By Brent Wiewel https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61590357380325

We need to stop bickering among ourselves over things that, in many cases, we have almost no direct control over. I am not saying those issues do not matter, and I am not trying to belittle anyone’s beliefs. I am saying we have allowed the loudest and most toxic national arguments to become more important than the people standing right beside us. Somewhere along the way, politics became more important than community, and I think we need to change that. We shop at the same stores. Our children and grandchildren go to school together. We drive the same roads, drink the same water, swim in the same water, depend on the same land, and live in the same neighborhoods. We may vote differently and see the world differently, but at the end of the day we are still neighbors.

That should matter more than the political label beside somebody’s name. We have let disagreements about national issues become reasons to judge, insult, and sometimes completely cut off people who live right next to us. That makes no sense to me. These are people we may see at the grocery store, at school events, at church, at community meetings, at the lake, or standing beside us during an emergency. We can disagree politically and still respect one another enough to act like a community.

WE HAVE ALLOWED POLITICS TO GET BETWEEN US

In my opinion, much of this division has been fed to us strategically. We are constantly handed subjects that are emotional, explosive, and almost guaranteed to make people angry with one another. Immigration is one example. People have strong opinions about it, but screaming at your neighbor over immigration is not going to change federal immigration policy. Calling someone hateful names, disowning them, refusing to speak to them, or treating them like an enemy does not solve the issue. It simply destroys a relationship with somebody you may actually have far more in common with than you realize.

That is what bothers me most. We have allowed politics to convince us that the person next door is somehow responsible for everything wrong with this country. They are not. They are another human being trying to understand the world through their own experiences, beliefs, fears, information, and personal history, just like the rest of us. Somewhere along the way, we convinced ourselves that political disagreement gives us permission to disrespect people. I do not believe that is healthy for any family, neighborhood, community, state, or country.

WE ALL SEE THE WORLD THROUGH DIFFERENT LENSES

I have had to examine some of my own assumptions too. There were things I once believed about Democrats as a whole that I now realize cannot fairly be applied to millions of individual people. I would hope Democrats could recognize the same thing about Republicans. Neither party represents one single way of thinking. Not every Republican believes everything people say Republicans believe, and not every Democrat believes everything people say Democrats believe. Political parties contain millions of individuals with different experiences and different reasons for believing what they believe.

We all see the world through different lenses. The problem begins when we decide somebody’s political perception tells us everything we need to know about their character. Somewhere along the way, we started believing we could insult people, ridicule them, cut them out of our lives, and treat them as less worthy simply because they voted differently. That is not community. A healthy community should be able to disagree strongly and still work together, help one another, raise children together, protect the same resources, and sit at the same table.

BRING IT BACK HOME

We need to bring ourselves back to the local level and remember the people standing beside us. When our water is threatened, it does not ask whether you are Republican or Democrat before coming out of the faucet. When pollution enters a creek, it does not follow party lines. When roads fail, taxes increase, schools struggle, or development changes our neighborhoods, those things affect all of us. These are the issues that live with us every single day, and these are the issues where neighbors standing together can actually make a difference.

We do not have to agree on everything. We probably never will, and that is part of being human. But we absolutely can respect one another enough to work together on the things that directly affect the place we call home. We can disagree nationally and still unite locally because the problems at home belong to all of us. Our children live here. Our grandchildren live here. Our homes are here. Our water is here. That should be enough common ground to start rebuilding relationships.

VOTE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL, NOT THE PARTY

Vote for the individual you have researched. Study their record, ask what they have actually accomplished, and look at what they have done instead of only listening to what they promise. Then hold them accountable after they are elected. Do not turn your neighbor into your enemy simply because of the person they chose in a voting booth. We do not need to be here to elect a political party. We need to start electing individuals based on what they actually do.

Government is supposed to answer to the people, and that only works when the people are strong enough, informed enough, and united enough to hold it accountable. We should not become extensions of political parties, defending politicians like they are members of our own family no matter what they do. Our elected officials should be accountable to us, not the other way around. We are supposed to watch government, question it, participate in it, praise good decisions, challenge bad ones, and keep the people we elected focused on the communities they serve.

WHAT IF BOTH SIDES CARRIED THE SAME MESSAGE?

I have a solution. I am human, and this is only my perspective, so maybe I am wrong. But just maybe this could work. What if Democrats and Republicans came to the table on the same problem, worked out the same basic solution, and carried the same message back to their own parties instead of automatically fighting because the idea came from the other side? What if both sides could recognize that some problems are simply too important to turn into another political contest?

What if an issue reached the floor of the Texas Legislature or eventually the floor of the United States Congress and both sides were already pushing toward the same goal? What if Democrats and Republicans looked at water, infrastructure, pollution, development, schools, or public safety and said, “We may disagree about a hundred other things, but on this one we agree on what needs to happen”? Wouldn’t that be a win? Not a Republican win. Not a Democratic win. A win for the people.

ONE MESSAGE FROM THE COMMUNITY

Maybe that is where we start changing this. Instead of asking which party owns an idea, we start asking whether the idea actually solves the problem. Instead of sending two different messages to government, we send one message from the community. Imagine Republicans, Democrats, Independents, conservatives, liberals, and everybody in between walking into the same room carrying the same request from the same neighborhood. That becomes much harder to dismiss.

Maybe the answer was never getting everybody to think alike. Maybe the answer is getting everybody to stand together on the things that matter most. We can keep our individual beliefs, vote the way our conscience tells us to vote, and still come back together afterward as neighbors. If both sides are carrying the same message on an issue that directly affects our homes and families, government suddenly hears something much stronger than another political argument. It hears the people.

AND I WANT THAT MESSAGE TO BEGIN WITH WATER

This is not just about Canyon Lake. Canyon Lake is where I live and where my voice starts, but the water does not begin or end here. Kerrville matters. Wimberley matters. The upper Guadalupe matters. The Blanco matters. Canyon Lake matters. New Braunfels matters. Seguin matters. Victoria matters. The bays and the coast matter. Every community connected to this river system matters because every community becomes either somebody’s upstream neighbor or somebody’s downstream neighbor.

Every tributary, spring, creek, river, ranch, neighborhood, and community connected to this watershed matters. What happens upstream eventually becomes someone else’s downstream problem. That is why this has to be bigger than one town, one county, one political party, or one organization. Water connects all of us whether we acknowledge that connection or not, and protecting it requires us to start thinking beyond our own property lines and political boundaries.

WE HAVE TO ATTACK THE WATER PROBLEM FROM BOTH DIRECTIONS

To every water utility, wastewater operator, regulator, developer, engineer, elected official, and agency responsible for the water we eventually drink, we have to attack this problem from both directions. We have to reduce the amount of treated wastewater being discharged into our waterways, and at the same time we have to improve the quality of the stormwater entering those same waterways when it rains. Focusing on only one side of that equation leaves a major part of the problem untouched.

The rain itself is not necessarily the problem. The runoff can be. Once rain hits our roads, parking lots, rooftops, construction sites, yards, ranchland, and developed hillsides, it can pick up bacteria, sediment, fertilizer, pesticides, oil, metals, trash, animal waste, and other contaminants before it ever reaches a creek, river, or lake. That water may look natural because it came from the sky, but by the time it reaches the waterway it can be carrying an enormous amount of pollution with it.

REUSE THE WATER. CLEAN THE RUNOFF. PROTECT THE SOURCE.

In some situations, stormwater runoff can carry a heavier load of certain pollutants than properly treated wastewater. Think about that. The water washing off the land around us can sometimes be dirtier, in certain respects, than the water leaving a wastewater treatment plant. That should get everyone’s attention. It should not make us more accepting of wastewater discharge. It should make us realize we have two problems to solve instead of one.

We need more reuse. We need purple pipe. We need better land management and stronger stormwater controls. We need to slow water down, spread it out, filter it through the land, reduce erosion, reduce contamination, and keep as much pollution as possible from ever reaching the river or lake in the first place. We should be looking at the entire journey of water through our communities, not simply trying to clean it after everything has already been dumped into the same system.

PUT THE WATER TO WORK INSTEAD OF SENDING IT DOWNSTREAM

We can prevent millions of gallons of treated wastewater from becoming routine river discharge by putting more of that water to beneficial use. Reclaimed water can serve landscapes, parks, medians, commercial properties, industrial needs, and other appropriate uses instead of continually being sent downstream. Purple-pipe systems and other reuse strategies can turn what we currently treat as waste into a valuable water supply while reducing pressure on rivers and groundwater.

At the same time, we can reduce stormwater pollution by changing how we build, how we manage land, how we protect drainage areas, and how we allow rainfall to move across the landscape. We can retain more vegetation, reduce unnecessary erosion, create areas that slow and filter runoff, protect natural drainage features, and design developments that work with the land rather than simply rushing water off of it as quickly as possible.

STOP MAKING DRINKING-WATER SYSTEMS CLEAN UP EVERYTHING DOWNSTREAM

Our drinking-water providers should not continually be handed dirtier source water and then expected to build more expensive and more complicated treatment systems to clean it back up. Every additional contaminant entering our source water creates another burden somewhere downstream. Ultimately somebody has to pay for that burden, whether it is the water utility, the ratepayer, the taxpayer, or the community dealing with the environmental consequences.

The best contaminant to remove from drinking water is the contaminant we never allow into the source water in the first place. Protecting source water should be viewed as part of drinking-water treatment, not as something separate from it. If we improve the water entering our rivers and lakes, we make the job easier for every drinking-water system downstream, we reduce long-term treatment costs, and we protect the resource itself instead of continually relying on technology to repair the damage afterward.

THIS CAN START HERE

Wouldn’t it be incredible if Canyon Lake helped start something bigger? Or Kerrville. Or Wimberley. Or New Braunfels. Or Seguin. Or Victoria. Or any community connected to this river system. What if we created one enormous neighborhood, an army of friends and neighbors from every political background standing on the same subject, advocating for the same solutions, and even lobbying together for the same outcome?

We could put up billboards. We could run commercials. We could fill public meetings. We could write our commissioners, legislators, regulators, members of Congress, and the White House. We could advocate together, not with a Republican message or a Democratic message, but with the same message from the people who actually live here and depend on this water. If enough communities begin carrying the same message, it becomes something much larger than a local argument.

FROM THE HILL COUNTRY TO THE COAST

Maybe Canyon Lake can help set the stage. Maybe Kerrville can. Maybe Wimberley can. Maybe communities from the Hill Country all the way to the coast can stand together and prove that Americans do not have to agree on everything to accomplish something extraordinary together. Somebody has to show that this is still possible, and there is no reason it cannot begin somewhere along this river system.

Imagine that message moving from one community to another: protect the water, reduce unnecessary wastewater discharge, reuse what we can, improve the water coming off the land, and protect the rivers and lakes before drinking-water systems ever have to treat them. That is not a Republican idea. It is not a Democratic idea. It is a community idea, and every person who drinks water has a reason to be part of it.

A MESSAGE TO EVERYONE WHO TREATS OUR DRINKING WATER

For every industry, utility, community, regulator, and treatment system responsible for providing safe drinking water, our goal should be simple: reduce the quantity of treated wastewater entering our waterways and improve the quality of the rainwater runoff entering them at the same time. We cannot continually put more pollution into the source and then expect somebody downstream to solve every problem with another treatment process, another chemical, another machine, or another rate increase.

Cleaner wastewater practices, cleaner stormwater, healthier land, healthier rivers, and cleaner source water benefit every community downstream. We need to stop treating our waterways like the final treatment step and start protecting them like the first step in our drinking-water system. If we protect the source, everything downstream has a better chance.

WE NEED AN ARMY OF NEIGHBORS

We do not need an army of Republicans, and we do not need an army of Democrats. We need people willing to stand beside one another, work together, and protect something every single one of us depends on. We can have different beliefs, different backgrounds, different political opinions, and different ideas about the country while still recognizing that the person beside us is our neighbor and not our enemy.

Maybe that is where something bigger begins. Not by asking everyone to change who they are, but by asking everyone to remember who we are to one another. We are neighbors. We share the same communities. We share the same land. We share the same rivers. We share the same future. We need an army of neighbors.

By Brent Wiewel

Texas is considering something that may sound small on the surface but could have consequences far beyond a few words written into a state rule. The Texas Water Development Board is taking public comments on its proposed definition of “agricultural” under Chapter 367, the Agricultural Water Conservation Program. I have looked at the concerns being raised about that definition, and I agree with them. Texas needs to be extremely careful about how it defines agriculture, particularly when that definition is attached to water.

Agriculture does not stop being agriculture because somebody makes money from it. Farmers grow crops to sell them. Ranchers raise cattle to sell them. Timber producers harvest timber. Beekeepers sell honey and provide pollination services. Hay producers sell hay. Nurseries sell plants. That is not some new commercialization of agriculture. That is agriculture. People have worked the land, produced something of value and taken it to market for generations.

My concern goes beyond the wording of one rule. I have spent a tremendous amount of time looking at water issues across Texas, and one thing has become painfully clear to me: water is becoming more valuable every day. Our population is exploding, development is spreading farther into rural Texas, and enormous amounts of money are now chasing the same groundwater, rivers and reservoirs that our farmers and ranchers depend upon.

WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN THIS STORY PLAY OUT

Texas does not have to guess what can happen when growing cities begin competing with agriculture for water. We can look west and see examples where water historically used by agricultural communities was transferred toward growing urban populations. California’s Owens Valley is probably the most famous example. Water was exported to Los Angeles, agriculture and the local economy were profoundly changed, and the environmental consequences of draining Owens Lake became a problem that lasted generations.

Other western states have wrestled with the same basic conflict: growing cities need water, agricultural water becomes increasingly valuable, and eventually somebody realizes there is more money in moving that water to development than there is in keeping it on a farm or ranch. The circumstances and laws differ from state to state, but the warning for Texas is the same. When agriculture loses dependable access to water, we can lose much more than a water right. We can lose the agriculture itself.

That should scare the hell out of Texas.

LOOK AT WHAT IS HAPPENING AROUND US

Texas has one of the greatest farming and ranching traditions in this country. Agriculture helped build this state. Yet anyone who has lived here long enough has watched ranch after ranch and farm after farm disappear beneath subdivisions, shopping centers, warehouses and highways. Land that supported cattle or crops for generations can become thousands of rooftops in a remarkably short period of time.

Once that happens, it generally doesn’t go backward. Nobody tears down 2,000 houses and turns the subdivision back into a ranch.

Water deserves the same consideration. Once agricultural water is permanently redirected toward high-density development, getting it back to agriculture may be extraordinarily difficult. And development creates a very different demand. A pasture can survive periods when water use is reduced. Thousands of homes, businesses and residents require dependable water every single day.

That is why I become concerned anytime government begins drawing narrower lines around what counts as agriculture, particularly when those definitions determine access to programs designed to conserve agricultural water.

WATER CONSERVATION SHOULD HELP KEEP AGRICULTURE ALIVE

Texas should be doing everything reasonably possible to help legitimate agricultural producers conserve water. That includes farmers and ranchers, but it also means livestock and grazing operations, hay and forage producers, forestry and timber operations, beekeepers and pollinators, horticulture, aquaculture, equine operations and the many other activities that make up Texas agriculture.

If a rancher builds infrastructure that reduces water consumption, that benefits Texas. If a farmer improves irrigation efficiency, that benefits Texas. If agricultural water can be captured, stored, reused or delivered more efficiently, that benefits Texas. Conserving water on working land doesn’t just help the producer. It reduces pressure on the same aquifers, rivers and reservoirs the rest of us depend upon.

Of course, Texas should prevent an unrelated industrial or commercial operation from simply calling itself agriculture to gain access to a program intended for farmers and ranchers. We can protect against that without writing legitimate agriculture out of the definition.

THIS IS BIGGER THAN ONE DEFINITION

What concerns me most is the direction Texas is heading. We are simultaneously losing agricultural land, experiencing enormous population growth, dealing with serious water shortages in parts of the state, and watching the economic value of water increase.

Those things are connected.

If we continue replacing farms and ranches with high-density development while simultaneously shifting more water toward that development, eventually we shouldn’t be surprised when fewer people can afford to farm or ranch here. And once that productive capacity disappears, Texas cannot simply flip a switch and bring it back.

We need homes. We need businesses. We need economic development. I am not against growth. But growth should never require us to sacrifice the very resources that made Texas successful in the first place.

There has to be room for both.

TEXAS NEEDS TO GET THIS RIGHT

The people working the land deserve a seat at this table. Farmers, ranchers, timber producers, beekeepers, livestock producers, hay and forage producers, nurseries and agricultural organizations should read what TWDB is proposing and tell the state exactly how these words could affect them.

The public-comment deadline provided for the Chapter 367 proposal is September 7, 2026. Comments can be submitted to the Texas Water Development Board regarding Chapter 367.

This may be a discussion about the definition of one word today, but I believe Texans should look at the larger picture. Water determines what happens to land. Without dependable water, a ranch eventually stops being much of a ranch and a farm eventually stops producing.

Texas has already lost too much agricultural land. We should be strengthening the people who are still willing to work it, not inadvertently making their future more difficult.

Because if we allow our agricultural water and agricultural land to disappear into high-density development, someday we’re going to discover something that should have been obvious from the beginning:

We can build another subdivision. We cannot build another Texas. Below our links that you can open or copy and paste your choice very important to go there

https://www.twdb.texas.gov/conservation/Agriculture/index.asp?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://www.sos.state.tx.us/texreg/archive/August72026/Proposed%20Rules/31.NATURAL%20RESOURCES%20AND%20CONSERVATION.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com

http://twdb.texas.gov

By Brent Wiewel

A NEW OPPORTUNITY HAS OPENED

Comal County now has an opportunity to consider preserving Broken Cedar Ranch before 850 proposed homes and a new wastewater treatment plant are built in the Potters Creek watershed. On July 23, 2026, the Texas Water Development Board approved $30 million in financial assistance for the county’s new water quality protection project.

The funding consists of $25,575,000 in financing and $4,425,000 in principal forgiveness. According to the state, Comal County may use the money to purchase property within the recharge and contributing zones of the Trinity and Edwards aquifers, the Guadalupe River watershed and several other important watersheds.

Broken Cedar Ranch appears to fall squarely within that description. The approximately 230 acre property is located in the Edwards Aquifer contributing zone, and water draining from the property travels toward Potters Creek and eventually Canyon Lake.

BROKEN CEDAR HAS NOT BEEN DEVELOPED

An important fact must be understood: Lennar does not presently own Broken Cedar Ranch. The property remains in the names of its current owners, Bobbie J. Neff and Jeanette R. Morris. TCEQ records identify Lennar and the current landowners as co-applicants for the proposed wastewater discharge permit.

The application identifies Lennar as the proposed owner of the wastewater treatment facility, but that does not make Lennar the present owner of the ranch. Lennar may have a purchase contract, option or development agreement covering the property, but the precise terms of that arrangement would have to be examined.

The proposed 850 lot subdivision has not received final approval. The wastewater permit has not received final approval. The ranch has not been covered with houses, streets, rooftops and other impervious surfaces. This makes now the right time to determine whether the land can be preserved.

WHAT PRESERVING THE RANCH COULD PREVENT

Lennar and the landowners have applied for authorization to discharge as much as 600,000 gallons of treated wastewater per day. The proposed discharge would enter an unnamed tributary, flow into Potters Creek and eventually reach Canyon Lake.

Preserving Broken Cedar Ranch could prevent that discharge from being created in the first place. It could also protect approximately 230 contiguous acres from the roads, roofs, driveways and other impervious surfaces associated with an 850 home development.

Once those surfaces are constructed, rainfall that previously soaked into or moved slowly across the land will run off more quickly. That runoff can carry sediment, oil, fertilizer, pesticides, bacteria and other contaminants toward the same watershed that feeds Canyon Lake.

THIS WOULD BE A VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT

The county’s water quality protection program does not appear to authorize the seizure of anyone’s property. Any acquisition would require a willing landowner. The county could explore purchasing Broken Cedar Ranch outright or paying for a permanent conservation easement that would restrict development while allowing the owners to retain the land.

