Sent By: TOWN OF ADDISON 􀁓􀁅􀁒􀁖􀁉􀁃􀁅􀀮􀁾􀁔􀁾􀀠j 9724502634; Sep-30-n', 3:02PM; Page 3/4 09/30/02 14:34 FAl 512 7D3 2.) lIatllOlII'/8 A....EI:.!leland. LLF .. ---------------_. 􀁉􀁩􀁉􀁉􀁏􀁏􀁾􀀯􀀰􀀰
􀀴􀀠TEXAS CITIES COALITION 4)N STORMWATER PO a,," 1SSB Auenn. Texas 1111!'!a·15t!16 (512) 404-7Il00 F􀁾􀀨􀀠I!llZ1 TM-2?1IS .. "r' , " MEMORANDUM To: TCCOS Members FrOlll1 Jim Matllews
.fae FreellUld Re: tJPDATE ON PHASE 1I STORM WATER Pl!JOOTTlNC FOR SMALL MlJNICIPALI11ES Date: Septmnber 30,1.001 TeeDS is alive and well. We bave not oollUllunicated ),fth the group
as a whole this year bl!:(l&lI&lI we have bOm! wailing for any significant developInlllts such lIS a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Dr imlance of a proposed 􀁾􀀸􀁉􀁉􀁣􀁲􀁡􀁬􀀠pemrif
by the Texas Commission on Envitonmcnlal Quality ("TCEQ',), which used b) be !he TNRCC. While We contiml8 ttl wait mr a deoision frotll the Court, we now have a pro:;>oscd glllleraJ
ponnit. He tin TCEQ (fonnerly TNRCC) proposed a General Sturm Water Permit for Bmllll mlllli(ipalilics? On September 27. 200:2, the TCBQ published Il>lOOe in tht\ T_ Resister of a propor.ed
gam) pumit for regulated small MS4s (27 Til)!: Reg 9189). This draft general penni! also SI."Is out the aiWia that the TCEQ will use to detemWJc whl!lber those cities on the potentially
designated list or othor non-listed cities will he mquiml to obtain petmit coV!:fage. A copy of this pcnnit can be obtained at htIJI;!lI;vww.tnrcC.9!ate.pc.uS/Pmnittipg/w!lterpermlwwpermllxIQ4')QOO,D
df or on our website at lltmtl',!1WW,roand£C9!!J1pqQ400Q(!,pdf • What wtlI tile Proposed Gellerd Permit reqDire? The general permit proposed hy thco TCEQ Ioolcs remarkably similar ttl
the model gllllera1 permit iSiPled by BPA mote than /I Y'1ar ago. The propOlLed permit would requil1l -regDlatcd small MS4s to implement six minimum ctmttol mellSUICllIIS part of II
sloIm water tllllllllgcmllllt plan 􀀨􀀢􀁓􀀧􀁾WOO). The permit woWd also requiFt: Tegu1ated small MS4& to $I1bmit II Notice OfJn1lmt ("NOn NOI within 90 days fonowing the effectivo date
of the pennit or March 10, 2003. whichever (lab:: is later. This NOI wollld contain an initial SWMP, containing thl! best management plU';icOll ("BMPs'') and measllXllble goals to satisfy
the six mirrimll1D oontrol measures, and a schec.ule for implementation of the plm, The ..,hcdul" mwrt provide for fill! implementation of th" SW:MP by the end of the five YCIIl F,en1Iit
term. The)ll:llDit adds lID optional seventh miDimuln control measure that add:Mssea muni(:ipal COlIStruCtion projects. MlJI1icipalities that select this option willoot have to obtain
Separ:ltc permit coverage fur thcU own construction projects. 
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 
Sent By: TOWN OF ADDISON 􀁓􀁅􀁒􀁖􀁉􀁃􀁅􀁟􀁾􀁔􀁾􀀠; 972 450 2834; 􀁓􀁥􀁰􀀭􀀳􀀰􀂷􀀰􀁾􀀮􀀠3:02PM; Page 4/4 , 09/30/02 14:3& FAX sa 103. i lIathe"s .6.....Etll.elan4, UP 141004/004-'--------------------•
:How did the TCEQ DlWeiop the Proposed Permll? Tht, TCEQ solicited input from II workgJi)up, TCCOS participallld in the workgroup Pl'O!leSS and 1(:,1 two of the subgroups. Tbt: wodcgri)UP
met several times during 1ate-2001 and early-2oo2, M'ter tho subgroups submiUcd their repoIls, no further meetings of the workg<oup were held. TCEQ never solicited any final recomrllCllllatioWl
!iom Ihe workgroup, bind, it ilppem that the TCEQ largely ignored the reeomtllendations made by the subgroups and proposed a permit 􀁮􀁯􀁾􀁡􀁲􀁉􀁹􀀠identical to BPA's model general permit.
• What MUBidpalities Need a Storm Water Permit? All D'IllIIicipalilies lined 011 EPA's automatically desi$nated cities list. which -;a.n be viowod 111 􀁾􀀱􀁗􀀧􀁢􀀧IDapdf.com/Affccted'Iex!!!!Citjes.h!
m. Also, all I'!lImicipalities located within Urbauiz:ed Areas ('VA") as ddined by the Ccmus Bureau Ullin! data fi'om the 2000 Census. The 􀁔􀁾􀁾􀁂􀁑􀀠has pOlted a "viewer'" that can
bo Il$od to determine whether you are witbiD a 2000 UA -!n1p:{IgiUiIICll.state.lX,us{website!;!'WW!>OIyjewer.htm. UllIIer UA'I TUles, only Ihose 􀁾􀁡􀀯􀁬􀀠of a municipality within the
Utbanized Area must be 􀁣􀀺􀁯􀁶􀁥􀁲􀁾􀁤􀀠by a pennit. TCEQ claims that its. iment WQ the samo as BPA8. but the laIlsuage of the pmposcd gew:ral permit on dUs issue JJI UDclear. • What
CaD we do til try to improve Che Propo&ed GUller" Permit? The TCEQ is soliciting written comment on the proposed general permit Um:mgh November 15, 2002. TCCOS will develop and submit
comments on the proposed permit. Howelt!ft', it wUl be important for the TCEQ to hear from as many affected m1l!lioipillilies BB possible. Thoreftm:, you 􀁾􀁬􀁯􀁵􀀱􀁤􀀠consider filing
yow-own col'lUl1Cllts. The TCC(jS position papers and other bliCkgJ-ound docu.wents can be found at http://www.mandicqWtccos. We will POst our comments on the propused S1lJ1ara1 pennit
after they have been miewed by Ihe TCCOS Sleering COJnI:Dittee. Additionally, tho TCEQ is holding tho following public hearings -JQ the proposed S1lJ1cral permit: ArlinllIDD (OctDbcr
28. 2.0(2); Houlton (CX;tober 29, 2002.); Sall AlI«aldo (November 4, 2002). You should plan on attetlding one of the hearings and voicin 􀁾􀀠your COIlcema with TCEQ's approJlCh. • What
II the .tatld ofthe ehallenge to EPA'. Pba.I II rllle1 TCCOS' challenge to UA's [mal Phase D rule remain! pending in the Ninth Ci.n;uit C:,lurt ofAppealli, The elISe was IItgued and
submitted in December 2001. We are still waiting fhr the Court to issue a decision. Additionally, two Phase J cities filed challqOl to their MS4 pcmitll on many ofth!: same bases raised
by TCCOS in ill challenge to EPA'$ Phase D rules. rh_ chalIengm IIIlI emrently pendii!g in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The inuea haVl' been briefed but DO argument date t,as
been set. QflealliOJJS? IfYO\1 "ave any quesliollS resuding tbiJ memo, 'I'CBQ'B proposed permit, or what you sbou1d dQ nOW rcganling Ihe permit, please _tact lOll 􀁆􀁮􀁾􀀬􀁬􀁡􀁮􀁤􀀠or
run Mathews at (S12) 404-7800 or iMoru!@rnondt:s:om or imatlu!wt@tpmdtcom. Addilional ioformation can be foUl\d at ht!p://wyIw.tnrcIl.IIate.tx.ualpmnjltinglwateomn/WWP',:mfmi!4.htmtllmap.
2 
Sent By: TOWN OF ADDISON SERVICE."rA • 972 450 2834' 􀁓􀁥􀁰􀂷􀀳􀀰􀀮􀀰􀁾􀀠:l'02PM' Page 1To: SCDOWN At: 283 ": • • .' • 09/30/02 14:3. FAX 512 703 2785 Hatbew6 , Preeland. LLP. ._.---.-.'---'-_.
_. -_.._..-. -. --. ICI 0011004 TEXAS CITIES COALITION ON STOIi:/.IIIWATER P.o. Box 15611 Au!lln, Texas 78768--15811 (512) 404-7800 Fax (512)703-273:::15:....-___ FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET
FROM; Steering Commltt•• Sundav, September 29,2002 TeXII9 Cities Coalition on Stonnwater TO: (lily Of Addison James Pierce. Jr., P.E.• DEe City 01 Alamo Heights Paul Sontag City of Alvin
Paul HOII'mann Cily of Maltton RlltI! Herta! city of ilala:lrnlS Heights Miguel SllndovlIl City 01 Say CIty Clark H. Young City or BellOn sam Llsti Cily of Brenham Doug Baker City of
Brownwood Gary Butts City ofBryan !<elly WI/Umsn City of Bunker Hm Village 􀁾􀁵􀁬􀁨􀁬􀁯􀀠Sager City 01 Burkbumwl 􀁍􀁉􀁾􀁥􀁓􀁉􀁾􀀠City of Cllnyol'l Glen Melcalf City of cade HHlf Mark
Medbury City of Clear lake Shores Tad K. GutMe. Jr. City or Clebuml/Larry Barkman City of Coll'9l1 StallQll K$lhfYll Anlllony Cily of Conroe DOIIII Towery CIIY of Converse Don Kirk1and
City of COPP&r88 ';0111> Paul M. BO)l8r, ".E. Cily of Corinth Kenne1h Seale Olty of Corsic8l'l!l CDnnle Standridge City of Deer Park ROil Crabftee Oily Qf Del RI/) RlldY Palafox City
of Deniscn Tom Akins Cily of !'tower p,(.'Jnd MIk8 Boles. Ken Perr, Julie Smith Cily of FrIeM.!Woo<1 Mlcklel G. Hodge OIlY 01 􀁾􀁡􀁬􀁮􀁥􀀸􀁖􀁪􀁬􀁾􀀧􀀠Mike Land City of Galenn park John
Cooper Cily 01 GaIVN/OI. BF1IIIdon Wade City of GlItl!Slnllo Brandon Emmons City of GeOl'gelovm George RUBseil Cily of G!'8I)@'illne Mall SlnglelOn City of Groves Davis Brinson City
of Harke,' Heights JefI1 Aikman City of Harlingen ROeI Rodriguez City of Hedwig Village PiIIIl Addlngto/l CIty 01 Hand.11Im 􀁋􀁥􀁮􀁔􀁾􀁏􀁦􀀠CIty of Hawm Paul Holroyd cily of HIli Caunby
VRtaga Dvvid J. Harris City of Hltenooc:k John Ander.oll Cily of 􀁈􀁏􀁉􀁬􀁙􀁗􀁏􀁯􀁾􀀠Perk Herold Burri. CilyofHowe 􀁊􀁬􀁭􀁭􀁹􀁈􀁡􀁾􀁥􀁳􀀠City of Humble Befry K. Brock City of Hurst Ron
Haynes City of Jel'lle)l V I age DaieBroYln CilyofKaly Johnny NelSon City af Keller Ed llochner, Jr. CItY of KenneQal. TOCI Rowe Oily af Kerrville P!lul Knipple. P.e. Cltyot Klileso
Bruce A. BlII$chor. P.E. CHy of La MIi'(IIu Gary ROBII City of La PcrtI.I 8Ieve Gillet! city of Lako 􀁊􀁳􀁤􀁾􀁡􀁮􀀠William P. Yerone CIIyof LakHlde City Bobby Beavaa Cily oflan_III,·
J1lIion Cosby Cily of Leander ChrillloPher A. Reid. P.E. Cltyoflao" Va,I'lY Hank Bl'Ulllmett City of 􀁌􀀮􀁥􀁶􀁥􀁬􀁬􀁡􀁮􀁾􀀠Greg Ingham City of L.OWifvtll. Stevan l. Bacchus Clly of Lol'IIJ'Iiew
Jim FilleY Oily of Lufkin DeDra CassidY Cily of lumbetton Normen Reynolds Cily of McAllen lemberto Belli. P,E. elly of Mem9des JQ" Flol'OG. Jr. City ofMounl Ph••nt Midlaol H. 60ios.
p.e. Cily of Nacogdoohea David Smith City of NB868U [lay CMs Deftllllcli City of Nedellll11d SI_HamBIen City of North RIc hIIInd HIli' Clifton BeCk City a'f Odessa MIIIIh_ S. Squyres.
P.E. City of OlmOll P,ark aart>ara Josepl1 C!ly of Pftug8l\llUe KIm MartIn City ofPharr Fred SandI7VaI City of PI6lnoilew Jim Jeffers City of Port Arhur LMtle McMllhBfl, P.E. CIty of
POI1I.avaca Barba,.. GlbSOll CII;! of Port Ne ,has A.R. KImI&r Total Pages Sent 
Sent By: TOWN OF ADDISON 􀁓􀁅􀁒􀁖􀁉􀁃􀁅􀀮􀁾􀁔􀁒􀀠; 9724502634; Sep-30-D? 3:02PM; Page 2/4 , 09130102 14: 􀁾􀀴􀀠FAl 512 703 1) ."the"s " Freelant•.J,LP , 􀀭􀁾􀀠..--_. -----_. ---,-_..
_.-. . 111002/004 FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET FROM; Steering Commltt.e 􀁓􀁵􀁮􀁤􀁡􀁾􀀸􀁥􀁰􀁵􀀧􀁭􀁢􀁥􀁲􀀲􀀹􀀮􀀲􀀰􀀰􀀲􀀠Te:n. Clll... Coalition 0" Stonnwater TO: Cily of River Oaka City of 􀁾􀁬􀁉􀀡􀁉􀁢􀁂􀁲􀁧�
�cnyofSelma City of South Houatoll City of SlinnYl'lle City 0'Terrell HUla CIty ofT.xas City ClIy of Vernon City of 􀁗􀁥􀁉􀀺􀁬􀀳􀁾􀁬􀁲􀀠Clly of Wellt University City of Wlnd_el Town
of L.k6!llde MaNin Gregmy, til Jeff Braun M"ruie Lubianekl Suson Engel R.J. Ewalt Cal Johnson Tom KeselIII' Jim Murray Fronk SIMIlson EdWard R. Manvin" F,R.Celn Bill Mohr Clly of RO(lkwall
Cily 01 Seabrook City of Shennan City of Spring Val t<)' City of Templ& City olTe:.arkanE City of T)1er Cily of VIctoria City 01 West Lak" Hills CIIy of WII$IoWlr tlll1a City or Woodway
Rick Crowley GllryJones Chari..Rowland Ri<:hard Rocke!lbsug/l Jonathan Graham Philip M. Ball GregOI\' M. Morgan. P.E. John A. Johnston, P.E. Slump Sawada Tim Chamben; YOit Zakhary Total
Pages Sent 
TEXAS CITIES COALITION ON STORMWATER PO Box 1568 Austin. Texas 78768-1568 (512) 404-7800 Fax (512) 703-2785 MEMORANDUM To: TCCOS Participating Cities From: Jim Mathews Joe Freeland \
Re: Meeting with TNRCC Commissioners Date: April 11, 2000 On April 6, 2000, representatives of the TCCOS Steering Committee, Texas Counties Stonnwater Coalition, TML, Texas Association
of Counties, and the Texas Public Works Association met with Chainnan Robert Huston and Commissioner John Baker of the rnRCC and members of their staff. The TCCOS Steering Committee
was represented by Jonathan Graham (Temple), Mayor Bill Lindsay and Tom Akins (Denison), Jerry Hodge and Matt Singleton (Grapevine), and Larry Barkman (Cleburne). TML was represented
by Monte Akers. The Coalition's major emphasis in the meeting was on securing a framework of cooperation with rnRCC in developing an acceptable Phase II stonnwater program. Such a program
must apply real solutions to real problems and avoid EPA's "one-size-fits-a1I" approach. Attached is a position paper summarizing our goals and requests, and identifYing major issues
to resolve. This was a very successful meeting and an important first step in the process of working with rnRCC to develop a workable; common sense approach to EPA's Phase II stonnwater
program. Both Chainnan Huston and Commissioner Baker responded positively and expressed their desire to work with the coalition in developing a rational water quality based program for
Texas. Both acknowledged that the new stonnwater program must be implemented carefully and thoughtfully to avoid the "one size fits all" approach frequently favored by EPA. Chainnan
Huston expressly stated that he had no disagreement with the goals statement included in our position paper and noted his belief that an overly prescriptive program would be doomed to
fail. If you have any questions regarding this meeting, please call us, or any of the TCCOS representatives that attended the meeting. Note: We are developing an email contact list for
nse in sending out Coalition information. If you are interested in being included on the list, please send your email address to TCCOS@mandf.com. 
