Texas has a huge water problem.

Water will be a very valuable resource in the future.

Springs and rivers do not run as much as they use too either. Not sure why.

txags92 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Forgot to bring this up....my wife read the other day that Robstown and Calallan now both have arsenic seeping into their water. I assume that is due to this drought issue but don't know for sure.

So that's not great, if true.

---

See if you can find out where she read about it and post a link. I highly doubt it is "seeping in". It is far more likely it is naturally occurring, but above the EPA MCL for arsenic, which is not uncommon in areas with higher total dissolved solids content in their groundwater. Lower levels of aquifer recharge due to drought can increase the TDS in an aquifer, so it could still be drought related.

---

Background Arsenic is always going to be an issue and think about how easy it is to fear monger the people with that dangerous element.

I agree with all of that. Just like any governance, there is potential for stupidity and abuse, usually both. But it is pretty clear that abuse can occur on the production side too with inappropriate volumes being withdrawn.

Reasonableness should be the order of the day and there isn't a whole lot of listening to reason right now from people that are listening to propaganda and not the science. It is understandable to a degree because like many things, a bumper sticker slogan is easier to understand than the complex science, not to mention the legal issues and rights of ownership that blanket the whole mess.

I will say that some of the protesting of the permits comes from agricultural irrigators who ironically, didn't seem to have the same level concern for their neighbor's wells when they began pumping as they are expressing for their own wells now. Same for the City of Sinton and their wells.

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

txags92 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Forgot to bring this up....my wife read the other day that Robstown and Calallan now both have arsenic seeping into their water. I assume that is due to this drought issue but don't know for sure.

So that's not great, if true.

---

See if you can find out where she read about it and post a link. I highly doubt it is "seeping in". It is far more likely it is naturally occurring, but above the EPA MCL for arsenic, which is not uncommon in areas with higher total dissolved solids content in their groundwater. Lower levels of aquifer recharge due to drought can increase the TDS in an aquifer, so it could still be drought related.

---

Background Arsenic is always going to be an issue and think about how easy it is to fear monger the people with that dangerous element.

---

What they will want to do is blame it on the cotton farmers. Arsenic acid was used for a couple of decades to defoliate cotton prior to harvest. Best of my knowledge, no one does it anymore, but they will try to blame it on "big corporate ag" because it is an easy target.

Burdizzo said:

---

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

txags92 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Forgot to bring this up....my wife read the other day that Robstown and Calallan now both have arsenic seeping into their water. I assume that is due to this drought issue but don't know for sure.

So that's not great, if true.

---

See if you can find out where she read about it and post a link. I highly doubt it is "seeping in". It is far more likely it is naturally occurring, but above the EPA MCL for arsenic, which is not uncommon in areas with higher total dissolved solids content in their groundwater. Lower levels of aquifer recharge due to drought can increase the TDS in an aquifer, so it could still be drought related.

---

Background Arsenic is always going to be an issue and think about how easy it is to fear monger the people with that dangerous element.

---

What they will want to do is blame it on the cotton farmers. Arsenic acid was used for a couple of decades to defoliate cotton prior to harvest. Best of my knowledge, no one does it anymore, but they will try to blame it on "big corporate ag" because it is an easy target.

---

I have a poster presentation scheduled at a conference in Ft Worth in late May dealing with this very topic...arsenic background studies and environmental forensics. It is for a site in Mississippi, but could just as easily be on the Texas gulf coast. In our case, we found it was not naturally occurring, nor was it regional cotton agricultural arsenical herbicide use. It is likely to be specifically related to military arsenical herbicide applied around a railroad spur over the course of a few decades.

Ag87H2O said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Ag87H2O said:

---

txags92 said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

The de-sal plant was cancelled by the sport fishing lobby.

Too much industry drawing too much water.

But most importantly, not enough rainfall on the Nueces River watershed (Bracketville, Carrizo Springs, Tilden).

