.1 
, ,r",·,, ; :t=-""'-'-,-_ . . \ . ,, I Jt1 -61938 " ;: ; ,_;􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀭.... --'--GINN, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS I {1, i July 6, 1988 Mr. Ron Whitehead city Manager Town of Addison P.O.
Box 144 Addison, Tx 75001 Re: Comprehensive Drainage Ordinance and Manual Dear Mr. Whitehead: Transmitted for your review is a draft copy of a memorandum which dicusses the proposed
drainage manual and the drainage issues the Town Council should address 􀁣􀁯􀁾􀁥􀁲􀁮􀁩􀁮􀁧􀀠improving existing drainageways. In addition, we are including a survey of local flooding
and drainage ordinances prepared by NCTCOG in 1982 and an excerpt from a survey of ordinances sponsored by Texas Public Works Association. We plan to use these surveys in preparation
of a drainage manual and comprehensive drainage ordinance. 􀁾􀀻􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀻􀀻􀀬􀁾􀀻􀁾􀁦􀁾􀀱􀀺􀁩􀀻􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁦􀁴􀁾􀁦􀀰􀀺􀁦􀀺􀁦􀁪􀀻􀁩􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁲􀁬􀀧􀁾􀀧􀁊􀀻􀁦􀁾􀁾􀀶􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁲􀀻􀁾􀀻􀀡􀀺􀁥􀀢􀀡􀁾􀁾􀀮􀀱
􀀠 prepare a review copy for the Council Retreat. 􀀻􀁴􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀢􀀢H. Wayne Ginn, P.E. HWGjRCHjdp Enclosures cc: Randy Hill 88394 17103 Preston Road -Suite 100 -LB 118 -Dallas, Texas 75248
-Phone 214/248-4900 \ 
DRAFT MEMORANDUM TO: city Manager FROM: Ginn, Inc. DATE: July 6, 1988 SUBJECT: Preparation of a Comprehensive Drainage and Storm water Management Plan & Ordinance The recent passage
of Ordinance No. 087-069, which amended the section of the Subdivision Ordinance pertaining to improvements and maintenance of drainageways, addressed some of the inadequacies of the
original ordinance. However, Ordinance No. 087-069 in its present condition does not address potential future flooding problems in areas of existing development nor does it clearly define
responsibility for maintenance and improvements of drainageways in developments where easements do not exist. An important issue which must be addressed is more of a "policy" issue rather
than a technical one. What position does the Town of Addison want to take in relation to existing developments located adjacent to major drainageways, i.e. Brookhaven Club area, Belt
Line/Surveyor area, the channel north of Kellway Circle, White Rock Creek area and the drainage which crosses the Addison Airport? Should the Town improve these areas with bond funds?
Should the property Owners participate iii. the cost of improvements? Should there be an assessment of adjacent Owners and/or upstream Owners? Who will maintain the easements after they
are improved? What determines when the channel improvements are made? Page 1 
Taking into consideraton it has been the city and or cities which have allowed the development and rezoning of properties, it is these developments that potentially create higher concentrations
of water, higher water surfaces, higher velocities, erosion and flooding of properties. Existing developments along major drainageways with little or no channel improvements present
a major issue for the Town of Addison. Generally, the cost of improving channels by adding gabions or concrete lining is very expensive and beyond the financial commitment of the property
owners. In these areas (Brookhaven Club, Belt Line/surveyor, Kellway Circle) we would propose a hydraulic analysis be done on each of the major channels to determine 10yr, 25yr and 100yr
water surfaces for ultimate buildout of Addison as part of the comprehensive plan. We would prepare costs for improving these channels to meet the criteria established by the drainage
􀁾􀁡􀁮􀁵􀁡􀁬􀀮􀀠The Town, then, can secure easements from property owners dedicating enough land for a 100yr storm plus 20 foot of space for maintenance. The improvements would be done
with bond funds. The Town of Addison allocated $750,000 for miscellaneous drainage improvements in the 1985 Bond Program. In new developments, the developer should pay for the cost of
storm sewer system and any channel improvements necessary to conform to the drainage manual. The developer should design a system that would limit runoff to undeveloped conditions. This
Page 2 
may mean construction of on-site detention facilities. He should also sille his facilities for ultimate development. The maintenance of the storm sewers and new channels should be the
responsibility of the owner. The channels would be required to be constructed as concrete lined channels, gabions, or as approved by the Town of Addison. The Town of Addison should establish
a bi-annual inspection to determine if the owners are maintaining the channels. This inspection would be done in early spring and late summer which is before the peak rainfall months.
If the channels are not being maintained, the inspector would notify the owner in writing up to twice in one month. If maintenance is not done after the second notice then the Town would
do the work and back charge the owner. Another item to address is how do we control upstream and downstream conditions imposed by adjacent properties and/or cities. The best way to solve
this issue is to prepare a hydraulic analysis of the channel and to meet with adjacent cities to coordinate findings with their engineering departments. Then the cities can work together
in establishing guidelines for developers and future channel improvements which will not damage downstream properties or impact upstream developments. A classic example of this problem
is on Farmers Branch Creek. The headwaters of this drainage basin is in Addison in the area of Inwood and Belt Line. Runoff begins in Addison, enters Farmers Branch, enters Addison,
enters Farmers Branch, enters Addison and enters Farmers Branch all within a two mile segment of Farmers Branch Creek. Without coordination of drainage policies, land Page 3 
owners and Cities can be subjected to extremely frustrating and expensive situations. cities in Texas and other areas of the country, in an effort to encourage growth, have allowed open
earthen channels to be constructed by developers. The size of these channels was determined based on existing zoning densities and probable future zoning. Earlier developments in communities
had limited knowledge of future densities and zoning. This fact and the fact that drainageways pass between and through other neighboring cities create problems in calculating storm
water runoff. without uniform drainage policies amongst neighboring cities or knowledge of zoning changes, serious erosion and flooding can occur especially where creeks meander between
cities. From an engineering and technical standpoint, preparation of a drainage manual is fairly straightforward since the fundamental laws of hydrology and hydraulics have been known
for ages. However, it is the combination of existing and future unknowns which present problems in hydraulics. We would prepare a drainage manual for Addison which would be consistent
with drainage ordinances and manuals from surrounding cities. Basically, all drainageways would be required to carry a 100 year storm. Drainageways would be considered any natural channel,
improved channel or closed conduit system. storm sewers would be sized to carry a 100 year storm event. We recommend this frequency of storm because Addison, in its ultimate developed
condition, will have a tremendous amount of hardscape and high density of buildings and homes. The amount of runoff would be Page 4 
computed using the Rational Method. A topical outline of the contents of the drainage manual is attached to present items which will be addressed in the proposed Addison Manual. Page
5 
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.01 General 1-1 1.02 Scope I-I 1.03 Organization of Manual I-I SECTION II DRAINAGE DESIGN THEORY 2.01 General II -1 2.02 Drainage Area
Determination and System Designation II-I 2.03 Rainfall II-I 2.04 Design Storm Frequency II-2 2.05 Determination of Design Discharge II-2 2.06 Rational Method II-2 2.07 Runoff Coefficient
II-3 2.08 Time of Concentration II-4 2.09 Unit Ilydrograph Method II-4 2.10 Unit Hydrograph Coefficients II -6 2.11 Flow in Gutters and Inlet Design II-7 2.12 Straight Crown Streets
II -8 2.13 Parabolic Crown Streets II-S 2.14 Alley Capacity II-9 2.15 Inlet Capacity Curves II-lO 2.16 Recessed and Standard Curb Opening Inlets on Grade II-lO 2.17 Recessed and Standard
Curb Opening Inlets at Low Point 
SEGTION III 2.18 Combination Inlet on Grade 2.19 Combination Inlet at Low Point 2.20 Grate Inlet on Grade 2.21 Grate Inlet at Low Point 2.22 Drop Inlet at Low Point 2.23 Hydraulic Design
of Closed Conduits 2.24 Velocity in Closed Conduits 2.25 Roughness Coefficients for Closed Conduits 2.26 Minor Head Losses in Closed Conduits 2.27 Hydraulic Design of Open Channels 2.28
Analysis of Existing Channels 2.29 Design of Improved Channels 2.30 Concrete Box and Pipe Gulverts 2.31 Culverts Flowing with Inlet Control 2.32 Gulverts Flowing with Outlet Control
2.33 Bridges CRITERIA AND DESIGN PROCEDURES 3.01 General 3.02 Rainfall 3.03 Design Storm Frequency 3.04 Determination of Design Discharge 3.05 Runoff Coefficients and Time of Concentration
3.06 Criteria for Channels, Bridges and Gulverts 3.07 Procedure for Determination of Design Discharge Page No. Ii·n II-12 H-l3 II-l3 II-14 II-14 iI-14 II-1S II-1S II-16 II-16 II-IS II-IS
II-19 II-19 II-22 III-l III-l III-l 1II-4 III-4 IIl-4 III-4 
I 3.08 3.09 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.1S 3.19 3.20 3.21 3.22 3.23 3.24 3.25 3.26 3.27 3.28 3.29 3.30 Flow in Gutters and Inlet Design Capacity of Straight Crown Streets
Capacity of Parabolic Crown Streets Street Intersection Drainage Alley Capacities Inlet Design Procedure for Sizing and Locating Inlets Hydraulic Gradient of Conduits Velocity in Closed
Conduits Roughness Coefficients for Conduits Minor Head Losses Procedure for Hydraulic Design of Closed Conduits Open Channels Types of Channels Quantity of Flow Channel Alignment and
Grade Roughness Coefficients for Open Channels Procedure for Calculation of Water Surface Profile for Unimproved Channels Procedure for Hydraulic Design of Open Channels Hydraulic Design
of Culverts Culvert Hydraulics Quantity of Flow Headwalls and Entrance Conduits Page No. III-5 ! III-5 III-5 III-S IIl-S III-6 III-S III-8 III-9 III-lO III-IO III-lO III-10 III-12 III-13
III-13 III·14 III-14 IIl-14 III-14 Ill-IS III-IS III·16 
SECTION IV SECTION V SECTION VI SECTION VII SECTION VIII 3.31 Culvert Discharge Velocities _3.32 Hydraulic Design of Bridges 3.33 Quantity of Flow 3.34 Procedure for Hydraulic Design
of Bridges CONSTRUCTION PLAN PREPARATION 4.01 General 4.02 Preliminary Design Phase 4.03 Final Design Phase APPENDIX 5.01 Definition of Terms 5.02 Abbreviation of Terms and Symbols 5.03
Bibliography TABLES FIGURES FORMS Itf-16 III-17 III-l7 llI-17 IV-l IV-l IV-3 V-I V-3 V-8 VI-l VII-l VIII -1 
Survey of Local Flooding and Drainage Ordinances North Central Texas Council of Governments Department of Environmental Resources June 25. 1982 The preparation of this report was financed
through a planning grant from the United States Environmental Protection Agency under provisions of Section 208' of the Federal Clean Water Act. 
North Central Texas Council of Governments Executive Board 1982-83 Pres ident Director Director Florence Shapiro Mayor Pro Tern Plano Wes Wise Cou nc i lmerroer Da 11 as Joe Grubbs County
JudgeEllis County Vice President Carolyn Snider Mayor Pro Tern Arlington Director Fos ter Parse 11 Councilmerroer Hurst Regional Citizen Rudy Day Regional Citizen Jamie Vick Secretary-TreasurerLen
Gibbons MayorMesquite Director James RiddlespergerCounci Imember Denton Genera1 Counse 1 Ted P. MacMaster Executive Director Past President Director William J. Pitstick Richard C. Newkirk
Mayor Pro Tem Fort Worth Lyn GregoryCommiss ioner Tarrant County What is NCTCOG? The North Central Texas Council of Governments is a voluntary association of cities, counties, school
districts, and'special districts within the sixteencounty North Central Texas region --established-in January, 1966, to assist local governments in planning for common needs, cooperating
for mutual benefit, and coordinating for sound regional development. The Council of Governments is an organization of, by, and for local governments. Its purpose is to strengthen both
the individual and collective power of local governments --and to help them recognize regional opportunities, resolve regional problems, eliminate unnecessary duplication, and make joint
regionaldecisions --as well as to develop the means to assist in the implementation of those decisions. North Central Texas is a sixteen-county metropolitan region centered around Dallas
and Fort Worth. It has a population of 3.2 million and area of 12,627 square miles. NCTCDG currently has 187 member governments. The membership includes 16 counties, 137 municipalities,
19 independent school districts, and 15 special purpose districts. 
Water Resources Council 1981-1982 Carl W. Riehn, Chairman Executive Director North Texas MunicipalWater District Diana Clark President League of Women Voters of Texas Major General A.P.
Rollins, Jr. U.S, Army Retired W. Scott McDonald Citizen, Dallas Dr. Leo New Iand Texas Christian University Tom Taylor, Vice Chairman Director Dallas Water Utilities Jim Prince Program
Coordinator Environmental Planning City of Dallas Dan Dodson Assistant City ManagerCity of Duncanville James MurphyDirector of Public Works City of University Park J. Les Robi nson Water
&Sewer Director City of Fort Worth Richard C. Newkirk Mayor Pro Tem City of Fort Worth John F. Kubala Director of Utilities City of Arlington Jim McMeans Director of Public Works City
of Hurst Robert E. Nelson Director of Utilities City of Denton Warren Brewer Northern Regional ManagerTrinity River Authority Charles Bresett Director of Public Works City of Carrollton
Will i e Mae McCormi ck Mayor Pro Tern City of Euless Frank Proctor City ManagerCity of Cedar Cedar Hill Tom Ewbank Mayor Pro Tern City of Richardson Bill Dollar Director of Public Works
City of Garland 
Environmental Resources Advisory Committee 1981·82 G. Chris HartungChairman City ManagerCity of Denton Levi Davis Assistant City ManagerCity of Da 11 as Dwai ne Johnson City Councilmember
City of Fort Worth Carl Riehn Executive Director North Texas MunicipalWater District Mike Howard City Council member City of Irving < Grover Keeton CitiZen, Dallas Mary Beth ApplewhiteCitizen,
Plano Richard J. Fahy, Jr. Citizen, Fort Worth Eleanor Sutherland Citizen, Dallas Nevin Trostle Citizen, Irving Bill Blackwell Lockwood, Andrews &Newnam, Inc. I. M. Rice Trinity Improvement
Association J. W. McDonald USDA Soil Conservation Service Joe B. Mapes Freese &Nichols, Inc. Charles Clinger Gifford-Hill American, Inc. Georgi a K idwe 11 League of Women Voters of
Tarrant County Walt Traxler Greater Dallas Sierra Club William T. Lowry Southwestern Association of Toxicologists Walter Sutton National Bar Association Catherine Perrine League of Women
Voters of Texas 
Staff of the NCTCOG Department of Environmental Resources John Promi se Director Edwina J. Hicks Assistant to the Director Patricia Eaton Senior Planner Jill Jordan Environmental Planner
Paul 􀁾􀁩􀁸􀀠Environmental Analyst larry ChampagneEnvironmental Analyst Carol Frisby Administrative Secretary Robin GentrySenior Secretary 
INTRODUCTI ON As part of its water quality management planning program, the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG} Department of Environmental Resources recently completed
an assessment of how selected cities in this region practice stormwater management. Studied were twenty-four cities of all sizes from four counties representing both rural and urban
areas. This assessment covered many general water-and stormwater-related topics. One part of the assessment dealt with ways NCTCOG can ass i st local governments with drainage prob lems.
The most common response to this question was that NCTCOG should survey drainage and flooding ordinances used by cities in this region. This survey would producedetailed information
on design criteria for drainage facilities and current drainage practices for use by local governments. A questionnaire, developed by the NCTCOG Staff, was reviewed for appropriateness
by several public works directors and city engineers. Each member city in the sixteen-county NCTCOG region was given an opportunity to participate in the survey ..Because many of the
small cities do not have a fulltime city engineer, cities with a population of less than 5,000 people were telephoned to determine if the city had an interest in participating in the
survey. Only interested smaller cities received a copy of the' questions. Of the 127 cities sent the survey questionnaire, 46 cities actually returned a completed survey. These cities
represent about 75% of the total population of the region. For 􀁰􀁲􀁥􀁳􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁾􀀠purposes in this report, the 46 cities have been divided into four groups determined by their
population as follows: large cities .... over 50,000 Medium large cities 20,000 -50,000 Medium citi es 5,000 -20,000 Small cities ...• under 5,000 The percent returns in each grouping
of cities along with the names of the cities returning the questionnaire are listed in the five following tables. The remainder of this report contains tables of the cities' responses
to the survey questions. Each table begins with one or more question(s} from the survey. The responses are then divjded into the four groups of city sizes and keyed to the question number.
As closely as pOssible, the responses in the tables reflect those answers actually written on th'e questionnaires. No effort has been made to analyze the answers to determine such things
as the most frequent response. The tables do . provide the opportunity for each City to cqmpare its drainage practices to those of other comparable-sized cities within the region. On
July 2; 1982, the NCTCOG Water Resources Council and the Environmental Resources Advisory Committee reviewed this report and authorized its distribution. For additional information regarding
this 􀁲􀁥􀁰􀁯􀁾􀁴􀀮􀀠contact Jill Jordan, Environmental Planner, NCTCOG (aI7} 640-3300. 1 
Percent Return of Survey Number Number of Cities of Cities % Return Categories of Population in this Returning byCity Sizes Range Category Survey Category Large ) 50,000 10 9 90.0% Medium
Large Medium 20,000 50,000 5,000 .' 20,000 11 31 7 15 63.6% 48.4% Small < 5,000 75 15 20.0% Total 127 46 36.2% 2 
· . Large(> 50,000) Ar lington Dallas Denton Fort Worth Gar land Grand Prairie Irv'ing Plano Richardson Cities Returning Questionnaire County Population (1982 Estimates) Tarrant 177
,200 Da 11 as 916,050 Denton 51,350 Tarrant 396,850 Da 11 as 144,650 Oa 11 as 74,550 Oa 11 as 112,550 Coll in 81,200 Dallas 75,500 3 
Med ium Large (20,000-50,000) Bedford Carro llton Corsicana Duncanville Eu less Farmers Branch Hurst Cities Returning Questionnaire County Tarrant Dall as Navarro Da 11 as Tarrant Da
llas Tarr.ant Population (1982 Estimates) 26,900 48 ,250 22,400 29,400 26,100 25,400 32,700 4 
Cities Returning Questionnaire Medium County (5,000-20,000) Benbrook Tarrant Cleburne Johnson DeSoto Da llas Everman Tarrant Grapevine Tarrant Highland Park Dallas Lancaster Dallas Mansfield
Tarrant Mel< inney Co11 in Mineral Wells Palo Pinto Rockwa11 Rockwall Rowlett Da11 as Stephenvi lIe Erath Terrell Kaufman Watauga Tarrant Population (1982 Estimates) 15,900 19,600 16,150
5,450 14,150 8,950 15,750 9,250 16,450 14,800 6,700 8,700 12,600.. 13,300 11 ,600 5 
Cities Returning Questionnaire Small « 5,000) County Population (1982 Estimates) Briar Tarrant 1,810 Forney Kaufman 2,800 Frisco Co 11 i n 3,600 Granbury Hood 3,350 Hutchins Dallas 2,850
Justin Denton 925 Keene Johnson 3,100 Me Iissa Co 11 in 600 Palmer Ellis 1,324 Pantego Tarrant 2,500 Princeton Coll in 2,250 Rhome 􀁾􀁩􀁳􀁥􀀠475 Rio Vista Johnson 500 Royse City Rockwall
1,566 Wylie Collin 3,450 6 
Does the city participate in the Federal Flood Insurance Administration 1 (F1A) program? Answer; Yes Ho If yes, (a) Is the city a matTbef" of the regular program or the emergency program?
(b) When did the city begin participation In this program? (c) Please attach a copy of the city's flood hazard 􀁯􀁲􀁤􀀱􀁮􀁡􀁮􀁣􀁥􀁾􀀠(d) What was the source of this ordinance? (For 􀁥􀁸􀁡􀁭􀁰􀁬􀁥􀁾􀀠
was it written specifically for the city or is it an adaptation of FIA nodel ord1 ... nanCesl) 2 (a) Does the city allow the fringe areas of the floodplain to be filled so that bui 10ings
can be constt"uctedl (b) Ooes the city allow the floodway to be filled so that buildIng. can be constructed? (el If the answer to either .question Is yes, please explain under what conditions
the construction can proceed and tne review process conducted by the city of the plans for the development? FIA When Source of Fill Fill Statusl Joined O,.dinance Fringe Floodway CaMents
large 1 (a) 1 (b) 1 Cd) 2 (a) 2 (b) 2 (e) lR -refers to member of FlA" Regular Program. E . refers to member of furs Emergency Program. 7 Yes Generally,Ho Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes. uponapproval
Y•• Yes Na -except when minof f111ing can be Shown to have no adver'e effects on the efficiency of the floodway. Ho Ho Under Za. finished floors must be set 1 ft. abQve Base Flood Elevation.
Ho FIlling must be conslstent with FIA requ1rement. Only after Hust apply for c""",rehens1ve Development Permit. study sh...ing no adversE! Impact. No. Flnl.hed Floor Elevatlon must
be 1 ft. above Sase: flood elevation. H. Yes Filling must be In accordance with StOMm Drainage Manual. Yes, If certiffed by Professional Engineer shOWing that flood levels will not increase.
Arltngton R 12111 -E 3176 -R Dallas E 1915 Denton R 811179 fort Worth R 5/20/SO Garland R Grand Prairie R 7/6113 Irving R !lISO Plano R 19SO Richardson R 11/19179 Adapted FIA Model Written
by City Ad4l>ted FIA Model Adapted FlA Hodel 8.gan with 􀁲􀁲􀁯􀁾􀁬􀀮􀀠but has since been ""difI ed • Adapted FIA Hodel Written by City Adapted FIA Hodel Adapted FIA Hodel 
FIA When Soyrce af Fi 11 Fi 11 Statusl Joined Ordinance Fringe Floodway CtlImIents Medium large 1 (.J I (bl 1 (d) 􀁾􀀠(a) 􀁾􀀠(bl 2 (cl Bedford R 1975 FIA MOdel Yes No By supplying Hydraul1cs
Study of creek before and after fi 11 􀁾􀀠Carrollton R 6/10/80 Adapted FIA Model Yes No Review of plans and proceed with understanding that finished floors be 2 ft. above 100-yr. flOOd
elev.tions. Corsicana R 1974 Written specifically for the City Yes No The final plat should indicate that the finished floor eleva· tions are 1 foot above the lQQ-yr. flood elevation.
Ouncanvi l1e R 4115/81 Adapted FIA Model Yes No Engineering plans can.. firming that the fill will not ra1se the 100yr. elevation mote than 1 ft. Euless E 1974 Adapted FIA Model Yes
(S.. 􀁾􀁣􀁬􀀠No Fringe can be filled provided complete hydraulic report fs submitted and is in full 􀁣􀁾Hance with FIA guidelines. Farmers Branch 1980 -R 1973 -E Adapted FIA MOdel Yes'
(S.. 􀁾􀁣􀀩􀀠No Fringe can be filled provided, I} the owner has a detailed engineering study of the impacts on adjacentproperties, and 2) the City reviews the study. Hurst E 1/78 Adapted
F1A Model Yes Yes The fill cannot reduce the water storage capacity or the flow capacity below the 100-yr. flood and ffnished floors must be 1 ft. aboye the IOO-yr.flood 􀁥􀁬􀁥􀁶􀁡􀁴􀀱􀁯􀁮􀁾􀀠lR
-refers to l'I1!iTber of FlA's Regular Program.E refers to member of FIA's Emergency Program. 8 
FIA Wh.n Source of Ff11 Fill Statu.1 Joined Ordinance Fringe Floodway Corments Hedl... I (a) 1 (b) 1 (d) 2 (a) 2 (b) 2 (c) Benbrook R 712179 Adapted FIA /lode 1 Yes Ho Fill only If there
is no Increase tn flood height or d ...ge. Cleburne R 1974 Adapted F1A /Iod.1 Yes Ho Oe""l""... can flll up t. the floQdway. Fill and floor elevations ""st be abo.e llJO..yr.flood le••1.