POSITION PAPER TNRCC IMPLEMENTATION OF EPA'S PHASE n STORM WATER PROGRAM FOR MS4s TEXAS CITIES COALITION ON STORMWATER TEXAS COUNTIES STORMWATER COALITION . April 6, 2000 Goal of Meeting
• Establish a framework ofcooperation in which the 1NRCC will work with Texas Cities and COlUlties to develop a rational, water-quality based, regulatory program for small MS4s that
recognizes the .current and historic efforts of local governments to improve water quality, equitably divides responsibilities on additional efforts to improve water quality, and is
consistent with Texas law. Specific Requests ofthe TNRCC • Designation of a senior staff member as liaison to the Counties and Cities regarding the development of1NRCC's program. • Adoption
ofspecific rules to implement the Phase II MS4 program. • Creation of an alternative permit program, as added by EPA to its fmal rule in response to comments from Texas Counties and
Cities. • Use of a process and criteria similar to that developed under Texas Water Code § 26.177 (water-quality based) when designating additional regulated small MS4s. Issues to ResoW
• What modification does 1NRCC intend to make to its NPDES permit program to implement the Phase II MS4 program, and when? • December 2000, ifno statutory change is required, or • December
200 I, ifa statutory change is required. • Will the 1NRCC implement those minimmn control measures that EPA cannot force local governments to do (such as public education, illicit discharge
control, construction site runoff control and post-construction storm water management.)? • Ifthe 1NRCC intends to require local governments to regulate third persons to control water
quality, does the 1NRCC have sufficient legal authority? • Will the 1NRCC agree to adopt "bare minimmn" BMPs and specific criteria to use to require more than bare minimmn? • Will the
1NRCC grant permit waivers for smaIl MS4s that are not contributing to the impairment ofa receiving stream on the § 303(d) list? 
TEXAS CITIES COALITION ON STORMWATER PO Box 1568 Austin, Texas 78768"1568 (512) 404·7800 Fax (512) 703·2785 _.._ .. _-------....---_._-_.. --November 30, 1998 Via Fax 239-48081First
Class Mail Lutrecia Oshoko (MC 204) Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Office of Policy and Regulatory Development P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 Re: Comments on
TNRCC's Proposed Municipal Pollution Control and Abatement Rules -Proposed 30 TAC Chapter 216: Subchapter B (Rule Log No. 97164-216-WT) Dear Ms Oshoko: Enclosed please find comments
concerning the TNRCC's Proposed Municipal Pollution Control and Abatement Rules (Rule Log No. 97J64-216-WT) filed on behalf ofthe Texas Cities Coalition on Stormwater, and each individual
city participating in the Coalition. We have enclosed an original and one copy ofour comments and enclosures. We have also enclosed a disk with an electronic copy ofthe comments. Please
file mark and return to me one copy ofthe comments and attachments, using the enclosed self addressed addressed stamped envelope. Thank you for your consideration ofour request and comments.
Enclosures/with Attachments cc: Participants in the Texas Cities Coalition on Stormwater Frank Sturzl 
TEXAS CITIES COALITION ON STORMWATER PO Box 1568 Austin, Texas 78768-1568 (512) 404-7800 Fax (512) 703-2785 THE TEXAS CITIES COALITION ON STORMWATER COMMENTS ON TNRCC'S PROPOSED MUNICIPAL
POLLUTION CONTROL AND ABATEMENT RULES PROPOSED NEW 30 TAC CHAPTER 216: SUBCHAPTER B (RULE LOG NO. 97164-216-WT) The following comments are filed on behalf of the Texas Cities Coalition
on Stormwater ("The Coalition"), and each individual city participating in the coalition.' These comments address the TNRCC's proposed rules to implement Texas Water Code § 26.177 --proposed
new Chapter 216; Subchapter B ofTitle 30 ofthe Texas Administrative Code (Rule Log No. 97164-216-WT). I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ON COALITION The Coalition is a group of86 Texas
cities representing a broad geographic and demographic cross-section ofsmall and medium Texas cities with populations ranging from 520 to 97,478. The members ofthe Coalition are concerned
about the quality ofTexas' streams, rivers and lakes and are committed to working with the TNRCC in finding new and innovative ways to address the remaining sources ofwater pollution.
In particular, the members ofthe Coalition are committed to working with the TNRCC to develop a comprehensive, systems-based approach to water quality management in Texas that addresses
all sources of water pollution fairly and equitably. The members ofthe Coalition initially joined together to participate in and comment upon the development of EPA's Phase II Storm
Water Program. The Coalition specifically requested that EPA implement the Phase II MS4 program through State water quality management programs, developed on a watershed/water quality
basis, instead ofthrough NPDES permits. The Coalition envisions that this approach would work in the following manner. As the States conduct TMDLs and other water quality assessments,
they will identifY impaired water bodies and then identifY the magnitude and significance ofcontributing sources ofpollutants. The States will then prepare andlor revise plans to provide
for cost-effective measures, equitably allocated among all pollutant contributors, to reduce pollutant loads. These plans will be developed with input from all stakeholders, and remedial
measures may be implemented in a phased manner based on the I A list of the cities participating in the Coalition as ofNovember 30, 1998, is attached as Exhibit A. 
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 
probability of results and/or economic feasibility. The States will then periodically reassess the receiving streams to determine whether the remedial measures are working, and if not,
require additional control measures using the same procedure used to establish the initial measures. The Coalition strongly believes that the TNRCC should take a similar approach for
its program to implement Section 26.177 ofthe Texas Water Code. The program should be an integral part of the TNRCC's ongoing Statewide Watershed Management Approach. Under the approach
envisioned by the Coalition, a city's obligation to prepare a water pollution control and abatement plan would be directly linked to the TNRCC's development ofa Watershed Action Plan
for each of the water quality limited water bodies in the state. The details of the plan could also be linked to the equitable control programs that are supposed to grow out ofthe watershed
planning activities. The Coalition believes that the use ofthe Statewide Watershed Management Approach for Texas is the most sensible way to directly achieve the goals of protecting
water quality and promoting the use of watershed planning .. By focusing on water quality rather than on controls merely for the sake ofcontrol, a water-quality based approach should
produce greater improvements in water quality at a lower cost than any alternative approach. Such an approach would better facilitate and promote watershed planning because it would
address the entirety of a watershed and notjust discrete portions and because it would not further aggravate the division between regulated and unregulated pollution sources. Also, such
an approach would be the most cost-effective and _ least burdensome approach. The following is a brief list ofsome of the principal benefits that would result from the use ofthe Statewide
Watershed Management Approach, as envisioned by the Coalition: • All sources ofwater pollution, both point and nonpoint, will be subject to controL • Source controls will be fairly and
equitably allocated among the sources ofpollution based on local priorities, needs and concerns. • The public is more likely to accept (and pay for) a program in which they are allowed
to participate in defining the problem and developing the solution. The TNRCC needs to find a way to provide cities with incentives to do more rather than penalties for doing less, and
the surest way to provide such an incentive is to provide the cities with the assurance that water quality is being addressed in a comprehensive manner. Cities want clean water as much
as any other governmental entity, but they believe that all levels ofgovernment must share in regulatory and political costs of achieving this goal and that all sources ofpollutant load
must share in reducing pollution. Texas Cities Coalition on Stormwater Comments on Proposed Municipal Water Pollution Control and Abatement Rules Page 2 of 12 
II. PROCEDURAL COMMENTS A. Takings Impact Assessment In the Takings Impact Assessment ("TIA") prepared for this rulemaking, the lNRCC concludes that the rulemaking will not create a
burden on private real property because the rule only governs actions a city must take to abate and/or prevent water pollution. Based on this conclusion, the lNRCC does not detennine
whether the rulemaking will constitute a taking or describe reasonable alternative actions as required by law. TEXAS GOY'T CODE ANN. § 2007.043(b) (West Pamph. 1998). The Coalition asserts
that the lNRCC's conclusion is in error and that the lNRCC must prepare a full TIA as part ofthe final rulemaking action. Pursuant to the Private Real Property Preservation Act (the"Act"),
the lNRCC is required to identifY the "burdens imposed on private real property." TEXAS GOVT CODE ANN. § 2007.043(b). The Act does not limit the lNRCC's obligation only to burdens directly
caused by the lNRCC's action. Thus, the lNRCC must identifY both direct and indirect burdens resulting from the rule. In the TIA, the lNRCC acknowledges that, as a result ofthis rule,
cities may be required to -regulate the activities of the general public, which may impose burdens on private property. The lNRCC attempts to avoid its obligation to identifY these burdens
by stating that actions taken by cities are exempt from the Act. However, such an exemption only applies to actions taken by cities. It does not apply to exempt the lNRCC from its obligations.
The lNRCC must attempt to identifY these indirect burdens in a full TIA in the final rule. B. Regulatory Impact Analysis In the Regulatory Impact Analysis ("RIA") prepared for this rulemaking,
the lNRCC concludes that the rulemaking is not a major environmental rule because the rule will not adversely affect the economy of the state, a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, or the public health and safety ofthe state or a sector ofthe state. Additionally, the lNRCC concludes that the proposed rule does not exceed an express
requirement of state law. Based on these conclusions, the lNRCC did not complete a full RIA. The Coalition asserts that the lNRCC's conclusions are in error and that the lNRCC must prepare
a full RIA as part of the final rulemaking action. The proposed rulemaking is clearly a major environmental rule. As recognized by the lNRCC, the specific intent of the rule is to pro
tee' the environment. Additionally, the rule may Texas Cities Coalition on Stormwater Comments on Proposed Municipal Water Pollution Control and Abatement Rules Page 3 of 12 
adversely affect the economy ofthe state or a sector of the economy. As a result ofthe rule, cities may be forced to stringently regulate land development and construction activities.
This regulation will impose additional costs on development. These costs could be significant. The Coalition also believes that the proposed rule exceeds an express requirement of state
law. As is discussed in greater detail later in these comments, this rulemaking is based on TEXAS WATER CODE ANN. § 26.177, which requires the preparation of pollution control and abatement
programs ifthe TNRCC identifies "water pollution that is attributable to non-permitted sources in a city ...." The proposed rule changes this by changing the triggering finding to "identified
water pollution that is not attributable to permitted sources." (Emphasis added). This change alters the balance ofand greatly exceeds the requirements ofthe statute. The TNRCC also
justifies its decision not to prepare an RIA on the basis of the limited applicability of the rule. The TNRCC states, in its RIA Checklist that application ofthe rule will be "limited
to cities with populations over 10,000, that have a water pollution problem attributable to non-permitted sources, and do not have a federal storm water permit. This statement is inconsistent
with the text ofthe proposed rule, which does not provide an exemption for cities with federal storm water permits. Thus, the Coalition believes that this justification cannot serve
as a basis for the TNRCC not performing an RIA, unless the TNRCC includes an exemption in the rule for cities with federal storm water permits. III. SPECIFIC COMMENTS A. Introduction
The following are the Coalition's specific comments on the text of the proposed rule, arranged generally in the order ofthe proposed ruIe. The Coalition is also attaching as Exhibit
B an alternative version ofthe ruIes (Coalition's Alternative Rule), which the Coalition believes achieves the goals of the statute in the most efficient manner. Although the Coalition
has has endeavored to explain all ofthe differences between its version ofthe rules and the TNRCC's proposed rules, it is possible that some minor issues have been overlooked in the
specific comments. Therefore, the Coalition asks the TNRCC to look not only at its specific written comments but also at the Coalition's Alternative Rule. B. Purpose and Policy The Coalition
objects to the first sentence of proposed § 216.21(b), which states that an "unauthorized discharge is a violation ofTexas Water Code, § 26.121. This introductory provision Texas Cities
Coalition on Stormwater Comments on Proposed Municipal Water Pollution Control and Abatement Rules Page 40f 12 
is not needed for purposes of this rule. Section 216.21(b) appears to be a reservation of the TNRCC's authority. As such, the first sentence adds nothing to this section. Moreover, the
provision is an overstatement ofthe law. Generally, § 26.121 ofthe Texas Water Code prohibits the discharge of "waste" and "pollutants." Unauthorized discharges not containing waste
or pollutants are generally not violations ofthe Texas Water Code. The Coalition recommends that this sentence be deleted from the final rule, such as shown on the Coalition's Alternative
Rule. C. Applicability The Coalition objects to the TNRCC's decision regarding the applicability ofthis proposed subchapter, as set out in proposed §§ 216.21(a) and 216.22(a). In the
proposed rule, the TNRCC dramatically alters the applicability limits ofthe statute. Pursuant to the statute, the preparation of pollution control and abatement programs is required
if the TNRCC identifies "water pollution that is attributable to non-permitted sources in a city ...." ...." TEXAS WATER CODE ANN. § 26.177 (emphasis added). The proposed rule changes
this by changing the triggering finding to "identified water pollution that is not attributable to permitted sources." Proposed § 216.22(a) (emphasis added). This change, although subtle,
could have serious consequences for cities. Under the statute, the TNRCC would have to prove that water pollution was attributable to non-permitted sources; under the rule, the TNRCC
could require the preparation ofa program ifthere was water pollution of unknown origin, unless the city could show that the pollution was not caused by permitted _ sources. The proposed
rule potentially changes the burden ofproof and requires cities to prove a negative, which could be next to impossible. Although the problem identified above could be addressed merely
by using the statutory language, the Coalition urges the TNRCC to articulate a clear and objective test for applicability through these rules. The statutory language alone is too vague.
