Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wastewater Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
TCEQ approves Selinger wastewater discharge permit after contested hearing, despite county objections
Summary
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality voted to issue TPDES permit number WQ006103001 to applicant Steven Richard Selinger on Dec. 18, 2024, adopting the administrative law judge’s proposed order with edits noting the applicant had not chosen a daily operator.
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality voted to issue TPDES permit number WQ006103001 to applicant Steven Richard Selinger on Dec. 18, 2024, adopting the administrative law judge’s proposed order with two edits to document that the applicant had not chosen a daily operator when the application was filed.
The commission’s action follows oral argument and evidence presented by protestants including Ellis County. County counsel Stephanie Albright argued the draft permit “is not protective of water quality” and said modeling using site-specific stream measurements shows the proposed discharge would lower dissolved oxygen in receiving waters and “will cause a violation of the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards.” Eric Allman, representing other participants, urged denial on procedural grounds, saying the application lacks the operator as a permittee and that “the lack of an operator as an applicant justifies denial of the permit alone.”
The executive director’s staff supported the administrative law judge’s findings, with Ali Swallow saying the ALJ found the draft permit “is protective of water quality, in accordance with applicable Texas water quality standards.” The Office of Public Interest Counsel (OPIC) said it agreed with most ALJ findings but continued to dispute whether sufficient modeling and analysis were performed on dissolved oxygen limits, and it declined to recommend adoption without modeling that considers the site‑specific information introduced by Ellis County.
Commission discussion largely accepted the ALJ’s technical conclusions while recording the record’s statement that the applicant had not selected a daily operator. The motion the commission adopted added a finding of fact noting the record “indicates that applicant has not chosen or contracted with the daily operator at the time the application was filed” and modified a conclusion of law related to prima facie demonstration under 30 Texas Administrative Code §305.43(a). The commission then issued the permit in the form drafted by the executive director and adopted the executive director’s response to comments.
Votes and outcome
- The motion to adopt the ALJ’s proposed order as modified was made, seconded and passed by voice vote. The meeting transcript records affirmative responses and the chair announced “Motion passes.”
Why it matters
Ellis County and participants argued both procedural and technical points — notably the absence of a named operator for the permitted facility and disputes over nutrient and dissolved‑oxygen modeling inputs. The commission approved the permit while expressly documenting the record’s statement that a daily operator had not been chosen. OPIC’s lingering concerns about dissolved oxygen modeling mean the technical dispute over site‑specific inputs could be raised again in future contested proceedings or enforcement contexts.
What remains unresolved
Protestants urged denial on feasibility and water‑quality protection grounds. OPIC and Ellis County specifically asked that site‑specific data be modeled to demonstrate compliance. The commission did not remand the application for additional modeling or new notice; it issued the permit with the record annotations described above.
