txags92 said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

This is very broad and generally true most of the time, but there are exceptions.

First, the water under your property is a vested property right, but its not owned in place like oil, gas, and other minerals. Texas groundwater is governed by the Rule of Capture, which means if you can pump it out of the ground, it's yours. That can create problems if you have a bunch of high water users move in and put in a bunch of wells. You start lowering the water level, wells run dry, subsidence occurs, brackish water intrusions into the water, etc., and other bad things start to happen. To help prevent over-extraction of water, many areas have formed Groundwater Conservation Districts that can issue regulations, permits, etc., to manage the resource.

---

The problem is...and this is going to get political...the local voters distrust government and dont want a water district.

---

And the problem with that is that under current state law, only a groundwater conservation district can stop somebody from coming in next door and installing a bigger pump. Under existing state case law around the rule of capture, if the city installs a bunch of wells next door and pumps the aquifer dry the surrounding landowners have no recourse against them. There is no law that can stop them and no avenue to gather civil penalties for it. If the act of running their wells dry was not done maliciously with intent to harm them by CC, they cannot recover damages for it.

Nobody wants a HOA either until the neighbor parks a set of rusty mobile homes on his lot and starts renting them out by the week as a post-prison halfway house release point. Sometimes government is neither desired nor trusted, but that doesn't mean it isn't sometimes needed as well.

---

We have a historic precedent in Texas: the Texas Railroad. Not exactly the same but the TRRC was created in part to deal with the overproduction of oil in the east Texas field(s) and to try and to inject some practical reality into exploration and production. Rule of capture still applies but you have to comply with the regulations promulgated by the TRRC before you get to capture.

Surely there's something the state can do about this looking to the model of the TRRC.

Red Fishing Ag93 said:

---

Aggie95 said:

---

We are sending rockets up in the air and landing them on small platforms, microchips are getting faster and smaller...we are seeing technology advances all over the place. I find it hard to believe we can't achieve desalination in a faster, more economical way going forward.

Also, what are the current goals of desalination...are they trying to make it too "pure"....i.e. drinking water? Can they not make it to a level that can be used for certain industries?

---

Because gubmunt.

I'm convinced these leaders want an emergency so they can garner huge sums of money and green light fraud contracts/payouts without the bidding process.

---

Good point. Or most of these "leaders" have absolutely no business experience so their understanding of large scale projects is nil. Therefore they make really dumb decisions.

SanAntoneAg said:

---

fullback44 said:

---

Corpus has basically punted this issue down the road over the years only to be bailed out by rains that allowed them to further delay the issue… something tells me the recent rains may once again bail them out. They are not out of the woods yet but at least the rain picture is looking better.

---

The recent rains have been minimal and literally done nothing to improve the situation.

Water levels at Mathis and Choke are currently less than they were a month ago.

---

It's not too late for the rains to fill those lakes - it could and will happen eventually, if these rain storms keep coming through maybe it happens sooner than later? But it seems like it will never happen. I've been on Choke plenty of times - almost sunk a little boat when we were younger because the water was so high. That area really needs a slow moving tropical storm this summer -haven't had one in a while.

One important tip for saving water:

Bathe with your neighbor's wife.

fullback44 said:

---

SanAntoneAg said:

---

fullback44 said:

---

Corpus has basically punted this issue down the road over the years only to be bailed out by rains that allowed them to further delay the issue… something tells me the recent rains may once again bail them out. They are not out of the woods yet but at least the rain picture is looking better.

---

The recent rains have been minimal and literally done nothing to improve the situation.

Water levels at Mathis and Choke are currently less than they were a month ago.

---

It's not too late for the rains to fill those lakes - it could and will happen eventually, if these rain storms keep coming through maybe it happens sooner than later? But it seems like it will never happen. I've been on Choke plenty of times - almost sunk a little boat when we were younger because the water was so high. That area really needs a slow moving tropical storm this summer -haven't had one in a while.

---

Gotta happen before it's too late though. Dead pool approaching pretty quickly.

Lakes are down to 8% at last measurement.

Good luck with the whole hoping for a tropical system thing

El Niño is setting in, which usually means hurricane suppression during the summer and fall

Hopefully it will bring a wet winter though

We'll see

fullback44 said:

---

Corpus has basically punted this issue down the road over the years only to be bailed out by rains that allowed them to further delay the issue… something tells me the recent rains may once again bail them out. They are not out of the woods yet but at least the rain picture is looking better. Something tells me they will get bailed out.