---

I do understand the concerns. They're going to dump the brine in the Bay, not in the Gulf, and there's concern that it will cause the water to get TOO salty in the Bay and kill off a lot of fish...

We've been in a drought down here for quite awhile...water restrictions for years. I live on the island so I just have a rock yard, but I do have a pool...

I'm pretty sure the city council voted to continue on with the desal plant with their last vote...

---

Part of the issue is the confusion over which desal plant we are talking about. There was a brackish water desal plant that would have discharged brine to Petronila Creek was killed largely by sport fishing interests who were confused about what the brine would actually be like relative to the already saline creek water.

Then there is the fully permitted CC inner harbor seawater desal plant that was planning to discharge to the CC channel that was killed initially by social justice issues and people confused about why constantly adding capacity and complexity to a plant design would cause the cost to go up. That one is back looking for a new design contractor now that the city council has voted to restart the process with a new contractor. But the status of the very large loan they received from TWDB for the plant is unclear at this point.

There is another port funded seawater desal plant that has not been fully permitted yet that plans to discharge their brine offshore in the gulf. I have questions about that one's durability to ride out a hurricane given its location, but it seems to be the least controversial and most likely to be approved without trouble.

People keep hearing details about one of these plants and conflating it with what is happening with another. Each of the plants has unresolved questions about their potential ecological impacts, but at some point Corpus is going to have to accept that either they start down the path on one or more of the plants right now, or they face losing major employers and having to make dramatic choices about who gets what little water they have left and what it will cost. For all those who think groundwater is the answer, keep in mind that pumping shallow groundwater in large quantities along the coast will almost certainly cause subsidence and will also impact ag viability in the area as well. Here is a map of what large scale groundwater pumping did for the Houston Galveston Area over the last century. Keep in mind that the contours are in meters, so it is showing 6-10 feet of subsidence in some areas. How would Houston's recent flooding be different with some of those areas 6-10' higher than they are today?

---

Houston's subsidence problems were largely a problem created by the density of unregulated wells. They were pumping massive amounts of water out of relatively small areas. Many, many times the maximum allowed amounts for the Evangeline field for example which is also much lower well density.

---

For most of Houston's history, there was no such thing as a "regulated" well. But the large areas with the worst subsidence coincide with areas where large volumes of water were being extracted for use in refineries and petrochemical plants (Texas City, Ship Channel, etc) and areas where there was very dense historical O&G extraction from shallow formations (Goose Creek Field near Baytown). There are also two potholes associated with the City's main extraction and treatment plant down on the east side of downtown and the large Jersey Village area wells on the NW side of town. The combined extraction was more than the formations involved could yield without collapse of the matrix support in the formation, but it was just plain overuse and not some distinction between regulated and unregulated uses that was the main problem.

---

Most of the subsidence in Harris and Galveston counties occurred between the mid 40s' and mid 70s when Houston passed a million in population and 90% of the city water supply was from groundwater. Add in the refineries along the ship channel that all had massive wells for cooling/process water and the consumption for the region greatly exceeded the recharge and led to significant subsidence, especially in the Baytown/Channelview area. Now, 50 years after the formation of the subsidence district, Houston is roughly 90% treated surface water off Lake Houston and most of the big wells have been either shut down or permitted with restrictions on how much can be pumped. Because of that, subsidence has been stopped in some areas and greatly slowed down in most others. In fact, water levels have come back up in some areas of central Houston as much as 50-60 feet over the past 30 years.

The problem with groundwater districts IMO is the same as any other government bureacracy. Once they are established, they will never go away and the rules never get less restrictive. Eventually, that property right you own means nothing because the cost/restrictions in place in order to actually use it are so high it is not economically feasible to do so. 50 years later, HGSD not only regulates big wells, they regulate and permit all wells, even small residential ones that have virtually no impact on subsidence. But is doesn't matter to them. I know a lot of individuals that would have drilled a small private well for irrigation that said no because the usage was so restricted and expensive that the savings generated by using well water would never justify the up front cost of the well.

