Dallas and Denton drinking water at risk by TxDOT's route choice for FM 2499

By Faith Chatham - DFWRCC - Oct. 7, 2007
(This diary is about TxDOT's selection of the most costly, most environmentally dangerous route for FM2499. FM 2499 runs through Denton County connecting with I35 (prospective route of Trans Texas Corridor. The route selected crosses emergent federal wetlands, three forks of Lake Lewisville which provides drinking water to Dallas and Denton Counties).
Crossposted on Texas Kaos.

Letter from Highland Village Parents Group to Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert:

Letter to Mayor of Dallas
Dear Mr. Leppert:

I am writing this letter to bring to your attention a matter of some grave concern.

Just this week, I contacted the Dallas Water Department to inquire about the extent of their knowledge and participation in matters pertaining to a major Dallas drinking water source. I foolishly presumed that the Water Department would be fully informed of activities that might potentially pollute this source. It came to my attention in 2003 that despite the events of 9/11, and the nation's terrorist concerns, there was very little inter-agency communication on matters that could potentially threaten resources and facilities of our local Cities.

I live in Highland Village, which is situated at the southern and western boundary of Lake Lewisville. This community has had an ongoing battle with regard to the proposed alignment of Section 4 of FM 2499, a 4 - 6 lane thoroughfare that Texas Department of Transportation (TxDot) plans to run through our 96 percent owner-occupied residential community. Members of our community contacted the City of Dallas at that time, to ask them about their participation in the selection process for the alignment for this road, since Alignment 3, (there were originally 10) through Highland Village, was the only easement that would take this roadway over Lake Lewisville. We assumed the City would be involved since Dallas owns the water rights. They were not! With the huge outcry at the Public Hearings and considerable media coverage at that time, we presumed Dallas would get involved, especially as TxDot went ahead and selected Alternative 3 over other less controversial and less expensive routes for this road. They apparently did not!

This particular alignment, through our unique and massively "hilly" neighborhoods, through wetlands and over the western boundary of Lake Lewisville is very controversial! It is the most disruptive and THE MOST EXPENSIVE of all options which were available. The environmental threat from this road is huge - to human and wildlife (Lake Lewisville already has a high MTBE content according to EPA reports). Yet it somehow 'squeaked' inside the NEPA guidelines and was 'shoehorned' under the radar, to fit the need to move this project along. Leadership of Copper Canyon - the neighboring community which was the site for several of the other alternatives, fought this roadway from the very beginning. Leadership of Highland Village did not! That is what is amounted to. Despite the huge citizen opposition, despite being elevated above grade (up to 15 ft. in places), and less than 10 feet from some homes; despite the necessity to build bridges over emergent wetlands along the western boundary of Lake Lewisville - and potential threat to this drinking water source, the project received an assessment of "no significant impact" to the surrounding community, in late 2005. No formal Environmental Impact Study (EIS) was ever done. The conditions for the lesser study were also less than ideal. No ground assessment was ever done for the emergent wetlands evaluation portion, and all areas of promised mitigation to the community (for what they were worth) cannot be fulfilled because the City of Highland Village does not have authority over this State highway. And yet apparently, through all this, the City of Dallas stayed out of this process.