Of course none of this addresses the issue other than putting a band aid on the water problem . They need to suck it up, build a desal plant and discharge back into the ocean.. quit F ing around w this. I think one of the real problems is the amount of fresh water those refineries need… it's a real problem no one wants to tackle

---

It's raining here today...and looks like a good amount of rain north of here, hopefully all over our watershed.

And you're right, they have been kicking the can down the road for years.

YouBet said:

---

SanAntoneAg said:

---

fullback44 said:

---

Corpus has basically punted this issue down the road over the years only to be bailed out by rains that allowed them to further delay the issue… something tells me the recent rains may once again bail them out. They are not out of the woods yet but at least the rain picture is looking better.

---

The recent rains have been minimal and literally done nothing to improve the situation.

---

It also has to rain over the two lakes or it's pointless.

---

Well, it looks like Lake Corpus Christi/Mathis and Choke Canyon are getting some good rain right now...

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

txags92 said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

This is very broad and generally true most of the time, but there are exceptions.

First, the water under your property is a vested property right, but its not owned in place like oil, gas, and other minerals. Texas groundwater is governed by the Rule of Capture, which means if you can pump it out of the ground, it's yours. That can create problems if you have a bunch of high water users move in and put in a bunch of wells. You start lowering the water level, wells run dry, subsidence occurs, brackish water intrusions into the water, etc., and other bad things start to happen. To help prevent over-extraction of water, many areas have formed Groundwater Conservation Districts that can issue regulations, permits, etc., to manage the resource.

---

The problem is...and this is going to get political...the local voters distrust government and dont want a water district.

---

And the problem with that is that under current state law, only a groundwater conservation district can stop somebody from coming in next door and installing a bigger pump. Under existing state case law around the rule of capture, if the city installs a bunch of wells next door and pumps the aquifer dry the surrounding landowners have no recourse against them. There is no law that can stop them and no avenue to gather civil penalties for it. If the act of running their wells dry was not done maliciously with intent to harm them by CC, they cannot recover damages for it.

Nobody wants a HOA either until the neighbor parks a set of rusty mobile homes on his lot and starts renting them out by the week as a post-prison halfway house release point. Sometimes government is neither desired nor trusted, but that doesn't mean it isn't sometimes needed as well.

---

We have a historic precedent in Texas: the Texas Railroad. Not exactly the same but the TRRC was created in part to deal with the overproduction of oil in the east Texas field(s) and to try and to inject some practical reality into exploration and production. Rule of capture still applies but you have to comply with the regulations promulgated by the TRRC before you get to capture.

Surely there's something the state can do about this looking to the model of the TRRC.

---

We have had the capability to understand the hydrogeology for well over half a century and the ability to sanely regulate the groundwater pumping about the same. What we have lacked is the political will to change the status quo. There are a lot of very entrenched interests that don't want to see a change in the rule of capture. Groundwater conservation districts are a baby step, but in reality they are pretty powerless due to the lack of any significant funding to deal with lawsuits when they get sued?

YouBet said:

---

fullback44 said:

---

SanAntoneAg said:

---

fullback44 said:

---

Corpus has basically punted this issue down the road over the years only to be bailed out by rains that allowed them to further delay the issue… something tells me the recent rains may once again bail them out. They are not out of the woods yet but at least the rain picture is looking better.

---

The recent rains have been minimal and literally done nothing to improve the situation.

Water levels at Mathis and Choke are currently less than they were a month ago.

---

It's not too late for the rains to fill those lakes - it could and will happen eventually, if these rain storms keep coming through maybe it happens sooner than later? But it seems like it will never happen. I've been on Choke plenty of times - almost sunk a little boat when we were younger because the water was so high. That area really needs a slow moving tropical storm this summer -haven't had one in a while.

---

Gotta happen before it's too late though. Dead pool approaching pretty quickly.

Lakes are down to 8% at last measurement.

---

My Dad's lake (Medina Lake) is super full right now...it's at 3.8%...

It was down to 2% awhile back.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

txags92 said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

This is very broad and generally true most of the time, but there are exceptions.

First, the water under your property is a vested property right, but its not owned in place like oil, gas, and other minerals. Texas groundwater is governed by the Rule of Capture, which means if you can pump it out of the ground, it's yours. That can create problems if you have a bunch of high water users move in and put in a bunch of wells. You start lowering the water level, wells run dry, subsidence occurs, brackish water intrusions into the water, etc., and other bad things start to happen. To help prevent over-extraction of water, many areas have formed Groundwater Conservation Districts that can issue regulations, permits, etc., to manage the resource.