Many of the terms used in the statute and the proposed rule (such as "source," and "attributable") are not defined and are ambiguous. For instance, neither the statute nor the rule addresses
how "attributable"is linked to causation and to the relative size ofcontribution. Ifit is determined that "water pollution" exists in a receiving stream and that a drop ofmaterial from a non-permitted
source within a city is present in that receiving stream, then is the water pollution attributable to the non-permitted source? Clear and objective criteria are needed in order to insure
consistency and predictability in applying the rules. The Coalition suggests that the TNRCC use a test that is based on language that has a more developed meaning, such as language from
40 CFR Part 130, and that is consistent with other water quality related programs, such as the TNRCC's Statewide Watershed Management Approach. For example, the test could be tied directly
to the establishment and implementation ofWatershed Action Plans (TMDLs); that is, the test could be set at whether pollutants discharged by non-permitted Texas Cities Coalition on Storm
water Comments on Proposed Municipal Water Pollution Control and Abatement Rules Page 5 of 12 
sources within the city are preventing or expected to prevent attainment ofwater quality standards. Thus, the use of this test would dovetail nicely with the implementation of TMDLs
and the development ofWatershed Action Plans and would make applicability ofthese rules consistent with TMDL development and regulation based on water quality problems. Additionally,
the Coalition believes that applicability should not be triggered by the presence of sources over which a city has no regulatory jurisdiction. A city may not have jurisdiction over a
source controlled by the State ofTexas or by the United States Govermnent, and a city may have no power to compel the source to do anything. Additionally, a city may have no power to
control a source ofpollution because ofother legal or physical barriers .. In such cases, the applicability of this subchapter should not be triggered. Another issue that needs to be
addressed by the rule is the relationship between the federal storm water permitting program for municipal separate storm sewer systems ("MS4 permit") and these rules. The Coalition
believes that a city that has an MS4 permit should not be also subject to these rules. The content ofthe city's MS4 permit and the accompanying storm water management program C"SWMP")
more than satisfY the requirements ofthe statute. Moreover, the TNRCC has indicated in the Regulatory Impact Analysis accompanying this proposed rule that the rule is not intended to
apply to cities that have a federal stormwater permit. This position must be clearly reflected in the language ofthe final rule. The Coalition also objects to the language of the last
sentence ofthe proposed § 216.22(a), which states: "Cities meeting applicability shall be required to satisfY applicable provisions ofthis subchapter upon receipt ofnotice issued by
the executive director pursuant to § 216.25 ofthis title." This language could be interpreted to mean that municipalities must develop and implement programs immediately after the Executive
Director determines applicability and long before the TNRCC enters an order requiring the development ofa program. Certainly this is not the TNRCC's intention. The Coalition has prepared
alternative language that meets the purpose and goals of the statute but does not suffer from the problems in the proposed rule. This language is in the Coalition's Alternative Rule.
D. Definitions Permitted Sources· The Coalition objects to the definition of "Permitted Sources" in § 261.23(3). This definition suffers from a number of serious problems. First ofall,
it makes no sense. For example, what is a "source that is required to discharge pollution."? Also, Chapter 26 of the Texas Water Code generally regulates the discharge of "waste" or
"pollutants" not the Texas Cities Coalition on Stormwater Comments on Proposed Municipal Water Poilution Control and Abatement Rules Page 6 of 12 
discharge of "pollution." Additionally, it is not clear whether sources that are required to have permits, but do not, are considered to be "permitted sources." Finally, as discussed
previously, the statute speaks in terms of"non-permitted sources" rather than "permitted sources." Thus, the relevant term to be defined should be "non-permitted sources." Assuming that
the term to be defined is "non-permitted sources," the issue is how should that term be defined. Based on the legislative history ofthis provision and on the language ofsevera! related
statutes, the Coalition believes that the Legislature intended "non-permitted sources" to mean "nonpoint sources." Moreover, the use of the nonpoint source concept would harmonize this
rule with other related statutes and rules, such as the Clean Rivers program and the Drainage Utility statute. Also, Section 26.177(b)(5) describes a part of the control and abatement
program that appears to coincide with the concept of nonpoint (or generalized) sources. The Coalition recommends that the lNRCC define this term as nonpoint source or something similar
as in the Coalition's Alternative Rule. Pollution -The Coalition objects to the definition of "pollution" as used in the proposed rules. Although this definition largely tracks the Texas
Water Code definition of pollution, the Coalition believes that this definition should either be deleted or refined for purposes ofthis rule. We believe that the determination ofwhether
water pollution exists should be made in reference to the surface water quality standards, which require a minimum amount of robustness in the _ assessment ofwater quality data in order
to define pollution. In the Coalition's Alternative Rule there is no definition of "pollution" because no such definition is necessary. In the Coalition's Alternative Rule, a city is
required to prepare a water pollution control and abatement program ifthe pollutant loading from non-permitted sources in the city exceed the amount ofpollutant loading allocated to
this category category of sources in a Watershed Action Plan. Correspondingly, the Coalition's Alternative Rule contains definitions of "load allocation," "loading capacity," and "water
action plan," which are not defined in the lNRCC's proposed rule. Under the Coalition's approach, city resources can be focused on and limited to the specific sources that are causing
water quality problems. The Coalition's approach also eliminates the vagueness associated with the lNRCC's proposed rule. If the TNRCC decides to include a definition of "pollution"
in the final rule, the Coalition suggests the following definition, which links the term directly to water quality: (4) Pollution -An excursion above a narrative or numeric surface water
quality criteria as established in Chapter 307 ofthis title (relating to Surface Water Quality Standards). Texas Cities Coalition on Stormwater Comments on Proposed MuniCipal Water Pollution
Control and Abatement Rules Page 7 of 12 
Significant Waste Discharge -The Coalition objects to the definition of "signifieant waste discharge" as used in the proposed rules because the rule is far too vague. This term controls
the scope of most of the substantive requirements imposed on cities. The TNRCC needs to provide some objective test so that cities will know whether they are in compliance with the TNRCC's
rules and so that cities will be able to plan and budget the necessary resources to achieve compliance. Moreover, the TNRCC's definition is too broad. Defining the term as a discharge
that causes or threatens to cause pollution could extend this term to a vast array ofpotential discharges, including such things as runoff from every residential yard, and every parking
lot. A requirement to identifY, monitor, sample and control such a broad array of discharges would be unduly burdensome. We suggest that this term be very clearly and narrowly defined.
The statute requires cities to identify, monitor, and address all significant waste discharges, and it requires cities to develop and implement plans for controlling pollution attributable
to generalized discharges ofwaste. This suggests that the Legislature did no intend for the term "significant waste discharges" to include generalized discharges of waste. The Coalition
believes that this term should be limited to point sources that have been specifically identified as significant by a Watershed Action Plan. The Coalition suggests the definition included
in the Coalition's Alternative Rule. Water Pollution Control and Abatement Program -The Coalition objects to the proposed definition of "water pollution control and ahatement program."
This definition does not track the _ statutory language describing a water pollution control and abatement program. This definition appears to go well beyond the requirements of the
statute and require cities to "prevent or correct water pollution problems." Moreover, this definition is not needed. The scope of the required water pollution control and abatement
program is adequately described in proposed § 216.27. The Coalition recommends that the TNRCC delete this definition. E. Water Quality Assessments and Studies The Coalition objects to
proposed § 216.24 because the proposed rule fails to appropriately limit the studies that can be used to trigger the water pollution control and abatement plan requirement. The Coalition
believes that only high-quality, peer-reviewed, quantitative studies that focus on the link between urban non-point source runoff and instream pollution should be used to trigger the
requirement. An example of the type of study that the Coalition believes would be aceeptable is a load allocation performed under 40 CFR § 130.7. The statute links the determination
ofwater pollution to "watershed water quality assessment reports required by Section 26.0135 or other commission assessments or studies." The rules, therefore, should place an emphasis
on watershed water quality assessment reports (category (2) in the proposed rule). Additionally, many ofthe reports listed in the proposed rule are inappropriate Texas Cities Coalition
on Stormwater Comments on Proposed Municipal Water Pollution Control and Abatement Rules Page 8 of 12 
for use to determine whether water pollution is attributable to non-permitted sources within a city. The rule should make it clear that the studies must be quality assured and must link
observed water quality impairment to non-permitted sources within a city. More importantly, however, the Coalition recommends that the TNRCC only use studies that serve as the basis
for Watershed Action Plans, or other studies that establish TMDLs (including load allocations and wasteload allocations) for both point and non-point sources within a watershed, as the
basis for triggering applicability. Such an approach would appropriately place this program in the INRCC's Statewide Watershed Management Approach. Such an approach would also ensure
that only the best data is used to make the determination. The Coalition's suggested language is set out in the Coalition's Altemative Rule. F. Notice ofthe ED's Determination and Opportunity
to Correct the Problem The Coalition suggests that the heading ofproposed § 216.25 be changed from "Notice" to "Notice ofInitial Determination." Such a heading would better describe
the Executive Director's action. The Coalition also objects to § 216.25(a)(4), which limits to five years the time period in which a city has to correct the problem. The Coalition believes
that the Executive Director's discretion to allow a longer period of time should not be limited by regulation. The Coalition believes that any city that has a water quality problem will
work diligently to find a solution to the _ problem without having to be forced to submit a water pollution control and abatement program. Indeed, the Coalition believes that the diversity
and effectiveness of voluntarily implemented programs will far surpass any requirements forced on cities by the INRCC. The Coalition recommends that a minimum time frame of at least
five years be established in the rule. The Coalition's suggested language is in the Coalition's Alternative Rule. G. Final Determination ofApplicability The Coalition suggests that heading
ofproposed § 216.26 be changed from "Public Meeting Held by Cormnission" to "Final Determination ofApplicability." The Coalition's suggested heading would better describe the INRCC's
actions described by the section. The Coalition objects to proposed § 216.26(a). The lNRCC should require the Executive Director to only use studies conducted after the city has taken
steps to correct the water-quality problem. Ifthe Executive Director is allowed to use assessments made before the implementation ofthe city's solution, those assessments will not accurately
describe the water quality existing after implementation ofthe city's solutions. The Coalition recommends that the TNRCC use the language set out in the Coalition's Alternative Rule.
Texas Cities Coalition on Storm water Comments on Proposed Municipal Water Pollution Control and Abatement Rules Page 9 of 12 
H. Procedural Issues The Coalition objects to all the procedural requirements ofproposed § 216.26. The Coalition suggests that the procedures contained in the Coalition's Alternative
Rule are more appropriate for the type ofaction being taken by the Commission. The Coalition objects to the requirement in proposed § 2l6.26(d) that would require cities to publish notice
ofthe TNRCC's public meeting. The Coalition believes that it is inappropriate for the TNRCC to put this responsibility on affected cities. This is not a permit action. The city is not
asking the 1NRCC for permission to do something. Rather, the 1NRCC is forcing the city to do something. It seems only fair that the TNRCC be responsible for providing public notice.
Also, we see no reason why public notice needs to be in accordance with §§ 39.5 and 39.7 ofthe TNRCC's rules. Those rules apply to situations involving "applicants" for permits. The
affected city here should not be considered to be an "applicant." Notice for the 1NRCC meeting should be given in the same manner as for other meetings ofthe 1NRCC. The Coalition objects
to the proposed § 216.26(e)(3), which gives the 1NRCC the opportunity to determine that a city must prepare a water pollution control and abatement program _ without giving the city
the opportunity to a contested case hearing to contest the factual basis for the Executive Director's determination. The Coalition believes that Texas law demands that the opportunity
for a hearing be given in situations such as presented in this proposed rule, where the rights of a city are being determined by an administrative agency based on specific factual determinations.
Moreover, only through a contested case hearing will the TNRCC be able to create an administrative record suitable for use for judicial review ofany final TNRCC action. The Coalition
suggests that the 1NRCC delete proposed § 216.26(e)(3). By making that change the TNRCC can determine that no program is required or can send the matter to SOAH for a hearing to determine
the factual issues. Because public funds will be used to develop and implement the program required by the 1NRCC, the TNRCC should ensure that its factual determination is made using
the most open procedures available. The specific langnsge recommended by the Coalition is contained in the Coalition's Alternative Rule. J. Contents ofWater Pollution Control and Abatement
Programs The Coalition objects to the provision of proposed §216.27(b) that states "or as may be reasonably required by the Commission." The rule fails to provide the regulated community
with Texas Cities Coalition on Stormwater Comments on Proposed Municipal Water Pollution Control and Abatement Rules Page 10 of 12 
sufficient notice of what these additional requirements might be. These additional "reasonable" requirements should be part ofthe rule. The Coalition also objects to the provisions in
§216.27(b)( 4), which exceed the requirements set out in § 26.l77(b) ofthe statute. The statute requires cities to "cooperate" with the Commission in developing procedures to obtain
compliance, including where necessary the use of legal enforcement proceedings. There needs to be considerable clarification regarding how such cooperation will be achieved. The Coalition
believes that the "cooperation" referred to in § 26.177 is a reference to § 26.175 (Cooperative Agreements), and to § 26.0136 (Water Quality Management). The Coalition also believes
that under provisions such as § 7.355 of the Texas Water Code, the primary responsibility for investigating and obtaining compliance with permitting requirements rests in the Commission
and not the city. The Coalition suggests that this provision be rewritten as set out the Coalition's Coalition's Alternative Ru\e. The Coalition objects to proposed §216.27(b)(6), which
states that the TNRCC may impose "other requirements as may be prescribed by commission ru\e." Again, this is the rule in which the TNRCC should be imposing requirements. The Coalition's
suggested language for this section is included in the Coalition's Alternative Rule. K. Review and Approval ofPrograrns The Coalition suggests that the heading of proposed §216.28 be
changed from "Submittal of Water Pollution Control and Abatement Programs" to "Review and Approval of Water Pollution Control and Abatement Programs. The Coalition believes that its
suggested heading more accurately deseribes the actions of the TNRCC. The Coalition objects to proposed § 216.28 because the proposed rule does not provide for a review and approval
process, as required by §26.177(c) ofthe Texas Water Code. The Coalition believes that a procedure similar to the review and approval ofpermit applications should bc used for the approval
required here. Such a procedure needs to address what happens if the Executive Director detennines that a program is deficient, and the city's recourse if it disagrees with the Executive
Director's determination. Additionally, the Coalition believes that this section needs the standards by which the Executive Director will judge a program. The Coalition's suggested language
to provide these additional items is contained in the Coalition's Alternative Rule. Additionally, the Coalition objects to the requirement that a registered professional engineer certify
that the program is designed to abate and prevent water pollution not attributable to permitted sources within a city. The Coalition objects to this requirement for a number of reasons.
A reputable engineer might be rcluctant to certify that a program will "prevent" water pollution. An Texas Cities Coalition on Storm water Comments on Proposed Municipal Water Pollution
Control and Abatement Rules Page 11 of 12 
engineer might be willing to certifY that the program has been developed in accordance with the applicable rules. Also, only a small part of a Water Pollution Control and Abatement Program
will address engineered structural controls. The majority ofsuch plans will be directed at such things as public education, compliance and enforcement, which are not engineering activities.
