Randy Neumann, chair of the steering committee of the Scenic Loop-Helotes Creek Alliance, in the above photo leads questioning of the TCEQ during a standing-room only public meeting in San Antonio on May 9, 2023. Below is excerpted from a letter he sent to TCEQ Chairwoman Brooke Paup, and copied to federal, state and local officials and others, in advance of a hearing soon to determine a wastewater permit for Guajolote Ranch, a proposed development of Florida-based Lennar Corp. in northwest Bexar County that would include 2,900 homes on about 1,100 acres and discharge an average of 1 million gallons of treated sewage daily into the critical Helotes Creek watershed. (Photo credit: Kin Man Hui, San Antonio Express-News)

June 30, 2025

Ms. Brooke Paup, Chairwoman
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
MC 100
P. O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087

Dear Ms. Paup,

I write to express my strong opposition to the proposed TPDES discharge permit number WQ0016171001 that would allow treated wastewater to be released atop the Recharge Zone of the Trinity Aquifer, the Contributing Zone of the Edwards Aquifer, and near the Recharge Zone of the Edwards Aquifer, in the karst geography of the Balcones Escarpment Fault Zone in Bexar County, the most karst intensive county in Texas. This action poses a serious threat to both the Trinity and the Edwards aquifers’ water quality and to the survival of multiple federally protected species that depend on its spring-fed waters.

The Edwards Aquifer is a globally significant karst ecosystem that supports a remarkable diversity of aquatic and subterranean life, including several species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). These include:

• Texas Blind Salamander (Eurycea rathbuni)
• Fountain Darter (Etheostoma fonticola)
• Texas Wild Rice (Zizania texana)
• San Marcos Gambusia (Gambusia georgei) – possibly extinct but still listed.
• Comal Springs Riffle Beetle (Heterelmis comalensis)
• Comal Springs Dryopid Beetle (Stygoparnus comalensis)
• Peck’s Cave Amphipod (Stygobromus pecki)
• San Marcos Salamander (Eurycea nana) – listed as threatened.

Each of these species is highly specialized and extremely sensitive to changes in water quality, temperature, and flow. Even trace levels of pollutants can disrupt their fragile habitats, reduce reproductive success, and push them closer to extinction.

The Endangered Species Act, particularly Section 7, mandates that federal and state agencies ensure their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy their critical habitat. Authorizing this discharge permit would risk violating those protections and undermining decades of conservation work.

Moreover, as affirmed in rulings by Judge Lucius Bunton, the courts have recognized the legal and ecological imperative to safeguard the Edwards Aquifer and its unique species. The aquifer is not only a vital water source for millions of Texans, but also a living ecosystem whose health reflects our environmental stewardship.

Furthermore, in the May 2023 Public Meeting at the Doubletree Hotel in San Antonio regarding the Guajolote Ranch TPDES Permit requested by Municipal Operations, LLC (videotaped) a TCEQ staffer indicated that the federally protected cave along the banks of Helotes Creek was not considered in the permit review because the Helotes Creek is not a priority watershed for endangered species.

Legal Reality: ESA Protections Are Location-Agnostic

• The ESA requires that any federal or state action—like issuing a TPDES permit—must not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or adversely modify their critical habitat.
• This applies regardless of whether the area is designated as a “priority watershed.”
• If a cave on the banks of Helotes Creek harbors endangered, aquifer-dependent species (like the Helotes mold beetle or Cokendolpher cave harvestman), then TCEQ has a legal duty to consider those species in its permitting decision.

Cave-Dwelling Species in the Helotes Creek Area

The Edwards Aquifer region, especially in northwest Bexar County, is home to several karst invertebrates listed as endangered, including:

• Helotes mold beetle (Batrisodes venyivi)
• Cokendolpher cave harvestman (Texella cokendolpheri)
• Madla Cave meshweaver (Cicurina madla)
• Government Canyon Bat Cave spider (Neoleptoneta microps)

These species are entirely dependent on the aquifer-fed cave systems and are extremely sensitive to water quality and hydrological changes.