---

The problem is...and this is going to get political...the local voters distrust government and dont want a water district.

---

And the problem with that is that under current state law, only a groundwater conservation district can stop somebody from coming in next door and installing a bigger pump. Under existing state case law around the rule of capture, if the city installs a bunch of wells next door and pumps the aquifer dry the surrounding landowners have no recourse against them. There is no law that can stop them and no avenue to gather civil penalties for it. If the act of running their wells dry was not done maliciously with intent to harm them by CC, they cannot recover damages for it.

Nobody wants a HOA either until the neighbor parks a set of rusty mobile homes on his lot and starts renting them out by the week as a post-prison halfway house release point. Sometimes government is neither desired nor trusted, but that doesn't mean it isn't sometimes needed as well.

---

We have a historic precedent in Texas: the Texas Railroad. Not exactly the same but the TRRC was created in part to deal with the overproduction of oil in the east Texas field(s) and to try and to inject some practical reality into exploration and production. Rule of capture still applies but you have to comply with the regulations promulgated by the TRRC before you get to capture.

Surely there's something the state can do about this looking to the model of the TRRC.

---

San Diego solved this problem with desalination.

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/climate-environment/san-diego-now-has-so-much-water-that-its-selling-it-527186fb

txags92 said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

txags92 said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

This is very broad and generally true most of the time, but there are exceptions.

First, the water under your property is a vested property right, but its not owned in place like oil, gas, and other minerals. Texas groundwater is governed by the Rule of Capture, which means if you can pump it out of the ground, it's yours. That can create problems if you have a bunch of high water users move in and put in a bunch of wells. You start lowering the water level, wells run dry, subsidence occurs, brackish water intrusions into the water, etc., and other bad things start to happen. To help prevent over-extraction of water, many areas have formed Groundwater Conservation Districts that can issue regulations, permits, etc., to manage the resource.

---

The problem is...and this is going to get political...the local voters distrust government and dont want a water district.

---

And the problem with that is that under current state law, only a groundwater conservation district can stop somebody from coming in next door and installing a bigger pump. Under existing state case law around the rule of capture, if the city installs a bunch of wells next door and pumps the aquifer dry the surrounding landowners have no recourse against them. There is no law that can stop them and no avenue to gather civil penalties for it. If the act of running their wells dry was not done maliciously with intent to harm them by CC, they cannot recover damages for it.

Nobody wants a HOA either until the neighbor parks a set of rusty mobile homes on his lot and starts renting them out by the week as a post-prison halfway house release point. Sometimes government is neither desired nor trusted, but that doesn't mean it isn't sometimes needed as well.

---

We have a historic precedent in Texas: the Texas Railroad. Not exactly the same but the TRRC was created in part to deal with the overproduction of oil in the east Texas field(s) and to try and to inject some practical reality into exploration and production. Rule of capture still applies but you have to comply with the regulations promulgated by the TRRC before you get to capture.

Surely there's something the state can do about this looking to the model of the TRRC.

---

We have had the capability to understand the hydrogeology for well over half a century and the ability to sanely regulate the groundwater pumping about the same. What we have lacked is the political will to change the status quo. There are a lot of very entrenched interests that don't want to see a change in the rule of capture. Groundwater conservation districts are a baby step, but in reality they are pretty powerless due to the lack of any significant funding to deal with lawsuits when they get sued?

---

Thanks for your thoughtful response!

YouBet said:

---

SanAntoneAg said:

---

fullback44 said:

---

Corpus has basically punted this issue down the road over the years only to be bailed out by rains that allowed them to further delay the issue… something tells me the recent rains may once again bail them out. They are not out of the woods yet but at least the rain picture is looking better.

---

The recent rains have been minimal and literally done nothing to improve the situation.

---

It also has to rain over the two lakes or it's pointless.

---

Rain waters yards. It takes floods with runoff to fill lakes

And raining over those two lakes isn't going to do much. It will take flooding in the Nueces (Lake Corpus) and Frio (Choke) drainage basin to move the needle

That means ALOT of runoff in Uvalde, Real, McMullen, Zavala, Frio, and several other counties

Here's a map. This area above L. Corpus and Choke needs A LOT of water, really soon

I'm late to this thread... I lived in S Texas for almost a decade; 08--17. While in Beeville i was elected to sit on the local water supply district board which oversaw our water operations at Lake Corpus Christi.

