TCEQ executive director issues final decision letter
DRIPPING SPRINGS — Despite opposition from environmental groups and residents, a proposed concert venue near Dripping Springs could still be constructed after state officials reached a preliminary decision on the developer’s application regarding wastewater.
California-based company Blizexas LLC is proposing to build a 5,000-seat venue, known as the Rockingwall Ranch Event Venue, approximately 0.25 mile east of Crumley Ranch Road and Fitzhugh Road. In doing so, the developer submitted an application to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for a new permit to authorize the disposal of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average flow not to exceed 12,000 gallons per day through a subsurface area drip dispersal system (SADDS) with a minimum area of 2.75 acres of public access land. Blizexas also proposed to operate a wastewater treatment facility to serve the venue.
“We have been looking at the Austin area for a number of years,” said Bill LeClerc, director of real estate and investments for Lexor Investments, the parent company of Blizexas, in 2023. “We decided on this location because part of what is important to us is having a natural setting that we could build our concept in.”
Timeline
The project has received pushback from residents, including local group Stop Fitzhugh Concert Venue Coalition, since 2022. Several concerns have been brought forth, including the following: light and noise pollution; increased traffic, as the venue would be located off Fitzhugh Road, which is a narrow, winding road already; and the effect that the wastewater treatment facility and disposal site would have on Barton Creek.
There was a public meeting held by TCEQ officials at Dripping Springs Ranch Park in January 2024 that drew in 475 attendees, according to TCEQ’s online records, many of whom pleaded their case for the permit application to be denied, due to the environmental and safety concerns. However, prior to that, the first public meeting was held in November 2022.
Now, in February 2025, TCEQ Executive Director Kelly Keel prepared a written Response to Comments following the close of the public comment period, which ended at the close of the meeting held in January 2024.
In response to public comments, additional technical reviews and changes made to application materials, the executive director made the following changes to the draft permit.
• The applicant was required to move two of the proposed SADDS fields to maintain a 100-foot buffer setback from a roadside ditch on Fitzhugh Road. Additionally, the applicant agreed to move the northern two SADDS fields 25 feet from the property boundary.
• The applicant needs to plug any onsite abandoned water wells in accordance with 16 TAC 76 and supply copies of the plugging reports to TCEQ.
• Require the applicant to fill in and regrade an existing onsite stock tank prior to construction of the SADDS fields.
• Require a 25-foot setback between the edge of the SADDS fields and the northern property boundary, where no wastewater irrigation will occur.
• Require the installation of a minimum of seven suction lysimeters to sample any soil water present outside of the SADDS fields quarterly and test that water for several water quality parameters, including nitrate-nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl nitrogen, ammonia-nitrogen, total phosphorus, ortho-phosphate, chlorides, fecal coliform and specific conductivity.
• In the treatment process portion of the draft permit cover page and technical summary, the equalization basins were added, per request by the applicant.
Keel also issued a final decision letter March 3, 2025, that stated the permit application “meets the requirements of applicable law,” but the decision does not authorize construction or operation of any proposed facilities, rather it will be considered by the commissioners at a regularly scheduled public meeting “before any action is taken on this application, unless all requests for contested case hearing or reconsideration have been withdrawn before that meeting.”
According to the “protestant information” on TCEQ’s website, for this specific permit application, there have been a total of 14 requests for reconsideration/rehearing, 80 hearing requests, 89 public meeting requests, 405 written comments, 232 people added to the mailing list and 65 oral comments given at a public meeting.
Next steps
The 30-day period to request a reconsideration or contested case hearing on the application ended April 2. All timely filed requests for a contested case hearing and reconsideration will be considered by the TCEQ Commission at an agenda meeting, which has not yet been scheduled.
If any of the hearing requests are granted by the commission, the application will then be referred to the State Office of Administrative Hearings for a contested case hearing, which is similar to a civil trial, according to TCEQ.
To read the TCEQ executive director’s full response to comments and final decision letter, or to keep up-to-date on the permit application, visit www.bit.ly/42jnt5N.