TxDot is preparing to put this construction project out to bids next month. Highland Village families continue to fight the project and have recently been talking to an environmental attorney, to seek advice on how we should move forward at this time. We had hoped to stop the process before now, or at a minimum force TxDot to complete a proper Environmental Impact Study (EIS). This especially in light of the recent USC Medical study published earlier this year in Lancet, implicating automobile pollution as a major source of loss of lung function in children, and more recently the reports about breast cancer from the same source. This agency appears to be determined to push forward with this project however, even with their recent acknowledgement of a $290 million deficit in state funds. We are therefore trying to get as many people involved as possible, in asking the right questions, so that they might reconsider the repercussions of their choices. I called the Dallas Water Department about 11 days ago to discuss this matter, and was instructed that Jodi Puckett, the Director, was out of the office. Earlier this week I received a call from Rick Galceron(sp?) in Ms. Pucket's stead. Mr. Galceron informed me that he was unaware of any participation or issues with regard to this or any other proposed highway crossing of Lake Lewisville. He told me he would make some calls to find out what he could, and then get back to me. I have heard no more to date, and therefore feel I should bring this matter to you Mr. Leppert, as the newly appointed Mayor of the City of Dallas. I felt you would wish to be informed of this and other matters of such importance. I realize I am a simple "lay-person" in this area, but I find the lack of apparent concern and cooperation in this matter to disturbing to the point of outrageous. We are after all talking about a potential threat to one of the City of Dallas' largest sources of potable water. A lack of inter-agency co-operation regarding a project of this scale, which has the potential of putting massive amounts of toxins into that source, is absurd. Mistakes are made and accidents happen. That no cooperation is believed necessary is shocking! Whatever happened to the requirements for stepped up security on such resources? Given the recent concerns not that long ago following the spill at Lake Tawakoni, one would have thought there would be more involvement and monitoring of these matters. I have to wonder whether the citizens of Dallas are aware of how little oversight is being given to their drinking water source. I would appreciate hearing from you at you earliest convenience in response to my concerns.

Sincerely,

Susie Venable
Concerned Parent/Citizen/Homeowner/Taxpayer
of Highland Village, Texas

Susie Venable's letter points out that:
* TxDOT selected the most EXPENSIVE ROUTE

* It will cost two times more to build Section 4 of FM2499 on the selected route than it would on any of the other 7 alternate routes.

*This route is the only one that threatens the drinking water of Dallas and Denton counties.

* The EPA and TxDOT and US Army Corp of Engineers and NCTCOG have all failed to ensure the safety of human beings.

* The environmental assessment is inadequate. They did not assess the impact of the route on human health.

The real "topper", in my estimation, is that TxDOT claims that this route was chosen "because of local demand!" Gee! Over 3000 citizens from a SMALL TOWN showed up at hearings in 2003 to protest this route. The fire marshal closed the meeting and turned hundreds away. TxDOT held the overflow meeting at UNT to have enough space. Susie said when she signed up to speak she was told over 900 people had already signed in before her!

Yet a few elected officials recommended this route! Some of them have been voted out of office, yet this route moves forward and TxDOT is prepared to open bidding for it on Nov. 1st.

This is not how the process should work! This illustrates how broken and unresponsive the system is to citizens' input, wishes, best interest.

I don't know who owns undeveloped land along this path. There are probably some decision makers with conflicts of interest. However, because TxDOT refuses to cooperate with compliance with the Texas Local Government Disclosure laws, it is difficult to determine which local officials who recommended this project will benefit or have close associates who will benefit financially by the selection of this VERY EXPENSIVE boondoggle!

It is appalling that the Dallas City and County Commission is sleeping through this route selection.

They should be PRINCIPALS in this -- following it closely to ensure that proper EIS is performed to protect their valuable drinking water. However, despite citizens attempts to engage them they are still asleep at the wheel.
This route will go up for bid in November! It will cost twice as much for them to build it on route alternate 3 (of 8) than on any of the other seven routes!

Gee. Wonder why they have money woes in the Texas Department of Transportation. They choose routes which are the most environmentally dangerous and double the cost of other alternate routes. They waste money on TV ads trying to get us to "like" toll roads and welcome the Trans Texas Corridor. They spend money on lobbyist to lobby the Federal Government. Gosh. Isn't that illegal. Somewhere in the crevices of my brain it seems there is something tucked away which says that governmental agencies are not supposed to spend tax payer money lobbying Congress. It amazes me that Ric Williamson and Speaker Jim Wright could come from the same place. Jim fought for the Constitution and Williamson runs the Texas Department of Transportation like it is the henchman of Attia the Hun! His rape and burn toll road policy threatens the very fabric of American life. They've told people that there is no way to build roads except tolls so long that some smart people have begun to believe it. Wait! Stop! Think! Examine the facts! There are better ways to do this.

