Mystic Shores Neighbors is a nonpartisan community group representing the Conservation Committee, which serves under the Board of Directors of the Mystic Shores Property Owners Association (POA), along with other nearby residents. The group was formed to support efforts to eliminate existing and potential impacts associated with operating the Canyon Ranch MUD wastewater treatment plant. 

Mystic Shores Neighbors is a member of the Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance.

Summary of Public Comments

The June 2, 2026 public meeting provided residents, elected officials, technical professionals, and other stakeholders an opportunity to comment on the proposed renewal of TPDES Permit No. WQ0015866001 for the Canyon Ranch Wastewater Treatment Facility.

Speakers represented multiple communities, including Mystic Shores, Cypress Cove, Canyon Lake, and downstream Guadalupe River property owners. Comments also included input from local government officials, engineers, environmental organizations, and individuals with professional expertise in geology, archaeology, and water resources.

Although individual comments addressed different aspects of the proposal, several common themes emerged.

1. Protection of Drinking Water Resources

Numerous speakers expressed concern that treated wastewater discharged into a normally dry limestone drainage could eventually affect groundwater and Canyon Lake, both of which serve as important drinking water sources.

Specific concerns included:

• vulnerability of the Trinity Aquifer in fractured karst limestone;

• proximity of private residential wells;

• nearby public water supply wells;

• long-term cumulative nutrient loading; and

• potential future treatment costs for public water systems.

Several speakers requested additional hydrogeologic analysis before any discharge is authorized.

2. Preference for Wastewater Reuse Rather Than Surface Discharge

A recurring recommendation was that treated wastewater should be beneficially reused whenever practical rather than discharged into a natural drainage.

Suggested alternatives included:

• irrigation of common areas,

• landscape reuse,

• purple-pipe distribution systems,

• additional storage,

• and land application.

Many speakers stated they believe reuse would better conserve water while reducing downstream impacts.

3. Protection of Canyon Lake

Residents emphasized that Canyon Lake serves multiple important public purposes, including:

• public drinking water,

• recreation,

• wildlife habitat,

• tourism,

• and local economic activity.

Several speakers questioned why Canyon Lake does not receive watershed protections comparable to those applied to the Highland Lakes under Texas regulations.

4. Karst Geology and Groundwater Recharge

Many comments focused on the unique geology of the Hill Country.

Speakers described concerns that:

• fractured limestone allows rapid groundwater recharge,

• pollutants may migrate differently than assumed in traditional surface-water models,

• and additional site-specific hydrogeologic investigation is warranted.

Several requested enhanced groundwater monitoring and additional safeguards.

5. Property Owner Impacts

Property owners located along the proposed discharge route described concerns regarding:

• changes to the character of a normally dry drainage corridor;

• stagnant pools during dry periods;

• algae growth;

• odors;

• mosquito habitat;

• erosion;

• and potential impacts on property values.

Several stated they believe the proposal would interfere with the quiet enjoyment of their property.

6. Public Health

Speakers discussed possible public health concerns associated with:

• recreational contact with downstream waters,

• bacterial exposure,

• nutrients,

• pharmaceuticals and personal care products,

• and potential impacts to children, pets, and families using nearby natural areas.

Several requested additional evaluation of long-term exposure pathways.

7. Engineering, Operations, and Infrastructure

Multiple comments addressed operational aspects of the proposed facility.

Questions included:

• emergency backup systems;

• lift station reliability;

• staffing and monitoring;

• expansion capacity;

• phosphorus management;

• stormwater interactions;

• and long-term maintenance.

Several speakers requested additional technical information regarding operational safeguards.

8. Stormwater and Flooding

Residents described existing sedimentation and drainage issues associated with construction activities upstream.

Questions were raised regarding:

• cumulative stormwater flows,

• flood modeling,

• sediment transport,

• and whether current drainage infrastructure can safely accommodate both stormwater and treated wastewater.

9. Archaeological and Natural Resource Protection

Several comments focused on the presence of documented archaeological resources within Devil's Hollow.

Speakers requested additional coordination with appropriate cultural resource agencies and questioned whether potential impacts had been adequately evaluated during permitting.

10. Wildlife and Environmental Stewardship

Residents discussed broader ecological concerns, including:

• preservation of native habitat;

• protection of sensitive wildlife;

• downstream aquatic health;

• and maintaining the natural character of the watershed.

Several speakers emphasized the importance of protecting natural resources while accommodating responsible growth.

11. Public Notice and Administrative Process

Several speakers questioned whether affected property owners received adequate notice during the original permitting process.

Comments also addressed:

• public participation,

• transparency,

• procedural fairness,

• and opportunities for meaningful review during the renewal process.

Several requested additional review of these procedural issues.

12. Regional Planning

A common theme throughout the evening was the desire for comprehensive regional wastewater planning rather than evaluating projects individually.

Speakers expressed interest in long-term solutions that balance:

• continued residential growth,

• protection of water resources,

• infrastructure planning,

• and preservation of the Hill Country environment.

Overall Observations

The public comments reflected broad participation from residents, technical professionals, elected officials, and regional organizations. While perspectives varied, the testimony consistently emphasized protecting water quality, ensuring transparent decision-making, and evaluating alternatives that minimize long-term impacts on Canyon Lake and surrounding communities.

The comments demonstrated substantial public interest in the proposed permit and highlighted the importance of balancing future growth with stewardship of the region's water resources, natural habitats, and public infrastructure.

Link to full transcript

The entire session was streamed on Facebook Live by Brent Wiewel. Link.

Comments submitted online before and during the June 2 TCEQ public meeting can be found here. Enter permit #WQ0015866001.

When searching:

Check the boxes labeled:

• “Include all Filings on this Item”

• “Include all correspondence from the public on this Item”

Then click Search below “Step Three” section.