municipal water
supplies in Tarrant County come from groundwater sources; and
WHEREAS, the use of Municipal Setting Designations within Grapevine
and its extraterritorial jurisdiction allows for a state -evaluated corrective action
process for groundwater that is directed toward protection of human health and
the environment balanced with the economic welfare of the citizens of the city;
and
WHEREAS, where public drinking water is available, the potable use of
groundwater in designated areas should be prohibited to protect public health
and welfare when the quality of the groundwater presents an actual or potential
threat to human health; and
WHEREAS, people should have a say in decisions which affect their lives
and property, and public input should influence governmental decisions; and
WHEREAS, all statutory and constitutional requirements for the passage
of this Ordinance have been adhered to, including but not limited to the Open
Meeting Act; and
WHEREAS, the City Council determines that the passage of this
Ordinance is in the best interests of the health, safety, and welfare of the public.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
That all matters stated hereinabove are found to be true and correct and are
incorporated herein by reference.
Section 2.
That Chapter 25, Utilities and Services, is hereby amended by the addition of the
following Article VII, "Municipal Settings Designation":
Section 25-200. Definitions.
Unless a provision explicitly states otherwise, the following terms and phrases,
as used in this Article, shall have the meanings hereinafter designated. Act
means the Texas Water Quality Control Act, as amended, codified as Chapter
26, Texas Water Code.
Affected community means those persons entitled to notice in Section 25-
214(b)(7)
below.
Authorized representative means, for purposes of signing an application, if the
applicant is a corporation, the president, secretary, treasurer, or a vice-president
of the corporation in charge of a principal business function, or any other person
who performs similar policy or decision-making functions for the corporation; if
the applicant is a partnership or sole proprietorship, a general partner or
proprietor, respectively; and if the applicant is a local government, the chief
executive officer or his authorized designee.
2
Chemical of concern means any chemical that has the potential to adversely
affect ecological or human receptors due to its concentration, distribution, and
mode of toxicity.
Director means the Director of Public Works or the Director's authorized
representative.
Environmental risk assessment means the qualitative and quantitative evaluation
performed in an effort to define the risk posed to human health and/or the
environment by the presence or potential presence and/or use of pollutants.
Groundwater means water below the surface of the earth.
Municipal Setting Designation (MSD) means a designation as provided by
Chapter 361, Subchapter W, of the Texas Health and Safety Code, which
authorizes the executive director of the Commission to certify municipal setting
designations in order to limit the scope of or eliminate the need for investigation
of or response actions addressing contaminant impacts to groundwater that has
been restricted from use as potable water by ordinance or restrictive covenant.
Permit (n) means an order issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Act establishing the
treatment which shall be given to wastes being discharged into or adjacent to any
water in the state to preserve and enhance the quality of the water and specifying
the conditions under which the discharge may be made.
Potable water means water that is used for irrigating crops intended for human
consumption, drinking, showering, bathing, or cooking purposes.
Section 25-201. Declaration of Policy and Purpose.
It is the policy of the City and the purpose of this Article to maintain the quality of
water in the City consistent with the public health and enjoyment, the propagation
and protection of terrestrial and aquatic life, the operation of existing industries,
and the economic development of the City; and to require the use of all
reasonable methods to implement this policy.
Section 25-202. Use of groundwater in Municipal Setting Designation as a
potable water source prohibited.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly,
or with criminal negligence uses groundwater in a Municipal Setting
Designation as a potable water source.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly,
or with criminal negligence uses groundwater in a Municipal Setting
Designation for a purpose prohibited in the ordinance creating that
Municipal Setting Designation.
Section 25-203. Application for City Council Approval of Municipal Setting
Designation.
(a) A person, including the City of Grapevine, seeking City Council
approval of a Municipal Setting Designation (MSD) for property
within the corporate limits of the City of Grapevine, or within its
extraterritorial jurisdiction, shall file six copies of an application with
the Director. An application may be filed in person, by United States
mail, or by a document delivery service.
(b) An application shall be on a form provided by the Director, and shall
contain:
(1) Applicant's name and address, and the name, address,
daytime telephone number, and email address of a contact
person;
(2) The location and legal description of the proposed outer
boundaries of the MSD;
(3) A statement as to whether applicant has filed an application
with the executive director of the Commission for an MSD for
the property;
(4) A statement as to whether a public drinking water supply
system exists that satisfies the requirements of Texas Health
and Safety Code Chapter 341 and that supplies or is
capable of supplying drinking. water to the property for which
the MSD is sought, and property within one-half mile of the
property for which the MSD is sought;
(5) A description of the groundwater sought to be restricted,
including the identified chemicals of concern therein and the
levels of contamination known to applicant, and the identified
vertical and horizontal area of the contamination. If applicant
has not documented groundwater contamination offsite that
originates from the property for which an MSD is sought, the
application shall include a statement as to whether
contamination more likely than not exceeds a residential
assessment level offsite and the basis for that statement;
(6) Identification of the person(s) responsible for the
contamination of the groundwater, if known;
rd
7 A listing of: ;���,��fl �
() L
(A) all owners of real property lying within one-half mile of
the subject property, as the ownership appears on the
last approved city tax roll;
(B) all state -registered private water wells within five
miles from the boundary of the property for which the
designation is sought, including a notation of those
wells that are used for potable water purposes (if
known), and a statement as to whether applicant has
provided the owners with notice as provided in Texas
Health and Safety Code Section 361.805;
(C) of each retail public utility that owns or operates a
groundwater supply well located not more than five
miles from the property for which the MSD is sought,
and a statement as to whether applicant has provided
the utilities with notice as provided in Texas Health
and Safety Code Section 361.805; and
(D) each municipality, other than the City of Grapevine,
with a boundary located not more than one-half mile
from the property for which the MSD is sought; or that
owns or operates a groundwater supply well located
not more than five miles from the property for which
the MSD is sought; and a statement as to whether
applicant has provided the municipalities with notice
as provided in Texas Health and Safety Code Section
361.805;
(8) A copy of the application to the executive director of the
Commission, if filed;
(9) A site map, drawn to scale, including a metes and bounds
description of the property, the boundary of the proposed
MSD, the location of groundwater on the property, and the
extent of groundwater contamination to the limits that it has
been defined. The map shall include a statement by a
professional land surveyor registered by the Texas Board of
Professional Surveying attesting to the accuracy of the
metes and bounds property description; and
(10) Any other information that the Director deems pertinent.
5
A
(c) The application shall be signed by an authorized representative- of
the applicant and shall contain the following certification statement:
"I certify under penalty of law that this document and all
attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in a
manner designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather
and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the
person or persons directly responsible for gathering the information,
the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting false information, including the
possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations."
(d) An application shall be accompanied by:
(1) A set of printed mailing labels with the names and addresses
of persons listed in subsection (b)(7) above;
(2) An electronic file of the names and addresses of persons
listed in subsection (b) (7) above, in a format acceptable to
the Director and compatible with City information systems;
and
(3) An application fee in an amount set by City Council by
ordinance.
(e) An applicant may withdraw its application in writing by letter sent
certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Director, and shall
forfeit the application fee. If the Director has not issued public
notice prior to the receipt of the withdrawal letter, the applicant may
reapply at any time. If public notice has issued, a new application is
subject to the limitations of Section 25-209 below.
Section 25-204. Staff Review,
(a) Upon receiving an application for an MSD approval, the Director will
distribute a copy to his designee within the Public Works
Department and Development Services Department for staff
review. The purpose of the review is to determine whether the
application is complete, and whether any current or future City
property or other interests have the potential to be impacted by the
proposed MSD. City staff shall not be tasked with conducting an
environmental risk assessment of the application.
(b) City staff must send a written report to the Director within thirty
calendar days of receiving the application, noting any discrepancies
on
in the application, and advising of any City interests that niay,,
potentially be impacted by the proposed MSD.
Section 25-205. Director Action Following Application Review.
(a) Following staff review, if the Director determines that the application
is complete, he will schedule a public meeting and a public hearing.
The public meeting must be held prior to the public hearing.
(1) A public meeting will be scheduled at a time no later than 45
days following the day the application was received by the
City; and
(2) A public hearing will be scheduled at a time no later than 60
days following the day the application was received by the
City.
(b) The date that an application is deemed to have been received by
the City is the date that the application was received by the
Director, as indicated by the file date stamped on the application
package by the Department of Public Works.
(c) If the Director determines that the application is incomplete, he will
return the application to applicant, noting the deficiencies in writing.
The applicant shall have 30 days from the date of the deficiency
letter to correct the deficiencies and resubmit the application. If the
applicant fails to submit a corrected application within the allotted
time, the application shall be deemed to be withdrawn and the
application fee forfeited.
Section 25-206. Notice of Public Meeting and Public Hearing.
(a) Notice of the public meeting and the public hearing on an MSD
application may be combined and must include the date, time and
location of the two events, the identity of the applicant, the location
and legal description of the property for which the MSD is sought,
the purpose of the MSD, the type of contamination identified in the
groundwater of the property for which the MSD is sought, and a
statement that a copy of the application is available for public
viewing at a specified Grapevine Public Library facility. Notice will
be made as follows:
(1) The Director will provide published notice of a public meeting
and a public hearing for a proposed MSD by means of a
legal advertisement appearing in the official newspaper of
7
L L L
the City, or a paper of general circulation, not less than 15
days before the public meeting;
(2) The Director will provide posted notice of a public meeting
and a public hearing by requesting that the City Secretary
post the notice at City Hall, in a place readily accessible to
the general public at all times, not less than 15 days before
the public meeting; and
(3) The Director will serve written notice of a public meeting and
a public hearing for a proposed MSD not less than 15 days
before the date set for the public meeting. Such notice shall
be deemed served when it is deposited, properly addressed
and regular postage paid, in the United States mail. Notice
will be served to:
(A) the applicant;
(B) the list provided by applicant of owners of real
property lying within one-half mile of the subject
property, as the ownership appears on the last
approved city tax roll;
(C) the list provided by applicant of persons who own
private registered water wells within five miles of the
subject property;
(D) the list provided by applicant of each retail public
utility that owns or operates a groundwater supply
well located not more than five miles from the
property for which the MSD is sought; and
(E) the list provided by applicant of each municipality with
a boundary located not more than one-half mile from
the property for which the MSD is sought or that owns
or operates a groundwater supply well located not
more than five miles from the property for which the
MSD is sought.
(b) The Director will direct the erection of at least one sign upon the
property for which an MSD has been requested. Where possible
such sign or signs must be located in a conspicuous place or
places upon such property at a point or points nearest any right-of-
way, street, roadway or public thoroughfare adjacent to such
property. Such sign(s) must be so erected not less than 15 days
before the date set for the public meeting. Any such sign(s) will be
M
t
''=
removed subsequent to final action by the City Council on th67 M80'-`�
application. The sign(s) must state that an MSD has been
requested for the site and that additional information can be
acquired by telephoning the number listed thereon or visiting the
web site address listed thereon. The erection and/or the continued
maintenance of any such sign shall not be deemed a condition
precedent to the holding of any public meeting or public hearing or
to any official action concerning the MSD application.
(c) The Director will send a copy of the application to the Grapevine
Public Library facility located nearest to the property that is the
subject of the application, and request that it be displayed for public
review. The librarian for the facility will display the application in a
publicly accessible area of the library until at least the completion of
City Council action on the application, or the withdrawal of the
application by applicant.
Section 25-207. Conduct of Public Meeting.
(a) The purpose of a public meeting is for the applicant to provide
information to the affected community about MSD's and the
application and to obtain input on the application prior to a formal
hearing before the City Council.