Roads are supposed to serve the needs of people. The people who live near them are the ones who probably should have the greatest interest in them because they should serve their needs more frequently than those who live far away. However, TxDOT pays attention to out of state and out of the country parties more than they listen to the people in the neighborhood of the road project. Many project proceed more as Corporate Workfare project than as projects to serve the true transportation needs of the people of Texas.

That may explain it. Since the goal is probably to benefit contractors more than to serve the transportation needs of the citizens, it would make more sense to select the most costly route. That way there is double the pork to divvie out on this one project. However, they are ruining the integrity of a very nice neighborhood, endangering the health of millions of people in two counties, and endangering the health of over 1000 children who live within 1500 feet of the road.

Oh well. Too sad. No one is answering their phone who is really concerned about the health of people. The EA (done from an airplane) didn't note any endangered species. Wonder if they could see children from the air? They noted that their study did not assess the impact of the road on the health of human beings! Gee! Isn't that great? A handful of elected officials get to request that a route be fast tracked environmentally and the voices of over 3000 citizens is ignored.

What really irkes me is the excuse TxDOT gives for the selection of this route is "citizen demand"! 3000 citizens speaking out against it at public hearings didn't register. They only listened to a handful of elected officials (some of whom have already been voted out of office.)

Folks, we have to wake up and take note of the local races. It is county commissioners and city council members who carry the weight when it comes to recommending or stopping road projects. Toll roads have to be approved by the County Commission. Yet we sleep through these races.

For way too long the Democratic party has said that it was "focusing only on specific upticket races." In many cities and counties in Texas most of the local slots are filled by Republicans who ran unopposed!

Hank Gilbert is right. We have to ask EVERY CANDIDATE what his or her position is on toll roads and eminent domain. We have to challenge every pro toller in our towns and counties. We have to replace those who think it is o.k. for Texans to have to pay for every mile we drive on state highways.

Besides, when a political party fails to elect people to local offices, they create a world where there are no experienced candidates to run for higher offices. It is very difficult to recruit a strong state wide slate if we fail to fill City Commissions and County Commissions and County Judge slots with qualified Democrats.

Every Dallas County Commissioner, ever Dallas City Council Person should be looking into the ramifications of this route selection on the health of citzens of Dallas.

Denton County should too, but they are the ones who asked for it to be fast tracked and for the draft EIS to be set aside in favor of the shorter, less extensive, more inadequate Environmental Assessment.

MTBE - the saga continues

By Faith Chatham - DFWRCC - September 30, 2007
Dallas and Denton counties drinking water supply is threatened by the route selected by TxDOT for FM 2499. Despite over 3000 citizens objecting to the route at public meetings in 2003, TxDOT is scheduled to open bidding for Section 4 of FM2499 in October.

A Denton County Taskforce requested that this route be expedited. A draft EIS (Environmental Impact Study) was set aside for a much more brief, less extensive EA (Environmental Assessment). When the EA was performed, there was flooding in the region and arial assessment was substituted fon on the ground assessments. The EA (and TxDOT) refuses to consider the impact to human life in their EA.

Alarming levels of MTBE have already been found in Lake Lewisville. How it got there is unknown. Scientific evidence shows that water is contaminated by leaking gasoline tanks and gasoline spills. Many states have banned MTBE. Texas has not. Our gasoline still contains MTBE. Cars and trucks and tankers traveling over tributaries to the drinking water of millions of people heightens the risk of further MTBE contamination.

A brief search brings up more information than most of us care to know about MTBE.

Wikipedia describes MTBE:

Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) is a chemical compound with molecular formula C5H12O. MTBE is a volatile, flammable and colorless liquid that is highly soluble in water. MTBE has a minty odour vaguely reminiscent of diethyl ether, leading to unpleasant taste and odour in water. MTBE is a gasoline additive, used as an oxygenate and to raise the octane number, although its use has declined in the United States in response to environmental and health concerns. It has been found to easily pollute large quantities of groundwater when gasoline with MTBE is spilled or leaked at gas stations. MTBE is also used in organic chemistry as a relatively inexpensive solvent with properties comparable to diethyl ether but with a higher boiling point and lower solubility in water. It is also used medically to dissolve gallstones.

