The TMI)L Process in Texas What You Need to Know What Is a TMDL? A total maximum daily load (TMDL) is: • The maximum amount of a pollutant that a lake, river, stream, or estuary can
receive without seriously harming its beneficial uses (swimming, drinking, aquatic life, other). • A detailed water quality assessment that provides the scientific foundation for a watershed
action plan. A watershed action plan outlines the steps necessary to reduce pollutant loads in a certain body of water to restore and maintain human uses or aquatic life. Why Is Thxas
Developing TMDLs? • The development of TMDLs and watershed action plans is, in many cases, the best method to improve water quality. • All states are required by Section 303(d) of the
1972 Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) to develop TMDLs for water bodies that are impaired (too polluted to maintain their beneficial uses). The list of the lakes, rivers, streams, and estuaries
in Texas that may need development of TMDLs and watershed action plans is published annually by the TNRCC in the report, State ofTexas Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List [or the Texas
303(d) List]. • Federal regulations prohibit the addition of certain new sources and new discharges of pollutants to waters listed on the Texas 303(d) List until a TMDL is completed.
• Under federal law, if Texas does not develop its own TMDLs, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must develop them. When Will TMDLs Be Developed? Texas has already completed
a number of TMDLs and waste load evaluations (predecessors to TMDLs). In 1998, TMDLs for 11 different water bodies were approved by the EPA. Under its "TMDLs in 10 Years" initiative,
the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) has committed to developing TMDLs for the 147 water bodies listed on the Texas 303( d) List in 10 years. To do this, the TNRCC
plans to initiate approximately 10 TMDLs each year; some of these projects are under way. You can get up-to-date infonnation on the TMDLs in progress by visiting the TNRCC Web site or
by writing or calling the TNRCC TMDL Team. See contact information at the end of this document. How Will TMDLs Be Funded? The 76th Legislature appropriated funds to the TNRCC and the
Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board (TSSWCB) to support the development of TMDLs. Both agencies are redirecting some of their current federal funding to support the development
and implementation of TMDLs. Other funding approaches being pursued include: • Leveraging existing grants from other state and federal agencies by identifying common watershed management
goals. • Encouraging soil and water conservation districts and watershed groups to sponsor and locally coordinate TMDLs. • Seeking in-kind services from other agencies, industries and
conservation groups. 
Guidance for Submitting Data and Information for the Texas 2000 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List April 27, 1999 The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) Data Collection
Section staff will evaluate all data and information submissions to determine whether they are applicable and useful for identifying impaired and threatened water bodies as required
by the Clean Water Act, §303(d). The 303(d) listing process provides a basis for long-term planning efforts. The process is neither intended nor appropriate for short term, critical
conditions requiring immediate response. Information or comments regarding critical water quality conditions may be submitted at any time to the appropriate TNRCC program but are unlikely
to immediately impact the 303(d) listing process. The following deadlines and strictures are not meant to discourage reports of important information but to facilitate efficient submission
of information that represents ongoing conditions in surface water bodies in the state of Texas. I. Data for the Development of the 2000 303(d) List The 2000 303(d) List will be developed
during the period of July 1999 through March 2000. A draft list will be made available for public comment in early 2000. The final list will be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) on April 1,2000. A data set that can be used to evaluate surface waters throughout the state will be available on the TNRCC SWQM Web site (http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.uslwateriquality/data
lwqmJ) on September 1, 1999. This data set will include the all data collected for the period of June 1, 1994 to May 31,1999. The data that the TNRCC considered for Basin Group A in
developing the Draft 2000 303(d) List will be made available for public review on the TNRCC SWQM Web site (http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.uslwater/quality/datalwqmJ) on January 14, 2000.