But... Beyond that I started watching all of the gauges and rainfall in the relevant watershed's. I still do. I am of the opinion that due to multiple factors those are ALL dead rivers. The Nueces, the Frio, Sabinal, Seco Creek, the Medina... They're all dead or dying. I've observed the Frio gauge at US90 flow ONCE since 07. The water didn't make it to Choke Canyon.

Landuse changes... 200 years ago the hill country was rolling grassland not rocky hills. Now we're cutting multi thousand acre tracts up into progressively smaller ranchitos and all of these are using ground water. Then there's the Ash Juniper, aka "cedar" that is horribly water inefficient. With the groundwater stress in the hill country North of the Balcones combined with agricultural uses in the Pearsall, Dilley,Tilden area... Those lakes were destined to dry up.

Edit... Typos

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

I'm late to this thread... I lived in S Texas for almost a decade; 08--17. While in Beeville i was elected to sit in the local water supply district board which oversaw our water operations at Lake Corpus Christi.

But... Beyond that I started watching all of the gauges and rainfall in the relevant watershed's. I still do. I am off the opinion that due to multiple factors those are ALL dead rivers. The Nueces, the Frio, Sabinal, Seco Creek, the Medina... They're all dead or dying. I've observed the Frio gauge at US90 for ONCE since 07. The water didn't make it to Choke Canyon.

Landuse changes... 200 years ago the hill country was rolling grassland not rocky hills. Now we're cutting multi thousand acre tracts up into progressively smaller ranchitos and all I've these are using ground water. Then there's the Ash Juniper, aka "cedar" that is horribly water inefficient. With the groundwater stress in the him country North of the Balcones combined with agricultural uses in the Pearsall, Dilley,Tilden area... Those lakes were destined to dry up.

---

Yep

Ever see "Dances With Wolves"? In particular, the landscape? That's pretty much what Texas West of 35 and north of Uvalde looked like

Cedars weren't in the area

Need water pipelines just like all of the oil/ natural gas pipelines we have. Plenty of water in rural Houston area counties to be pumped so build the new pipelines from here to Corpus. Landowners can sell water to the pipelines. Dollars per foot do the math. What's cheaper/ less destructive? Desal plants or pipelines?
Depending on water from the North and West of CC isn't working too good. Go East/ NE.
Houston area flood water goes into the gulf of America. Easy to capture and pipe. 50 plus inch annual rainfall, not to mention all of the Trinity Water/ Dallas runoff picked up by the CWA canals. Plenty of excess wasted water we could pipe to CC.

Agree to an extent. The plan has typically been to get water from where there is water to where they need water. DFW and NE Texas are exhibit A. The cost is a barrier. I know we worked on a 48 mile pipeline (84" and 96" diameter), gravity fed and it was over $300 million in 2011. No telling the cost now. Point being is there needs to be enough political support to invest $$ billions in this type of solution.

oldag941 said:

---

Agree to an extent. The plan has typically been to get water from where there is water to where they need water. DFW and NE Texas are exhibit A. The cost is a barrier. I know we worked on a 48 mile pipeline (84" and 96" diameter), gravity fed and it was over $300 million in 2011. No telling the cost now. Point being is there needs to be enough political support to invest $$ billions in this type of solution.

---

Hehehehe

oldag941 said:

---

Agree to an extent. The plan has typically been to get water from where there is water to where they need water. DFW and NE Texas are exhibit A. The cost is a barrier. I know we worked on a 48 mile pipeline (84" and 96" diameter), gravity fed and it was over $300 million in 2011. No telling the cost now. Point being is there needs to be enough political support to invest $$ billions in this type of solution.

---

Funny you mention, and I hope you're sitting down

$174 Billion is the April 2026 estimate

More than double the 2022 estimate

And who knows if that's even enough

Bottom line is there ain't a plan

The DFW/NE Texas thing is doubly complicated because many of DFWs ideas on where to get their water come from resources that are in a different water planning region (DFW is C, NE Texas is D). Saying that NE Texas isn't eager to sign up for letting DFW suck them dry and bury a lot of their land under reservoirs is putting it quite mildly. There was a formal interregional conflict declared between those two regions in the last water planning cycle that had to go to mediation over the future of the Marvin Nichols Reservoir plan. The location would be in D, but it would serve almost exclusively users in C.

Just being silly here….why could they not buy a couple of oil tankers, fill them with water rather than oil, and bring them in to Corpus ? How many per day or week would Corpus area need to satisfy requirements? Would that be cheaper than the pipeline? Could always reconfigure to carry oil after drought breaks !