DeSot. R 1981 Everman R 6/12175 Adapted FIA Hodel S.. 2 (c). N' None .Ince Jolnin9 FIA progrlll, but if FIA ru les: a1low. C tty Engine.. would studyIt;Grape... ine E 1977 Yes ft" Fill
fringe If an engl....ing studyshOW$ no 􀁦􀁾􀁡􀁣􀁴􀀠on upstreaa or downtown flood I••els. Highland Park R 1979 Adapted F1A _I "/A Ho .. if any increase 1n flood 1••els would occur. lancaster
R 8/3/81 Adapted F1A Hodel Yes fto Fill up to 􀁾􀀮􀁬... liMits as determined by stUdy prepared and furnished by FIA on limit of floodway. Mansfield R 1978 Written specificallyfor the
City With EngineerfngApproval No Proper design. 􀁾patlbillty with FIA guide 1fnes. and engineering approvalof city. HeXinney R 1980 Adapted FIA Hodel Yes No -(See 2c) Unless detailed
study indicates that reductions in floOdway can be Mdt. Continued 9 
Mineral Wells R 1977-78 Adapted FJA HOdel 􀁙􀁥􀁳􀁾􀀠wlth 􀁙􀁥􀁳􀁾􀀠if decertified crease of flood hazard chaonel capastudy and city is comdesign by pensated for registered based uponProfessional
study and en-Engineer at gineering dedeveloper's sign as in Certified RegisteredEngineers floodplain study and design w1th compensating channel improvements 1S ap·preved by Oirector
of of pubnc Works priorto building 􀁰􀁥􀁲􀁭􀁩􀁴􀁾􀀠expense. 2 •• Rockwall R 1977 Adapted FIA Hodel tn accord ... ance with In accord.. ance with federal Fedef"al standards standards
Rowlett R 4/8/77 Adapted f1A Model Yes Ho Maximum up to limits of floodway as determined by study prepared by FIA program. Stephenvi lle R 7/5/77 Adapted FIA Ho Ho Terrell R 12177 Adapted
FlA Hodel 􀁙􀁥􀁳􀁾􀀠under most cir.. cumstances Hot yet Permit is issued following a review byCity Engineer to determine that proposedstructure's floor is at least one ft. above lOO-yr.
flood elevation andlor that fill .111 not aggravate flooding of ne1ghboring parcels. Watauga E. but changing to R 1978 Adapted FlA Model Yes Ho Fringe areas of the flood plain could
be filled with proper channelization approved by our City Engineer and a concurring report by FlA. lR .. f"efef"S to men6er of FIA's Regular Program. E -refers to memer of HA"s Emergency
Progf"am. 10 
flA When Source of fill f1!l status1 Joined Ordinance fringe Floodway Comnents Small 1 (.) 1 (b) 1 (d) 2 (.) 2 (b) 2 (e) Briar Yes 12181 Adapted flA Hodel forney R Yes No A plan is presented
to the City and corrpared with FtA flood maps. Frisco R 1980 Adapted flA Yes No Maximum up to limits of Model 􀁦􀁬􀁯􀁯􀁤􀁷􀁾􀀠as determined by flA studies. Granbury € 3/20179 Adapted
flA Model Ye, Possible as long as hy.. draulics of City reviews proposed plans and requlres professional en9ineer's flood plain statement and calculaare not tions. materiallyaltered.
Hutchins R 5/1/80 Adapted f1A Yes Ho MaxilllJm up to limits /tode 1 of floodway as deter" mined by FIA studies. Justin Yes 1981 No HO keen@HO MIA NIA MIA HellSS/1 No MIA MIA MIA Palmer
Mo (located on hilltop HIA MIA MIA \11th /10 flooding). Pantego R 7123/80 Adapted fIA Hodel 􀁙􀁥􀁳􀁾􀀠publichearings 􀁈􀁯􀁾􀀠unless technical are reevaluation quired. shows that fiH
will not increase flood 􀁬􀁥􀁶􀁥􀁬􀁳􀁾􀀠Princeton No N/A N/A N/A Rhome € No or'dinllnce No policy No policy Rio Vista No NIA N/A MIA ROyse City R 10nS Adapted f1A No No Hodel Wylie R
4/77 Adapted FIA Model Yes No When a building permit 1S issued for fringe areas9' the permit notes that the property is in the floodplaIn. Also9' a warning signof possible flooding ts
posted in the area. lYes • refers to being a member of a FIA Program.No 􀁾􀀠refers to not being a member of either FIA Program. It • refers to member of F[A's Regular Program. E -refers
to member of FIA·s Emer'gency Program. 11 
:3 (a) How many feet .bo.e the 100-year flood must finished floor ele••tions bel (n) Ooes the city require the low point of bridges to be some specified height above the high water ftom
some specified flood? If so. what the requirement! Is 4 Does the city require drainage facilities to be designed for fully developed conditions in the watershed1 If so. how doe5 the
cfty determine what the fully developed conditIons will bel • L.rge Arlington Oall.. Oenton fort \/orth Garland Grand Prairfe Irving Plano RiChardson finished floor iftIst be x feet
.bove 100-yr. flood 3 (a) 1 ft. J ft. 1 ft. 1 ft. 2 ft. 1 ft. 2 ft. Z ft. Z ft. Are drainage facilities Height of designed for low point fully developed of bridges_ watersheds? J (0)
4 Ho, however the original Yes 100 yr. water surface may not be raised mre th.n the allowable 1 foot. 2 ft. above lOa-yr. flood Ves All bridges must pass Ves 25-1'. flood. Majorbridges
must pass SO-JT. flood. 1 ft. abo.e lOa-yr. flood Yes No ord1nance 􀁲􀁥􀁱􀁵􀁦􀁲􀁥􀁭􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁾􀀠Ves but actua1 practice requires 1 ft. clearance. Bottom of deck Should be Yes 2 ft. above
f100d elevation_ s.. 10(.) Yes 1 ft. above l00-yr. flood Yes or City criteria. which. ever is higher Z ft. above Corps of Yes Engineers standard prOJect flood How are ftl 11Y developed
cond1tions determinedi 4 Use existing lonlng and land use plan Zoning maps App Iy land use masterplan guideZoning maps and projections Zoning maps Zoning maps Haster toning Zoning or comprehensiveplan Comprehensive zoning 12 
Finished floor must be x feet above 􀁬􀀰􀀰􀁾􀁹􀁲􀀮􀀠flood 􀁾􀁥􀁤􀁩􀁵􀁭􀀠large l (a) Bedford 1 ft. Carrollton l ft. Corsicana 1 ft. Duncanville l ft. Euless 1 ft. Farmers Branch 1 ft.
Hurst 1 ft. Height of low pointof bridges 3 (b) Ves Yes. by 1 ft. No l ft. 1 ft. above lOO..􀁹􀁲􀁾􀀠storm 1 ft. 1 ft. Are drainagefaeil it1es designed for fully developed watershed?
4 Ve, Ye, Ves Ves Ve, Ve, Yes How are fullydevelOped cond!tions determined1 4 City zoning map and Master land Use Plan Proposed land use maps Present zoning Future land Use Map By estimating
the amount of var10us types of deve 1... opment (according to zoning) and then establishing runoff coefficients CUrrent loning and land use plans 13 
Finished Are drainage floor must hcn itjes be x feet Height of designed for HOiII are fully above lOO-yr. low point fuTTy developed developed condiflood of bridges watershed? tions determined?
Medium 3 (a) 3 (b) 4 4 Benbrook. 1 ft. Yes City requires developer to submit calculat10ns bya regfstered P.E# based on city criteria. Cleburne 1 ft. Na such requirement Ho oeSoto 2 ft.
above IOO-yr. stann Everman I ft. Currently. a1l citybridges are being studied for rebuilding The City Engineer uses his expertise and knowledge of flood controls to safely design such
faeilities. to """'P Iy with flood standards. Grapevine 1 ft. Ho Yes. on minor tributaries# Have requesteduttimate flood elevatfons ..on Bfg Bear Creek. Highland Park At or above the
IOO-yr. flood N/A MIA N/A Lancaster 2 ft. IOO-yr. flood passes through structure Yes "ansfield 1 ft. Yes Fu1l development according to land use and zoning .'. McKinney 2 ft. No Yes Current
zoning or ultimate zoning apparent Mineral Wells 1 ft. No Rockwall I ft. No Yes City development plans Rowlett At or above IOO-yr. flood and/or 2 ft. above 2S..yr-. IOO-yr. flood passes
through 􀁳􀁴􀁲􀁵􀁣􀁴􀁾􀁲􀁥􀀠Yes flood Stephenville I ft. No Ho Ho Terrell 1 ft. unless waterproofed to flood le..l No Yes lands use plan and zoning. Watauga 1 ft. or 2 ft. depending
upon watershed. Thfs will be incor.. porated by new City 􀁯􀁲􀁤􀁬􀁮􀁡􀁮􀁣􀁥􀁾􀀠fto policy at this time. Just that the bridge elevatiM is above the lOO...yr.flood 􀁥􀁬􀁥􀁹􀁡􀁴􀀱􀁯􀁮􀁾􀀠Yes
From information furnished by the Corps of Engineers 14 
Finished floor" must be • f.et above lOO-yr. flood Height of low point of bridges Are drainage fad Tities designed for fully developedwatershed? How are fu 11y developed conditions determined?
Small 3 (a) 1 (b) 4 (a) 4 (b) Briar Forney Frisco Granbury Hutchins Justin Keene Me 1 issa Palt11e'r Pantego --Princeton Rhome Ri. Vista R.yse City Wylle 1 ft. 2 􀁦􀁴􀁾􀀠if reviewed,
but not controlled by ordinance Oecided on a case by case basis, but usually up to base floop leve 11 ft. 1 ft. N/A II/A RIA Hot less than 1 ft. RIA Ho requirements 1 At or above base
flood levels for new construction un less 1t needs a variance which would require 1 ft. above base flood. 2 ft. above 50-yr. .tOl"1ll Decided on case by case basis. lOa-yr. flood passe.
through structure NO N/A N/A KIA RIA No Y'eqtlirelOOnts 1 Zoning maps Yes Developer's engineer is required to prepare data to be submitted to Cityfor considerat1on. Yes No No drainage
ordinance Ho drainage ordinanee NQ adOPted po 1icy NO drainage ordinance Ho drainage ordinance Yes land use map s 15 
5 The elevatfon of the 100-year flood Is often based on an estimation of f.lly developed conditions In the watershed. The prediction of the future imperviousness of the watershed can-be
underestimated. Zon1ng 􀁣􀁬􀁡􀁳􀁳􀁩􀁾􀀠fications frequently change to classifications of hfgher density land 􀁵􀁳􀁥􀁳􀁾􀀠especially now that densities of developments are increasing
wlth escalating land costs. These changes could increase over time the 100· year flood elevations thereby floodln9 property that is now out of the 􀁦􀁬􀁯􀁯􀁤􀁰􀁬􀁡􀁩􀁮􀁾􀀠Maw is the
city preventing this scenario from occurrinql for example. does your city have a progr&m or strategy to prevent zoning changes in f100d sensitive watersheds or does the city use other
means1 E) (a) What source of information for determining rainfall amounts and intensities does the city use and require developers to use in calculating runoff? for 􀁥􀁾􀁡􀁭􀁰􀁬􀁥􀀬􀀠does
the city use Technical Paper 25 or 40 from the U.S. Weather Service? (b) If used by the city, please please either enclose a copy or give the source of the rainfall -intensity -duration
frequency curveS. Haw City handles Sources of Sources of unexpected increases Rainfall 1 Rainfall In land us. density Intensity LD.F. Curves large 5 6 (0) 6 (b) Ar J1ngton City has,trted
to build some conservatfsm fnto the eXisting -developed conditions-􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁦􀁩􀁬􀁥􀁳􀁾􀀠The current FlOOd Hazard Ordinance does not gl.e the City the authority to regulate construction
on conditions that have not yet happened; however. the City uses the -developed conditions-Itk)dels as guides for developmentto prevent future problems. TP 40 &Hydro 35 C;\y has Its
own. Dallas limit runoff to original zoning. yP 25. 40 Hydro...t 35 TP 25. 40 Denton City is concerned about the scenario. and is trying to 90t enough flood data to see what structures
could fall In this 􀁡􀁲􀁥􀁡􀁾􀀠Given the character of the drainage basins, the city feels that this will not be a major problem. TP 40 fort Warth Garland Grand Prairie This is a recognized
problem that has not as of this time been resolved_ "0 program. Extremely sensitive and debatable 􀁩􀁳􀁳􀁵􀁥􀁾􀀠Some types of soil, after 􀁳􀁡􀁴􀁵􀁲􀁡􀁴􀀱􀁯􀁮􀁾􀀠are as impervious as
concrete, especially during 100-1'. type stOnll. , Zonln9 could be allOWed to chan90 In the floodplain. ll' 25. 40 ll' 40 ll' 40 ll' 40 City has Its Own that is based on TP 40. Irving
City will be examining the existing 'to factors for residential zoning. ll' 25 ll' 25 Plano These zoning changes Me occurring, but development has not Hqun. The increased I"Unoff I s
a conce..n. Detention or retention ,qy be required.. Hydro J5 City has its own. Richardson It Is anticipated by lOtting minimum floor .Io.ations so high that It will 􀁾􀁥􀁥􀁰􀀠the floors
above the future 􀁬􀀰􀀰􀂷􀁹􀁲􀁾􀀠level. TP 40 Iyp 40 Is an abbreviation for Technical Paper 140 that was for the Soil Conservation SerVIce, dated Hay 􀀱􀀹􀀵􀀱􀁾􀀠TP 25 is an abbreviation
for Technical Paper '25 that was the Hational Weather 􀁓􀁥􀁲􀁶􀀱􀁣􀁥􀁾􀀠Hydro JS is an abbreviation for ,Hational Weather Service Rainfall Frequency Data Presented in Technical Memorandum
NWS Hydro-J5. dated June 1977. prepared prepared by 
How City handles Sources of Sources of unexpected increases Rainfall Rainfall in land use density lntensityl LD.F. Curves Medium Large 6 (a) 6 (b) Bedford Carrollton Corsicana Duncanv
i lIe Euless Farmers Branch Hurst rio No established policy or procedure. Ho TP 40 T1' 40 None No established policy or 􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁣􀁥􀁤􀁵􀁲􀁥􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀁮􀁡􀁬􀀠plat and Construction Plan Review.
At present. several alternatives are 􀁢􀁥􀁩􀁾􀀹􀀠considered. One option for redeveloping areas is on-site detentfon; also. engineering studies might show that redevelopment would cause
harm and thus City could deny redevelop􀁭􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁾􀀠HO Hone T1'4O T1'4O T1'4O City has its own. C,ty has its own curve that was based on TP 40. City has its own curve. City has its own
curve that was based on data f ..... T1' 40. lTP 40 1s an abbreviation for Technical Paper 140 that was preparedfor the Soil 􀁃􀁯􀁮􀁳􀁥􀁲􀁾􀁡􀁴􀀱􀀰􀁮􀀠􀁓􀁥􀁲􀁾􀀱􀁣􀁥􀀮􀀠dated May 1961.
Til' 25 is an abbreviation for Technical Paper 125 that lfas prepared bythe National Weather Service. Hydro 35 is an 􀁡􀁢􀁢􀁲􀁥􀁾􀁬􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀠for National Weather Service Rainfall Frequency
Data Presented in Technical Memorandum NWS Hydro-3S. dated June 1977. 17 
How city handles Sources' of Sources of unexpected increases Ratnfall 1 Rainfall in land use density Intensity-Intentisty 􀁾􀁥􀁤􀁜􀁵􀁭􀀠5 6 (a) 6 (b) Benbrook Cleburne oeSoto Everman
Grapevine Highland Park Lancaster Mansfield McK inney Mineral Wells Rocl<wal1 Rowlett Stephenville Terrell Watauga If a zoning change Is requested. the staff conSiders the increased
runoff in their recommendation for the loning cnange. City has no such policy activity. This situation is under study by staff. No strategy at this time. This is not a problem because
the City'swatershed is fully develOped and no significant increase is expected from changes in "land use. The Ctty uses a long range land use p·lan for determing future flow. City has
identif1ed flood sensitive areas and considers these facts strongly during zoning 􀁲􀁥􀁶􀁩􀁥􀁷􀁾􀀠NO means to prevent this other than designing facilities for fully developed conditions
using ultimate 􀁺􀁯􀁮􀀱􀁮􀁧􀁾􀀠No preventative 􀁰􀁲􀁯􀀹􀁲􀁡􀁭􀁾􀀠City has no strategy at this time. City uses long-range land use plan for determing future fTow. No strategy at this
time I This prob1em has, unfortunately, not been addressed yet. This subject will be discussed in a new flood control ordinance. Also. the freeboard design should alleviate the flooding
problem In the future. City uses 􀁆􀁴􀁾􀀠Worth's manual (TP 25, 40) "Tabulation of ltainfall Inten .. sities for Johnson County" TP 40 TP 40 KIA Texas Highway Dept. IntensityCurve for
District 118 EngineeringStandards Currently, TP 40 but this maychange to Hydro 35 TP40 TP40 Texas Highway Dept. IntensityCurve for District 118 TP 25, TP 40, KWI Hydro 35 TP40 TP 40
See 6 (a). City has Its own curve. TP 40 &Ft. Worth's Design Manual See 6 (a). -'. \ Hot available. See 6 (a). TP 40 Curve as per City of Ft. Worth. ---..􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭�
�􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭lTP 40 is an abbreviation for Technical Paper 140 that was preparedfor the Soil Conservation Service. dated May 1961. TP 25 fs an abbreviation
for Technical Paper 125 that was prepared bythe National Weather Serv'ce. . Hydro 35 is an abbreviation for National Weather Service Rainfall Frequency Data Presented in Technica] Memorandum
KWI Hydro-35, dated June 1911. 18 
How city handles Sources of Sources' of unexpected increases Rainfall 1 Rainfall in land use density Intensity LD.F. Cur.... Small 5 6 (a) 6 (b) 8riar forney Frisco Grdnbury Hutchins
Justin Keene Me 1 issa Paln1l!r Pantego Princeton Rhome Rio Vista RoY'. City Wylie "0 Program The city uses land use mapS Cnot'current zoning maps) for determining future flow. The tong
range land use plan is furnished as a guide. Staff reviews proposed developments with these questions tn mind. The city uses land use maps (not current zoning maps) for determining future
flow. The long-range land use plan is furnished as a guide for drainage and loning. No program. The town has adopted a five-year plan which includes the policy to maintain the current
ratio of zoning of residential to commercial. However, the to.1In has no influence on acttons taken by neighbOring communities which would impact the watershed. Ho Program TP 25 T..a.
Hig""'YDept. District 18 Intensity Curve £ See 6 (.). r •••s "igb••yDept. Hydra.lic Oes 1911 M....M....I See 6 C.). Tex •• Htg""ayOept. HydrauHcDes1gn Manua 1 for Oistrict '18. See 6
(a). No No polley adopted. No City has Its See 6 (a). I:*n curve. ITP 40 is an abbreviation for Technical Paper 140 that was preparedfor the SOil Conser.atlon Servlc •• dated May 1961.
TP 25 Is an abbreviation for TeeMical Paper '25 that was prepared bythe National Weather Service. Hydro 35 is an abbr.viation for National Weather Service Rainfall frequency Oata Presented
in Tecbnical Memorandum NWI Hydro-35. dated June 1911. 19 
ir By what methodes) does the city estimate the quantity of runoff? (Rational, unit hydrograph, etc.) EJ If the city uses the Rational formula, what values for runoff coefficients does
the (1 ty use? Type of Land Use Runoff Coeffjc:ient "C't MtninJl1l Inlet Ttmes of Concentration Methods Used to ('"r" tn mfnutes)Estimate the 8. Q.antity of Single Multi Runoff Family
Family Pari< & Rest .. Resl-Canner-Indus .. Openlarge 7. dent1al dent'!a1 cia I trUI C80 Space Other Arlington Oal1as Denton Fort Worth Garland Grand Prairie l"fng PIa.. Richardson Rat1onal-areas
< 1.000 acres; 15 Hydrograph-areas ) 1,000 acres Rational-areas < 130 acres; 15 Unit hydrograph or kinematic Wave-areas ) 130 acres Rational-areas < 1,000 acres, 10 Denton Standard Procedures
fr... USGS "Effects of Urban-Ization on Floods in Oal1as. Texas Metropolitan Areas'" for areas >1,000 acres Rational-areas (-1,000 acres; 15 Unit hydrograph-areas > t,OOO acres Rat1.onal
..areas < 1.000 aQ'es; 15 Unit hYdrograph-are.. > 1,000 acres Rational 15 Rational 10 htlon.1 &Unit Kydrograph 15 Rationa1 IS 10 10 15 10 15 10 15 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
1Q 10 10 10 5 20 10 15 10 15 5 20 10 5 20 10 W11l AcceptDesign 10 15 Fot residen.. ttal lots > liZ acre -ZO Will AcceptOesign 20 
Minimum Inlet rimes of Concentration Methods Used to 􀀨􀁾􀁲􀁾􀀠in minutes)Estimate the 8. Quantity of Sinqle Multi Runoff • F'amily F...iTy Park & Rest-Resi. Coomer... Indus-OpenMedium
Large 7. dent;al dentfal cia! trial CaD Space Other Bedford Rational-areas ( 1.000 acres, Unit hydrograph-areas ) 1,000 acres 10 to 5 10 5 15 Carrollton Rational 10 5 5 5 5 10 Corsicana
Rational 15 15 15 Dvncanvi lIe Rational 15 10 5 5 5 20 Euless Ratfonal ... areas < 750 acres; Unit Hydrograph.ar ••s., 750 acres 15 10 10 10 10 20 Actua 1 time of concen.. tration F'anners
Branch Rational-areas < 600 acres;Unit Hydrograph or 􀁯􀁴􀁨􀁥􀁾􀀠method approved by City Engineer for areas ) 600 acres 10 10 10 10 10 10 Hurst Rational-area, { 500 acres; Unit Hydrograph·ar.a.
> 500 acres 10 10 10 10 10 10 21 
H1nirmJm Inlet Times of Concentration Methods USed to 􀀨􀁾􀁔􀁾􀀠in minutes) Est imate the 8. Quantity of Single Mu 1ti Runoff Family Resi ... Family Res1 ... CQmler-Indus-Park & Open
Mediulll I. dential dentia I cial trial CBn Space Other Benbrook As per Ft. Worth manual; Rational-< 1,000 acres; Unit hydrograph-> 1,000 acres 15 15 10 10 5 20 As per tort Worth·s manual
Cleburne Rational As per state Oept. of High-way's manual OeSoto Rational 15 10 10 10 10 Varies (stotes-W Everman Grapevine Rattonal 15 10 10 10 5 20 Highland Park Rational Lancaster
Rational &, Unit Hydrograpb 10 5 5 5 5 10 Mansfield Rational Md<inney Rational &Unlt Hydroqraph Determine 􀀭􀁲􀁾􀀠by caleu la-t 10n of ve loci ty given slope. Mineral ;.tells Rational
unless private engineer is able to justlfy an aiternative. KIA Rockwall Rat1onal-< 1,000 acres 10 10 5 10 10 20 Row lett Rational & Unit Hydrograph 10 10 S 5 5 10 Stephenvi lle Terre
11 Rati..al 15 15 10 15 10 15 Other-IS Wat4u9a Rational-for areas < 1 sq. m1.i Hydrograph-after this. this. IS 15 5 10 20 Other-LO 22 
Minimum Inlet Times of Concentration Methods Used to Est 1mate the ("T" in minutes} 8. Small Quantity of Runoff 7. Single Family Resl· dential Multi Family Res!· dentlal Cortmercia1
lndustri a 1 C80 Park & Open Space Other Briar Forney Frisco Rational Rational &Unit Hydrograph 10 10 5 5 5 10 Compute "'r" by by dividing length byvelocityaccording to 9iven slopes.
10 Granbury Rattonal Hutchins Rational & Unit Hydrograph 10 5 5 5 5 10 10 Justin "fA "fA "fA RfA "fA "fA "fA Keene Mel issa Palmer Pantego "0 method adopted. Princeton Rhome Rio Vista
Roys. City Wylie Rational 20 15 10 15 30 liT" can also be found with a nomograph. 23 
fI What are the mInImum (inlet times of concentration) far: Type of Land Use Minimum Inlet Time Single Family ResIdential "ulti.Family Residential CQI1I1IOrc i.l Industrial C.S.O. Park
& Open Space Other Runoff Coefficients ("C")for Rational Method by Land U.e 9. Large SingleFamily Residential Multi-Family Susinessl C""""rcia! Indus .. trial CaD Parks & Open Space
Play·grounds Rail Road Yard. Schools Conments Ar 1In9ton O.SO 0.65 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.35 Dallas 0.45-0.60 O.SO 0.90 0.90 -Denton Lot. > 1.0 0.6-0.1 0.1-<1.9 0.20 0.30 􀁡􀁣􀁲􀁥􀀭􀁏􀁾􀀳􀀵􀀻􀀠lots
< 1.0 acre-0.50 Fort Lot. > La 0.15 O.SO 0.10 0.90 0.30· Worth 􀁡􀁣􀁲􀁥􀀭􀁯􀁾􀀳􀁓􀀻􀀠lot. < LO acre.Q.SO Garland Lot. < lIZ acre-O.3S0.50; Lot. > 1/Z acre0.3-0.45 Detached units-o.4..