Instructions for performing the assessment and reporting results in the 305(b) data table format will be included with each set of data posted on the Web site. New Data All All raw data
submissions must be received by TNRCC by July 15, 1999. All data must be submitted in the format described in the TNRCC Data Management Reference Guide. Additional data will not be accepted
after July 15. Early submittal (prior to July 15 deadline) is encouraged to ensure that data are free of error and in the appropriate format. Note: The TNRCC strongly recommends that
all entities intending to submit data through this process coordinate submittal with the Clean Rivers Program (CRP) planning agency for the appropriate basin. CRP planning agencies will
assist in documenting the quality of data under their approved Quality Assurance Project Plans. 1 
• must be summarized in a 305(b) data table fonnat. • must supply the raw data used, in printed or electronic copy, including data provided by the TNRCC for the assessment period. •
must include the entire data set collected for the period beginning June 1, 1994, unless more recent data are substantially more representative or of better quality. TNRCC Data Collection
Section staff will assess special study data for completeness, representativeness, and quality. Timeline for Data Submittal January 1999 July 15, 1999 October 25, January 14, February
15, February 28, April, 2000 1999 2000 2000 2000 I I I I I New Data De-listing Draft List 􀁓􀁾􀁩􀁡􀁬􀀠 End of Public Final List Submittal Data Projects Data Comment Deadline Submittal
Submittal Period Deadline Deadline I Internal Draft Beginning of List Public Comment Period II. Comments on the Draft 303(d)List To be considered for changes to the final 303(d) List,
comment submissions must: • include comments specific to the Draft 2000 303( d) List. • name or identify specific water bodies of concern and the geographic extent of the water quality
concern. • state the specific irnpainnent or pollutant of concern. • explicitly describe evidence of the presence or absence of impairment(s) or polJutant( s), including a description
of how indirect evidence or data were interpreted or analyzed to support the commentor's conclusion. Comments will be accepted ofter the draft list is published on January 14, 2000.
The comment period will end on February 28. Comments must be submitted in writing by mail, fax or e-mail. Comments will not be accepted by phone. 3 
MEETING NOTICE Trinity River Basin: Geospatial Database Demonstration And Plans for TMDL Projects in FY2000 North Central Texas Council of Governments 616 Six Flags Drive Arlington,
TX 10:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m.*, August 13, 1999 The North Central Tcxas Council of Governments is hosting a speci?l presentation on TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) related topics in the Trinity
Basin on August 13, 1999 by members of the TNRCC TMDL Team. The first part of the presentation will be a demonstration of geospatial GIS data layers that have been compiled for the Trinity
River Basin and how these will be used in future TMDL work. The second part will be a discussion of plans for TMDL projects in the Trinity River Basin in FY2000. An interested parties
are welcome to attend. Agenda Introduction -Bill Saunders, TNRCC Blacklands Research Center tasks & data -R. Srinivasan, BRC (or TNRCC) -Percent Anderson land use calculated per Hydrologic
Cataloging Unit -Integrated land use layer for State of Texas, reclassified to MRLC University of Texas tasks & data -David Maidment, UT Center for Research in Water Resources -Overview
of the use of DEM data for watershed delineation -WQ Segment Subwatershed Delineation within the Trinity River Basin -Establishment of an Integrated Geospatial database for each Subwatershed
-Reconciliation of pertinent point location data to stream network structure Break for Lunch * (on your own) Plans for TMDL projects in the Trinity Basin in FY2000 • TMDL Team, TNRCC
*NQTE; The meeting is not expected to run longer than 2:00 PM. If we get through the Geospatial Data presentation material Significantly before noon, we may collectively decide to forge
ahead with the TMDL discussion and be done before 1 ;00 PM. For more information, call Keith Kennedy, NCTCOG staff, at (817) 695-9221. 
Statewide Toxicity Project. 5. I Lower West Fork Trinity River, 0841 -. "-----""--" Alligator Bayou, 0702A Vince Bayou, 1007A Bryan Municipal Lake, 1209A Fin Feather Lake, 1209B Concho
River, 1421 Medina River below darn, 1903 Arroyo Colorado Tidal, 2201 Rio Grande below Amistad, 2304 Rio Grande below Amistad, 2306 Toxicity (water & sediment) ""-----_. _.-----. Toxicity
(water & sediment) Toxicity (sediment) Toxicity (water & sediment) Toxicity (water) Toxicity (water) Toxicity (water) Toxicity (sediment) Toxicity (water & sediment) Toxicity (water
& sediment) I RFP? Kirk Dean IStatewide Toxies Evaluation Gail Rothe Peer Review (Identification) Project. The Committee toxicity project will focus on confrrming the presence or absence
of toxicity and identifYing probable causes of toxicity through intensive toxicity testing, complete chemical contaminant characterization, and assessment ofaquatic biological communities.