Because Lennar is involved in the proposed development and wastewater application, the county would also need to determine exactly what contractual rights Lennar holds. Any purchase or conservation easement would need to resolve those rights and permanently prevent the proposed subdivision, wastewater facility and discharge.

This is not a demand that private property be taken. It is a request for the county, the current owners and Lennar to explore a voluntary conservation alternative while the land remains undeveloped and before additional approvals increase its development value.

THE COUNTY HAS NOT SELECTED ITS PROPERTIES

Comal County Commissioners voted on October 23, 2025, to apply for the state funding. The Texas Water Development Board approved the $30 million package on July 23, 2026. However, the county must still accept the assistance and establish the process it will use to identify, evaluate and acquire properties.

No public decision has been found showing that Broken Cedar Ranch has been nominated, evaluated or placed on an acquisition list. That is why Fischer Neighbors, the Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance and residents throughout the Canyon Lake watershed should ask the county to evaluate it now.

The entire $30 million program cannot automatically be committed to one property. Comal County contains many environmentally important lands that deserve protection. Nevertheless, Broken Cedar should be evaluated based on its acreage, watershed location, aquifer connection, proposed development density and the amount of wastewater discharge and impervious cover that could be avoided.THE COST OF PREVENTION

Broken Cedar Ranch was reportedly marketed for approximately $7 million before Lennar’s plans advanced. That does not establish its present market value, and a professional appraisal would be necessary. However, the property should not be valued as though an approved and completed 850 lot subdivision already exists because those approvals and improvements are not presently in place.

The county should determine what the land is worth today, what contractual rights Lennar holds and whether the current owners are willing to negotiate. It should also explore whether conservation organizations, grants or other funding partners could help reduce the amount paid by county taxpayers.

Even if the county ultimately determines that an acquisition is not possible, asking the question costs far less than assuming nothing can be done. The opportunity deserves a real investigation based on documents, appraisals and direct negotiations.

PRESERVE THE LAND BEFORE THE POLLUTION EXISTS

For months, residents have been forced to fight a proposal that could discharge as much as 600,000 gallons of treated wastewater per day toward Canyon Lake. We have raised concerns about nutrients, PFAS, pharmaceuticals, treatment failures, flooding, karst geology, private wells and the cumulative effects of placing more wastewater plants throughout the watershed.

The new county program offers another approach. Instead of spending decades trying to regulate and manage the pollution created by 850 homes, we could explore preserving the land before that pollution and runoff are created.

Broken Cedar Ranch may be one of the clearest tests of what this program is intended to accomplish. The land remains undeveloped, the development and wastewater permit remain unapproved, and the state has now approved funding specifically intended to protect land in aquifer contributing zones and the Guadalupe River watershed.

Comal County should place Broken Cedar Ranch among the first properties formally evaluated under its Water Quality Protection Lands Program. We may never have a better opportunity to protect Potters Creek and Canyon Lake at their source.

https://texaswaternewsroom.org/pressreleases/2026-7-23_comal_county.html

Texas Water Development Board announcement⁠

TCEQ Broken Cedar Ranch permit application⁠

By Brent Wiewel

Just four months ago, Mineral Wells, Texas, was picking up the pieces after a powerful EF-3 tornado ripped through the northeast side of the community. Today, families across Mineral Wells and the surrounding Palo Pinto and Jack County area are once again watching the sky and praying for their homes, ranches, animals and neighbors as the massive Ross Fire burns across North Texas.

On April 28, 2026, an EF-3 tornado struck Mineral Wells with estimated winds reaching 145 mph. The National Weather Service reported severe damage in the Holiday Hills subdivision and Fort Wolters areas. Five people were injured, homes and businesses were heavily damaged, and buildings were torn apart. Remarkably, no lives were lost. (weather.gov⁠)

Now, only four months later, this region is facing another disaster. As of Wednesday morning, August 26, the Ross Fire had grown to approximately 80,000 acres and was only 12% contained. The wildfire began Monday in Palo Pinto County and rapidly spread into Jack County, fueled by extreme heat, dry vegetation and strong winds. Evacuations have been ordered during the fire, roads and schools have been affected, and structures have already been destroyed. (cbsnews.com⁠)

The situation became serious enough that FEMA approved Texas’ request for a Fire Management Assistance Grant, making federal assistance available for eligible firefighting costs. State and local firefighters are being supported by aircraft, heavy equipment, emergency medical personnel and other resources as crews continue trying to protect lives and property. (gov.texas.gov⁠)

For the people of Mineral Wells and the surrounding communities, this isn’t simply another headline. Some of these families were dealing with tornado destruction only months ago. Ranchers, homeowners, firefighters, volunteers and entire communities are once again being asked to endure uncertainty and loss.

Please keep Mineral Wells, Palo Pinto County, Jack County and every community in the path of this fire in your prayers. Pray for the firefighters and first responders standing between these flames and people’s homes. Pray for the ranchers moving livestock, the families who have evacuated, and those who have already lost property.

Four months ago, Mineral Wells survived an EF-3 tornado. https://www.star-telegram.com/news/weather-news/article315576617.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Today, they need Texas standing with them again.

Prayers for Mineral Wells and all of North Texas. https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/north-texas-wildfire-mushrooms-within-hours-ripping-through-ranchlands-in-palo-pinto-jack-counties/4067659/

To:

Comal County Judge Kristen Hoyt
Commissioner Doug Leecock, Precinct 1
Commissioner Scott Haag, Precinct 2
Commissioner Kevin Webb, Precinct 3
Commissioner Jen Crownover, Precinct 4

Dear Judge Hoyt and Members of the Comal County Commissioners Court:

We, the undersigned residents and supporters of the Guadalupe River watershed, formally request that Comal County take public action to protect Canyon Lake by petitioning the State of Texas and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality for watershed-specific protections under 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 311—or protections at least as strong as those provided to other important Texas reservoirs.

Canyon Lake is not merely a flood-control structure. It is a federally managed reservoir serving the continuing purposes of flood control, water conservation, public water supply, and recreation. Its permanent conservation pool supplies water for human consumption, supports property values and local businesses, sustains recreation and tourism, and provides downstream flows through the Guadalupe River.

If Canyon Dam existed solely to restrain floodwaters temporarily while allowing all other water to pass through, there would be virtually no permanent lake. Most of the water held in Canyon Lake throughout an ordinary year is conservation water, not floodwater. Flood control is essential, but it does not erase the lake’s equally real water-supply, conservation, and recreational purposes.

TCEQ identifies Canyon Lake as Segment 1805 and the Guadalupe River above Canyon Lake as Segment 1806. Both have designated public-water-supply uses. Residents should not have to repeatedly prove that the water they drink comes from a recognized drinking-water source. Texas has already formally recognized that use.

The water does not stop at Canyon Lake. It continues through New Braunfels, Lake Dunlap, Lake McQueeney, Lake Placid, Seguin, agricultural areas, and other downstream communities and ecosystems. The Guadalupe also provides essential freshwater inflows to San Antonio Bay and the fisheries that depend upon the proper balance between fresh water and salt water. Protecting Canyon Lake therefore means protecting a connected water system extending from the Hill Country to the Texas coast.

A BROAD AND GROWING PUBLIC CONCERN

This request does not come from one person alone. Residents, scientists, water professionals, neighborhood groups, environmental organizations, and elected officials have spoken about these issues at community meetings, during public-comment periods, and on public agendas.

People and organizations participating in this broader public discussion have included Ron Harris, Linda Rogers, Carol Little, Annalisa Peace, Nathan Glavy, Brian Hummel, Professor J.P. Dev, Pam Sullivan, Greg Olsen, Texas GB Water, Mystic Shores Neighbors, the Mystic Shores Property Owners Association and Conservation Committee, the Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance, residents of Cypress Cove and Canyon Lake, and property owners along the Guadalupe River.

Their individual opinions and preferred solutions may differ. Naming them does not represent that every person or organization endorses every statement or request contained in this letter. It demonstrates, however, that concerns involving wastewater discharges, aquifer connections, development, water reuse, public-water supplies, and protection of the Guadalupe watershed have been raised publicly by a broad and growing community. These concerns are already part of the public conversation and deserve a formal response.

KARST GEOLOGY AND GROUNDWATER RISKS

Canyon Lake and its tributaries lie within sensitive karst terrain, where water can travel through fractured rock, caves, sinkholes, dry creek beds, recharge features, and other underground pathways. The relevant question is not limited to whether a wastewater discharge eventually reaches the visible waters of Canyon Lake. It may interact with groundwater and the Trinity Aquifer before reaching the lake—if it reaches the lake at all.

Video-recorded statements from local groundwater scientist Ron Harris address this concern, including his professional opinion that wastewater released into a local drainage could reach the aquifer before reaching Canyon Lake. Other scientists and water professionals have raised similar concerns.

These statements are not offered as substitutes for a complete scientific investigation. They establish the need for independent groundwater tracing, monitoring, hydrological analysis, and cumulative-impact review before additional discharges or expansions are authorized.

GROWTH AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Additional developments are requesting wastewater permits and increased treatment capacity throughout the region. These applications must not be evaluated as though every subdivision, discharge, and expansion exists in isolation.

The combined effects of existing discharges, pending applications, requested capacity increases, population growth, drought, reduced streamflow, groundwater interaction, nutrient loading, infrastructure limitations, and reasonably foreseeable development must be evaluated together.

A single permit may appear limited when examined alone. The cumulative permitted volume and combined environmental burden can create an entirely different level of risk. City limits, county lines, and individual permit boundaries do not separate the water underground or downstream.

DOCUMENTED FAILURES AND UNDISCLOSED DAMAGE

Wastewater infrastructure can and does fail. Approximately 550,000 gallons of untreated wastewater reportedly entered the Guadalupe River north of Lake Dunlap following the May 2026 New Braunfels Utilities failure. NBU explained that one electrical source was unavailable because of planned maintenance when the remaining source failed during a storm. When planned maintenance removes electrical redundancy and storms are possible, dependable backup power should already be available.

A separate Seguin incident in October 2021 released more than 100,000 gallons of domestic wastewater, potentially affecting Walnut Branch and the Guadalupe River. These two publicly reported incidents alone establish a documented regional minimum exceeding 650,000 gallons.

Kerrville has also confirmed a sanitary-sewer overflow affecting Town Creek and the Guadalupe River, but its public announcement did not provide an estimated volume. In addition, the catastrophic 2025 flooding damaged Kerrville’s water and wastewater infrastructure, yet we have not found a complete public accounting of how much wastewater escaped during that disaster.

An undisclosed or uncalculated volume cannot reasonably be treated as zero. Without a published estimate, sampling results, and damage assessment, the public cannot determine the magnitude of a release or whether the response was adequate.

We therefore request a complete accounting of every unauthorized discharge, overflow, bypass, treatment failure, permit violation, and wastewater-related advisory affecting the Guadalupe watershed. That accounting should identify the facility, date, cause, estimated volume, receiving water, sampling results, corrective action, enforcement outcome, and any unresolved infrastructure weakness. When no reliable volume was calculated, the responsible entity should explain why.

These failures must also be considered alongside the routine volume of treated effluent entering the watershed. Kerrville produces and discharges treated wastewater near the Guadalupe’s headwaters. New Braunfels and rapidly developing areas south of the city generate substantial volumes farther downstream. Developments around Canyon Lake are seeking additional wastewater capacity now. The total regional burden is growing even where the complete amount is not publicly understood.

CHAPTER 311 PRECEDENTS

Texas already recognizes that certain reservoirs need watershed-specific protection. Chapter 311 includes protections for the Highland Lakes, including Lake Austin, Lake Travis, Lake Marble Falls, Lake LBJ, Inks Lake, and Lake Buchanan, as well as protections tailored to other Texas watersheds.

Some Highland Lakes provisions require no-discharge permits for new or expanding wastewater facilities within designated water-quality areas unless an alternative is demonstrated to protect and maintain reservoir water quality.

We are not demanding that Canyon Lake copy another subchapter word for word. We are asking TCEQ to evaluate Canyon Lake and the Guadalupe watershed and establish protections addressing their particular public-water-supply function, karst geology, groundwater connections, recreational value, rapid development, downstream communities, and coastal consequences.

Representative Carrie Isaac and Senator Donna Campbell have asked TCEQ to evaluate Canyon Lake’s watershed protections and the adequacy of existing safeguards under projected growth and drought conditions. Comal County should formally join and strengthen those requests.

New Braunfels Mayor Michael French has also raised concerns about Canyon Lake’s water supply, regional growth, and long-term sustainability. As mayor and a member of the New Braunfels Utilities Board of Trustees, he should be invited—along with the City Council and NBU—to participate in a coordinated regional effort addressing watershed protection, infrastructure reliability, cumulative impacts, conservation, and beneficial reuse.

COMPLETE BENEFICIAL REUSE

New developments should be required to demonstrate how they will collect, treat, store, retain, and beneficially reuse all the wastewater they generate. Reusing only a small portion while retaining authority to discharge the remainder into a creek, drainage, recharge feature, or public waterway is partial reuse—not complete beneficial reuse.

Every new subdivision should either maintain a properly engineered reuse system or participate in a dependable regional system capable of managing 100 percent of its actual treated effluent. The plan must address average flows, peak conditions, wet weather, winter months, seasonal variations, equipment failures, and periods when irrigation demand is low.

Applicants should disclose:

• The total wastewater volume the development is expected to generate.

• The amount each proposed reuse activity can accept.

• How seasonal demand was calculated.

• The amount of operational, seasonal, and emergency storage provided.

• Where the entire volume will go when irrigation demand is low.

• What backup power, containment, alarms, and redundant equipment will prevent avoidable failures.

Complete reuse can include purple-pipe systems serving common landscaping, parks, roadway medians, greenbelts, commercial properties, agriculture, construction, dust control, industrial uses, and other approved nonpotable purposes.

Responsible land application and land mitigation should also be considered where scientifically appropriate. Restored soils, native vegetation, carefully designed infiltration areas, and constructed filtration systems can slow water, filter pollutants, reduce erosion, support habitat, and keep water working within the local environment. The objective should be to make the water take the long way home rather than sending it directly into creeks, rivers, aquifers, or drinking-water sources.

Claims that complete beneficial reuse is technically or financially infeasible must be supported by transparent engineering, seasonal water-balance calculations, storage analysis, cost comparisons, and independent review. A developer’s preferred or least-expensive disposal method should not automatically be accepted as the only viable option.

Developers benefiting financially from new growth should plan and pay for the infrastructure needed to manage the wastewater their projects generate. Those costs and risks should not simply be transferred to neighboring landowners, water customers, taxpayers, aquifers, and downstream communities.

CLARIFICATIONS AND ANTICIPATED OBJECTIONS

This is not a demand that Comal County immediately spend unrestricted taxpayer money or retain consultants without defined costs. The County should first pursue assistance through TCEQ, GBRA, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, universities, groundwater districts, interlocal partnerships, grants, existing personnel, and other state or federal resources. Any additional expert work should have a publicly defined scope, budget, funding source, conflict-of-interest disclosures, and Commissioners Court approval.

This is not a demand to stop all development. It is a demand that development occur responsibly and within the watershed’s capacity to support it without transferring unreasonable environmental and financial risks to the public.

Federal ownership and operation of Canyon Lake do not remove the responsibilities of Texas or Comal County. Chapter 311 is a state regulatory mechanism administered by TCEQ. The County is being asked to advocate for state protections while coordinating with federal, regional, municipal, and local entities.

This request does not claim that every treated-wastewater proposal presents an identical risk. It asks for independent, science-based review of each proposal and their combined effects. Permit compliance alone should not be treated as proof that no cumulative, long-term, or location-specific danger exists.

Scientific uncertainty must not be manipulated in either direction. Incomplete data are not proof that harm will occur, but they are also not proof of safety. Where wastewater could affect a drinking-water supply, the Trinity or Edwards aquifers, springs, the Guadalupe River, or coastal bays and fisheries, uncertainty should lead to better investigation, monitoring, safeguards, and preventive planning—not automatic approval.

Any study must be genuinely independent. Experts should disclose current and previous financial relationships with wastewater applicants, developers, utilities, engineering firms, GBRA, or other interested parties. Applicants should not control the study questions, select all the data, or characterize uncertainty in their favor without independent review.

Finally, Canyon Lake’s flood-control purpose does not erase its continuing conservation, public-water-supply, and recreational purposes. The existence of a flood-control pool does not justify treating the conservation pool, its tributaries, or connected groundwater as convenient receiving waters for increasing wastewater loads.

FORMAL REQUESTS

We respectfully request that the Comal County Commissioners Court:

1. Place protection of Canyon Lake and the Guadalupe watershed on a public Commissioners Court agenda.

2. Adopt a resolution recognizing Canyon Lake’s continuing purposes of public water supply, water conservation, flood control, recreation, and support of downstream needs.

3. Formally support the watershed-level evaluations and protections requested by Representative Carrie Isaac and Senator Donna Campbell.

4. Petition the Governor, TCEQ, and the Texas Legislature for Chapter 311 protections—or equally protective watershed-specific rules—for Canyon Lake and the Guadalupe watershed.

5. Ask TCEQ to evaluate cumulative existing, pending, and reasonably foreseeable wastewater volumes before approving additional discharge permits or capacity increases.

6. Request a complete public accounting of wastewater spills, overflows, bypasses, treatment failures, violations, and incidents with undisclosed volumes throughout the watershed, including unresolved questions resulting from the 2025 Kerrville flood damage.

7. Ask TCEQ and affected utilities to explain how unquantified releases are evaluated and why volume estimates, sampling results, or damage assessments were not disclosed when that information is unavailable.

8. Require new and expanding facilities to submit plans accounting for 100 percent of the treated wastewater they are expected to generate.

9. Require sufficient treatment, storage, backup power, redundant equipment, emergency containment, purple-pipe infrastructure, land-application capacity, and alternative reuse demand to prevent predictable surface-water discharges throughout the year.

10. Require a complete water balance identifying expected wastewater volumes, seasonal changes, reuse demand, storage, emergency capacity, and the ultimate destination of the entire treated volume.

11. Refuse to characterize seasonal irrigation or partial reuse as complete beneficial reuse when a facility retains authority to discharge the remainder.

12. Require claims of financial or technical infeasibility to be supported by transparent engineering, cost documentation, seasonal calculations, storage analysis, and independent review.

13. Prioritize purple-pipe infrastructure, appropriate land application, constructed filtration, native vegetation, soil restoration, stormwater capture, and other scientifically supported non-discharge alternatives.

14. Identify grants, agency assistance, interlocal resources, and other available funding before committing unrestricted county funds.

15. Obtain independent scientific and legal review when necessary, with a defined public scope, transparent data, disclosed funding, and mandatory conflict-of-interest disclosures.

16. Invite Mayor Michael French, the New Braunfels City Council, NBU, GBRA, Kerrville, Seguin, groundwater districts, affected counties, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, universities, neighborhood groups, and watershed organizations into a coordinated regional process.

17. Provide regular written public updates identifying actions taken, agency responses received, information still missing, and protections being pursued.

Every community in this watershed is connected by the same water. A decision near the headwaters can affect Canyon Lake. A decision around Canyon Lake can affect New Braunfels, the Lower Guadalupe River, and San Antonio Bay. These risks cannot be separated by city limits, county lines, or individual permit boundaries.

We are not asking the Commissioners Court to predetermine every permit or scientific conclusion. We are asking it to acknowledge the documented failures, incomplete public information, accelerating development, increasing wastewater capacity, and irreplaceable public value of this water—and then demand a transparent, cumulative, and preventive response.

Canyon Lake should not have to suffer measurable degradation before stronger protection becomes justified. The purpose of watershed protection is to prevent avoidable damage before it becomes permanent.

Please place this matter on a public agenda and provide a written response explaining what actions Comal County is prepared to take.