O.S-O.l 0.6; Attached units0.6-0.15 Light· 0.70.5-<1.8; 0.95 Hea.vy.. 0.6-0.9 Parks .. 0;1-<1.25;Unimprovedareas-o.l.. 0.3 0.2-0.35 0.200.40 Ctty has a method for determining: 􀁾􀁯􀁳􀁴􀁴􀁥􀀠runoff
coefficients. Grand O.SO 0.75 0.60 0.70 0.90 0.30 Prairie Irving 0.40 0.70 0.90 0.10 0.40 Pla.no SingleFamily. 0.50; Patio Home-Q.60 0.60 0.90 0.90 0.40 0.60 R ichard, son SingleFamily0.50;
Town... 0.70 0.90 0.90 houses..Q.60 24 
" " Runoff Coefficients (*C*) fOJ" Rationa 1 Method by land Use 9. Medium large SingleFamily Res 1denti aI Multl-Family Susinessl COI'I1flercial Industrial CSO Park.s I.Open Space 􀁏􀁴􀁨􀁥􀁲􀀯􀁃􀁾􀁮�
�􀁳􀀠Bedford 0.50 0.60 0.10 0.30 Carrollton 0.40-0.60" 0.50-0.70* 0.75-0.65' 0.70-0.60' 0.15-0.85" 0.20-0.45" * 􀁾􀁃􀂷􀀠values 􀁶􀁾􀁲􀁹􀀠according to slope of land. Corsicana 0.l-0.6
(0.45) 0.6-0.9 (0.70) 0.1-0.95 (0_80) 0.4-0.8 (D.70) 0.3-0.5 (0.40) The ·c· value in parenthesis is the value normally used in designs. P••ture-o.l5-0.45 (0.40) Ouncanv i l1e 0.5-0.6
0.80 0.90 0.85 0.90 Sehools-O.45 tuless 0.50 0.65 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.35 Farmers 0.50 0.80 0.90 0.40 Schools-o.15 Sranch Hurst 0.60 0.95 0.90 O.lO 25 
Runoff Coefficients 􀀨􀁕􀁃􀁾􀀩􀀠for Rational Method by Land Use 9. Medium Single Family Residential Multi-Fami ly Business/COf11'Ilercia 1 Industrial cao ParKs &Open Space Other/Canrnents
Benbrook Lots I acre..Q.35; Lots I acre-o.50 0.75 0.80 0.70 0.90 0.30 As pel'" Ftw WOl'"tb' 50 manual. Cleburne As per state Dept. of Highway's manual. OeSoto Eshtes0.40; Other..IJ.50
0.80 0.85 O.SS 0.90 0.3-0.7 Everman RIA GrapeYine tots I acre"().35; Lots 1 acre..􀁏􀁾􀀵􀀰􀀠0.75 0.80 0.70 0.90 0.30 Highland Park RIA Lancaster 0.4-0.6* 0.5-0.7* 0.6-0.85* 0.7-0.S*
0.75-0.SS* 0.2-0.45* *Oepends on slope of land for exact ·C· yalue. Mansfield 0.50 McKinney 0.50 0.7-0.9 0.7-0.S 0.90 O.30-agricultural Mineral Wells 0.70 * * * *Priyate engineer must
justify value. Rockwall Lots I 􀁡􀁣􀁲􀁥􀀭􀁯􀁾􀁊􀁓􀀻􀀠I..Gts 1 􀀴􀁣􀁲􀁥􀀮􀀮􀁑􀁾􀁓􀁏􀀠0.75 0.80 0.70 0.90 0.30 Rowlett 0.4-0.6* 0.5-0.7*· 0.6-0.85* 0.7-0.8* 0.75-0.85' 0.20-0.45" ·Oepends
on s lope of land for exact "'C'" value. Stephenvi l1e Terrell 0.45 0.70 0.90 0.70 0.35 Watauga 0.50 0.75 0.80 0.70 0.30 26 
Runoff Coefficients (MC·) for Rational Method by land Use 9. Single Parks" Fami ly Multi-Businessl Open 5m.ll RE!:sidential family Comnercial Industrial C80 Space Other Briar forney
0.45 0.80 0.90 0.85 0.90 0.35 Frisco 0.4-0.6 0.5-0.7 0.5-0.85 0.7-0.8 0.75-0.85 0.2-0.45 Exact 􀂷􀁃􀁾􀀠values depend on sJope of land. Granbury Hutchins 0.4-0.5 0.5-0.7 0.6-0.85 0.7-0.8
0.75-0.85 0.Z-o.45 Exact 􀂷􀁣􀁾􀀠values depend on slope of land. Justin H/A Keene Melissa Palme-r Pantego Princeton Rhome Rio Vista Royse City -Wylie 0.45 0.70 0.90 0.70 0.30 27 
1() What are the design frequency storms for: (a) Bridges and culverts (b) Natural creek$ (c) Earthen or lined channels (d) Storm sewers (with inlets on grade)(e) Storm sewers draining
low point inlets If) Oetentton ponds(g) Other Oes19n 􀁆􀁲􀁥􀁱􀁾􀁥􀁮􀁣􀁹􀀠Storms For: 10. Sto.,. Storm Earthed Sewers.. Sewers... Bridges & Cuherts Natural Creeks or lined Channels Inlet
on Grade Inlet at Sag Points Detention Ponds OtherlCooments Large (aJ (b) (c) (d) (ej (f) (g) Arl ington 25..Yeal"* 25-Year 2S-Year* 5..Year 2S-Year* KIA *For bridges, culverts, Easement
creeks, channels, & low & 100-Year point inlets, the 􀁤􀀱􀁳􀁾􀀠Protection charge from the 100to adjacent year storm and result-structures.. tng d....ge. mu.t be determined.. Oa lIas
lOO-Year lOO-Year lOO·Year lOO·Ve.. lOO-Year Probable Levees -standard HHitOOm project flood. flood Oenton 25-Year 2S-Year 25·Yea, lo-Ye.r lo-Ve.r lOO-year must be " & contained within
50-Year bu11d.ing Ifnes. fort Worth IOO-Year 100-Year lOO·Year lOO·Y••r 100.Y••r A11 requlre IOO·yo.rdesign either in combination with another type carrier 􀁯􀁾. .by themse ives. Garland
100-Year lOa-Year 5-yeal'""lth _rgencyoverflow for lOO-year. Grand 2S-Year 2S-Year 25-Y••r 5-Yo.. 25-Yo.r No ordinance. Prairie but po 11 cy deslgn is for 50· year. Irvlng 2S..Year for
areas 1.. 100 􀁡􀁣􀁲􀁥􀁳􀁾􀀠S.... S.... S.... SO..Year for areas 100-1.000 acres. 100·Year for areas ,. 1,000 􀁡􀁣􀁴􀁥􀁳􀁾􀀠Plano 100-Year lOO·Y.ar lOO·Y••r 100·Y.ar 100·Year lOO-Year
Includlng lncludlngstr"eet street capacity capacity Richardson 100·Yoar lOa-Year , 100·Y.... laO-Year 100-V.ar 
Oes.1gn frequency Storms. For: Bridge & Culverts Natural Creeks Earthed Or Lined Channels 10. Storm Sewers.. Inlet on Grade Storm Sewers-Inlet at Sag Points Oetention Ponds Other IConments
Medium Large (.j (b) (c) (d) (e) (I) (g) Bedford 100-V••r 100-Ve.r IOo-yul"' 5-Year 5-Year with 100Year re-, lief 25-Year with 100Year re.. lief Carrollton 100-V••r IOO-Yur lOO-Year
IO-Year 25..Year Cors icana 25.. Year 2S-Year S-Year 25-Ve.r Ouncanv11Ie 100-Ye.. 100-Vo.. 100-Vear 25-Vo.. 25·Ve.r Euless 2S-Year 25.. Year 2S-Year 5..Year S...Yeal"' Provision for
lOO.Year return stann must be provtded in all cases. farmer-s Branch lOa. Year 100-V.ar lOO-Year lOO-Year 100-Y.ar IOO·Year. tfur-s t loo-Vear lOO-V.ar lQO..Year See 'Other t See 'Other'
For calculated pipe sizes of 27-OJ' smaller -5-Year. For calculated pipe size of 30to 48-• 􀁬􀁏􀀭􀁙􀁥􀁡􀁲􀁾􀀠For calculated pipe SiZes of 54-01" larger -25-Year. 29 
Oesign Frequency Storms For: 10. Storm Storm Earthed Sewers .. Sewers.. Bridge & Natural or Lined Inlet on Inlet at Detention Culverts Creeks Channels Gr.de Sag Points Ponds Other/COIlI'!'Ients
Medium (a) (b) (el (d) (el (f) (9) Benbrook 􀁬􀁏􀁯􀁾􀁙􀁥􀁡􀁲􀀠10o-Year lOO·Year 5-Year Cleburne Varies .. no policy. DeSoto tOO-Year IOo-Year lo-Year lo-Year plu. plus 2 ft. closed emergency
freeboard system overflow above top of bank. Everman KIA Grapevine 5O-Vear lOO·Vear IOO-Year 5-Vear 5-Vear Highland Park In general, 20-year or above. lancaster lOa-Year lOO-Year lOO-Year
2S-Year to 100·Year Considered lOO·Vear when pro-overflow posed by developer. Mansfield N/A McKinney SO-Year gartben -lOO..Year; Concrete -50-Year 2S-Year* SO..Year* "c i ty staff has
authority to reduce storm design frequency to·10-Ye.r &25-Vear stonms, respectively. Mineral Wells 25-Year Hot con.trolled lOO-Year 2S-Year 25...Year Not permitted. Rockwall ·Small 2S-Year
with 25·Year 5·Year 5-Year No require-Floodways. between bridges .. 1 ft. of of with 1 ft. ment butlding lines. 25-Year; freeboard of freeboard *\.arge bridges .. *large bridges are
those with a total SO-Year span greater than SO ft. Rowlett 25-Year & 100-Year loo-Year lO-Vear & 25-Year & Considered 100-Year overflow lOO-V.ar overflow lOO-Vear overflow when proposed
by de..,1 oper • Stephenv; lIe Terrell <100 acres-Same as Same as 5-Year la-Year or lOO-Year 5-Year; 10 (a) 10 (a) 25·V.ar <1,,000 acreslO-V.ar; 30 
Design Frequency Storms For: 10. Storm Storm Earthed Sewers Sewers Bridge ,. Culverts Natural Creeks or L fned Channels In let on Grade Inlet at Sag Points Detention Ponds Other/Corrme.nts
Small (.) (b) (e) (dJ (e) (f) (9) Briar Forney Z ft. above elevation of • • • ·Storm drainage systems either with or without SO-Year storm emergency overflows will be designed for the
􀀵􀁏􀁾􀁙􀁥􀁡􀁲􀀠storm. Frisco lOO·Yeat 10a·Ve.r lOO·Yoor Ill-Ve.r with 25 Vear with laO-Year 􀁯􀁹􀁥􀁲􀁾􀀠laO-Year oYerflow flow Granbuty 50-Year SO-Year 50·Vear S-Year but lOll-Ve.r
sh.ll 25·Year be teta1ned within street row. Hutchins IOa·Vear lOO..Yeat lOll-Ve.r 2S-Year 100·Ve.r Used Where possible. Justin Keene Melissa . Palmer Pantego Princeton Rhome Rio Vista
Royse City Wylie 25·Ye.r for areas <1,000 Same as 10 (aJ. Same as 10 (.). 25-Ve.r acres; SO-Year for areas ) 1.000 acres ,. 31 
(a) At what PQint must stonm drain cQnduit be used? for example, the11 point might be when the depth of flow based on the IOO-year storm reaches the top of the curb. {b} What depth of
water do city ordinances allow to flow in the streets and 9utters1 for example. is the depth to the top of the curb or such that one lane must remain open? (e) Ooes the city require
the elevation of lots to be graded such that they are some required height above the top of the curb Or edge of the alley1 if so, what is the requirement? Point at .. hich. storm drain
conduit must be used. when Oepth of water aTto.ed to flow in streets lot Elevation RequfJ"e'ln!nt large 11 (a) 11 (b) 11 (c) Arlington Oallas Oenton fort Worth Garland Grand Prairie
Irving Plano Richardson Streets can flow curb deep. in as-Year stonn. At the point the depth of flow from a 􀁓􀁾􀁙􀁥􀁡􀁲􀀠storm reaches the top of curb, Inlets & storm sewers are generally
required. Depth of flow is I inch above curb. IO-Vear flow reach.s topof curb. S-Year storm reaches top of curb of local streets. one lane ts clear of S-Year storm for collectors, and
two lanes are clear of 5... Year $torm for majorthoroughfares. S_ as II (b). 5-Year storm reaches topof curb. Storm de$ign frequency reaches above top of curb. Street flow equals street
capacity Which Is to carry 100-Year storm to l 1/2inches above top of curb. Street 􀁲􀁩􀀹􀁨􀁴􀁾􀁯􀁦􀀭􀀮􀁡􀁹􀀠and storm sewer must carry100-Y.ar storm. As In 11 (a). streets are allowed
to flow not more than curb deepin S..Year storms on grade and curb deep at low points deslgned for 􀁾􀁓􀀭􀁙􀁥􀁡􀁲􀀠stonm. On major arterials, the design of keeping one lane open is encouraged
but not required byordinance. Oepth of flow is 1 inch above curb. Residential streets-6 inches; Collectors and 􀁡􀁲􀁴􀁥􀁲􀁩􀁡􀁴􀁳􀁾􀁬􀀠&2 1aftes IlUS t be open. Local streets ... 7 Inches;
Collector &major thoroughfares governed by lane spread for S... Year storm. Residential streets-curb deep; Secondary 􀁳􀁴􀁲􀁥􀁥􀁴􀁳􀁾􀁬􀀠lane clear; Major thoroughfares..t lane on each
side IlUSt be clear; Expressways..g feet from f ace of curb gutters. Residential streets-top of curb; 'Bou1evard-l lane should remain clear. Top of curb. ReSidential streets &collectors
100-Vear storm to 1 112 Inch.s above curb; Major 􀁴􀁨􀁯􀁲􀁯􀁵􀁧􀁨􀁦􀁡􀁲􀁥􀁳􀁾􀁬􀀠lane clear. Major 􀁴􀁨􀁯􀁲􀁯􀁵􀁧􀁨􀁦􀁡􀁲􀁥􀀤􀁾􀀱􀀠lane must remain clear. None Hone Normally) 6 inches.
None Hone No. City requires 3 to 1 sJope fro. 4 ft. back of curb towards lots. If steeper. owner may grade to ....t 3:1 slop. or "'Y concrete rip rap the steeper s1ope. None One foot
One foot above top of curb, street. Or alley. 32 
. Point at khfch storm drain conduit must be Dep th of water al10wed to flow Lot Elevation 􀁵􀁳􀁥􀁤􀁾􀀠when tl1 streets Requirement Medium large 11 (a) 11 (b) 11 (e) Bedford Carrollton
Corsicana Ouncanvi 11e Ettless Fanne:rs BranCh Hurst Runoff for 5·Year storm reaches top of curb. Street capacity Is exceeded. Runoff for 􀀵􀁾􀁙􀁥􀁡􀁲􀀠storm reaChes top of curb. Runoff
for 􀁚􀀵􀁾􀁙􀁥􀁡􀁲􀀠storm reaches top of curb. Capacity of street based on classification of 􀁳􀁴􀁾􀁥􀁴􀀠is exceeded. Oepth of flow exceeds street capacity. Oepth of flow exceeds 5 in.
at the f.ce of Cttrb when flow across fntersection exceeds 10 cfs (based on 5-Year storm). Top of curb unless major thoroughfare. Residential street-curb deep. Collector Street-one lane
must remain open. Major thoroughf are-one lane in each dfrection to remain open. Top of curb. Top or curb for residential and secondary streets_" Residential.Top of curb. but not greater
than 6 inches; Collector-One lane must remain open; Thoroughfare-twa lanes to remain clear. One lane in each direct10,i is to rema in open. Water depth allowed op to 5 inches at hce
of curb', Ftn1shed floors must be 1 ft. above lOO-Year flood elevation. No regulation on tot. Hone yes, 1 foot above top of curb. None Hone Hone. There must be pos1t1ve drainage around
the house. None, but drive approach must rise 6 in. above gutter. . 33 
Point at which storm drain conOepth of water du 1t IItYst be a110wed to flow Lot Elevation used, ..hen fn streets Requ11"etnent MedfWII 11 (al 11 (b) 11 (c) Benbrook Cleburne. oeSoto
Eve1"l'D4n Grapevine HIghland Park lancaster Depth reachet top of curb. No requirements for Installation of stOMm dratn conduit. Flow frOM lOO-Year stanD reaches 1 􀁦􀁮􀁾􀀠above top
of curb. Inlets based on lO-Year -stOrlll. RIA 5-Year storm gets abOY. curb level. MIA Street copaclty fs exceeded for 2S-Year fla.. use storm !sewerl pIp•• up to 60" dfa. wfth inlets.
• Curb deep. 5•• 11 (a). MIA Ho ordInance yet. Generally, one lane 􀁾􀁮􀀠on loca 1 Uld two lanes open on collector and larger streets. MIA Residential -curb deep; Collector -one lane
open;Major -one lane open each direction. Hone. Parkway graded to handle 100-Ye.r flood. None Hone 6 fn. aboye or tuch that lOO..Year stoMlt fs carried between building lin••• Hone..
􀁈􀁍􀁾􀁲􀀬􀀠this should be done fn areas with new devel_nU. Some areas drain to terrafn f ••tu.... Lot grading 91.n. " furnished as requestedbyCIty. Yes, onen possible. Continued • 34 
McK inne)' Mineral Wells Rockwall Rowlett S tephenvi 11. Terre 11 Watauga See 11 (b). 25-Year storm would not be contained within the dedicated 􀁲􀁩􀁧􀁨􀁴􀁾􀁯􀁦􀂭way (generally, 10 ft_
behind bad of curb). Use of conduit based on spread of water on types of streets during 5-Vear 􀁳􀁴􀁯􀁲􀁭􀁾􀀠Street capacity Is exceeded for lo.Year stom, go to sto", sewers up to pipe
size of 608 diameter with inlets. Se.11 (b). 􀀵􀁾􀁙􀁾􀁡􀁲􀀠storm reaches top of curb. Alley· flow conflned to alley easement; Residential -curb deep; Collector -one lane open; Major
-one lane 􀁯􀁰􀁥􀁮􀁾􀀠each directioo. No lanes required to remain open. Major (divided) -one lane openeach direction; Major {undivided) -two lanes open; Collectors -one lane open; Residential·
top of curb; Alleys .. within paved area; Residential -curb deep; Collector 􀁾􀀠one lane open; Major .. one lane open In· each direction. Thoroughfares· two lanes clear;Collectors ..
one Tane ctear; local -top of 68 curb. Floor elevation must be above lOO·Year flood or floodproofed. floor elevation must be minimum 1 foot above topof curb and drain towards 􀁳􀁴􀁲􀁥􀁥􀁴􀁾􀀠Hone
Yes. when 􀁰􀁯􀁳􀁳􀁩􀁢􀁬􀁥􀁾􀀠but gradfng plan required on most areas due to flat terrain. S inches. Hot yett but staff has discussed recommendfng to Council, probably a minfIIkIm of
68 above curb. Top of curb. 35 
Point at which . storm drain conOepth of water duit must be allowed to flow Lot Elevation used. when in $treets Requirement Small 11 (a) 11 (b) 11 (c) Briar Forney Frisco Granbury Hutchins
Justin Keene Melissa Palmer Pantego Princeton Rhome Rio Vista Royse C fty Wylie One lane clear for all streets and minimum size of storm sewers is 18 in. lOwyear storm exceeds street
capacity. use pipe with site up to 60· dia. with inlets. This may change to 12-dia. pip... When street flow capacfty ts exceeded on 10·Year flow, go to storm 􀁳􀁾􀁥􀁲􀀠pipe up to 60-dia.
pipe with inlets. MfA No policy. No policy. No policy. Stol"1n 􀁳􀁾􀁥􀁲􀀠conOu i t not presently used in city.City relies on culverts and ditches. One lane clear for all typesof streets.
Yes. on all except residential. This may change to allow openlanes on major &collector streets. Top of curb. 􀁙􀁥􀁳􀁾􀀠on all except residential. NfA No policy. No policy. -. None Yes,
when possible. Lot grading plans are requiredto help control drainage. Non. Yes. when possible. tot Grading Plans are required to help control drainage. MfA None None None 36 
12 (a) Circle the nu.mer of the statement that best describes the city's policy on how to handle creeks: 1) The city prefers to preserve creeks and floodplains in a natural state by
utilizing concepts like linear parks, 2) The city prefers that creeks be changed to concrete-lined channels or earthen channels or that they be routed through closed conduits. J} The
city has tried to fOrn'lUlate a policy. but no consensus position on the policy was reached. 4) The city has no policy, (ol If the statements in 12 (a) do not express adequately the
city's creek poltcy, please explain what the policy is. (e) If the cfty allows property owners to leave the creek natural, does the city require of the owners a perpetual maintenance
agreement for the creek area? Large Arlington Dallas Denton F'ort Worth Garland Grand Prairie Irving Plano Rkhardson Creek Pol1ey I-Natural 2-Conerete-lined 3-Tryi09 to form 4-Ho policy
12 {al 1 &2 1 1.. 1f owner acceptsmaintenance. 2-lf city acceptsmaintenance. 1 l 2 1 1 If 12 (a) does not state poltcy, what is tho Clty's creek policyl 12 (bl Oeve lopers may decide
to leave ' creeks natural Or channelize them. Oevelopers must show that buildings are protected. If City allows owners to leave the creek natural t must property owners have perpetual
main .. tedance agreements? 12 (el Generally. dO. No Yes Yes Ye. Yes Yos Yes 37 
Creek. Po lieyl..Natural 2-Concrete-lined 3-Trying to form 4..No policy Medium Large 12 (oj Bedford 2 Carrallto" 4 Corsicana. Ouncanv; 1-Je Euless Farmors Branch Hurst Z If 12 (oj doe.
not state policy. what is the City'screek pollcyl 12 (b) It is on a project-byproject basis. The City prefers to preserve creek.s and floodplains in a natural state and allows construction
outside of f1oodplain. The Ctty will accept 􀁰􀁲􀁥􀁾servation of creeks in 􀁮􀁡􀁴􀁾􀁲􀁡􀁬􀀠state or improvedchannels at developer's option •. If City allows owners to leave the creek
natura 1 􀁾􀀠must property owners have perpetual maintenance agreements1 12 (e) No No No re. Usually. however exceptions do OCcur. re. 
Creek Policy If City allows owners to I-Natural If 12 (a) does not leave the creet natural, 2-Concrete-lined state 􀁰􀁯􀁬􀁩􀁣􀁹􀁾􀀠what must property owners 3-Trying to fonm is the City's
have perpetual main4.Ho polley creek po 11eyl tenance agreements? Medium 12 (<<) 12 (b) 12 (e) Benbrook 2 Cleburne 4 DeSoto 1 Everman 3 Grapevine 4 Highland Park 1 lancaster 1 Mansfieid
1 McK lnney I Mineral Wells 2 Rockwall I R()\IfleU I Stephenville 4 Terrell Watauga When development occurs in 􀁦􀁬􀁯􀁯􀁤􀁰􀁬􀁡􀁩􀁮􀁾􀀠hydraulic calculations are required on channel
capacity. When development occurs in floodp1ain, hydraulic calculations are required on channel 􀁣􀁡􀁰􀁡􀁣􀁩􀁴􀁹􀁾􀀠The CouncIl .111 probably allow the developer to do what he wants
if he does not cause his neighbors to h4ve problems. It depends 􀁣􀁯􀁮􀁾􀀠s1derablyon the type of development. The Council tends to be less restrictive on lndustri41 developers. !n some
cases. No No No No No No No Ho No Ko, dr41nage , maintenance easement dedication or dedication as parkswould be more llk.ly. 39 
Creek Pol icy If City allows owners to l ..Natural If IZ (aj does not leave the creeK natural. 􀀲􀁾􀁃􀁯􀁮􀁣􀁲􀁥􀁴􀁥􀀭􀁬􀁩􀁮􀁥􀁤􀀠state 􀁐􀁏􀁬􀁬􀁃􀁙􀁾􀀠what must property owners 3·Trying
to form is the City's have perpetual 􀁭􀁡􀁩􀁮􀁾􀀠4-tio policy creek policy1 tenanee agreements? Small 12 (a) IZ (b) 12 (e) Briar Forney 4 Fr"isco 1 When development occurs in channel
areas of floodplain, must use HEC-Z program &maps. No Granbury Situation has not arisen but would be considered on a 􀁣􀁡􀁳􀁥􀂷􀁢􀁹􀁾􀁣􀁡􀁳􀁥􀀠basts. Hutchins 1 No Justin 4 Keene 4 Melissa
4 No Pa imer 1 Pantego Several years agQ. Pantego received funds for concretingPart of the channel. Ho other funds became available to conttnue this project for the total length of the
􀁣􀁲􀁾􀀠within the town. Part of creek is preserved by a linear park::. No Princeton Rh""" 4 R10 Vista 4 The City 􀁨􀁾􀁳􀀠no requirements. Royse City Wylie 1 No 40 
Under whdt circumstances can open channels be used to carry runoff instead13 of using closed systems? 􀀱􀁾􀀠 (a) Doe. tnt city .et a minimum size for concrete-lined channel.7 Answer:
Yes No (b) If YO', what is the minimum size7 under what circumstances can open channels be used to carty runoff instead of using closed systems? Is there a minimum size for concretelined
channels1 What is the minimum? Large 13 14 (a) 14 (bJ Arlington Dallas Oenton fort Worth Garland Grand Prairie Irving Plano Richardson If runoff cannot be carried No tn a 60-diameter
pipe or where it is not necessary for the protection of adjacent facilities. or jf mutually agreeable to City and developer. When developers want to. NO When flow exceeds capacity of
60· pipe. When flow exceeds capacity of 60· Yes pipe. When flow exceeds capacity of 60· No pipe. When flow e.ceeds capacity of 72· Ho pipe. Also t concrete-lined channels shall be used
fn drainage areas with a 􀁾􀁃􀁁􀂷􀀠factor of more than 250 and less than 500. When flow exceeds capacfty of 60· Yes pipe. Any circumstance that ts reasonable Yes and_has engineering.
soundness. , In industrial and residential areas. Ho If flow could be handled by a 60pipe or smaller. the pipe must be used. Tbe bottom of the channel must slope at 1 1/4 ft. per foot
from the bottO'l't of the side slopes to the center of the channel. The minimum heiqht of the channel's shallow V·shapedbottom mu$t be 6 lnches. 10 foot wide bottom -1 foot deep. 41

Under what circumstances can open channe 1 s be used to carry runoff instead of using c10sed systems? Medium l.arge 13 Bedford Basically when flow exceeds capacity of 60" Rep. This is
not by 􀁯􀁲􀁤􀁩􀁮􀁡􀁮􀁣􀁥􀁾􀀠but by 􀁰􀁔􀁩􀀡􀁣􀁴􀁩􀁣􀁥􀁾􀀠Carro I1ton when flow exceeds capacity of 60" pipe. Corsicana When it is no lQnger feasible to carry the flow in a storm sewer.