• J:IEVERYONElTMDLTEAMIOUTIUlACHlMAP_SCHElI9991NTCOQ-B.WPD . Page 2 of 2 
IAwaiting results of statewide study. 􀁐􀁡􀁨􀁯􀁦􀁩􀁩􀁩􀁥􀁓􀁩􀀮􀁴􀁾􀁷􀁩􀁤􀁥􀀠 Study?? " Groupll-B: Candidate water bodies/or early TMDL project development: SECOND PRIORITY -depends on
availablejunding 17. West Fork Trinity River Above Bridgeport Reservoir, #0812 18. Joe Pool Lake, #0838 Aquatic life use -low dissolved oxygen; general numeric criteria -chloride and
total dissolved solids. General numeric crjteria M sulfate and total dissolved solids Group Ill: Candidate Water Bodies/or later TMDL project development None. )( )( , 1M 􀁾􀀠Targeted
Monitoring LA Load Allocation Water bodies in bold are listed for additional pollutant(s) not covered by Ihis project. 
􀁅􀁾􀁩􀁳􀁴􀁩􀁮􀁧􀀠TMDL ProjectsBasin Group B August 13, 1999 Legend CJ Projects Underway CJ 303(d) segment wat..shed N 1999 303(d) fisted (\) WQ ,.,gment CJ Reservoirlesturuy CJ County

!NEWS WATCH ' next year, Russell continues, "Opponents of changes say that it shouldn't be an issue because there are onty a dozen or so sites with natural resources damage claims over
$50 million, We believe there will be many more ... in the future,' she says. According to the DeIj1ocrati'c source, determining how to calculate intangible costs 01 something like "value
of pres-. ence" and to what degree companies should be required to compensate the public will shape discussions about nat-WATER QUALITY ural resource damage compensation. RCRA, says
the Democratic source, "will be pushed far back because it is not as divisive a statute, and [representatives] don't hear much about it from constituents." Interstate waste issues, such
as deciding whether states will continue to have authority to reject hazardous waste from other states, probably will beaddressed by the 105th Congress, but separate from any RCRA reauthorization
bill, he says, LaJuana Wilcher, an attorney at Leboeuf, Lamb, Greene, and Macrae in Washington, D,C" said during '\.yEF's annual conference in October that the future 01 environmental
legislation depends "not just [on] who's in the majority, [but] what iSSUes are apriority, personally, to the members." The political agendas of freshmen members and any changes in the
priorities of returning members wlll become clearer as Congress begins work this year. -KellyeKratch, WE&T Lawsuits Imply States Missing the Boat o-rn Developing Lists of Impaired Waters
he total maximum daily load i (TMDL) program is holding .J steady as a regulatory punching bag of environmental interest groups. The Clean Water Act (CWA) program requires states to
develop lists of impaired waters and then calculate pollutant loads from point and nonpoint sOurces that allow the state to meet ambient water quality standards, also known as TMDLs.
The agency has approved complete lists in most states and has delegated authority to those states to complete requirements of the act, says Jeff Grubbs, director of the Assessment and
Watershed Protection Division in EPA's Office of Water. But environmental groups have been challenging the agency over such approval, arguing that the lists are incomplete, anrl that
no TMDLs have been set, or the TMDLs are not legally or scientifically sufficient to restore a contaminated water body to EPA standards. At press time, 13 lawsuits and 8 notices of intent
to sue were pending, according to the agency, Two recent court decisions illustrate the power of environmental organizations when states lail to meet requirements. In August, a lederal
court made a precedent-setting ruling requiring EPA to promulgate TMDLs in Georgta in 5 years rather than the agency's proposed IO-year schedule. The next month, a federal court in Idaho
held that EPA's proposed 25-year schedule to develop TMDLs for Idaho's waters was "arbitrary and capricious" and also suggested a 5-year schedule, Impossible Deadline Five years is not
enough time lor states to incorporate effective pollution reduction ellorts into TMDLs, Grubbs says. Noting that Georgia and Idaho have more than 500 and 926 impaired waters, respectively,
he says each state deadline must "fit the circumstances.!! EPA, Grubbs says, filed a notice to appeal the decision In Georgia, where EPA used the argument that 10 years is needed because
90% of the waters are dominated by nonpoint sources. "There was no rationale, no explanation, and complete disregard for the agency's technical analysis," he says. "We can't live with
[the 5-year deadline], It's a farce." I"lfteen years is the most practical time line for Georgia to produce TMDLs, says Harold Rehels, director of the Environmental Protection Division
in the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. If Georgia fails to meet the 5;lear mark, the state could lose its authority to issue National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
permits in some cases, Rehels says. A municipal wastewater treatment 􀁰􀁬􀁡􀁮􀁾􀀠for example. would not be able to expand its capactty and discharge treated effluent to an impaired stream
segment without a TMDL, he says. CWASection303(d) requires states to identitY water bodies that fail to meet lederal water quality standards and establish TMDLs, Section 303(e) calls
