Limestone Water Utility / CSWR — Harpeth River, Williamson County, TN

Framework for Opposing the Limestone Wastewater Permit Expansion

A plain-language guide to the factual and comparative arguments against TDEC's proposed 80% expansion of discharge capacity into an already-impaired river.

This site is a community research resource for public hearing preparation. It does not constitute legal advice and is not authored by an attorney.

80%
Capacity Increase
21 yr
Phosphorus Impaired
257K
Gal. Spilled (2025)
6
States w/ CSWR Issues

Take Action — Submit your comment to TDEC before the deadline

What we are asking
Deny NPDES Permit No. TN0027278. Do not grant an 80% capacity expansion to a company that cannot safely operate what it already has.

Kids in River Rest can't play in the creek behind their homes. The back field where they used to play sports and camp out — families call it the "Poop Field" now, because it floods with sewage when it rains. Manholes sit open and unattended. The smell reaches people's porches.

In March 2025, 200,000 gallons of raw sewage poured into Cartwright Creek and the Harpeth River. Another 57,000 gallons followed in April. In July, multiple overflows triggered public health warnings and emergency response. This wasn't a freak accident — it was the worst in a decade-long pattern of failure: 68 violations in a single year, over $100,000 in state fines, broken equipment, moldy tools, lab samples stored next to food.

The company responsible — Central States Water Resources — promised to fix all of this when it bought the system in 2021. Nearly four years later, performance didn't improve. It got worse. And now they're asking Tennessee to let them run an even bigger, more complex facility.

This isn't just a local problem. CSWR customers in six states report the same pattern: acquire failing systems, raise rates 200–350%, and fail to deliver. Mississippi regulators denied their rate increase. Kentucky's Attorney General called their acquisition plans "sincerely worrying." In Texas, KSAT's investigation into brown, chlorinated water led to two new state laws. And CSWR's own engineering director testified under oath about raw sewage and pathogens dumping into creeks "where maybe kids play."

The Harpeth River has been impaired for phosphorus for 21 years. Tennessee law says you cannot add more of the pollutant that's already killing the river. TDEC has failed for 10 years to complete the legally required pollution reduction plan. And when Franklin — an excellent operator on the same river — sought a smaller 33% expansion, TDEC imposed strict conditions including a zero net increase commitment and proven optimization. Limestone, a far worse operator seeking a far larger expansion, faces none of those requirements.

Expansion is a reward for success, not a remedy for failure.

Below is the factual evidence supporting this position — 16 sections covering every argument, with verified sources for every claim.

Section 1

What's at Stake

TDEC proposes to modify NPDES Permit No. TN0027278 to allow Limestone Water Utility Operating Company, LLC — owned by Central States Water Resources (CSWR) — to expand wastewater treatment capacity from 0.25 MGD to 0.45 MGD. That is an 80% increase in treated sewage discharged into the Harpeth River at River Mile 68.8.

The Harpeth has been listed as impaired for phosphorus since 2004 (21 years) and for nutrients since 1996 (29 years). The facility discharges phosphorus and oxygen-depleting pollutants — the exact pollutants causing the impairment.

What does "impaired" mean?
Under the Clean Water Act, states must identify waterways that fail to meet water quality standards. These are placed on the "303(d) list" — a government acknowledgment that the water body is too polluted for its intended uses. Being listed triggers legal obligations to develop a plan to reduce pollution.

The opposition rests on six core legal arguments plus comparative evidence — CSWR's documented multi-state pattern, Mississippi's regulatory rejection, national benchmarking data, and compounding technology risk. Each argument independently supports denial; together they are overwhelming.

Section 2

Who's Involved

The Regulator: TDEC

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Resources — issues and enforces wastewater discharge permits under the federal NPDES program.

The Applicant: Limestone / CSWR

Limestone Water Utility Operating Company, LLC, owned by Central States Water Resources (CSWR), which acquired the facility December 21, 2021. CSWR operates water/wastewater systems across at least six states with a documented pattern of acquiring failing systems, raising rates dramatically, and failing to achieve proportional compliance improvements.

The Affected Community

River Rest neighborhood (185 homes), Grassland area residents, downstream Harpeth users, and ratepayers. The expansion would add service for Nash Ridge and Adley subdivisions. Close to 300 utility customers filed comments on CSWR's related $9.5M rate increase (TPUC Docket 24-00044).