PRODUCTION:

Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) is a chemical compound with molecular formula C5H12O. MTBE is a volatile, flammable and colorless liquid that is highly soluble in water. MTBE has a minty odour vaguely reminiscent of diethyl ether, leading to unpleasant taste and odour in water. MTBE is a gasoline additive, used as an oxygenate and to raise the octane number, although its use has declined in the United States in response to environmental and health concerns. It has been found to easily pollute large quantities of groundwater when gasoline with MTBE is spilled or leaked at gas stations. MTBE is also used in organic chemistry as a relatively inexpensive solvent with properties comparable to diethyl ether but with a higher boiling point and lower solubility in water. It is also used medically to dissolve gallstones.

SOURCE:

SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is a United States federal law passed by the U.S. Congress on December 16, 1974. It is the main federal law that ensures safe drinking water for Americans. With this act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is allowed to set the standards for drinking water quality and oversees all of the states, localities, and water suppliers who implement these standards.

SDWA applies to every public water system in the United States. There are currently more than 160,000 public water systems providing water to almost all Americans at some time in their lives...
Most refiners have chosen to use MTBE over other oxygenates primarily for its blending characteristics and for economic reasons. It is produced from natural gas, which is less expensive than oil.

Since 1992, MTBE has been used at higher concentrations in some gasoline to fulfill the oxygenate requirements set by the United States Congress in Clean Air Act amendments; however, since 1999, in California and other locations MTBE has begun to be phased out because of groundwater contamination (California Air Resources Board, 2004). Due to its higher solubility in water MTBE moves more quickly than other fuel components (California Air Resources Board, 2004). The Energy Policy Act of 2005 reduces the federal requirement for oxygen content in reformulated gasoline.

In 1995 high levels of MTBE were unexpectedly discovered in the water wells of Santa Monica, California, and the U.S. Geological Survey reported detections.[3] Subsequent U.S. findings indicate tens of thousands of contaminated sites in water wells distributed across the country. As per toxicity alone, MTBE is not classified as a hazard for the environment. The maximum contaminant level of MTBE in drinking water has not yet been established by the EPA. The leakage problem is partially attributed to the lack of effective regulations for underground storage tanks, but spillage from overfilling remains an important upset scenario. As an ingredient in unleaded gasoline, MTBE is the most soluble part. When dissolved in groundwater, MTBE will lead the contaminant plume with the remaining components such as benzene, toluene, etc. to follow. Thus the discovery of MTBE in public groundwater wells indicates that the contaminant source was a gasoline release. The MTBE concentrations used in the EU (usually 1.0–1.6%) and allowed (maximum 5%) in Europe are lower than in California.[4

CHARACTERISTICS OF MTBE

The high solubility and persistence of MTBE cause it to travel faster and farther than many other gasoline components when released into an aquifer. It is also released whenever gasoline with MTBE is spilled on the ground. Because it is so water soluble, it easily moves through soil, polluting both surface and groundwater.

MTBE has widespread occurrences in the aquifers of North America, where the majority of groundwater chemistry data has been acquired. As one regional example, the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board has indicated MTBE is one of the groundwater pollutants of most widespread concern in this major metropolitan region of the USA.

HEALTH RISK

The IARC, a cancer research agency of the World Health Organization, maintains MTBE is not classifiable as a human carcinogen. However, exposure to large doses of MTBE has significant non-cancer-related health risks. MTBE ruins the taste of water at concentrations of 5 – 15 µg/l[9] so that significant concentrations of MTBE in drinking water are detectable.