 TCEQ’s Responsibility

Even if Helotes Creek isn’t labeled a “priority watershed,” the presence of federally protected species in a cave adjacent to the creek:

• Triggers ESA Section 7 consultation requirements if federal funding or permitting is involved.
• Requires TCEQ to evaluate potential harm to those species under both state and federal law.
• Cannot be lawfully disregarded just because the watershed lacks a special designation.

In fact, the TCEQ’s own Office of Public Interest Counsel recommended denying the Guajolote Ranch wastewater permit in part due to inadequate protection of endangered species and water quality.

Contaminants of Emerging Concern and the Ethical Duty to Act

In addition to the threat posed to endangered species, I am deeply concerned by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s (TCEQ) refusal to acknowledge the presence of Contaminants of Emerging Concern (CECs) in treated wastewater effluent. These include PFAS (“forever chemicals”), microplastics, and pharmaceutical residues—all of which are increasingly detected in aquatic ecosystems and even in human and animal tissues, including the brain and heart.

While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not yet issued enforceable numeric standards for many of these substances, it has explicitly acknowledged their carcinogenic and endocrine-disrupting effects, particularly for PFAS compounds like PFOA and PFOS. The EPA’s own research links PFAS exposure to kidney and testicular cancer, immune dysfunction, developmental delays, and reproductive harm. Microplastics, likewise, have been associated with neurological disorders, cardiovascular damage, and increased risk of dementia and Parkinson’s disease.

The $14 billion settlement reached by 3M and DuPont over PFAS contamination underscores the magnitude of the public health threat and the legal liability that can arise from ignoring it.

Even in the absence of formal EPA guidance, TCEQ has a statutory and ethical obligation to act in the public interest. Texas regulatory law and public health codes recognize that agencies must go beyond minimum regulatory requirements when they become aware of credible threats to the health and welfare of the people they serve. To ignore the presence of these contaminants—especially when current wastewater treatment technologies are incapable of fully removing them—is to abdicate that responsibility.

The precautionary principle must apply. When credible scientific evidence indicates harm, regulatory inaction is not neutrality—it is complicity.

Violation of Drinking Water Protections for Texas Home Rule Cities

In addition to the ecological and public health concerns outlined above, this permit raises serious legal questions related to the protection of drinking water supplies for Texas Home Rule cities. These municipalities are granted broad authority under the Texas Constitution to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their residents—including control over water quality and land use within their jurisdictions.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) derives its permitting authority from both state statutes and the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Under these laws, TCEQ has a clear duty to ensure that its actions do not jeopardize public water systems, particularly those dependent on groundwater and spring-fed sources like the Trinity and Edwards Aquifers.

Issuing a TPDES discharge permit that would allow contamination to enter recharge zones of an aquifer that supplies drinking water to a Home Rule city could be construed as a violation of:

• Texas Water Code § 26.121 (Prohibition on Unauthorized Discharges of Pollutants)
• Texas Health and Safety Code § 341.0315 (Protection of Public Drinking Water Supply Systems)
• The federal SDWA, which mandates the protection of source water for public water systems.

Moreover, recent legal precedent and administrative rulings have affirmed that scientifically credible risks to public water sources must be considered—even in the absence of numeric regulatory thresholds. That principle is especially relevant where modern wastewater treatment cannot effectively remove PFAS, pharmaceuticals, or microplastics from the effluent stream.

If a Home Rule city’s water system could be directly or indirectly affected by this discharge—whether via aquifer recharge zones, tributary inflows, or groundwater migration—then TCEQ cannot lawfully ignore or dismiss that impact.

TCEQ has not only the legal authority, but the constitutional and ethical duty, to uphold public trust in clean water protections. To do otherwise invites both legal challenge and long-term public harm.

