TexasLand USA Theme Park vs. Rural Texas: A Fight for the Land We Call Home
Deep Dive: Water in Waller County
Why TexasLand USA’s Biggest Obstacle Is Below the Surface
TexasLand USA frequently says they will “handle the water.” But in this part of Waller County, there is no municipal water or wastewater system to tie into. What exists instead is a stressed aquifer system, flood-prone creeks, and a river basin already carrying heavy regulatory and environmental burdens.
This page explains the real hydrology, permitting, and infrastructure constraints that make water one of the project’s most serious challenges.
Key Takeaways
- Water-intensive development is being proposed in an area without municipal utilities.
- Long-term water and wastewater solutions require new, complex permitting and infrastructure.
- Development is being promoted before long-term water infrastructure and funding are clearly established.
Groundwater Reality
Waller County’s rural and unincorporated areas rely almost entirely on private and commercial groundwater wells drawing from the Gulf Coast Aquifer System (primarily the Chicot, Evangeline, and Jasper formations).
Unlike cities with surface-water systems and interconnected utilities, this means new development directly competes with existing homes, farms, ranches and businesses for the same underground supply. This is why the absence of municipal water infrastructure at the site is not a minor detail — it is the central constraint.
Large-scale commercial pumping can accelerate drawdown and increase the risk of localized subsidence, particularly where development concentrates demand.
Because groundwater is finite and locally shared, pumping at this scale is not unregulated.
The Bluebonnet Groundwater Conservation District (BGCD) requires:
- Hydrogeologic studies
- Groundwater availability modeling
- Pumping permits with enforceable limits
The BGCD may deny or condition permits where groundwater supplies or neighboring wells may be impacted.
At the regional level, the Texas Water Development Board’s Region H Water Plan emphasizes long-term strategies to reduce reliance on groundwater due to documented depletion trends.
Together, these frameworks reflect a simple reality: groundwater is already under pressure, and large new demands face increasing scrutiny.
For nearby residents, declining water levels can translate into:
- Wells losing productivity
- Pumps needing to be lowered
- Deeper well drilling, often costing $20,000–$40,000 per household
Wastewater & the Brazos River Basin
Large-scale development does not just require water going in.
It also requires a reliable, permitted, long-term way to handle wastewater.
There is no existing municipal wastewater treatment infrastructure serving the proposed site. This is the same gap identified in the developer’s district-creation materials submitted to TCEQ.
That means any wastewater system would need to be:
- Newly designed and constructed
- Permitted through TCEQ
- Operated and monitored indefinitely
Because the site does not have direct access to the Brazos River, treated effluent would likely need to travel through smaller tributaries and drainage channels that eventually feed into the Brazos River basin.
These smaller creeks have less dilution capacity and are more sensitive to:
- Nutrient loading
- Bacteria
- Temperature changes
- Low-flow conditions during drought
The Brazos River basin already contains segments listed by the state as impaired for bacteria and nutrient-related concerns.
In practical terms, this means wastewater disposal is not simply an engineering task — it is a long-term environmental compliance challenge.
For surrounding communities, the risks can include:
- Odor and nuisance conditions
- Discharge exceedances
- Overflow events during major storms
- Ongoing enforcement and remediation cycles
Stormwater & Flooding
Flood risk at this site is driven by location first, and engineering solutions second.
When land is developed, natural ground that absorbs rainfall is replaced with roofs, pavement, and compacted surfaces.
This increases both the volume and speed of runoff.
Detention ponds are often presented as the primary stormwater solution for large developments.
But detention ponds have a specific limitation:
They delay water.
They do not remove water.
They cannot eliminate downstream flood risk in already low-lying, flood-prone watersheds.
The project area naturally drains toward Clear Creek and low-lying floodplains that experienced closures and overtopping during Hurricane Harvey.
Nearby neighborhoods — including Riverwood, Ranches of Clear Creek, and Creekside Nursery — have documented flooding history.
Compounding this:
- Texas A&M climate data show a 30–50% increase in extreme rainfall events
- Larger storms reduce the margin of safety built into detention-based designs
This means stormwater systems that look adequate on paper can be quickly overwhelmed in real-world conditions.
For downstream residents, increased runoff translates into:
- Higher flood frequency
- Longer drainage times
- Greater property damage risk
Drought & Demand
Water-intensive attractions require continuous water use for cooling systems, restrooms, food service, sanitation, and landscaping.
Unlike some industrial uses that can pause or scale back, theme park operations are designed to run every day and at high volume, including during drought conditions.
During droughts, groundwater levels drop and surface-water flows decline — shrinking the amount of water available for all users.
High-volume commercial pumping under these conditions places additional pressure on the same aquifers that supply nearby homes, farms, and small businesses.
This creates a structural imbalance:
Local residents are asked to conserve.
Large commercial systems continue operating.
Over time, this imbalance increases the risk of:
- Residential wells losing reliability
- Agricultural production constraints
- Escalating conflicts between users
In drought-prone regions, adding large new continuous-demand users makes existing water shortages harder to manage and more expensive to address.
Public Cost of “Private” Systems
Most people assume a “private project” pays for its own infrastructure. TexasLand USA’s filings illustrate why that assumption often fails in rural locations.
In Texas, that is often not how it works.
Texas law allows utility systems to later be transferred into special-purpose districts or improvement districts created to own and operate infrastructure.
This structure allows public-backed bonds and fees to finance infrastructure serving a single private development.
Once transferred:
- Operations, maintenance, and upgrades are funded by ratepayers and taxpayers
- Infrastructure debt is commonly financed through bonds repaid over decades
Public records show that TexasLand USA’s water and wastewater systems are still ideas on paper, not built and not fully funded.
This reflects a familiar pattern across Texas: large developments advance through early permitting phases while long-term utility financing, ownership, and operational responsibility remain unresolved.
In practice, this increases the likelihood that systems initially described as “private” are later converted into public or quasi-public obligations.
Environmental Contradictions
Waller County, regional partners, and the State of Texas invest public funds to reduce flooding, manage runoff, and protect waterways.
These efforts include:
- Flood mitigation projects
- Watershed planning
- Drainage improvements
The purpose of these investments is to reduce downstream risk and improve water quality.
At the same time, public agencies continue to approve large-scale private development that moves the system in the opposite direction.
Large-scale private development adds:
- Impervious cover
- Concentrated runoff
- New pollutant sources
This means taxpayer-funded projects designed to slow and manage water are occurring at the same time private projects are increasing the amount and speed of water entering the system.
The result is a built-in contradiction:
Public money works to reduce impacts.
Private development increases them.
In practical terms, this can cancel out the benefits of publicly funded mitigation and conflict with regional conservation and flood-reduction goals.
The Big Picture
TexasLand USA’s core problem is not project size. It is project location.
This proposed site lacks:
- Proximate municipal utilities
- Excess water capacity
- Hydrologic and drainage conditions suitable for large-scale development
- Low-risk wastewater discharge pathways
Notably, the City of Waller previously declined to move forward with TexasLand USA in part due to water-supply concerns.
That raises a simple question: what makes this proposed site — with even fewer utilities and less existing infrastructure — any better suited?
Placing a water-intensive attraction near existing municipal utilities would reduce many of these risks — but it would also eliminate the low-cost land advantage that drew developers to this site in the first place.
Put simply: the water problem isn’t just about nature.
It’s about sequence.
Development is being promoted first.
Water infrastructure and funding are being figured out later.
That order matters.
Across Texas, public conversations increasingly point to the same conclusion: water scarcity isn’t caused by one industry, but by growth approved without verified long-term water supplies.