The Coalition recommends that engineer's seal and certification requirement be deleted from the rule, or at least changed to a certification that the program has been developed in accordance
with the applicable rules. L. Amendment Procedures The Coalition objects to the amendment procedures set out in the proposed rules. The Coalition believes that cities should be given
great flexibility to change their programs quickly and efficiently to meet changing pollution problems and local budgetary constraints. Additionally, the Coalition believes that the
rules need to clearly spell out the procedure that the Exeeutive Director must use to force a city to amend its program ifthe Executive Director wants the program changed. The Coalition's
suggested procedure for amendments is set out in the Coalition's Alternative Program. As with the Coalition's suggested original approval procedures, the amendment procedures are similar
to the TNRCC's current procedures for a TNRCC-initiated amendment to a water quality permit. The Coalition recommends the TNRCC use the language set out in the Coalition's Alternative
Rule. IV. CONCLUSION The Coalition hopes that the TNRCC will review the Coalition's Alternative Rule carefully and consider whether some or all of the Coalition's proposal can be incorporated
into the TNRCC's final rule. As recognized by the statute, this program needs to be a eooperative effort between the TNRCC and the cities. The Coalition appreciates the opportunity to
work with the TNRCC to develop rules implementing Texas Water Code § 26.177. Ifnecessary, the members ofthe Coalition are willing to continue to work with the TNRCC to develop develop
a reasonable and realistie program for the development ofmunicipal water pollution control and abatement programs designed to address real water quality problems. Texas Cities Coalition
on Stormwater Comments on Proposed Municipal Water Pollution Control and Abatement Rules Page 12 of 12 
EXHIBIT A THE TEXAS CITIES COALITION ON STORMWATER LIST OF PARTICIPATING CITIES November 30, 1998 City of Addison City of Alamo Heights City of Angleton City of Balcones Heights City
of Bay City City of Baytown City of Belton City of Brenham City of Brownwood City of Bryan City of Bunker Hill Village City of Burkburnett City of Castle Hills 􀁾􀀠 City of Cleburne
City of College Station City of Conroe City of Copperas Cove City of Corinth City of Corsicana City of Deer Park City of Del Rio City of Denison City of Flower Mound City of Gainesville
City of Galena Park City of Galveston City of Gatesville City of Georgetown City of Grapevine City of Groves City of Harker Heights City of Harlingen City of Hedwig Village City of Hewitt
City of Hill Country Village City of Hitchcock City of Hollywood Park City of Howe City of Hurst City of Jersey Village City of Katy City of Keller City of Killeen City of La Marque
City of La Porte City of Lake Jackson City of Lake Worth City of Lakeside City of Lancaster City of Leon Valley City of Levelland City of Lewisville City of Longview City of Lufkin City
of McAllen City of Midland City of Mount Pleasant City of Nacogdoches City of Nederland City of North Richland Hills City of Odessa City of Pampa City of Pflugerville City of Pharr City
of Plainview City of Port Arthur City of Port Lavaca City of Port Neches City of Rockwall City of Rosenberg City of Seabrook City of Seguin City of Selma City of Sherman City of Sunnyvale
City ofTemple City of Texarkana City ofTexas City City ofTyler City of Vernon City of Victoria City of Webster City of West Lake Hills City of West University Place City of Windcrest
City of Woodway 
EXHIBITB TEXAS CITIES COALITION ON STORMWATER ALTERNATIVE RULE SUBCHAPTER B: MUNICIPAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AND ABATEMENT §§216.21 -216.30 §216.21. Purpose and Policy. (a) The purpose
of this subchapter is to establish procedures and measures in accordance with Texas Water Code, §26, I 77(a) to address water pollution that is attributable to non-permitted sources
in cities that have a population of 10,000 or more persons, (b) Nothing in this subchapter is intended to limit or prevent the commission from abating or preventing the pollution ofwater
in the state through permits, orders, or other enforcement actions authorized under the Texas Water Code, Chapter 26, or other applicable state or federal law. §216.22. Applicability.
(a) TIris subchapter applies to a city with a population ofat least 10,000 persons, based on the most recent federal decennial census, when the pollutant loading introduced into a water
body by non-permitted sources within a city exceeds the load allocation for such sources specified in a watershed action plan for the water body, Provided, however, that this subchapter
does not apply to a city that has obtained an NPDES or TPDES permit for discharges from its municipal separate storm sewer system. (b) A city whose population falls below 10,000, based
on the most recent federal decennial census, will no longer have a duty to satisfy the applicable provisions of this subchapter upon the executive director's receipt from the city ofthe
most recent federal decennial census indicating that the population has fallen below 10,000, §216.23. Definitions. Terms defined in Chapter 3 of this title (relating to Definitions)
will have the same meaning when used in this subchapter unless the definition is specifically modified in this section. (1) City -A municipality or city existing, created, or organized
under the general, home rule, or special laws of this state. (2) Extra Territorial Jurisdiction -An area outside the corporate limits ofa municipality as defined in Local Government
Code, §42.021. (3) Load Allocation -The portion of a receiving water's loading capacity that is attributed to nonpoint sources ofpollution, 
(4) Loading Capacity -The greatest amount of loading that a water can receive without violating water quality standards. (5) Non-Permitted Sources -Sources ofwater pollution that are
not required to obtain water quality permits under Chapter 26 of the Texas Water Code, including generalized discharges of waste that are not traceable to a specific source, such as
storm sewer discharges and urban runoff from rainwater. (6) Significant Waste Discharges -Point source discharges of waste or pollutants to a receiving water that have been identified
as significant waste discharges in a watershed action plan without regard to whether or not the discharges are authorized by the commission. (7) Watershed Action Plan -A quantitative
assessment of water quality problems and contributing pollutant sources, along with an implementation plan that identifies responsible parties and specifies actions needed to restore
and protect a water body. §216.24. Water Quality Assessments and Studies. Water quality assessments and studies that may be used by the executive director to identifY water pollution
that is attributable to non-permitted sources shall consist ofthose used to develop _ the applicable watershed action plan, and may include the following: (1) Clean Rivers Program. Watershed
water quality assessments conducted in accordance with Texas Water Code, §26.0l35; (2) Other. Special studies, pilot projects, reports, or other quality assured assessments of water
quality in the state prepared, approved, or accepted by the executive director that identifY non-permitted sources of water pollution within cities. §216.25. Notice ofInitial Determination
of Applicability. (a) Ifthe executive director detennines that a city has met the criteria set forth in §216.22(a) ofthis title (relating to Applicability), the executive director shall
notifY the city. This notice shall specifY the following: (I) the basis for the executive director's detennination that the city meets the criteria set forth in §216.22(a) ofthis title
(relating to Applicability); (2) that the executive director may undertake additional water quality assessments and studies in the iinpacted area as set out in §2l6.24 of this title
(relating to Water Quality Assessments and Studies); 2 
(3) that the city may undertake additional water quality assessments and studies in the impacted area within its jurisdiction which comply with quality assurance requirements ofthe executive
director, which will be provided to the city upon request; and, (4) the time period (at least five years) within which the city may try to correct the problem. The executive director
may amend this time period when new or additional information or circumstances warrant such an amendment. §216.26. Final Determination ofApplicability (a) After expiration of the time
period specified in § 216.25(a)(4) of this subchapter, the executive director shall determine whether a city continues to meet the criteria set forth in § 216.22(a) ofthis subchapter.
This determination shall be based on water quality assessments and studies performed after the time period in § 216.2S(a)( 4) (relating to Notice ofInitial Determination of Applicability),
with consideration given to the improvements that have resulted and that will result from the full implementation ofthe steps taken by the city after the initial determination of applicability
to correct the problem. (b) Ifthe executive director determines that a city continues to meet the criteria set forth in § 2l6.22(a) ofthis subchapter, the executive director, at a public
meeting ofthe commission, shall _ recommend to the commission that the city be required to submit a Water Pollution Control andAbatement Program. (c) The commission shall evaluate the executive director's recommendation at a scheduled commission meeting, and may: (I) approve an agreed order between the Executive
Director and the city requiring the city to develop and implement a Water Pollution Control and Abatement Program as described in §216.27 (relating to Water Pollution Control and Abatement
Program) or an amendment to an existing Program as described in §216.29 (relating to Amendment Procedures for Water Pollution Control and Abatement Programs). (2) refer the matter for
SOAH for a contested case hearing conducted pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act to determine whether the city meets the criteria set forth in § 216.22(a); or (3) determine
that the city is not required to submita Water Pollution Control and Abatement Program. (d) At any contested case hearing held pursuant to this section, the executive director shall
bear the burden ofdemonstrating that the city meets the criteria set forth in § 216.22(a). 3 
(f) After the conclusion ofa contested case hearing, if the commission determines that the city is required to submit a Water Pollution Control and Abatement Program, the commission
shall enter an order specifying the poUutants and non-permitted sources ofconcern and the deadline for the submission ofa Water Pollution Abatement and Control Program. §216.27. Water
Pollution Control and Abatement Programs. (a) The Water PoUution Control and Abatement Program ofa city shall encompass the area within a city's municipal boundaries and, subject to
Texas Water Code, §26.179 (relating to Designation ofWater Quality Protection Zones in Certain Areas), may include areas within its extraterritorial jurisdiction which in the judgment
of the city should be included to enable the city to achieve its objectives for the area within its territorial jurisdiction. (b) The Program shall provide for tne following: (I) The
development and maintenance of an inventory of all significant waste discharges into or adjacent to the water within the city and, where the city so elects, within the extraterritorial
jurisdiction ofthe city, without regard to whether or not the discharges are authorized by the commission, (2) The regular monitoring of all siguificant waste discharges included in
the inventory prepared pursuant to Subparagraph (1) ofthis subsection. (3) The collecting ofsamples and the conducting ofperiodic inspections and tests of the waste discharges being
monitored to determine whether the discharges are being conducted in compliance with the Water Pollution Control and Abatement Program and any applicable water quality permits, orders
or rules ofthe commission, and whether the discharges should be covered by a permit from the commission. (4) The development and implementation ofa procedure for obtaining compliance
by the waste discharges being mouitored, including where necessary the use oflegal enforcement proceedings. This procedure shall be a cooperative effort between the city and the commission,
which shall be evidenced evidenced by a cooperative agreement between the city and the commission executed pursuant to § 26.175 ofthe Texas Water Code. Unless otherwise requested by
the city, primary responsibility for compliance and enforcement shall remain in the commission regarding compliance with applicable water quality permits, orders or rules of the commission,
and whether a permit is required. Primary responsibility for compliance and enforcement ofthe Water Pollution Control and Abatement Program shall remain in the city. No city shall be
compelled to adopt a resolution pursuant to § 7.352 ofthe Texas Water Code. (5) The development and execution ofreasonable and realistic plans for controlling and abating pollution or
potential pollution resulting from generalized discharges ofwaste that are not traceable to a specific source, such as storm sewer discharges and urban runoff from rainwater. 4 
These plans shall be evaluated based on the pollutants causing the city to meet the criteria set forth in § 216.22(a), the sources or probable sources of the discharge of those pollutants,
and the reasonableness and cost to control the discharge of those pollutants. (6) Additional services and functions which, in the judgment ofthe city, will provide effective water pollution
control and abatement for the city. §216.28. Review and Approval ofWater Pollution Control and Abatement Programs. (a) A Water Pollution Control and Abatement Program shall be submitted
to the executive director of the commission in accordance with the order issued pursuant to §216.26 of this title (relating to Public Meeting Held by the Commission). (b) The executive
director shall review a submitted Program and shall approve the Program ifit satisfies the requirements of § 216.27. If the executive director determines that the Program is insufficient,
the executive director shall notifY the city ofthe deficiency and provide the city with an opportunity to submit a revised Program. If the executive director determines that the revised
Program is insufficient or ifthe city refuses to submit a revised Program, the executive director shall recommend to the commission that the matter be referred to SOAH for a contested
case hearing to determine whether the submitted Program satisfies the requirements of § 216.27. §216.29. Amendment Procedures for Water Pollution Control and Abatement Programs. (a)
A city may amend the Water Pollution Control and Abatement Program for that city at any time by submitting an amended Water Pollution Control and Abatement Program to the executive director
ofthe commission. (b) The commission may, on its own motion or in response to a petition by the executive director, request a city to amend a Water Pollution Control and Abatement Program
when new or additional information or circumstances warrant such changes to effectuate the purposes of this subchapter. Ifthe eity refuses to amend its Program, or if the conunission
determines that the revised Program is insufficient, the commission shall refer the matter to SOAH for a contested case hearing to determine whether the submitted Program satisfies the
requirements of § 216.27. §216.30. Appeals. Pursuant to Texas Water Code §26.177(d), any person affected by any ruling, order, decision, ordinance, program, resolution, or other act
of a city relating to water pollution control and abatement outside the corporate limits of such city adopted pursuant to this subchapter or any other statutory authorization may appeal
such action to the commission or district court. An appeal must be filed with the commission's chief clerk within sixty (60) days of the enactment of the ruling, 5 
order, decision, ordinance, program, resolution, or act ofthe city. The issue on appeal is whether the action or program is invalid, arbitrary, unreasonable, inefficient, or ineffective
in its attempt to control water quality, and the commission's order on the appeal will be based on whether the city's actions or programs meet these criteria. The commission or district
court may overturn or modify the action ofthe city. Ifan appeal is taken from a commission ruling, the commission ruling shall be in effect for all purposes until final disposition is
made by a court of competent jurisdiction so as not to delay any permit approvals. 6 
TEXAS CITIES COALITION ON STORMWATER PO Box 1568 Austin. Texas 78768-1568 (512) 404-7800 Fax (512) 703-2785 MEMORANDUM TO: Texas Phase II Cities -Participating Cities FROM: Texas Cities
Coalition on Storrnwater Steering Committee RE: Written Comments on TNRCC's Proposed Water Pollution Control and Abatement Rules DATE: November 23,1998 Attached are the latest draft
ofcomments that will be submitted to the TNRCC on November 30, 1998, on behalfofthe Texas Cities Coalition on Storrnwater, and its participating cities. These comments were developed
based on the input provided by Coalition members at the Steering Committee meeting held in San Antonio on October 29, 1998. Please provide any remaining comments you may have on these
comments to Joe Freeland by fax, phone or email (jfreeland@mandf.com) before 10:00 am, November 30, 1998. Unless we hear differently from you by November 30th, your city's name will
appear on the Coalition's comments. The Steering Committee strongly encourages each participating city to to submit its own comments addressing those issues of particular concern to
that city. Please feel free to use those portions of the Coalition's comments that you wish. Your comments must be received by the TNRCC by 5:00 pm on November 30, 1998. Your comments
should reference Rule Log No. 97164216-WT and should be sent to the following address: Lutrecia Oshoko (MC 204) Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Office ofPolicy and Regulatory
Development P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 FAX: (512) 239-4808 We would appreciate it ifyou would send us a copy ofany comments you file. Ifyou have any questions or comments,
please contact Jim Mathews or Joe Freeland at (512) 404-7800. 
j j j j j j j j j j j 
TEXAS CITIES COALITION ON STORMWATER PO Box 1568 Austin, Texas 78768·1568 (512) 404·7800 Fax (512) 703·2785 􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭THE TEXAS CITIES COALITION ON STORMWATER COMMENTS
ON TNRCC'S PROPOSED MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL AND ABATEMENT RULES PROPOSED NEW 30 TAC CHAPTER 216: SUBCHAPTER B (RULE LOG NO. 97164-216-WT) I. INTRODUCTION These comments are filed
on behalf of the Texas Cities Coalition on Stormwater ("The Coalition"), and each individual city participating in the coalition.' The Texas Cities Coalition on Stormwater(the "Coalition")
is a group of86 Texas cities who joined together initially to address the serious and significant issues raised by EPA's Phase II Storm Water Program. The participating cities represent
a broad geographic and demographic cross-section ofsmall and medium Texas cities with populations ranging from 520 to 97,478 .. The Coalition's comments on EPA's Phase II Storm Water
Program were primarily aimed at EPA's failure to focus on water quality issues. In particular, the Coalition recommended that EPA use a non-NPDES permit approach using State water quality
management programs instead of a traditional NPDES permit approach to allow States and municipalities to focus their resources on real pollution problems. Thus, the members are committed
to working with the TNRCC to develop a comprehensive, systems-based approach to water quality management in Texas that addresses all sources ofwater pollution fairly and equitably. The
Coalition specifically requested that EPA implement the Phase II MS4 program through State water quality management programs, developed on a watershed/water quality basis, instead ofthrough
NPDES permits. The Coalition envisions that this approach would work in the following manner. As the States conduct TMDLs and other W'lter quality assessments, they will identify impaired
water bodies and then identify the magnitude and significance ofcontributing sources of pollutants. The States will then prepare and/or revise plans to provide for cost-effective measures,
1 A list of the cities participating in the Coalition as ofNovember 30, 1998, is attached as Exhibit A. 
equitably allocated among all pollutant contributors, to reduce pollutant loads. These plans will be developed with input from all stakeholders, and remedial measures may be implemented
in a phased manner based on the probability of results andlor economic feasibility. The States will then periodically reassess the receiving streams to determine whether the remedial
measures are working, and if not, require additional control measures using the same procedure used to establish the initial measures. The Coalition strongly believes that the TNRCC
should take a similar approach for its program to implement Section 26.177 ofthe Texas Water Code. The program should be an integral part of the TNRCC's ongoing Statewide Watershed Management
Approach. Under the approach envisioned by the Coalition, a city's obligation to prepare a water pollution control and abatement plan would be directly linked to the TNRCC's development
ofa watershed action plan for each of the water quality limited water bodies in the state. The details ofthe plan could also be linked to the equitable control programs that are supposed
to grow out ofthe watershed planning activities. The Coalition believes that the use ofthe Statewide Watershed Management Approach for Texas is the most sensible way to directly achieve
the goals of protecting water quality and promoting the use of watershed planning. By focusing on water quality rather than on controls merely for the sake ofcontrol, a water-quality
based approach should produce greater improvements in water quality at a lower cost than any alternative approach. Such an approach would better fucilitate and promote watershed planning
because it would address the entirety ofa watershed and not just discrete portions and because it would not further aggravate the division between regulated and urrregulated pollution
sources. Also, such an approach would be the most cost-effective and least burdensome approach. The 1NRCC needs to find a way to provide cities with incentives to do more rather than
penalties for doing less, and the surest way to provide such an incentive is to provide the cities with the assurance that water quality is being addressed in a comprehensive manner.