I'm not saying that no regulation is needed. Water is a valuable resource, and the more people move here, the tighter that supply is going to get. But there is a fine line between rules that prevent overutilization vs. ones that force underutilization and start getting into the taking of private property rights. Anytime government is involved be careful what you ask because eventually you're likely to get more than you bargained for. Just ask some of the property owners in Harris, Galveston, and Fort Bend Counties.

---

Yeah, that is why I said my concern was more for regional overuse and not about any specific project for GW use. You can stop the subsidence by reducing/stopping overpumping and GW elevations will recover, but the land surface elevations won't come back up.

The only reason the rule of capture ever became effectively the law of groundwater in Texas was because people had no understanding of how groundwater flow worked. The 1904 court language was "Because the existence, origin, movement and course of such waters, and the causes which govern and direct their movements, are so secret, occult and concealed that an attempt to administer any set of legal rules in respect to them would be involved in hopeless uncertainty, and would therefore be practically impossible".

We have a much better understanding and ability to predict the influences of wells and withdrawals on groundwater flow these days. So there is no reason to stick to the idea that one person can install a pump and withdraw as much as they want, even if it damages their neighbors. We can either regulate that at the state level, where local input will be very limited, or we can rely on locally elected groundwater conservation districts who are aware of and influenced by local concerns. I prefer to keep that kind of control local to the degree possible.

---

I am not saying there doesn't need to be some level of regulation, and I agree completely that it is better to regulate at the local level. Texas is too geologically diverse to have any one set of statewide rules apply to every region. What makes sense for one aquifer doesn't in another. I also agree that the science has improved tremendously over the past half century and that we have a lot better idea how aquifers are recharged, how water moves underground, and how withdrawals impact the aquifer. But it is still not perfect and there are a lot of things we still don't completely understand.

My warning is that the tendency for any government agency is to grow, regulate, justify its existence, and regulate more. It does not go backwards, and sometimes the pendulum swings too far. HGSD's was formed 50 years ago to prevent subsidence by regulating large municipal/industrial wells. Today they regulate every well, even small ones that have little to no impact on subsidence. Other GCDs are requiring extensive/expensive/time consuming hydrogeologic studies in order to obtain a permit. Corpus Cristi is not the only flashpoint currently going on in Texas. There is a big case going on in East Texas where a developer purchased water rights over a large tract, got the approvals from the GCD to move forward, drilled a couple of test wells, and is planning on drilling a good number of big wells intended for groundwater export to Fort Worth. Or at least was. Local folks got wind of what he was doing and raised a big stink, even though he followed the rules set out by the GCD. Turns out this area is in the district of the Chairman of the House Natural Resourced Committee and he has made it his mission in life to stop this project. I just listened to a 6-1/2 hour hearing of the committee, invited testimony only, and it sure sounded like me that there is going to be a push to either develop a statewide set of rules, or somehow force the white areas - counties without GCDs - to create them. He flat out said that if you are not part of the conversation now, I don't want to hear from you once we get into session.

Given the situation in Corpus and in East Texas, I expect groundwater issues to be front and center this next session in 2027.

---

One of the biggest fights that will be occurring going forward is over how much water is available within a GCD and how they define their Desired Future Condition (DFC) of the aquifers. As GCD's max out their permitted quantities against the amount available for pumping necessary to achieve the DFC, there will be deep pockets that want to do their own studies and modelling and go to court to challenge the TWDB models regarding how much can be pumped and still achieve the DFC, or whether the GCD is setting a realistic DFC.

Right now, one of the big weaknesses of the GCDs is they have little to no way to raise funds to defend their actions in court. So anybody with deep pockets can go to court and pretty much be assured the GCD will be forced to settle on favorable terms to the plaintiff by the lack of ability to retain effective legal counsel to fight for them. I expect to see some significant changes to the legal framework around them, and potentially a statewide fund or other mechanism setup to help them defend themselves and their regulatory actions.