Key Legal Framework

The laws that apply

Federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq.) — Section 303(d) requires impaired-water TMDLs. Section 402 establishes NPDES permits. 40 CFR § 122.4(i) prohibits permits that don't conform to applicable TMDLs.

Tennessee Water Quality Control Act (T.C.A. §§ 69-3-101 et seq.) — State implementation of the Clean Water Act.

Tennessee Antidegradation Rule (0400-40-03-.06) — Governs how much pollution can be added. The single most important rule in this case.

Section 3 — Core Legal Dispute

The Antidegradation Policy Interpretation

Tennessee's antidegradation framework creates tiers based on whether a river is healthy or struggling:

Tier 2 — Healthy waters: Small new pollution allowed under "de minimis" exception (<5% single, <10% cumulative).

Tier 3 — Impaired waters: "No additional degradation may be allowed."

The Harpeth at this discharge point is Tier 3 — impaired for over two decades.

"If a stream is impaired, the Division cannot authorize additional loadings of the same pollutant(s). It may mean that dischargers will not be allowed to expand or locate on 303(d) listed streams until sources of pollution have been controlled."— TDEC Division of Water Resources Policy

The Dispute

TDEC says: 80% volume increase is OK because improved treatment concentration means no net increase in total mass of pollutants.

Opposition says: The policy says "cannot authorize additional loadings" — absolute language. It doesn't say "cannot authorize if concentration increases." Expanding capacity by 80% enables 80% more sewage generation. That is additional loading capacity, regardless of per-gallon concentration.

Why this matters
TDEC's interpretation erases the distinction between healthy and impaired waters. If volume increases are fine when concentration improves, the impaired-water prohibition has no independent meaning — it collapses into the same test as for healthy waters.
Section 4 — Precedent

The Franklin Precedent

In 2017, the City of Franklin — upstream on the same river — sought a 33% expansion (12→16 MGD).

What Franklin was required to do

Harpeth Conservancy appealed. Franklin committed to zero net increase and demonstrated it could deliver: phosphorus dropped 58% (126→53 lb/day) through optimization before expansion finalized.

Franklin had a "strong history of consistently outperforming permit limits."

If TDEC's current interpretation were correct, Franklin's zero net increase commitment would have been unnecessary. That TDEC required it — for an excellent performer seeking a smaller expansion — suggests TDEC historically read the policy more strictly than it's claiming now.

FactorFranklin (2017)Limestone (2025)
Capacity Increase33% (12→16 MGD)80% (0.25→0.45 MGD)
Compliance RecordExcellent Outperformed limitsTerrible 68 violations, $100K+ fines, 257K gal spills
Zero Net IncreaseRequiredNot Required
Optimization DemoRequired 58% P reductionNot Required
River MileRM 85.2 (upstream)RM 68.8 (downstream = cumulative)
Williamson Herald — Franklin Appeal (Mar 2019) HC — Phosphorus from Franklin
Section 5 — Confirmed Violation

Mercury Exceeds De Minimis Standards

TDEC's own Permit Modification Rationale (page MOD-5) admits mercury exceeds the 10% de minimis threshold.

What is "de minimis"?
Even for pollutants where the river has remaining capacity, a single facility can't use more than 5%, and all facilities combined can't exceed 10%. Exceeding this triggers a more rigorous review.
"All the projected load increases except for mercury are below the 10% load… Until the applicant/permittee demonstrates de minimis levels of mercury, de minimis can be maintained via a permit limit."— TDEC Permit Modification Rationale, page MOD-5
Regulatory Bootstrapping

Proper procedure: Applicant demonstrates compliance → Permit approved.

TDEC's procedure: Expansion exceeds de minimis → Impose new mercury limit (0.0001376 mg/L) → Call it compliant.

The applicant should prove they meet the standard before approval, not have compliance manufactured after exceeding the standard.