Respectfully,

Concerned residents and supporters of Canyon Lake and the Guadalupe River watershed

Name: ______________________________

Community: _________________________

Signature: ___________________________

Date: _______________________________

Texas GB Water
Canyon Lake, Texas
https://texasgbwater.org/

COPY, SIGN, SHARE, AND SEND THIS LETTER TO THE COMAL COUNTY JUDGE AND EVERY MEMBER OF THE COMMISSIONERS COURT.

WATER SHOULD NOT BE TRADED LIKE A COMMODITY

By Brent Wiewel

THIS IS ABOUT A MORAL BOUNDARY

This article is not an attempt to tell water companies, farmers, developers or investors how to conduct their businesses. It is not an argument that water infrastructure should be free or that companies providing water service should operate without earning money.

This is about recognizing a moral boundary. Some things may have an economic value without belonging in a system where scarcity itself creates investment value. Water is necessary for every person, every community, every farm and every living thing. The question is not simply whether trading water is legal or profitable. The question is whether it is right.

THIS DID NOT BEGIN WITH WATER FUTURES

Water companies had already been placed on the stock market long before investors were given the ability to trade financial contracts based on the future price of water. Publicly traded water utilities were buying systems, selling shares, paying dividends and expanding into communities across America for decades before the water-futures market arrived.

What changed in 2020 was the creation of a financial product tied directly to the changing price of water rights. The progression is important: first, the companies delivering water became investments. Then local water systems and water rights became valuable acquisition targets. Finally, the future price of water itself became something investors could trade.

None of this is presented as an accusation against companies participating in a system that the law permits. It is simply the history of how water moved deeper into the financial marketplace.

WHEN THE PRICE OF WATER ENTERED THE FINANCIAL MARKET

On December 7, 2020, CME Group launched futures contracts based on the Nasdaq Veles California Water Index under the ticker symbol H2O. The index tracks the price of water-rights leases and sales across five of California’s largest and most actively traded water markets.

Physical water was not packaged and delivered through the exchange, and water itself did not become a corporate stock. These were cash-settled futures contracts allowing market participants to gain or lose money based on changes in the price of water rights. That distinction matters, but so does what these contracts represent: the financial market found a way to assign a tradeable investment value to the future price of one of life’s most basic necessities.

Supporters describe water futures as a way for farmers, cities and businesses to manage unpredictable prices. That may be their legal and financial purpose. The moral question remains: What does it mean when increasing water prices can create financial opportunity for people who do not depend on that water to live, farm or sustain a community?

American Water Works and Essential Utilities are pursuing a merger that would create a combined publicly traded water and wastewater utility with an announced market value of approximately $40 billion. H2O America is a separate corporation. H2O America, The Texas Water Company and the Canyon Lake area are not included in that proposed merger.

https://www.cmegroup.com/markets/equities/nasdaq/nasdaq-veles-california-water-index.html

These companies provide necessary services to millions of people. Their presence on the stock market does not, by itself, prove wrongdoing. The figures demonstrate something larger: water service has become a major financial industry in which systems, customers, infrastructure and future growth all carry investment value.

NUMBER FOUR BRINGS THIS DIRECTLY HOME

H2O America was formerly known as SJW Group. It is the corporate parent of H2O America TX Holdings and SJWTX, Inc., which operates as The Texas Water Company. Many Canyon Lake residents will remember that utility by its former local name, Canyon Lake Water Service Company.

According to H2O America’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, The Texas Water Company holds long-term take-or-pay agreements with GBRA for an aggregate of approximately 7,602 acre-feet of Canyon Lake water annually. Those contracts extend into 2037, 2040, 2044 and 2050.

H2O America does not own Canyon Lake. The United States Army Corps of Engineers operates the reservoir, GBRA holds and markets conservation water, and the Public Utility Commission of Texas regulates the private utility. A multibillion-dollar publicly traded corporation headquartered outside Texas does, however, own the private utility delivering water to thousands of people around Canyon Lake.

That is not presented as a demand that H2O America change its business. It brings the moral question home: How comfortable are we allowing access to an essential resource to become part of a publicly traded national investment system?

WHAT HAPPENED ALONG THE COLORADO RIVER

In Cibola, Arizona, a private investment company acquired farmland carrying valuable Colorado River water rights. Under a transfer approved by government agencies, approximately 485 acres were retired from agricultural use so that roughly 2,083 acre-feet of Colorado River water per year could be transferred to Queen Creek, a growing suburb nearly 200 miles away.

The company reportedly earned approximately $14 million in gross profit from the transaction. Water that had supported rural agricultural land was transformed into a valuable asset and moved to a distant municipality that could afford to pay more for it. The transaction followed an established legal process.

The moral question is not whether the company followed the process. It is what this model could mean across America. Investors can purchase rural land for the water attached to it, stop using that water locally and transfer it to cities or developments willing to pay more. The investor receives the financial benefit while the rural community loses water, agriculture and part of its economic future.

A resource necessary for the survival of a community becomes an investment whose value increases as that resource becomes scarcer. That may be legal. That may be profitable. Neither answer settles whether it is right.

THE SAUDI ALFALFA FARM THAT OUTDRILLED ITS NEIGHBORS

Fondomonte Arizona, a subsidiary of the Saudi dairy company Almarai, acquired and leased land in La Paz County to grow water-intensive alfalfa. The crop was harvested and exported to Saudi Arabia to feed dairy cattle.

According to a lawsuit filed by the Arizona attorney general, Fondomonte pumped approximately 31,196 acre-feet of groundwater during 2023 alone. That is more than 10 billion gallons in one year. The lawsuit alleges that the company’s pumping caused groundwater levels to fall, nearby wells to run dry, water quality to deteriorate and land to sink and crack.

A large international corporation possessed the financial resources to install powerful wells and continue reaching a falling water table. Families and local farmers faced the cost of deepening or replacing their own wells, assuming usable groundwater could still be reached.

Arizona canceled Fondomonte’s state-land leases in Butler Valley, and the company stopped pumping there in 2024. Its other Arizona operations were not all ended. The state’s public-nuisance lawsuit involving the Ranegras Plain Basin remains active, and in May 2026 a judge rejected the company’s request to halt the case.

The fact that Fondomonte is foreign-owned attracts attention, but the deeper moral issue would remain regardless of the company’s nationality. What happens when one user has enough money to outpump every family and farmer sharing the same aquifer? Does the deepest well establish the strongest moral claim to the water?

WHEN EVEN THE RAIN ON YOUR ROOF IS CONTROLLED

Before 2016, most Colorado homeowners could not legally collect rainwater from their own roofs except under narrow circumstances. The state changed that law, but most households are still limited to two rain barrels holding no more than 110 gallons combined.

The water must come from a residential roof, remain on the property where it was collected and be used only for outdoor purposes. The Colorado state engineer retains authority to curtail residential rain-barrel use if a senior water-right holder proves material injury.

Colorado’s legal explanation is based on prior appropriation. Rain falling on a roof might otherwise enter the watershed and contribute to water already committed to a downstream right holder. That explains the law, but it does not eliminate the moral contradiction.

A homeowner’s ability to capture relatively clean rain where it falls is tightly restricted. Yet if that water runs across roofs, pavement, parking lots and streets, collecting oil, chemicals, trash and bacteria, it eventually becomes contaminated runoff entering a drainage system or waterway.

The law can be highly protective of who may capture water while it is clean and far less successful at protecting that same water from contamination after it begins running downhill. Again, the question is not whether Colorado may legally regulate rainwater. The question is whether the outcome respects the true value of water.

THE SAME MORAL QUESTION APPEARS IN DEVELOPMENT

High-density developments can treat, recycle and beneficially reuse their own wastewater through purple-pipe systems, land application and carefully designed irrigation. Those systems cost money. Discharging treated wastewater into a creek may cost less.

As communities consider projects such as Juniper Ranch and Simmons Ranch, the moral question is not whether development is allowed or whether developers are entitled to earn a profit. The question is who carries the long-term burden when the least expensive wastewater option for a development creates concern for the people already living around the receiving watershed.

A financial system calculates the cost of treatment, pipelines, storage and land. A moral calculation also considers the community, the watershed and the generations that will live with the result after the development is completed.

THE PATTERN IS BECOMING IMPOSSIBLE TO IGNORE

Water utilities are publicly traded. Companies purchase and consolidate local systems. Investors acquire land carrying valuable water rights. Corporate farms possess the financial power to outpump surrounding residents. The future price of water rights has become the basis of a tradeable financial contract.

At the same time, ordinary homeowners can face restrictions on collecting rain falling on their own roofs, and communities may be expected to accept wastewater decisions driven partly by cost. Each situation has its own law, explanation and financial justification.

Placed together, however, they reveal the same moral conflict. The people with the greatest financial resources can gain increasing power over water, while the people living above the aquifers, beside the rivers and around the reservoirs live with the consequences.

THE QUESTION AMERICA MUST ANSWER

Water is not oil, gold, cryptocurrency or a luxury product. People can choose to live without those things. Nobody can choose to live without water. Our farms, wildlife, rivers, springs, lakes and communities all depend on it.

Water infrastructure costs money. Treatment plants, pipelines, reservoirs, employees and maintenance must be paid for. Recognizing those costs does not require us to abandon the moral distinction between earning money for providing a necessary service and earning money because the necessary resource is becoming scarce.

I am not telling water companies, farmers, developers or investors what they must do. I am saying that legality and profitability are not the only standards by which a society should judge its decisions.

This is where I draw the moral boundary: Water is necessary for life. Its scarcity should never become more valuable than the people and communities depending upon it.

Next, it could be our air.

We are watching water, something every human being needs to survive, be turned into another source of wealth for people whose fortunes are already beyond imagination, while ordinary people who struggle to get by must worry about rising water bills and whether clean water will remain affordable. At the same time, massive developers are moving into our community and proposing to discharge wastewater from their developments into the waterways that feed our big, beautiful lake, the same lake that provides our drinking water. They can build their projects, collect their profits and leave as wealthy men, while we must remain here, drink this water and live with whatever they leave behind. I want to be absolutely clear: I am not singling out any one company, threatening anyone or encouraging retaliation of any kind. I am simply saying that the game is set up for the little guy to be crushed, with the wealthy collecting the profits while ordinary people and local communities carry the cost and the risk. That is not a threat. It is a moral boundary, and it is time we discussed it honestly.

SOURCES

CME Group — Nasdaq Veles California Water Index Futures⁠

H2O America SEC Filing — Texas Water Supply and Canyon Lake Contracts⁠

H2O America — The Texas Water Company⁠

Arizona Department of Water Resources — GSC Farm and Queen Creek Colorado River Transfer⁠

United States Bureau of Reclamation — GSC Farm and Queen Creek Transfer⁠

Arizona Attorney General — Fondomonte Groundwater Lawsuit⁠

Arizona Attorney General — May 2026 Ruling Allowing the Fondomonte Lawsuit to Proceed⁠

Colorado General Assembly — HB16-1005 Residential Precipitation Collection⁠

Colorado State University Extension — Rainwater Collection in Colorado⁠

American Water and Essential Utilities — Proposed Merger Information⁠

American Water Works — August 2026 Market Value⁠

Essential Utilities — August 2026 Market Value⁠

California Water Service Group — August 2026 Market Value⁠

H2O America — August 2026 Market Value⁠

MAKE THE WATER TAKE THE LONG WAY HOMEIF I HAD THE ABILITY TO CALL THIS MEETING, THIS IS WHO I WOULD PUT AT THE TABLE

By Brent Wiewel

Before the roads, parking lots, rooftops and subdivisions covered so much of the Texas Hill Country, rain had a much harder time getting away, and that was a good thing. Think about what happened when a storm rolled across this country. Rain struck the canopy of oak, cedar and other vegetation before it ever reached the ground. Water collected on thousands of leaves and branches, dripping from one surface to another and slowing down with every interruption before finally reaching the earth.

Under those trees was another layer of protection. Fallen leaves, twigs, decaying vegetation and organic material covered portions of the soil. Tall native grasses stood among it, surrounded by dead grass, leaves, roots and uneven ground. Instead of rain striking pavement or compacted soil and immediately running downhill, water encountered obstacle after obstacle. Every leaf, blade of grass, root, branch, rock and depression bought that water something incredibly valuable: time.

The landscape wasn’t designed to get rid of water. It was built to receive it. Water slowed down, spread out and had opportunities to soak into the soil. Some became runoff, especially during the enormous storms the Hill Country has always experienced, but other water began a much slower journey through soil and fractured rock. Depending on the geology, some could contribute to groundwater systems that later supplied springs and helped sustain creeks and rivers between rainfall events. The water eventually continued its journey, but it didn’t necessarily take the express lane. It took the long way home.

WE REMOVED THE SPONGE

As we developed the Hill Country, we changed that journey. We cleared vegetation, disturbed and compacted soils, graded land and replaced portions of the natural landscape with rooftops, streets, driveways, shopping centers and parking lots. Then, because those surfaces couldn’t absorb rainfall like the landscape they replaced, we engineered drainage systems specifically designed to move water away.

We became incredibly good at it. Curbs, gutters, storm drains, culverts and drainage channels can take rainfall from developed land and move it toward creeks and rivers remarkably quickly. A raindrop that once might have struck a tree, dripped into leaf litter, worked through tall grass and soaked into the ground can now hit a roof, enter a gutter, cross pavement, reach a culvert and enter a creek in a fraction of the time. We didn’t make the water disappear. We changed its route and accelerated its journey. We removed countless natural obstacles that once slowed rainfall and replaced many of them with surfaces specifically designed to offer water almost no resistance. We took away part of the sponge and replaced it with a slide.

Development alone does not explain every change we have seen in springs, groundwater or Canyon Lake. Drought, rainfall patterns, groundwater pumping, reservoir operations and geology all matter. But we know impervious surfaces and efficiently drained development can increase and accelerate runoff compared with the landscapes they replace. Instead of accepting that as an unavoidable consequence of growth, I believe we should start asking a different question: Why can’t we put some of that sponge back?

WE NEED TO MAKE OUR AREA WET AGAIN

Maybe this is the simplest way I can explain the entire idea: we need to make our area wet again. I don’t mean flooded, and I don’t mean creating stagnant pools of water everywhere. I mean wet in the way a functioning watershed is supposed to be wet. Moisture in the soil. Water around roots. Damp organic material beneath vegetation. Water moving slowly through grasses and creek bottoms. Water spending time beneath our feet instead of immediately racing across the surface toward the nearest drainage channel.

We have spent decades engineering water out of the landscape. I want to start engineering water back into it. Every gallon of appropriate rainwater we can safely slow, clean and retain gives the landscape another opportunity to hold moisture. Every additional hour or day water spends working through vegetation and soil instead of racing downstream matters. Where geology allows safe infiltration, some of that water may spend considerably longer underground and contribute to groundwater systems.

A wetter landscape can also help rebuild some of its own ability to receive water. Healthier vegetation protects soil and adds organic material. Roots create pathways and improve soil structure. Vegetation creates resistance to runoff. A landscape capable of retaining more moisture is better prepared to receive the next rain than bare, compacted or impervious ground.

That is what putting the sponge back really means. We’re rebuilding the ability of the land to receive, hold and cycle water.

LET’S BUILD A BETTER SPONGE

I’m not suggesting that we tear down Canyon Lake and recreate the Hill Country of 150 years ago. I’m suggesting we study what that landscape accomplished and combine those natural processes with technology that didn’t exist 150 years ago. Imagine developments designed around receiving water instead of simply getting rid of it. Rooftops become rainwater-collection surfaces. Parking lots direct runoff toward treatment landscapes. Native grasses and vegetation slow water. Healthy soils provide storage. Vegetated corridors hold and clean water instead of simply delivering it to the nearest creek as quickly as possible.

But I want to take this idea much farther than putting a few decorative rain gardens beside our creeks. The creeks, draws and drainage corridors themselves can become part of the sponge. We have spent generations thinking about drainage as transportation: get the water into the channel and move it downstream. I want us to begin thinking about appropriate portions of those corridors as receivers of water first and conveyors of water second, while still preserving the flood capacity necessary to safely handle the enormous storms this region can produce.

Imagine a broad, living drainage corridor instead of a clean chute for water. Tall native grasses, sedges and other appropriate riparian and wetland vegetation grow directly within areas where ordinary runoff moves. Leaves, roots, vegetation, gravel, rock and organic material continually interrupt the water. The objective is not to dam a creek or dangerously obstruct floodwater. The objective is to remove the express lane from ordinary runoff and replace it with thousands upon thousands of small opportunities for water to slow down.

MAKE THE CREEKS RECEIVERS AGAIN

Picture water entering one of these living corridors after a normal rain. Instead of immediately finding a smooth channel and accelerating downhill, it encounters tall grasses. It works through vegetation, leaves and roots and spreads sideways across a wider area. It reaches broad, shallow vegetated depressions where it slows again. As one area fills, excess water gradually moves into another receiving area farther downstream and then another, while a properly engineered flood pathway remains capable of safely carrying the water that cannot be retained during major storms.

Now imagine making those corridors very long. Not a little decorative filtration bed at the end of a parking lot and not one deep hole at the end of a subdivision. I’m talking about hundreds or thousands of feet of living landscape whose job is to continually slow, clean, spread and receive water. Long stretches could use coarse rock and gravel beneath and among vegetation to reduce velocity and capture sediment. Other sections could incorporate engineered filtration media appropriate for the contaminants we are trying to remove. Still others could become densely vegetated with tall grasses and plants whose roots and surrounding soils provide another stage of treatment.

The vegetation doesn’t have to sit politely along the edge while water races through the middle. The vegetation becomes part of the waterway itself. Water has to work its way through it. Grasses, roots, leaves, mosses where conditions support them, rocks, soil and filtration media become parts of one enormous living treatment system.

Even debris can be intercepted differently when water moves slowly through a vegetated landscape. A plastic bag, bottle or piece of trash carried by runoff has a much greater opportunity to become trapped among vegetation or in accessible debris-capture areas instead of being carried rapidly toward Canyon Lake. Those materials can then be removed through routine maintenance without turning the entire landscape into an industrial-looking treatment plant.

The creek itself becomes part of the sponge.

BUILD QUALITY WATER

Nature should not have to do all the work. This is where I believe we can take an ancient natural system and make it better with modern technology. Stormwater entering these corridors can first encounter systems designed to settle sediment and capture debris. It can move through long sections of gravel and engineered filtration media, including specialized media where appropriate for particular pollutants. Where water is being prepared for a specific reuse or intentional infiltration application, additional treatment and disinfection technologies, including UV where appropriate for microorganisms, could provide another barrier.

Sensors could monitor flow, turbidity and other important water-quality indicators. Automated controls could divert water that does not meet the standards established for a particular destination. Instead of simply hoping a system is working, we can measure what enters it, measure what leaves it and continuously improve the design.

This is especially important around Canyon Lake because our fractured limestone and karst geology can move water—and contaminants—underground rapidly. I am not proposing that we dig holes and pour dirty stormwater into the aquifer. I’m proposing the opposite. Clean the water before we intentionally ask the earth to receive it. Mechanical treatment does what mechanical treatment does best, engineered filtration provides another stage, vegetation and healthy soils provide another, and carefully selected landscapes give suitable water an opportunity to infiltrate where science and geology show that it can be done safely.

That is what I mean by building quality water. Instead of asking, “How quickly can we get rid of this water?” we begin asking, “How good can we make this water, and how long can we responsibly keep it working within this watershed?”

MAKE THE WATER TAKE THE LONG WAY HOME

Once suitable water safely enters appropriate soil and groundwater systems, its journey changes dramatically. Instead of traveling across the surface in minutes or hours, some water may remain within the watershed much longer. Depending on the geology and groundwater system, some infiltrated rainfall can contribute to groundwater that later supports springs, creeks and river baseflow.