Water is scarce in Texas already and it will only get moreso in the future. We can bury our heads in the sand and hide behind the "all government is bad and growing government is always worse" mindset, or we can recognize that we need a stronger mechanism in place to enforce good stewardship of a limited resource so that it remains useable by all of us in the future.

Texas needs to buy water rights from Minnesota and Canada and pipe it into our reservoirs.

Maybe we can re-open the Keystone pipe permits and get it built.

txags92 said:

---

Water is scarce in Texas already and it will only get moreso in the future. We can bury our heads in the sand and hide behind the "all government is bad and growing government is always worse" mindset, or we can recognize that we need a stronger mechanism in place to enforce good stewardship of a limited resource so that it remains useable by all of us in the future.

---

The problem is defining good stewardship. It may mean one thing to you and an entirely different thing to someone else. Landowners, businesses, agricultural interests, developers, recreational users, environmentalists, and regulators would likely all have a different definition.

Again, I'm not against sensible regulation, but regulations often go well beyond sensible. This country was built on private ownership of land and a high value of property rights. It's one of the primary things that makes us different from just about every other country on the planet. Be very careful thinking you or anyone else knows what is best for someone elses property, especially some government agency.

Regulations should be at the county level with elected representation. The state's only involvement should be data gathering, dissemination of that data, and unenforceable recommendations. Keep it local.

Ag87H2O said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Water is scarce in Texas already and it will only get moreso in the future. We can bury our heads in the sand and hide behind the "all government is bad and growing government is always worse" mindset, or we can recognize that we need a stronger mechanism in place to enforce good stewardship of a limited resource so that it remains useable by all of us in the future.

---

The problem is defining good stewardship. It may mean one thing to you and an entirely different thing to someone else. Landowners, businesses, agricultural interests, developers, recreational users, environmentalists, and regulators would likely all have a different definition.

Again, I'm not against sensible regulation, but regulations often go well beyond sensible. This country was built on private ownership of land and a high value of property rights. It's one of the primary things that makes us different from just about every other country on the planet. Be very careful thinking you or anyone else knows what is best for someone elses property, especially some government agency.

---

That is why I think local control by a strong GCD and a good regional planning group is better than trying to enforce a legislative set of standards out of Austin. Different parts of the state will have different ideas about how to address their needs and what is most important to them (see the 2025 interregional conflict between planning Regions C and D over the Proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir as an example). I hear what you are saying about property rights, but water is about to become more valuable than oil (even if we don't price it as such out of the tap) and Texas has a very strict set of controls about who owns how much of the oil under the land and how they are able to access it. Continuing to allow potentially wasteful or abusive pumping of an increasingly scarce and valuable resource based on private property rights or a 122 year old understanding of groundwater flow is not the answer to the increasingly dire situation we will be getting into with our water supplies in the future.

American Hardwood said:

---

Regulations should be at the county level with elected representation. The state's only involvement should be data gathering, dissemination of that data, and unenforceable recommendations. Keep it local.

---

That is what GCDs do. Put the decision making into local groups who are elected locally. County level control doesn't make sense scientifically because aquifers don't stop at county lines. I concur that they should be (and are right now) supported by data gathered and evaluated by state funded agencies. Something most people don't know is that the Texas Water Development Board is not a regulatory agency. They are not laying down plans or requirements on anybody. They facilitate the regional water planning process and develop the state water plans, but all of those plans and recommendations come directly from the regional planning groups that are made up of local officials and water agency personnel. Those plans are used to guide the money disbursed by the board to support local projects in response to applications submitted by the local entities (like the loan made to CC for the Inner Harbor Desal Plant).

txags92 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Forgot to bring this up....my wife read the other day that Robstown and Calallan now both have arsenic seeping into their water. I assume that is due to this drought issue but don't know for sure.

So that's not great, if true.