Re: The Paul Bertetti deposition in this case. Mr. Bertetti is an employee of the Edwards Aquifer Authority, a regional groundwater management agency which derives its authority from the EDWARDS AQUIFER AUTHORITY ACT, Texas, 1993. Mr. Bertetti’s testimony, which was damaging to Municipal Operations, LLC’s case was specifically thwarted by the counsel for Municipal Operations, LLC. She harassed the witness and his attending counsel to the point that his counsel prematurely ended the deposition. Municipal Operations counsel then moved to strike the deposition, however, the statements made by Mr. Bertetti were considered as Findings of Fact in the Administrative Record or at least were requested to be considered as such. A significant part of Mr. Bertetti’s testimony centered on the finding by the EAA of elevated levels of PFAS in the groundwater in numerous tests done over a several year period in the Guajolote/Grey Forest area.

PFAS Hotspots and Regulatory Responsibility

If the area in question has already tested at the highest PFAS levels in Bexar County, that signals a known contamination zone. According to the Texas Groundwater Protection Committee, PFAS contamination is especially prevalent near military installations due to historic use of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) in firefighting training. These chemicals are persistent, toxic, and extremely difficult to remove from groundwater.

If TCEQ is aware of this contamination, and it is part of the Administrative Record, then:

• Issuing a new discharge permit in the area could exacerbate existing pollution, especially if the effluent contains additional PFAS or other contaminants of emerging concern.
• It could violate the Texas Water Code § 26.121, which prohibits discharges that pollute or threaten to pollute state waters.
• It may also conflict with the Safe Drinking Water Act, particularly if the aquifer or groundwater is used as a source of public drinking water.

Legal and Ethical Implications

TCEQ is not just a permitting agency—it’s a public health guardian. If credible data shows that the area is already compromised, then:

• Failing to consider cumulative impacts of additional discharges could be grounds for legal challenge.
• The agency could be accused of regulatory negligence or failure to uphold its duty of care under both state and federal law.
• It would also contradict the agency’s own mission to “protect our state’s public health and natural resources consistent with sustainable economic development.”
• The Guajolote/Grey Forest area is already environmentally burdened, and further discharges would compound existing risks.
• TCEQ has a moral and statutory obligation to apply the precautionary principle—especially when dealing with substances like PFAS that are bioaccumulative and carcinogenic.
• The agency’s own Groundwater Contamination Viewer and PFAS white paper acknowledge the risks and sources of PFAS in Texas groundwater.

As part of the Exceptions and Rebuttals procedure, serious procedural and substantive concerns arising from recent changes to the administrative record by the Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), Administrative Law Judges (ALJs), and counsel for Municipal Operations, LLC were made. Specifically, the unilateral alteration of language characterizing the aquatic classification and geographic scope of receiving waters for a proposed TPDES discharge permit occurred.

Such changes render the permitting process arbitrary and capricious and could serve as grounds for legal challenge under Texas and federal administrative law.

Summary of Concern

• Alterations to the administrative record were made outside of the public hearing or contested case process.
• The new language describing the “receiving waters” is so vague and ambiguous that it could refer to a hydrologic area spanning several miles.
• No opportunity was provided for affected parties to review, comment on, or challenge these changes.
• These changes appear to minimize or obscure the ecological importance of the actual discharge site.

Legal Background

A. Texas Administrative Procedure Act (APA)

Under Texas Government Code § 2001.058(e), the record in a contested case must include “a statement of matters officially noticed” and any changes to findings must be based on evidence within the record or official notice. Unilateral modifications after the close of the evidentiary record without notice or justification may violate due process rights and the APA.

B. Due Process and Fair Notice

Procedural due process requires that affected parties be given:

• Adequate notice of material facts,
• An opportunity to respond, and
• A fair and impartial tribunal.

If the changes materially impact how the receiving waters are classified—or influence effluent standards, endangered species impacts, or public health risk—then denying the public a chance to respond may constitute a denial of procedural fairness.

C. Materiality and Arbitrary Action

Under Texas Government Code § 2001.174, courts may reverse or remand agency decisions that are:

• Made upon unlawful procedure,
• Affected by error of law, or
• Unsupported by substantial evidence.