Duncanvi Ile Developer"s option along with good engineering judgement. Euless When flow exceeds capacity of 48" storm drain. FarrMrs Sranch Almost any. Hurst When the calculated pipe
size exceeds 72 inches. Is there a mlnlmum slze for 􀁣􀁯􀁮􀁣􀁲􀁥􀁴􀁥􀁾􀀠lined channels? 14 (a) What is the minimum? 14 (b) No No No No N. N. Yes Must carry lOO·Year storm with minimum
1 foot free board. 42 
Under what circumstances Can open channels be used to carry fUnoff instead of using c.losed systems? Is there a minimum size for 􀁣􀁯􀁮􀁣􀁲􀁥􀁴􀁥􀁾􀀠1ined channels? What is the minimum?
Medium 14 (a) 14 (b) Benbrook ClebtJrne OeSoto Everman Grapevine High1and Park Lancaster Mallsf1eld McKinrtey Mineral Wells Rocball Rowlett Stephenvi lIe Terrell Watauga When IOO-Year
design is required. Yes No 􀁾􀁱􀁵t rement. No When closed conduits are not justifiedeconomically. Lined channels may not be used in residential areas. In all cases within the city. No
When 􀁬􀁏􀁾􀁙􀁥􀁡􀁲􀀠storm cannot be conNo tained in 48... inch 􀁰􀀱􀁰􀁥􀁾􀀠then lined challnel. MfA No flow capacity exceeds 􀀶􀀰􀁾􀀠pipe Yes capacity or left in natural condition.
No requirement. NO Ho requiremellt other than 11 (b). Ho If IOO-Year storm exceeds 􀀹􀀶􀁾􀀠pipe capacity. Flows in excess of capacity of 48-Yes pipe -concrete-lined channels can be used.
Flo.s fn excesS of 84· pipe -unlined challnels may be used. Flow capacity exceeds 60-pipe capacity or left in natural conditIon. Open channnels may be substituted for Ho storm sewers
.here flow exceeds 300 cfs in sfngle-family development. Open draina.ge is conmon in industrh1 deve lopment. Flow capacHy exceeds 48-pipe Ho capacity. IOO-Year NfA Equivalent to capacity
of 48pipe. 43 
Under what circumstances can open channels be used to carry runoff inste4d of using closed systems? Is there a mjntmumsize for concrete1ined chann«ls 1 What is the minimum? Small 13
14 (a) 14 (b) Briar Forney Frisco Granbury Hutchins Justin Keene MeHssa Palmer Pantego Princeton Rhome Rio Vista Royse City Wylie When flow exceeds capacity of 60-pfpe, Qr can be left
in natural condition. When flow exceeds capaclty of 84ft pipe in residential areas and 72-pipe in commercial 􀁡􀁲􀁥􀁡􀁳􀁾􀀠When flow exceeds 60pipe capacity, Or leave in natural state.
NfA No pol1cy. No policy. NfA No res Ye' re, No HQ No No No No No No See 13. 44 
1!i (.) Does the city require easements .long creeks and channelsl Answer: Ves No (b) If yes. what are the size requirements for the easement$l (c) [f no, why aTe easements not required1
16 (a) Ooes the city require an easement for gfvfng maintenance equipment access to cleaning out channels? Answer: Ve. NO {b) If yes. what is the size requirement1 1<r Ooes the city
prohibit roof drains to be connected to storm sewersl Are e.s'Sell'ents along: creeks and channe Is required? If yes, size l"equtrements for e4S8lent If no. why 4re ease .. ments not
requtred1 Easement for matntenance access? tf yes"size ntql,lfrement Ooes the City prohibit roof dr.ins to be 􀁣􀁯􀁮􀁾􀁴􀁥􀁤􀀠to 'slonn sewers 1 Large 15 (a) 15 (b) 15 (e) 16 (a) 16
(b) 17 Arlington Yes Easement must convey 2S.. year !io fto nonn. 0411.1S Ves 15 f..t Ves Where Ho needed. 15 f..t. Oenton Ve. EasenI!nt must H. Ho contain lOG-Year flood. Fort worth
Ves For constM.lcted channels. channel Ves See 15 (b). Ho width +20 feet. For n4tural 􀁣􀁨􀁡􀁮􀁮􀁥􀁬􀁾􀀬􀀠􀀠.idth of 100-Year flood. Garland S_t1.... Ctty does not-want Ve. Ho established
standard. Ho maintenance re.pons1bi Itty. Grand Pratrie Ve. Mln1.... IS S....tl.... IS-foot. N. feet. Inlng Yes Enough to properly maintain No No the channel. Plano Yes Top of bank to
top of bani< plus -. Ve. 10-15 f..t. Ho 􀁡􀁣􀁣􀁥􀁳􀁳􀁾􀀠Richardson ves F loodlt.y are •• S_tl.... No 45 
Are easements a long creek 5 and channels required? If yes. size requirements for easement If nQ¥ why are easements not requil"'ed? Easement for ma intenance access? If yes, S 􀁩􀀮􀁾􀁥􀀠re􀁱􀁵􀁩􀁲􀁥�
�􀁮􀁴􀀠Ooes the City prohibit roof drains to be connected to' storm sewers7 Medium Large IS Ca) 15 (b) 15 Cel 16 (a) 16 (b) 17 Bedford Yes To include the lOO...Year flood-Ho Yes 􀁰􀀱􀁡􀁦􀁮􀁾􀀠Carroll
ton No They are requited if a drainage ease .. I1Ient is dedi .. e.ted to City for creek or Yes No standard. Ho 􀁣􀁨􀁡􀁮􀁮􀁥􀁬􀁾􀀠Cor-sicana Yes For creeks" it is the edges of the floodw-ay.
Yes 10 feet. No Ouncanvj lIe Ye. Hini_ 15 feet to everything less than a feet above elevation for open drain. No City uses letters of permission ftom property owners Of" use existing
ease .. !l'l:!nts. Yes Euless Yes Width of channel plus 20 feet. Ye. 15 f.et on one s1de of channel. No FanDars Branch Yes Varies depending on "type" of creek or channel 􀀨􀁣􀁑􀁮􀁤􀁩􀁾􀀠tions,
amount of flow" etc.) Ye. 20 feet access and IIfaintenance easement. No Hurst Yes Size. requirements are indiv1dua t Iy studied and aSSigned. Ye. Size requirements are individually studied
and assigned. Yes 46 
Are easements along creeks and channe 1 s requited? Medium IS (a) 6enbroOk Ye. Cleburne Ye. OeSoto Yes EV!rm.lR Yes Grapevine Ye' Highland 􀁐􀀮􀁲􀁾􀀠Ho Lancaster Yes Man.field Ye. MeX
ioney Yes Mineral Wells At times 􀁒􀁯􀁣􀁾􀁷􀀮􀁬􀁬􀀠Yes Rowlett Yes . Stephenyil1e Terren Yes Watauga Yes If no. why If yes. size are ease-requirements ments not for 􀁥􀁡􀁳􀁾􀁮􀁴􀁳􀀠required?
tS (b) t5 (c) tt depends on the lOO-Year size of the channe T • Varies lO feet wider than top of dIanne 1 and 15 feet must be On one side for maIntenance. Vari ab Ie due to topography
of City and present building location. F Large enough to contain flood area and access. ZO feet or that width as required to Cover ftow. SO feet. 10 feet. In flood prone Mo enforcement
at" hazal'"d areas ouside of flood based on de-hazard areas. tailed study. Easements s 1led for ultimate design requirements. 20 feet or that width as required to cover 􀁡􀁲􀁥􀁡􀁾􀀠
Width required for dratnage plus to feet on both sides for maintenance. To contain the lOG-Vear stofQI and 􀁭􀁡􀁩􀁮􀁴􀁥􀁮􀁡􀁮􀁣􀁥􀁾􀀠 If possible. Easert'l!nt for mainten,ance accessl
16 (a) In most cases. No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Ye. Yes Yes Ho Yes Yes Does the City prohibit roof If yes, drains to be size re .. connected to quitement storm sewers 1 16 (b) 17 Yes Yes
Se, IS (b) • At mfniJOOm No policy. of lO' pe:r' slde. Whatever is Ho necessary. Yes No 10 feet. Yes 10 feet. No Vades f!'"Om No 15' min. to 30' max* Ho Ho Ye, 10 feet on No both sldes.
If possible. No policy. 47 
Are easements along creeks and channels requirEd? If ,reSt size requirements for easement if 􀁮􀁯􀁾􀀠why are ease.. ments not required? Easertl!nt for maintenance access? If yes, size
re... Quirement Does the City prohibit roof drains to be connected to storm sewers 7 Small 15 (a) 15 (bj 15 (c) 16 (a) 16 (b) 17 Briar Forney 􀁾􀀧􀁴􀁥􀁳􀀠Flood capacity. N. Frisco Yes
20 fee t or that width as required to cover flow. Yes N. Granbury Ves Based on i1Ydra. lies of stream channe 1. Yes Based on hydraulics of stream Channel. Hutchins Ye. lO feet or that
required to cover area. Yes No Justin No No No Keene No-NIA Melissa N. No N. Palmer No No Pantego Yes 30 feet along old development; otheJ"· are it is developed as a 1 tnear 􀁰􀁡􀁲􀁫􀁾􀀠Yes
See 15. Ho Princeton No No Rhome Ho No No Rio Vista No N. No, because City has nO' such sys tern. Royse C 1ty Wylie Yes 20 feet. Yes 20 feet. Yes 48 
18 (al Does the city have a detention policy for stormwater requiring that post development runoff be the same quantity and velocity as P,"development runoff? (This policy coul4 either
be a separate ordinance or a part of a comprehensive drainage 􀁯􀁲􀁤􀁬􀁮􀁡􀁮􀁣􀁥􀁾􀀩􀀠Answer: Yes No (b) Has the city ever considered the use of such a polley? Answer: Yes No (c) If
the answer to either question is yes. ple.se explain how the policy is implemented and how the city reached its conclusion to either adopt or reject a detention policy. Ever considered
Uetent10n the use of a Policy? detention polley? Cooments Large 18 (a) 18 (b) 18 (e) Arllngton Yes Up to this point. only the technical .spects of detention systems have been seriously
discussed. Other factors. such as maintenance. land use, implementation of a policy. etc.,have slowed acceptance of detention as a viable alternati¥e to solving existing problems and
preventig new problems, It has been our posft1on that the use of detent10n should be in conjunction with a Master Drainage Plan to avoid the creatfon of coinciding peaks from 􀁷􀁡􀁴􀁥􀁲􀁓􀁨􀁥􀁤􀁳􀁾􀀠
O.l1as No Yes Widespread use of detentin is not practical and cause Increased likelfhood of damage. can actually Denton No Yes Much of the City of Denton, which is currently developed,
Is in the uppef reaches of the·basins. The City therefore feels that a detention policy for developers would be a verycost effective method of controlling floods. fort. Worth No Yes
Detention is still under consideration. Garland No No City fears maintenance problems. Grand Prairie NO N. Irving No Yes A detention desIgn is required by the Public Works Depart.ments
but is not 1n an ordinance form. Plano No No May require In future. Richardson N. NO 49 
Detention Pollcy1 MediunI Largl:! 18 (a) 8edford No Carrollton No Corsicana No Ouncanvi lIe Ho Euless No Farmers Sranch No Hurst No Ever considered the use of a detention policy! 16
(bl Yes Ye, No No No Yes No Corrments 16 (cl Still under conslderation. lt is being studied at this til'M. It is sti 11 under consideration. No formal dtscussions. 50 
Ever cons i dered Detention the use of a Policy1 detention policy? '"""",nts Medium IS (a) 18 (b) IS (c) Benbrook No Ho Cleburne No No DeSoto Everman No No Grapevine No Yes City staff
is consider-ing. High land Park No No Lancaster No No Mansfield No No McKinney No Yes· staff No final decision at this time. Mineral Wells No 'No Rockwall No Ho Rowlett Ho No Stephenvi
lle Terrell No HQ SuCh a policy has been recommended by the C1ty Engineer. but It has not gone to Council. Watauga Ho No 51 
Ever cons i der"ed Detention the use of a Po 1i cy1 detention policy Cooments Small 18 (a) 18 (b) 18 (0) Briar Forney No No frisco No Ho Granbury No Ho Will be considered in near future.
Hutchins No No Justin No No Keene Mel issa No No Palt1!er No No Pantego No No Princeton Rhome No No Rio Vista No Ho Royse CTty Wylie 52 
Do the city's policies and drainAge requirements reflect the attitude that19 it is better to get runoff downstream as fast as possible? Please 􀁥􀁾􀁰􀁬􀁡􀁩􀁮􀀮􀀠IS It better to get 􀁲􀁾􀁮􀁯􀁦􀁦􀀠down
stream as fast as posstble? Large 19 AI'"I1ngton Dallas DE!I1ton FOl""t Worth Garland Grand Prairie Irving Plano Rlch.t-dson Ho, OUr policies 4te aimed directly at providing a certain
leyel of protection to the cftilens without creating exceptional maintenance requirements. A consequence of development is an increase tn overland velocity and a decrease in times of
concentration which is not directlycontrolled under our current ordinance. "0, the Cfty hAS limits on velocfty fncreases. We feel it ts best for Denton. Yes t but we seek to adopt detention
poliCies at some t1me in the future. Bas1cailYI yes -because these 􀁳􀁹􀀵􀁴􀁥􀁾􀀠are apparently the mast efficient and maintain the highest amant of credibility among cit1lens and developers,
Also, the least maintenance 􀁥􀀮􀁸􀁰􀁥􀁮􀁳􀁥􀁾􀀠No. Our concern is to design and construct an 􀁡􀁤􀁥􀁾􀁵􀁡􀁴􀁥􀀠drainage system and prevent any eros ton downstream. 􀁾􀁯􀁴􀀠entirely.
The eonerete channels ar! for 􀁾􀁉􀁮􀁴􀁥􀁮􀁡􀁮􀁣􀁥􀀠as well as runoff. However. we have incorporated lake areas .ithout the design of the creeks. No. Maximum velocities are preseribed
to control erosion and siltation. Yes. 53 
Is it better to get runoff downstream as fast as possible? Medium Large 19 Bedford (:arrol1ton Corsicana {)uncanv i 11 e Euless Farmers Sranch Hurst Ko. not necessarily. Yes t at present,
because we have no detention or retention poliCY. NQ. Yes. Aot necessarily -City will accept preservation of creeks in natural state. No. City policy is to ensure that all property owners
get the maximum benefit and enjoyment of their property and that drainage 􀁰􀁲􀁾􀁥􀁭􀁳􀀠are everybody's problem and not just some. Not necessarily 􀁾􀀠the present level of development
in Hurst precludes detention methods. 54 
Is it better to get runoff downstream as fast as possible? Hedium 19 Benbrook Cleburne No. OeSoto Everman Grapevine There is no policy on this. Hi9hl.nd Park Yes. OUT area of influence
on watershed is too small to allow any other polley. Lancaster No. Only provide for ultimate flow based on land use plan. 00 not flood adjacent improved property. IIansfle 1d Ho. As
long as runoff Is handled without adverse effcts to 􀁾property· it is acceptable. McKinney Mineral Wells Ho. The City takes the position that a property owner must comply with design
criteria of developer's policies. but that the owner is responsfble for stormwater entirely from its historical point of entry to its historical pOint of exit of owner's land. Rockwall
No. Rockwall's design standards attempt to deliver starN runoff downstream in a safe and practical manner so as not to create flooding or erosion problems. Rowlett No. Stephenville Terrell
Yes. indirectly. since detention 1s not required by ordinance or even encouraged by policy. Watauga 55 
Is it better to get runoff downstream as fast as possible? Sma 11 19 Briar forney Frisco Granbury Hutch ins Justin Keene Melissa Pallfer Pantego Princeton Rh""", Rio Vista Royse City
Wylie No policy. No -only provide for ultimate 􀁦􀁬􀁾􀀠based on property. ,Dependent on indivtdual circumstances. No -only provide for ultimate flow based on property. H/A Yes. NO p.licie,.
140 􀁰􀁯􀀱􀁩􀁣􀁩􀁥􀁳􀁾􀀠No policies. Jand use plan. 00 not flood adjacent improved land use plan. 00 not flood adjacent improved 56 
20 (a) What are the city's policies on the 􀁰􀁾􀁯􀁴􀁥􀁣􀁴􀀱􀁯􀁮􀀠of downstream or ddjacent property from increased quantity and velocity of runoff from new 􀁵􀁰􀀤􀁴􀁲􀁥􀁾􀀠􀁤􀁥􀁶􀁥􀁾􀁯􀁰􀁭􀁥􀁮􀁴􀀤􀀿�
�How are these policies implemented1 (b) Are developers responsible for the mitigation of problems and damages to effected property. drainage facilities, and bridges caused by the increased
runoff from their developments? If they are 􀁲􀁥􀀵􀁰􀁯􀁮􀁳􀁩􀁢􀁬􀁥􀁾􀀠what must the developers do dod how does the city make sure that they correct the problems? Are developers responsible
for Policies on the protectfon mitigating problems? If yes, how of downstreanl property from does the City make the developers upstream development. correct the problems? Large .0 Ca)
ZO (b) Art ington Oallas Denton Fort Worth Garland Grand Pratrie Irving Richardson Subdivision rules requ1re dratnage systems to provide certain levels of protection based on upstream
developed conditions. If additional runoff Incident to a de ••lop. ment is anticipated to overload existing sy.teos, the Planning &Zoning Comolsslon ..y deny a plat. An off·slte letter
0' per.1ss1oR OR off-site easements 1s required when systems are stubbed to downstrea. properties. Up.tr... area. can only develop hydraulically to the original zoning. Potential for
downstream damage ls,reviewed during subdivision procedure. 1. Design for ultlmat. development.2. Plat and site ptan reviews controls. None on large scale watersheds because of expense
of studfes and unpred1ctabllttyof results. SI'fI411 develop_nt, are requfred to consider adjacent property and take steps to prevent 􀁤􀁾􀁧􀁥􀀮􀀠The City's drainage ordinance restricts
drainage discharge velOCity to maxidUm of 6 ft.looc. City als. obtain. a reI •••••f liabilIty froo downstream prop.rty ....r. before approving any engtneering plans for stora drainage
d1schar,e. Th. design of downstream .y.t......re to take Into consIderation the u1tl ...te zoning of the upstre... l.nd. I..rovements of dr.lnage hctTltl•• are made as 􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁢􀁬􀁬􀁥􀁾􀀠are
􀁤􀁩􀁳􀁣􀁯􀁾􀁥􀁲􀁥􀁤􀀮􀀠N. policies. Yes. but not always. The City requireS developers to be cognizant of how much runoff leaves thetr Pt"OPerty and of the maMer fn which runoff l.a••s
the property. AgaIn, off· site letters Of permisSion or easements are requlr.d. Y... The CIty limits runoff. Not contralled by City Ordlnanc••• Developers are responsible for 􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁢􀁬􀁥􀁾t_dlatelya
djae.nt t. development•• Problel1lS are worked out prior to development 4$ ob. served. Problems after development may requirelitigation or negotl.tlon. Developers present proposed engtneeringsolution
s for anticipated problems to City for approval. By obta'nlng a letter of reI •••• of liabIlityfro. owner. The developer would be responstblefor any damage: downstre_. Te.. All develop...nts
..... t submit drainagedesign and d.tall•• 􀁎􀁏􀁾􀀠Civil courts are available to damagedparties. Ho. Ctty has not had to address this problem yet. 57 
Are developers responSible for Policies on the protection mitigating problems? If yes, how of downstream property from does the City make the developers upstream development. correct
the problems? Medium Large 20 (.) 20 (b) Bedford Carrollton Corsicana Ouncanvl l1e • Euless fanners Branch Hurst None except through requirements imposed on developers to be conscious
of off·site drainage impacts. Current policy is being revised. The drainage structures 1n the downstream area should be sized to accommodate the upstream development. No 􀁰􀁯􀀱􀁩􀁣􀁹􀁾􀀠The
Cfty has controls on the maximum velocity allowed: 1) 8.5 fp•• unlined banks In clay solI. 2) 5.0 fps '" unlined banks in sandy or silty soils. Policies ensure that 'adequate fac1lities
.are provided for drainage on all properties .. On lots or tracts of l acres or more, stonmwater runoff is not allowed to drain onto adjacent property except in existing creeks. channels,
or 􀁳􀁴􀁯􀁾􀀠sewers. Construction permits. Only to the extent that discharge points must be be at recognized waterways. NO policy except what is provlded by State law. No. No. No. No
finm policy -depends upon particularc1 rc.ums tances 􀁾􀀠Yes. de.velopers are responsible. The Citymakes sure that 􀁤􀁥􀁾􀁥􀁬􀁯􀁰􀁥􀁲􀁳􀀠correct problemsby withholding penmits and/or
certificates of occupancy_ 58 
Are deve10pers responsible for Policies on the protection mitigating problems? If 􀁹􀁥􀁳􀁾􀀠how of down'S tream property from does the City make the developers upstream 􀁤􀁥􀁙􀁥􀁬􀁯􀁰􀁭􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁾􀀠Corr
ect the problems? Medium 20 (aj 20 (b) Benbrook Cleburne OeSoto Everman Grapevine Highland Parle lancaster Hansfield McK inney Mlnera1 \Ie 11$ . Rockwal1 a""lett Stephenv i lIe Terrell
Watauga The pol1cy at thh time is for the City to correct the downstream systems which are under designed. Ho pollcy. "/A No policy. No policy. Ho policy. The policy requires considerltion
of the entire drainage lrea during upstream development through the use of rIA maps and studies. Ho problems or polfcy at this time. See 19. Ho policy• No policy. No policy. No policy.