Section 6 — Federal Law

Ten-Year TMDL Implementation Failure

What is a TMDL?
A Total Maximum Daily Load is a pollution budget. When a river is impaired, the Clean Water Act requires the state to determine how much pollution it can handle, allocate limits to each source, and create a restoration plan.
2015TDEC announces new TMDL for Harpeth phosphorus
2018"Still lacks critical initial elements such as a work plan" (3 years)
2019"Work and sampling plans remain undone" (4 years)
2022"Nowhere near complete, no plan or schedule" (7 years)
2025No TMDL progress in permit rationale (10 years)
The legal conflict

40 CFR § 122.4(i): "No permit may be issued for a discharge which does not conform to an applicable TMDL."

TDEC cannot fail for a decade to implement mandated pollution reductions while simultaneously authorizing capacity expansions that enable more sewage generation in the impaired watershed.

HC — Harpeth Impaired Status HC — Franklin Sewer Alert (2022)
Section 7 — Track Record

Limestone's Compliance Record

2018: 68 violations — broken/corroded equipment, moldy tools, lab samples stored next to food.

2014–2024: Over $100,000 in TDEC fines.

2022: 29 violations (post-CSWR acquisition).

257,000+ Gallons of Raw Sewage (2025)

March: ~200,000 gal into Cartwright Creek / Harpeth River.

April: ~57,000 additional gallons.

July: Multiple overflow events, emergency response, public health warnings.

CSWR acquired December 2021 promising improvements. 3.25 years later: worst spills in facility history. Performance declined, not improved.

NC5 — Decade of Problems (Jul 2025) NC5 — Upgrade Plans (Oct 2025) WH — Commissioners Concern (Aug 2025)
Section 8 — Internal Contradiction

Collection System Failures & Line Extension Ban

What is I&I?
Inflow and Infiltration — rainwater and groundwater entering sewer pipes through cracks and deteriorated joints. Wastes treatment capacity on clean water and causes overflows in wet weather.
"The facility experiences operational problems due to… a large volume of extraneous water that enters the treatment plant via the municipal collection system (inflow and infiltration)."— TDEC Permit Modification Rationale, page MOD-2
"No new or additional flows shall be added upstream of any point in the collection system that experiences greater than 5 sanitary sewer overflows and/or releases per year…"— Draft Permit, Section 2.3.2(d)

With SSOs in March, April, and multiple July 2025 events, the facility exceeds the 5-SSO threshold. The same section requires new capacity be offset by documented I&I removal — no study or remediation plan appears in the rationale.

Self-contradicting permit
TDEC cannot acknowledge I&I, ban new flows to overflow-prone systems in the permit itself, and then authorize 80% expansion designed to enable new flows. Expanding without fixing the collection system means new capacity gets consumed by rainwater — and wet weather overflows get larger.
Section 9 — Administrative Law

Arbitrary and Capricious Agency Action

What does this mean?
Agencies must apply rules consistently. When similar situations get different treatment without rational explanation, courts can overturn the action as "arbitrary and capricious."

Franklin (excellent performer, 33% expansion) got strict conditions. Limestone (terrible performer, 80% expansion) gets none. For this to survive legal challenge, TDEC needs a rational basis for why the worse performer gets easier treatment. There isn't one.

Limestone discharges at RM 68.8, downstream of Franklin at RM 85.2 — cumulative impact makes stricter standards more necessary, not less.

Section 10 — Corporate Pattern

CSWR's Documented Multi-State Pattern

Limestone's problems are not isolated. A December 2025 Mississippi Today investigation documented CSWR customer complaints across six states with identical issues: dramatic rate increases (200–350% in 2–3 years) without proportional service improvements. This is a corporate-level pattern, not a local anomaly.

Tennessee
257K gal spills, 68 violations/yr, $100K+ fines, ~300 customer complaints
Mississippi
PSC denied rate increase. CSWR engineer testified about raw sewage in creeks.
Kentucky
AG "sincerely worried" about CSWR acquisition (2024)
Louisiana
Customer complaints on rates & service documented
Texas
"Brown, overly chlorinated water" — rate increases sought
Missouri / NC
Additional complaints in multi-state investigation

Food & Water Watch analysis shows privatized water rates increase at 3x inflation (avg 18% every 2 years). The ten largest privatizations (1990–2010) saw rates nearly triple in ~11 years. CSWR's 200–350% increases in 2–3 years dramatically exceed even this concerning benchmark.

