Opposition to the Limestone Wastewater Permit Expansion

What's at Stake

Limestone 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.[42] 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).[25] The facility discharges phosphorus and oxygen-depleting pollutants — the exact pollutants causing the impairment.

This site outlines core arguments and comparisons, including CSWR's documented issues in multiple states, Mississippi's regulatory rejection, national benchmarking data, and compounding technology risk. Each argument independently supports denial of the current modification request.

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 in 2021.[1] CSWR operates water/wastewater systems across a number of states. News sources report a documented pattern of acquiring failing systems, raising rates dramatically, and often failing to achieve proportional compliance improvements.[11]

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 multi-million dollar rate increase (TPUC Docket 24-00044).[43]

Key Laws

The Antidegradation Policy Interpretation

Tennessee's antidegradation framework creates tiers based on whether a river is healthy or struggling:[36]

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.[25]

The Dispute

TDEC argues that an 80% volume increase is OK because improved treatment concentration means no net increase in total mass of pollutants.[42]

Counterargument: The policy states in absolute language - "cannot authorize additional loadings". 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.

The 2017 'Zero Net Increase' Settlement (Case No. TN0028827) and Its Application to RM 68.8

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

If TDEC's current interpretation were applied to the Franklin expansion, Franklin's zero net increase commitment would have been unnecessary. That TDEC required it — for an excellent performer seeking a smaller percentage expansion — suggests TDEC historically read the policy more strictly than present. Regulatory consistency should be applied.

Mercury Load Exceeds 10% De Minimis Threshold (Ref: Permit Rationale MOD-5)

TDEC's own Permit Modification Rationale (page MOD-5) admits mercury exceeds the 10% de minimis threshold.[42]

Ten-Year TMDL Implementation Failure

Limestone's Compliance Record

2018: 68 environmental violations according to 2018 audit record — broken/corroded equipment, moldy tools, lab samples stored next to food.[1]

2014–2024: Over $100,000 in TDEC fines.[1]

2022: 29 violations (post-CSWR acquisition).[1]

CSWR acquired December 2021 promising improvements. 3.25 years later: worst spills in facility history.[1][2] Performance declined, not improved.

Collection System Failures

With multiple SSOs (Sanitary Sewer Overflows) in 2025 & 2026[2][18], the facility warrants a consent order and corrective action plan. The same section requires new capacity be offset by documented I&I removal — a comprehensive plan is needed to fix the leaking pipes and prevent further I&I problems.

A Question of Regulatory Consistency

In 2017, when the City of Franklin sought to expand its discharge on this same impaired reach of the Harpeth River, TDEC required a binding commitment to zero net increase in phosphorus loading, along with demonstrated operational improvements before expansion was authorized. The Harpeth Conservancy's formal permit appeal — which argued the permit as issued was arbitrary under Tennessee law — resolved with those conditions in place.[8][26]

Limestone is a minor discharger; Franklin is a major one. That distinction matters in many regulatory contexts. What is less clear is where, in the text of the antidegradation rule itself, facility size alters the obligation not to authorize additional loadings into an impaired water body — particularly at River Mile 68.8, which sits downstream of the point where strict upstream conditions were imposed.

The question that TDEC's permit rationale does not appear to address: if the basis for strict conditions upstream was the river's impaired status, what is the basis for different conditions downstream on the same impaired reach?

CSWR's Documented Multi-State Pattern

Limestone's problems are not isolated - News reports show CSWR-owned utilities have had major complaints and issues throughout the country. An April 2025 Mississippi Today investigation documented CSWR customer complaints across multiple states[11] with similar issues: dramatic rate increases (200–350% in 2–3 years) without proportional service improvements. This is a corporate-level pattern, not a local anomaly.

Food & Water Watch analysis shows privatized water rates increase at 3x inflation (avg 18% every 2 years).[28] 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.[11]

Testimony from CSWR's Own Engineer

According to Mississippi Today, Jacob Freeman, CSWR Engineer, testified to the Mississippi PSC (December 2024):[11]

The same Mississippi Today article mentioned that Freeman also stated that utilities not meeting limits "can choose to only be tested during suitable weather conditions when it's less likely to have a violation"[11]

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.[12]

National Performance Benchmarks

How Limestone stacks up compared to other utilities:

Academic Research on Private Utilities

A peer-reviewed study (Cambridge University Press, 2020) analyzing EPA data found:[31]

In regards to private utility operators in general, this study points out that private utilities may strategically under-test to avoid discovering expensive problems.

Spill Magnitude in Context

While major metro failures involve far larger volumes (DC Water: 243M gal; LA: 12.5M gal), Limestone's 257,000 gallon (Mar/Apr '25)[2] and reported 300,000 gallon spills (July '25)[18] are 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 — this shows a history chronic operational failure.

Technology Complexity & Compounding Risk

The expansion doesn't just add volume — it replaces simple technology with complex technology, operated by a company with a poor track record managing the simple version.

Approximate Timeline of Events

The Asks

Primary: Deny the Permit As-Is

Each argument independently supports denial. The comparative evidence — across six states, from CSWR's own engineer[11], from Mississippi regulators[12], from Limestone's history of spills and issues[1][2] — makes the case that additional protections are needed.

Modify the Permit: Protect River Rest and the Environment

Limestone's performance record compels strict conditions:[8]

24-36 months perfect compliance — zero violations, zero SSOs, full monitoring, independent third-party verification.

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

Permanent Onsite Facility Operator - facility must be staffed and agree to self-report issues immediately

Ensure Quality of Life for River Rest Residents - require noise abatement strategies, ensure sewage smells are contained, reduce height of the proposed tower to remain below tree line.

Repair and Maintain Recreation Road - reverse damage done by waste removal trucks and agree to keep the road in good condition moving forward.

Demonstrated 60%+ pollutant reduction through optimization before expansion authorized.[8][23]

TMDL completion — waste load allocations established before expansion proceeds.[39]

Comprehensive I&I remediation — documented removal ≥ 0.2 MGD before new connections.[42]

Quarterly independent operational audits with publicly reported results.

Sources & Links

Numbered sources correspond to superscript citations throughout this document. Click any citation number in the text to jump to the entry below. Video entries sharing a number with a written source are indicated with a ▶ symbol.