Think about the difference. The fast route is roof to gutter, gutter to street, street to culvert, culvert to creek and creek toward the Guadalupe. The slower route is tree to leaf, leaf to grass, grass to soil, soil to rock and, where conditions allow, into groundwater. Some of that groundwater can eventually return through springs and contribute again to surface water. The destination may ultimately be the same, but the journey and timing are completely different.

We do not want to stop the Guadalupe from flowing. Canyon Lake, the river below it, wildlife, communities and ultimately our bays need freshwater. We also cannot and should not try to capture every gallon from a major flood. What I’m talking about is restoring opportunities that ordinary and moderate rainfall increasingly lose when we replace a receiving landscape with an efficiently drained one. Let the creek receive water before we ask it to transport water.

NOW PUT THE PURPLE PIPE INTO THE SPONGE

Then there is the water we have already captured, treated and paid for. Texas spends enormous amounts of money obtaining freshwater, pumping it, transporting it, treating it to drinking-water standards and delivering it to homes and businesses. We use that water, collect the wastewater, spend more money treating it and then too often think about the resulting water primarily in terms of where we can discharge it. Meanwhile, we are searching for additional water supplies.

We need to change that thinking by building purple-pipe infrastructure into new development from the beginning and expanding it into existing communities where practical. But I don’t want purple pipe to simply mean that wastewater received minimum treatment and therefore we spray it somewhere. Water quality should remain the objective throughout the entire system.

Where the intended use and local conditions call for it, reclaimed water can receive additional polishing and appropriate disinfection before being distributed. Then use that reclaimed water for appropriate irrigation, landscaping, cooling, industrial processes and other applications that do not require drinking-water quality. Every gallon of reclaimed water doing one of those jobs can reduce the demand for freshwater for that particular use, leaving more freshwater available in reservoirs and groundwater systems for purposes that actually require it.

But I want to go one step further. Reclaimed water should not simply be considered a substitute water supply. It can also become another tool for making our area wet again.

YOUR FRONT YARD BECOMES PART OF THE WATER SYSTEM

Think about what happens when properly treated reclaimed water irrigates a landscape. Plants take up water through their roots, some water remains within the soil, some evaporates from surfaces and plants return water vapor to the atmosphere through transpiration. Depending upon the soil, geology, rainfall, vegetation and irrigation rate, some water can also move deeper into the ground.

Instead of pulling drinking-quality water from an aquifer or reservoir simply to keep appropriate vegetation alive, reclaimed water can perform that job while helping maintain moisture in the landscape. Trees receive water. Grasses receive water. Roots remain active. Soil receives organic material. Vegetation provides shade and resistance to runoff. We aren’t merely disposing of reclaimed water; we’re giving appropriate water another productive job within the watershed.

That means the landscape receiving reclaimed water is not merely the place where the purple pipe ends. It becomes another part of the water-management system. Around Canyon Lake, that makes the quality and quantity of reclaimed water we apply especially important. We should not assume limestone will magically remove whatever we put onto the ground. Because fractured limestone can sometimes move water quickly, we have even more reason to produce high-quality reclaimed water and match irrigation rates to what plants and soils can responsibly receive.

Mechanical treatment does its job, additional polishing does its job, appropriate disinfection does its job, and then vegetation, roots, soil and biological processes become additional parts of the system. Purple pipe is not separate from the sponge. Purple pipe becomes part of the sponge.

SOME OF THAT WATER GOES BACK TO THE SKY

There is another remarkable part of this cycle that we rarely discuss. Plants do not simply consume water and make it disappear. Through transpiration they return water vapor to the atmosphere, while evaporation does the same from soil and other surfaces. During evaporation and transpiration, water enters the atmosphere as vapor while many dissolved salts, minerals and other nonvolatile substances remain behind.

That water vapor becomes part of the atmosphere, can contribute to clouds and may eventually fall somewhere again as precipitation. The atmosphere itself can contain pollutants, so we should not describe rain as perfectly purified water, but evaporation and condensation are extraordinary natural processes within Earth’s water cycle.

Think about the journey we have now created. We took wastewater and treated it mechanically, polished it further where appropriate and distributed it through purple pipe for another productive use. Plants used some of it and returned some to the atmosphere through evapotranspiration, while other portions remained within the soil system. At the same time, we captured rainfall, slowed it through living drainage corridors, filtered it and gave suitable water opportunities to remain within the watershed longer.

We are not inventing a new water cycle. We are learning how to work with the one that has been here all along.

TWO SYSTEMS BECOME ONE

Now put everything together. Rain falls onto rooftops, streets, parking lots, trees and open land. Instead of automatically sending that water toward the nearest creek as quickly as possible, we intercept more of it and move it into living treatment corridors. Water encounters vegetation, gravel, filtration media, healthy soils and broad shallow receiving areas. Technology monitors and treats it where appropriate, and suitable water gets additional opportunities to infiltrate rather than immediately becoming fast-moving runoff.

At the same time, water we have already used is treated to the quality appropriate for its next use, polished where necessary and distributed through purple pipe. Reclaimed water irrigates landscapes and supplies appropriate commercial and industrial demands so we are not using drinking-quality water for every job. It helps keep vegetation growing, soils functioning and water cycling through the landscape.

Now stormwater, wastewater, reclaimed water, groundwater, vegetation and our creeks are no longer treated as completely separate subjects. We are managing the entire water cycle with one objective: keep quality water working within this landscape for as long as responsibly possible.

LET’S START HERE AT CANYON LAKE

Why couldn’t Canyon Lake become the place where Texas proves this concept at watershed scale? We are already experiencing tremendous development pressure. Instead of allowing every new development to remove another piece of the sponge, let’s use growth as an opportunity to deliberately put some of that function back.

New developments should have to think about water before the first street is paved. Where will rainfall go? How much impervious surface are we creating? How can rooftop water be captured? Where can runoff be slowed? Can drainage corridors become living receiving systems rather than simple transportation channels? How will the water be treated? How much reclaimed water can replace potable water? How will groundwater be protected? Most importantly, how can this development leave the watershed better able to receive and retain water than a conventional design would?

We should not stop with new construction. Existing shopping centers have acres of rooftops and parking lots collecting rainfall. Existing neighborhoods have drainage corridors. Roads are eventually rebuilt and parking lots resurfaced. Public properties contain land that could demonstrate these systems. Existing creeks, draws and drainage areas can be studied to determine where restoring vegetation, reconnecting floodplain areas, slowing ordinary runoff or adding treatment landscapes can be done safely without increasing flood risk.

Regional projects could go even further. Instead of expecting every homeowner to solve the problem alone, strategically located systems could receive water from larger drainage areas. Long treatment corridors could combine vegetation, gravel, engineered filtration and shallow receiving areas. Monitoring could tell us exactly how much water we captured, how much we retained, how its quality changed and where it ultimately went.

Then measure everything. Measure water quality before and after treatment. Measure runoff volume and speed. Measure infiltration where appropriate. Monitor groundwater. Study springflow. Measure how much potable demand purple pipe replaces. Measure how much longer water remains within the watershed. Publish the results, find the weaknesses and make the next system better.

If it works here, expand it throughout the Guadalupe watershed. If it works across the Guadalupe, adapt the idea to the different geology, rainfall and hydrology of other Texas watersheds.

WATER CONSERVATION ON STEROIDS

This is bigger than rain barrels and sprinkler restrictions. I’m talking about changing the way we build communities around water and restoring some of the function we removed from the land.

Put vegetation back where we can. Restore healthy soils. Capture rooftop rainfall. Let tall grasses and plants grow within appropriate water-receiving corridors. Slow runoff before it becomes a rushing stream. Build long filtration landscapes instead of relying only on little treatment boxes. Use gravel and appropriate engineered filtration media. Add technology, monitoring and UV disinfection where appropriate. Protect the aquifer. Build purple-pipe networks. Reuse treated water. Let vegetation return part of that water to the atmosphere and give suitable rainfall opportunities to enter the ground and potentially contribute again to groundwater and spring systems.

But above all, make our area wet again. Keep more moisture in our soils. Keep vegetation growing. Give roots water. Give creek bottoms time to receive water. Give properly treated reclaimed water another useful life. Give suitable rainfall more opportunities to stay within the watershed instead of immediately racing away from it.

Do it house by house, development by development and community by community, but design those pieces to eventually work together at watershed scale. We know how to build interstate highways across Texas. We know how to build electrical grids, pipelines, telecommunications networks and enormous industrial facilities. There is no reason we cannot bring that same ambition to building a water-retention, treatment and reuse network.

MAKE THE WATER TAKE THE LONG WAY HOME

For generations, our answer to excess water has often been to move it away. Drain the street, drain the parking lot, drain the subdivision, get it into the creek and move it downstream. We have become so good at moving water that perhaps we have forgotten how valuable it is to make water wait.

Maybe the next generation of Texas water infrastructure should ask something different. How much water can we responsibly keep within the watershed longer? How much can we clean? How much can we reuse? How much drinking water can reclaimed water replace? How much ordinary runoff can our creeks and drainage corridors receive slowly rather than immediately transport? How much of the sponge that we removed can we deliberately put back?

We do not need to stop the Guadalupe from flowing, and we should never compromise flood safety or the freshwater needs of downstream ecosystems. We do not need to capture every raindrop, and every location will not be suitable for infiltration. But between doing nothing and trying to capture everything is an enormous opportunity to rethink what a watershed can do.

We can build quality water mechanically and naturally. We can treat reclaimed water as a resource instead of something to throw away. We can make trees, tall grasses, roots, leaves, soils, creeks and living landscapes part of our infrastructure again while using modern filtration, monitoring and treatment to make those systems smarter and safer. Most importantly, we can stop measuring success by how quickly we make water somebody else’s problem.

The rain is already coming, and the water is already here. Nature already showed us how to slow it down, hold it and cycle it through the landscape, and modern engineering gives us tools nature never had. We removed pieces of the sponge as we developed this place, and now we have an opportunity to put them back—not exactly as they were, but deliberately, intelligently and on a scale large enough to matter.

Let’s start here at Canyon Lake. Let’s make our area wet again. Make our creeks receivers again. Put the sponge back. Build the purple pipe. Build quality water. And make the water take the long way home.

To learn more about Our campaign, please visit us at https://texasgbwater.org/

To learn more about Bryan Hummel Please visithttps://www.waterranching.com/

IF I HAD THE ABILITY TO CALL THIS MEETING, THIS IS WHO I WOULD PUT AT THE TABLE

If I were in a position to call a serious working meeting at Canyon Lake about making the water take the long way home, I wouldn’t start by filling the room with politicians. I would start with people who understand the science and people who are already doing pieces of this successfully. I would want groundwater, springs, karst, soil, vegetation, natural water retention, stream restoration, filtration and actual purple-pipe experience represented at the same table.

1. Bryan Hummel — local Canyon Lake/Guadalupe watershed knowledge and perspective.

2. Linda Rogers — former President, Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District — Trinity Aquifer, groundwater protection and experience advocating beneficial reuse of treated wastewater rather than routine discharge.

3. Dr. Marcus Gary — UT Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology — karst hydrogeology, groundwater movement, limestone and aquifer recharge.

4. Dr. John “Jack” Sharp — UT Austin — groundwater science, karst aquifers, recharge and urban hydrogeology.

5. Chad Norris — Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority (GBRA) — springs, groundwater, environmental science and the Guadalupe River watershed.

6. Mark Hamilton — Edwards Aquifer Authority — aquifer management, groundwater and research involving soil health, infiltration, runoff and increasing the landscape’s ability to hold water.

7. Comal Trinity Groundwater Conservation District hydrogeologists/scientists — because the Trinity Aquifer and groundwater surrounding Canyon Lake have to be at the center of this discussion.

8. Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District scientists — for their experience with Trinity Aquifer management, recharge, springs and Hill Country groundwater.

9. Edwards Aquifer Authority Field Research Park scientists — people actually studying soil-water retention, infiltration, runoff and land-management practices that can help keep rainfall on the landscape longer.

10. Gregg Eckhardt — San Antonio Water System (SAWS) — decades of firsthand experience with San Antonio’s recycled-water system, purple-pipe infrastructure, water quality and large-scale beneficial reuse.

11. Olivia Lopez — Austin Water, Environmental Conservation Program Manager — conservation and environmental stewardship, with a direct connection to Austin Water’s reuse program and the team demonstrating Austin’s purple-pipe system.

12. Austin Water reuse/GoPurple engineers and operators — the people actually designing, expanding, monitoring and operating reclaimed-water infrastructure.

13. San Antonio River Authority stream-restoration and natural-channel specialists — scientists and engineers experienced with living waterways, natural-channel design, wetlands, vegetation, stormwater treatment and slowing water without compromising flood safety.

14. An advanced water-treatment engineer or scientist — someone specializing in filtration media, polishing, UV disinfection, monitoring and emerging-contaminant removal who can answer the question: How clean can we make this water before giving it another use or intentionally allowing appropriate water to infiltrate?

15. Native-plant, riparian and wetland ecologists — people who understand which Hill Country grasses, sedges, wetland plants, root systems and vegetation can actually survive these conditions and become part of a long, living filtration corridor.

I wouldn’t call that meeting to announce that I already had the answer. I’d put these people around one table, show them the concept and ask them to tear it apart, improve it and tell us what is scientifically possible. Then I would ask one question: How do we make our area wet again—safely—by slowing, cleaning, reusing and retaining more of the water we already have?

Put the science in the middle of the table and see what we can build.

A STORY FROM 2018 WE NEED TO READ AGAIN

In 2018, KXAN published a disturbing story about Texas waterways. Researchers examined 1,450 freshwater monitoring locations using 2017 data and reported that 49 percent had at least one test where fecal-indicator bacteria reached a level considered potentially unsafe for swimming.

That was eight years ago. When I came across that story again, I had the same question many Texans probably have: Have we gotten better.

https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/unsafe-levels-of-fecal-bacteria-found-in-majority-of-texas-waterways-environmental-groups-say/amp/

EIGHT YEARS LATER

A new 2026 analysis by Environment Texas Research & Policy Center and Frontier Group examined 2024 and 2025 monitoring data from 367 Texas river, stream and lake locations. 215—or 59 percent—had potentially unsafe fecal-indicator bacteria on at least one testing day.

We need to be responsible with that comparison. The two analyses didn’t examine exactly the same collection of monitoring locations, so we cannot simply say Texas water quality became exactly 10 percentage points worse. But we can say this: the problem didn’t disappear.

Nearly a decade after Texans were warned, a newer analysis is still finding potentially unsafe bacteria readings at a majority of the freshwater locations it examined.

NOW BRING IT HOME

According to TCEQ’s 2024 Integrated Report, a portion of the Guadalupe River above Canyon Lake remains officially listed as impaired for bacteria affecting recreational use.

Here’s what really caught my attention: it was first listed in 2002.

More than two decades later, that portion of the river remains on Texas’s impaired-waters list. TCEQ continues to have a water-quality project for the Guadalupe River above Canyon Lake aimed at reducing bacteria and restoring safe recreational use.

LET’S BE CLEAR ABOUT CANYON LAKE

I am not saying Canyon Lake itself is broadly contaminated with unsafe levels of fecal bacteria. The current impairment listing for Canyon Lake itself is not a bacteria listing, and monitoring continues.

What I am saying is that a portion of the Guadalupe River above Canyon Lake has remained officially impaired for bacteria for more than 20 years. We don’t protect Canyon Lake by waiting until Canyon Lake itself develops a problem. We protect it by protecting what flows into it.

WHERE IS IT COMING FROM?

Finding E. coli or another fecal-indicator bacteria does not automatically mean a wastewater treatment plant caused it. Bacteria can come from sewage spills and overflows, failing septic systems, livestock, wildlife, pets and stormwater runoff.

TCEQ identifies the source of the bacteria impairment in the affected portion of the Guadalupe above Canyon Lake as unknown. So I’m not blaming wastewater for that impairment. But I am asking a question: If we already have an impaired waterway and don’t know every source contributing to the problem, why unnecessarily add additional potential sources when better alternatives are available?

TREATED WASTEWATER ISN’T WASTE

Texas and Comal County are growing, and development isn’t going to stop. I’m not asking it to. But growth requires water, and every gallon becomes more valuable as our population increases.

Properly treated wastewater can be reused through purple-pipe systems for irrigation and other appropriate beneficial uses. Depending on the project and location, land-application and other reuse strategies can keep valuable water working locally rather than treating a creek or river as the easiest disposal route.

Wastewater isn’t waste. It’s water we’ve already paid to treat. Why throw it away when we can put it back to work?

ANOTHER WARNING DOWNSTREAM

TCEQ’s 2024 impaired-waters list also identifies a portion of the Guadalupe River below the Comal River as impaired for bacteria affecting recreational use. That assessment unit was first listed in 2024.

That does not prove the upstream and downstream impairments have the same source. It does not mean Canyon Lake caused the downstream impairment, and it does not prove wastewater-treatment facilities caused either one. It tells us that bacteria contamination remains a real water-quality issue within the Guadalupe River system.

WHAT WILL WE BE WRITING IN 2036?

In 2018, Texans saw 2017 data showing 49 percent of the freshwater monitoring locations examined had at least one potentially unsafe bacteria reading. Eight years later, the analysis of 2024–2025 data found potentially unsafe bacteria on at least one testing day at 59 percent of the locations it examined.

Again, these aren’t identical datasets. But look at the bigger picture: after all these years, we’re still dealing with the problem.

What will these numbers look like another 10 years from now? How many more people will Texas have? How much more development will surround our rivers and lakes? How much more water will we need?

At this rate, we don’t have much to win by waiting another 10 years to find out.

WE CAN DO BETTER

This isn’t about stopping development, frightening people about our lakes or blaming every water-quality problem on one source. It’s about learning from the data and making better decisions before problems become permanent.

We can reuse treated water. We can design development around water conservation. We can recognize water as a resource instead of something to use once and discard.

In 2018, Texans were warned. In 2026, we can ask whether we got better. Now we need to decide what we want the answer to be in 2036.

Because the time to protect our water isn’t after we’ve lost it. The time is now.

By Brent Wiewel

WHEN EVERY DROP MATTERED

Long before Canyon Lake, Lake Dunlap, Lake McQueeney or Lake Placid existed, there was the Guadalupe River. It flowed freely through the Hill Country, around limestone bluffs, beneath ancient bald cypress trees and across shallow rock beds. In some places it gathered in deep, quiet pools, while in others it narrowed and rushed over rapids and falls. It could nourish everything along its banks, but when the rains came hard, it could rise with enough force to take back nearly everything people had built beside it.

There was a time when Texans understood scarcity in a way many of us have forgotten. During drought, families traveled miles on horseback to reach the springs, rivers and wells that still held enough water to keep people and livestock alive. Every bucket required time, labor and strength, and every drop carried home had a purpose. Those people did not need public campaigns to teach them conservation because drought had already taught them what happened when the water was gone.

They watched creeks disappear, wells weaken and riverbeds turn to stone beneath the Texas sun. They knew the rain would eventually return, but they also knew that most of it would rush downstream and disappear unless something was built to capture it. They began imagining how the abundance of wet years could be preserved for the dry years that would certainly return. They were thinking beyond themselves and planning for children, grandchildren and communities they would never live to see.

BEFORE THE LAKES

Before the dams were built, the Guadalupe was not divided into a chain of lakes with familiar names. There were no gates controlling its elevation and no reservoirs holding sections of its flow in place. There was one living river that rose and fell according to rainfall, drought, springs and the seasons. Wildlife followed it, Native people depended upon it, and later settlers built ranches, farms, mills and communities near it because dependable water meant survival.

Lake Dunlap was the Guadalupe before it was called Lake Dunlap. Lake McQueeney was the Guadalupe before it was called Lake McQueeney, and Lake Placid was the Guadalupe before it was called Lake Placid. Canyon Lake was once a stretch of river winding through ranchland, valleys, roads and family property. The lakes did not create the Guadalupe or produce new water; they were created by holding portions of the existing river behind dams.