No The City has not been involved in this in the past. By complying with requirements set down by City Engineer. Not applicable. No Yes. developers required to consider all of drainage
area and provide remedy and/ord.greeftents from downstream property owners. See See 19. Yes. Rockwall hiS no direct means of forcing the correction of drainage-related problems; however.
ft is understood that if the developer or engineer 􀁷􀁩􀁳􀁨􀁥􀁾􀀠to develop • property in the future, good 􀁲􀁥􀁬􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁾􀀠must be mainUined. No Hot after the improvements are accepted
by the City unless negligence on'the part of the developer, his engineer. or his contractor becomes Ipp'arent.. . No polley. 59 
Are developers responsible for Policies on the protectlon mitigating problems? !f 􀁹􀁥􀁳􀁾􀀠how of downstream property from does the City make the developers upstream development. correct
the problems? Small 20 (aj 20 (bj 8riar Forney Frisco Granbury Hutchins Justin Keene Melissa Palmer Pantego Princeton Rhome Rto Vista Royse C lty Wylie No policy; 􀁨􀁯􀁷􀁥􀁶􀁥􀁲􀁾􀀠ordinance
states . that the protection of adjoiningproperty shall be considered in the review of subdivision drainage plans. No policy. Has not been firmly addressed. No policy. N/A No policies
other than Flood Hazard Ordinance. No policy. No policy. Hot downstream. No No No KIA Yes. but we have no real recourse to cause them to accept respons;bility. Developers are required
to submit dralnaqe plans for approval. 60 
21 (a) What Is the city's attltud. towards the use of ponds. lakes. and 􀁾••n. belts within subdivisions? 00the city's ordinances address this issue and if so, how? (b) Who is responsible for the moi"t ••anc. of thes' pondsl 22 (a) Does the city require the use of control techniques to prevent
erosion on construction sites? Answer: v.s No (b) If yes, please explain the requirement and the way the city enforces the requirement. and, if possible. please provide us with a copy
of the ordinance to this effect. Large: Arlington Dallas Denton Fort Worth Garland Grand Prairie Irving Plano Richardson C ley attl tude tow6rds ponds, etc. 21 (a) Subdivision ordinance
allows preservation of natura1 chaMtll when a developer desIres to utilize It for ...thetles or open space.. or when the CA factor Is large.nough (2.000). If a deve loper chooses, he
may leave or create ponds or lakes. They are okay to use4 They are acceptablemethods of handlingrunoff. They c.. be used if 􀁾􀁮􀁥􀁲􀀠accepts =afntenonce responsibility.Drafnage manual
addresses this. Attitude Is basicallypos1t1ve. Ordinances do nat address. Cfty is not 1ft favor of ponds or takes 1ns1de subdtvisions due to malnte.ance and possiblehealth hazanls of
collecting mosquitoes. Cit, ordinances do not address this tSSUI. It Is ok ay wi th homeowners agrl!en!!nt. Encouraged by Subdivison Ordinance. The City would be favorobl. but it is
not addressed in an ordinance. Responsible party fOf' maintenance of ponds 21 (bl 􀁈􀁡􀁭􀁥􀁯􀁷􀁮􀁥􀁲􀀯􀁤􀁥􀁶􀁥􀁬􀁯􀁰􀁾􀀠agreement [t varies between Park DePt., Streets and Santtatfon
Oept., and deve Toper. Owner Owners ASSOCiation. If public -City. If private. abutting property 􀁾􀁮􀁥􀁲􀁳􀀮􀀠 NIA Hc:me dwners. Homeowners Associations. Adjacent property owners. Ooes
Cityrequireerosion control? Contents 22 (a) 22 {bl No No No No Yes Use of a "MUdordinance4 No No No No 61 
City attitude towards ponds., etc. Responsible partyfor tl'taintenance of ponds Does City 􀁲􀁥􀁾􀁵􀁩􀁲􀁥􀀠etosion control? Conments Medium Large 21 (.1 21 (bl 22 (al 22 (bl 8edford Favorable.
but no ordinances. 􀁄􀁥􀁶􀁥􀁬􀁯􀁰􀁥􀁲􀀯􀁈􀁯􀁭􀁥􀁯􀁾􀁮􀁥􀁲􀀠Associations. No C<Jl"'rollton Studied with each individual case. Hot addressed 1n ordinance. Depends on individual each case.
No Corsicana Ponds &lakes would be 􀁤􀀱􀁳􀀨􀀺􀁯􀁵􀁲􀁡􀁧􀁥􀁤􀁾􀀠Greenbelts would be 􀁥􀁮􀁣􀁯􀁵􀁲􀁡􀁧􀁥􀁤􀁾􀀠The City weu ld be responsible for maintenanee unless otherwise provided. No
Ouncanvi 11e Does not use. Ho Euless Greenbelts and pre􀁾􀁲􀁶􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀠of natural creek channels accep􀁴􀁡􀁢􀁬􀁥􀁾􀀠Perpetual Maintenance Agreements required. Lot owners. No Farmers
8ranch The C1ty encouragesthe use of ponds, lakes and greenbelts. Generally. the adjacent property owners or an -association-, sometimes the City. res Detention basins are genera'ly
required on the gr.dl09 pennit. Polfcy -not by an ordinance. Hurst May be a110wed followlngengineering review and 􀁡􀁰􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁶􀁡􀁊􀁾􀀠no direct Ordinance addresses this. The C1ty would
accept resporlsibllity. No 62 
City attitude towards ponds, etc. Responsible 􀁰􀁡􀁾􀁴􀁹􀀠for maintenanc.e for pondsl Does City require erosion c.ontrol? Cornnents Medium 21 (al 21 (b) 22 (a) 22 (b) Be.brook The City
discouragesthe use of these due to maintenance and liability problems tr:wol\1ed. 􀁏􀁷􀁮􀁥􀁲􀁳􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁯􀀠Cleburne Not addressed. Only one such pond in the City and the abutting property
owners are responsible. No DeSoto ("eman "0 polley. "0 Grapev1ne This situation has not CDl'l'l& up. No Highland Park Not app II cab Ie. No Lancaster Not specifiedlly 􀁡􀁤􀁤􀁲􀁥􀁳􀀵􀁥􀁤􀁾􀀧􀁢􀁵􀁴􀀠wo
uld be allowed with proper design. City or homeowner group. Yes Rip rap, retards, etc. Mansfield No policy. Hot public ownership, "0 McKinney City'S subdivision ordinance encourages
use of ponds. Jakes and greenbelts. Developer or homeowner assoc1ation unless accepted by Council as a park. 􀁾􀁯􀀠Hinera 1 We Tl 5 City's policy dtscourages such use of land within
subdivisions to avoid future maintenance responsibil1ties. Property owner. Yes & No Only on federally assisted projects where erosion .control is a conditton of grant. Rockwall Ordinances
dO not address. 8ecau,e of City!s proxilllity to Lake Ray 􀁈􀁵􀁢􀁢􀁡􀁲􀁤􀁾􀀠that developers have not used ponds. NfA 􀁾􀁯􀀠Rowlett Hot specifically addressed, but would be allowed with
.proper design. City Or hOltleowner group. Yes Rip raPt retards, etc. S tephenvi lle Terrell Hot addressed by ordinance but accoptable If provisions for maintenance are acceptable. To
date9 the only detention basins in Terrell have been eo..trutted byand are maintained by the City. No 63 
Oaes CHy City attitude Responsible party require towards ponds.. for ma intenance erosion etc. of ponds control? Connents Small 21 ( .) 21 (b) 22 (a) 22 (b) 8riar Forney Frisco Granbury
Hutchins Justin Keene Melissa Palmer Pantego Princeton Rhome Rio Vista Ray,e City Wylie No Hot specificallyaddressed. but would be allowed with proper desfgn. Ordinances do not address.
but would be considered on case-by·case basis. Not specifIcally addressed. but woold be allowed with proper design. NIA Zoning ordinance requires greenbelts as buffer zone between residential
and commercial areas. NO City or homeowner group. ria'S not been addressed. City or homeowner group. Ha Yes Ho Tes Ho No NO Ho No No Rip rap. retards. etc. Rfp rap. retards. etc. '.
64 
23 A common 􀁰􀁾􀁯􀁢􀁬􀁥􀁭􀀠is the deposition of sediment in new streets and storm sewers because of the construction of new houses. Who is responsible fOT cl.aning the street -the builder/developer
or the city? Does the city have an ordinance addressing this problem or is this an oral understandinghetw..n the developer and the city? Ca) Does the city have any other requirements
for developers that do not24 appear explicitly in the ordinances but are an oral understanding? Answer: Yes (b) If yes, what are the understandings? Oepositionof dirt in Anyunwritten
the streets requirements? If yes, what are they? l.arge 23 24 (a) 24 (b) Ar1ingtol'l nallas Genton Fort Worth Garland Grand Prairie Irving. Plano Richardson It has b..n the City's position
yesthat the proble", belongs to the lot owners In a subdivision which ...y or may not be the origioal deye,loper. The problem is trying to Identify what material belongs to what owners.
Thus, the City Inherits the problem. If all the lots within. ne. subdiviSion belong to a single owner. the problem is simplified and the developer is notified to clean the streets. City
cleans the streets and there Is no ordinance. Build.r/developer cleans the No streets. The Cfty of Denton Standard Construct ion Speeif·1ca .. tiORS addresses this issue. Builders clean
by ordinance. No Our 􀁾􀁵􀁤􀂷􀀠ordinance lays the Yes basic responsibility on the property owner. Through a loose interpretation of the ordinance, the eity requires the developer to
furnish Bbefore the fact-proposals on how to control this problem. The City has a Z-year mainttnance No bond with developers whfch makes them responsible for any kind of maintenance
fn thefr subdivision. After two years, the Cfty maintains ft. Deve leper clean.. the street by NO . ord1nance. Usually, It is • City responsi. No billty because it is difficult to determine
the responsible party. No Accounting for superelevation and l'I'IIQmentunt in open dianne1$" rRaxill'lll'l veloclty of 15 fps in lined channels. no Cijrb split,_ setting of ftntShed
floor elevations 1 foot above top of curb at lOt!! points to provide positive street overflow on the out,1de curb of street in horizontal curve at or near capacity,s'itt! plan approval
on lots below top of curb. Many ·understandings· can be lumpedtogether under the category -goodengineering pract1ce-, 65 
Deposit ton of dirt in Any unwritten the streets requirements? If yes. what are they? Medium Large 23 24 (b) aedford City is responsible oral understanding. 􀁾􀁹􀀠an Yes One (1) on One
(1) lot drain'gemaxill'lUl'll:. Carrollton Builder/developer is responsible 􀁾􀁹􀀠an oral understanding_ No Corsicana The developer would b(I! responsibledurfng the one year warranty
period. No Duncanv; lIe The builder of the house is responsible until 􀁣􀁯􀁭􀁰􀁬􀁥􀁴􀁥􀁤􀁾􀀠Then. City and 􀁨􀁯􀁭􀁥􀁯􀁷􀁮􀁥􀁲􀁾􀀠No ordfnance t. this effect. No £uless Oeve lopers are
respons ib le by an oral understanding. No Farners Branch The bul1der/deve loper as part of buildfng permit process and also under ordinance controlling garbageand trash -provisions
for prohibiting deposit of 􀁴􀁲􀀮􀁳􀁾􀀠dirt. rock•• concrete. 􀁥􀁴􀁣􀁾􀀠upon streets. No Hurst 8ui lder/developer is responsible by an oral understanding. No 66 
Oepositionof dirt in the streets Medium 23 8enbrook Developer is responsible byordinance. Cleburne Usual1y. builder is res pons ib Ie. No ordinance. DeSoto Everman No policy. Grapevine
The City. Hlgoland Park Rarely a problem. If necessary.builder is responsible. lancaster Builder/developer is responsible.This i$ an oral understanding_ Mansffe1d Oeveloper is responsible.
No 􀁯􀁔􀀢􀁤􀁩􀁮􀁩􀁬􀁮􀁣􀁥􀁾􀀠McK inney Builder/developer is responsible.Thfs is an oral understanding. ... MjneT"a1 WelTs Builder/developer foT" one yeaT"after subdiYislon is completed
and accepted. No oJ"di nances. but a condition of developer's performance assuJ"ances and maintenance agreement. After one year.. 1t is a City responsibility. Rodtwall 8uilder/develOPer
is 􀁲􀁥􀁳􀁰􀁯􀁮􀁳􀁩􀁢􀁬􀁥􀁾􀀠This is an oral 􀁵􀁮􀁤􀁥􀁲􀁳􀁴􀁡􀁮􀁤􀁩􀁮􀁧􀁾􀀠Rawlett 8uilder/Deye1oper is 􀁲􀁥􀁳􀁰􀁯􀁮􀁳􀁩􀁢􀁬􀁥􀁾􀀠This is an oral understanding. Stephenv i lIe Terre)
I Oeveloper is responsible until improvements are accepted by City;if conditions waT"T"ant. he he may be called back during the one·year warranty pertod. 􀁏􀁴􀁨􀁥􀁲􀁷􀁩􀁳􀁾􀀮􀀠the City
performs the clean-up that it cannot get the developer/builder to do. Wa.tauga Building inspection T"equiT"es the street be cleaned before that fina.l1zing a new house. Anyull'lfritten
requ kements? If 􀁹􀁥􀀵􀁾􀀠what are they? 24 (a) 24 (b) No Yes varies No No No Yes No No No No 10s No No 67 
Depositionof dirt In Any unwritten the streets requirements? If 􀁾􀁾􀁓􀁬􀀠what are they? Small 23 24 (.) 24 (b) Briar Forney Frisco Granbury Hutchins Justin Keene Melissa Palmer Pantego
Princeton Rhome RiO Vista Royse City Wy1ie Deve10per for one year. No Builder/developer is responsible Yes by an ora) 􀁵􀁮􀁤􀁥􀁲􀁳􀁴􀁡􀁮􀁤􀀱􀁮􀀹􀁾􀀠Until completion and acceptance No
of subdivisiont developer is responsible. After formal acceptance, City is responsible unless negligent actton of builder caused the problem. Builder/developer is responsible Yes 􀁢􀁾􀀠oral
understanding. No No .Clty cleans up. Y•• No City cleans up. 8uilder/developer is responsible by oral understanding, but soon to be by ordinance. No Numerous Numerous Oevelopers are
responsible for stonn· water. 68 
:l!i Some cities have unique or unusual ordinances that address specific drainage problems. If your city has such an ordinance. please either send us a copy of it or describe the ordinance
on an attachment. (a) Are there aspects of the city1s drainage ordinances that do not work well in practice and need Changing? If so, wha,t are they? 26 (b) Are there aspects of the
City's drainage ordinances that do work well in practice and that other cities might like to use? If so. what are they? Ooes the city utilize a dra,inage design manual that specifies
the design 27 techniques for items like curbst inlets, and runoff calcuJations1 If so. how was the manual put together? When was it written? Is it actuallyused by the city and de.elopers
operating in the City? Is it a.ailable for sale or free distribution? 69 
---------------------------------------------------------------􀁕􀁮􀁵􀁳􀁵􀁾􀀱􀀠􀁯􀁲􀁤􀁬􀁮􀁾􀁮􀁣􀁥􀁳􀀠Aspects of ordinances that do not work well Aspects of ordinances that do work well
Design Manual Large 25 26 (a) 26 (b) 27 Ar 1 ington Drainage systems for sub􀁤􀁩􀁾􀁩􀁳􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁳􀀠are looked at fndiv'dually and not with their combined effects. A No. subdivision rules
were formed by City staff in cooperation with a citizen conmttt"ee. After combined master drainage p'1an could provide a comprehensive guide to use to avoid causing combined peaks of
several watersheds to occur simultaneousJy. Change fn runoff factors with respect to frequency of storm. input and discussion, the ordinance was presented to Council and passed as Ordinance
No. 77-143 on 20 Sept. 1977. Oallas No Yes Yes. The City has a design manual that was written bycontract in 1975. It is used by both developers and the City, It is free, Denton Inadequate
drainage facilities throughexisting developments. Yes. Manua1 was deve loped by Freese &Nichols In 1975. It is used by the City and 1s avai lable at a cost of SI0.00 per copy. Fort Worth
Many requirements place responsibility on the developerfbullder for the successful functioning of designs without adequate provision for enforcement. Drainage manual and plat review
policYa Yes. Manual was developedby consultants in 1967. I is used for ali drainagefacilities in the City. It is for sa1e. Gar land Allowing lots to abut dra;nage ditches too closely
which causes future problemswith soil erosion and restr1cted access. Yes. Manual 􀁷􀁾􀁳􀀠developedby MOR in 1976. It has been available but City is 10w on copies. Grand Prairie Ho •
NO. City often use. Fort Worthts drainage design manual. City has developed its own intensity chart for use by developers, Irving M1niwm sizes and drawings for lined and earthen 􀁣􀁨􀁡􀁮􀁮􀁥􀁬􀁳􀁾􀀠A
final plat must contain a drainage note which states No. City has guidelines but no des ign manua 1. that no greaterthan 10 cfs can enter adjacent property or public rlght-ofway without
being addressed byengineering design. This information must be flled'.ith the Oepartment of Public Works. Plano No Yes. The manual is used for all drainage projects. It is available
for a ml nima1 charge. Richardson No No. The City uses the Texas H1ghways Oepartment's,.."Hydrau1ic Manual". 70 
Aspects of ol'"dinances Aspects of ordinances Unu'Sua1 that do not that do ordinances work well work well Des ign Manual Medium Large 25 26 (a) 26 (b) 27 Bedford No 1es, comp1led by
consultingengineers. 1917. [tl'S used. It Is a.ailable. Carrollton Yes, the ordinances are currently under study. City has Master Drainage PTan and Study that was prepared in 1978. Yes.
compiled by consultingengineers. Wr.1tten in 1911 and continuously updated. It. is used by 􀁥􀁾􀁲􀁹􀁯􀁮􀁥􀀠and is for sale. Corsicana No No Ves No Ouncanvi lle No Eule.. Hone 􀁫􀁮􀁯􀁷􀁮􀁾􀀠Hone
known. No Farmers Branch The City ts currently preparfng an engineeringdesign manual that will include drainage criteria. Hurst No Off-site dralna90 􀀱􀁾􀁲􀁯􀁶􀁥􀁭􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁳􀀠are not addrened.
Design storm frequency as a function of pipe size. "0. The City uses and suggests to developers that they use the -Storm DrainageCriteria & Des.f911 Manual" of the CIty of Fort Worth.
Developers may use generallyaccepted methods. 71 
Aspects of ordinances Aspects of ordinances Unusual that do not that do ordinances work well work: well Design Manual Medium 25 26 (aj 26 (bj 27 Benbrook: Cleburne DeSoto Everman Grapevine
Highland Park: Lancaster Mansfield McK inney Mineral Wells Rock:wa11 􀁒􀁾􀁬􀁥􀁴􀁴􀀠Stephenvf lie Terrell Watauga None City has no subdivision design ordinance which deals with runoff.
The ordinance is being drafted. It is reviewed on request by Cfty staff, Council, etc. Some details are required by City Engineer based on practices which need to be added. Flood Plain
􀁍􀁡􀁮􀁡􀁧􀁥􀁾􀁮􀁴􀀠Ordinance as enforced effectively stops development within flood hazard areas. Ordinance needs updating to cover some of the points which are used in subdivision
􀁲􀁥􀁶􀁩􀁥􀁾􀀠by City Engineer. Detention needs to be encouraged; the Rational method should probably not be used on larger drainage areas. Require improved channels to be l1ned if maintained
by City. If channe I s are earthen, 􀁾􀁮􀁥􀁲􀀠is responsible. Ordinance is pract tea I and and easy to understand. Ordinance is practical andeasy to understand. Yes. the City has a manual
that was prepared by con-suiting engfneers in 1967. It is used and is available. No No, the City has its criteria I isted In the subdivision ordinance. No No. The City uses Fort Worth's
manua I. No Yes. the City has a manual that 􀁾􀁡􀁳􀀠written by the engineer and attorney in 1975. It is used and is aval1able. Yes. An engineering firm wrote it in 1974. It is used and
is for sale. No. City has its ordinance and uses H􀁩􀁧􀁨􀁾􀁡􀁹􀀠Departments manua I. No. City uses Highway Department's manual. Yes. Freese &Nichols wrote the manual fn 1978. It is used
and Is available for sale. Yes. The engineer and attorney wrote ft. It is used and is available for distribution. No manual, but the requirements are contained in the subdivision ordinance
which 􀁾􀁡􀁳􀀠adopted in 1971. It is used and is available for sale. No, the City uses Fort Worth's manual. 72 
Unusual Ordinances Aspects of ordinances that do not work well Aspects of ordinances that do work. well Oes 19n Manual S••l1 2S 26 (.) 26 (b) 27 Briar forney frisco ,Granbury Hutchfns
Justin Keene Melissa Palmer Pantego Princeton Rhome Rio 'Hsta Royse City Wylie KIA None Hone NO The Town has no drainage ordinance. No pol1ey 01" ordinance because City is located on
a Ho problems yet. Needs update to fnclude current policies. Will be revised in the overall City Haster Plan 􀁤􀁥􀁹􀁥􀁬􀁯􀁰􀁾􀀠ment currently underway. No hill and has no creeks. Ordinance
is pl"a.ctic.aL No Yes. It was written bythe engineer and attorney. It is used and is available. No. staff uses Texas Highway Department's manoa1. Yes. it was written by the engineer
and attorney. It is used and is available. No No No No 73 
28 (al In what instances will the city participate in the financing of the installation of drainage facilities? What percent of these costs will the city pay? (b) How does the city normally
finance its creek maintenance projects and large improvements to drainage facilities? (c} [s your, city considering the use of drainage assessments or other alternative financing arrangements?
(nstances in which NOrma 1 means for the City part1c1pates financing fmprovements Considering alternative fn the cost of drainage to drainage facilities financing 􀁡􀁲􀁲􀁡􀁮􀁧􀁥􀁭􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁳􀁾􀀠faciliti
es 28 (a) 28 (b) 28 (c) Arlington 0011a5 Denton Fort Worth Garland Grand Prairie lI'Ylnq PIa.. R1chard50n Has been 11..1ted t ••ffsite Improvments fn e.lsting r1ghts-of-way or in cases
where oversiled str-eets are required. the City pay5 for ••tra w1dth of cross structures only. City will share in the costs in many cases. None CIty shares In cost of .versize conduit
(25; of cost difference between des 1:gn she and 36" d1a""ter) and 2SS of cost of channel lining-t bridges and cu lverts. Cfty pays for -oveniz1ngdrainage facilities in new 􀁤􀁥􀁶􀁥􀁬􀁯􀁰􀁭􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁾􀀠
50 that theyGan handle off-s1te drainage.ThIs Is a bad polley. Whenever a developer is 􀁲􀁥􀁾􀀠quired to ln5tall a pipe 'arger than 12-.. the City . will pay the cost difference of 72"
and abo.e If the Counci I approves and money I 15 a..lIabl•• Upon appro.al of the Public Worles Oepart...nt and CityCouncil. Over 72-pipe tn residential areas -City pays 2SS .f over􀁳􀀱􀀱􀁥􀁾􀀠Over
two· 1Z-pipes In non-residential areas -CIty pay, 101 of 􀁯􀁹􀁥􀁲􀁳􀀱􀀱􀁥􀁾􀀠In res1dlentlal areas· City pays.25S bridge, culvert, and channel 􀁬􀀱􀁮􀁩􀁮􀀹􀁾􀀠In 􀁮􀁯􀁮􀁾􀁲􀁥􀁳􀁩􀁤􀁥􀁮􀁴􀀱􀁡􀁬􀀠areas
City pays lOS of bridge, culvert, and channel l1n1ng. Major thoroughfares on Master Thoroughfare Plan. 50S of bridges. Routtne maintenance operating budget. Large projects bond4 progr....
CIP bonds and capitalbudg.t. Creek maintenance -general 􀁦􀁵􀁮􀁤􀁾􀀠Large projects capital improvement funds. Creek maintenance -generalbudget. Large projects bond program. Bond Funds
Capital Development Funds Street Department Budget Creek maintenance -Streets Department's budget. Large projects -bonds or some ·CO· funding. Bond money. General oblig.t10n 􀁢􀁯􀁮􀁤􀁳􀁾􀀠Sond
maney. Ves Ves Ves No No. In the past. the City occasionally assessed the praperty owners for the construction af a drainage facility In conjunctionwith the paving project. No HO, but
may in future. Ves 74 
Normal means for Instances in which the City participates in the cost of drainage facilities financing improvements to drainage facllltie. Considering alternative financing arrangements?
Medium large 26 (0) 2B (b) 2B (c) Bedford 􀁃􀁾􀁜􀁉􀀢􀁲􀁯􀁬􀀱􀁴􀁯􀁮􀀠Corsicana Ouncanvi 11e Euless Fanners 8ranch Hurst None t normally_ Hone Hone None No firm policy. The"C ity fully
flno.ce. major improvements in areas that are fu l1y developed. Bond 􀁦􀁵􀁮􀁤􀁳􀁾􀀠Ho Bond pr<Jgram. Ho Bond funds. No Through budget. NO Maintenance 􀁾􀀠annual budget. No Capital improvements
... bonds. Capital improvements program. Ho Maintenance -normally a No budgeted Item. Major Improvements -general obligation bond sales. 75 
Normal means for Instances in which the City participates in the cost of drainage facilities financing improvements to drainage facilities Considering alternatives ftnancing arrangements1
Medium 2B (a) 2B (b) 2B (e) Benbrook Cleburne DeSoto Everman Grapevine Highland Park Lancaster Mansfield Mel< inney Mineral Wells Rockwall Rowlett Stephenville Terrell Watauga None in
new developments. No policy. Participation depends on costs even though it Is of 􀁥􀁾􀁴􀁲􀁥􀁭􀁥􀀠importance. The City has not yet. New facilities are not being built. None In previously
developed areas -100%. In on-going developments -0%. The City may participate in an amount up to 20%. 100% of City initiated projects. 0% of developer or owner initiated projects. "
None None No policy, but participatfon in the cost of on-site improvements is unlikely. None Bonds Maintenance -general fund. Large Improvements bonds. With great difficulty and large
amounts of work. Cap fta I bonds. Operating budget. City crews, county crews, property owners, and and developers all do some maintenance and Improvements. Bonds C.O. Block Grants. Bonds
None 􀁃􀁦􀁴􀁹􀁾􀀠􀁃􀁯􀁵􀁮􀁴􀁹􀁾􀀠Property owners C.D. Block" Grants or G.o.. Bonds. Bonds or C.D. Block Grants. No No No No, but would like to. No No No No No No No No No 76 
Instances in which the City participates In the cost of drainage facttilties Small ze (a) Brtar forney No.. Frisco. Hone Granbury Cley will pay far ZSS of cost of an 84-pipe and developerwi
11 pay 751 of -the 84" pipeand the costs of constructingthe pipe up to 7Z", If a channel 1s necessary, developer wil 1 pay all costsw For bridges or co lverts beyond • double 72-pipe
culvert, the City will pay Z5S of the cost for r..ldentlal and lOS of cost for ComMerCial developments. Hutchins None Justin NO.. ", ) Keene 􀁾􀁬􀀱􀁳􀁳􀁡􀀠Pal_ Pantego De••loper pays
far drainage facilities I. new dov.lopII'8nts. In emergencies, the Town provides improvements to insufficient drainage system. Princeton Rh_ No pol1cy. Rio Vista Royse City Wyll. Nor.ma
1 means for financing 1mprovements to drainage facll1tles Considering alternative financing arrangements? ze (b) ze (el None No City. County, Property owners. No No maintenance 􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁧􀁲􀁾􀀮􀀠No
Have not had funds to do this No yet, City crews .re 111111 ted. No... If CIty's consulting engineer is required to evaluate a base flood level, the deveioper1s charged a fee equiva1ent
to the costs accrved by the City El19lnear, Federal funds are not available. No The Town plans to consider 􀁩􀁾􀀠proYem8nts to one portion of drainage syste.. 77 
CITY ORDINANCES Most cities in Texas do not have a separate document which they use as a drainage manual. Instead, drainage criteria are specified in city ordinances or building codes.