The unilateral recharacterization of the receiving waters could be construed as a deliberate attempt to avoid applying more protective water quality criteria, or to obscure impacts to endangered species and critical habitats.

Analysis

The revised language appears to compromise several aspects of statutory and scientific integrity:

• It creates regulatory uncertainty regarding which water quality criteria apply (e.g., contact recreation, high aquatic life use, exceptional water body status).
• It prevents stakeholders from assessing whether the discharge could degrade habitat for federally listed endangered species nearby.
• It conceals potential hydrological connections between the discharge and aquifer recharge zones, possibly undermining source water protection for nearby Home Rule cities.

Collectively, these actions raise the appearance of agency bias and could justify judicial review or federal oversight—particularly if federal species or water laws are implicated.

 Conclusion and Recommendations

If confirmed, the changes to the administrative record regarding aquatic descriptors may form the basis for:

1. Filing a Motion to Reopen the Record, pursuant to TCEQ procedural rules or Texas APA provisions.
2. Submitting a request for agency reconsideration based on new facts or improper procedure.
3. Requesting a contested case rehearing if within statutory timelines.
4. Petitioning a state district court for review of the permit under Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.171, citing due process violations, failure to comply with statutory duty, and arbitrary action.
5. Reporting the issue to the EPA Region 6 Office under the Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act, given potential impacts to federally protected species or drinking water sources.

Historical and Contemporary Lessons on Groundwater Contamination

The risks posed by this permit are not hypothetical. History and current events offer sobering reminders of what happens when groundwater protections are ignored:

🇨🇦 Walkerton, Ontario (2000)

• After heavy rainfall, E. coli and Campylobacter bacteria from agricultural runoff entered a shallow aquifer that supplied the town’s drinking water.
• Due to inadequate treatment and regulatory oversight, the contamination went undetected for days.
• Seven people died, and over 2,000 became seriously ill in a town of just 5,000 residents.
• The tragedy led to sweeping reforms in Ontario’s drinking water laws and the creation of the Clean Water Act.

🇺🇸 Johnson County, Texas (2025)

• The county declared a state of disaster after testing revealed PFAS contamination in groundwater, soil, and livestock tissue—linked to the use of biosolids as fertilizer.
• PFAS levels were found to be hundreds of times higher than EPA’s safe drinking water limits.
• The contamination has led to fish and cattle deaths, lawsuits, and urgent calls for regulatory reform.

 Why These Cases Matter Here

These examples show that:

• Groundwater contamination can happen quickly and silently, with devastating consequences.
• Regulatory inaction or delay—especially in the face of known risks like PFAS—can lead to irreversible harm.
• Once aquifers are contaminated, remediation is nearly impossible and public trust is shattered.

TCEQ’s Contradictory Groundwater Posture in TPDES Permitting

It is both alarming and deeply inconsistent that, during a May 2023 videotaped meeting with stakeholders, TCEQ staff stated they do not consider groundwater impacts when evaluating TPDES discharge permits. This posture is scientifically indefensible—particularly in the context of the Edwards Aquifer region, where surface and groundwater systems are unequivocally interconnected.

TCEQ’s own Edwards Aquifer Protection Program (EAPP) acknowledges that aquifer recharge zones are vulnerable to contamination from surface sources, including wastewater discharge. The agency’s public documents describe how pollutants introduced at the surface can rapidly infiltrate through fractured limestone into groundwater. These same documents emphasize the need to prevent pollution to protect public health and drinking water supplies for millions of Texans.

Yet under TPDES permitting, the Commission appears to disavow these facts. To claim that groundwater protection is “not a concern” during TPDES review—while simultaneously regulating the Edwards region under the EAPP based on precisely those concerns—is not only contradictory, but also scientifically incoherent and regulatorily negligent.