Brush Country Ag said:

---

Just being silly here….why could they not buy a couple of oil tankers, fill them with water rather than oil, and bring them in to Corpus ? How many per day or week would Corpus area need to satisfy requirements? Would that be cheaper than the pipeline? Could always reconfigure to carry oil after drought breaks !

---

Other than oil is lighter than water, that's not a terrible question

Far from "silly"

The property owners are calling it "Medina Meadows."

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

If we're doing the math... We need to be recognizing that water is far more valuable than we charge for it.

---

Up here in the Panhandle, we have the Ogallala. Without irrigation, it would basically last as long as we need it. With irrigation, we are drawing it down quickly. At some point we might need to use rainwater for household use. And some years, it hardly rains at all.

A few years ago, one local and influential farmer said something like "Our descendents will think we are the stupidest sob's ever for using so much groundwater to raise $4 wheat.

At the moment, I think it quit a bit lower than that.

eric76 said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

If we're doing the math... We need to be recognizing that water is far more valuable than we charge for it.

---

Up here, we have the Ogallala.

A few years ago, one local and influential farmer once said like "Our descendents will think we are the stupidest sob's ever for using so much groundwater to raise $4 wheat.

---

And they'll be right

The Ogallala is toast, and with it, the Texas high plains and panhandle

The ogallala is shallow and y'all are pumping out water that's been there for 1000 years. It will be depleted in Texas in the next few years

Captain Pablo said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

If we're doing the math... We need to be recognizing that water is far more valuable than we charge for it.

---

Up here, we have the Ogallala.

A few years ago, one local and influential farmer once said like "Our descendents will think we are the stupidest sob's ever for using so much groundwater to raise $4 wheat.

---

And they'll be right

The Ogallala is toast, and with it, the Texas high plains and panhandle

The ogallala is shallow and y'all are pumping out water that's been there for 1000 years. It will be depleted in Texas in the next few years

---

One problem with the Ogallala is that replenishment is incredibly slow. There is supposedly one part of Kansas where it does actually replenish, but I think that in most places, it is a small fraction of an inch a year.

We were one of the first in my area to put in an irrigation well but with the cost of running it and the writing on the wall of the future, we shut our irrigation well down years ago and have been farming dry land ever since.

I think that the eventual answer will be to collect rainwater for household use. I have a nephew who is vehemently opposed to this -- he thinks that it should all go into creeks and rivers.

techno-ag said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

txags92 said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

This is very broad and generally true most of the time, but there are exceptions.

First, the water under your property is a vested property right, but its not owned in place like oil, gas, and other minerals. Texas groundwater is governed by the Rule of Capture, which means if you can pump it out of the ground, it's yours. That can create problems if you have a bunch of high water users move in and put in a bunch of wells. You start lowering the water level, wells run dry, subsidence occurs, brackish water intrusions into the water, etc., and other bad things start to happen. To help prevent over-extraction of water, many areas have formed Groundwater Conservation Districts that can issue regulations, permits, etc., to manage the resource.

---

The problem is...and this is going to get political...the local voters distrust government and dont want a water district.

---

And the problem with that is that under current state law, only a groundwater conservation district can stop somebody from coming in next door and installing a bigger pump. Under existing state case law around the rule of capture, if the city installs a bunch of wells next door and pumps the aquifer dry the surrounding landowners have no recourse against them. There is no law that can stop them and no avenue to gather civil penalties for it. If the act of running their wells dry was not done maliciously with intent to harm them by CC, they cannot recover damages for it.

Nobody wants a HOA either until the neighbor parks a set of rusty mobile homes on his lot and starts renting them out by the week as a post-prison halfway house release point. Sometimes government is neither desired nor trusted, but that doesn't mean it isn't sometimes needed as well.

---

We have a historic precedent in Texas: the Texas Railroad. Not exactly the same but the TRRC was created in part to deal with the overproduction of oil in the east Texas field(s) and to try and to inject some practical reality into exploration and production. Rule of capture still applies but you have to comply with the regulations promulgated by the TRRC before you get to capture.

Surely there's something the state can do about this looking to the model of the TRRC.

---

San Diego solved this problem with desalination.

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/climate-environment/san-diego-now-has-so-much-water-that-its-selling-it-527186fb

---

Here's your answer, it's right in front of everyone yet they keep kicking the can down the road because those 2 lakes tend to fill up "somewhat" every few years. Put in the desal plant and sell your excess water other places.

Brush Country Ag said:

---

Just being silly here….why could they not buy a couple of oil tankers, fill them with water rather than oil, and bring them in to Corpus ? How many per day or week would Corpus area need to satisfy requirements? Would that be cheaper than the pipeline? Could always reconfigure to carry oil after drought breaks !

