Troubled waters

DFW Airport officials were warned years ago that they had a problem with water pollution. So why are fish still dying?

A A A Comments By Miriam Rozen Thursday, Sep 16 1999

...continued from page 4

In its October report, the EPA stated that DFW must have a special permit for its existing 17 storm-water outfalls if the airport is to continue discharging processed wastewater. The federal regulators seemed particularly unhappy in their report that DFW administrators had failed to provide any documentation for a study that airport officials said was under way about how to fix the problems. The EPA received only some of DFW's documents although it had asked for all.

"There were several concerns noted during the inspection of the Dallas/Fort Worth Airport," the EPA report states. "DFWA does not have permit coverage for any of its wastewater or storm-water discharges...even if [it] did have storm-water coverage, they would not be compliant based on the description of the makeup of the discharges currently being discharged from the storm-water outfalls.

Peter Calvin

A broken sewer line sent pollution rolling into Trigg Lake at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, killing hundreds of fish.

Peter Calvin

Seventeen large drains like this one discharge runoff -- some of it polluted -- from DFW's storm-water system into surrounding streams.

More About

Like this Story?

Sign up for the Weekly Newsletter: Our weekly feature stories, movie reviews, calendar picks and more - minus the newsprint and sent directly to your inbox.

DFW officials dismiss the EPA report. They note that the investigator did only a sight inspection and failed to do any lab testing, which scientifically undercut his conclusions.

But state regulators don't seem any more content than their federal counterparts with the airport's handling of industrial wastewater.

"DFW is going to have to determine the source," says TNRCC's Barrett. "DFW will have to investigate."

It's not as if airport board executives will have problems finding the trouble spots. Much of the documentation exists in their files. Given their level of frankness in the past, the question remains how much of that they will share with regulators -- particularly since they could face the prospect of $25,000 daily administrative fines and, if they are found to have knowingly violated the environmental rules, possible criminal penalties. There is also the question of what they have told the FAA in the past when they have sought grants to expand the airport. Did they check the standard boxes that said they were complying with environmental laws?

"I have a tendency to believe what people tell me," concedes the TNRCC's Barrett, "but if I find out you didn't tell me the truth, then I'm careful the next time."

Says DFW's Cox, "We are going to encounter some environmental hiccups. That is why we have an environmental affairs department."

Check out this week's featured ad for News