The original channel of the Guadalupe remains beneath those lakes today. Beneath the surface are the old bends in the river, the rock ledges, the former crossings and the land where families once lived and worked. The river did not disappear when the reservoirs were created. We changed the way it moved so its water could be captured, conserved and used to sustain more people.

WHEN TEXAS RECOGNIZED THE GUADALUPE

By the early 1900s, Texas leaders were already recognizing the Guadalupe River as one of the region’s most important water resources. They did not see it merely as scenery or as floodwater that should be sent downstream as quickly as possible. They understood that its flow could support homes, farms, ranches, communities, agriculture and industry. They also recognized that its water could generate electricity and that capturing part of its abundance could sustain people when drought returned.

The Guadalupe Waterpower Company was established in 1912, and efforts soon began to harness the power of the river. By the 1920s, dams were being constructed between New Braunfels and Seguin. Those projects helped form the lakes we now know as Dunlap, McQueeney and Placid, using the natural movement and elevation changes of the Guadalupe to generate hydroelectric power. The river was becoming part of the infrastructure that allowed communities to live, work and grow.

Government leaders were also considering something much larger. They studied how the Guadalupe could be controlled, stored and preserved instead of allowing its floodwaters to rush downstream and disappear. They understood that Texas would continue to grow and that future communities would need a dependable supply during drought. Their vision was not based upon using everything immediately; it was based upon conserving something for the people who would come later.

In 1933, the Texas Legislature created the Guadalupe River Authority as a water conservation and reclamation district. In 1935, it was reauthorized as the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority. Its principal responsibilities included controlling, storing, preserving and distributing the waters of the Guadalupe River Basin for useful public purposes. Government did not wait until Canyon Lake existed to recognize the Guadalupe as an essential water source because Canyon Lake was built precisely because the river was already understood to be valuable.

That history matters because the language used then was about conserving, storing and preserving water. The leaders of that generation were not searching for ways to place waste into the resource they had been charged with protecting. They were searching for ways to save the river’s water from being lost during abundance so that it would remain available during scarcity. They understood that a public water resource was something to safeguard, not something to use as the easiest route for disposal.

THE FORESIGHT TO BUILD

The dams and reservoirs built along the Guadalupe were not monuments to excess. They were investments in survival, agriculture, electricity, communities and generations that had not yet been born. The people who planned them understood that responsible stewardship meant saving during times of abundance so something would remain during times of scarcity. They did not build reservoirs because they believed the supply was unlimited; they built them because experience had shown them exactly how quickly it could disappear.

Canyon Dam became the largest undertaking. Construction began in 1958, and the Guadalupe began filling Canyon Reservoir in 1964. Canyon Lake was created for two major public purposes: flood control and water conservation. It was designed to capture destructive flood flows while preserving hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of water for municipal, industrial and agricultural use, especially during drought and periods of low river flow.

That is why the history of Canyon Lake cannot begin and end with flooding. Flood control was important, but water conservation was equally written into its purpose. The government did not build Canyon Lake simply to catch floodwater and release it as quickly as possible. A large conservation pool was deliberately created because leaders understood that stored water would someday carry families, farms and communities through the next drought.

THE SACRIFICE BENEATH CANYON LAKE

Canyon Lake was not constructed across empty land where nobody lived and nothing was lost. Families surrendered homes, ranches and property that may have been passed down for generations. Roads had to be moved, businesses and jobs disappeared, and entire ways of life were permanently changed. Families watched the land they knew, worked and loved slowly disappear beneath the rising reservoir.

Those people did not simply lose acreage on a government map. They lost pastures where cattle had grazed, homes where children had been raised and places where generations of memories had been made. Some lost land where they had expected to grow old and where they believed their children might one day build homes of their own. Once the water rose, those places could never be returned to them.

Imagine standing on the last piece of dry ground and watching the water move across land that had belonged to your family. Imagine seeing fences, roads, fields and familiar landmarks disappear a little more each day. Imagine knowing that the sacrifice might help thousands of people you would never meet, but also knowing that your family’s former life would remain beneath that water forever. That was not a small contribution to a government project; it was an irreversible surrender of home, history and identity.

Those families accepted the loss because they were told, and because they believed, that their sacrifice served a greater public purpose. The reservoir would protect people from floods and provide a dependable supply of good-quality water during drought. Their land was being taken out of one family’s hands so that its water could help sustain many families. They trusted future generations to understand the price that had been paid and to protect what their sacrifice made possible.

They did not give up their homes and ranches to create a convenient disposal system. They were not told that their land would be flooded so future developers could use the reservoir and its tributaries to carry away treated waste. Had that been presented as the purpose, I believe many of those families would have refused to accept it quietly. They sacrificed their way of life so future generations could have good-quality water, not so future generations could engineer ways to put waste into it.

WE ALWAYS HAD WASTE

Human beings have always produced waste. That was not something discovered after our reservoirs were constructed. The people who planned these projects understood that waste existed, and they knew there were things they did not want introduced into the supply they were working so hard to protect. We have always had waste, but we built reservoirs to collect and conserve water.

Reservoirs were built to capture rainfall and river flows during times of abundance so communities would have a dependable supply during drought. They were built for drinking water, agriculture, industry, hydroelectric power, recreation and the long-term survival of growing communities. They were not built so we could continually engineer new ways to introduce treated waste into the same supply. Their purpose was conservation, protection and public benefit, not disposal.

Treatment may reduce contaminants, but calling something treated does not erase where it came from or remove every concern. Treatment systems are operated by people, and equipment fails, electricity is interrupted, mistakes happen and spills occur. Standards do not necessarily test for or remove everything that may be present. Even when a system operates as designed, we should still ask why we are fighting to place treated waste into a reservoir when modern technology gives us ways to reclaim and reuse it without making our primary water supply the receiving system.

THE PROMISE MADE TO THOSE FAMILIES

Imagine telling the ranching families who surrendered their land that decades later we would consider the reservoir created over their homes an acceptable destination for treated wastewater. Imagine telling them that the good-quality water supply they helped create would eventually become part of a waste-disposal strategy needed to make new development cheaper and easier. Imagine explaining that we now have the engineering ability to reuse treated wastewater elsewhere, but some still consider putting it into the watershed to be the more convenient choice.

That was not the promise made to them. The promise was that their sacrifice would protect people from floods and provide good-quality water for generations. They changed their lives so that more people could have water, not so future generations could become careless with it. They gave up something permanent because they believed we would permanently protect what their sacrifice made possible.

Today, most of us can turn a handle and receive in seconds what earlier generations sometimes spent half a day collecting. We did not ride horseback to the river, surrender the ranches, relocate the roads or construct the dams. We inherited the benefits of sacrifices made by people who trusted us to protect what they left behind. Because we did not personally pay the original price, it has become dangerously easy for us to forget how high that price was.

FROM CONSERVATION TO CONVENIENCE

Somewhere along the way, we stopped asking how to keep waste out and began asking how much treatment would allow us to put in. We replaced the principle of prevention with calculations, permits and engineering standards. Instead of designing development around protecting the reservoir, we increasingly design systems around how much treated discharge the receiving waters can legally accept. We have begun treating the word permissible as though it means wise, safe forever and morally responsible.

A permit may satisfy the law, but legality and stewardship are not always the same thing. The ability to engineer a discharge does not automatically make that discharge the wisest long-term decision. There is a profound difference between asking whether we can legally do something and asking whether we should do it to a water supply previous generations sacrificed their homes to create. A permit addresses what may be allowed today, while stewardship requires us to consider what those decisions will leave behind for the next hundred years.

Modern engineering should help us separate, reclaim and beneficially reuse wastewater. Reclaimed water can irrigate landscaping, support industry, supply construction needs and reduce demand on freshwater supplies. Progress should mean finding better uses for treated wastewater, not redefining our rivers, tributaries and reservoirs as acceptable places to receive it. Engineering should be used to keep waste away from our water, not to calculate how much waste can legally be placed into it.

This is not opposition to progress or growth. It is a demand that growth respect the sacrifices that made growth possible. If development cannot occur without turning a protected water supply into part of its disposal system, then the development has not been responsibly designed. Growth should follow the availability of water, and its wastewater systems should be designed to protect that water rather than place another burden upon it.

WHAT KIND OF STEWARDS WILL WE BE?

The people who came before us understood stewardship differently. They endured drought, traveled miles for water, recognized the Guadalupe as an essential resource and planned ways to preserve it. They built dams, created reservoirs, surrendered their property and watched familiar landscapes disappear because they wanted people they would never meet to have dependable, good-quality water. They accepted personal loss because they believed future generations would honor the purpose behind their sacrifice.

Stewardship is not simply managing what we are legally allowed to put into a reservoir. Stewardship means recognizing that the Guadalupe has been placed temporarily in our care and protecting it from the things that should never be put there. The river does not belong only to those living here today, and Canyon Lake does not belong only to those who can profit from development around it. They also belong to the children and grandchildren who will someday ask what decisions we made while we still had a choice.

The water knows what the Guadalupe was before the dams. It knows what families endured during drought, what Texas leaders recognized during the early 1900s and why the reservoirs were built. It knows the ranches, homes, roads and ways of life that were surrendered beneath Canyon Lake. It knows the difference between preserving water for future generations and using that water as part of a waste-disposal system.

If the families who surrendered their land could stand before us today, I do not believe they would ask how many contaminants a permit allows or how much treated waste a computer model says the reservoir can receive. I believe they would ask whether the water is still being protected. They would ask whether their sacrifice still means something and whether we are leaving future generations the same good-quality supply they intended to create.

We always had waste, but we never built reservoirs to collect it. We built reservoirs to collect, protect and preserve water because earlier generations knew that life would always depend upon it. They gave up their homes, their ranches and parts of their history so the rest of us could have a future, and we have no right to repay that sacrifice by turning their reservoir into the most convenient place to send what we no longer want.

The water knows what they gave up for us. Now it will know what we choose to leave behind.

By Brent Wiewel

THE 909-FOOT LINE MATTERS

There seems to be a great deal of confusion about who currently controls water releases from Canyon Lake. As of August 15, the lake remained above its normal conservation-pool elevation of 909 feet. The latest federal reading placed it near 909.8 feet, with approximately 300 cubic feet per second being released. Because the lake is still above 909 feet, the remaining excess water is within the flood-control pool managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

THE CORPS AND GBRA HAVE DIFFERENT RESPONSIBILITIES

The Corps evaluates releases while the lake is above 909 feet by considering the lake elevation, inflow, weather forecasts and downstream flooding conditions. At 909 feet and below, GBRA requests releases from the conservation pool to meet water-supply contracts, senior water rights and environmental-flow requirements. The Corps describes the dam’s outflow as jointly controlled, but the 909-foot elevation determines which agency has the leading management responsibility for the water being released.

It appears the Corps is gradually lowering Canyon Lake toward the 909-foot conservation-pool elevation. We should not claim without evidence that the Corps is attempting to hand control back before GBRA begins making large releases. What we can say with certainty is that while the lake remains above 909 feet, the Corps is responsible for evaluating releases of that excess floodwater. When the lake reaches 909 feet, decisions involving releases from GBRA’s conservation storage become the central issue.

CANYON LAKE HAS TWO PRIMARY PURPOSES

Canyon Lake was not constructed solely for flood control. It was federally authorized for two primary purposes: flood control and water conservation. The federal government owns the dam and reservoir, while GBRA owns the right to the conservation storage at 909 feet and below. The Corps manages the flood-control space between 909 feet and the 943-foot spillway elevation.

This distinction matters because people frequently blame the wrong agency for decisions involving Canyon Lake. The current 300-cfs release should not automatically be described as GBRA draining its stored conservation water while the lake remains above 909 feet. Once the elevation reaches 909 feet, however, the public should closely watch the amount of water requested and released from the conservation pool, the reasons given for those releases and who ultimately receives that water.

Sources: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority

By Brent Wiewel

ONE RIVER SYSTEM, NOT DOZENS OF SEPARATE PERMITS

For months, I have been asking people to stop looking at wastewater permits one at a time. A 100,000-gallon permit here, 300,000 gallons there, and 600,000 gallons somewhere else may not sound overwhelming when each application is considered by itself. But that is not how a river works. The Guadalupe connects communities from Kerrville through Canyon Lake, New Braunfels, Lake Dunlap, Lake McQueeney, Lake Placid, Seguin, Gonzales, Cuero and Victoria before its waters ultimately reach the Guadalupe Estuary and San Antonio Bay.

When you put the existing wastewater infrastructure, proposed developments and planned expansions together, the scale becomes much easier to understand. Some facilities discharge treated effluent into waterways, some use land application, and some beneficially reuse part of their water. Those differences matter, and we should not pretend every gallon represents a gallon being discharged directly into the Guadalupe. But every project belongs in the larger conversation about how much freshwater we withdraw, how much wastewater we create, where that water ultimately goes, and how much additional development this watershed can safely support.

https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/262c0c7bfddf4d6da7f59552f652f197

START AT KERRVILLE AND FOLLOW THE WATER

Kerrville’s Water Reclamation Plant has a treatment capacity of approximately 4.5 million gallons per day. Kerrville is also pursuing the Elm Creek Pipeline Project, involving approximately 500,000 gallons per day for drought-related indirect reuse. Moving downstream through the upper watershed, additional wastewater systems and development proposals begin appearing, including projects around the Comfort area and smaller facilities throughout Kendall County. None of these systems should be viewed in isolation when ultimately we are talking about water moving through the same larger watershed.

Around Bulverde, the numbers begin adding up quickly. Park Village is approximately 195,000 gallons per day, Johnson Ranch 350,000, Singing Hills 240,000, and 4S Ranch 270,000. Together, those four facilities represent approximately 1.055 million gallons per day of treatment capacity. That is more than a million gallons every day before we even start adding the major new development proposals farther north around Canyon Lake.

THE CANYON LAKE PROPOSALS KEEP ADDING TO THE PICTURE

Then come the new development projects. ★ Simmons Ranch has been associated with approximately 290,000 gallons per day, while ★ Juniper/Canyon Ranch in the FM 306/84 Ranch area involves approximately 300,000 gallons per day. ★ Broken Cedar Ranch, the Lennar development near FM 484, has sought authorization for as much as 600,000 gallons per day. Those projects alone represent another substantial amount of wastewater capacity being proposed around an area whose water ultimately connects with the Guadalupe system.

There are also existing Canyon Lake-area wastewater systems, including the system serving the commercial corridor along FM 306 and the JBSA/Randolph Canyon Lake Recreation Area. Individually, some of these facilities may appear relatively small compared with a major municipal wastewater plant. Collectively, however, they become another part of the cumulative water-quality and water-quantity equation. That is exactly why looking at a single permit or subdivision at a time does not tell us what is happening across the watershed.

THEN WE REACH NEW BRAUNFELS

New Braunfels Utilities already operates four major wastewater treatment facilities: North Kuehler, South Kuehler, Gruene and McKenzie. NBU reports approximately 12.3 million gallons per day of existing combined treatment capacity. That is an enormous amount compared with the individual subdivision plants we argue about upstream, and New Braunfels continues to experience substantial residential and commercial growth. The important question is therefore not merely what those plants handle today, but what the system is being constructed to handle at full build-out.

The 12.3-million-gallon figure is also not necessarily where the story ends. ★ McKenzie is being expanded, ★ Gruene has additional capacity planning, and major work is occurring at ★ North and South Kuehler. There is also the Stein Falls facility near Lake Dunlap, with approximately 950,000 gallons per day of capacity, along with additional proposed wastewater facilities associated with continuing development. Once all of those existing and future projects are considered together, the scale of wastewater infrastructure being constructed along this corridor becomes considerably larger.

LAKE DUNLAP, LAKE McQUEENEY AND LAKE PLACID ARE PART OF THE SAME SYSTEM

The Guadalupe and Comal waters flow through Lake Dunlap, Lake McQueeney and Lake Placid, and those lakes cannot be separated from what happens upstream. A wastewater pipe does not have to physically terminate inside one of these lakes for that lake to receive water and associated pollutant loads originating farther upstream. Whatever comes through the river system continues downstream, which is precisely why cumulative impacts deserve much greater attention than they currently receive.

More development is occurring throughout this corridor, and additional wastewater infrastructure is being proposed or expanded around New Braunfels and Guadalupe County. Projects include ★ Harrison Tract, ★ Flying Bar D Ranch, ★ Creekside Station, ★ Kingsbury Estates, ★ Scull Road, ★ 2X Worldwide, ★ Santa Clara Creek and other developments and wastewater facilities. Every individual project will have its own permit, engineering report and argument about why that particular facility can meet regulatory requirements, but the Guadalupe receives the cumulative result of all of them.

THE DEVELOPMENT DOESN’T STOP AT SEGUIN

Seguin has existing wastewater infrastructure, including the Walnut Branch and Geronimo Creek facilities, with additional expansion occurring as the area grows. The Santa Clara wastewater system is also being expanded, with additional treatment and reclaimed-water reuse incorporated into that project. That reuse component is important because wastewater should increasingly be treated as a recoverable water resource instead of automatically being considered something that must be disposed of after treatment.

Continue following the Guadalupe and you reach Gonzales, where municipal wastewater systems and additional permit activity exist, and then Cuero, followed by the much larger wastewater infrastructure surrounding Victoria. Historical GBRA figures have identified approximately 2.5 million gallons per day at Victoria’s Willow Street facility and 9.6 million gallons per day at its Regional plant, in addition to industrial wastewater discharges in the lower basin. Additional development and wastewater permit activity continue throughout this portion of the watershed, and then all of that water continues toward the Texas coast.

THE RIVER DOESN’T END AT VICTORIA. IT FEEDS A FISHERY.

This is where the conversation becomes much bigger than Canyon Lake, New Braunfels or any individual wastewater permit. The Guadalupe continues toward the Texas coast, joins the lower San Antonio River system and supplies freshwater to the Guadalupe Estuary and San Antonio Bay. Those freshwater inflows help determine salinity, transport nutrients, support coastal marshes and provide conditions needed by fish, shrimp, crabs, oysters and countless other organisms throughout one of Texas’ important estuarine ecosystems.

The Texas coast is therefore not downstream from an unrelated problem. It is the downstream end of the same water system, and decisions made around Kerrville, Canyon Lake, New Braunfels, Seguin, Gonzales, Cuero and Victoria eventually become part of the water-management story at the coast. Communities including Austwell, Tivoli, Seadrift, Port O’Connor, Port Lavaca, Rockport and Fulton, along with commercial fishermen, shrimpers, oyster interests, fishing guides, marinas and recreational anglers, have a legitimate reason to care deeply about what happens hundreds of miles upstream.

San Antonio Bay and the surrounding estuary provide habitat for white shrimp, brown shrimp, blue crab, eastern oysters, red drum, black drum, spotted seatrout and many other species. Texas bays, wetlands and estuaries provide critical nursery habitat during portions of the life cycles of commercially and recreationally important species. Protecting that habitat is therefore not simply an environmental issue; it is a fishing, seafood, tourism, employment and economic issue affecting families and businesses whose livelihoods depend upon productive Texas bays.

Water quality is only one side of that equation because freshwater quantity and timing matter too. We cannot continually withdraw additional freshwater upstream, alter runoff across thousands upon thousands of acres of development, increase wastewater return flows and evaluate every decision independently without asking what their combined effect will be hundreds of miles downstream. An estuary depends upon the quantity, quality and timing of freshwater reaching it, which means decisions throughout the Guadalupe watershed can ultimately matter to the health and productivity of San Antonio Bay.

That is why I have been reaching out to people along the Texas coast and why I believe fishermen, shrimpers, oyster interests, fishing guides and coastal communities deserve a seat at this table now. We should not wait decades and then discover that decisions made hundreds of miles upstream changed the conditions of an ecosystem upon which coastal livelihoods depend. Canyon Lake and San Antonio Bay are not separate fights; they are connected by the Guadalupe River, and protecting one requires us to understand what is happening throughout the entire system.