---

In February 2026, the City of Corpus Christi used 2,750,000,000 gallons of raw water.

Lets assume crude oil is 7.0 lbs per gallon (average is 6.5 to 8.5).
Water weighs 8.3

VLCC (Very Large Crude Carrier) can carry 2 million barrels or 84,000,000 gallons.
Doing the math that would be roughly 70,843,373 gallons for an equivalent weight of water. Obviously if you completely fill the ships oil tanks with water... bad things happen.

That IS a lot of water. But you'd need 39 of them for February alone. Keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of Corpus' water already comes from the Mary Rhodes pipeline; Phase I moves water from Lake Texana and Phase II moves water from the Colorado River in Garwood.

Edit for an extra zero typo mentioned below. The math still looks correct.

I think you have an extra zero in your tanker capacity gallons value. Should be 84,000,000. But your point stands otherwise.

Thanks. Fixed. Pretty sure I did the math right but typed it wrong.

txags92 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

txags92 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

txags92 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

YouBet said:

---

knoxtom said:

---

YouBet said:

---

My question on this is why industry hasn't gotten the federal government involved. 50% of the oil exported from the USA to other countries comes out of Corpus. That's kind of a big deal.

Maybe that can be diverted elsewhere easily when industry takes a 25% cut of their water here in a few months and then more than that when this isn't solved? I don't know.

I know Trump made a comment about helping Corpus when he was here last week but who knows what that means, if anything. Regardless, any solution is going to take years to implement.

---

You think Trump is going to help Corpus at the expense of Austin, San Antonio, Exxon, and the fracking giants of the permian?

There is no diversion that can happen. Texas made its choice and that choice was for industry and profit. Corpus also made its choice. Can you honestly look at Corpus and say they do anything for the residents? It is a profit driven, O&G based City in which they have abandoned every other interest EXCEPT the petrochemical lobby. From the history of Hillcrest through today, what about Corpus Christi says they will ever divert from industrial interests to things like drinking water?

---

I've only lived in the area full-time for 2.5 years. I have little history with Corpus and how they operate. All I know is what's happening right now sucks and is why we are leaving.

My comment on diversion was the 50% of oil that currently leaves the Port of Corpus Christi. Who picks that up and how and when if industry here implodes due to no water?

---

It doesn't and the ME is gonna be down for a bit…

The next six months are going to be uber spicy…which electorally will make things worse for POTUS.

---

Well, this is a bigger f'ing disaster than I thought. This will definitely be national news.

Also, from the Texas Tribune article this jumped out at me because it's 180 different from what Corpus City Council proclaimed months ago which was that industry would have to take a 25% cut in water supply. This article says industry is exempt from that.

Quote:

---

The region's largest industrial users, which collectively consume the majority of the region's water, remain exempt from emergency curtailment.

---

---

Industrial users have paid a surcharge in the past to be exempt from lower levels of water use restrictions, but my understanding is that they are not exempt from restrictions in "emergencyl situations. The surcharges paid were never enough to pay for additional sources to be developed and Corpus has done a poor job of distributing costs for new development to those who are causing the new higher demands.

---

Well, then someone is lying or wrong because the city has said they are not exempt while the Texas Tribune says twice in their article that they are.

---

I haven't read the language in the surcharge deals or their drought contingency plans, so it may be that under the current deals they are exempt, which would make the Tribunes reporting accurate. But the city may also have the power to revoke those exemptions in emergency situations, which would mean the city's claims are accurate as well.

---

Sounds like we are going to find out IRL.

---

Never underestimate the power of CC government to F things up. If there is a way, they will find it.

---

The water industry is my world, and knowing a whole lot of the backstory on this as well as a lot of other information - this cannot be overstated enough. It is the single biggest root cause of the issue.

Also - there are 2 desal plants slated to be built. One is on the ship channel and that one will supply almost exclusively the industrial complext. The other was on the bay, but backroom politics, stupid politics and a whole lot of people that read something on the internet and think it is true killed it.

Now there is another that will be built on Harbor Island by Nueces River Authority. That one will supply a lot of Corpus, discharge brine about 20 miles out in the gulf and eventually pump water all the way up to north of San Antonio. It will also cost multiple billions of dollars.

schmellba99 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

txags92 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

txags92 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

YouBet said:

---

knoxtom said:

---

YouBet said:

---

My question on this is why industry hasn't gotten the federal government involved. 50% of the oil exported from the USA to other countries comes out of Corpus. That's kind of a big deal.