(b) The public meeting will be held in the evening at a location
convenient to the affected community.
(c) The applicant or applicant's representative must appear at the
public meeting. If the applicant fails to appear at the public meeting
either in person or by representative, the application shall be
deemed withdrawn and the application fee forfeited.
(d) The Director will be responsible for the conduct of the meeting. He
will give the applicant or the applicant's representative the
opportunity to present its reasons for requesting an MSD, and will
give members of the affected community the opportunity to ask the
applicant questions or make oral comments on the application.
(e) The Director will make a tape recording of the public meeting
available for the public.
Section 25-208. Conduct of Public Hearing.
(a) Prior to the hearing, the Director will provide the City Council with a
written report summarizing the request for the MSD approval,
E
including any concerns raised by the reviewing departments, and
will attach a copy of the application to the report.
(b) The applicant or applicant's representative must appear at the
hearing and present the request for an MSD approval. If the
applicant fails to appear at the hearing either in person or by
representative, the application shall be deemed withdrawn and the
application fee forfeited.
(c) Persons wishing to speak either in favor of or against the
application will be provided the opportunity in accordance with City
Council rules or guidelines for public hearings.
(d) Following the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council may
deliberate the matter of the application, and then may either:
(1) vote to approve or disapprove the application; or
(2) postpone action on the application to a future date.
(e) In order to approve an application, the City Council must:
(1) adopt a resolution supporting the application to the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality; and
(2) enact an ordinance prohibiting the potable use of designated
groundwater from beneath the property. The ordinance must
include a metes and bounds description of the property to
which the ordinance applies; a listing of the contaminants;
and a statement that the ordinance is necessary because
the contaminant concentrations exceed potable water
standards.
In the ordinance enacted pursuant to subsection (e)(2) above, City
Council may place other reasonable restrictions on the use of
designated groundwater from beneath the property.
(g) City Council approval of an application shall not be deemed to
waive the City's right to comment on an MSD application that has
been filed with the Executive Director of the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality as provided by Texas Health and Safety
Code Section 361.805.
Section 25-209. Limitation on Reapplication.
If after public hearing the City Council disapproves an application, or if the
applicant has withdrawn its application after public notice has issued, no new
10
MSD applications for the property shall be accepted by the city or scheduled for a
hearing by the City Council within a period of 12 months of the date of
disapproval or withdrawal.
Section 25-210. Additional Requirements.
(a) A person who has received approval of an MSD from the City,
shall, upon issuance from the Commission, provide the Director
with a copy of the Certificate of Completion or other documentation
issued for the property, showing that response actions have been
completed.
(b) A person commits an offense if they fail to provide the Director with
the documentation required in subsection (a) above, within 30 days
of its issuance by the Commission.
SECTION 3. That all ordinances or any parts thereof in conflict with the terms of
this ordinance shall be and hereby are deemed repealed and of no force or
effect; provided, however, that the ordinance or ordinances under which the
cases currently filed and pending in the Municipal Court of the City of Grapevine,
Texas, shall be deemed repealed only when all such cases filed and pending
under such ordinance or ordinances have been disposed of by a final conviction
or a finding not guilty or nolo contendere, or dismissal.
SECTION 4. Any person violating any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be
deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in a
sum not to exceed Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) and a separate offense
shall be deemed committed upon each day during or on which a violation occurs
or continues.
SECTION 5. If any section, article, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase or word
in this ordinance, or application thereto any person or circumstance is held
invalid or unconstitutional by a Court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the City
Council hereby declares it would have passed such remaining portions of the
ordinance despite such invalidity, which remaining portions shall remain in full
force and effect.
SECTION 6. The fact that the present ordinances and regulations of the City of
Grapevine, Texas are inadequate to properly safeguard the health, safety,
morals, peace and general welfare of the public creates an emergency which
requires that this ordinance become effective from and after the date of its
passage, and it is accordingly so ordained.
11
SECTION 7.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect after its passage and publication
as required by law, and it is so ordained.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GRAPEVINE, TEXAS on this the day of
2005.
ATTEST:
H:\MCGB\Grapevine\GV MSD Adoption Ordinance.doc
12
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A Municipal Settings Designation or MSD gives local governments another option for
regulating the environmental cleanup criteria for properties within their jurisdiction.
MSD allows local governments to be more flexible on expectations for groundwater
pollution cleanup. MSD eliminates the expectation for polluted property to be cleaned up
to "background" or "pre -pollution levels," allowing acceptance of certain pollution
levels. MSD eliminates the cleanup goal of drinking water standards, working within the
guidelines of the Texas Risk Reduction Program.
The MSD concept has been accepted and passed by the State of Texas Legislature. The
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is the State agency responsible for
protection of the environment and human health and has been directed by the Legislature
to process and review MSD proposals. TCEQ reviews MSD proposals to verify
compliance with applicable regulations and to evaluate potential negative impacts on
current and future regional groundwater resource needs and obligations of users.
Any "Person" is eligible to apply for an MSD as long as the subject property is located
within a municipality that has a population greater than 20,000 and the property and
surrounding properties within a %2 mile are supplied by a TCEQ Certified Public Water
Supply System.
By law, local support is required before TCEQ can issue certification of an MSD.
Support by resolution is not just limited to Grapevine. It is also required of
municipalities located with %2 mile of the subject property and municipalities or private
retailers that own or operate groundwater wells within 5 miles of the subject property.
The process can move forward with the last piece being the local support of the MSD.
BACKGROUND
The State of Texas has decided to support MSD's. During the 78th Texas Legislative
Session State lawmakers passed House Bill (HB) 3152 to support creation of MSD on
September 1, 2003. HB3152 was written into law by adding Subchapter W (MSD) to the
Texas Health and Safety Code Chapter 361, §§361.801-808. The Texas Legislature
instructed the TCEQ to develop a procedure for MSD proposals. However, as of January
24, 2005 TCEQ had not adopted formal regulations to govern MSD and had no intention
to do so. TCEQ feels the Texas Health and Safety Code can adequately serve as
guidance for MSD.
As of January 24, 2005 three (3) Texas Municipalities have developed measures in
support of MSD. Those municipalities are City of Dallas, City of Fort Worth, and the
City of Port Arthur. Actions for supporting MSD are pending in the City of Garland and
the City of San Angelo. The City of Houston is on record as opposing MSD.
GRAPEVINE'S ROLE
The City of Grapevine would need to:
• Identify, Determine, and Describe the limits of the groundwater to be included
in the MSD.
• Adopt an Ordinance, Resolution, or other restrictive covenant.
• Manage and Enforce MSD restrictions.
INTERESTED PARTY ROLE
Most of the burden, as it should, falls on the Party that stands to benefit most and initiates
the MSD. Most times this will be the private landowner or developer. The following
should be the responsibilities of the Interested Party:
• Pay the $1,000 Application Fee to the TCEQ.
• File the formal application with the TCEQ.
• Take initiative and provide assistance with Public Involvement Process.
The formal application process includes the following:
• Metes and Bounds description of the property.
• Description of the groundwater limits.
• Swears by Affidavit that all criteria are met, including Notification.
• Description of the contamination
• Proof of local support of MSD
• Notification Requirements with opportunity for comments:
• Municipality where the property exists.
• Municipality within 1/2 mile
• Municipality or private interests that owns/operates water wells
within 5 miles
• Responsible Party for the contamination identified
• Notice must be by certified mail with signed receipt
PRO's AND COLA's
Sources: TCEQ Website, Texas Environmental Laws, Legislative Briefs, Conversation with TCEQ
Employee Chet Clark 01/24/05
Allow more Development Options
Environmental Groups view as lack of
enforcement
Increases income revenue
Limits use of a potential future drinking
water resource (groundwater)
Protect human health by restricting access
Reduces Cleanup Criteria and Restrictions
to groundwater as a drinking water source
on polluted property.
Restricts private wells and groundwater
consumption
Reduces Cleanup Criteria and Restrictions
on polluted property.
Sources: TCEQ Website, Texas Environmental Laws, Legislative Briefs, Conversation with TCEQ
Employee Chet Clark 01/24/05
TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
,;�C��.�G�irale for" rtes
2005GI-326 March
INTRODUCTION
In 2003, the 781" Texas Legislature passed a Municipal
Setting Designations (MSDs) law, effective September 1,
2003, that relates to the potability of groundwater and the
requirements for removing contaminants from groundwater.
The law authorized the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality (TCEQ) to receive, process and certify tvISD applica-
tions for properties with contaminated groundwater that are
located in cities or their extraterritorial jurisdiction. TCEQ can
certify an application only if there is local city support. The
city has the choice to either support or not support an MSD
application. Because of this need for city support, city offi-
cials can expect to be contacted by persons who wish to pur-
sue state certification of an MSD. Cities can also pursue
MSDs for their own use.
The MSD law provides a new alternative to persons
addressing the groundwater contamination they are respon-
sible for causing, as well as to persons who "volunteer"to
address groundwater contamination. The MSD law sets
conditions for MSD properties that limit requirements for
contaminated groundwater to be investigated and remediated
(cleaned up or controlled) to make the groundwater suitable
for use as potable water, when that groundwater is not used
for potable water and will not be used for potable water in
the future.
This document is provided as reference material
to MSDs in support of city governments. This document
explains:
* what an MSD is,
Cit the purpose behind the law, and
* identifies potential considerations when the city is
deciding its position on MSD certification.
Further information on MSDs can be accessed from the
MSD Web page: www.tnrce.state.tx.us/permitting/msd.html
or contact the TCEQ Remediation Division directly at
512/239-0310 and ask to speak with a staff member
knowledgeable about MSDs.
0
MSD OVERVIEW
An MSD is an official state designation given to property
within a municipality or its extraterritorial jurisdiction that cer-
tifies that designated groundwater at the property is not used
as potable water, and is prohibited from future use as po-
table water because that groundwater is contaminated in
excess of the applicable potable -water protective concentra-
tion level. The prohibition must be in the form of a city ordi-
nance, or a restrictive covenant that is enforceable by the
city and filed in the property records. The MSD property can
be a single property, multi -property, or a portion of property.
DEFINITIONS-
Groundwater—The water present below ground
surface.
Potable Water—The statute defines potable
water as water that is used for drinking, showering,
bathing, cooking purposes, or for irrigating crops
intended for human consumption.
Potable -Water Protective Concentration
Levet—A maximum concentration of a contaminant
in groundwater that is protective for people using
the groundwater for potable purposes. Potable -water
protective concentration levels are specific to each
contaminant and are reported in units of milligrams
of contaminant per liter of water (mg/1).
BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE OF THE MSD
The purpose of the MSD law is to provide a less expen-
sive and faster alternative to the existing state environmental
regulations governing the investigation and cleanup of con-
taminated groundwater. The statute substitutes a municipal
ordinance or restrictive covenant in lieu of TCEQ regulations
to protect the public against exposure to the contaminated
groundwater.
In many cities, some of the chemicals spilled onto the
ground by commercial or industrial activities have seeped
through the soil and into groundwater. Because groundwater
is frequently a source of potable water for people, the state
regulations typically require the investigation and
remediation of the contaminated groundwater to support po-
table water use. In almost every case, potable water use of
groundwater is the most protective basis the state uses to
regulate the cleanup of contaminated groundwater.
In some city locations, however, no one is using ground-
water as potable water in the vicinity of the contaminated
groundwater zone, and there is no plan to use that ground-
water as potable water in the future because a public water
supply that relies on another source of water is available. For
such instances, the MSD law provides an alternative to over-
ride the standard TCEQ regulatory requirements. Instead of
restoring or controlling the contaminated groundwater zone
so it can be used as potable water, a prohibition is placed on
the designated groundwater beneath the MSD property to
prevent people from using the contaminated groundwater as
potable water, as the means to protect the public.