WASTEWATER IS ONLY HALF OF THE PROBLEM

There is another enormous issue receiving far too little attention, and that is stormwater runoff from rapidly developing land. Look at the way many developments are built today: trees and native vegetation are cleared, natural soils are disturbed and compacted, limestone and drainage areas are altered, and the landscape is replaced with roofs, streets, parking lots, driveways and other hard surfaces. That fundamentally changes what happens to rainfall when it hits the ground.

Rain that once moved slowly through grasses, trees, vegetation, soil and natural limestone areas can instead race across pavement and into storm drains and drainage channels. Along the way it can pick up sediment, petroleum products, oil and grease, tire and brake residue, fertilizers, pesticides, animal and human waste, bacteria, trash, chemicals and whatever else has accumulated on those surfaces. Municipal wastewater at least goes through a treatment plant, while much of our stormwater does not receive anything resembling that level of treatment before eventually reaching a creek, river or lake.

That is why wastewater planning and stormwater planning cannot continue being treated as unrelated problems. Every new roof, road, driveway, parking lot and acre of compacted ground changes the way rainfall moves through a watershed. When we remove vegetation and natural filtering areas without replacing those functions with engineered safeguards, we can increase both the amount and speed of runoff while reducing opportunities for natural filtration and infiltration before that water reaches our creeks and rivers.

WE ALREADY KNOW HOW TO DO BETTER

New developments should preserve natural vegetation, trees and drainage wherever practical while incorporating bioswales, grassed swales, rain gardens, detention and retention areas, vegetated filtration areas, mulch beds, permeable surfaces and rainwater-harvesting systems from the beginning. Instead of designing developments simply to move rainwater away as quickly as possible, we should slow it down, spread it out, filter it, capture it and reuse it wherever practical. The natural landscape performed many of those functions before development removed or altered it, and good engineering can restore part of that protection. One person already working on many of these ideas is Bryan Hummel, an aquifer-recharge specialist and flood-mitigation advocate behind Water Ranching⁠. His approach is based on something remarkably straightforward: instead of designing our landscapes to get rid of rainfall as quickly as possible, we should slow it, spread it, sink it, soak it and store it. His work combines practices including bioswales, rain gardens, permeable surfaces, vegetation, soil restoration and other nature-based systems intended to reduce destructive runoff while putting more water back into the ground.

I believe Bryan’s work deserves attention because it addresses the other half of the water-quality problem discussed in this article. Wastewater treatment matters tremendously, but so does what happens to millions of gallons of rain falling on subdivisions, roads, rooftops and parking lots. Restoring some of the landscape’s ability to capture, filter and absorb that water can help reduce runoff, recharge groundwater and protect the creeks, rivers, lakes and ultimately the coastal estuary downstream. His website is worth exploring for anyone interested in practical alternatives to simply paving, draining and sending the water away.

We should apply the same philosophy to wastewater because treated wastewater is not simply something to get rid of; it is a potentially valuable water resource. We should increasingly reuse appropriately treated wastewater for irrigation, landscaping, industrial cooling, construction and other applications that do not require drinking-quality water. Every gallon of reclaimed water that safely replaces drinking-quality water for an appropriate purpose can potentially leave more higher-quality freshwater available for homes, rivers, springs, reservoirs, ecosystems and future generations.

https://www.waterranching.com/?fbclid=IwZnRzaATqEh1wZG9mBWZkaWQWUMYy2r0kFWgWt3Z155546Tz5GfLHPWV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDzE3Mzg0NzY0MjY3MDM3MAABHlOMRlDhb9MX3Wxlxdbfbo9UZW97IumxqJabVxYLTWYQZp2YUXyN2fdy6fed_aem_I6_xLY7I_0sEKr3KVGgKyA

IF DISCHARGE IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, BUILD ANOTHER SAFEGUARD

I am not thrilled about wastewater discharge into our natural waterways at all, but if Texas is going to allow it, meeting the minimum treatment requirement should not necessarily be the end of the protection system, particularly in environmentally sensitive watersheds. After conventional wastewater treatment, an engineered secondary polishing system could potentially provide additional protection through settling areas, graded rock and gravel, vegetated treatment beds, engineered filtration media, activated carbon or other adsorption media, constructed wetlands and appropriate disinfection before water reaches a sensitive natural waterway.

The principle should be to reuse first, treat thoroughly, add safeguards, verify the water and make direct discharge the last option. Additional treatment areas should be deliberately designed and controlled engineering systems rather than simply turning natural limestone creeks into extensions of wastewater plants. If we know how to provide another protective barrier between millions of gallons of treated wastewater and an important natural waterway, then we should at least be willing to examine whether that additional protection is justified.

THE QUESTION TEXAS NEEDS TO ANSWER

The most important number is not the capacity of one wastewater plant. We need to know the cumulative existing permitted wastewater capacity, actual wastewater flow, proposed additional capacity, stormwater load, freshwater withdrawals, reclaimed-water use and projected full-buildout wastewater generation throughout the entire Guadalupe watershed. Then we need to model what those numbers look like 10 years, 25 years and 50 years from now if today’s development patterns continue.

We need to know how much additional impervious surface will exist, how much additional stormwater will be generated, how much freshwater will be withdrawn, how much wastewater will be produced and how much of that wastewater will actually be reused. Most importantly, we need to understand what ultimately reaches Canyon Lake, Lake Dunlap, Lake McQueeney, Lake Placid, the lower Guadalupe, the Guadalupe Delta and San Antonio Bay. Those questions need to be answered before we discover that we pushed some part of this connected system beyond what it can sustainably handle.

This is not an argument against growth. It is an argument for responsible growth that recognizes water as the limiting resource it is becoming. If developers are going to build thousands of homes, shopping centers, industrial facilities, data centers and other projects, then protecting, capturing and reusing water needs to be part of the infrastructure from the beginning. Communities should not be left decades later trying to repair water-quality, flooding or supply problems that could have been addressed when those developments were originally designed.

From Kerrville to Canyon Lake, New Braunfels, Lake Dunlap, Lake McQueeney, Lake Placid, Seguin, Gonzales, Cuero, Victoria and ultimately San Antonio Bay, this is one connected water system. The people living beside Canyon Lake have a stake in it, the people living along the Guadalupe have a stake in it, farmers and ranchers have a stake in it, and the fishermen, shrimpers, oyster interests, fishing guides and coastal communities at the other end of this river have a stake in it. From the Hill Country to the Texas coast, we need to start managing the Guadalupe as the single connected living system that it is.

Below are links to the TCEQ Wastewater Outfalls Viewer, where you can explore permitted wastewater discharge locations across Texas, and the Public Utility Commission of Texas Water and Sewer CCN Viewer, where you can explore certificated water and sewer utility service areas. These are useful tools for anyone who wants to look more closely at what is happening in their own community and throughout the Guadalupe watershed.

https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/262c0c7bfddf4d6da7f59552f652f197

https://www.puc.texas.gov/industry/water/utilities/gis/Default.aspx?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://www.comalcounty.gov/268/Subdivision

https://fb.watch/IVFUZVKXp-/?fs=e

By Brent Wiewel

A major groundwater battle is developing in East Texas, and this case is about much more than investor Kyle Bass. It could help determine how much control Texas landowners have over the groundwater beneath their property and how far groundwater conservation districts can go in restricting that water.

Bass-controlled entities own approximately 11,500 acres between Redtown Ranch and Pine Bliss Ranch in East Texas. Applications involving more than 40 wells could ultimately allow pumping on the order of 15–16 billion gallons of groundwater per year. Put that into perspective: that is roughly 40-plus million gallons every day and around 30,000 gallons every minute, approximately enough to fill a 16-by-32-by-7-foot swimming pool every minute.

The important point is that these massive volumes are not yet simply being pumped and exported. The permitting and testing process is at the heart of the dispute. The Neches & Trinity Valleys Groundwater Conservation District imposed a moratorium affecting certain large groundwater permits while considering its regulations. Bass-controlled entities have now sued, arguing that the district’s actions interfere with constitutionally protected property rights.

Texas recognizes groundwater beneath private property as a property right, while groundwater conservation districts also have substantial authority to regulate pumping to protect aquifers. That collision is what makes this case so important. When does legitimate groundwater regulation become an unconstitutional taking of private property? And how much authority should a groundwater district have when one landowner proposes pumping enough water to potentially affect an entire region?

But I believe we need to look at property rights from both directions. The idea that someone should be able to discharge treated wastewater and send it downstream through or alongside someone else’s property, potentially affecting their water, is a no. At the same time, the idea that someone should be able to drill next to your property, pump groundwater on a massive scale and potentially empty your well is also a no. Owning property and having water rights should not give any of us the unlimited right to damage our neighbor’s property or water supply.

If the landowners ultimately prevail broadly, the decision could strengthen the ability of Texas property owners to challenge restrictions on large-scale groundwater pumping and export. If the groundwater district prevails broadly, it could reinforce the authority of districts across Texas to restrict or temporarily halt massive groundwater projects in the interest of conserving the resource.

This isn’t simply about Kyle Bass. It is about Texas property rights, groundwater conservation, and finding the line between using your own water and harming somebody else’s. Every Texas landowner should be paying attention to this case.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1953704358618187/?fs=e&fs=e

BRENT WIEWEL

From Canyon Lake and Comal County, Texas to Lake Whitney, Laguna Park, Claremore, Catoosa, and Rogers County, Oklahoma — Citizens Across America Are Sounding the Alarm Over Water, Development, Constitutional Rights, and Government Overreach

There is an attack happening all across Texas and Oklahoma right now on our waterways, aquifers, rural communities, and constitutional rights, and most people are only just beginning to realize how connected all of it truly is. Whether it is massive data centers, high-density developments, groundwater exporting, wastewater discharge proposals, or political pressure to strip authority away from local communities, every direction you look there is another fight over water, land, infrastructure, and the future of the places Americans call home.

]For years people like myself and many others have been warning that every river, creek, spring, reservoir, and aquifer now has a bull’s-eye on it. Some laughed. Some called us conspiracy theorists. Others accused residents of “spreading misinformation.” But the warning signs are no longer hidden. They are everywhere. People are beginning to understand that these systems are not isolated from one another. Rivers connect to bays. Springs connect to aquifers. Reservoirs connect to downstream fisheries and coastal ecosystems. What happens upstream eventually affects everyone downstream. And now, under the banner of “economic development,” many Americans are watching massive projects arrive in areas that have little infrastructure, limited oversight, and almost no local protections left in place.

LAKE WHITNEY, LAGUNA PARK, AND THE DATA CENTER INVASION OF RURAL TEXAS

One Texas resident recently described what is happening near Laguna Park and Lake Whitney after construction began on the massive CyrusOne data center project near the Brazos River. The resident explained that the project includes five buildings under construction adjacent to what was once considered one of the most beautiful lake areas in Texas. According to the resident, hundreds of vehicles begin arriving before sunrise each morning, roads are deteriorating under heavy traffic, and the surrounding area has been transformed by noise, dust, and nonstop industrial activity. At the same time, local taxpayers continue facing rising property taxes while county leaders reportedly approved a 30% tax abatement for the development. The resident also raised concerns about downstream water management involving the Brazos River Authority and questioned how future water demands tied to development may impact the region long-term. Even more troubling to many nearby residents was the claim that there were no environmental impact studies made publicly known, little awareness among neighbors about what was coming, and very limited infrastructure in the surrounding community to support a project of this scale. This is not downtown Dallas or Houston. Laguna Park is a small rural area with limited emergency services, small businesses, volunteer firefighters, and residents simply trying to maintain the lives they built over decades. Yet projects involving billions of dollars are suddenly arriving in communities with little ability to push back.

CANYON LAKE, COMAL COUNTY, SUMMIT ESTATES, AND QUESTIONS TEXANS STILL AREN’T GETTING ANSWERED

Here in the Texas Hill Country, many residents have spent years asking questions about groundwater, wastewater discharge, development, and long-term water planning around Canyon Lake, the Guadalupe River system, Summit Estates, Fischer, Spring Branch, and Comal County itself. Those questions have only intensified as more developments, more water infrastructure projects, and more proposed wastewater discharge permits continue appearing throughout the region. Residents have repeatedly asked county officials, developers, utilities, and state agencies for straightforward answers regarding water sourcing, wastewater disposal, aquifer protection, and long-term impacts to Canyon Lake itself. Instead, many residents feel they receive political talking points, vague language, or accusations of spreading misinformation. One issue currently raising concern involves Texas Water Company and language surrounding water infrastructure tied to Summit Estates. Residents noticed wording indicating certain water resources were “not intended” for another nearby subdivision. But many people immediately recognized the problem with wording like “not intended.” Not intended today does not necessarily mean prohibited tomorrow. Residents began asking a simple question: if certain wells and utility infrastructure are truly only meant to serve Summit Estates water quality improvements, then why detach lots from subdivision restrictions at all? In many subdivision deed restrictions across Texas, utility infrastructure serving the subdivision is treated as part of the subdivision itself and not as a separate commercial enterprise. That distinction matters because residents fear that once utility lots are detached and treated differently, pathways may exist later for expanded service outside the subdivision itself. Those are not irrational questions. Those are exactly the kinds of questions citizens should be asking before irreversible decisions are made.

WATER IS NOW BEING TREATED LIKE A COMMODITY INSTEAD OF A RESOURCE FOR LIFE

If there was ever a warning sign that government priorities are upside down, this is it. Most Americans cannot put $10 in savings and spend $100 without consequences, yet government operates endlessly in deficit and expects everyone else to accept it. Increasingly, water is being treated the exact same way. Officials discuss water in terms of transfers, allocations, exports, development capacity, and economic growth as though water is simply another commodity on a spreadsheet instead of the resource all life depends upon. Aquifers are pumped faster than they recharge. Rivers are stretched thinner every year. Dry creeks become targets for wastewater discharge. Rural communities suddenly face industrial-scale development they never prepared for. And residents asking questions are often treated like obstacles instead of stakeholders. At some point Americans have to decide when enough is enough. Do we wait until waterways are polluted beyond recovery? Until springs stop flowing? Until lakes become so stressed they no longer resemble the resources generations grew up around? Or do we finally start demanding answers while there is still something left to protect?

CLAREMORE, CATOOSA, ROGERS COUNTY, OKLAHOMA — CITIZENS SAY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE UNDER PRESSURE TOO

What happened recently in Claremore and Rogers County, Oklahoma involving citizens gathering signatures outside a courthouse while armed deputies responded over disputes regarding petition activity is another example of why so many Americans feel uneasy right now. Citizens gathered at the courthouse to observe proceedings involving a data center case and demand transparency. Some were also collecting recall petition signatures connected to local officials. According to those present, multiple armed deputies responded to the area after concerns were raised by local officials. Citizens then began asking what legal authority existed to interfere with peaceful petition activity on public property. According to several people present, the First Amendment itself was referenced during the exchange, which only intensified concerns because the First Amendment protects speech, assembly, and petitioning government. Residents asked for clarification regarding what specific law, courthouse rule, or county policy prohibited the activity. Many involved say no clear written restriction has yet been publicly produced. Regardless of political affiliation, Americans should be deeply concerned anytime constitutional questions, public property access, petition activity, and armed government response all collide in the same situation.

THIS IS NO LONGER ISOLATED — THIS IS HAPPENING ACROSS AMERICA

Across the country, more citizens are beginning to notice the same pattern:

* another town,

* another massive project,

* another fight over water,

* another attempt to silence criticism,

* another community overwhelmed by development,

* another group of citizens being told to stop asking questions.

People better start paying attention because these issues are no longer isolated events. They are happening all across America right in front of us. Texans and Oklahomans are resilient people. Most are not asking for perfection. They simply want transparency, honesty, accountability, constitutional protections, and protection for the communities and natural resources they spent their lives building around. And many are beginning to realize that if ordinary citizens do not stand up now, nobody else is going to do it for them.

This is Brent Wiewel reporting the news as I know it. Follow me for the rest of the story. God bless America.

By Brent Wiewel

Water Can Be More Than Something We Swim In

A swimming pool can be designed as more than a chemically maintained container of water. With the right combination of minerals, sanitation, circulation, light and filtration, it can become a place for exercise, relaxation, recovery, cleaner bathing and overall wellness. The goal should not be to depend on one treatment alone, but to create several layers that work together to keep the water clear, fresh and biologically controlled while reducing unnecessary chemical exposure.

Copper Ionization

Copper has been valued for centuries because of its ability to interfere with algae and microbial growth. A copper-ionization system passes a low electrical current through electrodes, releasing small quantities of copper ions throughout the pool. These ions provide continuing algae control, helping reduce green water, surface growth, repeated algaecide treatments and the amount of work demanded from chlorine.

For swimmers, lower chemical demand can mean less odor, less dryness, fewer irritated eyes and water that feels more pleasant on the skin. Copper ionization can also help control biofilm, the slippery layer in which microorganisms can shelter inside plumbing and other wet surfaces.

Silver and Zinc Ionization

Copper is frequently paired with silver because the two metals perform different jobs. Copper is especially valuable against algae, while silver has broader antibacterial properties. Zinc may also be included in mineral systems to provide another antimicrobial layer and support water clarity.

Together, copper, silver and zinc can provide continuous mineral protection throughout the pool rather than acting only while water is passing through a treatment chamber.

Chlorine Still Has a Valuable Role

Chlorine and copper can work together. Copper reduces algae pressure, while chlorine rapidly oxidizes contamination introduced by swimmers, animals, leaves, rain and the surrounding environment. Because copper handles much of the algae control, the pool may require less chlorine than a chlorine-only pool.

A saltwater chlorine generator is another option. It uses electricity to convert dissolved salt into chlorine steadily, avoiding the repeated dumping of large doses into the water. It is still chlorination, but it can provide a smoother and more consistent sanitizer level.

Chlorine Dioxide

Chlorine dioxide is a separate compound from ordinary chlorine and has long been used in drinking-water plants, hospitals, food-processing facilities and industrial water systems. It is a powerful oxidizer that can control bacteria, viruses, fungi, odors and biofilms. It can also oxidize iron and manganese while remaining effective across a broad range of water conditions.

Controlled testing has repeatedly demonstrated significant reductions in targeted disease-causing microorganisms when proper concentrations and contact times are used. These findings explain why chlorine dioxide continues to be an important technology in professional water treatment. In swimming pools or bathing systems, chlorine dioxide would require equipment specifically designed to generate, monitor and control it safely.

Ultraviolet Light

Ultraviolet (UV) treatment exposes circulating water to germicidal light inside an enclosed chamber. UV damages the genetic material of bacteria, viruses and protozoa, preventing them from reproducing. It adds nothing to the water and produces no chemical odor.

UV works particularly well as another layer behind filtration and alongside copper, silver or a reduced chlorine residual. The mineral ions continue working throughout the pool while UV treats the water each time it passes through the equipment.

Ozone

Ozone is an extremely powerful oxidizer generated from oxygen. It breaks down body oils, sweat, sunscreen, odors and many organic contaminants while also inactivating microorganisms. After reacting, ozone naturally converts back into oxygen, leaving virtually no chemical residue.

Ozone can greatly reduce the burden placed on chlorine while helping produce bright, sparkling, fresh-smelling water. Because it acts primarily inside the circulation system, it performs best when combined with another treatment that remains active throughout the pool.

Advanced Oxidation

Advanced oxidation systems combine technologies such as ultraviolet light and ozone, and in some cases hydrogen peroxide, to produce highly reactive hydroxyl radicals. These reactions can break down difficult organic contaminants that conventional filtration or low-level chlorination may not efficiently remove.

This can be especially valuable in heavily used pools where sweat, lotions, cosmetics and sunscreen continually enter the water.

Hydrogen Peroxide

Hydrogen peroxide is another oxidizer used in certain specialized pool and spa systems. It breaks down into water and oxygen and can complement ultraviolet light or advanced oxidation. It requires careful monitoring because it behaves differently from chlorine and must be used with compatible equipment and treatment methods.

Filtration Is the Foundation

No ionizer, oxidizer or ultraviolet system can replace proper filtration. Filtration physically removes dirt, pollen, insects, hair, dead algae and suspended particles from the water.