Maybe that can be diverted elsewhere easily when industry takes a 25% cut of their water here in a few months and then more than that when this isn't solved? I don't know.

I know Trump made a comment about helping Corpus when he was here last week but who knows what that means, if anything. Regardless, any solution is going to take years to implement.

---

You think Trump is going to help Corpus at the expense of Austin, San Antonio, Exxon, and the fracking giants of the permian?

There is no diversion that can happen. Texas made its choice and that choice was for industry and profit. Corpus also made its choice. Can you honestly look at Corpus and say they do anything for the residents? It is a profit driven, O&G based City in which they have abandoned every other interest EXCEPT the petrochemical lobby. From the history of Hillcrest through today, what about Corpus Christi says they will ever divert from industrial interests to things like drinking water?

---

I've only lived in the area full-time for 2.5 years. I have little history with Corpus and how they operate. All I know is what's happening right now sucks and is why we are leaving.

My comment on diversion was the 50% of oil that currently leaves the Port of Corpus Christi. Who picks that up and how and when if industry here implodes due to no water?

---

It doesn't and the ME is gonna be down for a bit…

The next six months are going to be uber spicy…which electorally will make things worse for POTUS.

---

Well, this is a bigger f'ing disaster than I thought. This will definitely be national news.

Also, from the Texas Tribune article this jumped out at me because it's 180 different from what Corpus City Council proclaimed months ago which was that industry would have to take a 25% cut in water supply. This article says industry is exempt from that.

Quote:

---

The region's largest industrial users, which collectively consume the majority of the region's water, remain exempt from emergency curtailment.

---

---

Industrial users have paid a surcharge in the past to be exempt from lower levels of water use restrictions, but my understanding is that they are not exempt from restrictions in "emergencyl situations. The surcharges paid were never enough to pay for additional sources to be developed and Corpus has done a poor job of distributing costs for new development to those who are causing the new higher demands.

---

Well, then someone is lying or wrong because the city has said they are not exempt while the Texas Tribune says twice in their article that they are.

---

I haven't read the language in the surcharge deals or their drought contingency plans, so it may be that under the current deals they are exempt, which would make the Tribunes reporting accurate. But the city may also have the power to revoke those exemptions in emergency situations, which would mean the city's claims are accurate as well.

---

Sounds like we are going to find out IRL.

---

Never underestimate the power of CC government to F things up. If there is a way, they will find it.

---

The water industry is my world, and knowing a whole lot of the backstory on this as well as a lot of other information - this cannot be overstated enough. It is the single biggest root cause of the issue.

Also - there are 2 desal plants slated to be built. One is on the ship channel and that one will supply almost exclusively the industrial complext. The other was on the bay, but backroom politics, stupid politics and a whole lot of people that read something on the internet and think it is true killed it.

Now there is another that will be built on Harbor Island by Nueces River Authority. That one will supply a lot of Corpus, discharge brine about 20 miles out in the gulf and eventually pump water all the way up to north of San Antonio. It will also cost multiple billions of dollars.

---

So, there are now 3 desal plants planned? Interesting. First I've heard of this. Man, the reporting is poor on this. To summarize then:

Desal Plant 1 - on ship channel for industry
Desal Plant 2 - on bay for residential; current vote to approve is one that got kicked to next month and has been all of the controversy
Desal Plant 3 - on Harbor Island; also for CRP residents

What are the timelines for 1 and 3? I know timeline for 2 is 4-5 years, I'm guessing.

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Brush Country Ag said:

---

Just being silly here….why could they not buy a couple of oil tankers, fill them with water rather than oil, and bring them in to Corpus ? How many per day or week would Corpus area need to satisfy requirements? Would that be cheaper than the pipeline? Could always reconfigure to carry oil after drought breaks !

---

In February 2026, the City of Corpus Christi used 2,750,000,000 gallons of raw water.

Lets assume crude oil is 7.0 lbs per gallon (average is 6.5 to 8.5).
Water weighs 8.3

VLCC (Very Large Crude Carrier) can carry 2 million barrels or 84,000,000 gallons.
Doing the math that would be roughly 70,843,373 gallons for an equivalent weight of water. Obviously if you completely fill the ships oil tanks with water... bad things happen.

That IS a lot of water. But you'd need 39 of them for February alone. Keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of Corpus' water already comes from the Mary Rhodes pipeline; Phase I moves water from Lake Texana and Phase II moves water from the Colorado River in Garwood.

