Aerial view of a detention basin and its watershed on the I-35 corridor between San Antonio and Austin
Coverage · Austin and the I-35 corridor

Stormwater compliance in Austin and the I-35 corridor. SWPPPs, inspections, and pond work, run out of San Antonio.

A San Antonio stormwater firm that works the corridor. SWPPPs and TCEQ filings for Travis and Hays County jobs, inspectors and equipment on site, and no pretending there is an Austin office.

Turnaround
Same-day report
Quote back in
48 hours
Request a quote
What we do here

The scope, and where each piece of it travels.

  • SWPPP preparation and TCEQ filing

    Site-specific plans written to TXR150000 and to whichever reviewer holds the job, with the Notice of Intent filed and coverage confirmed before you break ground.

  • Weekly and post-rain SWPPP inspections

    A qualified inspector on the site every seven days and after every half-inch rain, signed, dated, and in your inbox the same day. Travis, Hays, and Comal counties.

  • Detention pond repair and drainage restoration

    Bathymetric survey, sediment removal, slope regrading, and outlet rebuild on ponds that have stopped holding their design volume. Equipment comes up the corridor with the crew.

  • Post-construction compliance programs

    The inspection calendar, the maintenance cycle, and the filings your MS4 wants, run as a flat annual program rather than a scramble when the audit letter lands.

  • Notice of Violation response

    Same-day site assessment, a written response to the city, and a corrective action plan inside 72 hours. The corridor's enforcement letters read differently from Bexar County's and we read them first.

We are based in far north Bexar County, which puts parts of Austin closer to the yard than parts of the San Antonio metro are. The I-35 corridor between the two cities is really one market for this work: the same TCEQ Construction General Permit, the same Edwards Aquifer running underneath both ends of it, and the same detention ponds silting in behind the same kind of retail pad. We have worked up the corridor for years. What we did not have was a page saying so, which is most of the reason this one exists.

What changes north of the county line is the reviewer. The City of Austin runs its own drainage criteria and its own environmental review, Hays County has its own, and a site inside the Barton Springs Zone carries requirements a San Antonio job never sees. We pull the local criteria before drafting rather than sending a Bexar County plan with the city name swapped, which is the reliable way to get a submittal kicked back and lose three weeks.

The other half of the corridor work is post-construction. Detention ponds built through the 2000s boom along I-35 are fifteen to twenty years old now, which is exactly when sediment, slope erosion, and a plugged outlet orifice have taken enough design volume that the pond stops draining the way the drawing said it would. That work is the same on a San Marcos pad as on a Stone Oak one: survey, sediment removal, regrade, outlet rebuild. It needs equipment on site, and the corridor is short of firms that will bring it.

Where we actually go

We drive the corridor, we do not pretend to live on it. Crews run out of San Antonio, which makes Austin, San Marcos, Kyle, Buda, and New Braunfels routine. Anything past Georgetown or out toward Dripping Springs is a conversation rather than an automatic yes.

Common questions

What Austin and corridor clients ask first.

No. We are based in far north Bexar County and we drive the corridor, which for parts of Austin is a shorter trip than parts of the San Antonio metro. We would rather tell you that than put a virtual address on a map pin. What it means practically is that Austin, San Marcos, Kyle, Buda, and New Braunfels are routine for us, and Georgetown or Dripping Springs is a conversation.

Different enough that a Bexar County plan with the city name swapped gets kicked back. Austin runs its own drainage criteria and its own environmental review, and the erosion-control details and inspection forms it wants are not the ones San Antonio wants. The underlying TCEQ permit is identical. The local layer on top of it is not, and that layer is what a reviewer actually opens.

Yes, and it usually changes the schedule more than the budget. Sites over the Edwards Aquifer recharge and contributing zones sit under a separate TCEQ program that requires a Water Pollution Abatement Plan, and unlike a SWPPP, that one TCEQ genuinely reviews and approves before you build. The review takes time. On a recharge-zone job the WPAP calendar usually drives the whole project calendar, so raise it at the start rather than at permitting.

Yes. Survey, sediment removal, regrading, and outlet rebuild all run up the corridor, and San Marcos and Kyle are inside the normal footprint. Mobilization is a line on the quote rather than something hidden in the unit price, so you can see what the drive costs and decide. On a small job it is sometimes worth waiting until we have a second one nearby.

Same-day assessment where the schedule allows it, next day otherwise, and the written response and corrective action plan inside 72 hours either way. The clock on most NOVs is the response deadline, not the repair, so the first thing that matters is getting something credible in front of the reviewer. We have cleared violations from SAWS, the City of San Antonio, and TCEQ, and the corridor's letters read differently enough that reading them first is the job.
Ready when you are

Get a stormwater
compliance quote.

Free site walk, written scope of work, fixed-price quote. Usually back to you within 48 hours.