---

See if you can find out where she read about it and post a link. I highly doubt it is "seeping in". It is far more likely it is naturally occurring, but above the EPA MCL for arsenic, which is not uncommon in areas with higher total dissolved solids content in their groundwater. Lower levels of aquifer recharge due to drought can increase the TDS in an aquifer, so it could still be drought related.

---

Sounds isolated. No idea if this is minor or not.

https://www.kiiitv.com/article/news/local/arsenic-found-in-robstown-water/503-ace11a8a-664a-4f05-8175-3d9b375d7418

AgsMnn said:

---

Texas has a huge water problem.

Water will be a very valuable resource in the future.

Springs and rivers do not run as much as they use too either. Not sure why.

---

It's only going to get worse with the amount of data centers being built here. Abbott is fast tracking as many as he can before there is any oversight on data center construction. Right now it's just a free for all.

Interesting news release from the Nueces Groundwater Conservation District. Sorry it is FB, but that is where they put it out. Text below from the post, but I am not wasting my time fixing their screwy formatting.

ETA: I should have checked a little more, but it is what it is. There is no official Nueces County Groundwater Conservation District. This appears to be somebody who has started a facebook page with that name and is lobbying for its creation. A bit misleading IMO, but their data on GW pumping appears to be accurate and their supposition about the source of the arsenic in GW in Robstown (discussed earlier in the thread) appears valid at first glance.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE... - Nueces Groundwater Conservation District | Facebook

Quote:

---

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Response from the Proposed Nueces Groundwater
Conservation District (NGCD)
While the City of Corpus Christi's recent statement highlights investments in water infrastructure, it fails to address the most pressing concern for rural Nueces County residents: the lack of independent
groundwater oversight and the rapidly increasing reliance on local aquifers.
The City states groundwater will be "carefully managed." However, the available data raises serious
concerns that this isn't just more "smoke and mirrors".
Desperation Dictates Dangerous Decisions
The truth is the City's surface water system is deteriorating faster than originally projected.
Inflows into Choke Canyon Reservoir and Lake Corpus Christi have declined sharply, and updated drought modeling is expected to move the City's projected Level 1 Emergency water status forward
from November 2026 to potentially May or June.
<Fuzzy Math>
The Truth About the City's "New Water Supply"
The City's statement highlights a portfolio of projects that supposedly add 76 million gallons per day of new water supply.
But the reality today looks very different.
The truth is - much of what is being presented as "new supply" is more smoke and mirrors and fuzzy math than actual water currently available to the system.
Eastern Well Field - 10 MGD capacity - Has only been producing about 2-3 MGD on average until
last week
Western Well Field - 17 MGD capacity - Has never been in production
Ed Rachal Foundation
Well Field - 9 MGD capacity - Has never been in production
Evangeline Groundwater Project - 24 MGD -Has never been in production
Reclaimed Water Project - 16 MGD - Has not started and will take time for infrastructure build out
Inner Harbor Desalination - 30 MGD - Not a single drop of water produced
Harbor Island Desalination - 50 MGD - Likely a decade away from operation
In other words, the majority of the "new supply" being presented to the public does not currently exist as
usable water. The story that has been presented is a lot of work is being done even though there are little results to show.
When you remove the smoke and mirrors, the only "new water" actually flowing today is groundwater
from rural Nueces County.
The Truth About Groundwater Pumping
For most of the past year, the City has only been producing approximately 2-3 million gallons per day
(MGD) from the Eastern Well Field.
That relatively low production level helped create the overly optimistic water supply forecasts that
Corpus Christi Water has been presenting to City Council. <Fuzzy Math>
Now that drought realities are setting in, the response appears to be a rapid escalation in groundwater pumping.
Within the past week alone since Lake Corpus Christi dropped to a historic low below 10%, production has jumped into the 4-5 MGD range.
The Pumping Surge Is Real
February 2026 - 81.8 million gallons pumped - 2.92 MGD average
March 1-7 - 30.3 million gallons pumped in just seven days - 4.33 MGD average
That represents a 48% increase in groundwater pumping almost overnight.
On March 7 alone, the City pumped 5.34 million gallons in a single day.
This is no longer supplemental groundwater use.
This is emergency groundwater dependence. We are literally seeing a transition from surface water to groundwater that was sold to Council as a temporary gap measure.
Water Quality Is Already Trending the Wrong Direction
Before this recent pumping escalation began, the upstream baseline TDS measurement on October 11, 2025 (just 6 months ago) was 817 mg/L.
Since then, water quality indicators have steadily increased.
January 2026 - 1,218 mg/L downstream
February 2026 - 1,278 mg/L
March 2026 - 1,404 mg/L
Daily March readings have reached 1,575 mg/L.
These are their own numbers published on their website.
That means mineralization levels have climbed nearly double the upstream baseline in a short
six-month period.
Anyone familiar with this aquifer system understands what can follow when deeper or more mineralized
groundwater is pulled more aggressively:
Arsenic and other naturally occurring contaminants.
NCWCID3 that provides water for Robstown and RAWS uses the Nueces River as its sole source of
water supply.
NCWCID3 has had no violations of arsenic in the previous 13 years on record until the City's
groundwater program began. Now WCID has had 4 violations in a row.
Groundwater Production Already Exceeds Sustainable Levels
According to the Region N Water Planning process, the Modeled Available Groundwater (MAG) for
Nueces County is 6,787 acre-feet per year.
The City just publicly stated in their statement that they plan to expand groundwater production through multiple well fields that could raise withdrawals to approximately 40,325 acre-feet per year - nearly six times the sustainable groundwater allocation for the entire county.
This represents a major shift toward large-scale groundwater extraction from rural Nueces County
aquifers.
Rural Nueces County Still Has No Groundwater Protection
Unlike neighboring counties, most of rural Nueces County currently has no groundwater conservation district.
That means there are currently:
No pumping limits
No groundwater production permits
No aquifer monitoring requirements
No representation for rural landowners
The only people making decisions about rural groundwater today are the people pumping it.
Texas law is clear:
Locally governed groundwater conservation districts are the State's preferred method of groundwater management.
That is exactly why landowners petitioned the State to create the Nueces Groundwater Conservation
District (NGCD).
The City's Self-Regulation Plan Raises Serious Concerns
At the same time the City is expanding groundwater production, it has proposed placing its wells under the Corpus Christi Aquifer Storage and Recovery District (CCASRD) - an entity staffed and managed
by City employees and enabled via legislation with very limited scope to conduct ASR operations. "Inject extra water into the ground when there is a surplus and take it back out when it is needed"
This arrangement effectively allows the City to act as both the groundwater producer and the regulator,
raising significant conflict-of-interest concerns and undermining the independent oversight envisioned under Texas groundwater law.
Groundwater Must Be Managed for Everyone
Groundwater is not simply an emergency backup supply for one municipality.
It is a shared resource relied upon by:
Rural homeowners with private wells
Farmers and ranchers
Small communities across Nueces County
The Path Forward
The creation of the Nueces Groundwater Conservation District would provide the framework needed to
ensure:
Sustainable groundwater pumping
Monitoring of aquifer conditions
Protection of private property rights
Fair participation for rural communities and municipalities alike
A locally governed groundwater district would not prevent the City from accessing groundwater, but, it would ensure that groundwater development occurs within science-based limits and under
transparent public oversight.
Groundwater belongs to the people of Nueces County - not just one institution.
When reservoirs run dry, the solution cannot be to drill deeper and pump harder at the expense of rural aquifers.

---

Mayor of CRP has called for an emergency vote to approve the desalination plant construction(?) in order to get the $750M granted by the state.

I wasn't aware the states grant was that much. Is this the amount that was offered the first time they voted down the desalination plant?

YouBet said:

---

Mayor of CRP has called for an emergency vote to approve the desalination plant construction(?) in order to get the $750M granted by the state.

I wasn't aware the states grant was that much. Is this the amount that was offered the first time they voted down the desalination plant?