Edit for an extra zero typo mentioned below. The math still looks correct.

---

Further comment....
in 2017 Oxy tested getting a VLCC into their Ingleside Energy Center. Even at -47ft Mean Lower Low Water they can only partially ballast the vessel and a smaller tanker must then accompany the ship offshore into complete the loading.

Fully laden she drafts 66 feet, a full 19ft greater than the channel depth at Ingleside. Keep in mind this is JUST Ingleside which is just inside the jetties at Port Aransas and on the East side of the bay. I'm not sure where the project to deepen the channel to 54' stands, but it was in progress and was part and parcel with the completion of the taller Harbor Bridge.

I don't have time to figure out a VLCC's fresh water capacity at 47ft and 54 ft draft. But understandably it makes the numbers even less favorable.

schmellba99 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

txags92 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

txags92 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

YouBet said:

---

knoxtom said:

---

YouBet said:

---

My question on this is why industry hasn't gotten the federal government involved. 50% of the oil exported from the USA to other countries comes out of Corpus. That's kind of a big deal.

Maybe that can be diverted elsewhere easily when industry takes a 25% cut of their water here in a few months and then more than that when this isn't solved? I don't know.

I know Trump made a comment about helping Corpus when he was here last week but who knows what that means, if anything. Regardless, any solution is going to take years to implement.

---

You think Trump is going to help Corpus at the expense of Austin, San Antonio, Exxon, and the fracking giants of the permian?

There is no diversion that can happen. Texas made its choice and that choice was for industry and profit. Corpus also made its choice. Can you honestly look at Corpus and say they do anything for the residents? It is a profit driven, O&G based City in which they have abandoned every other interest EXCEPT the petrochemical lobby. From the history of Hillcrest through today, what about Corpus Christi says they will ever divert from industrial interests to things like drinking water?

---

I've only lived in the area full-time for 2.5 years. I have little history with Corpus and how they operate. All I know is what's happening right now sucks and is why we are leaving.

My comment on diversion was the 50% of oil that currently leaves the Port of Corpus Christi. Who picks that up and how and when if industry here implodes due to no water?

---

It doesn't and the ME is gonna be down for a bit…

The next six months are going to be uber spicy…which electorally will make things worse for POTUS.

---

Well, this is a bigger f'ing disaster than I thought. This will definitely be national news.

Also, from the Texas Tribune article this jumped out at me because it's 180 different from what Corpus City Council proclaimed months ago which was that industry would have to take a 25% cut in water supply. This article says industry is exempt from that.

Quote:

---

The region's largest industrial users, which collectively consume the majority of the region's water, remain exempt from emergency curtailment.

---

---

Industrial users have paid a surcharge in the past to be exempt from lower levels of water use restrictions, but my understanding is that they are not exempt from restrictions in "emergencyl situations. The surcharges paid were never enough to pay for additional sources to be developed and Corpus has done a poor job of distributing costs for new development to those who are causing the new higher demands.

---

Well, then someone is lying or wrong because the city has said they are not exempt while the Texas Tribune says twice in their article that they are.

---

I haven't read the language in the surcharge deals or their drought contingency plans, so it may be that under the current deals they are exempt, which would make the Tribunes reporting accurate. But the city may also have the power to revoke those exemptions in emergency situations, which would mean the city's claims are accurate as well.

---

Sounds like we are going to find out IRL.

---

Never underestimate the power of CC government to F things up. If there is a way, they will find it.

---

The water industry is my world, and knowing a whole lot of the backstory on this as well as a lot of other information - this cannot be overstated enough. It is the single biggest root cause of the issue.

Also - there are 2 desal plants slated to be built. One is on the ship channel and that one will supply almost exclusively the industrial complext. The other was on the bay, but backroom politics, stupid politics and a whole lot of people that read something on the internet and think it is true killed it.

Now there is another that will be built on Harbor Island by Nueces River Authority. That one will supply a lot of Corpus, discharge brine about 20 miles out in the gulf and eventually pump water all the way up to north of San Antonio. It will also cost multiple billions of dollars.

---

FYI - The groundwater projects have suffered from the same political pressures and ridiculous fear mongering on the internet and public media as well.

It isn't solely the fault of council. They are elected representatives who are susceptible to the pressures of their constituents. The campaigns to kill one project over another by people with interest in a competing project have been a huge part of the problem.

The amount of disinformation spread around for political reasons is astounding and the sciences is involved are not easily digestible for most folks. That's how you get to where the city has gotten.