Multi-Operator Sites: Who Holds the Liability?

Published September 3, 2026. Last reviewed September 3, 2026. Technical review: Jim Price, CISEC, CESSWI. Founder, Stormwater Compliant LLC.

TXR150000 assigns liability to "operators," and a site can have several at once. Primary operators control construction plans or day-to-day compliance activity. Secondary operators, usually owners, hire others or approve plan changes without on-site control. If no primary operator exists at a site, the secondary operator becomes the primary by default.

That last sentence is why owners who assumed the general contractor was carrying the permit sometimes discover they are the permittee.

---

The Two Operator Types, Defined by Control

Part I.B of the 2023 Construction General Permit defines them by what you actually control, not by what your contract says.

Primary operator is the person or persons who meet either criterion:

(a) the person or persons have on-site operational control over construction plans and specifications, including the ability to make modifications to those plans and specifications; or

(b) the person or persons have day-to-day operational control of those activities at a construction site that are necessary to ensure compliance with a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWP3) for the site or other permit conditions.

Secondary operator is:

The person or entity, often the property owner, whose operational control is limited to:

(a) the employment of other operators, such as a general contractor, to perform or supervise construction activities; or

(b) the ability to approve or disapprove changes to construction plans and specifications, but who does not have day-to-day on-site operational control over construction activities at the site.

	Primary operator	Secondary operator
Typical party	General contractor, site contractor, homebuilder on their lot	Property owner, developer who has sold out
Test	Can modify plans and specs on site, or can direct crews on SWP3 compliance	Hires operators, or approves plan changes, without day-to-day site control
SWP3	Prepares and implements	Prepares own, or participates in a shared plan
Site notice	TCEQ-20961	TCEQ-20962
NOI (large sites)	Files	Files

The test is functional. A contract calling you a "consultant" does not help if you are directing crews on SWP3 compliance. Conversely, an owner who genuinely has no on-site control is a secondary operator regardless of what the AIA agreement says.

---

The Provision That Turns Owners Into Permittees

From Part I.B: "If there is not a primary operator at the construction site, then the secondary operator is defined as the primary operator and must comply with the requirements for primary operators."

Read that again if you own property being developed.

The permit does not tolerate a site with no primary operator. If nobody at the site meets the primary test, the role does not go unfilled. It falls to the secondary operator, which is usually the owner.

This is not a theoretical risk. It arises when an owner hires trades directly instead of a GC, when a GC's contract explicitly disclaims stormwater responsibility and nobody else picks it up, when a developer finishes horizontal work and leaves before builders mobilize, and when the party who was primary files a Notice of Termination and walks while disturbance continues.

Secondary operators also are not passive in the ordinary case. The permit requires them to either prepare their own SWP3 or participate in a shared SWP3 covering the areas where they control plans and specifications. "The contractor handles that" is not a permit position.

---

The Subdivision Case, Resolved

This is the most common multi-operator scenario in the San Antonio growth corridor, so here it is concretely.

A developer plats a 60-lot subdivision, builds the horizontal infrastructure, and sells finished lots to four homebuilders.

During horizontal construction: the developer, or their site contractor, is the primary operator. The developer files the NOI for the large construction activity, maintains the SWP3, and posts the site notice.

Once builders mobilize: each homebuilder has day-to-day operational control over their own lots. Each is an operator. Their individual lot is well under an acre, but the subdivision is a larger common plan of development, so the whole thing is regulated. See when a SWPPP is required in Texas.

Most homebuilders in this position do not know they are operators. It is the single most common source of surprise violations we respond to.

Each builder must either prepare their own SWP3 for their lots or participate in a shared SWP3. In practice the shared plan is almost always the better structure.

When the developer sells out and leaves: if the developer was the only primary operator and terminates coverage while builders are still disturbing soil, someone has to be primary. Either the builders are, on their own lots, or the obligation lands on whoever remains as secondary operator. This handoff is where subdivisions go wrong, and it goes wrong quietly, months before anyone notices.