---

Yes, they had that loan in hand and ready to spend when the original vote not to proceed took place. They were in talks with the TWDB on whether it could be applied to other projects instead, but I don't know how far those talks went.

Wow, the sheer incompetence of Corpus Christi here is baffling. And they are still lying. Wow.

I mean they better pray for a hurricane.

Interesting article about that $750M loan...

Quote:

---

Abbott says Corpus Christi "squandered" $750 million in state water funds. Here's what the money actually is.

---

Another tidbit...

Quote:

---

Abbott also warned that the state may intervene directly. "We can only give them a little time more before the state of Texas has to take over and micromanage that city," he said, "to make sure that every resident who goes to the water tap and turns it on, they're going to be getting water out of their faucet."

---

txags92 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Mayor of CRP has called for an emergency vote to approve the desalination plant construction(?) in order to get the $750M granted by the state.

I wasn't aware the states grant was that much. Is this the amount that was offered the first time they voted down the desalination plant?

---

Yes, they had that loan in hand and ready to spend when the original vote not to proceed took place. They were in talks with the TWDB on whether it could be applied to other projects instead, but I don't know how far those talks went.

---

Exactly! That's why it was mind numbing to turn down the first proposal, then watch San Diego, CA approve the exact same design calling it the "most environmentally friendly deal play ever designed." Certain council members wanted the money diverted to their own pet projects. It's the CC way.

Twenty years ago a plant could have been built to plan for the needs of increased water usage and needs. Nothing. And yet here we are. You just can't make this stuff up.

Learn something new every day on this. Before now, I had never seen an article stating that Lake Texana was the primary water source. I've only ever read about CC Lake and Choke Canyon.

YouBet said:

---

Mayor of CRP has called for an emergency vote to approve the desalination plant construction(?) in order to get the $750M granted by the state.

I wasn't aware the states grant was that much. Is this the amount that was offered the first time they voted down the desalination plant?

---

The issue that killed the vote was an increase in the cost estimate for the plant. Originally estimated at $757M, it ballooned up to $1.2B. The city couldn't stomach that number and went to a groundwater alternate that was cheaper and faster to delivery. Desal is still in the long-term strategy as it should be, but I can't blame the city for not spending what it can't afford.

Lake Texana is NOT the primary water source and was never intended to be such. It was meant to help supply water for industry needs at levels of demand 25 years ago!

Ironically, my grandfather was local counsel for the Sierra Club, in the late 1960's to try to stop Palmetto Bend Damn from being built. They were staunchly in the corner of property owners rights, but before their time. There was a coastal Cypress Tree habitat that was unique and special, and it was flooded for the lake.! Today, it might have stopped the lake under modern environmental standards. Funny tidbit, FYI.

Desal is the only real solution.

YouBet said:

---

Learn something new every day on this. Before now, I had never seen an article stating that Lake Texana was the primary water source. I've only ever read about CC Lake and Choke Canyon.

---

I don't think Choke Canyon ever really served as a reservoir, it has barely ever had any water in it. Lake Mathis has just dwindled away to almost nothing because south Texas and watershed regions west continue to get drier and drier.

The Chicken Ranch said:

---

Lake Texana is NOT the primary water source and was never intended to be such. It was meant to help supply water for industry needs at levels of demand 25 years ago!

Ironically, my grandfather was local counsel for the Sierra Club, in the late 1960's to try to stop Palmetto Bend Damn from being built. They were staunchly in the corner of property owners rights, but before their time. There was a coastal Cypress Tree habitat that was unique and special, and it was flooded for the lake.! Today, it might have stopped the lake under modern environmental standards. Funny tidbit, FYI.

Desal is the only real solution.

---

Well, it is now according to KRIS. Hard to know what's true on this entire topic at this point.

American Hardwood said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Mayor of CRP has called for an emergency vote to approve the desalination plant construction(?) in order to get the $750M granted by the state.