The Edwards Aquifer is a federally designated sole-source aquifer, and discharges near its recharge zones can have profound downstream impacts. In karst terrain like this, discharges to ephemeral creeks, swallets, or losing streams are functionally equivalent to direct injections into the aquifer. This was recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in the County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund decision (2020,) which held that pollutants traveling through groundwater to surface water can still fall under Clean Water Act jurisdiction.

TCEQ’s obligation under the Texas Water Code and state public health statutes is not limited to surface waters alone. The agency has an affirmative duty to protect all state waters, including groundwater, from contamination. To ignore or minimize this responsibility—particularly in areas of known aquifer vulnerability—is to compromise the safety, health, and trust of the communities the agency is sworn to protect.

TCEQ cannot pick and choose when groundwater matters.

Therefore, I urge the agency to:

• Re-evaluate any TPDES permits proposed in aquifer recharge zones or contributing zones with the full consideration of groundwater vulnerability.
• Align its permitting language and scientific basis across all divisions, including EAPP and TPDES
• Acknowledge publicly the hydrologic pathways through which surface discharges may contaminate drinking water sources.

The people of Texas deserve integrity and consistency in environmental governance—not a regulatory double standard that places aquifers, ecosystems, and public health at risk.

In October 2020, SwRI published a peer-reviewed, heavily footnoted study titled “Hydrologic Modeling and Water Quality Impact Assessment of Wastewater Disposal in the Helotes Creek Watershed.” Commissioned under the auspices of San Antonio’s Edwards Aquifer Protection Program, this study synthesized decades of research, groundwater monitoring, and hydrologic modeling across the recharge zones of the Edwards Aquifer.

SwRI’s conclusion was explicit:

 “Wastewater treatment systems of any type, installed within the Helotes Creek watershed, would increase wastewater loading to the environment and significantly degrade the quality of recharge to the Edwards Aquifer.”

This finding has gone unchallenged by peer institutions, regulators, and industry for nearly five years. It remains the controlling scientific authority on the question of wastewater impacts in this extremely sensitive karst watershed.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has historically recognized the scientific integrity of SwRI. Indeed, TCEQ itself has contracted with SwRI for technical services on numerous occasions, reflecting the agency’s acknowledgment of the Institute’s credibility and expertise.

Yet in this instance—when the science is clear, relevant, and directly applicable—TCEQ appears to be discounting or ignoring SwRI’s findings without any formal counter-analysis, rebuttal, or public explanation.

This failure to incorporate authoritative science into the permitting process raises disturbing questions:

• On what scientific basis does TCEQ now reject the modeling and conclusions of the very institution it has repeatedly relied upon for sound environmental analysis?
• Why has the agency issued no formal rebuttal or commissioning of a counter-study to challenge SwRI’s clear warnings?
• How can the agency claim to act in the public interest while advancing a permit that defies the best available science and endangers a federally designated sole-source aquifer?

The TCEQ’s actions are not just contrary to environmental stewardship—they threaten to undermine public trust in the agency’s scientific judgment and regulatory integrity.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Commission to:

1. Formally incorporate the SwRI study into the administrative record.
2. Halt any permitting action affecting the Helotes Creek watershed until its findings are reconciled with proposed discharge scenarios.
3. Publicly explain any scientific rationale that diverges from SwRI’s well-established conclusions.

To ignore credible science in favor of expedience or bureaucratic procedure is to gamble with the health of the Edwards Aquifer, the ecosystems it supports, and the communities who depend on it.

Discrepancy in Guajolote Ranch TPDES Application

There exists a material inconsistency between the TPDES permit application, the expert testimony provided during the contested case hearing, and the Master Development Plan (MDP) filed for the Guajolote Ranch project.

During formal proceedings, expert witnesses for Municipal Operations stated that the pond included in the discharge route was essential to achieving compliance with the effluent quality and water quality standards required under the permit. The application itself supports this assertion, as it explicitly describes the pond as an integral part of the discharge route and effluent flow design.

However, upon review of the most recent Master Development Plan, the pond appears to have been eliminated from the site layout entirely.