However, if there is a potable -use water well within one-
half mile of the MSD property boundary, then the extent of
any groundwater contamination beyond the MSD boundary
does have to be determined and remediated in accordance
with the statute. If there is no such well, then the contamina-
tion would not be assessed or remediated for potable pur-
poses, but assessment could be required for other purposes.
Because people or animals, fish and plants (ecological
receptors) can potentially be exposed to the contamination in
other ways, the law still allows the TCEQ to require the con-
tamination to be investigated and remediated for other con-
cerns that are unrelated to potable water use. For example,
the inhalation of vapors originating from the groundwater
contaminants, or the discharge of groundwater contaminants
to lakes or streams can be a concern.
By providing this alternative way to address contami-
nated groundwater that will not be used as potable water,
persons may be more inclined to develop and redevelop
properties in municipal areas that have contaminated
groundwater.
AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH AN MSD
The 7811 Texas Legislature passed House Bill 3152, and
subsequently that legislation was codified in the Texas Solid
Waste Disposal Act (Texas Health and Safety Code, Chapter
361, Subchapter W, §§361.801-808). The legislation pro-
vided new authority for cities to support MSDs [see Local
Government Code, Section 211.003, Subsection (a), and
Local Government Code, Section 212.003, Subsection (a),
2
and Local Government Code, Section 401.005]. The statute
can be downloaded from www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/
hs.toc.htm.
ELIGIBILTY CRITERIA
The statute specifies two eligibility requirements:
N The proposed MSD property must be within the cor-
porate limits or extraterritorial jurisdiction of a city
with a population of 20,000 or more, and
12 There must be a public water supply system that
meets state requirements that "supplies or is capable
of supplying drinking water" to the MSD property and
all properties within one-half mile of the MSD property.
Note to Cities with a Population
of Less than 20,000
MSDs are limited to cities with a population of
20,000 or more. However, cities with a population less
than 20,000 that have a border with, or own or operate
a groundwater supply well near, the proposed MSD city
may also be contacted regarding support for an MSD
being filed in that neighboring city. See THE CITY
ROLE section of this guide.
ALLOWABLE APPLICANTS
Any person, including a local government, can apply for
an MSD. "Person" is defined as an individual, corporation,
organization, government or governmental subdivision or
agency, or business trust, partnership, association or any
other legal entity [see Texas Health and Safety Code,
§361.003(23)].
This means that cities can also apply for an MSD. An
MSD can be used to address groundwater contamination the
applicant is responsible for, or for any other property where
there is groundwater contamination, provided the eligibility
criteria are met.
STATUTORY NOTIFICATION
REQUIREMENTS
The MSD statute requires the applicant to provide a let-
ter to notify the parties identified below that an MSD applica-
tion is to be submitted to the TCEQ. The notice must be
completed in advance of or at the same time an application
is submitted to the TCEQ. Specifically, the notice letter must
be provided to:
0 Each municipality:
V In which the MSD property is located;
9 With a boundary located within one-half mile from
the MSD property boundary; or
V That owns or operates a groundwater supply well
located within five miles from the MSD property
boundary;
13 Each owner of a "private water well registered with
the commission"' that is located within five miles from
the MSD property boundary; AND
M Each retail public utility2 that owns or operates a
groundwater supply well located within five miles of
the MSD property boundary.
The applicant is required in the notice letter to:
® Identify the location of the proposed MSD property,
® State the reason for the MSD certification,
® State that municipalities and retail public utilities can
provide comments to the TCEQ,
13 Identify the type of groundwater contaminants, and
M Name the party responsible for the contamination.
Notified parties have up to 60 days after they receive the
notice letter to file comments with the TCEQ, if they choose to
do so. The TCEQ cannot take action to deny or certify the ap-
plication until 60 days after those notices are received.
THE CITY ROLE
The city is not required by statute to accept, process or
support MSD applications. However, for an MSD to be certi-
fied by TCEQ, municipal support for the application is para-
mount, including in certain instances, cities with populations
less than 20,000. Therefore, MSD certification is significantly
controlled by the city. For the city where the proposed MSD
property is located, the statute allows an MSD application to
be certified only if that city council adopts either:
* An ordinance to prohibit potable use of the desig-
nated groundwater from beneath the MSD property
and to appropriately restrict other uses of and contact
with the designated groundwater, OR
® A resolution that supports the filing of a restrictive
covenant by the applicant that is enforceable by the
municipality to prohibit potable use of designated
groundwater from beneath the MSD property and to
appropriately restrict other uses of and contact with
the designated groundwater.
The statute also defines a role for cities with a population
less than 20,000 that border the proposed MSD city within
one-half mile of the proposed MSD boundary or who own or
operate a groundwater supply well located within 5 miles of
the proposed MSD boundary. in these cases, the applicant
must also provide a notice to that city of their intent to file an
MSD application with the TCEQ. Further, the statute allows
' Statutory language that means the TCEQ, but also must include
the Texas Water Development Board and the Texas Department
of Licensing and Regulation.
x Retail public utility as defined by Texas Water Code §13.002.
an application to be certified in such situations only if the city
council of that bordering city also adopts a resolution in sup-
port of the MSD application.
As stated earlier, no municipality is under statutory obli-
gation to support an MSD application, but without municipal
support, the TCEQ is statutorily required to deny the applica-
tion because it is incomplete. An application is not complete
until the ordinance or resolution and restrictive covenant, as
applicable, are adopted by the city where the proposed MSD
is located, and by the other cities, if applicable. However, in
accordance with the statute, the ordinance, resolution, and
restrictive covenant can be adopted after the TCEQ pro-
cesses and "precertifies" the application.
In all cases, the TCEQ will need assurance that appli-
cants have the firm support of each required city before sub-
mitting an application to the TCEQ. Therefore, it is up to the
city to decide what is in its best interest regarding each MSD
property that is proposed to be located within its border or
within a bordering city. The statute does not prohibit a city
from imposing additional application procedures and require-
ments on the applicant.
Outside of providing support for the application, the mu-
nicipality also needs to confirm the status of public water
availability for the TCEQ when the city owns or operates a
public drinking water supply system that serves the MSD
area. Specifically, the TCEQ must have verification that a
public drinking water supply system exists that "supplies or is
capable of supplying drinking water" to the MSD property
and all surrounding properties within one-half mile of the
MSD property. The applicant must provide this information in
the application, but the TCEQ also prefers to directly verify
this with the public drinking water supplier. A city letter
signed by an appropriate city official verifying the availability,
or the extent of public drinking water service they provide to
the proposed MSD area, is sufficient.
If a city does not support an MSD, it should directly in-
form the applicant of this fact. Additionally, it can also docu-
ment this conclusion in a letter submitted to the TCEQ.
THE RETAIL PUBLIC UTILITY ROLE
By statute, retail public utilities (RPUs) have a role in
certain instances. The applicant is required to identify every
RPU, if any, that owns or operates a groundwater supply well
located within five miles of the MSD property and provide
notice to each identified RPU of the applicant's intent to sub-
mit an MSD application to the TCEQ.
If there is any such RPU in the MSD area, then in
order for the MSD application to be certified, the applicant
must provide a copy of a resolution in support of the MSD
application from the governing body of each applicable RPU.
As is the case for a municipality, the RPU is under no
statutory obligation to support an MSD application.The
TCEQ is also directing applicants to obtain firm support of
each RPU before submitting an application to the TCEQ.
An RPU is also asked to support the TCEQ in process-
ing the application by confirming to what extent its system
supplies or is capable of supplying water to the MSD prop-
erty and all properties within one-half mile of the MSD prop-
erty. This information is needed for the application. A letter
from each RPU signed by an appropriate official with the
RPU verifying the extent of its public drinking water service
to the proposed MSD area is sufficient.
City and Retail Public Utility Support
The applicant is not to submit an MSD applica-
tion to the TCEQ until they have `firm" municipal and
RPU support for the application. Firm support can
be demonstrated by providing the TCEQ with a di-
rect indication from an individual within the munici-
pality or RPU who has authority to advise the city
council or governing body that they will recommend
that the required resolutions or ordinance be adopted.
THE TCEQ ROLE
As with cities and RPUs, the TCEQ's role is established by
statute. The TCEQ is to receive and process applications, verify
proposed MSD properties meet statutory eligibility require-
ments, and verify that applications are administratively com-
plete. If the MSD property is statutorily eligible and the applica-
tion is complete, then the TCEQ will certify the application.
The TCEQ has statutory authority to deny an application
when:
M The eligibility requirements are not met,
13 The application is incomplete or inaccurate, or
9 Based on comments or information from applicant -
notified parties or other information, the TCEQ deter-
mines the MSD would negatively impact the current
and future regional water resource needs or obliga-
tions of a municipality, a RPU, or a private well owner.
If the application is certified, the TCEQ is required to
provide a copy of the certification to parties who received
notice from the applicant, as well as to all parties who pro-
vided comment during the 60 -day comment period on the
application and to anyone else who requested a copy.The
TCEQ will also be available to help municipalities obtain an
understanding of the MSD statute and program.
The TCEQ's responsibilities subsequent to MSD certifi-
cation are determined under the statute in §361.808 (Investi-
gation and Response Action Requirements).
CERTIFICATION PROCESS
In general, an applicant must provide notice to parties
identified by statute that an MSD application will be submit-
ted to the TCEQ, and subsequently submit an MSD applica-
tion for TCEQ consideration. However, as indicated in Figure
1 the process also involves city and RPU support. Note that
there are action steps for the applicant, notified cities, RPUs,
and the TCEQ. The TCEQ must certify, deny or request addi-
tional information within 90 days of receiving the application..
If the city anticipates there will be local interest in applying
for an MSD and if the city is in general willing to support MSDs,
then as indicated in Figure 1, the city may choose to establish
procedures for an applicant to follow when seeking city support.
The City of Fort Worth is an example of a city that has adopted
procedural ordinances for MSD applicants to follow.
Applicant considers MSD
benefit and eligibility.
r--__-----_
Cityand RPU considers I
MSD applications and I
adopts procedures as 1
Applicant contacts city
I needed. I
and RPU forsunoorc
-----------I
City and RPU `,
contact with TCEQ.,
4
City and No
RPU Do oot submit NISI application
support—
MSD?
! Yes
Applicantissuesrequired RPU — retail publicutmty
notice letters, and subm is
MSD anolication to TCEO.
Yes Resolutions No
or ord Hance
adopted? _
City and RPU adopt
resolutions and
No Yes ordinance. Applicant
submits proof to TCEQ.
TCEQ denies MSD TCEQ issues MSD
application and notifies certficate and notice.
Applicant complies with
environmental regulations,
as applicable.
Figure 1. MSD application process. (Dashed lines
denote optional actions.)
CONSIDERATIONS IN SUPPORTING MSDs
The practical outcome of an MSD is that the requirement
to investigate and remediate existing contaminated ground-
water for potable water use purposes will be lessened or
eliminated. Instead of the TCEQ regulations, public protection
is provided through the MSD potable water use prohibition.
The following considerations are presented to aid cities
unfamiliar with MSDs and that are unsure of factors that may
need to be considered.