MTBE is not classified as a human carcinogen in low exposure levels by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). However, it has been shown to cause kidney lesions in animals. As an ether, MTBE acts as an emulsifier, increasing the solubility of other, harmful components of gasoline (for example, the known carcinogen benzene). It thus may increase the risk of contamination by other compounds. MTBE is biodegraded very slowly, remaining in water for decades or more. In addition some MTBE degrades in blood to the associated alcohol, tert-butanol, with a greatly increased residence time. The prolonged presence of this alcohol derivative is not fully understood.

Some industry advocates of MTBE contend that it has little provable effect on humans, although its manufacturers did not test it for its effects on human health before introducing it as an additive. As of 2007, researchers have limited data about the health effects from ingestion of MTBE. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has concluded that available data are not adequate to quantify health risks of MTBE at low exposure levels in drinking water, but that the data support the conclusion that MTBE is a potential human carcinogen at high doses.

LEGISLATION AND LITIGATION
United States

Because MTBE is so highly soluble in water, it is very difficult to clean up. Estimates of the cost of removing MTBE from groundwater and soil contamination range from $1[12] to $30[13]billion, including removing the compound from aquifers and municipal water supplies and replacing leaky underground oil tanks. Some controversy centers on who will pay the costs of this remediation. In one case, the cost to oil companies to clean up the MTBE in wells belonging to Santa Monica is estimated to exceed $200 million.[14]

Recent state laws have been passed to ban MTBE in certain areas. California and New York, which together accounted for 40% of U.S. MTBE consumption, banned the chemical starting January 1, 2004, and as of September, 2005, twenty-five states had signed legislation banning MTBE. (A table of state by state information, as of 2002, is available at the United States Department of Energy website.[15]

In 2000, the U.S. EPA drafted plans to phase out the use of MTBE nationwide over four years. Upon taking office, the Bush administration cancelled those plans.

In April of 2002, a California jury found several oil companies guilty of irresponsibly manufacturing and distributing MTBE, stating that the companies acted with malice in failing to warn customers about the dangers of MTBE contamination. As of fall 2006, hundreds of other lawsuits are still pending regarding MTBE contamination of public and private drinking water supplies. Most of these lawsuits have been consolidated into "multi-district litigation" before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin in the federal district court for the Southern District of New York.

The Environmental Working group differs from Wikipedia on the Energy Policy Act.
Wikipedia states:

The Energy Policy Act of 2005, passed in the House on April 21, 2005, did not include a provision for shielding MTBE manufacturers from water contamination lawsuits. This provision was first proposed in 2003 and had been thought by some to be a priority of Tom DeLay and Rep. Joe Barton, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. This bill did include a provision that gives MTBE makers, including some major oil companies, $2 billion in transition assistance as MTBE is phased out over the next nine years. Due to opposition in the Senate, the conference report dropped all MTBE provisions. The final bill was passed by both houses and signed into law by President Bush. The lack of MTBE liability protection is resulting in a switchover to the use of ethanol as a gasoline additive, which is in limited supply in April 2006. Some traders and consumer advocates are blaming this for an increase in gasoline prices.

The Environmental Working Group states:

The House Republican leadership is considering legislation to strictly limit oil company liability for contaminating groundwater in at least 28 states with the toxic gasoline additive MTBE, or methyl tertiary butyl ether. The oil industry and its friends in Congress say it's only fair to shield MTBE makers from lawsuits, since, they claim, it was the government that mandated oil companies to reformulate gas with MTBE in the first place, to clean the air.
The liability waiver is a top priority for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Energy and Commerce Committee chair Joe Barton, both of Texas, home of most the oil and chemical companies that produced MTBE until contamination problems prompted California and 16 other states to ban it. The waiver, included in a draft of the energy bill from Barton's committee, would prohibit lawsuits charging that the additive was a faulty product that the industry knew would leak from storage tanks and contaminate water supplies — the exact argument two California communities used in court to win multimillion-dollar settlements to clean up the contamination and secure new supplies. The bill not only closes the door to new defective-product lawsuits, but throws out of court all cases filed since Sept. 5, 2003. The bill bans MTBE nationwide in 2014, but in the interim gives the chemical's manufacturers $250 million a year — $2 billion total — in "transition assistance grants" to convert their facilities to other products.