This section annotates the pertinent ordinances from various cities in Texas and lists the measures that they use to control flooding. Ordinances from cities not included in this list
either did not return them for review or had minimal references to drainage criteria. 38 
(1 ) ABILENE Subdivision Regulations All drainage criteria is the same as that in the City's drainage manual. Land use restrictions in the floodway Lowest floor elevation = 1 ft. above
100 year flood (2 ) ALICE Drainage Guidelines Table of flows in streets based on street slope Capacity of inlets set at 1.2 cfs per foot length with 6 in. throat height. Manni ng' s
N set at: .012 for concrete sewer pi pe .019 for corrugated metal sewer pipe Hydraul ic Grade Line of storm sewers cannot be more than 6 in. above curb height. Open channels: unlined
I i ned Maximum side slope Roughness coefficients Minimum velocity (ft/sec) Maximum velocity (ft/sec) Minimum freeboard (ftl 2 1/2:1 .025 2 8 1 1:1 .015 2 10 1 (3) ALVIN ·Subdivision
Ordinance Maximum velocity of flow 1n streets =10 ft/sec Minor streets designed to pass the 5 year storm. Open channels are designed to contain the 10 year storm. Maximum side slope
for unlined channels =3:1 Flood Hazard Prevention Ordinance Lowest floor elevation: at or above the 100 year flood plain Land use restrictions in the floodway 39 
(4) AMARILLO Flood Plain Ordinance Definition of Base Flood: a. For playa lakes it is twice the accumulation resulting from a 100 year storm. b. For floodways it is the flow resulting
from a 100 year storm. Perimeter fencing around storage facilities required for side slopes steeper than 4:1 Lowest floor elevation = 1 ft. above the 100 year flood plain . Land use
restrictions in the floodways (5) ARLINGTON Subdivision Rules and Regulations Design discharge: a. Rational Method for areas of 1000 acres or less b. Unit Hydrograph Techniques for areas
larger than 1000 acres Table of runoff coefficients Table of minimum times of concentrations Table of design frequencies Manning's N for streets set at: .013 for concrete .015 for asphalt
Stormwater must be carried in storm sewers when it can be conveyed in 60 in. diameter pipes or smaller. Flood Hazard Ordinance List of flood proofing techniques for structures constructed
within flood prone areas Flood Hazard Standards Lowest floor elevation =1 ft. above the 100 year flood plain Land use restrictions in the floodways 40 
(6) AUSTIN Subdivision Ordinance Closed sewers can be as large as 60 in. diameter. Anything larger requires special approval. Open and closed drainage systems based on the 25 year storm.
'Overflow system based on the 100 year storm. Provisions for development in or near waterways Special considerations for environmentally sensitive areas Impervious cover limitations
Detention and sedimentation basins: a. designed to capture the first 1/2 in. runoff from all impervious cover. b. inflow and release form basins must use grass lined swales or flow dispersion
measures. c. basins retaining runoff from commercial, multi-family, or highly impervious lots must release water through a filter medium. d. maintenance funded through a fee paid to
the City by the developer. Erosion and sedimentation: a. cut and fill limited to 4 ft. each. b. stabilization required for slopes steeper than 3:1. (7) BAYTOIIN Subdivision Checklist,
Detention Facilities Requirements and Standards, Drainage Ordinance Design discharge by the Rational Method Minimum gutter slope 􀁾􀀠.0025 ftlft Capacity of inlets set at 1 cfs per foot
length with a 5 in. throat height. Storm drains designed for the 5 year storm. Maximum manhole spacing 􀁾􀀠1000 ft. Minimum grade for open channels; .001 ftlft Open channels designed
for the 10 year storm. Maximum side slope for open channels 􀁾􀀠3:1 land use restrictions in floodways Detention required for development with impermeable areas greater than 1 ac. Detention
facilities: a. minimum bottom width = 10 ft. b. maximum side slope =3:1 c. minimum cross slope on the basin floor = .002 ftlft d. a concrete channel is required. 41 
(14) CARROLLTON Flood Hazard Reduction Lowest floor elevation: at or above the 100 year flood plain. Drainage provisions taken from the City's drainage manual. ( 17) COLLEGE S1 AlION
Subdivision Ordinance Calculation of water quantities is done using procedures described in the Hydraulic Manual of the Texas Highway Department Bridge Division. Water cannot be carried
on-streets for a distance greater than the 5 year storm will overflow the curb. Storm drains designed for the 5 year storm. Open channels desi.gned for the 10 year storm. Lowest floor
elevation =1 ft. above the 100 year flood plain land use restrictions in the floodways Zoning Ordinance No structure can be constructed in a delineated floodplain. Buildings between
the Intermediate and Standard Flood Plains must be built up to an elevation 1 ft. above the Standard Flood Plain. (18) CONROE Subdivision Regulations Minimum gutter slope = .0025 ftlft
Sediment control: a. development limited to 10 acres at anyone time. b. temporary vegetation or mulching shall be used to protect critical areas exposedduring development. c. sediment basins and traps shall be used to remove sediment from runoff waters. d. development plats should fol low the natural topography as much as possible to
reduce erosion potential. 42 
􀀮􀁾􀁾􀀧.. (20) DEER PARK Internal Drainage Requirements, Subdivision Ordinance Minimum diameter of storm drains = 8 in. Pipes less than 12 in. diameter must be PVC. Pipes 12 in. diameter
or larger must be concrete. Minimum velocity in storm drains =2.5 ft/sec Maximum manhole spacing = 600 ft. Minimum grade for open channels = .001 ft/ftMaximum side slopes of channels
= 3:1 Corrugated metal pipe is prohibited. Subsurface drainage required for tracts larger than 15,000 sq. ft. Buildin9/Construction Code lowest floor elevation: at or above the 100 year
flood plain. land use restrictions in the floodways (21) DENTON Subdivision and land Development Ordinance All provisions are the same as those found in the City drainage manual. Flood
Plain Ordinance lowest floor elevation = 1 ft. above the 100 year flood plain Land use restrictions in the floodways 43 
(22 ) EL PASO Subdivision Oesign Standards Oesign discharge by the Rational Method Table of runoff coefficients Homograph for inlet time of concentrations IOF curves for El Paso Table
of Manning's N Oetention: Detention is permitted on lots over 10,000 sq. ft. Maximum side slopes of detention basins = 2:1 Side slopes steeper than 8 1/3:1 require a 7 ft. fence around
them. Additional reservoir volume equal to 10 years of siltation is required. Design storm is 4" in 3 hrs over 300 acres. Minimum freeboard is 5 ft •• Oetention basins must empty within
48 hrs. after the storm. (23) EULESS Subdivision 􀁾􀁥􀁹􀁵􀁬􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁳􀀠Storm Runoff Design discharge: a. Rational Method for areas of 750 acres or less, b. Unit acres Hydrograph Techniques
for areas larger than 750 Table of runoff coefficients Table of inlet times Table of average velocities for travel times in gutters flow In Streets Maximum depth of water in streets
:: 8 in .. Minimum grade for streets = .005 ftlft Maximum velocity on asphalt streets = S ft/sec Maximum permissible spread: a. Thoroughfares -two traffic lanes must remain open. b.
Collectors -one traffic lane must remain open. c. Residentials -maximum depth of 6 in. at the curb. 44 
Euless (cant. ) Inlets Inlet capacity set at 1 cfs per foot length with 7 in. throat height. Storm Drains Runoff in excess of street capacity wil I be carried in storm sewer pipe when
the calculated size of pipe is 48 in. diameter or smaller. Design frequency is 5 years with overland relief for a 25 year storm. Open Channels Usage of 1ined channels is based on a "CAli
factor. Maximum side slope on unlined sections = 2:1 Maximum velocities on unlined channels: a. clayey soils with grass cover =8.5 ft/sec b. sand or silty soils with grass cover =5.0
ft/sec Bridges/Culverts Bridges, culverts, underpasses, and open channels are designed for a 25 year storm. (24) fARMERS BRANCH Drainage Design Criteria Standards Design discharge by
the Rational Method Time of concentration set at 10 min. Table of runoff coefficients Maximum permissible spread of water on streets -one lane in each direction must remain open. Minimum
curb slope =.005 ft/ft Hydraulic Grade Line for storm sewers must be at least 2 ft. below curb elevation. Design frequency for storm drains is 100 years. Design frequency for culverts
and bridges is 100 years. flood Hazard Ordinance Lowest floor elevation: at or above the 100 year floodplain. Land use restrictions in the floodways Street curbs must not be below the
water level for more than 1 hr. during a 100 year flood. 45 
\, (27) FORT WORTH City Planning Commission Rules and Regulations No construction allowed within a floodway easement without prior approval. Lowest floor elevations = 1 ft. above the
100 year flood elevation. Flood Plain Ordinance Regulations regarding development in flood prone areas and alteration of watercourses Criteria for variances to develop within a floodplain
Subdivision Ordinance Refers to criteria in City drainage manual (28) GARLAND Drainage Ordinance Table of design frequencies (generally 10 or 100 year storm frequency with 100 year emergency
overflows in all cases)Storm drainS required where paved street or alley section wil I not contain the runoff from a 10 year storm. Guidel ines for improvements to creeks or ditches
Mud Ordi nance The-City is empowered to clean streets and alleys of mud or silt washed from a site at the expense of the property owner. floodplain Ordinance Lowest floor elevation =2
ft. above the 100 year floodplain Land use restrictions in the floodways Development allowed in floodway fringe when sited 2 ft. above flood levels during a 100 year storm. 46 
(32) GRANO PRAIRIE Drainage Ordinances Design discharge: a. Rational Method for areas of 1000 acres or less b. Unit Hydrograph Techniques for areas larger than 1000 acres Table of runoff
coefficients Table of time of concentrations Design frequency for all drainage facilities is 25 years (except for storm sewers on grade =5 years). Street must not flow more than curb
deep during a 5 year storm. Storm drains are used when runoff can be carried in a 72 in. diameter pipe or smaller. Maximum discharge velocity from open channels = 6 ft/sec. Usage of
lined or unlined channels is based on a "CAu factor. Code of Ordinances Lowest floor"elevations =1 ft. above the 100 year flood plain Land use restrictions in the floodways (39) KILLEEN
Drainage Master Plan Design discharge by the Rational Method Table of runoff coefficients Table of average velocities for time of concentration "Table of design frequencies IOF curves
for Killeen Table with general guidelines for maximum permissible spread and gutter depression Table Table of Manning's N Subdivision Ordinance Lowest floor elevation: at or above the
100 year flood plain. Land use restrictions in the floodways 47 
(41) LANCASTER Drainage Improvements Storm Runoff Design discharge by the Rational Method Table of design frequencies Table of runoff coefficients Runoff calculations based on ultilnate
development in a watershed. Table of average velocities IOf curves for Lancaster Flow in Streets Maximum permissible spread: a. Thoroughfares -one lane in each direction to remain clear
b. Collector streets -one lane to remain open c. Residential streets -maximum depth is curb height. Storm Orai ns When runoff exceeds street capacity storm sewers are used for flow up
to and including that of a 60 in. diameter pipe. Open Channels Usage of lined or unlined channels is based on a "CAli factor. Maximum side slope for unlined channels is 3:1. Drainage
Ordinance Lowest floor elevation =2 ft. above the 100 year flood plainLand use restrictions in the floodways (42) LONGVIEW Subdivision Reguirements Land use restrictions in flood prone
areas Residences adjacent to floodways must be 2 ft. above the 100 year flood pl ain. Commercial and industrial structures must be 1 ft. above the 100 year flood plain. Finished street
elevation can be no more than 2 ft. below the 100 year flood plain. 48 
(45) McALLEN Drainage Policy Design discharge by the Rational Method Table of average velocities Table of runoff coefficients Street curbs, gutters, inlets, and pipes deSigned for the
10 year storm. Outfall systems designed for the 25 year storm. Generally, no surface street flows over a distance of 660 ft. will be all owed. Curb inlets are used unless otherwise approved.
Maximum side slopes for open Channels: 2:1 Subdivision Ordinance Land use restrictions in the floodways Peak flows resulting from a 10 year storm cannot be increased or cause inundation
of structures not previously subject to inundation as a result of a 10 year storm. (47) MESQUITE Drainage Ordinance and Drainage Specifications Design discharge by the Rational Method
Table of runoff coefficients Table of average velocities Table of design frequencies IDf curves for MesqUite Maximum permissible spread of water on streets: a. Thoroughfares -one lane
in each direction to remain open b. Collector streets -one lane must remain open. c. Residential streets -maximum depth is curb height. Usage of Iined and un 1i ned channel s based on
a "CA" factor. Runoff before and after development must have the same or lower peak di scharges. Lowest floor elevation =2 ft. above the 100 year flood plain Land use restrictions in
floodways 49 
(48) MIOLANO Drainage Plan Requirements Design discharge: a. Rational Method for areas of 1000 acres or less b. Unit Hydrograph Techniques for areas larger than 1000 acres Storm drainage
designed for ultimate development. Table of runoff coefficients Table of design frequencies Subdivision Regulations lowest floor elevation = 1 ft. above the 100 year flood plain Land
use restrictions in the floodways (54) PEARLANO Storm Drainage Improvements Storm Runoff Design discharge: a. Rational Method for areas of 1000 acres or less b. Unit Hydrograph Techniques
for areas larger than 1000 acres Table of runoff coefficients lOF curves for Pearland Table of design frequencies Time of concentration: d. tc = inlet time + flow time in sewer + 10
min. b. tC· 10 min. (for areas of 1 acre or less) Inlets are located so as to limit water depth to 5 in. at the curb during a 5 year storm. Table of Manning's N Storm drains: 􀁾􀁬􀁩􀁮􀁩􀁭􀁵􀁭􀀠veloci
ty = 3 ft/sec Maximum velocity = 15 ft/sec Minimum diameter = 18 in. Hydraulic Grade Line must remain below gutter elevation for a 3 year storm. 50 
PEARLAND (cont. ) Open channels are used when calculated pipe capacity exceeds 72 in. di ameter. Maximum side slopes for open channels: a. 2:1 (unlined) b. 1:1 (lined) (56) PORT ARTHUR
Ci ty Standards Drainage faci Iities designed on fixed rainfa II intensi ties (ex. 1.45 in/hr). Design frequency for stann sewer inlets. leads, and laterals is 2 years. Pump Station
Design Criteria The capacity of pump stations is based on a removal rate of 1.0 in/hr. Subdivision Ordinance Minimum diameter for storm drains = 15 in. Minimum gutter slope = .002 ft/ft
Other Ordinances Minimum floor elevations are derived from ponding elevations for a 50 year storm plus 1.0 ft. (59) RICHARDSON Subdivision Ordinance Design discharge by Rational Method
Table of runoff coefficients Drainage facilities designed for the 5, 25, or 100 yr storm depending on the location in a watershed. Nomograph for inlet time of concentrations Tabular
sheet of Cin calculations (from the Rational Method) for various time of concentrations Permissible spread of water on streets -one lane of traffic in each 51 
direction must remain open. Design frequency for open channels, culverts, and bridges -100 years RICHARDSON (cont. ) . Land use restrictions in the floodways Floodway easement encompasses
all Iand beneath a line 2 ft. above the 100 year flood plain or the highest flood recorded. Lowest floor elevation = 2 ft. above the 100 year flood plain Definitions. formulae, criteria,
and data set out in the Hydraulic Manual of the Texas Highway Department Bridge Division are adopted by the City. Flood Plain Regulations The drainage pol icy for the City of Dal las
and the Hydraulic Manual of the Texas Highway Department are used as a guide for reviewi n9 and approving storm drainage facilities. (61) SAN ANTONIO Flood Plain Ordinance Specifications
for development in the flood plain a. design storm is the 25 year ultimate development or 100 year fEMA whichever is larger, b. AR2/3 value must not change due to fill encroachment.
c. baCKwater elevations cannot be raised due to development. Policy for Proposed or Existing Dams The spi llway of an earthen dam must be sized to accommodate the Probable 􀁉􀁾􀁡􀁸􀁩􀁭􀁵􀁭􀀠Precipita
tion. The spi llway for a concrete dam does not have to accommodate the PMP, but the dam must be structurally capable of withstanding flood conditions up to the PMP. Subdivision Ordinance
Specifications for drainage facilities are the same as those set forth in the City's drainage manual. 52 
(63) SEGUIN Subdivision Ordinance Table of maximum flow in streets Maximum velocity in streets = 10 ft!sec Minor streets are designed for the 5 year storm, all other streets are designed
for the 10 year storm. Runoff in excess of the design flow of streets must be carried in storm drains or ditches. Storm drains are designed for the 25 year storm. Lined and unlined open
Channels are designed for the 25 year storm. Maximum side slope for open channels =3:1 11aximum velocity for unlined channels = 6 ft/sec Culverts and bridges are designed for the 25
or 50 year storm depending on the crossing involved. Alleys are designed for the 5 year storm. (69) SUGAR LAND Subdivision Regulations Oesign discharge by the Rational Method Design
frequency storms: a. interior drainage systems = 5 years b. 'najor di tches and structures = 25 years Maximum gutter slope = .0025 ft/ft Maximum inlet spacing =600 ft Allowable inlet
capacity is set at 1.0 cfs per foot length with a Sin. throat height. Minimum storm drain diameter = 15 in. Maximum manhole spacing = 1000 ft. Minimum grade for open channels = .001
ftl ft Maximum grade for open Channels = .020 ft/ft 53 
(71 ) TEMPLE Proposed Subdivision Ordinance Design discharge by the Rational Method Table of design frequency storms and time of concentrations Table of runoff coefficients Maximum permissible
spread of water on streets: a. Neighborhood collectors and arterials -2 lanes must remain open. b. Residential collector -1 lane must remain clear. c Residential streets -flow depths
limited to 6 in. at the curb. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Lowest floor elevation -at or above the 100 year flood plain Land use requirements in the floodways (72) TEXARKAHA Mi
nimum ,Drainage Criteria Maximum permissible spread of water on streets: a. Arterials -one 12 ft. lane in each direction must remain open b. Collectors -one 12 ft. lane must remain open.
c. Residentials -maximum depth not to exceed 6 in. or the roadway centerljne Design storm for streets is 2 years. Open channels are designed for the 10 year storm. Maximum side slopes
for open channels: a. 3:1 for unlined b. 1.5:1 for lined Culverts and bridges are deSigned for the 10 year storm. The design storm must not create inundation greater than 8 in. at the
roadway centerline. Runoff rates after development must be controlled to predevelopment rates. 54 
TEXARKANA (cont.) Flood Prevention Ordinance Lowest floor elevation: at or above the lOU year flood plain Land use restrictions in the floodways (73) TYLER Drainage Standards Storm Runoff
Design discharge by the Rational Method Table of runoff coefficients and inlet times IOF curves for Tyler !'Iow in Streets Permissible spredd of water: a. one lane must remain open during
a 5 year storm. b. water can be no higher than the top of curb for a 25 year storm Graphs and charts showing capacities or streets Inlets Must be adequate to pass the 25 year storm.
Capacity of drop inlets based on weir equations. Capacity of grate inlets based on orifice equations. Capacity reduction allowed for blockage: a. 10% (drop inlets) b. 40% (grate inlets)
Storm Drains Design frequency 􀁾􀀠25 years Minimum diameter = 18 in. Table of minimum grades for various pipe diameters Table of Manning's N Hydraulic Grade Line must be 6 in. below
ground surface. Open Channels Design frequency = 50 years Minimum freeboard = 1 ft. Mininlum depth '" 4 ft. 55 
TYLER (cont.) Culverts Cui verts across residential streets are designed for a 25 year storm. Culverts across thoroughfares are desiyned for a 50 year storm. Flood and Erosion Control
Ordinance Lowest floor elevation = 1 ft. above the 100 year flood plain (75) VICTORIA Subdivision Ordinance Underground facilities designed for the 5 year storm. Trunk mains and outfalls
designed for the 25 year storm. Manholes or junction boxes can be located no more than 500 ft. apart. Minimum diameter of closed conduits: 18 in. Construction Specifications Drainage
facilities designed in accordance with the City drainage manuals. Ponding of water on streets limited to: a. 10 ft. for minor access or collector streets, b. 20 ft. for arterial streets
with velocities not exceeding 10 ft/sec. Design frequencies: a. 5 years for residential areas b. 10 years for commercial/industrial areas Pipe soffits (inside top) will be placed at
the same elevation where changes in diameter occur. A larger pipe will not discharge into a smaller pipe. 56 
Survey of Drainage Problems of Cities in Texas 1. What are the most significant drainage problems faced by your city? Pop: 100,000 + (14 responses) a. street flooding b. old, inadequate
drainage systems c. lack of master drainage plan d. flash flooding e. administrative problems f. flat terrain Pop: 50,000 -99,999 (14 responses) ·a. inadequate facilities in older areas
b. development in the flood plains c. erosion and sedimentation Pop: 25,000 -49,999 (13 responses) a. inadequate facilities b. street flooding c. flash flooding d. erosion and sedimentation
e. flooding of homes and businesses Pop: 10,000 -24,999 (22 responses) a. residential flooding b. street flooding c. outdated drainage structures d. lack of drainage facilities e. flood
waters originating.outside the City Pop: less than 10,000 (13 responses) a. street flooding b. runoff entering the City from outside watersheds c. poor construction of drainage facilities
d. old drainage facilities e. lack of drainage facilities f. flat topography 58 
1. a. What are the principle causes of these problems? Pop: 100,000 + a. increased development b. lack of regulations c. buildings in the 100 year flood plaind. lack of general knowledge
about drainage e. poor maintenance f. poor planning Pop: 50,000 -99,999 a. failure to recognize the magnitude of the problem b. lack of long range planning c. lack of policies or ordinances
d. extensive/rapid development e. lack of fUnding f. high construction costs Pop. 25,000 -49,999 a. lack of pUblic concern b. poor planning and design c. lack of regular maintenance
d. rapid development e. development in the flood plains f. lack of standards and ordinances Pop. 10,000 -24,999 a. development in the flood plain b. lack of proper maintenance c. improper
design d. lack of funds e. flat topography f. rapid development g. little or no planning h. no drainage policy or guidelines i. insufficient capacities of drainage facilities Pop. less
than 10,000 a. inadequate drainage facilities b. fncreased development and chang; ng l.iiidtise c. lack of knowledge by previous city officials d. lack of public interest !:i9 
1. b. What measures have been taken to address these problems? Pop: 100 ,000 + a. erosion control practices b. large capital improvement projects c. new and stricter regulationsd. masterplanning
e. upgrading existing facilities f. control on development g. improved maintenance Pop: 50,000 -99,999 a. requiring developers to provide comprehensive drainage,·plans that show how
proposed development will affect natural drainage b. channelization of waterways c. upgrading design criteria d. raise citizen awareness e. parallel drainage systems (new systems alongside
old systems) f. remove and replace old 􀁤􀁲􀁾􀁩􀁮􀁡􀁧􀁥􀀠facilities g. requiring on-site detention h. development of a drainage manual i. masterplanning j. new drainage ordinances k.
stricter design standards I. elevate houses and structures above the flood plains m. I ining of channels n. initiation of a Stormwater Management Program Pop: 25,000 -49,999 a. development
of a drainage manual b. requiring on-site detention c. channel improvements and ROW acquisition d. adoption of new City ordinances and standards Pop: 10,000 -24,999 a. diversion projects
b. acquisition of new eqUipment c. periodic maintenance d. beginning the use of detention e. increasing City staff f. masterplanning g. drainage improvement projects h. adoption of drainage
criteria Pop: less than 10,000 a. maintenance problems and replacement dealt with as needed b. requiring engineering studies c. requiring storm drains and curbs in new developments d.
inspection for compliance with ordinance 60 
2. Does your city participate in the fEMA flood insurance program? Pop: 100,000 + Yes -14 No -° Pop: 50,000 -99,999 Yes -14 No -° Pop: 25,000 -49,000 Yes -11 No -2 Pop: 10,000 -24,999
Yes -20 No -2 Pop: less than 10,000 Yes -9 No ;.. 4 3. Has your city enacted drainage regulations/policies to control flooQing? Pop: 10U,000 + Yes -13 No -1 Pop: 50,000 -99,999 Yes -13
No -1 Pop: 25,000 -49,000 Yes -10 No -3 Pop: 10,000 -24,999 Yes -16 No -6 Pop: less than 10,000 Yes -3 No -10 3. a. How long have these regulations been in effect? Pop: 100,000 + Generally
between 10 and 20 years. Some within the past 5 years. Pop: 50,000 -99,999 Generally between 5 to 10 years. Some within the past 5 years. Pop: 25,000 -49,999 Generally 10 years or less.