Water Resource Considerations
Current and future dependence
on groundwater for potable water:
Consider what the source of your current or future po-
table water supply is and whether existing contaminated
groundwater in the MSD area threatens a potable groundwa-
ter supply the city or its citizens rely on, or will rely on in the
future. An MSD is authorization to take that contaminated
groundwater zone within the MSD boundary out of use for
potable water, indefinitely. Figures 2 and 3 plot the locations
of Texas cities with a population of 20,000 or more and the
major and minor groundwater aquifers in the state. These
aquifers are relied on for potable water in many areas of the
state. As is evident in the figures, many of the MSD -eligible
cities overlay a major or minor aquifer.
In considering whether to support MSDs in general, if
the city relies on surface water or groundwater located far
from the MSD area for potable water, then the existing
groundwater contamination within the city might not be a
particularly important consideration. However, if groundwater
beneath the city is relied on for potable water by the city or
its citizens, then the groundwater contamination may pose a
threat to the potable water supply.
Relevant factors to consider when evaluating if there is
any such threat to the potable groundwater supply may in-
clude the following, as well as other potential factors:
* what groundwater zone(s) are used for potable water,
® what groundwater zones are contaminated and what
is the level of understanding of the degree and extent
of the groundwater contamination,
* the degree of any natural or anthropogenic hydraulic
connection between the potable groundwater supply
and the contaminated groundwater,
® the degree of knowledge of existing local water well
locations;
® relative proximity of existing and planned potable -
water wells to the groundwater contamination,
* the design of those potable -water wells and integrity
of those wells against being contaminated by the
contaminated groundwater,
iii potential for future water well installations outside the
MSD potable water use prohibition,
* the local hydrogeology and possibly the regional
hydrogeology (aquifer recharge, groundwater flow,
aquifer interconnectivity, etc.), and
5
Cl the nature and chemical/physical properties of the
groundwater contaminants.
Considering these factors, it may become apparent
MSDs can be appropriately sited anywhere within the city, or
only within certain areas of the city, if at all. There may be
ways to shore up any uncertainties in the appropriateness of
MSDs by placing particular information or action require-
ments on the applicants.
Irrigation and industrial water sources:
If the groundwater is used for "non -potable water"
purposes in the vicinity of the MSD property, the TCEQ
is not prohibited by statute from requiring the person to
investigate and remediate the groundwater to address
those non -potable considerations. Examples of non -potable .
groundwater use include irrigation of lawns, watering pets
and livestock, and industrial process or cooling water.
Historically, the TCEQ has typically applied its potable -
water protective concentration levels to such instances of
non -potable use of groundwater.
Additionally, pumping of groundwater for non -potable
use can spread the existing groundwater contamination. The
frequency of non -potable groundwater use in the area might
give an indication of whether the municipality might prefer
the MSD to cover the full extent of groundwater contamina-
tion, or provide the necessary insight into the appropriate
scope and scale of a municipal groundwater use prohibition
ordinance, or restrictive covenant.
MSD Management Considerations
MSDs frequently bring up management questions,
some of which might not be unique to or a true consequence
of an MSD.
The City Goals:
Depending on the goals for the city, MSDs might be an
important alternative. The restrictive covenant or ordinance
used to prohibit potable water use must at least cover the
entire MSD property. Additionally, the city may want to place
such limits outside the MSD boundary as a safeguard
against future potable water use in the MSD area, or in an-
ticipation of other MSDs.
If the city supports use of MSDs and is also contemplat-
ing or is already undertaking a significant Brownfield rede-
velopment or revitalization project for a city sector, then MSD
scale is important. A multi -property or "regional" MSD or a
"regional" ordinance that prohibits the use of the designated
groundwater as potable water might be advantageous. An
MSD applies to all contamination in the designated ground-
water within the MSD boundary, even if it extends across
Figure 2. Eligible MSD cities and outcrops of major aquifers.
)ulation
Figure 3. Eligible MSD cities and outcrops of minor aquifers.
Counties
Cities with Population > 20,000
Outcrops of Major Aquifers
M CARRIZO
CENOZOIC
EDWARDS
EDWARDS-TRINITY
GULF COAST
HUECO_BOLSON
OGALLALA
SEYMOUR
TRINITY
)ulation
Counties
Cities with Population> 20,000
Outcrops of Minor Aquifers
M ELAINE
BLOSSOM
BONE SPR ING-VICTORIO PEAK
BRAZOS RIVER ALLUVIUM
CAPITAN REEF COMPLEX
DOCKUM
EDWARDS-TRINITY(HIGH PLAINS)
ELLEN BURGER -SAN SABA
HICKORY
IGNEOUS
1:1 1111 i LIPAN
MARATHON
MARBLE FALLS
NACATOCH
QUEEN CITY
RITA B LAN CA
RUSTLER
SPARTA
WEST TEXAS BOLSONS
P W -WOODBINE
YEGUAJACKSON
multiple real estate tracts that have their different sources of
contamination within the MSD property.
A regional groundwater ordinance could support subse-
quent MSD applications filed on a property -by -property basis
for the different tracts of land within the physical limits of that
ordinance. This would allow applications to be filed as addi-
tional properties with groundwater contamination are discov-
ered. The ordinance does need to stipulate that the reason
for the potable water use prohibition is that the groundwater
is contaminated.
Be aware that the statute requires notices to and resolu-
tions from different parties within certain radial distances
from the boundary of the MSD property. Moreover, the regu-
latory flexibility a certified MSD provides is tied to whether
there are potable -water wells located within one-half mile of
the MSD boundary. As the size of the proposed MSD prop-
erty is increased, the radial distances commensurately reach
farther out and can shift notification and MSD support re-
quirements as well as relative proximity to potable water
wells, depending on what falls within those radial distances.
Repeal of Ordinance:
The MSD certificate is predicated on the institutional
control (ordinance or restrictive covenant) remaining in ef-
fect. Therefore, if the city changed their support for an MSD
by withdrawing an ordinance, there would be no prohibition
against the use of the contaminated groundwater within the
MSD for potable water. Accordingly, the TCEQ and the city
need to be in communication if there is to be a change in the
MSD support at the city. As a courtesy, the TCEQ requests
to be notified by the city at least 60 days in advance of mak-
ing any such change.
Coverage of the potable water use prohibition
and potable -water well installation:
The MSD statute requires only that the designated
groundwater within the MSD boundary be prohibited from
potable use. The MSD prohibition is not required to extend
beyond the boundary of the MSD or to cover the extent of
contaminated groundwater that may extend beyond the MSD
boundary, currently or in the future. There may be no other
natural or legal controls or safeguards outside the boundary
of the MSD that prevents installation of a potable -water well
within one-half mile of the MSD property, subsequent to
MSD certification.
If the TCEQ becomes aware of such a situation, then the
person responsible for the MSD groundwater contamination
will have to assess and remediate for potable purposes in
accordance with §361.808 of the MSD statute. Unfortunately,
the TCEQ may not be made aware of new wells in the vicin-
ity of the MSD.
If future potable use of groundwater in the vicinity of the
MSD property is a concern, then local initiatives to monitor
and report water well installation in the vicinity of existing
MSDs may have merit. Some cities may already have other
ordinances or controls that prohibit water wells or require a
city permit to be obtained before a water well can be in-
stalled. Such controls are not typically sufficient to satisfy the
MSD ordinance requirements, but can effectively provide an
added measure of protection.
Alternatively, the city may also consider notification of
local citizens as a means to safeguard against future potable
water use in the MSD area.
Technical expertise and technical information:
When evaluating the appropriateness of MSDs, a city
may encounter some complex legal and technical matters. A
consideration is what departments should evaluate MSD
proposals; what problems, if any, do they anticipate in arriv-
ing at a conclusion; and what information is needed to sup-
port a good decision on the matter. The MSD statute re-
quires the applicant to provide the specific information listed
in the statute, but the city might have a need to be provided
other information. In that case, consideration might be given
to defining procedures for MSD applicants.
Contaminant Considerations
The appropriateness of a particular MSD in some in-
stances can be dependent on the nature of the contaminants
and the expected behavior of the groundwater contaminants
over time. Detailed contaminant behavior information is not
required at the time of submitting an MSD application. There-
fore, the MSD application may be prepared and submitted to
the TCEQ at the "front end" of a remediation project. This
may result in the TCEQ having little to no technical informa-
tion regarding contaminant conditions at the property at the
time of processing an MSD application.
Further, once an application is certified, the require-
ments of Texas Health and Safety Code §361.808 take ef-
fect. As discussed previously, depending on the presence or
absence of local potable -water wells, the applicability of
other exposure concerns in the MSD property and surround-
ing area, there may not be a requirement to define the na-
ture and extent of groundwater contamination, or to evaluate
the potential for the contamination to spread further (later-
ally, or to deeper groundwater zones).
Also, the groundwater contamination at an MSD prop-
erty may have a potentially short or long legacy, depending
on the nature of the contaminant and site conditions. Some
groundwater contaminants, such as benzene, relative to
other contaminants are less persistent in the environment
than others.This means that once the contaminant source is
mitigated, the dissolved groundwater contaminant commonly
degrades or naturally reduces in concentration due to bacte-
rial, chemical and/or physical processes in the environment.
Other contaminants, such as some chlorinated solvents
are not as readily amenable to natural degradation and may
be more persistent in the environment. Additionally, some
contaminants degrade to a more toxic groundwater contami-
nant. For example, tetrachloroethylene, also known as per -
chloroethylene or "perc," a commonly used dry cleaning
chemical, degrades through several intermediate chemicals
to the more toxic chemical, vinyl chloride, before it com-
pletely degrades.
All other factors being equal, the longer legacy contami-
nants might naturally warrant more concern than short
legacy contaminants. Unfortunately, in many instances the
longer legacy contaminants are also among the most difficult
and therefore among the most expensive to cleanup.
Public Awareness Considerations
The statutory notice requirements were presented earlier
in the STATUTORY NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS sec-
tion of this document. The recipient of the notice has 60 days
from the date they received the notice to file comments with
the TCEQ. A consideration is whether the city prefers that
additional parties, such as landowners or other potential
stakeholders, be notified of the proposed MSD.
Figure 4 illustrates an example MSD. The figure is of a
three-dimensional cross-section of a slice into the ground
beneath property in a city. In the cross-section, three differ-
ent groundwater zones are depicted.The "box" labeled "MSD
Property" depicts the lateral and vertical boundaries of the
MSD (MSD property).
In this example, only Groundwater Zone i is contaminated.
An MSD can only be applied to existing contaminated ground-
water zones, not to clean or uncontaminated groundwater
•Sw-
zones. Therefore, as indicated by the vertical boundary of
the box, only Groundwater Zone 1 is included in the MSD.
The portion of Groundwater Zone 1 that is within the MSD
boundary is deemed the "designated groundwater" for the
MSD and as such prohibited from current and future use as
potable water.
Groundwater Zones 2 and 3 are not contaminated, and
therefore, they are not eligible to be included in the MSD. in
this example, only Groundwater Zone 1 is prohibited as a
potable water supply. Unless there is a potable -water well
within one-half mile of that MSD boundary, the groundwater
contamination will not be investigated or remediated for po-
table water use.
Figure 4. Three-dimensional cross-section of an
MSD property and the designated groundwater zone.
ANOTHER SOURCE OF INFORMATION
The State of Ohio implements the "Urban Setting Desig-
nation" program that has some similarities to the Texas MSD
program, The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency main-
tains a Web site that can be used to identify the Ohio cities
that have adopted ordinances, some of which are `regional'.
(www.epa.state.oh.us/derr/pdf_doc_wpd/usd.pdf)
Representatives for those cities might be able to
provide practical insights for interested Texas municipalities.
However, because Ohio and Texas statutes and regulations
differ, Texas and Ohio considerations may not always be
similar in context.