CSWR's Own Engineer: Sworn Testimony

The most damning evidence comes from inside CSWR. Jacob Freeman, CSWR Engineering Director, testified under oath to the Mississippi PSC (December 2025):

Sworn Testimony — CSWR Engineering Director
"Lagoons where so much sludge accumulated that it breached the water's surface… At that point, you've taken up all the volume in the lagoon, so whatever small amount of treatment that Mother Nature could've provided originally is no longer happening, and raw wastewater is short-circuiting the lagoon, going out the back end… I'll find bloodworms or pathogens pouring into the receiving watershed. That's dumping into a creek where maybe kids play, or flows down into another body of water that could be recreational. It's a very, very bad situation." — Jacob Freeman, CSWR Engineering Director, Mississippi PSC (Dec 2025)

Freeman also testified that utilities not meeting limits "can choose to only be tested during suitable weather conditions when it's less likely to have a violation" — acknowledging strategic testing avoidance to hide non-compliance.

Why this matters for Limestone
This comes from CSWR's own employee, not external critics. It describes: (1) complete treatment failures at company facilities, (2) raw sewage and pathogens where children play, and (3) acknowledgment of strategic compliance gaming. If this is how CSWR describes its own facilities, what confidence can TDEC have in expanded Limestone operations?
WDRB — KY AG Concerns (Jul 2024) Food & Water Watch — Privatization Data
Section 11 — Regulatory Precedent

Mississippi PSC Denial

In February 2025, Mississippi's Public Service Commission voted 2-1 to deny CSWR's (Great River subsidiary) rate increase — a rare rebuke of a regulated utility.

"The service hasn't changed, but the rates went up extensively… As public service commissioners, we want to make sure that rate payers are getting what they're paying for."— Commissioner Chris Brown, Mississippi PSC (Feb 2025)
"We are on a fixed income and finding it difficult just to pay our debts and put food on the table and pay for gas and meds… I pray your office will deny this increase request."— Customer testimony, Mississippi PSC hearing
Parallel to Tennessee
Mississippi regulators concluded CSWR's rate increases were unjustified by service quality. The same logic applies: if CSWR can't demonstrate improved service after acquisitions and rate hikes, TDEC shouldn't trust that capacity expansion will produce improved environmental outcomes. Mississippi denied rates; Tennessee should deny expansion.
Section 12 — Benchmarking

National Performance Benchmarks

Limestone is an extreme outlier — not just locally, but nationally:

FacilityViolation RateContext
Limestone (2018)68/yrBroken equipment, moldy tools, improper lab procedures
Aqua NC — Beau Rivage~13.5/yr81 violations over 6 years. Considered troubled — still 5x better than Limestone's worst.
Franklin, TNNear zero"Consistently outperforming limits." Same river, municipal operator.
American Water99.9%Largest US private water utility. Industry benchmark.

Academic Research

A peer-reviewed study (Cambridge University Press, 2020) analyzing EPA data found:

"Privately owned PWSs may choose low-cost compliance actions to avoid high-cost actions… [and] can avoid fixing potential MCL and TT violations, both of which involve more costly penalty and stringent enforcement actions, while committing less costly MR violations."— Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Vol. 49 (2020)

Translation: private utilities may strategically under-test to avoid discovering expensive problems. This matches CSWR's own engineer's testimony about strategic testing avoidance.

Spill Magnitude in Context

While major metro failures involve far larger volumes (DC Water: 243M gal; LA: 12.5M gal), Limestone's 257,000 gallons is disproportionately massive for a 0.25 MGD plant serving ~450–600 homes. It represents more than a full day's treatment capacity released as raw sewage — indicating chronic operational failure, not an isolated event.

Cambridge — Private vs Public SDWA Study Port City Daily — Aqua NC Violations
Section 13 — Risk Analysis

Technology Complexity & Compounding Risk

The expansion doesn't just add volume — it replaces simple technology with complex technology, operated by a company that can't manage the simple version.

Factor 1
Operational Incapability

68 violations/yr, $100K+ fines, 257K gal spills — 3.25 years after acquisition. Baseline is failure.

Factor 2
Technology Jump

Simple extended aeration (1970s) → Aerobic Granular Sludge requiring chemical dosing, real-time ORP/DO/TSS/SVI monitoring, Grade IV certification (currently III).