Pop: 10,000 -24,999 Generally 1 to 10 years. Most within the past 5 years. Pop: less than 10,000 Varies between 4 and 25 years depending on the ordinance. 61 
3. b. How are these regulations enforced? Pop: all size cities a. building or construction permits b. through the platting process c. inspection during construction 3. c. 00 you feel
these regulations are adequate? If not, what do you believe is necessary to improve their effectiveness? Pop: 100,000 + Generally yes, but there are areas for improvement such as with
detention. Pop: 50,000 -99,999 About ha I f of the responses i ndi cated the regul ations were adequate, dnd half were not. The greatest need seems to be more detailed regulations with
fewer loopholes. Also, the areas of detention and erosion/sedimentation need to be addressed. Pop: 25,000 -49,999 Approximately hdl f feel the regul ations are adequate and hal f feel
they need to be improved, especially in regard to detention. Pop: 10,000 -24,999 Many of the public works personnel who fi I led out this survey did not respond to this question. Of
those who did, most felt the drainage pol icies of their ci ty were adequate considering the popul ation ation and rate of development. Responses from some of the more rapidly developing
cities in this popul ation range indicate a need for more specific and detailed drainage guidelines. Pop: less than 10,000 Al I respondants indicated that the drainage policies of their
city were adequate. 62 
4. Which city staff member is responsible for the fol lowing drainage issues? Responses to the part of this question regardiny job title were quite varied and would be difficult to list
in an organized fashion. The fi rst three issues 􀁡􀁢􀁯􀁶􀁾􀀠were most often deal t with by the Ci ty's 􀁥􀁮􀀧􀁾􀁩􀁮􀁥􀁥􀁲􀁩􀁮􀁹􀀠staff or by the Oirector of Public Works. Many small
cities indicated tney used consultants for deSign, 􀁲􀁥􀁶􀁩􀁥􀁜􀁾􀀬􀀠and inspection because there were not enough qua I Hied staff members available to undertake such aSSignments. The
issue of maintenance was most often 11andled throuyh the City's Street Oellartment with the Street Superintendant beiny the person in charge of seeing that such work was done. A few
of the larger cities had separdte divisions that were strictly responsible for the mai ntenance of the storm sewer system. Number of rersonnel POll: l!lO,OOO + Ran;)e i\verage Design
of facilities 2-75 17 Review of drainage designs 1-100 15 Construction inspection 4-90 22 Maintenance of of facilities 5-200 * 94 Pop: 5U,OUO -99,999 I(ange Desiyn of facilities 1-2U
6 Review of drainage designs 0-20 3 Construction inspection 0-20 6 Maintenance of facilities 8-65 * 22 Pop: 25,UOO -49,999 Range Average Oesiyn of facilities 1-30 7 Review of drainage
designs 0-30 6 Construction inspection 0-50 13 Maintenance of facilities 0-50 * 2\l Pop: 10,000 -24,999 Range Average Oesiyn of facilities 0-6 2 Review of drainaye designs 0-3 2 Construction
inspection 1-25 3 􀁍􀁡􀁩􀁾􀁴􀁥􀁮􀁤􀁮􀁣􀁥􀀠of facilities 1-25 * 7 * In some cities this number includes the entire street department staff. 63 
Pop: less than 10,000 Range Average Design of facilities 0-3 1 Review of drainage desi9ns 0-6 1 Construction inspection 0-6 2 Maintenance of facilities 0-8 * 3 * In some cities this
number includes the entire street department staff. 5. Does your clty use detention as a runoff control alternative? Pop: 100,000 + Yes -10 No -4 Pop: 50,000 -99,999 Yes -8 No -6 Pop:
25,000 -49,999 Yes -5 No -8 Pop: 10,000 -24,999 Yes -5 No -17 Pop: less than 10,000 Yes-1 No -12 5. a. Is there a systematic pI an for the location and use of on-site detention ponds?
Pop: 100,000 + Yes -0 No -10 Randomly located throughout the watershed Pop: 50,000 -99,999 Yes -1 No -7 A location plan is being used in Port Arthur Pop: 25,000 -49,999 Yes -0 No -5
Pop: 10,000 -24,999 Yes -2 No -3 A I ocati on plan is being used in Round Rock and Seguin I Pop: less than 10,000 Yes -0 No -1 5. b. What problems have you experienced with the deSign,
construction. and maintenance of these facilities? Pop: 100,000 + a. excessive siltation and vegetative growth b. maintenance of banks c. accumulation of debris at outlet d. inadequate
allowance for low flows e. public opposition 64 
Pop: 50.000 -99.999 a. weed controI b. politics c. 􀁾􀁣􀁣􀁥􀁳􀁳􀀠for maintenance d. erosion e. standing water f. safety g. lack of inspection to ensure proper construction h. ineffective
due to flat topography Several cities in this 􀁰􀁯􀁰􀁵􀁬􀁾􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀠group have not used detention until recently and have not yet experienced any problems. Pop: 25.0UO -49.999 a. lack
of inspection during construction b. lack of funds for maintenance c. lack of available area d. poor design by consultants Pop: 10,UOU -24,999 a. one city indicated that they felt detention
does not work very 􀁜􀁾􀁬􀁬􀀠Other cities 􀁦􀁲􀁾􀁮􀀠this population group that use detention have not had enough experience with it to 􀁣􀁾􀁮􀁥􀁮􀁴􀀠on the associated problems. Pop:
less than 10.000 a. keeping outflow lines clean 5. c. Has any measure of pollution abatement been made at the detention ponds? If so, please comment. Three cities responded that some
measure of pollution abatement had been attempted at detention facilities. These cities were: 1. 1. Austin 2. San Antonia 3. Port Arthur Austin and San Antonio have tried to fi 1ter
the water in detention ponds to prevent the infiltration of pollutants into underground aquifers. Port Arthur has attempted to prevent polluted inflow fran entering the detention ponds.
. 65 
6. How does your city fund the construction of new drainage facilities not installed by developers? Pop: 100,000 + a. Capital Improvement Programs b. Community Development Grants c.
bond issues d. general tax revenues Pop: 50,000 -99,999 a. bond issues b. Community Oevelopment Grants c. general funds d. revenue sharing programs Pop: 25,000 -49,999 a. bond issues
b. general funas c. developer contributions for off-site facilities d. Capital Improvement Projects Pop: 10,000 -24,999 a. Federal funds (ASC) b. bond issues c. city budget/general fund
d. Municipal Utility Oistrict e. sales tax revenue f. interest from money on deposit Pop: less than 10,000 a. bond issue b. city budget/general fund c. private funds (this response was
from Granbury) d. revenue sharing 6. a. How is routine maintenance funded? Pop: 100,000 + a. general budget b. street maintenance budget c. drainage utility fee (this response was from
Austin) 66 
Pop: 50,000 -99,999 a. general fund b. Ad Valorem tax c. annual operating budget d. transportation division budget Pop: 25,000 -49,999 a. general fund b. public works budget Pop: 10,000
-24,999 a. street department budget b. city budget/general fund c. Ad Valorem tax Pop: less than 10,000 a. general fund/city budget b. street and drainage fund 6. b. What advantages/disadvantages
do contracted maintenance hold? Pop: 100,000 + (1 city response) a. contracted maintenance is more costly b. timely and adequate maintenance is difficult to ensure Pop: 50,000 -99,999
a. provides regular maintenance b. high cost c. city has no control over the maintenance d. poor workmanship Pop: 25,000 -49,999 (1 city response) a. lack of foresight to specify and
fund the exact amount of maintenance required on an annual basis b. high cost 67 
Pop: 10,000 -24,999 a. contractors have the personnel and equipment to perform the work b. assures regular maintenance c. very costly d. inspection by the City is required to assure
the work is satisfactorily completed Pop: less than 10,000 a. more timely and efficient work than with City personnel b. better equipment and personnel c. very small cities do not have
the equipment or personnel and contracted maintenance is the only feasible alternative 7. What are the most common problems you have experienced with un1i ned/natura I channeIs? •••_.
wi th I i ned channeI s1 Un.l ined Lined a. siltation a. failure of concrete liningb. erosion b. siltation c. vegetation c. installation costs d. debris accumulation d. erosion behind lining e. not accessible
for maintenance e. vegetation f. insects dnd pests around f. high repair costs standing water g. erosion at outfalls g. bank sluffing h. buckling of the invert h. controlling flow lines
7. a. How are you addressing these problems? I'op: 100,000 + a. sodding on natural/unlined channels b. weed abatement programs c. dredging or grading d. gabion structures e. limiting
design velocities and side slopes f. regular maintenance programs 6l:J 
, Pop: 50,000 -99,999 a. pilot channels b. limiting maximum velocities c. sodding d. chemical control of vegetation e. providing access rampsf. setting minimum grades g. yabion structures
h. limiting side slopes i. scheduled maintenance programs Pop: 25,000 -49,999 a. obtaining special machinery b. acquisition of accessways c. development of regular maintenance programs
d. 􀁳􀁯􀁤􀁤􀁩􀁮􀁧􀀯􀁨􀁹􀁤􀁲􀁾􀁯􀁵􀁬􀁣􀁨􀁩􀁮􀀹􀀠e. inspection of construction f. installation of energy dissipators Pop: 10,000 -24,999 a. periodically devote 100% of street dept. to
channel cleanout b. seedi ng c. concrete lining of earth channels d. repairing of severe problems e. chemical control of vegetationf. maintenance on an as-needed basis Pop: less than
10,000 a. establishing a minimum grade b. construction of retaining walls c. regular maintenance d. concrete lining of earth channels e. mowing and cleaning 8. What are the most common
problems you have experienced with storm sewers? a. siltation h. insufficient capacity b. blockage i • too few manholes for access c. construction costs j. debris accumulation at inlets
d. pipe/joint separation k. poor mapping of storm drains e. erosion at outlet structures I • lack of overflow facilities f. chemical attack m. flat grades g. cracking 69 
8. a. How are you addressing these problems? Pop: 100,000 + a. periodic checks to remove blockage b. construction inspection c. stricter construction specifications d. design for larger
storms e. only use when strictly necessary Pop: 50,000 -99,999 a. set minimum diameter pipe b. design for larger storms c. stronger inspection d. filter fabric around the joints e. regular
maintenance and replacement programs f. erosion control g. development of Stormwater Management Programs Pop: 25,000 -49,999 a. occasional cleanup of inlets b. replacement of broken
lines c. installation of additional manholes d. schedUled maintenance e. policing critical areas during heavy rains f. review design parameters Pop: 10,000 -24,999 a. cleaning inlets
when needed b. regular maintenance c. detailed review of the design d. inspection during rains e. replacement as funds permit f. masterplanning Pop: less than 10,000 a. regular maintenance
program b. clean inlets during rains c. repair and replace trouble spots 7U 
9. What type of erosion/sedimentation control techniques are most commonly used in your city during construction operations? How are these enforced? Pop: 100,000 + a. hay bale dikes
b. retention ponds c. stilling basins d. energy dissipators e. filter roll dikes f. brush berms g. rock berms Very few responses addressed the enforcement question. Austin requires that
E&S controls be included on development plans and inspectors monitor development for compliance. Pop: 50,000 -99,999 a. energy dissipators at outlets b. hay bales c. sediment traps d.
diversion dikes e. swales f. filter fabrics g. vegetative matting The 􀁥􀁮􀁦􀁯􀁲􀁣􀁾􀁮􀁥􀁮􀁴􀀠question was only addressed by Longview where E&S controls were monitored by the City Engineer.
Pop: 25,000 -49,999 a. hay bales b. silt fences c. filter roll dikes d. rock or brush dikes e. sedimentation ponds Enforcement was handled through site inspection (San Marcos). Pop:
10,000 -24,999 a. haybales b. seedi ng Enforcement was handled through site inspection (Round Rock). Pop: less than 10,OUO No E&S control techniques were reported by cities in this popuYation
group. 71 
9. a. How effective do you feel these techniques are in reducing sediment transport/deposits? Pop: 100,000 + Responses range from moderate to very sufficient. The effectiveness is dependant
on the construction and maintenance of E&S control structures. Pop: 50,000 -99,999 Responses range from very effective to little or no effect. The effectiveness is dependant on the construction
and maintenance of E&S control structures. Pop: 25,000 -49,999 Reasonably effective if constructed properly. San Marcos is moving away from hay bales except for minor construction. Pop:
10,000 -24,999 Moderate to marginal effectiveness reported by the cities that responded. In Lancaster, the effectiveness is better because final acceptance is upheld pending response
to E&S corrections. Pop: less than 10,000 No responses 10. Does your city use computers in the desi9n and ana 1ys is of dra i nage facilities? What type? How extenSively are they used?
Pop: 100,000 + Yes -5 No -9 Nine cities from this population group of fourteen do not use computers at al I. The remaining cities use a combination of mainframe and mi c rocomputers.
IBM and Tl mi crocompute rs were the on 1y two types listed by this group. The use of computers in the design and analysiS of drainage facilities is extensive in some of the larger cities,
but others are only now obtaining computers and learning how to use them. Pop: 50,000 -􀁾􀀹􀀬􀀹􀀹􀀹􀀠Yes -6 No -8 All cities from this population group that used computers had microcomputers
only. The ISM-PC was the most com,mon type. Other computers ment ioned were the Apple MacIntosh and the Hewl ett-Packard. Most cities did not use thei r computers on a 1arge scal e except
for Victoria which indicated very extensive use of its computer. 72 
Pop: 25,OUO -49,999 Yes -5 No -8 Al I computers used by this group were microcomputers. The IBM-PC was the most common type indicated by the respondants, however one city repl ied that
it used an Osborne computer. In all cases the computers were being used only moderately. Many are just be':linning to use them for drainage work. Pop: 10,UUO -24,999 Yes -3 No -18 Uf
the three cities USing computers from this group. one was a remote terminal connected to a mainframe computer, one was an IBM-PC, and the other did not indicate what type was being used.
Pop: less than 10,UOO No cities from this group made use of computers. 10. a. What prograas are most helpful and frequently used? Please provide a short description? Pop: 10U,OOO + a.
HEC-l e. TR-66 b. HEC-2 f. DAMBIlEAK c. TR-20 g. A&M Watershed Model d. TR-55 Pop: 50,OUU -99,999 a. HEC-1 d. Flow Network Program b. HEC-2 e. Spreadsheets c. Storm Sewer Hydraulic f.
Standard Step Program for Analysis backwater computations Pop: 25,OUO -49,999 a. Spreadsheets b. HEC-2 c. In-house programs for runoff calculations, channel sizing, and flood routing
Pop: 10,000 -24,999 a. lotus 1-2-3 b. HEC-1 c. HEC-2 Pop: less than 10,UOU no responses 73 
11. General Comments: a. It would help to have state funding for some drainage related work. b. Have the state universities such as Texas A&M start a hel p program where school projects
could be used for gaining data and making recommendations to cities regarding drainage problems. c. There is a need for state laws on erosion and sedimentation. d. 􀁲􀁾􀁯􀁲􀁥􀀠research
is needed on erosion control and the design of hydraulic facilities. e. Smaller cities would like to adopt good drainage policies/ordinances and are looking to other similar sized cities
for good models. 74 
} \ FaRmeRS BRanCI-f October 3. 1994 Mrs. Barbara DeVries Flores 14353 Tanglewood Drive Farmers Branch. Texas 75234 Dear Mrs. DeVries 􀁲􀁬􀁯􀁲􀁾􀁳􀀺􀀠In response to your letter of September
8. 1994, I can only report that your Jrainage way, botll before and after construction at' your dam, has been a part of the storm drainagc system of the area. 'rlle Ntonn sewer pipe
that flows into your lake was designed and constructed in llccordnnce wilh applicable state law and appropriate engineering design criteria. The area that drains into your lake has never
changed; the slOnn sewer only conveys to your lake the storm water that previously was conveyed in the street system. Your lake, as does every privati! and public lake, is a sediment
trap that collects eroded seuilnellt, trash and debris. The eroded soil, lrash and debris that accumulates in your lake does not originate from the City; its source is from other private
property and lilterbugs upstream. The Jake wns constructed on private property solely for the the benefit of 􀁴􀁨􀁾􀀠property owner. 􀁔􀁨􀁾􀀠City cannot enter your pnlperty to make improvements
or ff;!mOVe sediment, trash am! debris because it has no rights to your property. I woulu submit the City would I)ot consider accepting any rights to your property. such as an easemem.
because tbere would be no public benefit. I uncJerstand your frustmtion with the sediment, trash and debris, but the City is unable to assist you. Sincerely. tt::74---· Jerome V. Murawski.
Jr., P.E. City Engineer JVM/nm cc: John Burke, Assistant City Manager Mchran DudgoBtar, P.E., Project Manager City of Farmers Branch P.O. Box 819010 Farmers Sranch. Tux.s 75381-9010
214f247-3131 Linkod in Friendship 􀁷􀁩􀁾􀁨􀀠District of Bass"tlaw. Nottingham.h,re. [Orear. i:lNtain Bnd 􀁇􀁩􀁉􀁉􀀧􀁢􀁳􀁾􀁏􀀬􀀠G''''llll,lI'V. Joined in 00 Econorric Alliance with Mi":,rkham.
C.;ltloon ;jf1d 􀁇􀁉􀁉􀁆􀁬􀁦􀀱􀁒􀁴􀁵􀁾􀀬􀀠Mnxic.o. 
SENT BY: 10-26-3'1 􀁍􀁁􀁉􀁌􀁋􀁏􀁏􀁍􀁾􀀠.. '. :' .; './," : t "". 14353 Tanglewood Or. 􀁆􀁡􀁲􀁭􀁥􀁲􀁾􀀠Branch, Texas 75234 (214) 630-6556 day (214) 620-2473 evening september a, 1994
Jero.rne Murawski City engineer City of Farmers Branch 1'. O. Box 819010 Farmers Branch, Texas 75381 Dear Mr. Murawski, This letter will confirm our 􀁭􀁥􀁥􀁴􀁩􀁮􀁾􀀠of June 21, 1994.
I met w1th you to discuss the problems caused by your culvert of storm water draininq into my private pond at 14353 Tanplewood ln Farmers Branch. Storm water from Tanglewood, Harsh Lane
and Addison drain into this culvert. DUe to the increase in development along Marsh Lane in Addison, an increase 1n storm water and sediment has plagued my property in increasinQ proportions.
I had to replace the small concrete dam which had been in place since about the 1950's for a cost of 510,000. I am required to spend from 1 to 4 hours on average weekly to barely keep
up with the cans. bottles. plastic cups, plastic bags, styrofoam, wood 􀁰􀁾􀁥􀁣􀁥􀁳􀀬􀀠etc. that float in daily. I 􀁨􀁡􀁶􀁾􀀠requested relief from you for this unreasonable burden. Even
though the pond is private 􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁰􀁥􀁲􀁾􀁹􀀬􀀠your aUmping of storm water onto my private property constitutes a delegation of responsibility and problems ana a shifting of burden tor
Which I <1m not offered any assist:a,nce, any recourse, or any relief. According to Juan Ibarra of the 􀁔􀁥􀁾􀁡􀁳􀀠Natural Resource Conservation Commission. my private pond is the sediment
trap for the area, 􀁳􀁩􀁮􀁣􀁾􀀠neither the Farmers Branch development design nor the Addison development have provided a 􀁳􀁥􀁤􀁩􀁭􀁥􀁮􀁾􀀠trap for the development that has occurred
in recent years. It is unreasonable to 􀁢􀁵􀁲􀁾􀁥􀁮􀀠a private Citizen of very limited means with the raqinq floodwater that streams after even a small rain shower. alona with the mountain
of trash 􀁦􀁬􀁯􀁷􀀱􀁮􀁾􀀠from the stree1:s. You stated that because the proper1:Y is private that you would not provide any assistance with this problem, even thouah the problem is caused
caused by your culvert, and its expansion in 1983. You stated that you would not provide any method of trappinQ t:he 􀀬􀀬􀀬􀀮􀁾􀀠trash that accumulates or assist in its cleanup. You
did not offer to do anything about the sediment. YOU stated that the 
􀁍􀁁􀁉􀁌􀁒􀁏􀁏􀁍􀁾􀀠2143316643:# 41 4:It:NT tft: 10-26-34 􀁾􀁥􀁰􀁡􀁩􀁾􀁳􀀠needed for the dam were not your problem, and implied that my fence which has been in place at least since 1980
caused the break. You did not acknowledge any responsibility for the increase in storm water that I have experienced. or offer any method of relief. I have altered the fence so that
storm water ca'n flow more freely. Althouqh I appreCiate your time. I find your level of help at this point to be unacceptable. I request that you revisit this situation and seek a solution
and an abatement of the extreme nature of this encroachment. I look forward to our next conversation and 􀁭􀁥􀁥􀁴􀁩􀁮􀁾􀀮􀀠Sine ely, 7#-I!E rI L,"'-/Barbara De Vries Flores \ 
engineers surveyors 2929 N. Central Expressway. Suite 100 • Richardson, Texas 75080 (214) 680-3037 • Fax 680-3052 September 25, 1996 Mr. John Baumgartner City Engineer Town of Addisol).
5300 Belt Line Road PO Box 144 Addison, Texas 75001-0144 Re: Comfort Inn Detention Dear Mr. Baumgartner, The following shows the calculations on how we came up with the storage required
for the detention pond for the Comfort Inn in Addison. The plans show the proposed grades and a storm sewer system has been included to drain the site to the pond. WP\DOCS\625401.COR

COMFORT INN DETENTION CALCULATION PRESENT CONDITION: C 0.35'" TC = 15 minutes Q = 0.35 X 7.60 x 1.96 = 5.21 cfs I100 7.60 In/hour'" A = 1.96 AC FUTURE CONDITION: C = 0.95 TC 15 minutes
Q = 7.6 x 0.95 x 1.96 = 14.15 cfs'" I100 = 7.60 In/hour A = 1.96 AC VARIOUS DURATION STORMS: 20 minutes I= 6.8 Q = 0.95 x 1.96 x 6.80 '" 12.66 cfs 30 minutes I= 5.75 Q = 0.95. x 1.96
x 5.75 = 10.71 cfs 40 minutes I= 5.0 Q = 0.95 x 1.96 x 5.0 = 9.31 cfs 50 minutes I= 4.45 Q = 0.95 x 1.96 x 4.45 = 8.29 cfs 60 minutes I= 3.91 Q = 0.95 x 1.96 x 3.91 = 7.28 cfs 70 minutes
I= 3.60 Q = 0.95 x 1.96 x 3.60 = 6.70 cfs 80 minutes I= 3.30 Q = 0.95 x 1.96 x 3.30 = 6.14 cfs 90 minutes I= 3.10 Q 0.95 x 1.96 x 3.10 = 5.77 cfs'" Maximum storage volume is determined
by deducting the volume of run off released during the time of inflow from the total inflow for each duration. INFLOW = Standard duration times respective peak discharge times 60 seconds/minutes.
OUTFLOW = Half of the respective inflow duration times control release discharge times times 60 seconds/minutes. 15 minutes Inflow 15 x 14.15 x 60 = 12,735 cf Outflow 0.5 x 5.21 x 30
x 60 = 4,689 cf Storage 8,046 cf 20 minutes Inflow 20 x 12.66 x 60 15,192 cf'" Outflow 0.5 x 5.21 x 35 x 60 = 5,470 cf Storage 9,722 cf 30 minutes Inflow 30 x 10.71 x 60 = 19,278 cf
Outflow 0.5 x 5.21 x 45 x 60 = 7,033.5 cf Storage 12,244.5 cf 
40 minutes 􀁉􀁾􀀠6.8 Outflow Storage 40 x 0.5 x 9.31 5.21 x x 60 55 x 60 􀁾􀀠22,344 cf -8,569.5 cf 13,747.5 cf 50 minutes InfLow Outflow Storage 50 x 0.5 x 8.29 5.21 x x 60 65 x 60 􀁾􀀠24,870
cf 􀁾􀀱􀀰􀀬􀀱􀀵􀀹􀀮􀀵􀀠cf 14,710.5 cf 60 minutes Inflow Outflow Storage 60 x 0.5 x 7.28 5.21 x x 60 75 x 60 =26,208 cf =11,722.5 cf 14,485.5 cf 70 minutes Inflow Outflow Storage 70 x
0.5 x 6.70 x 5.21 x 60 85 x 60 = 28,140 cf -13,285.5 cf 14,854.5 cf 80 minutes Inflow Outflow Storage 80 x 0.5 x 6.14 5.21 x x 60 95 x 60 = 29,472 cf -l4,848.5 cf 14,623.5 cf 90 minutes
Inflow Outflow Storage 90 x 0.5 x 5.77 x 5.21 x 60 105x 60 = 31,158 cf -16,411.5 cf 14,746.5 cf Maximum storage volume occurs at 70 minutes storm V = 14,854cfs POND AREA = 3127 14854
+ 3127 = 4.72 depth As is shown the maximum volume required is for a seventy (70) minute storm. The pond is designed to hold the seventy (70) minute storm with a 1.0 foot freeboard.