The TCEQ is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer, The agency does not allow discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability,
age, sexual orientation or veteran status. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, this document may be requested in alternate formats by contacting the TCEQ
at 5 120-39-0028, Fax 512/239-4488 or 1 -800 -RELAY -TX (TDD), or by writing P.O. Box 13087, Austin, TX 78711-3087.
Municipal Setting Designations
"The Ever Lovin' Blue -Eyed Thing"
(A Municipality's Perspective)
Kathryn A. Hansen, Attorney at Law
Regulatory and Environmental Coordinator
Department of Environmental Management
City of Fort Worth, Texas
Presented to the
17th Annual Texas Environmental Superconference
State Bar of Texas
August 4, 2005
Kathryn A. Hansen
Regulatory and Environmental Coordinator
City of Fort Worth, Department of Environmental Management
1000 Throckmorton
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
817-392-8136
k athryn . h an s en @ fortw orthg ov . org
1. INTRODUCTION
"I'm the ever lovin' blue-eyed Thing."
— Benjamin J. Grimm
a.k.a. The Thing
In 2003 the Texas Legislature enacted House
Bill 3152, establishing municipal setting
designations (MSDs), codified as Texas
Health and Safety Code §§361.801-361.808.
The law is administered by the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ), and is to be used in conjunction
with the Voluntary Cleanup Program and
other remediation programs.
The law creates a means by which the scope
of investigations and response actions
addressing groundwater contamination may
be limited, if the groundwater is prohibited
for use as a potable water source by
municipal ordinance or restrictive covenant.
The most important thing to remember about
an MSD is that it can only eliminate
requirements to assess and remediate the
groundwater consumption exposure pathway
Other exposure pathways, including
inhalation, contact, and impact to ecological
receptors, must still be addressed.
Of important note to municipalities is the
legislative finding in THSC §361.8015(b):
The legislature finds that an action by a
municipality to restrict access to or the
use of groundwater in support of or to
facilitate a municipal setting designation
advances a substantial and legitimate
state interest where the quality of the
groundwater subject to the designation is
an actual or potential threat to human
health.
Municipal Setting Designations
"The Ever -Lavin' Blue -Eyed Thing"
This clear expression of the legislature's
intent establishes that municipalities may
exercise their police powers in approving
municipal setting designations and enforcing
restrictions on the use of groundwater
therein. That legislative finding should
appease most city attorneys concerned that
creation of MSDs in their municipalities
could constitute an uncompensated taking.
HB 3152 also amended various portions of
the Texas Local Government Code, further
setting forth this police power. In §211.003
(a), pertaining to zoning regulations, it is
specified that a municipality may regulate
"the pumping, extraction, and use of
groundwater by persons ... for the purpose of
preventing the use or contact with
groundwater that presents an actual or
potential threat to human health." The
concurrent amendment to §212.003(a)
extended this power to a municipality's extra-
territorial jurisdiction (ETJ). This power is
further reiterated in §401.005, which
specifies that, for the purpose of establishing
and enforcing MSDs, a municipality within
its boundaries or its ETJ "may regulate the
pumping, extraction, or use of groundwater
by persons ... to prevent the use of or contact
with groundwater that presents an actual or
potential threat to human health."
2. WHERE DOES OUR DRINKING
WATER COME FROM?
"I ain't no pet rock."
— Benjamin J. Grimm
a.k.a. The Thing
In Texas, the two main sources for all water
uses are surface water (rivers, lakes and
reservoirs) and groundwater (aquifers).
Surface water supply is most abundant in the
eastern half of the state while in the western
half of the state, groundwater is the major
source.' "Historically, the state has
depended on groundwater as the primary
source, but drought and overuse of these
supplies has caused a significant decline in
aquifer levels throughout the state."Z In
1997, 39 percent of the water used in Texas
came from surface water resources, and 61
percent came ftom ground water resources —
this includes all usage, such as agricultural
and industrial, not just domestic. Due to
population growth, it is estimated that by the
year 2050, 69 percent of the state's water
supply will be surface water and 31 percent
groundwater.3
In the year 2000, Texans used approximately
10 million -acre feet4 of groundwater, with
6.5 million acre-feet of that usage coming
from the Ogallala Aquifer.5 The Ogallala is
the "major water -bearing unit in the High
Plains of Texas."6 In 2000, Willacy County
in the Rio Grande Valley of South Texas had
the lowest amount of reported groundwater
usage (21 acre-feet) and Castro County in the
' Southern Regional Water Program, Drinking Water
& Human Health in Texas, retrieved from the
SRWQIS web site, June 21, 2005:
http://srwgi s.tamu.edidstates/texas/drinkingwater.aspx
2 Southern Regional Water Program, Water Quantity
and Policy in Texas, retrieved from the SRWQIS web
site, June 30, 2005:
http://srwqis.tamu.edu/states/texas/waterquantity.aspx
3 Ibid.
4 An acre-foot is the volume of water required to cover
one acre of land (43,560 square feet) to a depth of one
foot. This is equivalent to 325,851 gallons. Ten
million acre-feet is roughly equivalent to 3.3 trillion
gallons of water.
5 Texas Water Development Board, Factoids,
retrieved from the TWDB web site, June 21, 2005:
http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/gwrd/gcd/factoids.htm
6 Texas Water Development Board, Ogallala Aquifer,
retrieved from the TWDB web site, June 27, 2005:
http://wv,rw.twdb.state.tx.us/publications/Teports/Grou
ndW aterReports/GWReports/R345%2OAquifers%20o
f%20Texas/Maj ors/ogallala.pdf
Municipal Setting Designations
"The Ever-Lovin' Blue -Eyed Thing"
western panhandle had the highest (514,120
acre-feet).?
While over a million water wells have been
drilled in Texas over the past 100 years, only
about 130,000 of those have been inventoried
and placed into the Texas Water
Development Board groundwater database, $
and with only a variable level of accuracy.
In addition to the Ogallala, eight major
aquifers have been identified in Texas:
Carrizo-Wilcox, Cenozoic Pecos Alluvium,
Edwards, Edwards -Trinity (Plateau), Gulf
Coast, Hueco-Mesilla Bolson, Seymour and
Trinity. The 20 minor aquifers that have been
identified are: Blaine, Blossom, Bone
Spring-Victorio Peak, Brazos River
Alluvium, Capitan Reef Complex, Dockum,
Edwards -Trinity (High Plains), Ellenburger-
San Saba, Hickory, Igneous, Lipan,
Marathon, Marble Falls, Nacatoch, Queen
City, Rita Blanca, Rustler, Sparta, West
Texas Bolsons and the Woodbine.9
Of the 31 largest municipalities in Texas
those with a population over 90,000 — only
San Antonio relies on groundwater for 100%
of its municipal water supply. Houston, El
Paso, Lubbock, Amarillo, Brownsville,
Pasadena, Grand Prairie, Beaumont,
Midland, Odessa, and Tyler each rely on
groundwater for various percentages of their
municipal supply. For example, the City of
Amarillo receives 45% of its source water
Texas Water Development Board, Factoids, Ibid.
'Texas Water Development Board, Well
Information/Groundwater Data, retrieved from the
TWDB web site June 29,2005:
http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/gwrd/waterwell/well—info
.asp.
9 Ashworth, John B. and Hopkins, Janie, Report 345:
Major and Minor Aquifers of Texas, November 1995,
retrieved from the TWDB web site June 21, 2005:
http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/publications/reports/Grou
ndW aterRep orts/GW Reports/Indivi dual%20Report%2
Ohtm%20files/Report%20345.htm.
from the Ogallala Aquifer, while the City of
Grand Prairie only supplements its water
supply with groundwater from the Trinity
Aquifer during peak usage. 10 Fort Worth,
Dallas, Austin, Arlington, Corpus Christi,
Plano, Garland, Laredo, Irving, Mesquite,
Carrollton, McAllen, Waco, Abilene,
Wichita Falls, Richardson, Killeen, Denton
and Lewisville rely solely on surface water
resources. " This water usage is illustrated
in the map in Figure 1.
Water is a precious commodity in Texas, and
municipalities guard their drinking water
sources. The City of Fort Worth Water
Department, for example, monitors water
quality in Lake Worth and participates with
the Tarrant Regional Water District to ensure
that other lakes providing the city source
water are regularly tested. The city also
actively promotes water conservation by its
customers. 12 This activity is complemented
by the Environmental Management
Department's Water Quality Section, which
is responsible for maintaining and
monitoring water quality in urban lakes,
rivers, neighborhood creeks, and storm
drains. This is accomplished through a
combination of wet -weather and dry -weather
monitoring, inspecting and monitoring
industrial facilities with high-risk runoff,
inspecting construction sites for non -storm
water discharges, and operating a regional
household hazardous waste collection center.
Individual municipalities will react to the
concept of MSDs differently, and the
communities' sources for drinking water will
be the chief factor in that reaction. If MSDs
are a real or perceived threat to a
t0 Refer to Tables 1-A and 1-B.
i rbid.
'z City of Fort Worth, 2004 Water Quality Report,
retrieved from the City of Fort Worth web site, June
24, 2005:
http://www.fortworthgov.org/water/WaterQuality/200
4CCR/2004ccr.pdf
Municipal Setting Designations
"The Ever-Lovin' Blue -Eyed Thing"
municipality's drinking water sources, the
chance of generating support for MSDs in
that city will be slim.
3. MSDs AREA VALUABLE
BROWNFIELDS
REDEVELOPMENT TOOL
"This tough guy's got a soft spot for ya."
— Benjamin J. Grimm
a.k.a. The Thing
The groundwater contamination that is of
concern in MSD situations is typically
shallow, perched groundwater with a depth
of less than 30 feet. It is separated from
another underlying body of groundwater by a
confining layer — often clay or rock — and
doesn't threaten deeper aquifers. In Fort
Worth, and in many other parts of the state,
this shallow groundwater is generally of such
low volume and poor quality, that it will
never be used as a drinking water source.
Frequently complicating this issue are areas
of historical contamination from multiple
sources such as filling stations, dry cleaners,
plating facilities, and auto repair shops.
Due to the costs and time involved with
reaching the maximum contaminant levels13
(MCLS), the requirement that this low
quality/low volume groundwater be cleaned
to drinking water standards was an
impediment to brownfields redevelopment.
Because no one was drinking, or was ever
going to drink this water, the cleanup
requirement made no sense from an
environmental, human health, or economic
standpoint. Developers walked away from
projects when they realized that the costs
" A maximum contaminant level is the highest level
of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water.
involved in remediating the groundwater to
drinking water quality was beyond their
means.
The economic impediment to redevelopment
compounded the social and economic
problems posed by abandoned or unused
commercial and industrial properties sitting
fallow in urban areas. It is undisputed that
the negative social and economic impacts of
these properties are real and insidious.
In his study examining crime in abandoned
buildings in Austin, Texas, William
Spelman, Associate Professor of Public
Affairs at the University of Texas, concluded
that 41 percent of abandoned buildings could
be entered without use of force. Of these
open buildings, 83 percent showed evidence
of illegal use by prostitutes, drug dealers,
property criminals, and others. Crime rates
on blocks with open abandoned buildings
were twice as high as rates on matched
blocks without open buildings. 14
A 2001 Temple University study of
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, found that
houses within 150 feet of a vacant or
abandoned property experienced a net loss of
$7,627 in value. Those within 150 to 300 feet
depreciated by $6,819 and those within 300
to 450 feet depreciated by $3,542.15
In his study, "Abandoned Buildings: Models
for Legislative & Enforcement Reform,"
Mark Setterfield, Associate Professor of
Economics at Trinity College in Hartford,
Connecticut, states:
It would take very little to convince a
visitor to, much less a resident of, any of
14 Spelman, William, "Abandoned Buildings: Magnets
for Crime?" Journal of Criminal Justice, 1993.