Modern systems may use sand, glass media, cartridge filters, diatomaceous earth, ceramic filters or membrane filtration. Activated carbon can further improve water by removing odors, chlorine byproducts and many organic compounds, making it valuable for both residential drinking-water systems and specialized treatment applications.

Circulation and Aeration

Every treatment system depends on proper circulation. Water must continuously move through skimmers, drains, filters and treatment equipment without leaving stagnant areas where algae and biofilms can develop.

Variable-speed pumps improve circulation while reducing electrical consumption. Aeration, waterfalls and fountains increase movement and beauty, although they also affect pH and evaporation and should be incorporated into the overall chemistry design.

Alkalinity: The Key to Water Balance

One of the most overlooked factors in creating exceptional water is total alkalinity. Think of alkalinity as the water’s natural buffer—it helps stabilize pH and allows every other treatment technology to perform at its best. When alkalinity is too low, pH can swing rapidly, making the water corrosive and potentially damaging pool surfaces, plumbing, pumps, heaters, and treatment equipment. When alkalinity is too high, pH becomes difficult to manage, scale can form, water may become cloudy, and minerals such as copper can come out of solution, increasing the potential for staining while reducing the efficiency of copper ionization. Proper alkalinity creates the foundation that allows copper, silver, chlorine, chlorine dioxide, ultraviolet light, ozone, hydrogen peroxide, advanced oxidation, and filtration systems to work together as one balanced treatment system. Like every other aspect of water chemistry, success comes from balance—not excess.

Continuous Monitoring

Modern technology allows pool owners to continuously monitor temperature, pH, alkalinity, hardness, copper concentration, oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), sanitizer levels, salt concentration and total dissolved solids. Automated systems can make gradual adjustments that keep water balanced while reducing chemical waste.

Every technology performs best when the water itself remains properly balanced.

Mineral Water and Balneology

Professor J. Paul De Vierville’s work adds an important historical and human perspective. As a professor emeritus, researcher and educator in balneology—the study of bathing, mineral waters, spa culture and wellness—he reminds us that water has always been far more than sanitation.

Throughout history, people have used mineral waters for bathing, soaking, steaming, drinking, relaxation, healing and restoration. His work encourages us to think beyond simply disinfecting water and instead consider how water can contribute to overall health and quality of life.

Warm water supports relaxation and movement while buoyancy reduces stress on joints, allowing many individuals to exercise comfortably. Swimming and aquatic exercise improve endurance, flexibility, circulation and muscular strength while creating a peaceful environment for both body and mind.

Magnesium and Other Bathing Minerals

Magnesium salts have long been incorporated into spas because many people find mineral-rich water soothing and relaxing. Other carefully balanced mineral systems may include calcium, potassium and trace elements.

These minerals should complement the bathing experience while remaining compatible with the plumbing, treatment equipment and overall water chemistry.

Hydrotherapy: Water as Medicine

Long before modern medicine, civilizations understood that water itself could be therapeutic. Roman baths, Greek bathing traditions, Japanese onsen, Turkish hammams, Scandinavian hot-and-cold bathing and European mineral spas all developed around the belief that water promotes health and renewal.

Today, hydrotherapy is widely used by physical therapists, rehabilitation specialists and sports medicine professionals. The buoyancy of water reduces stress on joints, making it possible for people recovering from injury, arthritis or chronic pain to exercise comfortably. Warm water helps relax muscles and improve flexibility, while cooler water is frequently used to assist recovery after strenuous exercise.

Swimming remains one of the few activities that exercises nearly every major muscle group while placing very little impact on the skeletal system. It strengthens the heart, lungs and circulatory system while improving flexibility, endurance, balance and overall fitness.

Building a Backyard Wellness Center

Imagine designing a pool not simply for recreation, but for lifelong health. A pool combining copper and silver ionization, ultraviolet treatment, ozone, advanced filtration, automated monitoring, balanced minerals, hydrotherapy jets, comfortable water temperatures, shaded seating, native landscaping, solar heating and rainwater harvesting.

Such a system becomes far more than a swimming pool. It becomes a place for rehabilitation, exercise, stress reduction, family gatherings and responsible water stewardship. As technology advances, our pools can evolve into personal wellness centers that encourage healthier lifestyles while conserving one of our most valuable natural resources.

Bathing, Showering and Conserving Water

The same philosophy extends beyond swimming pools. Whole-house filtration, activated carbon, ultraviolet treatment and properly selected mineral systems can improve bathing water while reducing unnecessary chemical exposure.

Pool covers reduce evaporation, conserve heat and lower chemical demand. Rainwater harvesting may supplement landscape irrigation or, where regulations and proper treatment allow, replace evaporative losses. Water should always be managed responsibly to prevent unnecessary releases into streams, rivers and lakes.

An Invitation to the Experts

This article is not intended to be the final word on water. It is intended to begin a much larger conversation.

Water engineers understand treatment technologies. Physicians understand health. Physical therapists understand rehabilitation. Chemists understand water chemistry. Environmental scientists understand ecosystems. Historians understand how civilizations have used water throughout human history. Researchers like Professor J. Paul De Vierville have spent decades studying balneology, mineral waters, spa culture and the role water has played in human wellness across generations.

Imagine what we could accomplish if these disciplines worked together.

What would the healthiest residential pool look like if it were designed from the ground up using everything we have learned? How could we reduce unnecessary chemical use while improving sanitation? Could mineral water, hydrotherapy, advanced filtration, ultraviolet light, ozone, copper and silver ionization, automation, conservation and modern engineering be combined into a single system that promotes health while protecting our environment?

These are the conversations worth having.

Putting the Whole System

A carefully designed Pool of Health and Youth could include efficient circulation, advanced filtration, activated carbon, copper-silver-zinc ionization, ultraviolet light, ozone, advanced oxidation, balanced minerals, automated monitoring, energy-efficient pumps, hydrotherapy features, thoughtful landscaping and responsible water conservation.

The purpose is not to promise perfect health or stop aging. It is to build an environment that encourages movement, exercise, relaxation, cleaner bathing, rehabilitation, responsible water use and an appreciation for one of Earth’s most precious resources.

Water has always been connected to health, renewal and human civilization. By combining ancient wisdom with modern science and engineering, we have an opportunity to rethink how we build our pools—not simply as places to swim, but as places that encourage healthier lives while protecting the environment for generations to come.

This article is an invitation. I hope engineers, physicians, therapists, environmental scientists, chemists, researchers, educators and anyone passionate about water will join this discussion. Together, we may discover that the Pool of Health and Youth is not a fantasy at all, but the next evolution in how we care for both people and water. https://www.profjpdev.com/about-the-author

1. Rainwater Collection on Every New Development

Every new subdivision, apartment complex, commercial center, industrial site, school, warehouse, and government building should include rainwater collection as part of its original design. Roof runoff should be captured, stored, and reused for landscaping, irrigation, fire protection, cooling, cleaning, and other non-potable purposes.

2. Rainwater Collection for Coastal Industry

Industries built near the Texas coast should also be required to collect and reuse rainwater. Being close to seawater should not relieve a company of its responsibility to capture rainfall. Rainwater should be the first source used whenever practical, followed by recycled process water and then privately funded desalination when additional supply is necessary.

3. Industry-Funded Desalination

Large industries near the coast that require enormous amounts of water should build and pay for their own desalination systems rather than forcing local communities to finance infrastructure for private industrial demand. These facilities should also be responsible for safe brine management, environmental protection, energy use, and long-term maintenance.

4. Data Centers Must Produce Power and Recycle Water

Data centers should not be allowed to place unlimited demands on local water and electric systems. They should generate a substantial portion of their own electricity, maximize closed-loop cooling, capture rainwater, recycle their own water, and demonstrate that nearby residents and existing businesses will not lose water security because of their operation.

5. Beneficial Reuse Before Wastewater Discharge

Treated wastewater should be reused for irrigation, industry, cooling, parks, medians, construction, agriculture, and other non-potable needs before discharge into rivers, creeks, lakes, or aquifer recharge areas is considered. Wastewater should be treated as a valuable resource, not something developers are automatically entitled to dump downstream.

6. The Best Available Wastewater Treatment

Where wastewater facilities are necessary, Texas should require the best treatment technology reasonably available, strong nutrient removal, dependable backup power, emergency storage, cybersecurity protections, continuous monitoring, and public reporting. Remote lift stations and treatment facilities should not be approved without realistic plans for flooding, mechanical breakdowns, human error, and intentional attacks.

7. Retention Ponds, Lakes, and Emergency Storage

New developments and industrial sites should include properly engineered retention ponds, detention systems, constructed wetlands, and water-storage lakes where appropriate. These systems can reduce flooding, capture runoff, support reuse, improve groundwater recharge, and provide emergency storage when wastewater equipment fails.

8. Replace “Xeriscaping” With Moisture-Conserving Natural Landscaping

Texas should stop treating bare rock, gravel, concrete, and heat-producing landscapes as the ideal form of water conservation. The goal should not be to create drier soil. The goal should be healthy soil that captures rainfall, holds moisture, supports native plants, cools the ground, and reduces runoff.

I would describe this as natural water-wise landscaping, native moisture conservation, or regenerative landscaping rather than focusing on the term xeriscaping.

9. Rebuild Soil Moisture Across Texas

Healthy soil acts like a sponge. Texas should encourage compost use, mulch, native grasses, deeper-rooted plants, reduced soil compaction, prairie restoration, rotational grazing, and land-management practices that allow rain to soak into the ground instead of immediately running off.

More moisture in the soil supports vegetation, moderates ground temperatures, reduces dust, protects against erosion, and helps sustain the local water cycle. We cannot make Texas wetter by covering the land with pavement, rooftops, gravel, and compacted dirt.

10. Land Mitigation Before Development

Before large developments are approved, developers should be required to assess and mitigate the loss of trees, native vegetation, wetlands, recharge features, wildlife habitat, flood-storage areas, and archaeological resources. Mitigation should happen before construction, not after damage has already occurred.

11. Protect Aquifers as Clean-Water Reserves

The Trinity, Edwards, Carrizo-Wilcox, Ogallala, Gulf Coast, and other aquifers should be protected as essential clean-water reserves. Texas should not assume that nutrients, salts, pharmaceuticals, PFAS, or other wastewater constituents are acceptable simply because additional treatment might remove them later.

The Edwards and Trinity systems are connected in important areas through springs, faults, fractures, recharge features, and surface-water interactions. They should not be managed as if pollution entering one area can never affect another.

12. Protect Rivers, Lakes, Springs, and Recreation

Texas water planning should preserve enough water quality and quantity to support swimming, fishing, boating, wildlife, tourism, and healthy ecosystems. A lake should not be considered successful merely because water can still be removed and treated for drinking. Clean water should remain clean enough for people and wildlife to enjoy directly.

13. Development Must Follow Water

Water availability, wastewater capacity, roads, emergency services, schools, flood protection, and power infrastructure should be established before dense development is approved. Texas should stop allowing development first and expecting taxpayers, ratepayers, and existing residents to solve the resulting problems later.

14. Local Communities Should Not Subsidize Private Growth

Developers and large industries should pay the true cost of the infrastructure their projects require. Existing residents should not face higher taxes, water rates, electric bills, or degraded natural resources so that private companies can maximize short-term profits.

15. Dense Development Comes Last, Not First

Only after Texas has built strong rainwater systems, expanded reuse, protected aquifers, restored soil moisture, improved wastewater treatment, secured energy supplies, and established adequate infrastructure should officials even begin discussing whether an area can support higher-density development.

I may still disagree with high-density development in many parts of the Hill Country, but the conversation should not begin until the water, land, wastewater, transportation, and emergency needs have been responsibly addressed.

THE OVERALL GOAL

The goal should be to make Texas one of the cleanest, greenest, most water-secure, and most responsibly developed places in America. We should capture rain where it falls, keep more moisture in our soil, recycle water before discharging it, protect our aquifers before they are degraded, require industry to pay its own way, and make development fit the land rather than forcing the land and the public to absorb every consequence of development.

By Brent Wiewel

A Higher Standard for Texas Water

There is a growing belief among some water planners that direct potable reuse—commonly called “toilet-to-tap”—is an inevitable part of Texas’ future. I respectfully disagree. To me, if we ever reach the point where turning wastewater directly back into drinking water becomes our primary solution, it means we failed to protect the clean rivers, lakes, springs, and aquifers that Texas has been blessed with. Our goal should never be to engineer our way around degraded water quality. Our goal should be preventing that degradation in the first place.

Communities like El Paso have pursued direct potable reuse because they face extraordinary water supply challenges. Their decisions reflect the circumstances they face. But the Texas Hill Country is not El Paso. We still have an opportunity to make different choices by protecting our watersheds before they become overdeveloped or degraded. Instead of planning for toilet-to-tap, we should be expanding non-potable reuse for irrigation, parks, golf courses, industrial cooling, data centers, agriculture, and other uses that do not require drinking-water quality.

The Trinity and Edwards Aquifers Are Part of the Same Water Story

One of the biggest misconceptions in Texas is that groundwater and surface water can be managed as though they are completely separate. They are not. In much of Central Texas, the Trinity and Edwards aquifer systems are interconnected through complex geology. Water moving through the Trinity contributes to springs and streams in some areas, while recharge processes and groundwater movement influence the Edwards as well. That means decisions affecting one groundwater system can have consequences beyond a single aquifer or watershed. We cannot continue managing water one permit at a time without recognizing that these systems are connected and that protecting one helps protect the other.

Scientists and representatives with the Comal Trinity Groundwater Conservation District have explained that proposed wastewater discharges in places like Devil’s Hollow would not simply remain on the surface until they reached Canyon Lake. Because of the fractured limestone and recharge features in this region, water can infiltrate into the Cow Creek formation of the Middle Trinity Aquifer before ever reaching the lake. That means we are not just discussing a creek. We are discussing one of our region’s most valuable groundwater resources.

Protect the Aquifer Before It Is Degraded

The Trinity Aquifer is one of the cleanest freshwater resources we have. Once groundwater is degraded, restoring it is incredibly difficult and expensive. Treatment removes many contaminants, but it does not make treated wastewater chemically identical to natural rainwater or spring water. Repeated discharges can contribute nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus, along with pharmaceuticals, household chemicals, PFAS where present, and other constituents that treatment does not always eliminate completely. Those substances do not belong in sensitive recharge areas simply because we have the technology to remove some of them later.

To me, the philosophy should be simple: protect clean water before it becomes contaminated. Prevention will always be less expensive than remediation.

The Hidden Costs of Modern Wastewater Infrastructure

This conversation is about more than routine wastewater discharges. It is also about risk. Every new remote lift station, sewer pump station, force main, and wastewater facility creates another potential point of failure. Mechanical breakdowns occur. Power outages happen. Floods overwhelm systems. Human mistakes are inevitable. Cybersecurity threats continue to grow. Intentional acts of sabotage can never be completely ruled out. The more complicated our infrastructure becomes, the more vulnerable it becomes and the more taxpayers are asked to pay for its maintenance and repair.

Every new subdivision relying on multiple remote sewer facilities increases those long-term risks. Those costs never disappear. They simply get passed on to future generations through higher water rates, taxes, infrastructure upgrades, and treatment expenses.

The Warnings Are Already Here

Some people argue these concerns are only hypothetical. They are not.

Texas has already experienced major wastewater failures and contamination events. New Braunfels experienced a raw sewage spill of approximately 550,000 gallons that reached the Guadalupe River near Lake Dunlap. Abilene has dealt with significant water-quality concerns. Wastewater spills have occurred into the Rio Grande. Sewer failures have affected communities in Belton and Temple. Across the country, other incidents have shown that critical water infrastructure can be disrupted by operational failures, natural disasters, or security threats.

These communities did not expect those failures. Yet they happened.

The lesson should not be that we simply build larger treatment plants after every problem. The lesson should be that reducing unnecessary risk is often the wiser course.

Development Should Not Lower Our Standards

Development is important, but clean water is irreplaceable. Growth should never come at the expense of our rivers, lakes, springs, aquifers, archaeological sites, wildlife habitat, and the quality of life that attracts people here in the first place.

Healthy rivers and lakes should remain places where families swim, fish, kayak, boat, and enjoy nature with confidence. If our long-term vision becomes accepting degraded water quality because we can eventually filter it back into drinking water, then I believe we have lowered our standards instead of raising them.

Communities like Austin and San Antonio have demonstrated that reclaimed water has tremendous value through non-potable reuse systems. Those investments reduce demand for drinking water while minimizing unnecessary discharges into sensitive waterways. That should be the model we strive toward.

Choose Prevention Over Restoration

Every gallon of treated wastewater reused for irrigation, parks, industrial cooling, agriculture, or data centers is one less gallon discharged into a sensitive watershed or recharge zone. Every decision to protect groundwater today reduces the cost and difficulty of protecting it tomorrow.

Texas still has a choice. We can continue accepting incremental degradation and spend billions trying to restore what we allowed to decline, or we can raise our expectations now by protecting our clean water before it is compromised.

I believe our goal should never be toilet-to-tap. Our goal should be protecting the Trinity Aquifer, the Edwards Aquifer, our rivers, our springs, and our lakes so well that future generations never have to depend on it. That is the legacy we should be working toward.

By Brent Wiewel

There is very little we can do about every narrative thrown at us online each day. Most of those arguments do not solve anything. They divide communities, turn neighbors against one another, make us angry, and encourage us to speak with hatred instead of respect. We put signs in our yards challenging each other’s beliefs while the problems that should unite us continue right in front of our eyes.

While we fight over Fauci, vaccines, political parties, and yesterday’s controversies, our water is being placed at risk. Treated wastewater is discharged into our rivers, creeks, lakes, and reservoirs, and raw sewage sometimes enters those same waterways through spills, overflows, broken pipes, flooding, equipment failures, and human error. Water is not Republican or Democrat. Every human being, every child, every tree, every garden, every animal, and every community depends upon it.

We should be talking about how new developments can recycle their wastewater instead of discharging it. We should be building retention ponds, purple-pipe systems, land-application areas, and other safeguards that keep wastewater away from the natural waterways we hold so precious. We should also be discussing how data centers and appropriate industries could use reclaimed water for cooling, allowing development, jobs, and wastewater reuse to work together instead of sacrificing our rivers.

Most of us do not think about water when we turn on the faucet because we trust that it will be there and that it will be safe. But if it stopped flowing, or if something were seriously wrong with it, our lives would change immediately. Water grows our food, our children, our trees, and our communities. It supports the recreation in our backyards and the ecosystems that make this region worth calling home.

We have to come together before the damage becomes permanent. All the years of work by people who fought to protect these rivers and lakes cannot be allowed to go in vain. We must send one unmistakable message to our government: we are finished allowing manufactured division to distract us from protecting the necessities of life. As long as we remain divided, they keep winning. The moment we unite around our water, the balance of power begins to change.

Remember those who were entrusted to be stewards of our water. Remember those who were supposed to protect its quality, defend our communities and safeguard the generations who will come after us. Remember the families they betrayed and the future generations they betrayed whenever they chose convenience, political pressure or development interests over the long-term health of our rivers, creeks, aquifers, lakes and reservoirs. Remember TCEQ, and remember what it failed to prevent.

When you hear people say, “They already discharge treated wastewater into the river now,” remember that they did not discharge this much before. Every additional gallon is more than they discharged yesterday. Every new permit, treatment plant and discharge point adds another source of contamination, another mechanical system that can fail, another operator who can make a mistake and another risk placed directly upon our waterways. Existing pollution is not an excuse to authorize more pollution. It is evidence that we should stop adding to the danger.

We understand that officials and wastewater operators do not purposely plan for accidents to happen. But accidents do happen. Not long ago, approximately 550,000 gallons of raw and partially treated sewage entered the Guadalupe River system near Lake Dunlap. That spill was not theoretical, and it was not fearmongering. It was a real failure that placed the river, the people downstream and the surrounding environment at risk.