The plans have been delived to Dallas Water Utilities. We should have approval from Dallas Water Water utilities in a very short time. Please review the plans and contact me if you have
any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Tom R. Cravens, PE Engineering Manager Wp\dOC.\6Z5401.COR 
CITY ENGINEER'S OFFICE (214) 4S0-281l6 Po.iOfllce Ilo:< 144 Addisoo. T....1SOO1 16801W_e MEMORANDUM September 26, 1991 To: Ron Whitehead, city Manager f(;'{!; From: John Baumgartneu,
City Engineerl-9-lG -fl RE: . Runoff from Addison to Bent Tree Country Club Bent Tree Country club and Mr. Maurice Price I have drafted the attached letters in response to the complaints
by Bent Tree .Country cl ub and Mr. Maurice Price of Dall as. In developing this response I called both parties on the phone to discuss the problems they were experiencing and I made
two separate site visits. I believe that Addison's program for controlling trash and debris is among the most progressive in the metroplex, if not the state. The attached fact sheet
is intended to provide you with additional background information. Please call me if you have any questions or need additional information. JRB/rp Attachments 
BENT TREE COUNTRY CLUB WATERSHED FACT SHEET SEPTEMBER 26, 1991 1. Trash and debris contributed to the watershed comes from both Dallas and Addison. 2. Erosion and sedimentation is a
natural process that occurs on streams and drainageways unless something is done to counteract the forces of nature. 3. The developers have created a situation that exasperates some
of the probl ems associated wi th urban watersheds by moving the creek, installing dams and culverts and by removing the natural vegetation. 4. I drove through the Addison portion of
the watershed and did not notice any blatant code violations. 5. Addison could step up street sweeping and code enforcement activities in this area and eliminate some of the trash and
debris. 6. The ul timate solution woul d be to install some type of treatment of stormwater runoff. Austin is the only city in Texas that I am aware of that requires treatment of stormwater
runoff. I can provide more details of their program if you desire. 
September 26, 1991 Mr. Robert J. Leenhouts, CCM Bent Tree Country club 5201 Westgrove Drive Dallas, TX 75248 Dear Mr. Leenhouts, CCM Thank you for informing us of the problems you are
experiencing regarding your drainageway. The Town is very aware of the probl ems associated with urban waterways and have adopted the following programs, practices, and policies to mitigate
the affects of development: L Ordinance requiring all land owners to maintain drainageways through their property. 2. Enforcement of litter ordinance. 3. Enforcement of dumpster ordinance
requiring all trash and debris be secured. 4. Progressive street sweeping program. 5. Active program to eliminate weeds, grass and debris. It should also be noted that a significant
portion of the watershed generating the trash and debris is located wi thin the City of Dallas. I believe that Addison's programs, practices, and policies are some of the most proactive
and effective in the Metroplex. However, the Town is interested in any suggestions that you may have to economically and safely reduce the affects of urbanization on your waterway. If
you have any additional questions or concerns, please call John Baumgartner, City Engineer (214/450-2886) or myself. Sincerely, Town of Addison Ron Whitehead City Manager RW/rp 
september 26, 1991 Mr. J. Maurice Price, Jr. Price Distributing Company 1212 South Clay Street Ennis, Texas 75119 Dear Mr. Price: Thank you for informing us of the problems you are experiencing
regarding your drainageway. The Town is very aware of the problems associated with urban waterways and have adopted the following programs, practices, and policies to mitigate the affects
of development: . 1. Ordinance requiring all· Iand owners to maintain drainageways through their property. 2. Enforcement of litter ordinance. :3. Enforcement of dumpster ordinance requiring
all trash and debris be secured. 4. Progressive street sweeping program. 5. Active program to eliminate weeds, grass and debris. It should also be noted that a significant portion of
the watershed generating the trash and debris is located within the City of Dallas. I believe that Addison's programs, practices, and policies are some of the most proactive and effective
in the Metroplex. However, the Town is interested in any suggestions that you may have to economically and safely reduce the affects of urbanization on your waterway. If you have any
additional questions or concerns, please call John Baumgartner, City Engineer (214/450-2886) or myself. Sincerely, Town of Addison Ron Whitehead City Manager RW/rp 
􀁾􀀠Genuine Draft PRICE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY August 29, 1991 Mr. Ron Whitehead City Manager Town of Addison P. o. Box 144 Addison, Texas 75001 Dear Mr. Whitehead: I am writing you concerning
the creek that comes into the Bent Tree country Club property, across the tollway from the Sun Belt Savings and Loan building. This creek runs from Addison Airport, then under and next
to some apartments,underqround by Sunbelt Savings,and comes out on the east side of the Dallas North Tollway. After a rain, all the trash and garbage from Addison comes to rest in my
back yard and my neighbors. OUr yard is currently full of trash from Addison and I would be glad to show it to you. I would appreciate you calling me at 227-1092, so I may make an appointment
with you to discuss ways you can keep Addison's trash from ending up in my back yard. I am very hopeful that after you see this problem, you will be as eager as I am to help clean up
this problem. J. 􀁾􀀬􀁃􀁌􀀠rice Price, Jr. 􀁾􀀠1212 South Clay Street, Ennis, Texas 75119 (214) 875·2697 
...... z:: • Bent Tree IWberl ]. uenh••,., CCM £m.tive Vice Presidenl 6Country Club c.nerat Manager July 1, 1991 Mr. Ron Whitehead City Manager Town of Addison P.O. Box 144 Addison,
TX 75001 !:ear Mr. Whitehead: I am writing concerning the creek, drainage area, that enters Bent Tree property after crossing under the tollway in the vicinity of our . -."" Hole #5.
This creek drains an area of Addison just west of the tollway. Our neighbors and the club are experiencing problems with extrerre flow levels and debris. During a heavy rain in May,
we had an unbelievable amount of trash, stumps and logs flowing through our area. This debris blocks our dam and could cause serious property darrage. I would like to have a meeting
regarding this issue wit:h you and your engineer. We would like to slow the flow and eliminate the trash if possible. I will call you within the next ten days to set a for this meeting.
Thank you for your concern with this matter. 71(:7ji/􀀮􀁬􀁦􀁩􀁊􀂷􀁾􀀧􀁾􀀠RJL/lm ee: Maurice Price date and location 5201 Weslgrov< Drive Dallo., TX 75248·2026 2.14-931-732.6 
JUL 3 0 1990 UNIVERSAL INVESTMENTS, INC. P.o. BOX 503 ADDISON, TEXAS 75001 (214) 931-1919 July 30, 1990 Mr. Ron Whitehead City Manager Town ofAddison Town Hall Addison, Texas 75001 Rt;:
Kellway Circle .. iviidway Dlllinage channel Dear Mr. Whitehead: This letter is written on behalf of this company in conjunction with three other parties whose property is adversely
impacted by the drainage channel in question. The parties are: Mr. John Neumayr ofJohn Neumayr, Inc., 16304 Midway; Mr. Arnold Levy who represents the undeveloped building site at approximately
4203 Kellway Circle; Mr. Bob Delk, President of Struckmeyer Corporation, 420 I Kellway; and Universal Investments, the owner of4201 Kellway. Over a period of time, the four of us have
come to realize tbe obvious threat to our properties by the overloaded drainage cbannel on the north side of our respective properties. During rainy seasous, and especially last spring,
it bas become apparent that the existing channel in it's present form is not sufficiently large enougb, or designed properly, to carry the mass of rnn-off from surrounding properties,
and nol necessarily from our properties. As a result, the rnn-offbas caused sufficient damage to the existing land fill and caused erosion up to as much as len to fifteen feet, as deep
as ten feet. Two buildings, i.e. Neumayr and Universal, are threatened by flood waters; Neumayi's fencing bas been damaged; Universal's concrete parking lot has been partly rendered
useless by the erosion; and an out-building bebind Universal's building is in danger of being washed away. The irony ofall tbis is that the flooding is not on our properties, for the
water shed coming into the channel is originating from the east, north and south of our properties, and more specificallYi, tbe Addison airport and surrounding properties. It is our
contention that it is the Town ofAddison's responsibility and obligation to correct this problerr: for tWo reasons: l) The water shed in question is town property, i.e. the airport,
Service Center, Center, etc. 2) The channel itself is owned not by any ofus, but it is owned by another party. 
Mr. Ron Whitehead July 30, 1990 Page Two It is our understanding that the town has commissioned an engineering study of this specific drainage problem (among others) and that study makes
certain recommendations. In reviewing that study by Espey, Huston & Associates, we note they mention the erosion that has occurred on the south side ofthe channel. Espey, Huston is apparently
not aware that over ten feet offill-dirt has been eroded since 1981 when we (Universal) purchased the property. Their report indicates that the channel erosion "threatens to undermine
an existing parking lot." Please understand that a substantial portion ofthat concreted parking lot has been undermined and that the concrete slab has cracked and a portion ofthe slab
is in danger ofbeing pulled away from main slab. The occupants, Strockmeyer, cannot use that portion ofthe parking area. Additionally, the fencing surrounding the Neumayr property has
been rendered useless due to the erosion, and the fence itself is in danger ofbeing washed from its current location into the channel. The Levy property has sustained a substantial amount
of erosion, therehy reducing the market value ofthat building site. The engineering report itself points out that the three 9 ft. x 6 ft. box culverts at Midway Road "do not have adequate
capacity ... ", "the backwater effect may impact the upstream channel capacity." This impaction has been occurring for years and thereby causing suhstantial erosion. We have personally
witnessed several times during heavy rain storms, where the water level in the channel reaches over the parking lot and drains to the south down the parking area. We respectfully request
that the Town of Addison place this drainage problem on its priority list, and implement the recommendations outlined in the engineering report. Len Di Giacomo, President Universal Investments,
Inc. cc: Mr. Greg Pynes, Town ofAddison Mr. John Neumayr, John Neumayr, Inc. Mr. Bob Delk, Struckmeyer COfpGration Mr. Arnold Levy P.S. We appreciate your meeting with us at your office
on Tuesday, July 31st at 2:30 p.m. 
􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀧􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁰􀁵􀁲􀁶􀁥􀁹􀁯􀁲􀁳of Fresh Seafood July 25, 1990 Mr. Ron Whitehead City Manager City of Addison Addison, Texas 75244 Dear Mr. Whitehead: I am the owner of a piece of property
on Kellway Circle, just to the east of Struckmeyer. As you may know, there has been serious erosion of the north side of my property due to water flow from the airport during periods
of heavy rainfall. As you may also know, the value of my property has dropped considerably since I bought it in 1985, so having my property washed away by runoff from the airport is
adding insult to injury as far as what the property is worth today. I expect the City of Addison. to do something to their property in the way of adequate drainage to prevent the city's
drainage from becoming a problem to me. Thank you for your help. Very truly yo /lP,"􀁾􀁪􀁪􀀠Arnold f..vy ALlsb 214/241·7500 • 1815 T rinily Valley Drive • FAX 214/243·3897 Carrollton,
Texas 75006 
RECEIVED-NOV 2 1/9£1) CITY MANAGER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (214) 450..2871 P()slOffice Box 144 􀁁􀁤􀁤􀁩􀁳􀁯􀁮􀁾Texas 75001 1680l Westgt'ove MEMORANDUM November 21,1995 To: Ron Whitehead
City Manager From: John R. Baumgartner, P Director ofPublic Work Re: 14798 Locrunvar Court Attached is a request to vacate three feet from a 5 􀁾􀀠fuot drainage easement along the back
property line. At this time staff is not aware of a use for this easement except for cross drairIage. Typically we would not object to pool encroachment to continue at the risk of the
owner and with the understanding that the encroachment would not be repeated in a future pool on this lot. The proposed buyer is reluctant to close without a clear title policy which
requires a vacation of the easement. Please call me ifyou have any questions or need additional infonnation. cc: Cheryl Williams 
SENT BY: SIlLT ;11-15-85 16:35 SfW LAND 􀁔􀁩􀁔􀁕􀀺􀁾􀀠8316643;# 11 7 􀁾􀁲􀀭􀁬􀀮􀀮􀁍􀀮􀁩􀁾􀀠sourhiveGt'foud1Jt'/a CIL 17062 P",,,ton Rood. Sult.e 100 • (1l14) 2iU!·!l/iUII •ImU.,o;, '1'<"""
75241!-l!:!02 • FAX (214) 248-$;;17 MII.RYAM II. SOLIS Sntiur\'i!,"W.' l)nmhk-nt/Hl1Illdt i\TUIIIl.J,..C(r ellliRYI. A. WIU,lhMS VI\',' 􀁉􀀧􀁮􀀢􀀧􀀡􀀧􀁬􀁨􀁬􀁮􀁾􀁬􀀯􀀧􀁾􀀧􀀢􀁾􀀠tlllk.'r
l.OliiSIl mLIlS \'Iu: IlfI;f,ldI,;Nl/(I'"...·I1N Oml"l'r HI'.Jolm Baumg/lrt:ner Town of Addison P. O. Ik>x 144 Addison. TX. 71001 RE: 14798 Lochinvar Court. J!ildison, 'IX with regaros to the above, I ;;rn able to provide you with the following:
1) Letters fran each of the Utility companies stating the abandomIent or release of the EasE!l1ilIlt; '}) OJpy of the survey: 3) Legal description of the 3 foot strip that we are asking
the ToWI1 of Addison to abandon. If I can be of further assist.ance to you, PLEASE 00 WI' HESITATE '10 CALL Ql ME. We would also appreciate your PIUJqJt attention to this matter. Sincerely,
􀁾􀁊􀁾􀁾􀀠􀀧􀁤􀀺􀀺􀁾􀁕􀁵􀁮􀁮􀁳􀀠F.aCroW Officer lew attachments 
;11-15-35; 16:35 SIll LAND 􀁔􀁬􀁔􀁌􀁅􀁾NT BY: SWLT .. _ _ ... _ ....."",v"'" I'!V"OiI • ." :::7",,) "".... '1IIdllll rllkYll<IOII.int,,_ Tel Cablevision of the Metroplex & y.t.... "
.............,. Novembl:r 15, 1995 Ms. CbcI11 􀁗􀁕􀁬􀁬􀁡􀁴􀁮􀁾􀀠 Southweill Land -nile Company 17062 Preston Road Suite 106 Dalla&, TIIXlIlI 75m IU:: AblllldonlhCJll uf Ea.<emenl. 14798
Lochl1iv&rCl.. Addison. TX Dear: 􀁍􀁾􀀮􀀠Williams This is to IIIlvise you thaI TCl Cablevision or the Melropielf. iuI& no ubjections 10 the abandonment ofthe dl1llnoge and utility cascment
localed al\lllg \be: nonb property line of LIlt 411 in Block }J or Oaks Norlil Addilitm in the City or AddisOI1 and having the address referenced abovo. Shollld )'011 huve 􀁾􀁕􀀼􀀺􀀧􀁬􀁩􀁯􀁬􀁬􀁂􀀠or
need IIddition"l inform.IlOll, plca.,e no 1101 hC-Ililalc to conlllCt me at 214-51137 SiIlccrcly. 􀁡􀁾􀁡􀀮􀁁􀁾􀀠􀁇􀀺􀁬􀀻􀀻􀀻􀁮􀀺􀁾􀁾􀀠Conatnlction Mantgcr 
NT BY: Sl\'LT 9316643;# 31 7 . --.. -􀁾􀀻􀁵􀂣􀀠􀁎􀁏􀀮􀁕􀁕􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀮􀁵􀁬􀀠Novclllb4'r !4, 1995 Re; 14198lochioyar Dr Addison. 􀁔􀁾􀁉􀁗􀀠Dear Ms. Williams: I have inv.sligated the ca'lt'OIenl
in qocstion and bave d..'14:mIined that Lone Sta.r GILl 􀁤􀁾n<I\ have a g,u main in the qllelltioru:d easement, we: all: out in froll' of!he bouse in tbe parkway. [.(lne Star Gas has
1101 objection to the fl/leasc oflhis easement. If1mill' be offurtbct 3iOsi5lance please call me BI214-422-7073. r I 
SENT BY: SIlLT ; 11-15-95 16:36 S/W LAND 􀁔􀀱􀀱􀁬􀀮􀁅􀁾􀀠9316643;# 41 7 ©Southwestern Bell ':'elBvbUIlt "TheOne lo CaJlOn"<. l'Iovember 14,1995 MIt. Cheryl Williams Southwest Land Title
􀁃􀁾􀁡􀁮􀁹􀀠 17062 Preston Road Suite 106 Dalla8, Texas 75249 Be: Abandonment of Eaa.mRnt, 14798 Lochinvar Court, Addi8on. Texas Dear Ma. Williams; Thi. ia to advise rou that Southwestern
Bell Telephone Company has DO objections to the abandonmant of the drainage 5 utility eas.ment located along the north property line of Lot 48 in Block B of Oaks North Addition in the
City of Addison and having the address referancad above. Should you have any questiona or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact 􀁾􀀠at 214-234-7084. 􀁉􀁉􀁊􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾Dan
Shipp Manager, Engineering Design VS N. GrwnvMe Avenlle ;!nil no.. Rich3rdoof\ r.... ,ot\!. 
;11-15-95; 16:36; S/I'i LAND 􀁔􀀱􀁔􀁉􀀮􀁅􀁾􀀠9316643;# 51 7 SENT BY; SllLT -Mt.ECTRIC November 14, 1\l9S Soulhwut Land ntle Company 17062 Pmion Road, Sui. l06 Dalla, Texas 7S241 To whom
it may com:em: TUmectric hu no objllCliOillo the puIIaIrclcase or abandonment of 11 5·foot OJ:aInfa\IlIIId Utility Easemenc located at !be mrof 1419IlI.ochil1"1111' Court. also mown
lIS Lot 48 in BIOI1k. B ofGab NDlIb Addition, en Addition to tIw Town ofAddiJoJl, Teus. Thit adaIowledpltIlt 􀁾notall8ct 8I\y othcrcuementlllSlJOCiated with this property. Ifyou have
1liiY questions or requite ftuther information rcprding Ihi. 1I\atII!r, p'"COlIIaIat me I.! 214I3lJ·8913. 
;11-15-85 SfW lAND 􀁔􀀱􀁔􀁉􀂣􀁾􀀠85Hl643;# 61 7 I, 􀁾􀀠..• ...."􀁾􀀠.. •c co. " 􀁾􀁡􀀮.,:..! . .,q.5.,..􀁾􀁩􀀢􀀢􀀠h 'VQo flN"::,," 􀁯􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀮􀀠􀁾􀀢􀀧􀁯􀀠:go􀁏􀀼􀀲􀁾􀀠... .. 􀁾􀁯􀁾􀁾􀁳􀀡􀀱􀀠..
􀁾􀀠􀀡􀀧􀀻􀀨􀀧􀀮􀁥􀁷􀁾􀁾􀀡􀁩􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀠􀁾􀀺􀁳􀀧􀀧􀀧􀁊􀁾• 􀁾􀀢􀀧􀀭􀀡􀁩... '1:1"'.u....". 􀁾􀀠􀁾.... 􀁯􀁬􀀢􀀧􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀱E'E 4 ... V ! 􀀢􀁾􀀧􀁚􀀠.•,. 􀁾􀀠• .1:1> 􀁾􀀢􀀽􀀭􀁬􀁅1) a .'aI ''':' Ii
f!.S:l 􀁾􀀠........ sl:l!! 􀁾􀀭. 􀁾􀀺􀀣;..,w'U:¥".!!:I· .. 􀂷􀁡􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀁾􀁪􀁎!!,;'::r';fi....... I>-,oa. ........ 􀁾􀀮􀁥􀁤􀁾􀁾􀀻• 􀀬􀁳􀁾􀁾􀀾􀀮􀀧􀀺'Id "':I ..... 􀂰􀁴􀀺􀁩􀀸􀀻􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁯􀀺􀀺􀁮􀂷􀀺􀁾IIlt!-
.!... 1.> 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁴􀁾􀁬􀀺􀀠􀁾􀀺...o :::::: ii;l!.i"&.....􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁟􀁾􀁾􀀠.c ':c 􀀧􀁤􀀰􀀡􀀺􀁾􀀡:fp-."R􀁾􀀸􀀧􀀻􀁾􀁴...!-;.....==0: 􀀼􀁴􀁾􀁾􀁦􀁩􀁾􀁬􀀠􀀡􀁡􀁾􀀺􀀻􀁾􀀺􀀧􀀺􀁤􀀻􀀠i '! :l: 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠Q•
i" 􀁾􀀠::; .....•I.'l n 7-_.. 􀁾.., 􀀮􀁾"e!'o"i!!at! 68u .<:-, .;: 􀀮􀁾v-s 􀁾􀀡􀀧􀀮􀀡􀀠!<,t.. ;r ..'" -!l.8 Co ...􀁪􀁾􀀻􀀠" l!l 􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾. >, ...-<.I .. 􀁾􀁕􀀠W" w. "':.􀁾􀀠o'! II 􀁾􀀠􀁾_"'!!
-" c --.'-." 7􀀺􀁬􀁾􀀠iii3.. -􀁾􀀠... It c m.,,-W :: " . .. ., 
9316643;# 71 7SIll' LAND 􀁔􀀡􀁔􀁉􀀮􀀮􀁅􀁾;11-15-95SENT BY: S\lLT "n"NOONlmN'I' OP 1;I\I!Rm':N'I' j)1!;:;CUH"!'lUN All that certain lot. traet or parcol of l"no .ituated in the City of
Addl"nn, lI.llas Co\mt.r, Tex", $ , ..,d beins: " p....t. or 􀁌􀁯􀁾􀀮􀀠48, Illoek tJ 01' OnJ". Norl;h Addit.lon, fin Addl '.iob Lf) tllu I,,; i L.y v1" Ad..tisuJI f 'J'exa!i, u.rc; l'(H.!(u·de,1
in Vol, 79010, Pale 1955, of Lilt! Map recorda or nalla.. Counly, '1'0'1au , "n", bein, more p.rtioularlT 􀁤􀁣􀁾􀁣􀁲􀀱􀁢􀁥􀁵􀀠 IlS folloWII: Ii.ginning at a 􀁰􀁏􀁻􀁮􀁾􀀠SOllch 0 dell"e""
l4 ..􀁴􀁮􀀢􀀧􀁾􀀢.. 25 I'(>C011111l 􀁾􀀻􀁉􀁬􀁳􀁴􀀠for II dist.ancE' of l! fa,,1. frOlD I.h. norl.iteal!l cornel' ot' Lot 41l, IU.,ck B of Oaks North Addition t.o Lhe City of Addison,
1'het'c.. SO'lth 0 degrees l4 lIIinutes 2ft Reconds eaat fot' a distance nf 3 fe.t to lh. South line of .. S Foot drainage easement, Thence South 89 degrees 􀀴􀁾􀀠IIIJnutes 42 >1o"on<l"
Heftl; along ...tid '''UU.lleht .. distance ' of 87.43 feot to the 􀁾􀁡􀁳􀁴􀁾􀁲􀁬􀁹􀀠line of a 􀁾􀀠foot drain&,. eaRement nlohl the westerly side of said propet'ty, 'rh'/n"" 1(01't.1l
2.1 1l&"I'e..,,, 411 Iqi nnt.eA ,II "" " .. tOil W..s t Alonll said ••sterly line of i!l 3 foot dr.lnllse ......."'enl; a dhlLanee of 3.2T feet to II point which iii II feet south of
the north line of said 10l 48, 1I1oek III Tbence North 89 delll'ees 45 IIIlnutea 32 second", EAst and 1>1I1'a11.,). >lUll IIl1id north ]ine a dhtl1m;e of 88.14 feel I,ll th.. place af
lJeginninll alld contaiul.nll 0.0061 acr••• 
􀁾􀀮􀀠BUILDINGINSPECfION DEPARTME!';T (214)450·2880 ll();$tOffice Box 144 Addison, Texas 15001 16801 Wcstgro\'c November 10, 1995 Ms. Cheryl Williams southwest Land Title Company 17062
Preston Road, Suite 106 Dallas, Texas 75248 Dear Ms. williams: I have reviewed the survey plat of the home located at 14798 Lochinvar Court. The survey shows a swimming pool encroachment
into the drainage and utility easement. However, the Town of Addison plans to take no action on this encroachment. If you have any questions, please contact me at 450-2889. Sincerely,
􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁊􀁩􀁦􀁲􀁴􀀧gandler Building Official LOC/st