15 Temple University, Blight Free Philadelphia: A
Public -Private Strategy to Create and Enhance
Neighborhood Value (2001)
Municipal Setting Designations
"The Ever-Lovin' Blue -Eyed Thing"
America's cities that there exists an
abandoned building problem. Even the
most cursory glance at the central urban
environs of cities such as Hartford and
New Britain reveals a preponderance of
burned out or boarded up buildings and
vacant lots. Meanwhile, residents of
neighborhoods blighted by abandoned
buildings complain of a variety of
economic and social problems connected
with commercial and residential
structures that have fallen into disuse and
disrepair. As the examples of Hartford
and New Britain attest, these problems
are by no means confined to larger
metropolitan centers; the phenomenon of
the small city with "big city problems"'
is very much a part of the urban
landscape of contemporary America.' b
In addition to wasted resources, lost tax
revenues and declining property values,
Professor Setterfield cites the negative effects
on the community as one of the chief
concerns associated with abandoned
buildings. He states:
Abandoned buildings can also have an
insidious effect on the social fabric of a
community, by encouraging `social
atomization' — a process which isolates
the individual (or individual family)
within a community, weakening ties to
others and, hence, the sense of
collectivity which is the hallmark of any
thriving community.... abandoned
buildings may foster a sense of
despondency and resignation that detracts
from the vitality of a
community .... buildings which fall into
"Trinity College, Abandoned Buildings: Models for
Legislative & Enforcement Reform, Mark Setterfield,
Associate Professor of Economics. Retrieved June 10,
2004, from the Trinity College web site:
www.trincoll.edu/depts/tcn/Research—Reports/resrcb2
3.htm
disrepair and remain dilapidated are
interpreted as a signal that no one cares
Abandoned buildings pose a major fire
hazard that endangers the lives of both
citizens and firefighters. The United States
Fire Administration reports that over 12,000
fires in vacant structures are reported each
year in the United States, resulting in $73
million in property damage annually. The
administration also reports that more than
70% of fires in vacant or abandoned
buildings are incendiary or suspicious.17
Following the 1999 death of six Worcester,
Massachusetts, firefighters while fighting a
fire at a structure that had been abandoned
for a decade, the administration concluded
that "abandoned buildings are a serious threat
to firefighters and fire departments 18 In
1987, a Detroit firefighter was killed when a
fire in an abandoned warehouse flashed over.
When the fire spread to other structures, two
more firefighters died when a wall collapsed
as they tried to limit the fire's growth. The
fire department had previously been called to
numerous small fires in the building, which
had been started by vagrants for warmth. 19
In 2003, a homeless man and two homeless
women were smoking crack in an abandoned
building in Yonkers, New York, and started a
17 American Re, New Tool Ready To Combat Arson;
Vacant & Abandoned Buildings Targeted. Retrieved
March 22, 2004, from the AmRe web site:
bttp:/fwww.amre.com/content/press/pressmain.asp?reI
ease=04-16-02_abandonedbuildings
78 U.S. Fire Administration, Technical Reports:
FEMA Review Deadly 1999 Worcester, Mass.,
Provides Insight Into Lessons Learned. Retrieved
March 22, 2004, from the U.S.F.A. web site:
www,usfa.fema.gov/fire-
service/techreports/trl 34.shtm
" Insurance Committee for Arson Control, Fires in
Abandoned Buildings Continue to Plague Firefighters,
Citizens. Retrieved June 10, 2004, from the ICAC web
site:
www.arsoncontrol.org/default.asp?target--/2002/newsl
etter/061 I f.htm
Municipal Setting Designations
"The Ever-Lovin' Blue -Eyed Thing"
fire for warmth. The fire spread through a
dozen buildings, killing five members of the
same family and leaving another 200
homeless. 20
In Fort Worth, firefighters battled four major
fires of a suspicious/incendiary nature at an
abandoned tannery between February 2002
and December 2003. The facility is located
next to a residential neighborhood and had
abandoned tanks and drums of tannery
chemicals along with large amounts of other
combustible materials at the site. 21
While MSDs are not a cure-all for the ills of
urban blight, they are an essential tool in a
municipality's brownfields arsenal to make
these abandoned sites more attractive to
potential developers, and to getting these
sites cleaned up, redeveloped, and back on
the tax roles as productive elements of the
community.
4. A MUNICIPALITY'S ROLE IN
THE MSD PROCESS
"Back off, buttercup, you're breathin' on
my baby blues!"
—Benjamin J. Grimm
a.k.a. The Thing
A property is eligible for an MSD if it is
located within the corporate limits or
20 1010wins.com Last Defendant Pleads Guilty in
Yonkers Fire, June 4, 2004. Retrieved June 10, 2004
from the 1010wins.com web site:
I01Owins.com/topstories/winstopstories_story_1561 1
2909.html
21 In February 2005 the EPA completed an emergency
response action at this site in partnership with the
TCEQ and the City of Fort Worth. The city is
currently working to find a developer to acquire,
complete remediation, and redevelop the site.
extraterritorial jurisdiction of a municipality
that has a population of at least 20,000.'2 A
public drinking water supply system must
exist that meets state requirements and is
capable of supplying drinking water to the
property for which the MSD is sought and all
property within a half mile.
The TCEQ will not certify an MSD unless
the city council of the municipality in which
the MSD is located adopts an ordinance
prohibiting potable use of groundwater in the
MSD. Alternatively, use of groundwater for
potable purposes can be prohibited by deed
restriction enforceable by the municipality.
In that instance, the city council must adopt a
resolution supporting the MSD designation.
Additionally, the MSD application must be
supported by a resolution enacted by:
• the city council of each municipality
with a boundary located within a half
w mile of the property;
• the city council of each municipality
that owns or operates a groundwater
supply within five miles of the
property; and
• the governing body of each retail
public utility that owns or operates a
groundwater supply well within five
miles of the property.
Municipalities are under no statutory
obligation to support MSDs, nor to accept or
process requests for support of MSDs from
developers or property owners. For those
municipalities that want to support MSDs
located in their jurisdictions, state law
provides no guidance on how to proceed,
save the requirement that an ordinance or
resolution be enacted. However, each
municipality that wants to support creation of
MSDs in its jurisdiction should establish
22 Refer to Tables 2-A and 2-13.
Municipal Setting Designations
"The Ever-Lovin' Blue -Eyed Thing"
procedures for handling requests, preferably
by ordinance, so that applicants know what is
required of them and so that the city treats
applicants in a consistent manner.
5. GET BUY -IN FROM CITY
STAFF AND CITY COUNCIL
"Hey, kiddo, I'm one of the good guys."
—Benjamin J. Grimm
a.k.a. The Thing
The concept of the MSD will be foreign to
most city council members and city staffers,
and difficult to grasp initially. Educating
these groups so that they understand the
concept and its implications, and then getting
their buy -in, is the first and most important
step to take when developing MSD
procedures.
The City of Fort Worth Environmental
Management Department began the MSD
development process by forming a multi-
departmental group consisting of staff
members from those city departments whose
services might be impacted by MSDs. These
were the city's Water Department,
Transportation and Public Works
Department, Development Department,
Community and Economic Development
Department, Planning Department and City
Attorney's Office. A meeting was held to
educate the staff members on MSDs, and to
elicit any concerns they might have. The
environmental issues were discussed, as were
concerns for the health and safety of city
employees and contractors working on
utilities and streets. The benefit of MSDs as a
brownfields redevelopment tool and its
potential to enhance economic
redevelopment in the central city was
emphasized.
Once staff support for MSDs was assured,
several presentations to the council's Central
City Revitalization and Economic
Development Committee were scheduled.
Again, the use of MSDs as a brownfields
redevelopment tool was emphasized, and it
was made clear that an MSD was designed to
impact groundwater cleanup standards as
they related to consumption of drinking
water, but that other human health and
environmental concerns would still have to
be addressed. Additionally, the committee
was assured that staff would develop a broad,
but thorough, public participation process.
Once the committee was comfortable with its
understanding of MSDs, and able to give
conditional support, staff was instructed to
prepare a procedural ordinance for accepting
and processing MSD applications, and to
bring the draft back to the committee for
review. After the committee reviewed the
draft ordinance, it was sent to the full city
council, and was passed on January 11, 2005,
becoming the first MSD procedural
ordinance in Texas.
6. FORT WORTH'SPROCEDURAL
ORDINANCE
"It's clobberin' time!"
— Benjamin J. Grimm
a.k.a. The Thing
In Fort Worth, persons wishing to get city
council approval for an MSD, must first
submit an application and go through a two-
part public participation process.
Municipal Setting Designations
"The Ever-Lovin' Blue -Eyed Thing"
Applications must be submitted to the city's
Director of Environmental Management. Six
originals of the application must be signed
and certified by an authorized representative
of the applicant and submitted to the director
with an application fee of $2,000. This
application fee offsets the city's
administrative costs associated with
application review and issuing notice. The
content required in the application is similar
to the TCEQ's requirements.
Environmental Management reviews the
application for completeness, and routes
copies to the Water, Engineering,
Development, and Transportation and Public
Works departments for their review. These
departments will look at the application in
context of city property interests and service
issues, to determine whether these could be
impacted by the MSD. The departments
have ten days to return written comments to
Environmental Management, noting
discrepancies in the application and advising
of any city interests that might be impacted..
If the application is complete, Environmental
Management will schedule both a public
meeting and public hearing. If the
application is incomplete, the application will
be returned to the applicant, with the
deficiencies noted in writing. The applicant
will have 30 days to correct and resubmit the
application.
The city must provide three forms of notice
of the meeting and hearing: written notice
mailed to specified persons, a sign posted on
the property of the proposed MSD, and a
notice in the official newspaper of the city.
During the public participation process,
Environmental Management must ensure that
a copy of the application is displayed at the
public library facility closest to site of the
proposed MSD.
The written notice required by Fort Worth's
ordinance is more inclusive than the statutory
requirements. Under the ordinance, notice
will be sent to owners of real property lying
within one-half mile of the boundary of the
proposed MSD, in addition to persons who
own private registered water wells within
five miles of the boundary of the proposed
MSD, each retail public utility that owns or
operates a groundwater supply well within
five miles of the proposed MSD, and each
municipality with a boundary located not
more than one-half mile of the proposed
MSD or that owns or operates a groundwater
supply well located within five miles.
The public meeting must be held no later
than 45 days from the date Environmental
Management received the application. It
must be held in the evening at a location
convenient to the affected community.
Although the city is responsible for the
conduct of the meeting, the applicant or a
representative must appear in order to
provide information to the community,
answer questions, and receive input from
those in attendance.
The public hearing before the city council
must be held no later than 60 days from the
date Environmental Management receives
the application. Again, the applicant or a
representative must appear. If they fail to
appear, the application is deemed to be
withdrawn. Persons may speak in favor of or
against the application, following established
city council rules for all public hearings.
After the hearing, city council will vote to
approve or disapprove the application. If
council votes to approve, it must:
• adopt a resolution supporting the
applicant's application to the TCEQ
for an MSD; and
Municipal Setting Designations
"The Ever-Lovin' Blue -Eyed Thing"
enact an ordinance prohibiting use of
designated groundwater for potable
purposes from beneath the site
(council may also place other
reasonable restrictions on use of the
groundwater at the site, such as
prohibiting the use of the
groundwater for landscape irrigation).
