Residents, descendants and conservation groups urge Elgin to halt wastewater plant near historic Litig community

Dozens of residents and local preservation groups told the Elgin City Council on Dec. 2 that a proposed wastewater treatment plant and industrial annexation at or near 18706 Lydig Road would threaten the historic freedmen community and surrounding farmland.

Gina Gonzales, who presented artifacts she said came from the parcel, said an archaeological survey had not been submitted and quoted the Texas Historic Commission as saying a survey is required “due to high probability for historic sites.” She asked the city to require proper state review and broader notification for people who have ties to the land.

Christopher Scott, introduced himself as a descendant and said the plan amounted to “pollution, gentrification, and profit,” alleging the plant would take sewage from miles away, process it and “dump 6,000,000 gallons into our local creek and tributaries” near the community. He and other speakers warned of public‑health impacts and harm to wildlife and farmland.

Several descendants and community stewards urged the council to deannex or reject industrial zoning for the tract, saying the property contains a documented historic Black homestead and is part of the Litig (alternate spellings appear in public comments) community’s lineage. Pamela Fowler, president of the Litig Cemetery cleanup group, asked the city to preserve the land as a park rather than site infrastructure next to a cemetery the community maintains.

Farmers and conservation easement holders described site‑specific environmental risks. John Bell, a conservation easement owner, said treated effluent was planned to be discharged about 50 yards north of his protected property and urged containment and reuse rather than discharge through the easement. Mo Ryan and Corinne Ramirez, who represent farms on an easement that protects Wilburger/Wilbarger Creek, said the area is flood‑prone and contains biodiversity the community wants to protect.

Speakers also raised procedural concerns: several said they received little or no notice before the annexation or permitting steps, and called for the city to open a formal public hearing that included descendants and long‑standing community members.

City staff and council did not take action on the plant during the meeting. The mayor announced a follow‑up community meeting on Tuesday the 9th at Shiloh Baptist Church for further discussion and to present more detailed project materials, and staff said they would post meeting details and provide additional reports to council.

Why it matters: Public commenters tied the project to broader concerns about preserving the physical and cultural legacy of early Black freedom colonies, avoiding disproportionate environmental burden on historically marginalized residents, and protecting productive farmland and conservation easements. The comments asked the council to weigh those local heritage and environmental considerations before approving annexation, zoning or permits that would enable the plant to be sited there.

What’s next: The city scheduled a community meeting on Dec. 9 at Shiloh Baptist Church to present project information and allow descendants and neighbors to ask questions; the transcript records no formal council vote on siting or permitting during this meeting.

Quotes (from public comments): “Survey is required due to high probability for historic sites.” — Gina Gonzales “You plan to process and dump 6,000,000 gallons into our local creek and tributaries.” — Christopher Scott “Young people deserve a monument, not a wastewater treatment plant.” — Anne Brockenbroe (paraphrased from testimony urging a park)

Clarifying details extracted from public comments: the parcel repeatedly cited as 18706 Lydig Road; speakers alleged the plant would discharge roughly 6,000,000 gallons; several speakers gave distances (for example, 0.63 miles to a historical marker mentioned by one speaker); multiple spellings of the historic community and road appear in the record (Litig, Litwick, Lyddick, Lydig). The transcript records request for a state archaeological survey and a claim that the Texas Historic Commission indicated a survey was required.