Factor 3
Scale Multiplication

80% capacity increase + Nash Ridge & Adley subdivisions. Proportional failure at 0.45 MGD = ~463,000 gal potential spill.

Factor 4
Broken Infrastructure

I&I acknowledged, no study, no remediation. New capacity consumed by rainwater. Bigger wet weather overflows.

Factor 5
Impaired Receiving Water

21 years impaired for phosphorus. Zero margin. Spills directly harm failing ecosystem at RM 68.8.

Factor 6
Corporate-Wide Pattern

Six states, identical complaints. Own engineer's sworn testimony. MS PSC denial. KY AG concerns.

Extended Aeration vs. AGS

Extended aeration is simple, proven 1970s technology. Air is pumped into sewage; microorganisms break down waste. Forgiving of operator error.

Aerobic Granular Sludge (AGS) is advanced tech requiring precise chemical dosing, real-time multi-parameter monitoring, careful sludge management with backup haulers, and higher-certified operators. Better results when run correctly — but demands significantly more skill and investment.

The Compounding Equation

Incapable Operator + Complex Technology + Larger Scale + Broken Infrastructure + Impaired Waters + Corporate Pattern = Predictable Disaster

These factors multiply, not add. An operator who can't maintain simple technology should not be entrusted with advanced technology at 80% larger scale, discharging into an impaired river, with unresolved collection problems, backed by a company whose own engineer describes "a very, very bad situation." This is the mathematical consequence of observed performance projected onto increased complexity and scale.

Section 14

Full Timeline

1996Harpeth listed impaired for nutrients
2004Reclassified: impaired for phosphorus and low dissolved oxygen
2014HC files citizen suit vs. Franklin under Clean Water Act
2015New TMDL announced. Harpeth named Most Endangered River.
2017Franklin expansion permit (33%). HC appeals; strict conditions required.
2018Limestone: 68 violations. TMDL lacks work plan (3 yr).
2019Franklin: 58% P reduction demonstrated. HC dismisses appeal.
Dec 2021CSWR acquires Limestone, promises improvements
2022Limestone: 29 violations. TMDL "nowhere near complete" (7 yr).
Jul 2024CSWR files $9.5M rate increase. KY AG raises concerns about CSWR.
Feb 2025Mississippi PSC votes 2-1 to deny CSWR rate increase
Mar 2025~200,000 gal raw sewage into Harpeth River
Apr 2025~57,000 gal additional spill. ~300 customer complaints on rate case.
Jul 2025Multiple overflows. Public health warnings. Commissioners express concern.
Sep 2025TDEC proposes 80% expansion (public notice Sep 30)
Oct 2025Upgrade plans submitted. Comment period closes Oct 30.
Dec 2025Mississippi Today multi-state investigation published. CSWR engineer testifies to MS PSC.
Section 15

What We're Asking For

Primary: Deny the Permit

Each argument independently supports denial. The comparative evidence — across six states, from CSWR's own engineer, from Mississippi regulators — makes the case that failure is not just possible but predictable.

Alternative: Conditions Stricter Than Franklin

Because Limestone's performance is worse than Franklin's, conditions must be stricter:

36 months perfect compliance — zero violations, zero SSOs, full monitoring, independent third-party verification before construction begins.

Binding zero net increase with automatic suspension — total loading cannot exceed current levels; automatic permit suspension if exceeded.

Demonstrated 60%+ pollutant reduction through optimization before expansion authorized.

TMDL completion — waste load allocations established before expansion proceeds.

Comprehensive I&I remediation — documented removal ≥ 0.2 MGD before new connections.

Quarterly independent operational audits with publicly reported results.

$5M performance bond for emergency response costs.

Real-time public monitoring dashboard with SSO alerts.

Section 16

Sources & Verification Links

Every claim is traceable to publicly available sources. Click to verify.

News & Investigative Reporting

Environmental Organizations

Academic & Industry

Government & Legal

Supplementary Documents

Accessing TDEC permit documents
Available at TDEC Data Viewer — search permit TN0027278. Or email Water.Permits@tn.gov.

Make Your Voice Heard

Submit your public comment opposing NPDES Permit No. TN0027278 to TDEC Division of Water Resources

Email Your Comment to TDEC Sign the Petition