If the city council disapproves an application,
or if the applicant withdraws its application
after notice has been given, no new
application for an MSD on the site may be
filed for a period of 12 months.
Finally, a person who has received approval
of an MSD from the city must, upon issuance
from the TCEQ, provide the city with a copy
of the certificate of completion or other
documentation issued for the site, showing
that response actions have been completed.
Fort Worth received its first MSD application
in February, and it was approved by the city
council on April 12. The application was for
the Montgomery Plaza redevelopment at
2600 W. 7th Street, just west of downtown.
The 46 -acre site housed a former
Montgomery Ward catalog store and
distribution warehouse which sustained
damage in the March 28, 2000, tornado. The
affected groundwater is shallow, perched
groundwater at an average depth of 14 feet
below ground surface, underlain by a
confining limestone formation. Uses at the
site that contributed to groundwater
contamination included an auto service
center, a products service building (with
paint booths, degreaser stations, and solvent
dip tanks), and petroleum storage tanks. The
chemicals of concern identified in the
groundwater consist of petroleum
hydrocarbons, metals, volatile organic
compounds and semi -volatile organic
compounds in concentrations exceeding
residential assessment levels for potable
water use.
During the application process, the city kept
the MSD program at the TCEQ apprised of
progress. This ongoing communication with
the TCEQ is vital to ensuring a smooth
process. The public meeting was held in the
evening at the meeting room of a local
cafeteria, creating a relaxed atmosphere for
the community. The public hearing was
uneventful, the community voiced no
objections to the application, and the city
council unanimously passed the resolution
and ordinance creating CFW-MSD-0001.
7. CONCLUSION
"I'm just The Thing."
— Benjamin J. Grimm
a.k.a. The Thing
MSDs are a valuable tool for brownfields
redevelopment in urban areas. An MSD
certification for a site will free up funds that
would otherwise have been used for cleaning
shallow and unusable groundwater to
drinking water standards. These funds will
now be available to address the site's
redevelopment needs. That should give
municipalities a blanket of
comfort for brownfields redevelopment
projects they are undertaking on their own or
in partnership with private interests, because
their own financial risks for that project will
be significantly reduced.
Municipalities wishing to pursue use of the
MSD tool must first assure that city staffs
and city councils understand the concept and
are willing to support it. Procedures for
accepting applications for approvals of
MSDs should be created, and should provide
for a broad public participation process so
that the affected community is fully advised
of the application and has the opportunity to
ask questions and to continent. When used to
their full advantage, MSDs may be just "The
Thing" to further brownfields redevelopment
in many Texas municipalities.
Online Resources
Municipal Setting Designation Program, TCEQ:
http://vAvw.tnrcc.state.tx.us/pennitting/msd.html
Municipal Setting Designations, A Guide far Cities, TCEQ, March 2005:
http://www.tceq. state.tx.us/comm_exec/forms_pubs/pubs/gi/gi-326_497993.pdf
City of Fort Worth MSD procedural ordinance, application form, and resolutions and ordinances
establishing individual MSDs in the city:
http://www.fortworthgov.org/deni/brownfields—msd—ordinance.htm
Municipal Setting Designations
"The Ever-Lovin' Blue -Eyed Thing"
Table 1-A
DrinkingWater Source
Municipality
Pop.
Groundwater
Surface Water
Houston'
2,033,400
35% - 202 very deep wells in
T65% - Lake Conroe, Lake Houston & Lake
Evangeline and Chicot aquifers
Livingston
San Anton i02
1,228,512
100% - Edwards Aquifer
0%
Dallas3
1,211,437
0%
100% - Lake Ray Hubbard, Lake Lewisville, Lake
Grapevine, Lake Ray Roberts & Lake Tawakoni
Austin a
681,437
0% - none directly, but the Edwards
100% - Colorado River as it flows into Lake
Aquifer feeds into the Colorado River
Austin and Town Lake
100% - Lake Worth, Lake Benbrook, Eagle
Fort Worths
592,836
0%
Mountain Lake, Lake Bridgeport, Cedar Creek
Reservoir and Richland Chambers Reservoir
EI Pas06
588,452
Hueco-Mesilla Bolson Aquifers
Rio Grande River
100% - Cedar Creek, Richland Chambers, Lake
Arlington?
361,717
0%
Benbrook, and Lake Arlington
100% - Lake Corpus Christi, Choke Canyon
Corpus Christi$
278,708
0%
Reservoir System & Lake Texana
100% - Lake Lavon (primary) and Lake Texoma
Plano9
252,368
0%
& Lake Cooper (supplemental)
100% - Lake Lavon, Lake Chapman, Lake
Garland10
219,070
0%
Texoma
Lubbock"
205,9051
Ogallala Aquifer
Lake Meredith
Laredo 12
201,139
0%
100% - Rio Grande River
Irving 13
194,372
0%
100% - purchased from City of Dallas
Amarillo 14
180,380
45% - Ogallala Aquifer
55% - Lake Meredith
Desalinized water from Rio Grande
Rio Grande River
Brownsville15
161,048
Alluvium purchased from Southmost
Regional Water Authority
Pasadena 16
147,236
yes
yes
17
11 wells in Trinity Aquifer, average
Purchased from cities of Dallas (primary) and
Grand Prairie
141,692
depth of 2,000 feet (supplemental)
Fort Worth
Mesquite'"
128,653
0%
100% - Lake Lavon
Carrollton19
118,745
0%
100% - purchased from City of Dallas
20
100% - Rio Grande River and Lake Falcon &
McAllen
117,650
0%
Lake Amistad
21
Wac0
117,464
0%
100% - Lake Waco
22
100% - Fort Phantom Hill Lake, Hubbard Creek
Abilene
114,454
0%
Reservoir & Lake O.H. Ivie
Beaumont23
113,473
3 wells in Chicot Aquifer
Neches River
Wichita Falls24
103,262
0%
100% - Lake Kickapoo & Lake Arrowhead
25
100% - Lake Lavon (primary) and Lake Chapman
Richardson
100,803
0%
& Lake Texoma (supplemental)
Ogallala and Edwards -Trinity Plateau
Lake J.B. Thomas, Lake O.H. Ivie, Moss Creek
Midland26
97,04
aquifers
Lake & Lake E.V. Spence
Killeen 27
96,858
0%
100% Lake Belton
Denton 28
93,700
0%
100% - Lake Lewisville & Lake Ray Roberts
29
Cenozoic Pecos Alluvium aquifer
Lake Ivie (primary)
Odessa
93,170
(supplemental)
100% - Lake Lewisville (primary) and purchased
Lewisville'()
90,774
0%
water from City of Dallas (supplemental)
Tyler 31
90,079
12 wells in Carrizo Wilcox sand group
Lake Tyler & Lake Tyler East (primary) and Lake
at 600-1,100 feet
Palestine (supplemental)
2003 Population Estimates - Texas State Data Center: txsdc.utsa.edu/tpepp/txpopest.php
1 City of Houston, Water Conservation Statistics and TIPS, retrieved from the City of Houston web site, June 23,
2005: http://www.pubIicworks.cityofhouston.gov/utilities/conservation/conservationtips.htm
Z Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance, Our Drinking Water, retrieved from the GEAA web site, June 23, 2005:
http://www.aquiferalliance.org/p_Our—Drinking—Water.cfni
3 City of Dallas, Dallas Water Supply, retrieved from the City of Dallas web site, June 23, 2005:
http://www.dallascityhall.con-/dallas/eng/html/water quality_information.html
4 City of Austin, City of Austin Water Sources, retrieved from the City of Austin web site, June 24, 2005:
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/water/watersource.htm
5 City of Fort Worth, 2004 Water Quality Report, retrieved from the City of Fort Worth web site, June 24, 2005:
http://www. fortworthgov.org/water/W aterQuality/2004CCR/2004ccr.pdf
6 El Paso Water Utilities, Water Resources, retrieved from the El Paso Water Utilities web site, June 23, 2005:
http://www.epwu.org/water/wate,r—TeSources.html
7 City of Arlington, 2004 Drinking Water Quality Report, retrieved from the City of Arlington web site, June 23,
2005: http://www.ci.arlington.tx.us/water/pdf/2004_Drinking_Water_Quality_Report_revised.pdf
8 City of Corpus Christi, Water History, retrieved from the City of Corpus Christi web site, June 23, 2005:
http://w,ww.cctexas.com/?fuseaction=main.view&page=1005
9 City of Plano, Plano's Water Source, retrieved from the City of Plano web site, June 24, 2005:
http://www.planotx.org/water/source.htm]
10 City of Garland, 2004 Water Quality Report, retrieved from the City of Garland web site, June 23, 2005:
http://www.ci.garland.tx.us/NR/rdonlyres/83957FC8-35C8-4B2A-B77B-DA25l ECCOD4A/O/WaterQuality.pdf
11 City of Lubbock, 2003 Water Quality Report, retrieved from the City of Lubbock web site, June 23, 2005:
http://publi cworks. ci .lubbock.tx.us/water/documents/2003_ccr.p df
12 City of Laredo, Laredo News and Calendar, retrieved from the City of Laredo web site, June 24, 2005:
http://www.laredocalendar.com/article_detail.cfm?id=130
13 City of Irving, 2004 Water Quality Report, retrieved from the City of Irving web site, June 23, 2005:
http://ci.irving.tx.us/water/pdf/WQR05.pdf
14 City of Amarillo, 2004 Water Quality Report, retrieved from the City of Amarillo web site, June 23, 2005:
http ://www. ci. amaH] o.tx. us/departments/di rutil s/2004 W aterQualityReport.pdf
15 City of Brownsville, 2004 Water Quality Report, retrieved from the City of Brownsville web site, June 24, 2005:
http://www.brownsville-pub.com/water/eng_ccr-2004.pdf
16 City of Pasadena, 2004 Drinking Water Quality Report, retrieved from the City of Pasadena web site, June 24,
2005: http://www.ci.pasadena.tx.us/waterquality2004.pdf
i7 City of Grand Prairie, 2004 Water Quality Report, retrieved from the City of Grand Prairie web site, June 23,
2005: http://www.gptx.org/Environmenta]ServicesfWaterQuality/documents/2004CCR_webversion.pdf
18 City of Mesquite, Frequently Asked Questions, retrieved from the City of Mesquite web site, June 23, 2005:
bttp://www.cityofmesquite.com/utilities/faq.php
Table 2-A
19 City of Carrollton, 2004 Water Quality Report, retrieved from the City of Carrollton web site, June 23, 2005:
http://www.cityofearrollton. com/devel opment/publicworks/pdf/W ater%20Quality%20Report.pdf
20 McAllen Economic Development Corporation, State rates McAllen drinking water TOPS in Texas, retrieved from
the MEDC web site, June 24, 2005: http://www.medc.org/newsletter/intemal.aspx?sid=0&ArticlelD=1094&iid=147
" City of Waco, North Bosque River Watershed, retrieved from the City of Waco web site, June 23, 2005:
http: //www.waco-texas. com/city_depts/waterutil iti es/riversb ed.htm
22 City of Abilene, Mayor Loosens Water Restrictions — May 25, 2005, retrieved from the City of Abilene web site,
June 24, 2005: http://www.abilenetx.com/press/may.htm
23 City of Beaumont, 2004 Drinking Water Consumer Confidence Report, retrieved from the City of Beaumont web
site, June 24, 2005: bq://www.cityofl)eaumont.com/CCR04.pdf
24 City of Wichita Falls, 2004 Water Quality Report, retrieved from the City of Wichita Falls web site, June 23,
2005: http://www.ci.wichita-falls.tx.us/pubworks/ccr%202004%20also.pdf
25 City of Richardson, 2003 Consumer Confidence Report, retrieved from the City of Richardson web site, June 24,
2005: http://wNvw.cor.net/lJtilities/News.htm]
26 City of Midland, 2004 Water Quality Report, retrieved from the City of Midland web site, June 24, 2005:
http://www.ci.midland.tx.us/TJtilities/WaterRpt2004.pdf
27 City of Killeen, 2003 Drinking Water Quality Report, retrieved from the City of Killeen web site, June 24, 2005:
http://www.ci.killeen.tx.us/publicworks/utilityservices/CCR%202003 %20Final.pdf
28 City of Denton, 2003 Water Quality Report, retrieved from the City of Denton web site, June 24, 2005:
http://cityofdenton.com/pages/util swaterqualityrep.cfm?2004%SFwgr%
29 City of Odessa, 2003 Water Quality Report, retrieved from the City of Odessa web site, June 24, 2005:
http://www.odessa-tx.gov/intemet[W ebSubsectionDept. asp?key=2322
30 City of Lewisville, 2004 Water Quality Report, retrieved from the City of Lewisville web site, June 24, 2005:
http://www.cityofl ewisville.com/main/NewsRel easesiWaterQuality04,pdf
31 City of Tyler, Tyler Water Utilities — History, retrieved from the City of Tyler web site, June 24, 2005:
http://www. cityoftyler.org/1244502742C482D58D7BB4AOE3 BBA859/default.htm]
Table 1-A 3
Table 1-13
2003 Population Estimates - Texas State Data Center: txsdc.utsa.edu/tpepp/txpopest,php
X401 11 t
1 1'
Drinking'Vater
Source
Municipality
Pop.