---

Shared SWPPPs

The permit expressly contemplates a shared plan, and on a multi-builder site it is usually the right answer.

Why it works better: one site map maintained by one party, one set of common-area controls with clear ownership, one inspection program, and one document an inspector reviews rather than four that contradict each other.

What it has to do: cover all areas where each participating operator controls plans and specifications, clearly identify which operator is responsible for which areas and which controls, and remain accessible to every participant.

What it does not do: it does not merge liability. Each operator remains responsible for their own obligations. A shared plan is a shared document, not a shared defense.

The practical failure mode: a shared plan that nobody updates. Four builders, common-area controls, and no named party responsible for maintaining the plan produces a document that is stale within a month. Assign that maintenance explicitly and in writing.

---

Who Posts Which Notice

On large construction sites of five acres or more:

• Primary operators post the Large Construction Site Notice, TCEQ-20961, along with the first page of the submitted NOI.
• Secondary operators post TCEQ-20962.

On small construction sites of 1 to under 5 acres, operators post the Small Construction Site Notice, TCEQ-20963, signed, at least two days before construction begins.

On a subdivision with several operators, expect several notices posted. That is correct, not redundant. Each operator's notice carries their own contact information, which is the point: an inspector standing at the entrance needs to know who to call about which portion of the site.

Full filing detail is in the 1-acre vs 5-acre rule.

---

When Control Transfers

Operational control changes hands routinely, and the permit treats it as a triggering event.

When a primary operator transfers responsibility to another primary operator, the incoming operator has to meet the same requirements as any existing primary operator, including their own authorization. If an additional primary operator joins after the initial NOI is submitted, they carry the same obligations.

For the outgoing party, a transfer of operational control is one of the conditions that starts the 30-day Notice of Termination clock, alongside achieving final stabilization and obtaining alternative authorization.

The important consequence: transferring control does not end your liability by itself. Coverage runs until the NOT is submitted and approved by TCEQ. A contractor who hands off a site and never files is still on the permit. See filing the Notice of Termination.

---

What a Written Division of Responsibilities Should Cover

The permit does not mandate a specific document. Every dispute we have watched play out would have been shorter with one.

Put it in writing before mobilization, and cover:

• Who is the primary operator, by name, and for which portions of the site
• Who is a secondary operator, and what they control
• Who prepares and maintains the SWP3, and whether it is shared
• Who updates the site map, and how changes get communicated
• Who performs inspections, on which schedule, and who receives the reports
• Who maintains common-area controls such as the sediment basin, perimeter controls, and the stabilized construction exit
• Who maintains lot-specific controls, and where each lot's boundary of responsibility sits
• Who responds to a finding in a shared area, and within what time
• Who files the NOI, and who files the NOT, with the trigger for each
• What happens at handoff when the developer or a builder leaves
• Who is the point of contact for TCEQ, the City, SAWS, or the County

That last one matters more than it looks. When an inspector arrives at a four-builder subdivision and asks who is responsible, a documented answer changes the tone of the entire visit.

---

---

Structuring a Multi-Builder Project?

We write shared SWPPPs for subdivisions and multi-prime sites across San Antonio, Bexar County, Boerne, New Braunfels, and Seguin, including the division of responsibilities and a common-area inspection program that covers every operator on the plat.

If you are a homebuilder who just discovered you are an operator, or an owner who is not certain whether anyone at your site meets the primary test, that is a determination worth making now rather than after a finding. Send us the plat and the contract structure.

Free site walk, written scope, fixed price, typically inside 48 hours.

Request a quote or call (210) 776-6515. See our SWPPP services, or the full permit walkthrough in our field guide to the TCEQ Construction General Permit.

---

Sources

• TCEQ, 2023 Construction General Permit TXR150000 (PDF), Part I.B and Part II
• TCEQ, Stormwater General Permit for Construction Activities