Cities want clean water as much as any other governmental entity, but they believe that all levels ofgovernment must share in regulatory and political costs of achieving this goal and
that all sources ofpollutant load must share in reducing pollution. The following is a brief list ofsome of the principal benefits that would result from the use ofthe Statewide Watershed
Mauagement Approach, as envisioned by the Coalition: • All sources ofwater pollution, both point and nonpoint, will be subject to control. • SourCe controls will be filirly and equitably
allocated 'among the sources of pollution based on local priorities, needs and concerns. Texas Cities Coalition on Stormwater Comments on Proposed Municipal Water Pollution Control and
Abatement Rules Page 2 of 12 
• The public is more likely to accept (and pay for) a program in which they are allowed to participate in defining the problem and developing the solution. II. PROCEDURAL COMMENTS A.
lakings Impact Assessment In the Takings Impact Assessment ("TIA") prepared for this rulemaking, the TNRCC concludes that the rulemaking will no! create a burden on private real property
because the rule only governs actions a city lnust take to abate and/or prevent water pollution. Based on this conclusion, the TNRCC does not determine whether the rulemaking will constitute
a taking or describe reasonable alternative actions as required by law. TEXAS GOV'T CODE ANN. § 2007.043(b) (West Pamph. 1998). The Coalition asserts that the TNRCC's conclusion is in
error and that the TNRCC must prepare a full TIA as part ofthe final rulemaking action. Pursuant to the Private Real Property Preservation Act (the"Act'), the TNRCC is required to identifY
the "burdens imposed on private real property." TEXAS GOV'T CODE ANN. § 2007.043(b). The The Act does not limit the TNRCC's obligation only to burdens directly caused by the TNRCC's
action. Thus, the TNRCC must identifY both direct and indirect burdens resulting from the rule. In the TIA. the TNRCC acknowledges that, as a result ofthis rule, cities may be required
to regulate the activities ofthe general public, which may impose burdens on private property. The TNRCC attempts to avoid its obligation to identifY these burdens by stating that actions
taken by cities are exempt from the Act However, such an exemption only applies to actions taken by cities. It does not apply to exempt the TNRCC from its obligations. B. Regulatory
Impact Analysis In the Regulatory Impact Analysis ("RIA") prepared for this rulemaking, the TNRCC concludes that the rulemaIcing is not a major environmental rule because the rule will
not adversely affect the economy of;the state, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, or the public health and safety ofthe state or a sector ofthe
state. Additionally, the TNRCC concludes that the proposed rule does not exceed an express requirement of state law. Based on these conclusions, the TNRCC did not complete a full RIA.
The Coalition asserts that the TNRCC's conclusions are in error and that the TNRCC must prepare a full RIA as part ofthe final rulemaking action. Texas Cities Coalition on Stormwater
Comments on Proposed Municipal Water Pollution Control and Abatement Rules Page 3 of 12 
The proposed rulemaking is clearly a major environmental rule. As recognized by the TNRCC, the speciflc intent of the rule is to protect the environment. Additionally, the rule may adversely
affec.t the economy of the state or a sector of the economy. As a result of the rule, cities may be forced to stringently regulate land development and construction activities. This
regulation will impose additional costs on development. These costs could be significant. The Coalition also believes that the proposed rule exceeds an express requirement ofstate law.
As is discussed in greater detail later in these comments, this rulemaking is based on TEXAS WATER CODE ANN. § 26.177, which requires the preparation of pollution control and abatement
programs ifthe TNRCC identifies "water pollution that is attributable to non-permitted sources in a city ...." The proposed rule changes this by changing the triggering froding to "identified
water pollution that is not attributable to permitted sources." (Emphasis added). This change alters the balance ofand greatly exceeds the requirements of the statute. The TNRCC also
justifies its decision not to prepare an RIA on the basis of the limited applicability ofthe rule. The TNRCC states, in its RIA Checklist that application of the rule will be "limited
to cities with populations over 10,000, that have a water pollution problem attributable to non-permitted sources, and do not have a federal storm water permit. This statement is inconsistent
with the text ofthe proposed rule, which does not provide an exemption for cities with federal storm water pennits. Thus, the Coalition believes that this justification carmot serve
as a basis for the TNRCC not perfonning an RIA, 1.!Illess the TNRCC includes an exemption in the rule for cities with federal stonn water permits. ID. SPECIFIC COMMENTS A. Introduction
The following are the Coalition's specific comments on the text of the proposed rule, arranged generally in the order ofthe proposed rule. The Coalition is also attaching an alternative
version ofthe rules (Coalition's Alternative Rule), which the Coalition believes achieves the goals ofthe statute in the most efficient marmer. Although the Coalition has endeavored
to explain all of the differences between its version ofthe rules and the TNRCC's proposed rules, it is possible that some minor issues have been overlooked in the specific comments.
Therefore. the Coalition asks the TNRCC to look not only at its specific written comments but also at the Coalition's Alternati ve Rule. Texas Cities Coalition Q,n Stormwater Comments
on Proposed Municipal Water Pollution Control and Abatement Rules Page 4 of 12 
B. .E\mlose and Poliqy The Coalition objects to the first sentence of proposed § 216.21 (b), which states that an "unauthorized discharge is a violation ofTexas Water Code, § 26.121.
This introductory provision is not needed for purposes of this rule. Section 216.21(b) appears to be a reservation of the TNRCC's authority. A:s such, the first sentence adds nothing
to this section. Moreover, the section is an overstatement ofthe law. Generally, § 26.121 ofthe Texas Water Code prohibits the discharge of "waste" and "pollutants." Unauthorized discharges
not containing waste or pollutants are generally not violations ofthe Texas Water Code. The Coalition recommends that this sentence be deleted from the [mal rule, such as shown on the
Coalition's Alternative Rule. C. &l,plicability The Coalition objects to the TNRCC's decision regarding the applicability ofthis proposed subchapter, as set out in proposed §§ 216.21(a)
and 216.22(a). In the proposed rule, the TNRCC dramatically alters the applicahility limits ofthe statute. Pursuant to the statute, the preparation of pollution control and abatement
programs is required ifthe TNRCC identifies "water pollution that is attributable to non-permitted sources in a city ...." TEXAS WATER CODE ANN. § 26.177 (emphasis added). The proposed
rule changes this by changing the triggering finding to "identified water pollution that is not attributable to permitted sources." Proposed § 216.22(a) (emphasis added). This change,
although subtle, could have serious consequences for cities. Under the statute, the TNRCC would have to prove that water pollution was attributable to non-permitted sources; under the
rule, the TNRCC could require the preparation ofa program if there was water pollution of unknown origin, unless the city could show that the pollution was not caused by permitted sources.
The proposed rule potentially changes the burden ofproof and requires cities to prove a negative, which could be next to impossible. Although the problem identified above could be addressed
merely by using the statutory language, the Coalition urges the TNRCC to articulate a clear and objective test for applicability through these rules. The statutory language alone is
too vague. Many of the terms used in the statute and the proposed rule (such as "source," and "attributable") are not defined and are ambiguous. For instance, neither the statute nor
the rule addresses how "attributable" is linked to causation and to the relative size ofcontribution. Ifit is determined that "water pollution" exists in a receiving stream and that
a drop ofmaterial from a non-permitted source within a city is present in that receiving stream; then is the water pollution attributable to the non-permitted source? Clear and objective
criteria are needed in order to insure consistency and predictability in applying the rules. Texas Cities Coalition on Stormwater Comments on Proposed Municipal Water Pollution Control
and Abatement Rules Page 5 of 12 
The Coalition suggests that the TNRCC use a test that is based on language that has a more developed meaning, such as language from 40 CFR Part 130, and that is consistent with other
water quality related programs, such as the TNRCC's Statewide Watershed Management Approach. For example, the test could be tied directly to the establishment and implementation ofWatershed
Action Plans (TMDLs); that is, the test could be set at whether pollutants discharged by non-permitted sources within the city are preventing or expected to prevent attainment of water
quality standards. Thus, the use of this test would dovetail nicely with the implementation of TMDLs and the development ofWatershed Action Plans and would make applicability ofthese
rules consistent with TMDL development and regulation based on water quality problems. Additionally, the Coalition believes that applicability should not be triggered by the presence
of sources over which a city has no regulatory jurisdiction. A city may not have jurisdiction over over a source controlled by the State ofTexas or by the United States Government, and
a city may have no power to compel the source to do anything. Additionally, a city may have no power to control a source ofpollution because ofother legal or physical barriers. In such
cases, the applicability of this subchapter should not be triggered. Another issue that needs to be addressed by the rule is the relationship between the federal storm water permitting
program for municipal separate storm sewer systems ("MS4 permit") and these rules. The Coalition believes that a city that has an MS4 permit should not be also subject to these rules.
The content ofthe city's MS4 permit and the accompanying storm water management program ("SWMP") more than satisfY the requirements ofthe statute. The Coalition also objects to the language
ofthe last sentence ofthe proposed § 216.22(a), which states: "Cities meeting applicability shall be required to satisfY applicable provisions ofthis subchapter upon receipt ofnotice
issued by by the executive director pursuant to § 216.25 ofthis title." This language could be interpreted to mean that municipalities must develop and implement programs immediately
after the Executive Director determines applicability and long before the TNRCC enters an order requiring the development ofa program. Certainly this is not the TNRCC's intention. The
Coalition has prepared alternative language that meets the purpose and goals of the statute but does not suffer from the problems in the proposed rule. 'Ibis language is in the Coalition's
Alternative Rule. Texas Cities eoalition"n Stormwater Comments on Proposed Municipal Water Pollution Control and Abatement Rules Page 6 of 12 
Permitted Sources -The Coalition objects to the definition of "Permitted Sources" in § 261.23(3). This definition suffers from a number of serious problems. First of all, it makes no
sense. For example, what is a "source that is required to discharge pollution."? Also, Chapter 26 of the Texas Water Code generally regulates the discharge of "waste" or "pollutants"
not the discharge of "pollution." Additionally, it is not clear whether sources that are required to have permits, but do not, are considered to be "permitted sources." Finally, as discussed
previously, the statute speaks in terms of"non-permitted sources' rather than "permitted sources." Thus, the relevant term to be defined should be "non-permitted sources." Assuming that
the term to be defined is "non-permitted sources," the issue is how should that term be defmed. Based on the legislative history ofthis provision and on the language ofseveral related
statutes, the Coalition believes that the Legislature meant "nonpoint sources" when it said "non-permitted sources." Moreover, the use of the nonpoint source concept would harmonize
this rule with other related statutes and rules, such as the Clean Rivers program and the Drainage Utility statute. Also, Section 26.177(b)(5) describes a part of the control and abatement
program that appears to coincide with the concept of nonpoint (or generalized) sources. The Coalition recommends that the TNRCC define this term as in the Coalition's Alternative Rule.
Pollution -The Coalition objects to the definition of "pollution" as used in the proposed rules. Although this definition largely tracks the Texas Water Code definition of pollution,
the Coalition believes that this definition should either be deleted or refined for purposes ofthis rule. We believe that the determination ofwhether water pollution exists should be
made in reference to the surface water quality standards, which require a minimum amount of robustness in the assessment of water quality data in order to define pollution. In the Coalition's
Alternative Rule there is no definition of "pollution" because no such definition is necessary. In the Coalition's Alternative Rule, a city is required to prepare a water pollution cOntrol
and abatement program ifthe pollutant loading from non-permitted sources in the city exceed the amount of pollutant loading allocated to this category of sources in a Watershed Action
Plan. Correspondingly, the Coalition's Altemative Rule contains definitions of "Ioad allocation," "loading capacity: and "water action plan," which are not defined in the TNRCC's proposed
rule. Under the Coalition's approach, city resources can be focused on and limited to the specific sources that are causing water quality problems. The Coalition's approach also eliminates
the vagueness associated with the TNRCC's proposed rule. If the TNRCC decides to include a definition of"pollution" in the fmal rule, the Coalition suggests the following: Texas Cities
Coalition·on Stormwater Comments on Proposed Municipal Water Pollution Control and Abatement Abatement Rules Page 7 of 12 
(4) Pollution -An excursion above a narrative or numeric surface water quality criteria as established in Chapter 307 of this title (relating to Surface Water Quality Standards). Significant
Waste Discharge -The Coalition objects to the definition of "significant waste discharge" as used in the proposed rules because the rule is far too vague. This term controls the scope
of most of the substantive requirements imposed on cities. The TNRCC needs to provide some objectivetest so that cities will know whether thcy are in compliance with the TNRCC's rules and so that cities will be able to plan and budget the necessary resources to achieve compliance.
Moreover, the TNRCC's definition is too broad. Defining the term as a discharge that causes or threatens to cause pollution could extend this term to a vast array ofpotential discharges,
including such things as runoff from every residential yard, and every parking lot. A requirement to identify, monitor, sample and control such a broad array ofdischarges would be unduly
burdensome. We suggest that this term be very clearly and narrowly defined. The statute requires cities to identifY, monitor, and address all significant waste discharges, and it requires
cities to develop and implement plans for controlling pollution attributable to generalized discharges ofwaste. This suggests that the Legislature did no intend for the term "significant
waste discharges" to include generalized discharges ofwaste. The Coalition believes that this term should be limited to point sources that have been specifically identified as significant
by a watershed action plan. The Coalition suggests the definition included in the Coalition's Altemative Rule. Water Pollution Control and Abatement Program -The Coalition objects to
the proposed definition of ·water pollution control and abatement program." This definition does not track the statutory language describing a water pollution control and abatement program.