Groundwater
Surface Water
Abilene
114,454
0%
100% - Fort Phantom Hili Lake, Hubbard
Creek Reservoir & Lake O.H. Ivie
Amarillo
180,380
45% - Ogallala Aquifer
55% - Lake Meredith
Arlington
361,717
0%
100% - Cedar Creek, Richland Chambers,
Lake Benbrook, and Lake Arlington
Austin
681,437
0% - none directly, but the Edwards
100% - Colorado River as it flows into Lake
Aquifer feeds into the Colorado River
Austin and Town Lake
Beaumont
113,473
3 wells in Chicot Aquifer
Neches River
Desalinized water from Rio Grande
Rio Grande River
Brownsville
161,048
Alluvium purchased from Southmost
Regional Water Authority
Carrollton
118,745
0%
100% - urchased from City of Dallas
Corpus Christi
278,708
0%
100% - Lake Corpus Christi, Choke Canyon
Reservoir System & Lake Texana
100% - Lake Ray Hubbard, Lake Lewisville,
Dallas
1,211,437
0%
Lake Grapevine, Lake Ray Roberts & Lake
Tawakoni
Denton
93,700
0%
100% - Lake Lewisville & Lake Ray Roberts
EI Paso
588,452
Hueco-Mesilla Bolson Aquifers
Rio Grande River
100% - Lake Worth, Lake Benbrook, Eagle
Fort Worth
592,836
0%
Mountain Lake, Lake Bridgeport, Cedar Creek
Reservoir and Richland Chambers Reservoir
Garland
219,070
0%
100% - Lake Lavon, Lake Chapman, Lake
Texoma
Grand Prairie
141,692
11 wells in Trinity Aquifer, average depth
Purchased from cities of Dallas (primary) and
of 2,000 feet (supplemental)
Fort Worth
Houston
2,033,400
35% - 202 very deep wells in Evangeline
65% - Lake Conroe, Lake Houston & Lake
and Chicot aquifers
Livingston
Irving
194,372
0%
100% - purchased from City of Dallas
Killeen
96,858
0%
100% Lake Belton
Laredo
201,139
0%
100% - Rio Grande River
100% - Lake Lewisville (primary) and
Lewisville
90,774
0%
purchased water from City of Dallas
(supplemental)
Lubbock
205,905
Ogallala Aquifer
Lake Meredith
McAllen
117,650
0%
100% - Rio Grande River and Lake Falcon &
Lake Amistad
Mesquite
128,653
0%
100% - Lake Lavon
Midland
97,048
Ogallala and Edwards -Trinity Plateau
Lake J.B. Thomas, Lake O.H. Ivie, Moss
aquifers
Creek Lake & Lake E.V. Spence
Odessa
93,170
Cenozoic Pecos Alluvium aquifer
Lake (vie (primary)
(supplemental
Pasadena
147,236
yes
yes
Plano
252,368
0%
100% - Lake Lavon (primary) and Lake
Texoma & Lake Cooper (supplemental)
Richardson
100,803
0%
100% - Lake Lavon (primary) and Lake
Chapman & Lake Texoma (supplemental)
San Antonio
1,228,512
100% - Edwards Aquifer
0%
Tyler
90,079
12 wells in Carrizo Wilcox sand group at
Lake Tyler & Lake Tyler East (primary) and
600-1,100 feet
Lake Palestine (supplemental)
Waco
117,464
0%
100% - Lake Waco
Wichita Falls 1
103,262
0%
100% - Lake Kicka oo & Lake Arrowhead '
2003 Population Estimates - Texas State Data Center: txsdc.utsa.edu/tpepp/txpopest,php
Figure 1
Drinking Water Sources for Largest Cities in Texas
:s
♦ ♦k to
f A
EN
"fu
a sm
® Groundwater Only
® Groundwater/Surface Water
Surface Water Only
0 125 250 375 500
Miles
Table 2 - A
-00y"77UMMMI.,
Municipality
11
Texas Municipalities
Pop.
. . .
With Population
(Sorted by Popu
Municipality
79
20,000 or Greater
ation)
Pop. Municipality
V I" �
Pop.
Houston
2,033,400
Harlingen
63,404
La Porte
33,035
San Antonio
1,228,512
Missouri City
63,115
Friendswood
32,006
Dallas
1,211,437
Allen
61,256
Nacogdoches
30,468
Austin
681,4371
Victoria
61,055
San Juan
29,998
Fort Worth
592,836
Flower Mound
60,908
Copperas Cove
29,976
EI Paso
588,452
North Richland Hills
60,455
Weslaco
29,797
Arlington
361,717
Frisco
58,927
Socorro
28,857_
Corpus Christi
278,708
Galveston
57,539
Deer Park
28,675
Plano
252,368
Port Arthur
57,341
Rosenberg
28,190
Garland
219,070
Mission
56,934
Cleburne
28,179
Lubbock
205,905
Edinburg
56,845
Lake Jackson
27,305
Laredo
201,139
Temple
55,784
Lancaster
27,241
Irving
194,372
Pharr
55,678
Farmers Branch
27,176
Amarillo
180,380
League City
53,621
Paris
26,256
Brownsville
161,048
Rowlett
52,060
Corsicana
26,014
Pasadena
147,236
Pearland
50,504
Kingsville
25,836
Grand Prairie
141,692
Euless
49,848
Big Spring
25,458
Mesquite
128,653
Bedford
48,582
Burleson
25,248_
Carrollton
118,745
Grapevine
46,245
Greenville
25,202
McAllen
117,650
New Braunfels
43,680
San Benito
24,897
Waco
117,464
DeSoto
42,792
Rockwall
24,867
Abilene
114,454
Texas City
42,441
Eagle Pass
24,667
Beaumont
113,473
Conroe
42,113
Pflugerville
24,662
Wichita Falls
103,262
San Marcos
42,102
Seguin
24,532
Richardson
100,803
Haltom City
40,698
Marshall
24,430
Midland
97,048,
Cedar Hill
39,095
Schertz
24,336
Killeen
96,8581
Co ell
38,909
Waxahachie
24,205
Denton
93,700
Cedar Park
37,614
Southlake
24,160
Odessa
93,170
Hurst
37,471
Denison
23,300
Lewisville
90,774
Sherman
36,512
Watauga
23,087
Tyler
90,079
The Colony
36,038
Wylie
23,029
San Angelo
88,170
Texarkana
36,020
University Park
22,529
McKinney
81,462
Huntsville
35,975
Alvin
22,404
Round Rock
81,265
Del Rio
35,400
Plainview
22,133
Longview
74,904
Duncanville
35,362
Weatherford
21,515
SugarLand
74,079
Georgetown
34,994
Benbrook
21,496
College Station
73,691
Keller
34,467
Colleyville
21,370
Bryan
69,146
Mansfield
33,707
Kerrville
21,254
Baytown
67,659
Lufkin
33,235
SOURCE: Texas State Data Center: txsdc.utsa.edu/tpepp/txpopest.php
Table 2 - B
Municipality
Pop.
Municipality
Pop. Municipality
Pop.
Abilene
114,454
Fort Worth
592,836
Odessa
93,170
Allen
61,256
Friendswood
32,006
Paris
26,256
Alvin
22,404
Frisco
58,927
Pasadena
147,236
Amarillo
180,380
Galveston
57,539
Pearland
50,504
Arlington
361,717
Garland
219,070
Pflugerville
24,662
Austin
681,437
Georgetown
34,994
Pharr
55,678
Baytown
67,659
Grand Prairie
141,692
Plainview
22,133
Beaumont
113,473
Grapevine
46,245
Plano
252,368
Bedford
48,582
Greenville
25,202
Port Arthur
57,341
Benbrook
21,496
Haltom City
40,698
Richardson
100,803
Big Spring
25,458
Harlingen
63,404
Rockwall
24,867
Brownsville
161,048
Houston
2,033,400
Rosenberg
28,190
Bryan
69,146
Huntsville
35,975
Round Rock
81,265
Burleson
25,248
Hurst
37,471
Rowlett
52,060
Carrollton
118,745
Irving
194,372
San An elo
88,170
Cedar Hill
39,095
Keller
34,467
San Antonio
1,228,512
Cedar Park
37,614
Kerrville
21,254
San Benito
24,897
Cleburne
28,179
Killeen
96,858
San Juan
29,998
College Station
73,691
Kingsville
25,836
San Marcos
42,102
Colle ville
21,370
Lake Jackson
27,305
Schertz
24,336
The Colony
36,038
Lancaster
27,241
Seguin
24,532
Conroe
42,113
La Porte
33,035
Sherman
36,512'
Co pelt
38,909
Laredo
201,139
Socorro
28,857
Copperas Cove
29,976
League City
53,621
Southlake
24,160
Corpus Christi
278,708
Lewisville
90,774
Su ar Land
74,079
Corsicana
26,014
Lon view
74,904
Temple
55,784
Dallas
1,211,437
1
Lubbock
205,905
Texarkana
36,020
Deer Park
28,675
Lufkin
33,235
Texas City
42,441
Del Rio
35,400
Mansfield
33,707
Tyler
90,079
Denison
23,300
Marshall
24,430
University Park
22,529
Denton
93,700
McAllen
117,650
Victoria
61,055
DeSoto
42,792
McKinney
81,462
Waco
117,464
Duncanville
35,362
Mesquite
128,653
Watauga
23,087
Eagle Pass
24,667
Midland
97,048
Waxahachie
24,205'
Edinburg
56,845
Mission
56,934
Weatherford
21,515
EI Paso
588,452
Missouri City
63,115
Weslaco
29,797
Euless
49,848
Naco doches
30,468
Wichita Falls
103,262
Farmers Branch
27,176
New Braunfels
43,680
Wylie
23,029
Flower Mound
60,908
North Richland Hills
60,455
SOURCE: Texas State Data Center: txsdc.utsa.edu/tpepp/txpopest.php