for states to develop reports that give the public access to Section 303( d) inlonnation, In 1992, the agency promulgated amendments to its original TMDL regulation (57 FR 33040, Juty
24) that require states to submit 303( d) Usts evety 2 years. States submitted lists in 1992 and 1994 and, at press time, were working to . complete their 1996 lists, Grubbs says. EPA
is legally responsible for establishing lists or TMDLs when it disapproves of state lists Or TMDLs, But agency oversight has been insufficient, says Jim Nay, director 01 the Environmental
Law Clinic at Widener University in Wilmington, Del" which is representing environmental groups in lawsuits against EPA over TMDL progress in Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey,
Many times "EPA has walked away from Sections 303(d) and (e) to the detriment of many water bodies," he says, The law clinic's staff and students have been monitoring EPA progress since
1992, he adds, State environmental agencies have not applied enough resources to their .,WATER ENVIRONMENT &; TECHNOLOGY 
the process 01 getting a (Section] 404 permit, (but1environmental groups think the 404 permitting process is too lenient. It will be tough to find common ground/' he says. According
to Ken Kirk:, executive di· rector of the Association of Metropol· itan Sewerage Agencies in Washington, D.C., House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee members are more concerned
about moving the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, a national highway bill, than CWA, which he says will be ad· dressed late in the session. Bagwell agrees the highway
bill will be a higher priority than CWA, but says it is possible for different subcommittees to ad· dress both issues at the same time. CWA could become a priority if courts continue
to rule in favor of environmental groups who are suing EPA for falling to set total maxImum daily load (TMDL) standards for impaired water bodies, says Harold 􀁾􀁥􀁨􀁥􀁩􀁳􀀬􀀠di· rector
of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources and president of the Environmental Council of States. At press time, more than 20 lawsuits were pending (see related article, p. 18). If
a majority of states have difficulty meeting requirements of TMDL orders coming out of federal court and Congress could set a more reasonable schedule and provide more funding to comply
with TMDL requirements, "that might provide. an impetus to deal with reauthorization," he says. Setting TMDLs is resource intensive, Bagwell says. If environmental groups start winning
the suits and states or EPAare required to systematically issue TMDLs for all affected waterbodies, Congress could, through CWA reau· thorization, provide relief by extending state deadlines
to issue TMDLs (which i would remove tile burden from EPA) ! or limiting the number that must be set within a time period, he says. According to the Democratic source, I I I, "In situations
where state water quality standards impose new and stricter requirements on industries, there may be a backlash calling for Congress to revise the statute and make it less harsh." Barring
a backlash, Russell says, "I i think it's safe to say that both (parties] think we don't need a major [CWA] rewrite (because 1the act is working well." Superfund, on the other hand,
has been a failure and is in dire need of reform, she says. "The liability system is the root [Superfund] problem. (We need to get] lawyers out of the process and stream· line it. There's
a difference of opinion on how best to go about that (so we can1 get sites cleaned up faster," she says. EPA and the Department of Justice "seem to resist any real reform of the liability
system that gives some companies a break:," she adds. Natural resource damage compensation will emerge as a salient issue in congressional debates about Superfund DD71 Trip/ex1M F/exibie
Scrubbing Systems Cost-Effective Odor & Fume Treatment for Air Flows From 2,000·6,000 cfm Eliminate odor problems in volume applications with the patented modular technology avAilable
only with u.s. FilterjDavis Process Scrubbing Systcms. The new DD71 Triplexn , Systems are capable of effectively treating air flows from 2,000-6,000 cfm. Multi·stage treatment permits
a different process treatment in each tower. If the emissions change, the system automatically adjusts to varying levels ofcontaminants for efficient chemical usage. The U.S. Filter!Dav!s
Process DD7l Triplex'" Scrubber vcssels are rotationally molded ofhigh density cross-linked polyethylene (HDXLPE). These maintenance·free vessels arc suitable for hundreds of corrosive
contaminants and chemical treatments, and have the best warranty in the industry. U.S. Filter!Davis Process provides a completc range of services· from problem evaluation, design, fubrication
and turnkey installa· tion, to chemical supply and routine maintenance. Call U.S. Filter/Davis Process to keep your emissions under control. 1-800-345-3982 2650 Tallevast Road· Sarasota,
