TCEQ approves City of Kyle wastewater permit amendment despite objections over Plum Creek impacts

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality on Nov. 19 voted to issue a renewed and amended Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit allowing the City of Kyle to expand its wastewater discharge into Plum Creek to an annual average flow of 12,000,000 gallons per day.

The commission adopted the administrative law judges' proposal for decision, agreed with the executive director's recommendations and approved the draft permit, including a 0.5 milligrams per liter total phosphorus limit in the final two phases of the permit.

Why it matters: Protesters warned the expanded discharge could depress dissolved oxygen, change algal and macroinvertebrate communities and violate Texas surface water quality standards and anti‑degradation rules in Plum Creek. The commission and the executive director concluded the record and calibrated QUAL-TEX modeling show the permit, with the proposed effluent limits, will protect water quality and existing uses.

Protest and testimony: Victoria Rose, representing the San Marcos River Foundation (SMRF), urged the commission to deny the application. Rose said upstream Plum Creek is “incredibly beautiful” and “does not smell of treated sewage,” and described field observations and monitoring data downstream of the City's outfall indicating lower dissolved oxygen, higher nutrients, shifts in macroinvertebrate communities and effluent odor. Rose said SMRF’s witnesses — a scientist with years of experience and a professional engineer — presented evidence that the proposed discharge could continue to depress dissolved oxygen and violate state standards, and criticized the city and Executive Director witnesses as unreliable.

The executive director, Fernando Salazar Martinez, told commissioners the ED "agrees with the administrative law judge's findings of fact and conclusions of law as referenced in the proposal for decision on the 3 referred issues," and recommended adopting the PFD and issuing the draft permit. Jessica Anderson of the Office of Public Interest Counsel also supported adoption, saying the preponderance of evidence demonstrated the draft permit would be protective if the applicant meets the effluent limits.

Record and modeling: The ALJs found the city met its burden of proof on three referred issues: whether the draft permit is consistent with water quality standards, whether it meets anti‑degradation requirements and whether it should be revised based on the city's compliance history. The PFD and parties' testimony discussed the ED's calibrated QUAL‑TEX model; protestants challenged whether Tier 2 anti‑degradation review for dissolved oxygen had been properly evaluated, while the ALJs and ED found the record supported the ED's approach.

Permit terms and compliance history: Commissioners said the record showed the City has invested in capital projects, corrective measures and staffing increases that improve the plant’s performance. The commission approved the issuance of the ED’s draft permit and adopted the ED’s response to comments. The motion to adopt the ALJ's proposed order, as revised per the ALJs' November 19, 2024 letter, passed by voice vote.

Next steps and limits: The permit will be issued as adopted by the commission. The parties may pursue further administrative or legal remedies available under statute if they disagree with the commission's final order.

Provenance: Transcript comments and motions during the TCEQ meeting on Nov. 19, 2024, including protestant statements beginning at 3971.84 and the commission’s motion and passage at 5166.6396–5179.46.