This raises serious concerns about the scientific validity, enforceability, and environmental sufficiency of the proposed permit:

• If the pond has been removed from the project design, then the treatment system described and approved under the TPDES permit no longer exists in practice.
• As a result, the environmental modeling and effluent dispersion scenarios presented to TCEQ may now be inaccurate or invalid, potentially underestimating the true impact on Helotes Creek and downstream water quality.
• The pond’s role as a polishing or settling basin may have been critical in removing nutrients, pathogens, pharmaceuticals, or other Contaminants of Emerging Concern (CECs) prior to discharge—especially given known hydrologic connectivity to Edwards Aquifer recharge features.

To proceed with the issuance or maintenance of this permit without addressing the absence of a key treatment feature would not only undermine the integrity of the permitting process, but it could also result in noncompliance with Texas Water Code § 26.121, which prohibits the unauthorized pollution of state waters.

I respectfully urge the Commission to:

1. Require Municipal Operations to submit a revised permit application reflecting the removal (or confirmed inclusion) of the pond.
2. Conduct a full re-evaluation of effluent impacts under the altered site design.
3. Stay or deny permit approval until such discrepancies are addressed transparently and the record reflects an accurate and complete depiction of wastewater treatment infrastructure.

This is not merely a site planning detail. It is a material change with potentially significant implications for water quality, ecosystem health, endangered species protection, and downstream public drinking water sources.

Formal Request for Clarification and Corrective Action Regarding Misstatements on Effluent Safety

Herewith, I am formally requesting a public clarification and corrective response regarding statements made by TCEQ staff during the videotaped and recorded May 2023 public stakeholder meeting concerning the proposed TPDES discharge permit for the Guajolote Ranch development in the Helotes Creek watershed.

During that meeting, multiple TCEQ representatives assured attendees that the treated wastewater effluent proposed for discharge would be “safe for swimming,” “safe for accidental ingestion by children,” and—most concerningly—that “the water would be safe to drink,” with one staff member offering that she herself “would drink it.”

These assertions are deeply troubling, as they appear to directly contradict both:

1. TCEQ’s own regulatory classification of effluent under Chapter 210 (Use of Reclaimed Water), which differentiates between standard effluent and Type I reclaimed water based on levels of treatment and suitability for human contact; and
2. The recent settlement agreement between Municipal Operations and San Antonio Metro Health, in which the permit applicant signaled a pivot toward beneficial reuse and treatment to Type I standards—an implicit acknowledgment that standard TPDES effluent is not safe for direct human contact.

The effluent proposed under the existing permit is not intended to meet Type I criteria, and is not designed for public contact, ingestion, or recreational use. It may contain residual concentrations of:

• Pathogenic microorganisms (e.g., E. coli, viruses)
• Pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and endocrine-disrupting compounds
• PFAS (“forever chemicals”) and microplastics, which are not effectively removed by current treatment technology.

To suggest otherwise is not merely a scientific mistake; it constitutes dangerous disinformation that may mislead the public and diminish informed participation in the permitting process.

Therefore, I respectfully request that the Commission:

1. Issue a formal, written clarification distinguishing between standard effluent under a TPDES permit and Type I reclaimed water under Chapter 210.
2. Publicly correct the misleading statements made by staff at the May 2023 meeting and in any other public-facing communications.
3. Commit to accurate, science-based public engagement in future stakeholder meetings, permitting notices, and outreach materials.
4. Require that any discharge with potential public access or ecological impact be treated to Type I or higher standards, particularly when located near a recharge zone of a federally designated sole-source aquifer.

The public deserves transparent, scientifically grounded communication from its regulatory institutions—especially when public health and aquifer integrity are at stake.

CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF HELOTES CREEK

Historical and Cultural Significance The proposed discharge site lies less than three miles upstream of Grey Forest and within the historic Helotes Creek corridor. This includes the Blue Hole, a site with over 7,000 years of cultural significance to Native American communities and historic relevance to cattle drovers on the Western Trail. Throughout the 20th century, this area served as a recreation site for San Antonians, with swimming holes, fishing lakes stocked by the Texas Game and Fish Commission, and architectural landmarks designed by Robert H.H. Hugman — the same architect behind San Antonio’s River Walk. Helotes Creek bisects the Miguel Menchaca House known as Quinta de las Piedras, an 1850’s stone fortress with gun slits and an indoor spring. The house has a Texas Historical marker. In a nearby tributary and along Helotes Creek in its rock banks are several bedrock mortars (BRM’s,) remnants of Native-Americans which date from the Archaic Period, 1000BCE. Given the numerous Historic structure along the creek as well as the historic dams and weirs we wonder if an historic assessment has been requested and performed by the Texas Historical Commission? Have tribal authorities been invited to provide their input?

Established Recreational Use Helotes Creek supports primary contact recreation including swimming, fishing, wading, and boating. The Helotes Valley community features over 60 homes situated along or near the creek, many of which were constructed to take advantage of its natural amenities. Recreational dams and weirs remain in active use today. Under 30 TAC §307.4 and §307.7, these are designated uses that must be maintained and protected.

Hydrology and Public Safety The Helotes Creek Valley is subject to frequent and intense flash flooding, as documented by Bexar County’s HALT program and the presence of flood gates along Scenic Loop Road. Discharging effluent into an already flood-prone watershed poses unacceptable risk to public health and safety. Additionally, homes within the floodplain may be at heightened risk of exposure to contaminants due to mixing during high-flow events.

Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone Impacts This segment of Helotes Creek directly contributes to the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone, a source of drinking water for over two million Texans. Introducing treated effluent — especially with incomplete pretreatment for emerging contaminants like PFAS — threatens the long-term integrity of this critical resource. This concern is underscored by similar objections from the Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance (GEAA) and San Antonio Water System (SAWS), whose own wells draw from nearby zones. Has a hydrological assessment been performed by Municipal Operations, LLC or by Lennar?

Material Misrepresentations in the Response to Questions The TCEQ has explicitly stated that the historic Blue Hole is “not in the discharge path.” This is factually incorrect. The Blue Hole lies approximately 0.7 miles downstream from the Helotes Springs and clearly within the projected flow path of the proposed discharge. Such discrepancies constitute a material misrepresentation under 30 TAC §305.66 and call into question the technical accuracy and integrity of the permit application.

Hydrologists have been telling us, for some time, that the concept of the Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone is outdated. For decades it was thought that the Contributing Zone simply funneled water downgradient to the Edwards outcrop where all the recharge takes place. Today we know better. The karst geography funnels surface water to groundwater quite quickly wherever it is present. To illustrate this point, there is a Trinity/Glen Rose Conservation District monitoring well along Helotes Creek about .7 miles Southeast of the Guajolote Ranch. In the last year, scientists have been correlating local rainfall with the data from that well. Just one representative data point: the late May 2025 rains received within a few hundred feet of the well were recorded at 6.91 inches. Within two days the monitoring well level rose 51 feet. The data collected over the last year clearly indicate that water that falls in this area has a direct impact on groundwater. Certainly, the Contributing Zone directs significant runoff to the Edwards Recharge Zone, but a significant amount of recharge actually takes place in the Contributing Zone. Further study is needed, but it does indicate a need to rethink the Edwards Aquifer Protection Plan.

… By denying this permit, the Commission has the opportunity to safeguard that vital recharge in perpetuity. The right decision will preserve the aquifer’s purity and resilience. The wrong one risks pushing the Edwards to a tipping point—beyond its natural ability to cleanse itself—forcing the construction of multibillion-dollar treatment plants and triggering an avoidable crisis. Let us act while we still have a choice. Protecting the aquifer now is not just prudent—it is visionary.

Sincerely,

Randy R. Neumann

Chair, Steering Committee
Scenic Loop-Helotes Creek Alliance

RRN/tls