Texas · regulation guide
TCEQ Edwards Aquifer Protection Program (WPAP)
A pre-construction water-quality permit required before almost any regulated activity above the Edwards Aquifer, one of the few sole-source aquifers in the United States supplying drinking water to nearly two million people.
- Statute
- 30 TAC §213
- Authority
- Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)
Who this triggers for
- ›Any construction disturbing one or more acres on the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone — triggers a Water Pollution Abatement Plan (WPAP) under 30 TAC §213.5.
- ›Any regulated activity on the Contributing Zone within the Barton Springs segment (Hays and Travis counties) — triggers a Contributing Zone Plan (CZP) under §213.23.
- ›Underground or aboveground storage tanks, wastewater collection lines, or sewage facilities sited over the Recharge or Transition Zone — separate §213.6 and §213.8 reviews apply in addition to the WPAP.
- ›Subdivision of land, road construction, or utility trenching on the Recharge Zone, even when no building is proposed — TCEQ reads "regulated activity" broadly.
- ›Modifications to an existing approved WPAP — increases in impervious cover, re-graded drainage, or changes to temporary BMPs all require an amendment, not a new filing.
The process
- 01
Pre-application diligence and zone confirmation
2–6 weeksConfirm which Edwards zone the parcel intersects using the TCEQ Edwards Viewer. Recharge and Transition boundaries are precise — a few feet can move a project between permit tracks. A licensed Texas geoscientist or engineer walks the site to catalogue caves, sinkholes, faults, and recharge features. Pre-application conferences with the TCEQ Austin regional office are informal but strongly recommended for sites over five acres.
- 02
Geologic assessment and WPAP drafting
4–12 weeksA Professional Geoscientist produces the geologic assessment report (required by §213.5(b)(4)(G)) identifying sensitive features and recommending sealing, diversion, or avoidance. The WPAP itself is a sealed engineering document: temporary BMPs during construction, permanent water-quality controls sized to remove 80% of the annual increase in TSS load, a spill response plan, and an inspection schedule.
- 03
TCEQ administrative and technical review
60–120 daysTCEQ has 60 days for administrative completeness review and an additional 60 days for technical review once declared complete. Notices of Deficiency (NODs) are common and restart the clock. Austin-area projects routinely land at the long end of the range because of cumulative impact concerns in the Barton Springs segment.
- 04
Pre-construction inspection and notice to proceed
2–4 weeksBefore any ground-breaking, the TCEQ regional inspector must walk the site to verify that temporary BMPs match the approved plan. A signed pre-construction notice is required by §213.5(f) — starting earthwork without it is a separate enforcement trigger. Post-construction certification by the engineer of record closes out the permit once permanent controls are built and stabilized.
Costs and timelines
| Line item | Typical range |
|---|---|
| TCEQ WPAP application fee (§213.5) | $1,550 |
| CZP application fee (§213.23) | $1,050 |
| Geologic assessment (PG-sealed report) | $5,000 – $15,000 |
| WPAP engineering (design + BMP sizing) | $15,000 – $60,000 typical |
| TCEQ administrative review | 60 days statutory |
| TCEQ technical review (post-completeness) | 60 days, often extended by NOD |
| Permit modification (amendment) fee | $1,050 per amendment |
| Total typical pre-construction timeline | 4–8 months from engagement to NTP |
Common mistakes
- ✕
Counting disturbance against the wrong baseline
The one-acre threshold in §213.5 is cumulative, not per-phase. Splitting a 2-acre grading plan into two 0.9-acre phases does not avoid the WPAP — TCEQ aggregates related activity under common ownership.
- ✕
Treating "Contributing Zone" as unregulated
Only the Barton Springs segment has a CZP requirement. But sites on the San Antonio segment Contributing Zone still feed the Recharge Zone and often face downstream TPDES, MS4, and local ordinance constraints — do not read "no WPAP" as "no water-quality permit."
- ✕
Missing karst features during due diligence
A cave or sensitive feature discovered after WPAP approval is a permit modification at best and a work-stop at worst. In Travis and Williamson counties it may also trigger a USFWS §7 or §10 consultation for listed karst invertebrates — a 12–24 month HCP path.
- ✕
Assuming state WPAP approval clears city review
Inside the Barton Springs Zone, an approved WPAP is the floor, not the ceiling. Austin's Save Our Springs Ordinance caps impervious cover at 15–25% and imposes net-zero pollutant loading, which can shrink a project's buildable area even after TCEQ signs off.
- ✕
Letting the pre-construction inspection lapse
A WPAP approval does not authorize earthwork on its own — §213.5(f) requires a signed notice from the TCEQ regional inspector after BMPs are installed. Breaking ground under an "approved but not inspected" WPAP is the single most common enforcement trigger TCEQ reports.
Related rules
- Austin Save Our Springs OrdinanceLocal overlay inside the Barton Springs Zone — often the tighter of the two caps.
- Texas regulatory stackEdwards is one of seven Texas layers TierraLens models — TPDES, karst ESA, RRC, and more.
- TCEQ Edwards Aquifer Protection PortalAgency landing page — forms, guidance, contacts for the Austin regional office.
- TCEQ Edwards Aquifer Map ViewerOfficial zone boundary GIS viewer — the only authoritative source for Recharge/Transition/Contributing lines.
Sources and authorities
Need this in code, not a PDF?
TierraLens returns every regulation on this page as structured, queryable data — citations, timelines, and trigger logic included. One API call per parcel.