This definition appears to go well beyond the requirements ofthe statute and require cities to 'prevent or correct water pollution problems." Moreover, this definition is not needed.
The scope ofthe required water pollution control and abatement program is adequately described in proposed § 216.27. The Coalition recommends that the TNRCC delete this definition. E.
Water 􀁑􀁾􀁁􀁳􀁳􀁥􀁳􀁳􀁭􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁳and Studies The Coalition objects to proposed § 216.24 because the proposed rule fails to appropriately limit the studies that can be used to trigger
the water pollution control and abatement plan requirement. The Coalition believes that only bigh-quality, peer-reviewed, quantitative studies that focus on the link between urban non-point
source runoff and instrearn pollution should be used to trigger the requirement. An example of the type of study that the Coalition believes would be acceptable is a load allocation
performed under 40 CFR § 130.7. Texas Cities Coalition on Stormwater Comments on Proposed Municipal Water Pollution Coutroland Abatement Rules Page 8 of 12 
The statute links the determination of V'{ater pollution to "watershed water quality assessment reports required by Section 26.0135 or other commission assessments or studies." The rules,
therefore, should place an emphasis on watershed water quality assessment reports (category (2) in the proposed rule). Additionally, many of the reports listed in the proposed rule are
inappropriate for use to determine whether water pollution is attributable to non-permitted sources within a city. The rule should make it clear that the studies must be quality assured
and must link observed water quality impairment to non-permitted sources within a city. More importaritly, however, the Coalition recommends that the 1NRCC only use studies that serve
as the basis for watershed action plans, or other studies that establish TMDLs (including load allocations and waste load allocations) for both point and non-point sources within a watershed,
as the basis for triggering applicability. Such an approach would appropriately place this program in the TNRCC's Statewide Watershed Management Approach. Such an approach would also
ensure that only the best data is used to make the determination. The Coalition's suggested language is set out in the Coalition's Alternative Rule. F. Notice ofthe ED's Determination
and Opportunity to Correct the Problem The Coalition suggests that the heading of proposed § 216.25 be changed from "Notice" to "Notice of Initial Determination. n Such a heading would
better describe the Executive Director's action. The Coalition also objects to § 216.25(a)(4), which limits to five years the time period in which a city has to correct the problem.
The Coalition believes that the Executive Director's discretion to allow a longer period of time should not be limited by regulation. The Coalition believes that any city that has a
water quality problem will work diligently to find a solution to the problem without having to be forced to submit a water pollution control and abatement program. Indeed, the Coalition
believes believes that the diversity and effectiveness of voluntarily implemented programs will far surpass any requirements forced on cities by the TNRCC. The Coalition recommends that
a minimum time frame of at least five years be established in the rule. The Coalition's suggested language is in the Coalition's Alternative Rule. G. Final Determination ofApplicability
The Coalition suggests that heading ofproposed § 216.26 be changed from "Public Meeting Held by Corrunission" to "Final Determination ofApplicability." The Coalition's suggested heading
would better describe the 1NRCC's actions described by the section. The Coalition objects to proposed § 216.26(a). The 1NRCC should require the Executive Director to only use studies
conducted after the city has taken steps to correct the water-quality Texas Cities Coalition on Stormwater Comments on Proposed Municipal Water Pollution Control and Abatement Rules
Page 9 of 12 
problem. If the Executive Director is allowed to use assessments made before the implementation of the city's solution, those assessments will not accurately describe the water quality
existing after implementation ofthe city's solutions. The Coalition recommends that the TNRCC use the language set out in the Coalition's Alternative Rule. H. Procedural Issues The Coalition
objects to all the procedural requirements ofproposed § 216.26. The Coalition suggests that the procedures contained in the Coalition's Altemative Rule are more appropriate for the type
of action being taken by the Commission. The Coalition objects to the requirement in proposed § 216.26( d) that would require cities to publish notice ofthe TNRCC's public meeting. The
Coalition believes that it is inappropriate for the TNRCC to put this responsibility on affected cities. This is not a permit action. The city is not asking the 1NRCC for permission
to do something. Rather, the TNRCC is forcing the city to do something. It seems only fair that the TNRCC be responsible for providing public notice. Also, we see no reason why public
notice needs to be in accordance with §§ 39.5 and 39.7 ofthe TNRCC's rules. Those rules apply to situations involving "applicants" for permits. The affected city here should not be considered
to be an "applicant." Notice for the TNRCC meeting should be given in the same manner as for other meetings ofthe TNRCC. The Coalition objects to the proposed § 216.26(e)(3), which gives
the TNRCC the opportunity to determine that a city must prepare a water pollution control and abatement program without giving the city the opportunity to a contested case hearing to
contest the tactual basis for the Executive Director's determination. The Coalition believes that Texas law demands that the opportunity for a hearing be given in situations such as
presented in this proposed rule, where the rights of a city are being determined by an administrative agency based on specific factual determinations. Moreover, only through a contested
case hearing will the TNRCC be able to create an administrative record suitable for use for judicial review ofany final TNRCC action. The Coalition suggests that the TNRCC delete proposed
§ 216.26(e)(3). By making that change the TNRCC can determine that no program is required or can send the matter to SOAH for a hearing to determine the factual issues. Because public
funds will be used to develop and implement the program required by the TNRCC, the TNRCC should ensure that its factual determination is made using the most open procedures available.
The specific language recommended by the Coalition is contained in the Coalition's Alternative Rule. Texas Cities Coalition. on Stormwater Comments on Proposed Munieipal Water Pollution
Control and Abatement Rules Page 10 of 12 
J. Contents of Water Pollution Control anqAbatemenl Programs The Coalition objects to the provision of proposed §216.27(b) thal stales "or as may be reasonably required by the Commission."
The rule fails to provide the regulated community with sufficient notice of what these additional requirements might be. These additional "reasonable" requirements should be part ofthe
rule. The Coalition also objects to the provisions in §216.27(b X4), which exceed the requirements set out in § 26. 1 77(b) ofthe statute. The statute requires cities to "cooperate"
with the Commission in developing procedures to obtain compliance, including where necessary the use of legal enforcement proceedings. There needs to be considerable clarification regarding
how such cooperation will be achieved. We believe that the "cooperation" referred to in § 26.177 is a reference to § 26.175 (Cooperative Agreements), and to § 26.0136 (Water Quality
Management). We also believe that under provisions such as § 7.355 ofthe Texas Water Code, the the primary responsibility for investigating and obtaining compliance with permitting requirements
rests in the Commission and not the city. We suggest that this provision be rewritten as set out the Coalition's Alternative Rule. The Coalition objects to proposed §216.27(b)(6), which
states that the TNRCC may impose "other requirements as may be prescribed by commission rule. n Again, this is the rule in which the lNRCC should be imposing requirements. The Coalition's
suggested language for this section is included in the Coalition's Alternative Rule. Ie. Review and Approval ofPrograms The Coalition suggests that the heading ofproposed §216.28 be
changed from "Submittal ofWater Pollution Control and Abatement Programs" to "Review and Approval ofWater Pollution Control and Abatement Progrnms. The Coalition believes that its suggested
heading more accurately describes the actions of the lNRCC. The Coalition objects to proposed § 216.28 because the proposed rule does not provide for a review and approval process, as
required by §26.l77(c) ofthe Texas Water Code. The Coalition believes that a procedure similar to the review and approval ofpermit applications should be used for the approval required
here. Such a procedure needs to address what happens if the Executive Director determines that a program is deficient, and the city's recourse if it disagrees with the Executive Director's
determination. Additionally, the Coalition believes that this section needs the standards by which the Executive Director will judge a program. The Coalition's suggested language to
provide these additional items is contained in the Coalition's Alternative Rule. Texas Cities Coalition·on Stormwater Comments on Proposed Municipal Water Pollution Control and Abatement
Rules Page 1l of 12 
AdditionaUy, the Coalition objects to the requirement that a registered professional engineer certify that the program is designed to abate and prevent water pollution not attributable
to permitted sources within a city. The Coalition objects to this requirement for a number of reasons. A reputable engineer might be reluctant to certify that a program will "prevent"
water pollution. An engineer might be willing to certify that the program has been developed in accordance with the applicable rules. Also, only a small part ofa Water Pollution Control
and Abatement Program will address engineered structural controls. The majority of such plans will be directed at such things as public education, compliance and enforcement, which are
not engineering activities. The Coalition recommends that engineer's seal and certification requirement be deleted from the rule, or at least changed to a certification that the program
has been developed in accordance with the applicable rules. L. Amendment Procedures The Coalition objects to the amendment procedures set out in the proposed rules. The Coalition believes
that cities should be given great flexibility to change their programs quickly and efficiently to meet changing pollution problems and local budgetary constraints. Additionally, the
Coalition believes that the rules need to clearly spell out the procedure that the Executive Director must use to foree a city to amend its program ifthe Executive Director wants the
program changed. The Coalition's suggested procedure for amendments is set out in the Coalition's Alternative Program. As with the Coalition's suggested original approval procedures,
the amendment procedures are similar to the 1NRCC's current procedures for a 1NRCC-initiated amendment to a water quality permit. Texas Citi .. Coalition on 􀁓􀁴􀁯􀁲􀁭􀁗􀁬􀁬􀁴􀁥􀁾􀀠Comments
on Proposed Municipal Water Pollution Control and Abatement Rules Page 12 of 12 
TEXAS CITIES COALITION ON STORMWATER ALTERNATIVE RULE SUBCHAPTER B: MUNICIPAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AND ABATEMENT §§216.21 -216.30 §216.21. Purpose and Policy. (a) The purpose of this
subchapter is to establish procedures and measures in accordance with Texas Water Code, §26. I 77(a) to address water pollution that is attributable to non-permitted sources in cities
that have a population of 10,000 or more persons. (b) Nothing in this subchapter is intended 10 limit or prevent the commission from abating or preventing the pollution ofwater in the
state through permits, orders, or other enforcement actions authorized under the Texas Water Code, Chapter 26, or other applicable state or federal law. §216.22. Applicability. (a) This
subchapter applies to a city with a population ofat least 10,000 persons, based on the most recent federal decermial census, when the pollutant loading introduced into a water body by
non-permitted sources within a city exceeds the load allocation for such sources specified in a watershed action plan for the water body. Provided, however, that this subchapter does
not apply to a city that has obtained an NPDES or TPDES permit for discharges from its municipal separate storm sewer system. (b) A city whose popUlation falls below 10,000, based on
the most recent federal decermial census, will no longer have a duty to satisfy the applicable provisions of this subchapter upon the executive director's receipt from the city ofthe
most recent federal decermial census indicating that the population has fallen below 10,000. §216.23. Definitions. Terms defined in Chapter 3 ofthis title (relating to Definitions) will
have the same meaning when used in this subchapter unless the definition is specifically modified in this section. (I) City -A municipality or city existing, created, or organized under
the general, home rule, or special laws ofthis state. (2) Extra Territorial Jurisdiction -An area outside the corporate limits of a municipality as defined in Local Government Code,
§42.021. (3) Load Allocation -The portion ofa receiving water's loading capacity that is attributed to nonpoint sources ofpollution. 
, . (4) Loading Capacity -The greatest amount of loading that a water can receive without violating water quali ty standards. (5) Non-Permitted Sources -Sources ofwater pollution that
are not required to obtain water quality permits under Chapter 26 of the Texas Water Code, including generalized discharges of waste that are not traceable to a specific source, such
as storm sewer discharges and urban runoff from rainwater. (6) Significant Waste Discharges -Point source discharges of waste or pollutants to a receiving water that have been identified
as significant waste discharges in a watershed action plan without regard to whether or not the discharges are authorized by the commission. (7) Watershed Action Plan -A quantitative
assessment of water quality problems and contributing pollutant sources, along with an implementation plan that identifies responsible parties and specifies actions needed to restore
and protect a water body. §216.24. Water Quality Assessments and Studies. Water quality assessments and studies that may be used by the executive director to identify water pollution
that is attributable to non-permitted sources shall consist ofthose used to develop the applicable watershed action plan, and may include the following: (I) Clean Rivers Program. Watershed
water quality assessments conducted in accordance with Texas Water Code, §26.0I35; (2) Other. Special studies, pilot projects, reports, or other quality assured assessments ofwater quality
in the state prepared, approved, or accepted by the executive director that identify non-permitted sources of water pollution within cities. §216.25. Notice of Initial Determination
of Applicability. (a) Ifthe executive director determines that a city has met the criteria set forth in §216.22(a) ofthis title (relating to Applicability), the executive director shall
notify the city. This notice shall specify the following: (1) the basis for the executive director's determination that the city meets the criteria set forth in §216.22(a) ofthis title
(relating to Applicability); (2) that the executive director may undertake additional water quality assessments and studies in the impacted area as set out in §216.24 of this title (relating
to Water Quality Assessments and Studies); 2 
(3) that the city may undertake additional water quality assessments and studies in the impacted area within its jurisdiction which comply with quality assurance requirements ofthe executive
director, which will be provided to the city upon request; and, (4) the time period (at least five years) within which the city may try to correct the problem. The executive-director
may amend this time period when new or additional information or circumstances warrant such an amendment. §216.26. Final Determination of Applicability (a) After expiration of the time
period specified in § 2l6.25(a)(4) of this subchapter, the executive director shall determine whether a city continues to meet the criteria set forth in § 2l6.22(a) of this subchapter.
