Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Biodegradable Bmps topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Stakeholders urge caution on proposed requirement for biodegradable erosion controls
Summary
At a TCEQ stakeholder meeting, industry and MS4 representatives praised the intent behind requiring biodegradable BMPs but warned the proposal could be infeasible without jurisdictional specification alignment, procurement paths, and clearer infeasibility criteria.
TCEQ staff proposed encouraging or requiring use of biodegradable erosion and sediment controls "where feasible" as part of the 2028 Construction General Permit renewal. The proposal drew both support and practical concerns from stakeholders during the meeting.
"While no uh comment or uh anything on the laudable goal there, the challenge from implementing that is oftent times we're required to follow the BMP details and specifications provided by the jurisdiction," said Patrick Hodkus of Compliance Resources, summing up a frequent industry concern: local plan sheets and jurisdictional BMP specifications often list allowed products, and if biodegradable options are not on those lists consultants and contractors may have to mark "infeasible."
Why it matters: Many temporary BMPs (silt fence, compost socks, erosion control blankets) contain synthetic polymers that can shed microplastics as they degrade. TCEQ staff cited plastic pollution concerns and said an infeasibility clause would allow operators to document why biodegradable materials are not practical for a site.
Stakeholder concerns and recommendations: Several commenters urged TCEQ to avoid a blunt, statewide mandate without actionable guidance:
- Local specification alignment: Lillian Butler (formerly with TCEQ's Edwards program) suggested phased or targeted requirements in sensitive areas (for example, recharge zones) and warned broad, undefined infeasibility claims could undermine the policy.
- Procurement and plan‑sheet availability: Contractors and MS4 staff noted that biodegradable options must be included in jurisdictional BMP menus or plan sheets to be selectable during design and procurement.
- Research and tradeoffs: Eric Smith urged TCEQ to assess tradeoffs between sediment control effectiveness and microplastic contributions from biodegradable polymers, recommending further evaluation before prescriptive requirements.
Agency response and next steps: TCEQ acknowledged the concerns and said the proposed language intentionally includes an infeasibility provision and that staff welcome examples of acceptability criteria and jurisdictional specifications. Staff indicated they may pursue guidance or phased approaches rather than an immediate, prescriptive statewide mandate and invited written comments and data to the stormwater inbox by June 23, 2026.
The public debate highlighted the tension between environmental goals (reducing microplastic inputs) and on‑the‑ground implementability (specifications, availability, cost). Stakeholders asked TCEQ to define acceptable infeasibility reasons and to coordinate with local authorities and procurement channels if Biodegradable BMP language is advanced.