Recently, evidence has surfaced that a decade ago, House Commerce Committee lawyers told members that using MTBE was the industry's choice, not the Environmental Protection Agency's requirement. A June 5, 1995 memo from staff counsel to a Commerce Committee subcommittee that included Barton explained that the EPA's Reformulated Gasoline Program (RFG) did not mandate or favor MTBE (made from methanol) over any other oxygenate that could be used to reformulate gasoline:
...
Following release of the memo by Rep. Henry Waxman of California, a spokesman for Barton said the congressman still believes that oil companies were forced to produce MTBE when the federal government required the development of additives that make gasoline burn more cleanly.

But a different story emerges from internal industry documents and depositions, made public in recent successful lawsuits brought by cities and a California public inerest group called Communities for a Better Environment that want oil companies to pay to clean up water made undrinkable and unhealthy by MTBE. The documents, provided to EWG by CBE's lawyers Scott Summy and Celeste Evangelisti, show that the oil industry itself lobbied hard for the MTBE mandate because they made the additive and stood to profit.

In a 1995 deposition, a top ARCO executive admitted under oath, "The EPA did not initiate reformulated gasoline...." He clarified that "the oil industry... brought this [MTBE] forward as an alternative to what the EPA had initially proposed."

By 1986, the oil industry was adding 54,000 barrels of MTBE to gasoline each day. By 1991, one year before the EPA requirements went into effect, the industry was using more than 100,000 barrels of MTBE per day in reformulated gasoline. [View document] Yet secret oil company studies, conducted at least as early as 1980, showed the industry knew that MTBE contaminated ground water virtually everywhere it was used.

Oil companies are pressing Congress for liability protection because hundreds of communities have serious MTBE contamination problems, and company documents are coming back to haunt them in the courtroom. In April, the documents convinced a California jury to find Shell, Texaco, Tosco, Lyondell Chemical (ARCO Chemical), and Equilon Enterprises liable for selling a defective product (gasoline with MTBE) while failing to warn of its pollution hazard, forcing a $60 million settlement with the water district for South Lake Tahoe.

Source:

More from Wikipedia:

Certain patents important in the manufacture of MTBE are not held by American companies; for example, United States patent 5536886, Process for preparing alkyl ethers,[20] is owned by the Finnish company Neste. The same corporation also went on to patent the replacement of the MTBE process, an octane production process trademarked NExOCTANE.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) currently lists methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) as a candidate for a maximum contaminant level (MCL) in drinking water. MCL's are determined by the EPA using toxicity data.

The SDWA requires EPA to establish National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) for contaminants that may cause adverse public health effects. The regulations include both mandatory levels (Maximum Contaminant Levels, or MCLs) and nonenforceable health goals (Maximum Contaminant Level Goals, or MCLGs) for each included contaminant. MCLGs have extra significance because they can be used under Superfund as Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) in NPL cleanups.

The 1986 SDWA amendments required EPA to apply future NPDWRs to both community and non-transient non-community water systems when it evaluated and revised current regulations. The first case in which this was applied was the final rule on July 8, 1987 (52 FR 25690). At that time NPDWRs were promulgated for certain synthetic volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and applied to non-transient non-community water systems as well as community water systems. This rulemaking also clarified that non-transient non-community water systems were not subject to MCLs that were promulgated before July 8, 1987.

...

Public Information and Consultation: SDWA emphasizes that consumers have a right to know what is in their drinking water, where it comes from, how it is treated, and how to help protect it. US EPA distributes public information materials (through its Safe Drinking Water Hotline, Safewater web site, and Water Resource Center) and holds public meetings, working with states, tribes, water systems, and environmental and civic groups, to encourage public involvement.

SOURCE:

See also: What the Oil Companies Knew and When They Knew It by the Environmental Working Group.

HV Parents Group Refutes TxDOTs Conclusions

By Faith Chatham - DFWRCC - September 30, 2007