This determination shall be based on water quality assessments and studies performed after the time period in § 2l6.25( a)( 4) (relating to Notice ofInitial Determination of Applicability),
with consideration given to the improvements that have resulted and that will result from the full implementation ofthe steps taken by the city after the initial determination of applicability
to correct the problem. (b) Ifthe executive director determines that a city continues to meet the criteria set forth in § 2l6.22(a) of this subchapter, the executive director, at a public
meeting of the commission, shall recommend to the corumission that the city be required to submit a Water Pollution Control and Abatement Program. (c) The corumission shall evaluate
the executive director's recommendation at a scheduled corumission meeting, and may: (I) approve an agreed order between the Executive Director and the city requiring the city to develop
and implement a Water Pollution Control and Abatement Program as described in §216.27 (relating to Water Pollution Control and Abatement Program) or an amendment to an existing Program
as described in §216.29 (relating to Amendment Procedures for Water Pollution Control and Abatement Programs). (2) refer the matter for SOAH for a contested case hearing conducted pursuant
to the Administrative Procedures Act to determine whether the city meets the criteria set forth in § 216.22(a); or (3) determine that the city is not required to submit a Water Pollution
Control and Abatement Program. (d) At any contested case hearing held pursuant to this section, the executive director shall bear the burden of demonstrating that the city meets the
criteria set forth in § 216.22(a). 3 
(f) After the conclusion of a contested case hearing, if tbe commission determines tbat the city is required to submit a Water Pollution Control and Abatement Program, tbe commission
shall enter an order specifying tbe pollutants and non-permitted sources of concern and tbe deadline for the submission of a Water Pollution Abatement and Control Program. §216.27. Water
Pollution Control and Abatement Programs. (a) The Water Pollution Control and Abatement Program ofa city shall encompass tbe area within a city's municipal boundaries and, subject to
Texas Water Code, §26J79 (relating to Designation of Water Quality Protection Zones in Certain Areas), may include areas within its extraterritorial jurisdiction which in tbe judgment
of the city should be included to enable the city to achieve its objectives for tbe area witbin its territorial jurisdiction. (b) The Program shall provide for tbe following: (I) The
development and maintenance of an inventory of all significant waste discharges into or adjacent to tbe water within the city and, where tbe city so elects, within the extraterritorial
jurisdiction oftbe city, witbout regard to whetber or not the discharges are authorized by tbe commission. (2) The regular monitoring of all significant waste discharges included in
the inventory prepared pursuant to Subparagraph (I) of tbis subsection. (3) The collecting ofsamples and tbe conducting ofperiodic inspections and tests of tbe waste discharges being
monitored to determine whetber tbe discharges are being conducted in compliance witb tbe Water Pollution Control and Abatement Program and any applicable water quality permits, orders
or rules oftbe commission, and whetber tbe discharges should be covered by a pennit from tbe commission. (4) The development and implementation of a procedure for obtaining compliance
by tbe waste discharges being monitored, including where necessary tbe use oflegal enforcement proceedings. This procedure shall be a cooperative effort between tbe city and tbe commission,
which shall be evidenced by a cooperative agreement between tbe city and tbe commission executed pursuant to § 26.175 of tbe Texas Water Code. Unless otberwise requested by tbe city,
primary responsibility for compliance and enforcement shall remain in tbe commission regarding compliance with applicable water quality pennits, orders or rules of tbe commission, and
whether a permit is required. Primary responsibility for compliance and enforcement ofthe Water Pollution Control and Abatement Program shall remain in tbe city. No city shall be compelled
to adopt a resolution pursuant to § 7.352 ofthe Texas Water Code. (5) The development and execution ofrcasonable and realistic plans for controlling and abating pollution or potential
pollution resulting from generalized discharges of waste that are not traceable to a specific source, such as storm sewer discharges and urban runoff from rainwater. 4 
These plans shall be evaluated based on the pollutants causing the city to meet the criteria set forth in § 216.22(a), the sourees or probable sources of the discharge of those pollutants,
and the reasonableness and cost to control the discharge ofthose pollutants. (6) Additional services and functions which, in the judgment ofthe city, will provide effective water pollution
control and abatement for the city. §216.28. Review and Approval of Water Pollution Control and Abatement Programs. (a) A Water Pollution Control and Abatement Program shall be submitted
to the executive director of the commission in accordance with the order issued pursuant to §216.26 of this title (relating to Public Meeting Held by the Commission). (b) The executive
director shall review a submitted Program and shall approve the Program ifit satisfies the requirements of § 216.27. Ifthe executive director determines that the Program is insufficient,
the executive director shall notifY the city of the deficiency and provide the city with an opportonity to submit a revised Program. If the executive director determines that the revised
Program is insufficient or ifthe city refuses to submit a revised Program, the executive director shall recommend to the commission that the matter be referred to SOAH for a contested
case hearing to determine whether the submitted Program satisfies the requirements of§ 216.27. §216.29. Amendment Procedures for Water Pollution Control and Abatement Programs. (a) A
city may amend the Water Pollution Control and Abatement Program for that city at any time by submitting an amended Water Pollution Control and Abatement Program to the executive director
ofthe commission. (b) The commission may, on its own motion or in response to a petition by the executive director, request a city to amend a Water Pollution Control and Abatement Program
when new or additional information or circumstances warrant such changes to effectuate the purposes of this subchapter. If the city refuses to amend its Program, or if the commission
determines that the revised Program is insufficient, the commission shall refer the matter to SOAH for a contested case hearing to determine w.hether the submitted Program satisfies
the requirements of § 216.27. §216.30. Appeals. Pursuant to Texas Water Code §26.l77(d), any person affected by any ruling, order, decision, ordinance, program, resolution, or other
act of a city relating to water pollution control and abatement outside the corporate limits ofsuch city adopted pursuant to this subcbapter or any other statutory authorization may
appeal such action to the commission or district court. An appeal must be filed with the commission's chief clerk within sixty (60) days of the enactment of the ruling, 5 
order, decision, ordinance, program, resolution, or act of the city. The issue on appeal is whether the action or program is invalid, arbitrary, unreasonable, inefficient, or ineffective
in its attempt to control water quality, and the commission's order on the appeal will be based on whether the city's actions or programs meet these criteria. The commission or district
court may overturn or modifY the action ofthe city. Ifan appeal is taken from a commission ruling, the commission ruling shall be in effect for all purposes until final disposition is
made by a court of competent jurisdiction so as not to delay any permit approvals. 6 
TEXAS CITIES COALITION ON STORMWATER PO Box 1568 Austin, Texas 78768-1568 (512) 404-7800 Fax (512) 703-2785 MEMORANDUM TO: Texas Cities Coalition on Stormwater -Participating Cities
FROM: Mathews & Freeland, L.L.P. RE: TNRCC Storm Water Rulemaking DATE: October 23, 1998 IMPORTANT NOTICE TNRCC PROPOSES STORM WATER RULES FOR CITIES WITH POPULATIONS OF 10,000 OR GREATER
On October 7, 1998, the lNRCC Commissioners approved for proposal draft rules to implement Section 26.177 of the Texas Water Code. A copy of the draft that was approved by the Commissioners
is attached. The lNRCC anticipates that the proposed rules will be published in the Texas Register on October 30, 1998; that a public hearing will be held on the proposed rules on November
10, 1998; and that public comments will be due by November 30, 1998. These rules, ifadopted as proposed, will require cities with populations greater than 10,000 to prepare and implement
water pollution control and abatement plans if lNRCC determines that water pollution is attributable to non-permitted sources within the City. A copy of the proposed rules is attached.
Along with TML, we provided comments to the lNRCC staff on two prior drafts of these proposed rules. In response to our comments, the lNRCC significantly improved the rules. However,
the proposed rule continues to suffer from some major defects. As drafted, the rule does not adequately spell out the conditions that would trigger a city to implement a pollution control
and abatement plan. Thus, the lNRCC could choose to implement the rule broadly and require water pollution control and abatement plans from virtually every city in the state with a population
of 10,000 or greater. Additionally, the rule does not provide for a contested-case hearing if a municipality wants to challenge the Executive Director's determination that a water pollution
control and abatement plan is required. We plan on convening a meeting ofthe Steering Committee during the TML annual meeting in San Antonio on October 29, 1998, from 10:00 to noon at
the Marriot Riverwalk (the "old" Marriot) --Bowie Room to discuss the Coalition '5 position regarding these rules. Representatives from the Participating Cities are welcome to attend.
Ifthe Steering Committee authorizes the filing of comments, we will provide a copy ofthe comments to all Participating Cities in time touse the Coalition's comments as a model for their own comments. If you have any questions, please call me or Joe Freeland at ,...,..,.."... o. cc: Frank Sturzl 
Texas Narural Resource Conservation Commission Page 1 Chapter 216 -Water Quality Performance Standards for Urban Development Rule Log No. 97164-216-WT The Texas Narural Resource Conservation
Commission (commission) proposes new §§216.21-216.30 concerning municipal water pollution control and abatement. These sections will form a new Subchapter B under Chapter 216 concerning
Municipal Water Pollution Control and Abatement Plans. EXPLANATION' OF RULE The proposed rules will implement revisions to Texas Water Code, §26.177 made by House Bill 1190 (1997) passed
during the 75th Texas Legislarure (1997). The bill revised Texas Water Code §26.177 and made the section permissive for any community regardless of population, and required only for
communities with populations of 10,000 or greater where the Clean Rivers Regional Assessment of Water Quality or other commission assessments or smdies demonstrate a water pollution
impact not associated with permitted sources. The proposed rulemaking provides flexibility in allowing affected cities the opportunity to correct the problems using those resources available
to them within a reasonable time, but not to exceed five years. Representatives of potentially impacted municipalities participated in the development of the rule providing suggested
language and comment on the requirements of the rule. In developing the rule, program staff has also considered other related matters such as: federal permitting under Phase II of the
storm water permitting program; delegation of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting program to the state; revision of state and federal water quality standards
to address wet weather conditions; evolving federal poliCY on Total Maximwn Daily 
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Page 2 Chapter 216 -Water Quality Performance Standards for Urban Development Rule Log No. 97164-216-WT Loads; and the development of a
state coastal nonpoint source management program in compliance with Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Management Act. Proposed new §216.21, relating to Purpose and Policy, explains that
the purpose of these rules is to establish procedures and measures to address water pollution, identified in cities of 10,000 or more, that is not attributable to a permitted source.
This section also establishes that this subchapter is not intended to prevent the commission from abating or preventing the pollution of water through permits, orders or other actions.
Proposed new §216.22, relating to Applicability, explains that the proposed rule applies to cities with populations of 10,000 or more in which a water quality assessment report has identified
a water pollution problem that is not attributable to a permitted source. Proposed new §216.23, relating to Definitions, includes definitions that apply to this subchapter and are not
included in 30 TAC, Chapter 3. Proposed new §216.24, relatiug to Water Quality Assessments and Studies, specifically identifies the related water quality assessments and studies which
may be used by the executive director to identify water pollution that is not attributable to permitted sources. Water quality assessments and studies which may be used by the executive
director to identify water pollution that is not attributable to permitted sources include, but are not limited to, the Commission's program to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
in accordance with §303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act. In this 
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Page 3 Chapter 216 -Water Quality Perfonnance Standards for Urban Development Rule Log No. 97164-216-WT scenario, cities and other stakeholders
located in watersheds of waterbodies that do not meet applicable water quality standards would be encouraged and given an opportunity to work with the Commission in the development of
TMDLs for the segment. TMDLs are technical analyses perfonned to determine how much pollution a waterbody can receive without violating its water quality standards. If, during the development
of a TMDL, sources, other than pennitted, in a city are detennined to be contributing to the violation of water quality standards, the city will be notified by the executive director
and given a reasonable amount of time to correct the problem. Actions undertaken by the city to correct the problem will need to be coordinated with the TMDL Implementation Plan adopted
for the waterbody. Proposed new §216.25, relating to Notice, explains that the executive director will notify a city if it is detennined that an assessment or study has identified water
pollution that is not attributable to with pennitted sources. Proposed new §216.26, relating to Public Meeting Held by the Commission, explains that uniess the executive director and
the city agree that the city should be required to develop and implement a water pollution control and abatement program after expiration of a specified time period, the commission at
a commission meeting shall evaluate and take action on the executive director's recommendation. The subsection further explains that the commission may find that the city continues to
meet the criteria and needs to implement a program, refer the matter to SOAH, detennine that the city is not required to develop a Water Pohution Control and Abatement Program, or issue
any other order the commission deems appropriate. 7 
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Page 4 Chapter 216 -Water Quality Performance Standards for Urban Development Rule Log No. 97 164-2 I 6-WT Proposed new §216.27, relating
to Water Pollution Control and Abatement Program, explains that a water pollution control and abatement program under this subchapter shall encompass areas within the city's municipal
boundaries and its extra-territorial jurisdiction and explains the elements of such a program. Proposed new §216.28, relating to Submittal of Water Pollution Control and Abatement Programs,
details the process for a city submitting a water pollution control and abatement program to the commission. Proposed new §216.29, relating to Amendment Procedures for Water Pollution
Control and Abatement Programs, details the process for the city to submit an amendment to the program for commission review and approval. The proposed rule also provides that the commission
may, on its own motion or in response to a petition by the executive director, require the city to amend its program. Proposed new §216.30, relating to Appeals, explains that any person
affected by any ruling by a city related to waste pollution control and abatement outside of the corporate limits, may appeal such an action to the commission or the appropriate state
district court. FISCAL NOTE Mr. Stephen Minick, Strategic Planning and Appropriations Division, has determined that for the first five years these proposed sections are in effect, there
will be fiscal implications as a result of enforcement and administration of the sections. The effect on state government will be an increase in 
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Page 5 Chapter 216 -Water Quality Performance Standards for Urban Development Rule Log No. 97164-216-WT cost associated with the development
and administration of a program that will include the review of water quality assessment data, processing notifications, preparing for public meetings and contested hearings, and processing
appeals and amendments to water pollution control and abatement plans. The cost to state government is estimated to be approximately $65,000 per year for the first five years the rules
are in effect The net effect of the provisions of House Bill 1190 and these proposed rules will be to reduce the potential costs to local governments of compliance with Water Code §26.177
because of the repeal of the mandatory provisions for development of a pollution abatement plan. The effect on local government will be the costs to those cities of greater than 10,000
population that demonstrate a water pollution impact not attributable to permitted sources. The costs to anyone city that makes such demonstration will vary according to the plan the
city develops to resolve the problem and will also vary according to the level and extent of problem, size of city, and complexity of the plan. The actual costs to any affected city
can only be determined on a site-specific basis, No additional fees will be imposed on any affected city to implement this program. PUBLIC BENEFIT Mr. Minick has also determined that
for the first five years these proposed new sections are in effect, the public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcement of and compliance with these sections will be improvements
in the control and abatement of water pollution coming from non-point sources in the areas and municipalities where water quality assessments have identified water pollution problems.
Another public benefit expected is the improvement of the quality of surface water resources in the State. The provisions of House Bill 1190 and these rules as proposed impose costs
only on certain cities with demonstrated water quality problems. Other than those costs that have been described for 
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Page 6 Chapter 216 -Water Quality Performance Standards for Urban Development Rule Log No. 97164-216-WT affected cities under this rule,
there are no economic costs to any person, including any small business, anticipated as a result of compliance with the rule as proposed. REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS The commission has
reviewed the proposed rulemaking in light of the regulatory analysis requirement of Texas Government Code, §2001.0225, and has determined that the rulemaking is not subject to §2001.0225
because the rule is not a "major environmental rule" as defined in that section of the code and does not exceed any standard, requirement or authority set by federal or state law or
delegated agreement. Although the proposed rule is intended to protect the environment, it does not meet the other of the two separate requirements that must be met for the definition
to apply. The proposed rulemaking wil [ not adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, or the public health
and safety of the state or a sector of the state. Furthermore, even if the proposed rule met the definition of a "major environmental rule"; (I) the proposed rule does not exceed a standard
set by federal law; (2) the proposed rule does not exceed any expressed requirement of state law; (3) there is no delegation agreement or contract directly applicable to the proposed
rule, and (4) the rule is not adopted solely under the general powers of the commission, but is adopted under the specific authority of Texas Water Code §26.177. TAKINGS IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The commission has prepared a Takings Impact Assessment for these rules pursuant to Texas Government Code Annotated, §2007,043. The following is a summary of that Assessment. The specific
purpose of the rule is to implement requirements of §26.177 of the Texas Water Code. The 
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Page 7 Chapter 216 -Water Quality Performance Standards for Urban Development Rule Log No. 97164-216-WT proposed rule will substantially
advance this specific purpose by establishing procedures to address water pollution that is not attributable to permitted sources in cities with populations of 10,000 or more. Promulgation
and enforcement of these rules will not burden private real property which is the subject of the rules because the rule governs actions a city must take to abate andlor prevent water
pollution occurring within its jurisdiction. The rule requires cities to identify and regulate discharges into waters in the state which are non-permitted and may be contributing to
the pollution of a water body. To the extent a municipality must enact an ordinance, rule, regulatory requirement, resolution, policy, guideline, or similar measure to address the issue
of non-permitted discharges which might have an effect on real private property, §2007.003(b)(4) of the Texas Government Code exempts a municipality from application of the Private Real
Property Act. COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The executive director has reviewed the proposed rulemaking and found that the rule does not govern air pollution emissions, on site sewage disposal
systems, or underground storage tanks or other specific nonpoint source control related actions expressly identified under Coastal Coordination Act Implementation Rules, 31 TAC §505.
I I (b)(2) , relating to Actions and Rules Subject to the Coastal Management Program (CMP), nor does it govern or authorize actions listed in Coastal Coordination Act Implementation
Rules, 31 TAC §505.I l(a)(6). Therefore, the proposed rule is not subject to the CMP. However, the development and implementation of water pollution control and abatement plans, where
appropriate, will provide significant protection for coastal natural resources and will be an integral part of the state's coastal non-point source pollution control program. 