I wasn't aware the states grant was that much. Is this the amount that was offered the first time they voted down the desalination plant?

---

The issue that killed the vote was an increase in the cost estimate for the plant. Originally estimated at $757M, it ballooned up to $1.2B. The city couldn't stomach that number and went to a groundwater alternate that was cheaper and faster to delivery. Desal is still in the long-term strategy as it should be, but I can't blame the city for not spending what it can't afford.

---

The main reason for the big rise in cost was the city increasing their request for the designed output. Not sure why they were surprised when the cost went up after they changed the design parameters.

txags92 said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Mayor of CRP has called for an emergency vote to approve the desalination plant construction(?) in order to get the $750M granted by the state.

I wasn't aware the states grant was that much. Is this the amount that was offered the first time they voted down the desalination plant?

---

The issue that killed the vote was an increase in the cost estimate for the plant. Originally estimated at $757M, it ballooned up to $1.2B. The city couldn't stomach that number and went to a groundwater alternate that was cheaper and faster to delivery. Desal is still in the long-term strategy as it should be, but I can't blame the city for not spending what it can't afford.

---

The main reason for the big rise in cost was the city increasing their request for the designed output. Not sure why they were surprised when the cost went up after they changed the design parameters.

---

Because they're a bunch of idiot Marxists who think everything is free.

Lol, that sounds like just about every project owner I've every dealt with.

But I'd like to see the backup data on these increased requirements and the cost impacts attributed to them because I haven't seen any stories out there that make this claim in any substantial way.

It may be because there is water in Texana. Not for long, lol!

The Chicken Ranch said:

---

It may be because there is water in Texana. Not for long, lol!

---

Everything upstream of Lake Texana looks terrible.

Burdizzo said:

---

FCBlitz said:

---

I stayed in down town Corpus Christie last year and I couldn't believe how neglected and underutilized all that real estate is. It looks liked a dead town square in a small Texas town after Walmart had opened up on the opposite side of town.

It just seemed sad. The homeless sleeping everywhere just crazy. They all were just sun baked.

---

It has been that way for several decades. It is like a miniature version of San Antonio. Lots of potential and lots of underperforming

---

Go hit up Arline or Staples St. You've never seen so much municipal neglect. Its a miracle peoples cars stay together on those roads

American Hardwood said:

---

Lol, that sounds like just about every project owner I've every dealt with.

But I'd like to see the backup data on these increased requirements and the cost impacts attributed to them because I haven't seen any stories out there that make this claim in any substantial way.

---

I can't find the articles to back it up, but I believe the first spec was for a 10 MGD plant and it was updated to 20 MGD in 2019, with a cost estimate in the mid $200M range. In 2024, they changed to a 30 MGD design and changed quite a bit of the power and utility requirements (bury all lines, etc) and the cost went to $757M due to the changes and the mammoth inflation between 2019 and 2024. Last year, Kiewit came in with a revised estimate of total cost up to $1.2B, and I am not sure what caused the growth from $757M to 1.2B (not sure Kiewit wanted to defend that either, hence not showing up at the council meeting). The newly selected team as of last month has come back with $978M or thereabouts.

Thank you all for this thread. I found it fascinating and did a deep dive on this subject. It's really sad when leadership lets you down this much. I feel for the residents of corpus

City of Corpus Christi voted to work on possibly building a desal plant at a CPS plant that seems like it would be a better option to me, with discharge of the brine well offshore much more easily feasible.

City moves forward with desalination proposal for the Barney Davis Power Plant

txags92 said:

---

City of Corpus Christi voted to work on possibly building a desal plant at a CPS plant that seems like it would be a better option to me, with discharge of the brine well offshore much more easily feasible.

City moves forward with desalination proposal for the Barney Davis Power Plant

---

I guess that's good news but all of this talk of "possibly" and "exploring" at a point when a decision for an actual solution should have already been made doesn't help much.

So they would pay for this on top of the inner harbor plan or in place of?