Florida 34243 • FAX: 941-351-4756 For More Infonnation, Circle 3D on Reader Service Card JANUARY 1997 • 
NEWS WATCH " TMDL programs. says Rick Parrish. a lawyer at the Southern Environmental Law Center in Charlottesville. Va.. which has advocated improvements to TMDL programs in southern
states. . "Infonnation would be much more forthcoming if states really cared about cutting back on pollution," Parish says. "[States1are unwilling to offend interest groups that would
have to spend resources to reduce pollution." States are developing lists and TMDLs that are supported by documentation." says EPA's Grubbs. "We'll defend the [lists and TMDLs1when the
state has done its job and where the plan is good." he says. With tens of thousands of water bodies nationwide. mistakes will be made. he 􀁾􀁤􀁳􀀮􀀠 REGULATIONS \ The numerous lawsuits
and other legal action prompted the formation of a federal advisory committee to help EPA identify contaminated waters. establish TMDLs. and develop appropriate watershed protection
programs for waterbodies. says Ed Wagner. Water Environment Federation (WE!') representative to the committee. "There's clearly a dilemma." says Wagner. who also is vice president of
CH2M Hill in Parsippany. N.J. The committee first met in November and will meet at least three more times into 1998. says Corrine Wellish. EPA's designated federal officer to the committee.
The lawsuits, Grubbs says, "Will not be a problem" for EPA when states make considerable progress toward fully implementing the TMDL program. He 01fered no time line for when states
may begin to move forward. "We're getting sued because there's problems in the way the states have done this." he says. "When they have complete lists. they're doing their TMDLs, they're
getting into permits ... that's what the law requires." Reheis says he "would not be surprised" if environmental groups file another 20 TMDL lawsuits against EPA in 1997. The TMDL program
"is vulnerable legally and in court." he says. "Some of these activist organizations have discovered that, so they are making their move: I don't know why they didn't do it sooner, but
they could could have." . -Michael Richman, WE&T WEF, AMSA Want More Flexibility in Pretreatment Program . "J he Water Environment Feder, I ation (WEF) and the Association ,d of MetropOlitan
Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) are collaborating in a stakeholder task force that is shaping recommendations proposed to streamline EPA's pretreatment rule into regulatory language. The recommendations.
developed at the WEF-AMSA Pretreatment Streamlining Workshop in August, are intended to create more lIexibility and reduce costs for local authorities monitoring the pretreatment activities
of industrial facilities that discharge to municipal plimts. The goal is to complete the regulatory language by early spring so EPA can incorporate it into its proposed revisions to
the National Pretreatment Program, says Margie Nellar. co-<:hair of the WEF Pretreatment Work Group. The agency is not obligated to accept the recommendations, Nellor says, but because
they originated through a multistakeholder process involving EPA, state and local government, industry. and environmental representatives. the recommendations should "carry a lot of
weight." EPA plans to publish its proposed revisions in the Federal Register no later than the end of June, according to Pat Bradley, a biologist in the Pennits Division of EPA's Office
of Wastewater Management. At the WEF-AMSA workshop, stakeholders formed administrative, technical, and "blue skY" recommendations. EPA plans to pli61ish its proposed revisions in the
Feden;1 Register no later than the end of June. Pat Bradley EPA's Office of Wastewater Management the latter of which is a watershed-based approach to pretreatment using environmental
goals and performance measures. The "blue sky" recommendations need to be "scoped out" somewhat and will be included in the proposed regulatory language to some extent. NeIIor says .
One administrative action suggested by the group calls for control authorities, such as publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). to exempt categorical and noncategorical industrial facilities
from the significant industrial user (SIll) definition if they do not "adversely" affect municipal plants or violate requirements. Such a policy would allow POTWs to determine the frequency
of their inspections and sample tests, Nellor says. Currently. local pennitters must regulate as SlUs all noncategorical users with process flows of more than 95 m3/d (25,000 gal/d)
and all categorically regulated dischargers, even though discharges from some facilities are "benign,' she says. The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, which
includes seven wastewater plants, treats discharges from 605 SIUs. says Rich Sustich, the district's industrial waste enforcement supervisor. A 'plastics molding plant that discharges
about 0.38 m3/mo (100 gal/mo) of contact coaling water should not be classified as an SIU "because it has no measurable potential to impact our facility," he says. .,WATER ENV1RONMENT
& TECHNOLOGY