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Page 8 Chapter 216 -Water Quality Performance Standards for Urban Development Rule Log No. 97164-216-WT PUBUC HEARING A public hearing
on the proposal will be held on November 10, 1998 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 2210 of the TNRCC Building F, located at 12100 Park 35 Circle, Austin. The hearing is structured to receive oral
or written comments by interested persons. Individuals may present oral statements, when called upon, in the order of registration. Open discussion within the audience will not occur
during the hearing; however, a commission staff member will be available to discuss the proposal 30 minutes prior to the hearing and will answer questions before and after the hearing.
SUBMITTAL OF COMMENTS Written comments on the proposal should refer to Rule Log No. 97164-216-WT and may be mailed to Lutrecia Oshoko, MC 204, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission,
Office of Policy and Regulatory Development, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087 or faxed to (512) 239-4808. Written comments must be received by 5:00 p.m., November 30, 1998. Such
comments will not receive individual responses, but will be addressed in the preamble of the adopted rules and published in the Texas Register. For more information, please contact Arthur
Talley of the Data Collection Section at (512) 239-4546. STATUTORY AUTHORITY The new sections are proposed under the Texas Water Code, §5.103 and §26.011 which provides the commission
authority to adopt rules necessary to carry out its powers and duties under the provisions of the Texas Water Code, and under §26.177 which provides the Commission with the authority
to 
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Corrunission Page 9 Chapter 216 -Water Quality Perfonnance Standards for Urban Development Rule Log No. 97164-216-WT establish rules providing the
criteria for the establishment of water pollution control and abatement programs and the review and approval of those programs. There are no other codes, statutes or rules that will
be affected by this proposal. 
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Page 10 Chapter 216 -Water Quality Performance Standards for Urban Development Rule Log No. 97164-216-WT SUBCHAPTER B: MUNICIPAL WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL AND ABATEMENT §§216.21 • 216.30 §216.;U. Purpose and Policy. (a) The purpose of this subchaJ)ter is to establish procedures and rneasl.Ires in accordance with Texas
Water Code. &26. 177(a) to address water pollution that is not attributable to Permitted sources in cities that have a (,lQpulation of 10.000 or more persons. (bl An unauthorized discharge
is a violation of Texas Water Code. §26.121. Nothing in this subchapter is intended to limit or prevent the commission from abating or preventing the pollution of water in the state
through permits. orders. or other enforcement actions authorized under the Texas Water Code. Chapter 26. or other a(,lQlicable state or federal law. §216.22. Aqplicability. (3) This
rule !!pplies to any city with a population of at least 10.000 persons. based on the most recent federal federal decennia! census. and in which a water quality assessment report required
by Texas Water Code. &26.0135 or other commission assessment or study. as described in 8216.24 of this title (relating to Water Quality Assessments and Studies). has identified water
pollution that is not attributable to permitted sources. Cities meeting atlplicability shall be required to satisfy awlicable 
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Page II Chapter 216 -Water Quality Performance Standards for Urban Development Rule Log No. 97164-216-WT provisions of this subchapter
upon receipt of notice jssued by the executive djrector pursuant to §216.25 of this title (relating to Notice). (b) A ell)' whose population falls below 10.000. based on the most recent
federal .decennial census. will no longer have a dul)' to satisfy the iILll?licable provisions of thjs subchapter upon the executive director's receil?t from the ell)' of the most recent
federal decennial census indicating that the population has fallen below 10,000. (c 1 A Water Pollution Control and Abatement Program submitted under this subchilLlter is not a Water
Pollution and Abatement Plan as provided by Texas Water Code §26.121(a)(21(B), §216.23. Definitions. Terms defined in Chapter 3 of this title (relating: to Definitions) will have the
same meaning when used in this subchapter unless the definition is specifically modified in this section. (1) City -A municipality or ell)' existjng, created. or organized under the
general, home rule, or special laws of this state, (2) Extra ':'erritorial Jurisdiction -An area outside the comorate limits of a municipality as defined in Local Govepunem Code. §42.021.

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Page 12 Chapter 216 -Water Quality Perfonnance Standards for Urban Development Rule Log No. 97164-216-WT (3) Permjtted Sources -A source
that discharges or is required to discharge pollution into or adjacent to waters jn the state as authorized by a valid penni\. general pennit. or rule pursuant to the Texas Water Code.
the federal Clean Water Act. or other applicable state or federal law. (4) Pollution -The alteratjon of the physical. thennal. chemical. or biological quality of or the contamination
of any water in the state that renders the water haunful detrimental. or jnjurious to humans animal life. vegetation. or property. Or to public health. safety or welfare. or impairs
the usefulness or the public enjoyment of the water for any lawful or reasonable purpose. This definition includes. but is not limited to. nonpoint sources of pollution as those sources
are defined and identified pursuant to Chapter 220 of this title (relating to Regional Assessments of Water Quality). the federal Clean Water Act. the Coastal Management Act. Chapter
6217. and other applicable state and federal statotes. regulations. policies. and guidance. (5) Significant Waste Discharge -The discbarge of waste to waters in the state which causes
or threatens to calise pollution. (6) Water Pollution Control and Abatement Program -A program deyeloped pursuant to this Chapter that includes personnel services. functions. schedules.
and reports deyelQPed by a city to prevent Or correct water pollution problems wjthjn its jurisdiction. 
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Page 13 Chapter 216 -Water Quality Performance Standards for Urban Development Rule Log No. 97l64-216-WT §216.24. Water Quality Assessments
and Studies. Water quality assessments and studies that may be used by the executive director to identifY water pollution that is not attributable to permitted sources shall consist
of one or more of the following; m State Water Quality lnventoO'. The state program which assesses the quality of surface and ground waters resulting in a rwort describing the status
of water quality in the state in accordance with the Federal Clean Water Act. §305Ib): (2) Clean Rivers Program. Watershed water qyality assessments conducted in accordance with Texas
Water Code. §26.0135: (3) State NonPQint Source Assessment. The state program implemented in compliance with Federal Clean Water Act. §319(a) which identifies surface and ground waters
in the state which cannot reasonably be expected to attain or maintain applicable water qyaJity standards or the goals and requiremeJJl:s of the federal Clean Water Act without additional
controls for nonpoj!ll sources of pollution: (4) Total Maximum Daily Load. Pursuant to Clean Water Act §303Id). the identifiCation and prioritization of waters within the state for which
the effluent limitations required by 
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Page 14 Chapter 216 -Water Quality Performance Standards for Urban Development Rule Log No. 97164-216-WT §3Q Hb){1)IA) and IB) of the Clean
Water Act are not stringent enough to implement any water quality standard applicable to such waters' or. (5) Other. Special studies pilot projects. reports. or other quality assured
assessments of water quality in the state prepared. approved. or accepted by the executive director that identify nonpermilted sources of water pollution within cities. including information
used by the executive director for the pU[jlOse of updating the state's list of impaired waters prepared in accordance with. the federal Clean Water Act. §303(d). §216.25. Notice. (a)
If it is deteonined by the executive director that a city has met the criteria set forth in &216.22(a) of this title (relating to Applicability) or the executive director is requiring
the city to amend an existinfl water pollution control and abatement program the executive directw shall notify the city. This notice shall specify the following: III the basis for the
executive director's determination; (A) That the city meets the criteria set forth in &216.22(a) of this title (relating to Applicability)· or. 
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Page 15 Chapter 216 -Water Quality Performance Standards for Urban Development Rule Log No. 97164-216-WT IB) That the city's existing Water
Pollution Control and Abatement Program should be amended: (2) that the executive director may undertake additional water quality assessments and studies in the impacted area as set
out jn §216,24 of this title (relating to Water Quality Assessments and Studjes); ru that the city may undertake additional water Ql!ality assessments and studies jn the impacted area
within its jurisdiction which comply with quality aSSUrance requjrements of the executive director: and, (4) the time period (not to exceed five years) within which the city may try
to correct the problem. The executive director may amend this time period when new or additional infOrmation or circumstances warrant such an amendment. §216.26. Public Meeting Held
by the Commission. Cal After e;.;piration of the time period specified in §2l6.25(all4} of this subchapter. the executive director shall determine whether a city still meets the criteria
set forth in §216,22(a'l of this subchapter based on '.vater q.uality assessments and studies set out jn §216,24 performed subsequent to the initial determination taking into consideration
any measures taken by the city to correct the problem. 
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Page 16 Chapter 216 Water Quality Perfonnance Standards for Urban Development Rule Log No. 91164-216-WT (b) If the executive director determines
that a city continues to meet the criteria set forth in §216.22(3) of this subchapter. the executive director at a public meeting held by the commission shall recommend that the city
be required to submit a Water Pollution Control and Abatement Program Of when appfqpriate amend an existing Water Pollytion Control and Abatement Program. (c) No public meeting shall
be required if the executive director and the city agree that the city should be reqyired to develop and implement a Water Pollution Control and Abatement Program or amend an existing
Program In lieu of a public meeting. the city. based on an agreement with the executive director. may reqyest that the commission issue an agreed order to submit a Program as described
in 6216.21 (relating to Water Pollution Control and Abatement program) or an amendment to an existing Program as described in §216.29 (relating to Amendment Procedures for Water Pollution
Control and Abatement Programs). Cd) The city shall cause notice of the public meeting to be published in accordance with Sections 39 5 and 39.1 of Chapter 39 of this title (relating
10 Public Notice. General provisions and Text of Public Notice) infonninil the public of the meeting and that the public has thirty (30) days prior to the public meeting to provide written
comment to the commission on whether the city should be reqyired to develqp and implement a Water Pollution Control and Abatement Pmilram or amend an existing Water Pollutjon Control
and Abatement Pmgram. (e) After consideration of the matter at the public meeting. the commission may: 
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Page 17 Chapter 216 -Water Quality Performance Standards for Urban Development Rule Log No. 97164-216-WT (l) refer the matter to SOAH for
a contested case hearing conducted pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APAl to determine wbether the city continues to meet the criteria set forth in §216.22Ia): (2) determine
that the city is not required to submit a Water Pollution Control and Abatement Program: (3) determine that the city c"nlinues to meetlhe criteria set forlh in 6216.22Ia) of tbis subchapter
and awrove the executive director's recommendation that the city be required to develop, or where appropriate amend and implement a Water Pollution Control and Abatement Program: or
(4) issue any other order the commission deems awrQllriate (f) The public meeting held by the commission pursuant tQ thjs section shall satjslY the requirement of the public hearing
mandated by Texas Water Code Section 26.177, (g) A commission order issued pursuant to subsection subsection e) of this section is a final and appeaJab1e order under Texas Water Code
65.35] As a prerequisite to appeal. a motion for rehearing under §80.271 of this title Irelating to Motion for Rehearing) must be filed within twenty (20) days after the date the city
or the city's 􀁡􀁴􀁴􀁯􀁲􀁮􀁾􀀠of record is notified of the commission'S final decision or order under this subchapter. 
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Page 18 Chapter 216 -Water Quality Performance Standards for Urban Development Rule Log No. 97164-216-WT &216.27. Water Pollution Control
and Abatement Programs. Ca) The Water Pollution Control and Abatement Program of a city shall encompass the area within a city's municipal boundaries and. subject to Texas Water Code.
§26.179 (relating to Designation of Water Quality Protection Zones in Certain Areas), may include areas within its extraterritorial jurisdictjon which in the jndgment of the city should
be included to enable the city to achieve irs objectives for the area withjn its territorial jurisdiction. (b) The city shall include in the Procram the services and functions whjch,
in the judgment of the city or as may be reasonably required by the commission, will provide effective water pollution control and abatement for the city. including the 􀁦􀁯􀁬􀁬􀁯􀁷􀁩􀁭􀁾􀀠services
and functions: (ll the deyelopment and maintenance of an inventoO' of all significant waste discharges into or aqjacent to the water within the city and. where the city so elects. within
the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the city, without regard to whether or not the discharges are authorized by the commjssjon: (2) the regular monitoring of all significant waste discharges
included in the inventory prepared pursuant to Subparagraph (1) of this subsectjon: (3) the collecting of samples and the conducting of periodic inspections and tests of the waste discharges
being monitored to detennine whether the discharges are being conducted in 
Texas Natura! Resource Conservation Commission Page 19 Chapter 216 Water Quality Performance Standards for Urban Development Rule Log No, 97164-216-WT compliance with this chapter and
aoy applicable permits orders. or rules of the commission. and whether they should be covered by a permit from the commission' (4) a procedure for obtaining complianceby the waste dischargers being monitored. including where necessary the use of legal enforcement proceedings: (5) the deve!Qpment and executiQn of reasonable and realistic plans em cQntrolling
and abating PQlIution or PQtentjal PQllution resulting from generalized discharges of waste which are not traceable to a specific source. such as storm sewer discharges and urban runoff
from rainwater: and (6) aoy additional services. functjQns. or other requirements as may be prescribed by commission rule tQ effectuate the purposes Qf this subchapter. 
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Page 20 Chapter 216 -Water Quality Perfonnance Standards for Urban Development Rule Log No. 97164-216-WT §216.28. Submittal of Water Pollution
Control and Abatement Programs. A Water Pollution Control and Abatement Progr!lm shall be submitted to the executive director of the commission in accordance with the order issued pursuant
to &216.26 of this title (relating to Public Meeting Held by the Commjssion). The Water Pollution Control and Abatement Program for the citY shall be signed and sealed by a professional
engineer licensed in tbe State of Texas who shall certify that the citY's Program is designed to abate and prevent water pollutjon not attributable to pennitted sources located within
the citY. 2216.29. Amendment Procedures for Water Pollution Control and Abatement Programs. (a) A citY may amend the Water Pollution Conlrol and Abatement Program for that cjtY at any
time by submitting an amended Water Pollution Control and Abatement Program to the executive director of the commission. The amended Water Pollution Control and Abatement Program for
the citY shall be signed and sealed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Texas who shall certify that the city's Program is designed to abate and prevent water pollution
not attributable to permitted sources located within the citY. (b) The executive director mllY reQl!ire a citY to amend a Water Pollution Control and Abatement Program for that citY
when new or additional information or circumstances warrant such changes to effectuate the put;poses of this subchapter. 
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Page 21 Chapter 216 -Water Quality Performance Standards for Urban Development Rule Log No. 97164-216-WT (cl The notice. public meeting.
and hearing requirements provided under §§216.25(a) (relating to Notice) and 216.26 (relating to Public Meeting Held by the Commission) of this subchapter shall apply to an amendment
of a Water Pollution Control and Abatement Program. §216.30. Appeals. Pursuant to Texas Water Code &26. I 77(d). any person affected by any ruling. order. decision. ordinance. program
resolution. or other act of a city relating to water pollution control and abatement outside the cO'lJOrale limits of such city adopted pursuant to this subchapter or any other statutory
authorization may appeal such action to the commission or district court. An appeal must be filed with the commission's chief clerk within sixty (60) days of the enactment of the ruling.
order. decision ordinance. program. resolution. or act of the city. The jssue on appeal is whether the action or pr01.lfam is invalid. arbitrary. unreasonable. inefficient or ineffective
in its attempt to control water quality. and the commission's order on the apPeal will be based on whether the city's actions or programs meet these criteria. The commission or district
court may overturn or modify the action of the city. Ifan appeal is taken from a commission ruling the commission OIling shall be in effect for all purposes until final disposition is
made by a court of competent jurisdiction so as not to delay any permit approvals.