Fort Worth council approves groundwater restriction for South Freeway site with testing and community conditions

Fort Worth — The Fort Worth City Council voted to support a municipal setting designation, MSD 035A, for a 57.5‑acre property on South Freeway owned by Bear Holdings LLC, attaching a package of testing and transparency requirements after hours of testimony from residents, environmental experts and the developer.

Cody Wittenberg, the city’s environmental services director, opened the public hearing by describing the MSD as a deed restriction that prohibits use of groundwater for drinking and potable purposes and explained that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality oversees the state MSD process. He said city staff had identified arsenic, lead and manganese in shallow groundwater at the site and that the property’s historic use for dumping foundry byproducts had contributed to the contamination.

The developer’s representative, Harrison Smith, told the council Bear Holdings has been conducting additional sampling and site cleanup, saying the company had completed "25 additional samples" and has taken steps to remove debris and deter unauthorized access. Smith also said the developer had offered to donate about 14 acres adjacent to the site to create a buffer between the industrial property and the Highland Hills residential area.

Residents and community leaders, including Jerome Johnson of the Highland Hills Neighborhood Association and Gina Byrd of the NAACP Environmental Climate and Justice Committee, opposed the MSD or urged strong safeguards. They described continued concerns about historic dumping at the site, possible dust and plume migration if soils are disturbed, and local health impacts. Byrd cited state risk‑reduction rules and urged the council to ensure legally‑required studies and public access to the results.

Council members pressed staff and legal counsel about what the MSD would — and would not — do. Wittenberg and city attorneys emphasized that approval of an MSD does not change zoning and that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) retains authority over cleanup plans; they also said the MSD process can make groundwater restrictions explicit and allows the city to require oversight steps that improve transparency for residents.

Councilman Chris Nettles moved to approve the resolution with a list of additional commitments. The motion requires city staff to monitor developer compliance with applicable laws (including illegal dumping, grading, stormwater protections and site maintenance); to coordinate independent third‑party environmental testing to be conducted before, during and after construction; to provide quarterly or semiannual updates of testing results to the Highland Hills Neighborhood Association for two years after construction; to convene a roundtable with TCEQ, the developer and community representatives; and to authorize the city to conduct additional groundwater testing for up to two years after issuance of a grading certificate. The package also records the developer’s offer to donate the 14‑acre buffer.

Assistant City Attorney Kevin Andrews told the council the city could include testing and reporting obligations in the motion and that TCEQ would make the final decision on whether to grant the MSD. After additional debate, the council approved the motion; the clerk announced, "Motion carries."

What happens next: If the city’s resolution is forwarded, the developer will continue the MSD application with TCEQ, which will review the voluntary cleanup plan and data and decide whether to grant the MSD. City staff said they would work to provide independent oversight by a city‑funded consultant and to make testing results available to the neighborhood as they are produced.

Key details and context: The MSD request covers about 57.5 acres that were historically used for iron slag and foundry sand dumping; the contaminants the city identified in groundwater testing include arsenic, lead and manganese. Friesen Nichols, a local engineering firm, was identified by staff as a potential third‑party reviewer. City staff emphasized the MSD does not change zoning and that the project could proceed under current zoning if the MSD is not approved, but the MSD adds an explicit groundwater‑use restriction and the additional oversight measures the council attached.

The council’s action drew standing‑room public comment on both sides and a demand from residents for clear, routine access to results and for safeguards against construction‑phase dust and soil disturbance. The council motion seeks to respond to those concerns by locking in independent testing, reporting and a community roundtable as part of the city’s oversight of the MSD process.