Every time another wastewater system is placed beside one of our rivers, creeks or tributaries, the agencies approving it already know the risks. They know pumps fail, electrical systems shut down, pipes break, operators make mistakes and floods can overwhelm facilities. Most importantly, they know because communities like ours are warning them before these systems are approved.

Ignorance must never be accepted as an excuse. If these agencies, developers and wastewater operators succeed in expanding wastewater discharges into our waterways, and those systems later fail, we must remember exactly who approved them, who defended them and who ignored the warnings. Let us never forget who had the authority to protect our water, who chose not to use that authority and who must be held publicly and legally accountable for the consequences.

Most importantly, remember the people who swim, boat, play and gather along these rivers. Remember those who fish these waters and depend upon them for food, recreation, income and peace of mind. Remember the wildlife, livestock, fish, birds, plants, springs, wetlands and entire ecosystems that depend upon clean water every day. They cannot attend a hearing, write a letter or stand before TCEQ to defend themselves, so it is our responsibility to speak for them and never allow their survival to be treated as an acceptable risk.

THE WATERWAYS, LAKES AND RESERVOIRS WITHIN THE GBRA SYSTEM

The Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority’s area of responsibility and influence extends through the Guadalupe River Basin from the Texas Hill Country to San Antonio Bay. GBRA does not own every river, creek or tributary, but it operates reservoirs, dams, water-supply systems, hydroelectric facilities, diversion structures, canals, treatment systems and water-quality programs throughout the basin. These are the major named lakes, reservoirs, rivers, creeks, tributaries and water-control systems connected to the basin in which GBRA operates.

LAKES AND RESERVOIRS

● Canyon Reservoir

● Lake Dunlap

● Lake McQueeney

● Lake Placid

● Meadow Lake, also known as Lake Nolte

● Lake Gonzales, also known as H-4 Reservoir

● Lake Wood, also known as H-5 Reservoir

● Coleto Creek Reservoir

● Green Lake

GBRA owns or operates the six Guadalupe Valley hydroelectric lakes: Lake Dunlap, Lake McQueeney, Lake Placid, Meadow Lake, Lake Gonzales and Lake Wood. GBRA also manages the Coleto Creek Reservoir system. Canyon Reservoir is federally owned, with the United States Army Corps of Engineers operating Canyon Dam and managing flood-control responsibilities, while GBRA manages stored water and releases from the conservation pool under its water rights and agreements.

MAJOR RIVERS AND COASTAL WATERS

● Guadalupe River

● North Fork Guadalupe River

● South Fork Guadalupe River

● Blanco River

● San Marcos River

● Comal River

● San Antonio River near the lower-basin confluence

● Guadalupe River Tidal

● Guadalupe River estuary

● San Antonio Bay

● Guadalupe Bay

● Mission Bay

● Hynes Bay

UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER TRIBUTARIES

● Johnson Creek

● Turtle Creek

● Goat Creek

● North Fork Goat Creek

● South Fork Goat Creek

● Bear Creek

● Verde Creek

● Town Creek

● Camp Meeting Creek

● Cypress Creek near Comfort

● Quinlan Creek

● Cherry Creek

● Lane Valley Creek

● Flat Rock Creek

● Fall Creek

● Bluff Creek

● Henderson Branch

● Kelly Creek

● Indian Creek

● Spring Creek

● Panther Creek

● Nichols Creek

● Block Creek

● Wasp Creek

● Sister Creek

● Big Joshua Creek

● Little Joshua Creek

● Curry Creek

CANYON RESERVOIR TRIBUTARIES AND NEARBY WATERWAYS

● Guadalupe River

● Rebecca Creek

● Spring Branch Creek

● Curry Creek

● Potters Creek

● Tom Creek

● Jacobs Creek

● Hancock Creek

● Bear Creek

● Turkey Cove

● Devil’s Hollow

● Schultz Creek

● Elm Creek

● Cranes Mill Creek

● Comal Creek

● Dry Comal Creek

● Numerous unnamed springs, ravines, draws and drainage channels flowing toward Canyon Reservoir

COMAL RIVER AND NEW BRAUNFELS-AREA WATERWAYS

● Comal River

● Comal Springs

● Dry Comal Creek

● Alligator Creek

● Blieders Creek

● Elm Creek

● Geronimo Creek

● Bear Creek

● Cordova Creek

● York Creek

● Long Creek

● Salatrillo Creek

● Martinez Creek

● Cibolo Creek and connected lower-basin drainage areas

BLANCO RIVER WATERSHED

● Blanco River

● Cypress Creek at Wimberley

● Jacob’s Well

● Little Blanco River

● Meier Creek

● Sycamore Creek

● Big Creek

● Flat Creek

● Koch Branch

● Koch Cove Branch

● Carpers Creek

● Halifax Creek

● Live Oak Creek

● Crabapple Creek

● Miller Creek

● Peyton Creek

● Rocky Creek

● Wilson Creek

● Cottonwood Creek

● Falls Creek

● Lone Man Creek

● Dutchman Creek

SAN MARCOS RIVER WATERSHED

● San Marcos River

● San Marcos Springs

● Sink Creek

● Sessom Creek

● Purgatory Creek

● Willow Springs Creek

● Cottonwood Creek

● Morrison Creek

● Dickerson Creek

● Callihan Creek

● York Creek

● Brushy Creek

● Highsmith Creek

● Mule Creek

● Canoe Creek

● Smith Creek

● Plum Creek

● Clear Fork Creek

● Town Branch

● Willow Creek

● Dry Creek

● Martindale Creek

● Staples Creek

● Prairie Lea Creek

PLUM CREEK WATERSHED

● Plum Creek

● Clear Fork Plum Creek

● West Fork Plum Creek

● East Fork Plum Creek

● Town Branch

● Brushy Creek

● Dry Creek

● Bunton Branch

● Porter Creek

● Salt Branch

● West Fork Dry Creek

● Clear Fork

● Elm Creek

● Andrews Branch

● Stormwater and wastewater tributaries in the Lockhart area

MIDDLE GUADALUPE RIVER TRIBUTARIES

● Geronimo Creek

● Alligator Creek

● Elm Creek

● Mill Creek

● Long Creek

● York Creek

● Cottonwood Creek

● Nash Creek

● Darst Creek

● Peach Creek

● Sandy Fork Creek

● Denton Creek

● O’Neill Creek

● Sandy Creek

● Rocky Creek

● Tinsley Creek

● Kerr Creek

● Cross Timber Creek

● Cottle Creek

● Five Mile Creek

● Six Mile Creek

● Twelve Mile Creek

PEACH CREEK WATERSHED

● Peach Creek

● Sandy Fork Creek

● Denton Creek

● Copperas Creek

● Rocky Creek

● Clear Fork

● East Fork Peach Creek

● West Fork Peach Creek

● Sulphur Creek

● O’Neill Creek

● Cottonwood Creek

● Little Peach Creek

SANDIES CREEK WATERSHED

● Sandies Creek

● Little Sandies Creek

● North Fork Sandies Creek

● South Fork Sandies Creek

● Elm Creek

● Clear Creek

● Rocky Creek

● Five Mile Creek

● Twelve Mile Creek

● Fifteen Mile Creek

● Price Creek

● Baugh Creek

● Turkey Creek

● Lost Creek

● Cuero Creek

● McCoy Creek

● Boggy Creek

● Irish Creek

COLETO CREEK WATERSHED

● Coleto Creek

● Coleto Creek Reservoir

● Perdido Creek

● Twelve Mile Creek

● Fifteen Mile Creek

● Manahuilla Creek

● Spring Creek

● Sulphur Creek

● Black Creek

● Dry Creek

● Turkey Creek

● Sulphur Branch

● Cabeza Creek

● Blanco Creek

● Fagan Creek

● Garcitas Creek and nearby coastal connections

LOWER GUADALUPE RIVER WATERWAYS

● Guadalupe River below the San Marcos River

● Guadalupe River below the San Antonio River

● Guadalupe River Tidal

● San Antonio River

● Coleto Creek

● Peach Creek

● Sandies Creek

● Elm Creek

● Spring Creek

● McDonald Bayou

● Kuy Creek

● Thomas Creek

● Twelve Mile Creek

● Fifteen Mile Creek

● Garcitas Creek

● Arenosa Creek

● Placedo Creek

● Green Lake

● Hynes Bay

● Mission Bay

● Guadalupe Bay

● San Antonio Bay

● Victoria Barge Canal

● Gulf Intracoastal Waterway connections

● Coastal marshes, wetlands, bayous and estuarine channels near Tivoli, Seadrift, Victoria and Port Lavaca

GBRA DAMS, CANALS AND WATER-CONTROL STRUCTURES

● Canyon Dam stored-water operations

● Lake Dunlap Dam

● Lake McQueeney Dam

● Lake Placid Dam

● Meadow Lake Dam

● Lake Gonzales Dam

● Lake Wood Dam

● Coleto Creek Reservoir Dam

● Lower Guadalupe Diversion Dam

● GBRA Saltwater Barrier

● Calhoun Canal System

● Irrigation canals

● Diversion pumps

● Canal checks

● Water-supply pipelines

● Hydroelectric generating facilities

● Municipal and industrial water-delivery systems

● Drinking-water treatment facilities

● Wastewater collection and treatment facilities operated by or for GBRA

These waterways are connected. Pollution placed into one creek does not necessarily remain in that creek. It can move downstream into a river, through a reservoir, past another community and eventually into our bays and estuaries. That is why every permit, every discharge point, every spill and every failure must be viewed as part of the entire Guadalupe River system—not as an isolated event that ends at a property line.

https://youtu.be/0hNbPyZV5Lc?is=tUmypVbLorZL1KZj

By Brent Wiewel

MINNESOTA JUST SHOWED US HOW VULNERABLE WATER SYSTEMS CAN BE

More than 30 community water systems in Minnesota were recently targeted by malicious cyber activity. In at least one community, hackers gained access to operating controls and temporarily shut down a well and water-treatment plant. Other utilities reportedly lost automated communications and had to send employees into the field to operate equipment manually.

Thankfully, no major contamination or sewage disaster has been publicly reported. But that does not mean the incident was harmless. It shows how quickly control of essential water infrastructure can be threatened by someone sitting behind a computer hundreds or even thousands of miles away.

THIS WAS NOT AN ORDINARY EQUIPMENT FAILURE

This was not simply a broken pipe, power outage, flood, or operator mistake. Someone deliberately interfered with technology used to control water infrastructure. That adds another danger to a list that already includes mechanical failures, human error, severe weather, broken sewer lines, overflowing lift stations, and raw sewage spills.

A wastewater permit describes how a plant is supposed to operate under normal conditions, but normal conditions are never guaranteed. Computers can be hacked. Pumps can fail. Electricity can go out. Floodwaters can block access. Employees can make mistakes, and determined attackers can search for the weakest point in a system.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN WARNING ABOUT AROUND CANYON LAKE

This is the exact issue I have been raising about the remote wastewater facilities being proposed around Canyon Lake and along the creeks, tributaries, and rivers connected to it. These plants could be located in isolated areas and depend on pumps, lift stations, electronic controls, remote monitoring systems, pipelines, and discharge points that receive very little day-to-day public attention.

Every additional facility creates another system that must be monitored, maintained, secured, and protected every hour of every day. It is a dangerous turn of events. In some ways, it feels like planning for our own demise by placing critical infrastructure in remote locations where it may be difficult to reach during an emergency and easier for someone with bad intentions to target.

WHY CREATE MORE EASY TARGETS?

We should not be leaving critical water infrastructure vulnerable to people who do not care about America, our communities, or our water the way we do. Building more remotely operated wastewater plants beside waterways that feed Canyon Lake and the Guadalupe River creates more points of failure and more opportunities for sabotage.

The more facilities we build, the more pumps, controls, internet connections, lift stations, pipelines, and discharge locations we must defend. We cannot simply assume that every system will operate perfectly forever or that nobody will ever try to interfere with it.

REUSE THE WATER INSTEAD OF DISCHARGING IT

This is another reason treated wastewater should be reused through controlled systems instead of routinely discharged into our natural waterways. Storage ponds, purple-pipe networks, irrigation, land application, industrial cooling, and data-center cooling could put that water to productive use while adding separation between wastewater infrastructure and the rivers, reservoirs, and aquifers our communities depend upon.

Reuse does not eliminate every risk, but it gives us more control and more options. It reduces the amount of wastewater continuously directed toward waterways that serve recreation, wildlife, aquifer recharge, agriculture, and downstream water supplies.

WE SHOULD NOT WAIT FOR A DISASTER HERE

Minnesota was fortunate. Workers responded, manual controls were available, and a much larger public-health disaster appears to have been avoided. But we should not wait until a similar attack succeeds here before admitting that the danger is real.

Water and wastewater systems are critical infrastructure. Building more remote discharge facilities beside vulnerable waterways without demanding stronger cybersecurity, backup power, emergency access, storage capacity, manual controls, and beneficial reuse is not responsible planning. It is creating more opportunities for failure and hoping nobody ever takes advantage of them.

https://apnews.com/article/cyberattack-minnesota-water-systems-5bb1dcbaab8e3231889700c38a21e8ea

By Brent Wiewel

Canyon Reservoir is a federal project, and the people of Canyon Lake, Texas, need their federal representative to speak up. Congressman Chip Roy should be publicly addressing the growing concerns surrounding wastewater discharges, rapid development, water quality, flood protection and the long-term future of the entire Guadalupe River watershed.

This is no longer only a local dispute over one permit or one subdivision. Decisions being made by state agencies and state lawmakers can affect a federally operated reservoir, the aquifers beneath our communities and the Guadalupe River from its headwaters to the coast. Congressman Roy needs to help us understand where federal responsibility begins, where state authority ends and what protections can be pursued before irreversible damage is done.

The residents of Canyon Lake have been attending hearings, researching permits, contacting elected officials and offering real solutions. We have asked for greater wastewater reuse, stronger watershed protections, responsible development and a comprehensive plan for the Guadalupe River system. We should not have to continue fighting these battles without hearing clearly and directly from the congressman elected to represent us in Washington.

Congressman Roy does not control TCEQ, and he does not personally approve or deny state wastewater permits. However, he can speak publicly, request federal briefings, bring state and federal agencies together, ask the Army Corps of Engineers difficult questions and determine whether federal interests are being adequately protected. He can also communicate with our state representatives and make sure decisions affecting Canyon Reservoir are not being made without consideration of its federal purposes and the communities that depend upon it.

We need Congressman Roy to tell us what he believes. Does he believe federally operated reservoirs should receive greater protection from the cumulative effects of wastewater discharges and development? Does he believe the Army Corps of Engineers should have a stronger voice when state permits may affect a federal reservoir? Does he support building an alliance to protect the entire Guadalupe watershed rather than continuing to address every threat separately?

These are fair questions, and the people of Canyon Lake deserve answers.

CANYON LAKE NEEDS A FEDERAL VOICE

Canyon Reservoir was built as a federal water-resource project, yet the public is repeatedly told that many of the decisions affecting the surrounding watershed belong entirely to the State of Texas. That may describe the current permitting process, but it does not answer the larger question of who protects the federal project when repeated state decisions begin creating cumulative consequences.

Congressman Roy needs to speak for Canyon Lake in that conversation. He should not wait until water quality has declined, infrastructure has been overwhelmed or the public purposes of the reservoir have been compromised. Federal representation should mean more than responding after a disaster. It should include preventing foreseeable problems and helping communities navigate overlapping state and federal responsibilities.

We need him to meet with local residents, county officials, our state representatives, the Army Corps of Engineers, TCEQ, the Environmental Protection Agency, river authorities, groundwater districts and communities throughout the Guadalupe basin. No single agency sees the entire picture, but our elected representatives have the ability to bring those pieces together.

THE GUADALUPE WATERSHED CANNOT BE PROTECTED ONE PERMIT AT A TIME

The Guadalupe River watershed is one connected system. Water moves through springs, creeks, aquifers, rivers, reservoirs, farms, cities and communities without regard for district lines or political boundaries. A wastewater discharge permitted in one location may affect people many miles away who had no voice in the decision.

That is why we need to build a Guadalupe Watershed Protection Alliance. It should include residents, property owners, farmers, scientists, conservation organizations, cities, counties, river authorities, groundwater districts, state lawmakers and members of Congress. Its purpose should be to create a comprehensive protection plan for the entire watershed while supporting responsible growth and practical water solutions.

This alliance should not belong to one person, one campaign or one political party. Protecting water is not a Republican issue or a Democratic issue. It is a public-health issue, an economic issue, a property-rights issue and a responsibility we owe future generations.

Congressman Roy should help bring this alliance together. He should also work with other members of the Texas congressional delegation whose districts contain federal reservoirs and important river systems. Canyon Reservoir is not the only federal water project facing pressure from development, pollution, drought and competing demands. Texas needs a broader conversation about how state decisions affect federally operated reservoirs throughout the state.

WE NEED CLARITY FROM OUR REPRESENTATIVE

There is much the public does not understand about the relationship between TCEQ, the State of Texas, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency and Congress. That is not because citizens have failed to care or failed to research. The system is complicated, divided among agencies and often difficult for ordinary people to navigate.

Congressman Roy can help clarify that system. He can explain what protections already exist, what authority the federal government has, what authority it does not have and whether congressional action may be necessary. He can tell us whether the Army Corps has the ability to formally object when cumulative state permitting decisions may threaten the purposes of a federal reservoir.

We also need his opinion on what should happen next. The people of Canyon Lake are not merely asking him to repeat agency language. We are asking him to examine the situation, hear directly from the community and tell us where he stands.

STATE AND FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES MUST WORK TOGETHER

Our state representatives remain essential because many of the decisions involving wastewater permits, development and water policy are made at the state level. They need to continue hearing directly from the communities affected by those decisions. They also need to consider the cumulative effects of approving project after project without a comprehensive watershed plan.

Congressman Roy should be involved in those conversations. When state decisions may affect a federal reservoir, federal project lands, flood-control operations or a regional water supply, federal and state representatives should not operate separately. They should communicate, share information and explain to the public who is responsible for what.

We need coordination before permits are issued, not finger-pointing after damage occurs.

BUILDING AN ALLIANCE AROUND SOLUTIONS

A Guadalupe Watershed Protection Alliance should promote solutions rather than simply oppose growth. Those solutions should include full beneficial reuse of treated wastewater wherever feasible, purple-pipe systems, responsible land application, stronger protection of aquifer recharge areas and regional infrastructure planned before major developments are approved.

Growth should follow water availability and responsible wastewater planning. Communities should not be forced to accept additional discharges because developers or utilities failed to include reuse systems from the beginning. The cheapest short-term option for one project may create expensive long-term consequences for everyone downstream.

We should also examine protections used in other watersheds and around other federal reservoirs. We need to know what has worked elsewhere, what authority made those protections possible and whether similar approaches could be applied here.

Congressman Roy and his staff have access to federal agencies, congressional research and information that ordinary citizens may struggle to obtain. That access should be used to help Canyon Lake and the Guadalupe watershed.

CONGRESSMAN ROY, CANYON LAKE IS ASKING YOU TO SPEAK UP

Congressman Roy, we need you to publicly address what is happening around Canyon Lake and throughout the Guadalupe River watershed. We need you to meet with the community, hear our concerns and examine the solutions we are proposing.

We need you to speak with our state representatives and determine how their decisions may affect a federally operated reservoir. We need you to ask the Army Corps of Engineers what responsibility it has to protect Canyon Reservoir from cumulative watershed impacts. We need you to help us understand whether stronger federal coordination, oversight or legislation is needed.

Most importantly, we need to know where you stand.

The people of Canyon Lake are speaking up. The communities along the Guadalupe River are speaking up. Now we need our federal representative to speak up with us.

Canyon Reservoir is a federal project. The Guadalupe River is a shared Texas treasure. Both deserve a strong federal voice, and Congressman Chip Roy should be that voice.